1. Phraseology

Phraseology has been traditionally presented as a subfield of lexicology, but in recent decades has developed a separate discipline taught at universities. “From the mid-1970s, and increasingly throughout the 1980s, one of the strongest influences on British phraseological theory was the work of a group leading Russian scholars who had been active about thirty years earlier” (Cowie, p. 213). British scholars mention in their works Russian scholars such as V.V. Vinogradov who is regarded as “the father of Russian phraseology” (Cowie, p.213) and N.N. Amosova, because of a “formulation of phraseologically bound meaning.” Id. Although the views of these scholars, Vinogradov and Amosova, differ, these differences are in terminology, rather than in substance. Phraseology can be “loosely defined as the study of conventional phrases, where a phrase means a multi-word expression up to sentence level” (Pawley, 2001). However, phraseology is not the study of any phrases but set expressions with partial and complete transferred meanings.

Many scholars recognize the existence of sentence-like units such as proverbs and word-like units which are phraseological units (PU). However, Palmer warns that word-like units only semantically act like words (kick the bucket equals to die), but they do not function like ones (p.79). There are a lot of grammatical restrictions; for example, the components of phraseological units cannot be changed, e.g., kick the bucket cannot be changed to kick the buckets. We have an ear for something, but not have ears for something, and equally there is no play the fields, put on good faces, and blow one's tops. Adjectives do not have comparative and superlative degrees in phraseological units, e.g., a high roller cannot have the forms higher roller or the highest roller; equally a new broom cannot be newer broom or the newest broom.

There is no agreement among the scholars in regards to terming set-expressions with transferred meaning. Although most Russian scholars use the term phraseological units or phraseologisms (Chernuiseva, 1964; Kunin, 1963; Vinogradov, 1947; Ginsburg, 1979), other scholars name them differently. Irina Arnold (1973) speaks of set-expressions; Zgusta (1971), set combinations; and Mel’čuk (1988b), phrasemes, or set phrases. Cowie and Howarth, who were influenced by Russian models, name them word-combinations. Palmer uses the term “an idiom”. Phraseological units may have syntactic restrictions as well; for example, some idioms cannot have passive voice. The phraseological unit meet/see somebody in the flesh does not have passive voice; somebody is met/seen in the flesh sounds strange. Rosalia Ginzburg sums up that “the term ‘idioms’ generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack of motivation. This term habitually used by English and American linguists is very often treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit” (p. 74).

Scholars recognize the following characteristics of phraseological units: motivatability, stability, separability, variability, and expressivity and emotiveness. In regards to motivatability, phraseological units can be divided into unmotivated and partially motivated (or partially non-motivated) phraseological units. The meaning of a phraseological unit is metaphorical; it cannot be deduced from the meanings of its components. “The meaning of the resultant combination [a phraseological unit] is opaque; it is not related to the meaning of the individual words” (Palmer, p. 78). Unmotivated phraseological units occur when “there is no relation whatsoever between the meaning of the whole combination and those of its components” (Cowie, 214) and partially motivated, or partially non-motivated phraseological units are the ones “whose sense could be perceived as a metaphorical or metonymic extension of the whole expression” (Ginzburg et al., 1979, p.75).

The stability of phraseological units can be observed when the structure of some phraseological units is stable lexically and grammatically. We cannot change or replace words within some phraseological units. The order of words stays stable within a phraseological unit, and it has grammatical restrictions, as we discussed earlier. Some examples are clear sailing, dead to the world, in mint condition, and in cold blood.

The next characteristic is separability. Some phraseological units are separable which means words may be placed between their components. Some dictionaries of idioms mark separable idioms. The symbol (S) indicates that an idiom is separable. A few examples are spring something on someone and squirrel something away.

Some phraseological units may be characterized by lexical and grammatical variability. They may have variable components within their structure. Some examples are (as) hungry as a bear, (as) hungry as a hunter, and (as) hungry as a hawk; steal the spotlight and steal the show; stick by someone or something and stick with someone or something; strike a happy medium, hit a happy medium, and find a happy medium; sweep something under the carpet and sweep something under the rug; swim against the tide and swim against the current; make hamburger out of someone or something and make mincemeat out of someone or something; take a try at something, take a shot at something, take a stab at something, and take a whack at something, and other PUs. Richard Spears believes that “the number of idiomatic expressions that are totally invariant is really quite small, even when the English proverbs are included in this category” (2000).

As for expressivity and emotiveness, Arsentieva believes that “[Phraseological units] are characterized by stylistic coloring. In other words, they evoke emotions or add expressiveness” (2004, p.4). The following phraseological units expressing the meaning of “die” may evoke different feelings: buy the farm/lot/ plot is an ironic use for ‘die’ which means to die in battle or in a plane crash. Cash in one’s chips and meet one’s maker is used in a neutral meaning, while join the angels, go to glory, go to one's reward may be used in a poetic style. The following PUs are used to express negative emotions: lick /bite the dust and kick the bucket. “They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him and his enemies shall lick the dust” (Psalms 72, King James Version, 1611). The Scottish author, Tobias Smollett, uses bite the dust in its negative meaning in his Adventures of Gil Blas of Santillane: “We made two of them bite the dust, and the others betake themselves to flight.” Even the PUs which are used in a neutral meaning are still expressive idioms.