Лексикология английского языка. Учебник

motivated because the meaning of the whole is not deducible from the meaning of the components. Moreover, it seems grammatically and functionally self-contained and inseparable too. In the saying quoted above the noun broom is always used in the plural as a member-word of the phraseological unit it is mostly used in the singular. The phraseological unit a new broom is characterised by functional inseparability. In the saying new brooms sweep clean the adjective new functions as an attribute to the noun brooms, in the phraseological unit a new broom (e.g.,

Well, he is a new broom!) the whole word-group is functionally inseparable.

6) When part of a quotation from literary sources, mythology or the Bible begins to be used as a self-contained unit, it may also lose all connection with the original context and as a result of this become non-motivated. The phraseological unit the green-eyed monster (jealousy) can be easily found as a part of the quotation from Shakespeare “It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on” (Othello, II, i. 165). In Modern English, however, it functions as a non-motivated selfcontained phraseological unit and is also used to denote the T.V. set. Achilles’ heel — ‘the weak spot in a man’s circumstances or character’ can be traced back to mythology, but it seems that in

111

Modern English this word-group functions as a phraseological unit largely because most English speakers do not connect it with the myth from which it was extracted.

7) international phraseological units either translated (without fear and reproach) or not (vice versa, viva voce)

3.

A phraseological unit is a complex phenomenon with a number of important features, which can be approached from different points of view.

The traditional and oldest principle for classifying phraseological units is based on their original content and is called “thematic/ etymological”: idioms are classified according to their sources of origin into idioms used by sailors, fishermen, soldiers, hunters and associated with the realia, phenomena and conditions of their occupation, associated with domestic/ wild animals and birds, agriculture, cooking, sports, arts, etc.

e.g., be at sea, in deep water, as hungry as a hunter

This principle has real merit, but it doesn’t take into consideration the linguistic characteristic features of phraseological units.

112

The first fundamental exploration was carried out in the domain of Russian phraseology by Ac. Vinogradov V.V. in 1946. He suggested the following classification of phraseological units into 2 groups:

-phraseological units of the synthetic type which are word equivalents,

-phraseological units of analytic type which have word groups as their equivalents.

According to him the second type falls out of the scope of phraseology and must be included into lexicology proper. The synthetic type was subdivided on the semantic principle according to the degree of idiomaticity into 3 classes:

-phraseological combinations are word groups with a partially changed meaning. They are clearly motivated, i.e., the meaning of the unit can be easily deduced from the meanings of its constituents (be good at, have a bite, take smth for granted, bosom friends, etc.)

-phraseological unities are word groups with a completely changed meaning. The metaphor on which the shift of meaning is based is clear and transparent (stick to one’s guns, catch at a

113

straw, lose one’s head, know the side the bread is buttered, let the cat out of the bag, etc.)

- phraseological fusions are word groups with a completely changed meaning, but they are demotivated (mad as a hatter, to leave smb in the lurch, бить баклуши, попасть пальцем в небо, etc.)

This classification doesn’t take into account the structural characteristics. Besides, unities and fusions are differentiated subjectively as the semantic criterion fails to measure the degree of idiomaticity.

The structural principle of classifying phraseological units is based on their ability to perform the same syntactical functions as words:

- verbal (to talk through one’s hat, to eat one’s cake and have it, etc.)

-substantive (cat-and-dog life, my cup of tea, etc.)

-adverbial (by hook or crook, for love or money, in the dead of night, etc.)

-interjectional (my God! Goodness gracious! Good Heavens!)

114

Pr Smirnitsky’s classification is an attempt to combine the structural and the semantic principles. Phraseological units are grouped according to the number and semantic significance of their constituent parts into:

1) one-summit units which have one meaningful constituent and are divided into:

-verb-adverb (get up, give up)

-attributive (matter of fact, out of the question, out of place)

-preposition-noun (by heart, in spite of, in accordance with)

2) two-summit and multi-summit having two or more

meaningful constituents:

-verb-noun (take the chair, fall in love, do one’s best)

-adjective-noun (best man, brown bread)

-phraseological repetition (on tip toe, safe and sound, here and there)

His classification comprises a limited number of phraseological units – only word equivalents. On the semantic principle he classifies phraseological units into:

115

1)phraseological units proper are units with non-figurative meanings,

2)idioms with transferred meanings based on a metaphor. They are imaginative and emotionally and stylistically coloured (take

the bull by the horns, wash one’s dirty linen in public).

The latter subdivision contradicts the leading criterion of idiomaticity.

It was acutely felt that linguistics was in bad want of certain objective methods of analysis. Amosova suggested the procedure of a contextual analysis to distinguish phraseological units from free word groups. Her definition of a phraseological unit rests on the concept of linguistic context as a combination of a semantically dependent unit and an indicator. Context represents several varieties: variable, semi-fixed and constant.

Phraseological units are units of constant context and are a specific and unchangeable sequence of lexical components and peculiar semantic relationships. They are subdivided into:

1) phrasemes are units of constant context in which the dependent possesses a phraseologically bound meaning clarified by the indicator (small hours, old sault, etc.)

116

2) idioms are units of constant context characterized by the integrated meaning of a whole in which both the dependent and the indicator have lost their proper meanings and are equal to the whole semantic structure of a phrase (smell the rat, hand over fist, etc.)

The idea of constant context was objective and truthful, but it left out of count phraseological units larger than a word group – proverbs and sayings. Determining the degree of semantic unity of the components, she resorted to the same objective semantic criterion.

The classification of phraseological units suggested by Pr Koonin is the latest outstanding achievement in the Russian theory of phraseology. It is based on the combined structural-

semantic principle and considers the stability of a

phraseological unit. According to their function in communication he distinguishes 4 classes of phraseological units:

1) Nominative represented by word groups including the ones with one meaningful word, coordinative phrases of the type well and good, wear and tear, word groups with a predicative structure and predicative phrases.

117

2)Nominative-communicative include verbal word groups transformed into a sentence (to break the ice).

3)Interjectional word groups

4)Communicative represented by proverbs and sayings.

These four types are further subdivided. This classification is based on truly scientific and modern criteria and represents an attempt to take into account all the relevant aspects of phraseological units.

118

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Антрушина Г. Б., Афанасьева О. В., Морозова Н. Н.

Лексикология английского языка. – М., 1999.

Аракин В. Д. История английского языка: [Для пед.

вузов]. – М., 2003.

Арнольд И. В. Лексикология. – М., 1959.

Арутюнова Н. Д. Типы языковых значений. Оценка.

Событие. Факт. – М., 1988.

Беляева Т. М. Английский язык за пределами Англии.

– Л., 1961.

Васильев Л. М. Современная лингвистическая семантика. – М., 1990.

Гак В. Г. Лексикология/ Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. – М., 1990.

Гинзбург Е. Л. Конструкции полисемии в современном русском языке. – М., 1985.

Голикова Ж. А. Лексикология и фразеология современного английского языка. Практикум. – Минск,

2006.

Кацнельсон С. Д. Общее и типологическое языкознание. – Л., 1986.

Кубрякова Е. С. Типы языковых значений. Семантика производного слова. – М., 1981.

119

Кубрякова Е. С. Номинативный аспект речевой

деятельности. – М., 1986.

Кунин А. В. Английская фразеология. – М., 1970.

Кунин А. В. Фразеология современного английского

языка. – М., 1972.

Маковский М. М. Английские социальные диалекты. –

М., 1982.

Медникова Э. М. Значение слова и методы его

описания. – М., 1974.

Мезенин С. М. Образные средства языка. – М., 1984.

Никитин М. В. Лексическое значение слова (структура

и комбинаторика). – М., 1983.

Овчинникова Н. Д. Актуализация компрессии при жанровой трансформации в английском публицистическом тексте: диссертация ... кандидата филологических наук:

10.02.04.– М., 2006.

Овчинникова Н. Д. Лексикология английского языка:

учебное пособие. – М., 2009.

Овчинникова Н. Д., Сачкова Е. В. Технический