Lecture 5. English phraseology Lexical and grammatical valency

Lecture 5. English phraseology Lexical and grammatical valency Properties of free word groups Properties of phraseological units Ways of forming phraseological units Classifications of phraseological unit Semantic relations in phraseology.

You shall know a word by the company it keeps J.R. Firth The vocabulary of any language consists not only of words but also of different word-groups and expressions, which, like words, name various objects and phenomena. These are free word-groups (collocations) and phraseological units. These word-combinations are very closely connected but still they are not the same. A word-group is a sequence of two or more words which are joined according to certain rules, compare: a girl of beauty, a year ago, to take lessons – these are semantically and structurally independent word-groups. (We can say – a woman of beauty, a month ago, to take a rest).

Word-groups differ as to the degree of structural and semantic cohesion. Some word groups, e.g. by the way, point of view, so to speak, etc. seem to be functionally and semantically inseparable and are usually referred to as set-phrases, fixed expressions. lexical phrases, idioms or phraseological units. Words come together according to their lexical and grammatical valency. Lexical valency (collocability) is the ability of a word to appear in various combinations (one pattern, different meanings, e.g.: yellow dress – yellow press). To lift and to raise are interchangeable as synonyms but only raise can be used with the noun question: to raise a question.

Grammatical valency — is the ability of a word to appear in certain syntactic structures (different patterns, different meanings: a boy runs, to run a factory, the film runs for two hours). To offer, to propose, to suggest collocate with nouns and pronouns used as objects (to offer a job, to propose a plan, to suggest a compromise). To offer and to propose collocate with infinitives (They offered to compromise. I proposed to leave early), but to suggest governs -ing forms (He suggested our leaving) or a subordinate clause (He suggested that we should leave).

There exist certain norms and limitations of lexical and grammatical valency. Limitations depend on 1) extra-linguistic factors, i.e. those which belong to relations and state of things in objective reality. A well-known example of a sentence by N.Chomsky Colourless green ideas sleep furiously seems meaningless because it does not reflect relations of real life; 2) linguisic factors, which reflect linguistic norms and standards. Sometinles deviaions from norms of collocability are used for stylistic and expressive purposes. Such usages can be illustrated by the following example from K.Vonnegut: When I was younger - two wives ago, 250.000 cigarettes ago...( According to the norms of lexical valency the adverb ago collocates with nouns expressing time: a week ago,three days ago, etc. However, in K.Vonnegut's example these norms are vioated: two wives ago, ... cigarettes ago, ....

2. Properties of free word groups: 1) free word-groups are produced in speech each time anew; 2) they are not equivalent to a word, i.e. each word realizes its own meaning, e.g. a red rose, to write an essay – each word realizes its own meaning, and the meaning of the whole phrase is the sum of the meanings of its components; 3) substitution of the components is possible, e.g.: an interesting book the word interesting can be substituted by good, new, exciting, boring, etc.; 4) some word-groups acquire stability and get the names of set-phrases or clichés. To set-phrases belong expressive colloquialisms: well done, never mind; terms: blank verse, direct object; political clichés: summit meeting, round-table conference; emotionally and stylistically neutral collocations: in front of, as well as, a great deal of, etc.

3. Phraseology is a branch of lexicology, which is concerned with the study and systematic description of phraseological units. Properties of phraseological units: 1) stability which means that PhUs are introduced into speech readymade and not created each time anew like free word-groups. PhUs come into being as individual creations and later they become common property, e.g. Shakespeare’s cakes and ale; 2) they are equivalent to a word, i.e. the meaning of a whole phrase cannot be deduced from the meanings of its components, e.g. the meaning of the phraseological unit to cook somebody’s goose (to ensure that somebody fails), e.g. When the police found his fingerprints he knew his goose was cooked cannot be worked out from the meanings of its components; 3) variability is impossible in them (with some exceptions), e.g.: in the idiom to rain cats and dogs we cannot replace the words cats and dogs by the words mice and rats, or by milk and oil; moreover, instead of the verb to rain we cannot use to pour. However, even in this idiom a substitution is possible due to the difference in association: in American English it is to rain pitchforks.

4) Idiomaticity, or lack of motivation characterizes the meaning of the whole of a PhU which is transferred or figurative unlike the meaning of a free word-group. PhUs are partially motivated or non-motivated word-groups. i.e. idiomatic, as idiomaticity is lack of motivation. To partially motivated PhUs belong examples like a dog in the manger because we can deduce their meanings through metaphoric transferences of meanings of component lexemes: a person who selfishly prevents others from using or enjoying sth. which he keeps for himself, though he cannot use or enjoy it'. The PhU kick the bucket 'infml. die' is non-motivated. The lack of motivation can be explained by the fact that in the course of time the association between each particular meaning of the component lexemes and the meaning of the whole word combination was faded and lost.

Ways of forming phraseological units: a) by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups, e.g.: launching pad – стартовий майданчик, in its transferred meaning – відправний пункт, to link up – cтикуватися, стикувати космічні кораблі, in its tranformed meaning– знайомитися; b) from free word groups by transforming their meaning, e.g.: Troyan horse; c) by means of alliteration, e.g. a sad sack – нещасний випадок, culture vulture – людина, яка цiкавиться мистецтвом; d) by means of expressiveness, especially it is characteristic for forming interjections, e.g. My aunt! – от тобі й маєш! , Hear, hear! – правильно!; e) by means of distorting a word group, e.g. odds and ends was formed from odd ends; f) by using archaisms, e.g. in brown study means in gloomy meditation where both components preserve their archaic meanings; g) by using a sentence in a different sphere of life, e.g. that cock won’t fight can be used as a free word-group when it is used in sports (cock fighting), it becomes a phraseological unit when it is used in everyday life, because it is used metaphorically, h) when we use some unreal image, e.g. to have butterflies in the stomach – відчувати хвилювання, to have green fingers – бути гарним садівником; i) by using expressions of writers or politicians in everyday life, e.g. corridors of power (Snow), American dream (Alby), the winds of change (Mc Millan).

4. Semantic classification of phraseological units (acad. V.V. Vinogradov): fusions where the degree of motivation is very low, we cannot guess the meaning of the whole from the meanings of its components, they are highly idiomatic and cannot be translated word for word into other languages, e.g. red tape (excessive bureaucracy), at sixes and sevens (in a mess) etc; 2) half-fusions are stable word-groups in which the leading component is literal while the rest of the group is idiomatically fused: to rain cats and dogs, to talk through one’s hat (talk foolishly, ignorantly), to buy smth for a song (buy smth cheaply). 3) unities where the meaning of the whole can be guessed from the meanings of its components, but it is transferred (metaphorical or metonymical), e.g. to play the first fiddle (to be a leader in something), old salt (experienced sailor) etc; 4) half-unities are binary word-groups in which one of the components is literal while the other is phraseologically bound: black frost (without ice or snow), Dutch courage (strength or confidence gained from drinking alcohol). 5) collocations where words are combined in their original meaning but their combinations are different in different languages, e.g. cash and carry (self-service shop), in a big way (in great degree) etc.

Syntactic classification of phraseological units (I.V.Arnold): 1) noun phraseologisms denoting an object, a person, a living being, e.g. bullet train, latchkey child; 2) verb phraseologisms denoting an action, a state, a feeling, e.g. to be on the beam; 3) adjective phraseologisms denoting a quality, e.g. loose as a goose, dull as lead; 4) adverb phraseological units, such as: with a bump, in the soup, like a dream, like a dog with two tails; 5) preposition phraseological units, e.g. in the course of, on the stroke of; 6) interjection phraseological units, e.g. Catch me! – ні за що!, Well, I never! – от тобі й маєш! etc.

In I.V.Arnold’s classification there are also sentence equivalents, proverbs, sayings and quotations, e.g. The sky is the limit, What makes him tick. Proverbs are usually metaphorical, e.g. Too many cooks spoil the broth, while sayings are as a rule non-metaphorical, e.g. Where there is a will there is a way. Quotations differ from proverbs in their origin; they come from literature and in the course of time become a constituent part of the language, e.g. Brevity is the soul of wit (W. Shakespeare). An eye for an eye (the Bible).

Structural classification of phraseological units Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky points out one-top units which he compares with derived words because derived words have only one root morpheme. He points out two-top units which he compares with compound words because in compound words we usually have two root morphemes. Among one-top units he points out three structural types: 1) units of the type to give up (verb + postposition type), e.g. to art up, to back up, to drop out, to nose out, etc.; 2) units of the type to be tired. Some of these units remind the Passive Voice in their structure but they have different prepositons with them, while in the Passive Voice we can have only prepositions by or with, e.g. to be tired of, to be interested in, to be surprised at etc.

There are also units in this type which remind of free word-groups of the type to be young, e.g. to be akin to, to be aware of etc. The difference between them is that the adjective young can be used as an attribute and as a predicative in a sentence, while the nominal component in such units can act only as a predicative. In these units the verb is the grammar centre and the second component is the semantic centre; 3) prepositional-nominal phraseological units. These units are equivalents of unchangeable words: prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, that is why they have no grammar centre, their semantic centre is the nominal part, e.g. on the doorstep (quite near), on the nose (exactly), in the course of, on the stroke of, in time, on the point of etc. In the course of time such units can become words, e.g. tomorrow, instead etc.

Among two-top units A.I. Smirnitsky points out the following structural types: 1) attributive-nominal such as: a month of Sundays (a very long, seemingly endless period of time), grey matter, a millstone round one’s neck and many others. Units of this type are noun equivalents and can be partly or perfectly idiomatic. In partly idiomatic units (phrasisms) sometimes the first component is idiomatic, e.g. high road (a morally superior approach toward sth), in other cases the second component is idiomatic, e.g. first night (the first public performance of a play or show). In many cases both components are idiomatic, e.g. red tape, blind alley (глухий кут), bed of nail (проблематична ситуація) and many others.

2) verb-nominal phraseological units, e.g. to read between the lines , to speak BBC, to sweep under the carpet (to conceal a problem) etc. The grammar centre of such units is the verb, the semantic centre in many cases is the nominal component, e.g. to fall in love. In some units the verb is both the grammar and the semantic centre, e.g. not to know the ropes (not to have experience). These units can be perfectly idiomatic as well, e.g. to burn one’s boats, to take to the cleaners’ (to rob a person) etc. 3) phraseological repetitions, such as: now or never, part and parcel etc. Such units can be built on antonyms, e.g. ups and downs, back and forth; often they are formed by means of alliteration, e.g cakes and ale, as busy as a bee. Components in repetitions are joined by means of conjunctions. These units are equivalents of adverbs or adjectives and have no grammar centre. They can also be partly or perfectly idiomatic, e.g. cool as a cucumber (partly), bread and butter (main source of income)(perfectly).

The contextual classification In her doctoral thesis Professor N.N.Amosova defines phraseological units as units of fixed context. Fixed context is defined as a context characterized by a specific and unchanging sequence of definite lexical components, and a peculiar semantic relationship between them. Units of fixed context are subdivided into phrasemes and idioms. Phrasemes are always binary: one component has a phraseologically bound meaning, the other serves as the one determining context (small talk, small hours, small change). In idioms the new meaning is created by the whole, though every element may have its original meaning weakened or even completely lost: a mare’s nest.

The structural-semantic classification of phraseological units. Professor O.V. Kunin gives a very detailed classification of ph.u.s into several classes, subclasses, sections and so on. The main classes are based on the function the unit fulfills in speech. According to Kunin’s classification ph.us. differ in their function in the acts of communication and therefore fall into 4 classes: 1) nominative ph.u.s. of various patterns which correlate with words belonging to different parts of speech: a dark horse, ships that pass in the night, to get a bee in one’s bonnet, when pigs fly, junk food, soap opera; 2) сommunicative ph.u.s represented by proverbs and sayings constitute the second class: The pot cannot call the kettle black. The race is got by the running. No joy without alloy.

3) To the third class belong nominative communicative units which include nominative verbal idioms that can be transformed into a sentence when the verb is used in the passive voice: To put the cart before the horse. – The cart was put before the horse. 4) Pragmatic (the interaction of the speaker and the hearer in communication) ph.u.s which include interjectional idioms and response phrases: My aunt! Bless your heart! God be with you! God bless you!

The etymological classification of phraseological units The etymological classification is based on the analysis of the origin and the sources of the appearance of phraseological units. An attempt to establish the etymological classification was made by the English linguist L.P. Smith. He distinguishes: 1) idioms from sea life: tell that to the marines (a scornful expression of disbelief) to sink or swim in low water – close to becoming bankrupt high-water mark (a maximum recorded level or value) 2) from military life: to hold one’s ground (not retreat or lose one's advantage during a conflict or competition) to mark time (to act in a mechanical and routine way) 3) from card games: to play a wrong card to play one’s best card and other groups

Many PhUs are polysemantic. Their polysemantic structure develops mostly due to further metaphoric transference of their meaning. That’s all up in the air (unresolved, still to be settled). There was scandal in the air (noticeable, all around). You’ll be on your feet soon (recover). Give me time to get on my feet (become independent) Like words PhUs can be related as synonyms, e.g. to back the wrong horse – to hunt the wrong hare – to get the foot on the wrong foot; before the ink is dry – in a twinkle of an eye – before one can say Jack Robinson. Phraseological synonyms often belong to different stylistic layers. Phraseological synonyms should not be mixed up with variants of phraseological units, e.g. to add fuel to the fire – to add fuel to fire – to add oil to fire – to add fuel to the flame

Phraseological antonyms are of two main types: they may either differ in a single component (to do one’s best – to do one’s worst; to look black – to look bright) or have different sets of components (to draw the first breath – to breathe one’s last; to talk nineteen to dozen – to keep mum). Such PhUs as to hang by one’s eyebrows I “триматися на волосинці, бути в критичному становищі” and to hang by one’s eyebrows II “бути настирливим, лізти на рожен” can be regarded as homonyms. Phraseological homonyms are very rare and should not be confused with with numerous homophrases, identical in form but differing in meaning and belonging to different classes (free word-groups, phraseological units: to ring a bell (I дзвонити у дзвін – free word-group, II – нагадувати)