Colloquial words
Colloquial words are characteristic of the informal style of spoken English. One should distinguish between literary (standard) colloquial words as units of Standard English and non-literary colloquialisms that belong to sub-standard English vocabulary.
Literary colloquial words are used in everyday conversations both by educated and uneducated people and are also met in written literary texts. As for their etymology and structure literary colloquial words are closer to neutral words than to literary-bookish units, but, as a rule, have stronger emotional colouring. They are formed on standard word-formative patterns (for instance, contraction, phrasal verbs and nouns, etc,). Some of them are particularly frequent: granny, birdie, touchy, make-up, put up, etc.
Non-literary colloquial words include slang, jargonisms, professionalisms and vulgarisms. Slang comprises highly informal words not accepted for dignified use. Such words are expressive sub-standard substitutes for current words of standard vocabulary. As a rule, their meanings are based on metaphor and have ironic colouring, e.g. attic (“head”), beans (“money”), saucers (“eyes”), etc. Such words are easily understood by all native speakers, because they are not specific for any social or professional group.
Informal words peculiar for a certain social or professional group should be considered as jargonisms. Such words are usually motivated and, like slang words, have metaphoric character, e.g. bird (“spacecraft”) /astronauts’ jargon/; to grab (“to make an impression on smb.”) /newspaper jargon/; grass, tea, weed (сорняк) (“narcotic”) / drug addicts’ jargon/, etc.
Among social jargons cant (тайный язык, арго) or argot (thieves jargon) stands somewhat apart. Cant words are non-motivated and have special “agreed-upon”, secretive meanings, e.g. book (“life sentence”), splosh (“money”), to rap (“to kill”), etc.
Professionalisms are sub-standard colloquial words used by people of a definite trade or profession. Such words are informal substitutes for corresponding terms, e.g. Hi-Fi (“high fidelity”), smash-up (“accident”), anchor (“brakes”), etc.
Vulgarisms include: a) expletives (бранные слова) and swear words of abusive character, like damn, bloody, etc.; b) obscene (непристойный) (or taboo, four-letter) words which are highly indecent.
Тема 8. Слово та фразеологічні одиниці.
Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups, such as red tape — ‘bureaucratic methods’; heavy father — ’serious or solemn part in a theatrical play’; kick the bucket — ‘die’; and the like. The meaning of the components has no connections whatsoever, at least synchronically, with the meaning of the whole group. Idiomaticity is, as a rule, combined with complete stability of the lexical components and the grammatical structure of the fusion.
Phraseological unities are partially non-motivated as their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit. For example, to show one’s teeth, to wash one’s dirty linen in public if interpreted as semantically motivated through the combined lexical meaning of the component words would naturally lead one to understand these in their literal meaning. The metaphoric meaning of the whole unit, however, readily suggests ‘take a threatening tone’ or ’show an intention to injure’ for show one’s teeth and ‘discuss or make public one’s quarrels’ for wash one’s dirty linen in public. Phraseological unities are as a rule marked by a comparatively high degree of stability of the lexical components.
Phraseological collocations are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word-groups. In phraseological collocations variability of member-words is strictly limited. For instance, bear a grudge may be changed into bear malice, but not into bear a fancy or liking. We can say take a liking (fancy) but not take hatred (disgust). These habitual collocations tend to become kind of clichés1 where the meaning of member-words is to some extent dominated by the meaning of the whole group. Due to this phraseological collocations are felt as possessing a certain degree of semantic inseparability.
Another angle from which the problem of phraseology is viewed is the so-called functional approach. This approach assumes that phraseological units may be defined as specify word-groups functioning as word-equivalents.1 The fundamental features of phraseological units thus understood are their semantic and grammatical inseparability which are regarded as distinguishing features of isolated words.
It will be recalled that when we compare a free word-group, e.g, heavy weight, and a phraseological unit, e.g. heavy father, we observe that in the case of the free wordgroup each of the member-words has its own denotational meaning. So the lexical meaning of the word-group can be adequately described as the combined lexical meaning of its constituents. In the case of the phraseological unit, however, the denotational meaning belongs to the word-group as a single semantically inseparable unit. The individual member-words do not seem to possess any lexical meaning outside the meaning of the group. The same is true of the stylistic reference and emotive charge of phraseological units. In free word-groups each of the components preserves as a rule its own stylistic reference. This can be readily observed in the stylistic effect produced by free word-groups made up of words of widely different stylistic value, e.g. to commence to scrub, valiant chap and the like.
A certain humorous effect is attained because one of the member-words (commence, valiant) is felt as belonging to the bookish stylistic layer, whereas the other (scrub, chap) is felt as stylistically neutral or colloquial. When we say, however, that kick the bucket is highly colloquial or heavy father is a professional term, we do not refer to the stylistic value of the component words of these phraseological units kick, bucket, heavy or father, but the stylistic value of the word-group as a single whole. Taken in isolation the words are stylistically neutral. It follows that phraseological units are characterised by a single stylistic reference irrespective of the number and nature of their component words. Semantic inseparability of phraseological units is viewed as one of the aspects of idiomaticity which enables us to regard them as semantically equivalent to single words.
The term grammatical inseparability implies that the grammatical meaning or, to be more exact, the part-of-speech meaning of phraseological units is felt as belonging to the word-group as a whole irrespective of the part-of-speech meaning of the component words. Comparing the free word-group, e.g. a long day, and the phraseological unit, e.g. in the long run, we observe that in the free word-group the noun day and the adjective long preserve the part-of-speech meaning proper to these words taken in isolation. The whole group is viewed as composed of two independent units (adjective and noun). In the phraseological unit in the long run the part-of-speech meaning belongs to the group as a single whole. In the long run is grammatically equivalent to single adverbs, e.g. finally, ultimately, firstly, etc. Grammatical inseparability of phraseological units viewed as one of the aspects of idiomaticity enables us to regard them as grammatically equivalent to single words.
Proceeding from the assumption that phraseological units are non-motivated word-groups functioning as word-equivalents by virtue of their semantic and grammatical inseparability, we may classify them into noun equivalents (e.g. heavy father), verb equivalents (e.g. take place, break the news), adverb equivalents (e.g. in the long run), etc.
An attempt is also made to distinguish phraseological units as word-equivalents from idioms proper, i.e. idiomatic units such as that’s where the shoe pinches, the cat is out of the bag, what will Mrs Grundy say?, etc. Unlike phraseological units, proverbs, sayings and quotations do not always function as word-equivalents. They exist as ready-made expressions with a specialised meaning of their own which cannot be inferred from the meaning of their components taken singly. A proverb is a short familiar epigrammatic saying expressing popular wisdom, a truth or a moral lesson in a concise and imaginative way. Proverbs have much in common with set expressions, because their lexical components are also constant, their meaning is traditional and mostly figurative, and they are introduced into speech ready-made. As to familiar quotations, they are different from proverbs in their origin. They come from literature but by and by they become part and parcel of the language, so that many people using them do not even know that they are quoting. Some quotations are so often used that they come to be considered clichés. The term comes from the printing trade. The cliché (the word is French) is a metal block used for printing pictures and turning them out in great numbers. The term is used to denote such phrases as have become hackneyed and stale. Being constantly and mechanically repeated they have lost their original expressiveness and so are better avoided. The following are perhaps the most generally recognised: astronomical figures, the arms of Morpheus, to break the ice, the irony of fate, stand shoulder to shoulder, swan song, toe the line, tender mercies, etc.
We shall distinguish set expressions that are nominal phrases: the wot of the trouble’, verbal phrases: put one’s best foot forward; adjectival phrases: as good as gold; red as a cherry; adverbial phrases: from head to foot; prepositional phrases: in the course of; conjunctional phrases: as long as, on the other hand; interjectional phrases: Well, I never! A stereotyped sentence also introduced into speech as a ready-made formula may be illustrated by Never say die! ‘never give up hope’, take your time ‘do not hurry’.
The above classification takes into consideration not only the type of component parts but also the functioning of the whole, thus, tooth and nail is not a nominal but an adverbial unit, because it serves to modify a verb (e. g. fight tooth and nail); the identically structured lord and master is a nominal phrase. Moreover, not every nominal phrase is used in all syntactic functions possible for nouns. Thus, a bed of roses or a bed of nails and forlorn hope are used only predicatively.
Set expressions have their own specific features, which enhance their stability and cohesion. These are their euphonic, imaginative and connotative qualities. It has been often pointed out that many set expressions are distinctly rhythmical, contain alliteration, rhyme, imagery, contrast, are based on puns, etc.
Rhythmic qualities are characteristic of almost all set expressions. They are especially marked in such pairs as far and wide, far and near ‘many places both near and distant’; by fits and starts ‘irregularly’; heart and soul ‘with complete devotion to a cause’. Rhythm is combined with reiteration in the following well-known phrases: more and more, on and on, one by one, through and through. Alliteration occurs in many cases: part and parcel ‘an essential and necessary part’; with might and main ‘with all one’s powers’; from pillar to post’, in for a penny, in for a pound’, head over heels; without rhyme or reason’, pick of the pops’, a bee in one’s bonnet’, the why and wherefore. Rhyme is also characteristic of set expressions: fair and square ‘honest’; by hook or by crook ‘by any method, right or wrong’; high and dry was originally used about ships, meaning ‘out of the water’; at present it is mostly used figuratively in several metaphorical meanings: ‘isolated’, ‘left without help’, ‘out of date’.
Semantic stylistic features contracting set expressions into units of fixed context are simile, contrast, metaphor and synonymy. For example: as like as two peas, as old as the hills and older than the hills (simile); from beginning to end, for love or money, more or less, sooner or later (contrast); a lame duck, a pack of lies, arms race, to swallow the pill, in a nutshell (metaphor); by leaps and bounds, proud and haughty (synonymy). A few more combinations of different features in the same phrase are: as good as gold, as pleased as Punch, as fit as a fiddle (alliteration, simile); now or never, to kill or cure (alliteration and contrast).
For all practical purposes the boundary between set expressions and free phrases is vague.