§ 2. Of special attention are the units which in linguistic literature had been qualified as phrasemes, phraseological units, idioms and set expressions.

Phraseological units which in due time provoked so bitter debates in Soviet linguistics as to their disposition in language hierarchy had been qualified differently: either as the units presenting the object of investigation in the course of lexicology as ‘ready-made units able to be reproduced every time in human speech’, or as those ‘which by their specific syntactical structure make the inventory of units for learning in an independent linguistic discipline as phraseology’. Some scholars think that though phraseology appeared in the domain of lexicology it is undergoing the process of segregating as a separate branch of linguistics on that reason that lexicology deals with words and their meanings, whereas phraseology studies such collocations of words (phraseologisms, phraseological units, idioms), where the meaning of the whole collocation is different from the simple sum of literal meanings of the words, comprising a phraseological unit. F.e. ‘Dutch auction’ is not an auction taking place in Netherlands. The meaning of this phraseological unit refers to any auction, where instead of rising, the prices fall (compare “Dutch comfort”, “Dutch courage”, “Dutch treat” reflecting complicated historical factors). Phraseological units are (according to Prof. Kunin A.V.) stable word-groups with partially or fully transferred meanings ("to kick the bucket", “Greek gift”, “drink till all's blue”, “drunk as a fiddler (drunk as a lord, as a boiled owl)”, “as mad as a hatter (as a march hare)”). In spite of such theoretical stand it seems more justified to regard the units in question in the ranks of lexicology as sharing the same functions with the words proper. So, whatever is the name, the essence remains the same. These units are included into the system of lexicological level as sharing with the words a number of functions fully pertaining to a word as a nominative unit. What is about the principles of their semantic and structural organization they are different to a certain degree and demand special description.

2.1. Phraseology studies only such word combinations the general meaning of which does not correspond to the sum of the meanings which make the semantic load of the constituents and means something different:«дать в лапу» – to bribe; «мохнатая лапа» - "have an itching palm".

According to the principle of semantic classification phraseological units may be conventionally divided into three classes:

1/ transparent phraseological collocations in which both components are used in their direct meaning but the combination acquires figurative sense: to see the light = to understand; to commit a murder; dark night; blue sky; bright day; ясне сонечко; to be green with jealousy; Red revolution; проливной дождь; to attractattention;

2/ semi-opaque phraseological. unities with a slight degree of semantic isolation though the metaphor is still evident: to pass the buck = to pass responsibility – свалить ответственность; To see the light = to understand. 3/ Idioms or phraseological fusions which consist of several words that tend to be used together, but the difference – we can’t guess the meaning of the whole idiom from the meanings of its parts. The degree of semantic isolation is very high: to cry a blue murder = to complain loudly; bread and butter – hospitable reception; tit for tat; knock for knock; big fish; бить баклуши, пить горькую, водить за нос, стреляный воробей, до упаду, по полной; it rains cats and dogs; to kick the bucket = to die. § 3.The stratification of language units presents not a rigid but flexible structure within which may happen the cases of redistribution in functioning of the units belonging to different levels. For the present the dubious nature of such units explains their treating as intermediate ones. But with the language evolution the situation may and does change.

3.1.The monosyllabic lexical units known as full names – words - change gradually their contensive and sound form. In the composition of a compound they begin to act as derivational morphemes acquiring the new linguistic status As a rule such compounds change their linguistic status too in favour of agglutinative lexemes with the derivational affixes of agglutinative type as the result of the semantic shift to one-to-one correlation of meaning and form with the graphical form remaining unchanged,⁵ e.g.: businessman, boatman, salesman, forest-land, commuter-land, fatherland, grassland, meadowland, riverside, roadside, park-side, birdlike, crocodile-like, etc..

3.2. The question is open concerning those units qualified as proverbs, sayings, clichйs; or traditionally known syntactical compounds which did not receive full , substantial description as to their derivational status.

The borderline position of phraseological collocations and free word combinations so as the necessity of their discrimination make one more problem for the present-day investigation. Also the question is open concerning the units qualified as proverbs, sayings, clichйs. Ontologically the homogeneous entities behave differently depending on the fact are they regarded as the nominative units of a system, i.e. giving a name to some abstract situation, or as the units inserted into communicative situation and acquiring specific colouring. The meaning of a proverb in its isolation from the text may be understood as the reflection of some abstract idea, not connected with the present situation, e.g. Like a cat on hot bricks or New lords new laws or Dumb dogs are dangerous . and, as a result, we may sooner refer to such units as to those with the status of a free word combination. It is evident that the syntactical distribution plays a decisive role in the problem of linguistic identification: being separated from the communicative situation the proverb does not seem as meaningless because all the function positions of a unit in question are filled with the units related to each other both structurally and semantically, though the very meaning is communicatively irrelevant and, as a rule, senseless: the meaning is impossible neither to approve, nor disapprove. But in a communicative situation it takes on concrete special sense. Moreover, it is not excluded that the unit of analysis has the full right to be used in its primary communicative meaning but then it loses the status of a proverb and works as an ordinary unit of a syntactical level.