Word-groups and phraseological units Lecture 7 Idiom

Word-groups and phraseological units Lecture 7

Idiom, phraseological unit – идиома, фразеологизм (лексически неделимое, устойчивое по составу и структуре, целостное и образное по значению, регулярно воспроизводимое в речи словосочетание) Cliché, set expression – клише ( «затертое» устойчивое изречение, утратившее образность изза частого употребления) Key words

Words put together to form lexical units make phrases or word-groups. As we know lexicology deals with words, word-forming morphemes and word-groups. We assume that the word is the basic lexical unit. The smallest two-facet unit to be found within the word is the morpheme which is studied on the morphological level of analysis. The largest two-facet lexical unit comprising more than one word is the word-group observed on the syntagmatic level of analysis of the various ways words are joined together to make up single self-contained lexical units. Basic features of word-groups

The degree of structural and semantic cohesion of word-groups may vary. Some word-groups, e. g. at least, point of view, by means of, take place, seem to be functionally and semantically inseparable. Such word-groups are usually described as setphrases, word-equivalents or phraseological units and are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of the branch of lexicological science that studies phraseology. Basic features of word-groups

The component members in other word-groups, e. g. a week ago, man of wisdom, take lessons, kind to people, seem to possess greater semantic and structural independence. Word-groups of this type are defined as free or variable word-groups or phrases and are habitually studied in syntax. Basic features of word-groups

To get a better insight into the essentials of structure and meaning of word-groups we must begin with a brief survey of the main factors active in uniting words into word-groups. The two main linguistic factors to be considered in this connection are the lexical and the grammatical valency of words. Basic features of word-groups

It is an indisputable fact that words are used in certain lexical contexts, i. e. in combination with other words. The noun question, e. g. , is often combined with such adjectives as vital, pressing, urgent, disputable, delicate, etc. This noun is a component of a number of other wordgroups, e. g. to raise a question, a question of great importance, a question of the agenda, of the day, and many others. The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability. Lexical valency

The range of the lexical valency of words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the English word-stock. Example: This can be easily observed in the selection of synonyms found in different word-groups. Though the verbs lift and raise, e. g. , are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is collocated with the noun question. The verb take may be synonymically interpreted as ‘grasp’, ’seize’, ‘catch’, ‘lay hold of, etc. but it is only take that is found in collocation with the nouns examination, measures, precautions. Lexical valency

Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliché. We observe, for example, that the verb put forward and the noun question are habitually collocated and whenever we hear the verb put forward or see it written on paper it is natural that we should anticipate the word question. So we may conclude that put forward a question constitutes a habitual word-group, a kind of cliché. This is also true of a number of other word-groups, e. g. to win (or gain) a victory, keen sight (or hearing). Some linguists hold that most of the English in ordinary use is thoroughly saturated with cliches. Lexical valency

The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. Both the English word flower and its Russian counterpart - цветок, for example, may be combined with a number of other words all of which denote the place where the flowers are grown, e. g. garden flowers, hot-house flowers, etc. ( the Russian садовые цветы, оранжерейные цветы, etc. ). The English word, however, cannot enter into combination with the word room to denote flowers growing in the rooms (pot flowers - комнатные цветы). Lexical valency

One more point of importance should be discussed in connection with the problem of lexical valency — the interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy as found in word-groups. Firstly, the restrictions of lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word-groups. The adjective heavy, e. g. , is combined with the words food, meals, supper, etc. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest’. But not all the words with more or less the same component of meaning can be combined with this adjective. One cannot say, for instance, heavy cheese or heavy sausage implying that the cheese or the sausage is difficult to digest. " Lexical valency

Secondly, it is observed that different meanings of a word may be described through the possible types of lexical contexts, i. e. through the lexical valency of the word, for example, the different meanings of the adjective heavy may be described through the word-groups heavy weight (book, table, etc. ), heavy snow (storm, rain, etc. ), heavy drinker (eater, etc. ), heavy sleep (disappointment, sorrow, etc. ), heavy industry (tanks, etc. ), and so on. From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as the characteristic minimal lexical sets that operate as distinguishing clues for each of the multiple meanings of the word. Lexical valency

Words are used also in grammatical contexts. The minimal grammatical context in which words are used when brought together to form word-groups is usually described as the pattern of the word-group. For instance, the adjective heavy discussed above can be followed by a noun (e. g. heavy storm or by the infinitive of a verb (e. g. heavy to lift), etc. The aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures is termed grammatical valency. Grammatical valency

The grammatical valency of words may be different. To begin with, the range of grammatical valency is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. It follows that the grammatical valency of each individual word is dependent on the grammatical structure of the language. Grammatical valency

Specific linguistic restrictions in the range of grammatical valency of individual words imposed on the lexical units by the inner structure of the language are also observed by comparing the grammatical valency of correlated words in different languages. The English verb influence, for example, can be followed only by a noun (to influence a person, a decision, choice, etc. ). The grammatical valency of its Russian counterpart влиять is different. The Russian verb can be combined only with a prepositional group ( влиять на человека, на выбор, . . . , etc. ). Grammatical valency

Structurally word-groups may be approached in various ways. We know that word-groups may be described through the order and arrangement of the component members. The word-group to see something can be classified as a verbal - nominal group, to see to smth as verbal - prepositional nominal, etc. Structure of word-groups

All word-groups may be also analysed by the criterion of distribution into two big classes. If the word-group has the same linguistic distribution as one of its members, it is described as endocentric, i. e. having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole word-group. The word-groups, e. g. , red flower, bravery of all kinds, are distributionally identical with their central components flower and bravery ( e. g. , -I saw a red flower - I saw a flower). Structure of word-groups

In endocentric word-groups the central component that has the same distribution as the whole group is clearly the dominant member or the head to which all other members of the group are subordinated. In the word-group red flower, e. g. , the head is the noun flower and in the word-group kind to people the head is the adjective kind, etc. Structure of word-groups

If the distribution of the word-group is different from either of its members, it is regarded as exocentric, i. e. as having no such central member, for instance side by side or grow smaller and others where the component words are not syntactically substitutable for the whole word-group. Structure of word-groups

Word-groups are also classified according to their syntactic pattern into predicative and non-predicative groups. Such word-groups as, e. g. , John works, he went that have a syntactic structure similar to that of a sentence, are classified as predicative, and all others as non-predicative. Structure of word-groups

Non-predicative word-groups may be subdivided according to the type of syntactic relations between the components into subordinative and coordinative. Such word-groups as red flower, a man of wisdom and the like are termed subordinative because the words red and of wisdom are subordinated to flower and man respectively and function as their attributes. Such phrases as women and children, day and night, do or die are classified as coordinative. Structure of word-groups

“Phraseology” is often used to describe an individual author’s 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 anonymous to language or dialect. This meaning could be traced back to the Ancient Greek “idios”, meaning “one’s own, private”. Phraseology

Russian and soviet linguists have paid much attention to the study of both Russian (Akad. V. V. Vinogradov) and English (A. V. Kunin) phraseology. Phraseological units are defined as stable wordgroups lacking an obvious motivation. Unlike other word-combinations, they are not freely made up by speakers but are reproduced as ready-made units: ex. “dark horse”. Phraseology

The term set-phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack cf motivation. This term habitually used by English and American linguists is very often treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit universally accepted in Russian linguistics. Phraseology

Attempts have been made to approach the problem of phraseology in different ways. Up till now, however, there is a certain divergence of opinion as to the essential feature of phraseological units as distinguished from other word-groups and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed phraseological units. The complexity of the problem may be largely accounted for by the fact that the border-line between free or variable word-groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined. Phraseological units

The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words is fundamentally delimited by their lexical and grammatical valency which makes at least some of them very close to set-phrases. Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable. Between the extremes of complete motivation and variability of member-words on the one hand lack of motivation combined with complete stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure on the other hand there are innumerable border-line cases. Phraseological units

Phraseological units are habitually defined as nonmotivated word-groups that cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units. definition proceeds from the assumption that the essential features of phraseological units are stability of the lexical components and lack of motivation. It is consequently assumed that unlike components of free word-groups which may vary according to the needs of communication, member-words of phraseological units are always reproduced as single unchangeable collocations. Stability and lack of motivation

For example, the constituent red in the free wordgroup red flower may, if necessary, be substituted for by any other adjective denoting colour (blue, white, etc. ), without essentially changing the denotational meaning of the word-group under discussion (a flower of a certain colour). In the phraseological unit red tape (bureaucratic “methods) no such substitution is possible, as a change of the adjective would involve a complete change in the meaning of the whole group. Example of stability

Grammatical structure of phraseological units is to a certain extent also stable. Thus, though the structural formula of the wordgroups red flower and red tape is identical (A + +N), the noun flower may be used in the plural (red flowers), whereas no such change is possible in the phraseological unit red tape; red tapes would then denote ‘tapes of red colour’ but not ‘bureaucratic methods’. Stability

Thus, stability and idiomaticity are the two main criteria used to distinguish a free combination and a set phrase. Stability implies a predictability in use, as “shrug” is predictably followed by “shoulders”. Idiomaticity, on the other hand, implies a lack of motivation revealed, among other things, in an impossibility of a word-to word translation. Stability and lack of motivation

The two components of an idiomatic expression are usually so closely linked that they acquire a unique contextual meaning. Using an idiom we are hardly ever free from the associations created by the direct meanings of its components. Sometimes these associations are deliberately strengthened in humorous contexts. Stability and lack of motivation

Taking into account mainly the degree of idiomaticity phraseological units may be classified into three big groups: phraseological fusions phraseological unities phraseological collocations. Classification

Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups, such as red tape - ‘bureaucratic methods’; heavy father - ’serious or solemn part in a theatrical play’; kick the bucket - ‘die’; and the like. The meaning of the components has no connections whatsoever, at least synchronically, with the meaning of the whole group. Idiomaticity is, as a rule, combined with complete stability of the lexical components and the grammatical structure of the fusion. Phraseological fusions

Phraseological unities are partially non-motivated as their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit. For example, to show one’s teeth, to wash one’s dirty linen in public if interpreted as semantically motivated through the combined lexical meaning of the component words would naturally lead one to understand these in their literal meaning. Phraseological unities

Phraseological collocations are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word-groups. In phraseological collocations variability of member-words is strictly limited. For instance, we can say take a liking (fancy) but not take hatred (disgust). These habitual collocations tend to become kind of clichés where the meaning of member-words is to some extent dominated by the meaning of the whole group. Due to this phraseological collocations are felt as possessing a certain degree of semantic inseparability. Phraseological collocations

1. The definition is felt to be inadequate as the concept ready- made units seems to be rather vague. In fact this term can be applied to a variety of linguistic phenomena ranging from word-groups to sentences (e. g. proverbs, sayings) and also quotations from poems, novels or scientific treatises all of which can be described as ready-made units. Problematic questions for linguists

2. Frequent discussions have also led to questioning this approach to phraseology from a purely semantic point of view as the criterion of idiomaticity is found to be an inadequate guide in singling out phraseological units from other word-groups. Borderline cases between idiomatic and nonidiomatic word-groups are so numerous and confusing that the final decision seems to depend largely on one’s “feeling of the language". Problematic questions for linguists

3. The term idiomaticity is also regarded by some linguists as requiring clarification. As a matter of fact this term is habitually used to denote lack of motivation from the point of view of one’s mother tongue. A word-group which defies word by word translation is consequently described as idiomatic. It follows that if idiomaticity is viewed as the main distinguishing feature of phraseological units, the same wordgroups in the English language may be classified as idiomatic phraseological units by Russian speakers and as non-idiomatic word-groups by those whose mother tongue contains analogous collocations. Problematic questions for linguists

Thus, e. g. , from the point of view of Russian speakers such word-groups as take tea, take care, etc. are often referred to phraseology as the Russian translation equivalents of these word-groups (пить чай, заботиться) do not contain the habitual translation equivalents of the verb take. French speakers, however, are not likely to find anything idiomatic about these word-groups as there are similar lexical units in the French language ( prendre du thé, prendre soin). This approach to idiomaticity may be termed interlingual as it involves a comparison, explicit or implicit of two different languages. Problematic questions

4. The criterion of stability is also criticised as not very reliable in distinguishing phraseological units from other word-groups habitually referred to as phraseology. We observe regular substitution of at least one of the lexical components. In to cast smth in smb’s teeth, e. g. the verb cast may be replaced by fling; to take a decision is found alongside with to make a decision; not to care a twopenny is just one of the possible variants of the phrase, whereas in others the noun twopenny may be replaced by a number of other nouns, e. g. farthing, button, pin, sixpence, etc. Problematic questions

It is argued that the stability of all word-groups may be statistically calculated and the word-groups where stability exceeds a certain limit (say 50%) may be classified as set-phrases. Predictability of occurrence may be calculated in relation to one or, more than one constituent of the word-group. Thus, e. g. , the degree of probability of occurrence of the noun bull after the verb take is very low and may practically be estimated at zero. The two member-words take the bull, however, predict the occurrence of by the horns with a very high degree of probability. Problematic questions

Another angle from which the problem of phraseology is viewed is the so-called functional approach. This approach assumes that phraseological units may be defined as specify wordgroups functioning as word-equivalents. The fundamental features of phraseological units thus understood are their semantic and grammatical inseparability which are regarded as distinguishing features of isolated words. Criterion of function

It will be recalled that when we compare a free wordgroup, e. g, heavy weight, and a phraseological unit, e. g. heavy father, we observe that in the case of the free wordgroup each of the member-words has its own denotational meaning. So the lexical meaning of the word-group can be adequately described as the combined lexical meaning of its constituents. Criterion of function

In the case of the phraseological unit, however, the denotational meaning belongs to the word-group as a single semantically inseparable unit. The individual member-words do not seem to possess any lexical meaning outside the meaning of the group. The meanings of the member-words heavy and father taken in isolation are in no way connected with the meaning of the phrase heavy father-’serious or solemn part in a theatrical play. Criterion of function

The criterion of function is regarded as not quite reliable when used with a view to singling out phraseological units from among other more or less idiomatic word-groups. The same word-groups may function in some utterances as an inseparable group and in others as a separable group with each component performing its own syntactic function Criterion of function

Thus, for example, in the sentence She took care of everything - take care is perceived as a single unit functioning as the predicate, whereas in the sentence great care was taken to keep the children happy take care is undoubtedly separable into two components: the verb take functions as the predicate and the noun care as the object. The functional unity of the word-group seems to be broken. Example

It is also argued that the criterion of function serves to single out a comparatively small group of phraseological units comparable with phraseological fusions in the traditional semantic classification but does not provide for an objective criterion for the bulk of word-groups occupying an intermediate position between free word-groups and highly idiomatic phraseological units. Criterion of function