20. Polysemy and synonymy of phraseological units.

Some English phraseological units can be polysemantic, e.g. the unit to feed the fishes has several meanings: 1) to drown and 2) to be seasick.

As in the case of polysemantic words the meaning of a polysemantic phraseological unit can be defined in the context.

Phraseological units can also have synonyms. We can distinguish synonymic phraseological units of two types:

1) Synonymic phraseological units with the same structure and the same lexical composition with the exception of one component:

- to get the bit between one’s teeth - to take the bit between one’s teeth

2) Synonymic phraseological units which present different images and are built out of different lexical units: to leave no stone unturned and to move Heaven and Earth but mean the same ‘to use all opportunities’.

Sources of phraseological units.

1. Some tradition or custom, probably non-existing nowadays:

- to burn one’s boats (custom of ancient army generals who ordered their soldiers to burn their boats after coming ashore (or bridges after crossing a river in order to cut the ways to retreat)

2. Literary quotations:

- to make a cat’s paw of somebody (from the fable about a monkey which made a cat get fried chestnuts out of fire)

3. Translation loans;

- the apple of discord (Greek); to wash one’s hands off (Latin)

4. Different professional expressions and the ones concerning entertainment, games, sport and the like:

- to put the finishing touches (artists); to feel one’s pulse (medicine)

21. Proverbs, sayings and quotations.

The place of proverbs, sayings and familiar quotations with respect to phraseological units is a controversial issue.

A proverb is different from a phraseological unit in three aspects:

1. proverbs are different in structure: phraseological units fit into the structure of a sentence performing a certain syntactical function, more or less as words do, e.g. I hate skeletons in the cupboard or He played second fiddle to her in his father’s heart.

Proverbs in their structural aspect are sentences and cannot be used in this way.

2. they are different in semantics: a proverb is a short familiar epigrammatic saying expressing popular wisdom, a truth or a moral lesson in a concise and imaginative way. Proverbs stand for the whole statesment.

Phraseological units stand for a single concept.

3. they are different in function: the function of phraseological units is purely nominative (i.e. they denote an object, an act); the function of proverbs in speech is communicative (i.e. they impart certain information).

Linguists differ in their opinions whether or not proverbs should be regarded as a subtype of phraseological units and studied together.

N.N. Amosova thinks that unless proverbs regularly form parts of other sentences it is erroneous to include them into the system of language because they are independent units of communication. She also thinks that there is no more reason to consider them as part of phraseology than, for instance, riddles and children’s counts.

Other scholars, such as V.V. Vinogradov and A.V. Koonin following him think that proverbs must be studied together with phraseological units.

A.V. Koonin labels proverbs communicative phraseological units. He supposes, that they are:

1) as stable as other phraseological units are

2) their structural aspect is irrelevant (whether the unit is a combination of words or a sentence)

3) the criterion of their function cannot be applied either as there are verbal phraseological units which are nominative when the verb is in the Active Voice and communicative when the verb is used in the Passive Voice, e.g. to shed crocodile tears – crocodile tears are shed.

There are some more arguments in favour of A.V. Koonin’s approach:

1. there does not exist any rigid border-line between proverbs and phraseological units as proverbs often form the basis of phraseological units.

2. some of the proverbs are easily transferred into phraseological units.

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, and very few could accurately name the play or passage on which they are drawing.