The study of phraseology: definition

Lecture 10. Phraseology

Outline

The study of phraseology: definition

2. Classification of phraseological units

3. Criteria of idiomaticity. Motivation

The study of phraseology: definition

Apart from words proper, lexicology also studies word-groups regarded as functionally and semantically inseparable. These are usually described аs word-equivalents or idioms, while the branch of lexicology studying them is known as phraseology. Both these words, however, are so polysemantic to be ambiguous as phraseology is often used to describe an individual author’s a mode of expression including a peculiar choice and arrangement of words and phrases, and idiom may denote a peculiar form of expression, typical of a country, a place or an individual, and so is almost synonymous to language or dialect. Thus meaning could be traced back to the Ancient Greek " idios", meaning one’ s own, private" (note its use in ideolect – " a local or personal manner of speaking"). To avoid ambiguity, " phraseological unit" and " set expression" are widely used as terms denoting word-equivalents studied in phraseology.

Russian and Soviet linguists have given much attention to the study of both Russian (V.V. Vinogradov) and English (A.V. Kunin) phraseology.

Phraseological units are defined as stable word-groups lacking an obvious motivation. Unlike other word-combinations, they are not freely made up by speakers but are reproduced as ready - madeunits: dark horse, a bull in a china shop, three sheets to the wind, to let the cat out of the bag, etc. Replacing a vital component would in most cases destroy the idiom: thus blue/black/white/green tape are all free combinations while red tape – which is neither red nor tape – is an idiom. In carry copper/wood/iron to Manchester/Liverpool, most components could bealtered at will, but not in carry coals to Newcastle – which is an idiom that has nothing to do with sea trade. Some set expressions, however, admit of a more or less limited number of modifications: thus one can build a castle in the air, but also castles, and both whipping and flogging a dead horse ispossible (but equally useless).

2. Classification of phraseological units

A classification of phraseological units or set expressions by the degree of idiomaticity suggested by V.V. Vinogradov singles out phraseological fusions, phraseological unities and phraseological collocations. Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups, at least from a synchronic point of view. The meaning of the components is completely absorbed in the meaning of the whole, as in tit for tat (suggested etymology is " tip for tap") or blue Peter (which happens to be a blue and yellow flag to signal a ship’s departure). As a result, a fusion of this type is syntactically, semantically and morphologically stable.

Phraseological unities are partly motivated, or transparent. The combined lexical meanings of the component words build up an image, often exaggerated or fantastic, as dancing on a volcano or a storm in a teacup, but the true metaphorical meaning of the whole is " seen through". It is the units of this type that usually permit limited modifications – usually by synonymic substitution: like a carload/hundred/thousand/ton of bricks.

Phraseological collocations, or phraseological combinations, are made up of words with a restricted lexical valency. In most cases, only one of the components is used figuratively while the other has a direct meaning and may, within limits, be substituted: bear a malice – bear a grudge, meet the demands – meet the requirements. Such combinations are often regarded as a kind of semantic cliché.

From a syntactical point of view, phraseological units or set expressions may be classified into nominal phrases (the apple of one s eye); verbal phrases (to fish in troubled waters); adjectival phrases (as good as gold); adverbial, prepositional, conjunctional, interjectional (Well, I never) phrases as well as stereotyped sentences (Never say die). In other words, they may be functionally similar to any part of speech, or be syntactically independent (this is typical of proverbs and savings).

Further criteria are needed to distinguish set expressions from both free combinations of words and compound words. A number of such, including semantic unity, the unity of syntactic function, equivalence between a set expression and a word, structural integrity/divisibility, morphological stability/ changeability, were suggested by various authors. None of this above, however, are sufficient in themselves. Further analysis shows that many phraseological combinations admit of a certain syntactic flexibility and lexical variability without losing their semantic integrity: white as a chalk – white as milk – white as snow; dead as a doornail – He’s deader than a doornail, a black sheep of the family – the blackest sheep of family; to burn one’s boats – Having burnt his boats... They may be classified as changeable set expressions, in contrast to unchangeable or stereotyped set expressions which stands nearer words.

Tracing the origins of set expressions and phraseological units, as any etymological study, is of great help in tracing their original meanings. Many of them have their roots in British history, English traditions and customs, or fairy tales: carry coals to Newcastle, Hobson’s choice, to show a white feather, borrowed plumes. Other could be traced back to the Bible, Roman and Greek mythology, or famous works of literature: a voice in the wilderness, to cut the knot, green-eyed monster, to wear one’s heart on one’s sleeve. Many are borrowed from other languages, or works of foreign authors: to lose face, an ass between two bundles of hay, pull somebody’s chestnuts out of the fire.

Traditional units of the language, like proverbs, sayings, familiar quotations and cliché s, are also studied in phraseology, although their status with respect to set expressions is rather uncertain. Proverbs and sayings, brief, often witty examples of popular wisdom, have much in common with phraseological units, because their lexical components are also constant, their meaning is traditional and mostly figurative, and their formal structure is hardly ever changed. On the other hand, they may be used both as independent units of communication and as parts of other sentences, often forming the basis of a phraseological unit: A drowning man clutches at a straw → to clutch at straws.

Quotations, unlike set expressions, are clearly felt as having their source in popular literature, although a speaker need not be aware of the name of the author he is quoting. Most quotations used in present-day English come from the works of W. Shakespeare Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown, The rest is silence, etc. Unlike proverbs, they are usually reproduced in full, without any changes.

Both overused quotations and phrases of other origin that tend to be used mechanically, as a mere show of one s learning or wit, lose their expressiveness and become stale. Such phrases are qualified as cliché s and are better avoided. Some of them, however, are frequent in public speaking or journalistic use: swan song, to blaze the trail, astronomical figures. The degree of their usability depends a great deal on an author’s taste and tact.

3. Criteria of idiomaticity. Motivation

Stability and idiomaticity are the two main criteria used to distinguish between a free combination and a set phrase.

Stability implies a predictability in use, as shrug is predictably followed by shoulders, and cast is often followed by light, glance, etc. Idiomaticity, on the other side, implies a lack of motivation revealed, among other things, in an Impossibility of a word-for-word translation. The components of an idiomatic or set expression are usually so closely linked that they acquire a unique contextual meaning (cf. small in small hours and small beer). An idiom may preserve a form that has dropped out of use otherwise, or even a form alien to English, as muttons in Let’s return to our muttons.

Lack of motivation may develop along the following lines:

1) If one of the components of a word-group becomes archaic, or drops out of use altogether: one’s kith and kin;

2) If one of the meanings of a polysemantic word, drops out of use, surviving only in restricted contexts: mind in to have a mind to do something has an archaic meaning of " purpose" or " intention";

3) If a professional or dialectal phrase penetrates into general use, it is often felt as unmotivated: plain sailing, a Norfolk dumpling. Sometimes the motivation islost as the original meaning is forgotten: to show a white feather (originally in cook-fighting);

4) If a proverb is broken up and part of it is used as a self-contained unit, the connection with the original proverb is not clearly perceived: the last straw (from It’s the last straw that breaks the camel’s back). The same may apply to a quotation from a familiar source: the green-eyed monster (Shakespeare, " Othello"), to cut the knot (originally: to cut the Gordian knot).

Using an idiom or a set expression, we are hardly ever free from the associations created by the direct meanings of its components. Sometimes, as in a humorous or satirical context, these associations are deliberately strengthened by rearranging or replacing components, or introducing additional elements. Thus a living dog is better than a dead lion becomes a dead ass is better than a living lion, and a popular phrase all is not gold that glitters, combined with no less popular golden age, results in an age not perhaps of gold, but at least of glitter. In a similar fashion, golden age becomes (in Mark Twain’s hands) gilded age and President Reagan’s political career is described, by a sardonic journalist, as a rodeo in china shop.