Semantic and grammatical peculiarities of adverbial phraseological units

RF Federal Agency for Education

Russian State University of Service and Tourism

Institute for Tourism and Hospitality (Moscow) (Branch)

 

 

Chair: “Linguistics for Tourism”

 

 

 

ENGLISH PHRASEOLOGY

COURSE PAPER

 

Semantic and grammatical peculiarities of adverbial phraseological units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student:

Yakushina Y.A.

 

Group:            

L4 – C

 

Scientific advisor: Zykova I.V., Ph.D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moscow, 2011

 

Table of contents

 

 

 

Introduction

 

The course paper is devoted to studying semantic and grammatical peculiarities of adverbial phraseological units in English. The issues of phraseological units were in the center of interest in many linguistics studies. Because of their close connection with the culture, nationality, stylistic and emotional coloring phraseological units have always attracted the attention of linguists. The problem of the study of phraseological units of Russian and English language has been considered by V.V. Vinogradov, A.V. Kunin, G.B. Antrushina, and other scholars. At the same time it should be noted that to the study of the semantic and grammatical peculiarities of adverbial phraseological units has been paid very little attention.

Thus, the topic of this study of the semantic and grammatical peculiarities of adverbial phraseological units in English is quite important.

The object of this course paper is phraseological units of the modern English language.

The subject of the paper is semantic and grammatical peculiarities of adverbial phraseological units.

The purpose of this course paper is to describe and analyze semantic and grammatical peculiarities of adverbial phraseological units in English.

The following tasks are to be solved in this paper:

1. To characterize phraseological units as a specific part of the English vocabulary;
2. To discuss different classifications of English phraseological units;
3. To analyze semantic and grammatical peculiarities of English adverbial phraseological units and summarize the information.

The material for the study is English adverbial phraseological units presented in theoretical papers and in dictionaries (mostly in the English-Russian Vocabulary of Phraseological units by A.V. Kunin).

The books and articles of the following authors constitute the theoretical basis for this work: R.S. Ginsburg, A.V. Kunin,  I. V. Arnold, G. V. Antrushina, I.V. Zykova and others. These scholars discussed different theoretical and practical problems of understanding and interpreting English phraseological units. 

The present course paper consists of 2 chapters, introduction, conclusions, bibliography.

 

Theoretical Survey

Phraseological units as a part of the English vocabulary

1.1. Notion of phraseological units

Phraseological units, or idioms, as they are called by most western scholars, represent what can probably be described as the most picturesque, colourful and expressive part of the language's vocabulary¹. The phraseology is a kind of a picture gallery in which the most vivid and amusing sketches of the nation's customs, traditions and prejudices, recollections of its past history, scraps of folk songs and fairy-tales are collected. Phraseology is not only the most colourful but probably the most democratic area of vocabulary and it draws its resources mostly from the very depths of popular speech.

Phraseology is pervasive in all language fields and yet despite this fact – or perhaps precisely because of it – it has only relatively recently, no more than a century ago, become established as a discipline in its own right. The phraseology literature represents it as a subfield of lexicology dealing with the study of word combinations rather than single words. These multi-word units (MWUs) are classified into a range of subtypes in accordance with their degree of semantic non-compositionality, syntactic fixedness, lexical restrictions and institutionalization.

As phraseology has strong links but fuzzy borders with several other fields of linguistics, notably with morphology, syntax, semantics and discourse analysis, linguists vary in their opinions as to which subsets of these MWUs should be included in the field of phraseology². This difficulty in establishing what exactly can be included in the phraseology is compounded by the fact that phraseology is a dynamic phenomenon, and displays both synchronic and diachronic variations. Although there is still some considerable discrepancy between linguists as regards the terminology and typology of word combinations and the limits of phraseology itself, there is general agreement that phraseology constitutes a continuum along which word combinations are situated, with the most opaque and fixed ones at one end and the most transparent and variable ones at the other. One of the main preoccupations of linguists working within this tradition has been to find linguistic criteria to distinguish one type of phraseological unit from another (e.g. collocations vs. idioms or full idioms vs. semi-idioms) and especially to distinguish the most variable and transparent multi-word units from free combinations, which only have syntactic and semantic restrictions and are therefore considered as falling outside the realm of phraseology.

So, it is necessary to give the definition of a phraseological unit itself. It should be recalled that the first attempt to place the study of various word-groups on a scientific basis was made by the outstanding Russian linguist A.A. Shakhmatov. Shakhmatov’s work was continued by Academician V.V. Vinogradov. Investigation of English phraseology was initiated in our country by prof. A. V. Kunin. However, the existing terms, e.g. set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the main debatable issues of phraseology which centre on the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups. 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 of motivation. This term habitually used by English and American linguists is very often treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit universally accepted in Russia. The term word-equivalents stresses not only the semantic but also the functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their aptness to function in speech as single words.

 

Thus differences in terminology reflect certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish between free word-groups and a specific type of linguistic units generally known as phraseology.

Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units.

According to I.V. Zykova “a phraseological unit can be defined as a reproduced and idiomatic (non-motivated) or partially motivated unit built up according to the model of free word-groups (proverbs and sayings) and semantically and syntactically brought into correlation with words”³. Hence, there is a need for criteria exposing the degree of similarity / difference between phraseological units and free word-groups, phraseological units and words. There are the following criteria, according to I.V. Zykova:

1. Structural criterion

A feature proper both to free phrases and phraseological units is the divisibility of their structure, they consist of separate structural elements. This fact stands them in opposition to words as structurally integral units. Like in word-groups, in phraseological units any component may be changed grammatically, but these changes are rather few, limited and occasional and usually serve for a stylistic effect. The principle difference between phraseological units and free word-groups manifests itself in the structural invariability of the former. It suggests no substitutions of components. There are also strict restrictions on the componental extension and grammatical changes of components of phraseological units. In a free word-group all these changes are possible.

2. Semantic criterion

The meaning in phraseological units is created by mutual interaction of elements and conveys a single concept. The actual meaning of a phraseological unit is figurative (transferred) and is opposed to the literal meaning of a word-combination from which it is derived. The transference of the initial word-group can be based on simile, metaphor, metonomy, and synecdoche. The degree of transference varies and may affect either the whole unit or only one of its constituents, to skate on thin ice – “to take risks”; the small hours –“the early hours of the morning”. Besides, in the formation of the semantic structure of phraseological units a cultural component plays a special and very important role. It marks phraseological units as a bearer of cultural information based on a unique experience of the nation. For example, the phraseological unit red tape originates in the old custom of Government officials and lawyers tying up their papers with red tape.

The meaning in a word-group is based on the combined meaning of the words constituting its structure. Each element in a word-combination has much greater semantic independence and stands for a separate concept.

The semantic unity, however, makes phraseological units similar to words. The semantic similarity between the two is proved by the fact that, for instance, to kick the bucket which meaning is understood as a whole and not related to the meaning of individual words can be replaced within context by the word to die⁴.

3. Syntactic criterion

The syntactic criterion reveals the close ties between single words and phraseological units as well as free word-groups. Like words, phraseological units may have different syntactic functions in the sentence: the subject, the predicate, an attribute, an adverbial modifier. In accordance with the function they perform in the sentence phraseological units can be classified into: substantive, verbal, adjectival, adverbial, interjectional. Like free word-groups phraseological units can be divided into coordinative and subordinative.

Thus I.V. Zykova defines the following characteristic features of phraseological units: ready-made reproduction, structural divisibility, morphological stability, permanence of lexical composition, semantic unity, syntactic fixity⁵.

In order to understand the phraseological meaning it is important to define the semantic structure of phraseological unit. It is formed by semantic ultimate constituents called macrocomponents of meaning.

Zykova I.V. in her work singles out the following principal macrocomponents in the semantic structure of phraseological units:

1. Denotational (descriptive) macrocomponent that contains the information about the objective reality. This procedure is connected with categorization, i.e. the classification of phenomena of the reality, based on the typical idea about what is denoted by a phraseological unit.

2. Evaluational macrocomponent that contains the information about the value of what is denoted by a phraseological unit, i.e. what value the speaker sees in this or that object/phenomenon of reality – the denotatum. The rational evaluation may be positive, negative and neutral. Evaluation may depend on viewpoint of the speaker/hearer. 

3. Motivational macrocomponent that correlates with the notion of the inner form of a phraseological unit, which may be viewed as the motif of transference, the image-forming base, the associative-imaginary complex etc. The notion “motivation of phraseological unit” can be defined as the aptness of “the literal reading” of a unit to be associated with the denotational and evaluational aspects of meaning. For example, the literal reading of the phraseological unit “to have broad shoulders” evokes associations connected with physical strength of a person. The idea that broad shoulders are indicative of a person's strength and endurance actualizes, becomes the base for transference and forms the following meaning : ‘to be able to bear the full weight of one's responsibilities’

4. Emotive macrocomponent that is the contents of subjective modality expressing feeling-relation to what is denoted by a phraseological unit within the range of approval/disapproval, e.g. a leading light in something -'a person who is important in a particular group' (spoken with approval), to lead a cat and dog life - 'used to describe a husband and wife who quarrel furiously with each other most of the time' (spoken with disapproval). Emotiveness is also the result of interpretation of the imaginary base in a cultural aspect.

5. Stylistic macrocomponent that points to the communicative register in which a phraseological unit is used and to the social-role relationships between the participants of communication, e.g. sick at heart - 'very sad' (formal), be sick to death — 'to be angry and bored because something unpleasant has been happening for too long' (informal), pass by on the other side - 'to ignore a person who needs help' (neutral).

6. Grammatical macrocomponent that contains the information about all possible morphological and syntactic changes of a phraseological unit, e.g. to be in deep water = to be in deep waters; to take away smb's breath = to take smb's breath away; Achilles' heel = the heel of Achilles⁶.

7. Gender macrocomponent that may be expressed explicitly, i.e. determined by the structure and/or semantics of a phraseological unit, and in that case it points out to the class of objects denoted by the phraseological unit: men, women, people (both men and women). For example, compare the phraseological units every Tom, Dick and Harry meaning 'every or any man' and every Tom, Dick and Sheila which denotes 'every or any man and woman'. Gender macrocomponent may be expressed implicitly and then it denotes the initial (or historical) reference of a phraseological unit to the class of objects denoted by it which is stipulated as a rule by the historical development, traditions, stereotypes, cultural realia of the given society, e.g. to wash one's dirty linen in public — 'discuss or argue about one's personal affairs in public.’ The implicit presence of the gender macrocomponent in this phraseological unit is conditioned by the idea about traditional women's work (compare with Russian выносить сор из избы). Gender, implicitly as well as explicitly expressed, reveals knowledge about such cultural concepts as masculinity and femininity that are peculiar to this or that society. The implicit gender macrocomponent is defined within the range of three conceptual spheres: masculine, feminine, intergender.

Most linguistic works and encyclopaedias highlight the following features of phraseological units (idioms):

• lexical complexity and semantic simplicity  – the meaning of an idiom is not derivable from the meanings of its individual parts;
• fixed form or invariability – the number of paradigmatic variants (if there are any) is limited;
• figurativeness.

According to their grammatical structure phraseological units can be word combinations of two to six components as well as they can be represented by sentences – proverbs.

1.2 Classification of phraseological units

Phraseological units can be classified in different ways. They can be classified according to the ways they are formed, according to the degree of the motivation of their meaning, according to their structure, according to their part-of-speech meaning, according to the degree of idiomacity, etc.

A.V. Kunin  classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units⁷.

Primary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on the basis of a free word-group:

a) Most productive in Modern English is the formation of phraseological units by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups, e.g. in cosmic technique we can point out the following phrases: “launching pad” in its terminological meaning is “стартовая площадка” , in its transferred meaning - “отправной пункт”, “to link up” - “cтыковаться, стыковать космические корабли” in its transformed meaning means -“знакомиться”;

b) a large group of phraseological units was formed from free word groups by transforming their meaning, e.g. “granny farm” - “пансионат для престарелых”, “Troyan horse” -  “вирус, компьюторная программа, преднамеренно составленная для повреждения компьютера”;

c) phraseological units in English can be formed by means of  alliteration, e.g. “a sad sack” - “несчастный случай”, “culture vulture” - “человек,  интересующийся искусством”,  “fudge and nudge” - “уклончивость”.

d) phraseological units can be formed by means of expressiveness, especially it is characteristic for forming interjections, e.g. “My aunt!”, “ Hear, hear !” etc.,

e) phraseological units can be formed by means of distorting a word group, e.g. “odds and ends” was formed from “odd ends”,

f) phraseological units can be formed by using archaisms, e.g. “in brown study” means “in gloomy meditation” where both components preserve their archaic meanings,

g) phraseological units can be formed 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, as it is used metaphorically,

h) phraseological units can be formed when we use some unreal image, e.g. “to have butterflies in the stomach” - “испытывать волнение”, “to have green fingers” - ”преуспевать как садовод-любитель” etc.

i) phraseological units can be formed by using expressions of writers or politicians in everyday life, e.g.  “corridors of power” (Snow), “American dream” (Alby) “locust years” (Churchil) , “the winds of change” (Mc Millan).

Secondary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a phraseological unit is formed on the basis of another phraseological unit. They are:

a) conversion, e.g. “to vote with one’s feet”  was converted into “vote with one’s  feet”;

b) changing the grammar form, e.g. “Make hay while the sun shines” is transferred into a verbal phrase - “to make hay while the sun shines”;

c) analogy, e.g. “Curiosity killed the cat” was transferred into “Care killed the cat”;

d) contrast, e.g. “cold surgery” - “a planned before operation” was formed by contrasting it with “acute surgery”, “thin cat” - “a poor person” was formed by contrasting it with “fat cat”;

e) shortening of proverbs or sayings, e.g. from the proverb “You can’t  make a silk purse  out of a sow’s ear”  by means of clipping the middle of it the phraseological unit “to make a sow’s ear” was formed with the meaning “ошибаться”.

f) borrowing phraseological units from other languages, either as translation loans, e.g. “ living space” (German), “ to take the bull by the horns” (Latin) or by means of phonetic borrowings “meche blanche” (French), “corpse d’elite” (French), “sotto voce” (Italian)  etc.

Phonetic borrowings among phraseological units refer to the bookish style and are not used very often⁸.

According to the degree of idiomaticity phraseological units can be classified into three big groups: phraseological fusions, phraseological unities and phraseological collocations. This classification was introduced by Academician V.V.Vinigradov for Russian phraseological units, but it can be applied to English ones, too.

Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups, e.g. as mad as a hatter — 'utterly mad'; white elephant — 'an expensive but useless thing'.

Phraseological unities are partially non-motivated as their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit, e.g. to bend the knee — 'to submit to a stronger force, to obey submissively'; to wash one's dirty linen in public — 'to discuss or make public one's quarrels'.

Phraseological collocations are not only motivated but contain one component used in its direct meaning, while the other is used metaphorically, e.g. to meet the requirements, to attain success. In this group of phraseological units some substitutions are possible which do not destroy the meaning of the metaphoric element, e.g. to meet the needs, to meet the demand, to meet the necessity; to have success, to lose success. These substitutions are not synonymical and the meaning of the whole changes, while the meaning of the verb meet and the noun success axe kept intact.

Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky worked out structural classification of phraseological units, comparing them with words. He 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 morphemes⁹.

Among one-top units he points out three structural types;

a) units of the type “to give up” (verb + postposition type), e.g.  to art up, to back up,  to drop out,  to nose out,  to buy into,  to sandwich in etc.;

b) 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 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;

c) 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:

a) attributive-nominal such as: a month of Sundays, 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, in other cases the second component is idiomatic, e.g. first night. In many cases both components are idiomatic, e.g. red tape, blind alley,  bed of nail, shot in the arm and many others.