Theoretical problems of the study of phraseological unit

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

        Language reflects cultural, historical, geographical, economic, religious knowledge of a nation, its outlook. That is why it is not surprising that every nation has its peculiarities in interpretation of certain notions and words.

Phraseological units have bright and expressive possibilities. The usage of phraseological units in speech makes it richer and more emotional.

        The importance of the theme is determined by the fact that phraseological units with the component have  are widespread in contemporary English, represent a sufficiently large layer of vocabulary and have a high applicability.

        The goal of this research is to study the structure of the most frequent models of English phraseological units with the component have.

        The object is phraseological units with the component have. 

        The subject is peculiarities of the verb have as a constituent part of phraseological units in English language.

        The object, subject and the goal predetermined the necessity to solve the following tasks:

-to carry out general investigation of theoretical problems of the study of     phraseological units in linguistics;

- to single out and analyze the ways of  forming phraseological units;

- to analyze the structure of the phraseological units with the component have;

- to single out and analyze peculiarities of the verb have as a constituent part of phraseological units in English language;

- to compile the list of phraseological units with  the component have .      

        Phraseological units with  the component have selected from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Oxford  Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English became the material of the research.

       The results and conclusions of the research can be used in teaching English.

        The value is in that studying English is widespread in our country. Good knowledge of the language is impossible without knowledge of its phraseology. Knowledge of phraseology makes reading of literature easier. The use of phraseological units makes speech more expressive. With the help of phraseological units  the aesthetic aspect of the language is enhanced.

        The work consists of introduction, 2 sections, conclusion, bibliography.

 

SECTION 1

Theoretical problems of the study of phraseological unit

 

1.1. Phraseologisms as word-groups with transferred meanings

 

          Phraseology is the branch of lexicology specializing in phraseological units-word-groups which are characterized by stability of structure and transferred meaning, e. g. to take the bull by the horns, to see red, birds of a feather, etc. [3, 224].

The process of development of a new meaning (or a change of meaning) is traditionally termed transference. Antrushina points out that some scholars mistakenly use the term “transference of meaning” which is a serious mistake. It is very important to note that in any case of semantic change it is not the meaning but the word that is being transferred from one referent onto another. The result of such transference is the appearance of a new meaning [3, 151].

In modern linguistics, there is considerable confusion about the terminology associated with these word-groups. Most Russian scholars use the term “phraseological unit” («фразеологическая единица») which was first introduced by academician V.V.Vinogradov whose contribution to the theory of Russian phraseology cannot be overestimated. The term “idiom” widely used by western scholars has comparatively recently found its way into Russian phraseology.

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 vocabulary. If synonyms can be figuratively referred to as the tints and colours of the vocabulary, then phraseology is a kind of picture gallery in which are collected vivid and amusing sketches of the nation’s customs, traditions and prejudices, recollections of its past history, scraps of folk songs and fairy-tales. Quotations from great poets are preserved here alongside the dubious pearls of wisdom and crude slang witticisms, for phraseology is not only the most colourful but probably the most democratic area of vocabulary and draws its resources mostly from the very depths of popular speech.

V. Komissarov defines phraseological units as “figurative set expressions often described as “idioms”. Such units have an important role to play in human communication. They produce a considerable expressive effect for, besides conveying information, they appeal to the readers’ emotions, their aesthetic perception, their literary and cultural association [10, 93].

 Together with synonymy and antonymy, phraseology represents expressive resources of vocabulary. V.H. Collins writes in his Book of English Idioms “In standard spoken and written English today idiom is an established and essential element that, used with care, ornaments and enriches the language” [14, 26].

 

1.2. Criteria for distinguishing phraseological units from “free” word-groups

 

It is necessary to mention that alongside the term phraseological units there are some other terms denoting more or less the same linguistic phenomenon: set-expressions, set-phrases, phrases, fixed word-groups, collocations. The confusion in the terminology reflects insufficiency of positive or wholly reliable criteria by which phraseological units can be distinguished from “free” word-groups.

It should be pointed out at once that the “freedom” of free word-groups is relative and arbitrary. Nothing is entirely “free” in speech as its linear relationships are governed, restricted and regulated, on the one hand, by requirements of logic and common sense and, on the other, by the rules of grammar and combinability. One can speak of a starry-eyed girl but not of a starry-eyed table (unless in a piece of modernistic poetry where anything is possible). Also, to say the girl was sorry is quite correct, but a sorry girl is wrong because in Modern English sorry is attributively used only with a very limited number of nouns (e. g. sorry grace), and names of persons are not among them.

Free word-groups are so called not because of any absolute freedom in using them but simply because they are each time built up anew in the speech process whereas idioms are used as ready-made units with fixed and constant structures. So, how to distinguish phraseological units from free word-groups?

This is probably the most discussed and the most controversial problem in the field of phraseology. The task of distinguishing between free word-groups and phraseological units is further complicated by the existence of a great number of marginal cases, the so-called semi-fixed or semi-free word-groups, also called non-phraseological word-groups which share with phraseological units their structural stability but lack their semantic unity and figurativeness (e. g. to go to school, to go by bus, to commit suicide).

There are two major criteria for distinguishing between phraseological units and free word-groups: semantic and structural.

Compare the following examples:

A. A woman to her daughter student: It is rather like taking owls to Athens to take so many books with you. There is a great library at your Granddad’s.

(To bring owls to Athens means “to take something to a place where it is already plentiful and not needed” as an owl was the emblem of goodness Affine, patroness of Athens. Cf. with the Ukr. В ліс дрова возити.) [4, 198].

B. This circus company is going to bring owls to Athens.

The first thing that captures the eye is the semantic difference of the two word-groups consisting of the same essential constituents. In the second sentence the free word-group is bring owls is used in the direct sense, the word owls  standing for real wild birds and bring for the plain process of taking something from one place to another. The first context quite obviously has nothing to do either with owls or with transporting them, and the meaning of the whole word-group is something entirely new and far removed from the current meanings of the constituents.

Academician V.V.Vinogradov spoke of the semantic change in phraseological units as “a meaning resulting from a peculiar chemical combination of words” [7]. This seems a very apt comparison because in both cases between which the parallel is drawn an entirely new quality comes into existence.

The semantic shift affecting phraseological units does not consist in a mere change of meanings of each separate constituent part of the unit. The meanings of the constituents merge to produce an entirely new meaning: e. g. to have a bee in one's bonnet means “to have an obsession about something; to be eccentric or even a little mad”. The humorous metaphoric comparison with a person who is distracted by a bee continually buzzing under his cap has become erased and half-forgotten, and the speakers using the expression hardly think of bees or bonnets but accept it in its transferred sense: “obsessed, eccentric”.

That is what is meant when phraseological units are said to be characterized by semantic unity. In the traditional approach, phraseological units have been defined as word-groups conveying a single concept (whereas in free word-groups each meaningful component stands for a separate concept).

 It is this feature that makes phraseological units similar to words: both words and phraseological units possess semantic unity. Yet, words are also characterized by structural unity which phraseological units very obviously lack being combinations of words.

 Most Russian scholars today accept the semantic criterion of distinguishing phraseological units from free word-groups as the major one and base their research work in the field of phraseology on the definition of a phraseological unit offered by Professor A.V. Koonin, the leading authority on problems of English phraseology in our country:

“A phraseological unit is a stable word-group characterized by a completely or partially transferred meaning” [12, 18].

The definition clearly suggests that the degree of semantic change in a phraseological unit may vary (“completely or partially transferred meaning”). In actual fact the semantic change may affect either the whole word-group or only one of its components. The following phraseological units represent the first case: to skate on thin ice (to put oneself in a dangerous position; to take risks); to wear one's heart on one's sleeve (to expose, so that everyone knows, one's most intimate feelings); to have one's heart in one's boots (to be deeply depressed, anxious about something); to have one's heart in one's mouth ( to be greatly alarmed by what is expected to happen); to have one's heart in the right place (to be a good, honest and generous fellow); a crow in borrowed plumes (a person pretentiously and unsuitably dressed; cf. with the R. ворона в павлиньих перьях); a wolf in a sheep's clothing (a dangerous enemy who plausibly poses as a friend).

The second type is represented by phraseological units in which one of the components preserves its current meaning and the other is used in a transferred meaning: to lose (keep) one's temper, to fly into a temper, to fall ill, to fall in love (out of love), to stick to one's word (promise), to arrive at a conclusion, small talk.

Word-groups known as phraseological units or idioms are characterized by a double sense: the current meanings of constituent words build up a certain picture, but the actual meaning of the whole unit has little or nothing to do with that picture, in itself creating an entirely new image.

So, a dark horse is actually not a horse but a person about whom no one knows anything definite, and so one is not sure what can be expected from him. The imagery of a bull in a china shop lies very much on the surface: the idiom describes a clumsy person (cf. with the R. слон в посудной лавке) [2, 226].

The term “idiom”, both in this country and abroad, is mostly applied to phraseological units with completely transferred meanings, that is, to the ones in which the meaning of the whole unit does not correspond to the current meanings of the components. There are many scholars who regard idioms as the essence of phraseology and the major focus of interest in phraseology research.

The structural criterion also brings forth pronounced distinctive features characterizing phraseological units and contrasting them to free word-groups.

Structural invariability is an essential feature of phraseological units, though, as we shall see, some of them possess it to a lesser degree than others. Structural invariability of phraseological units finds expression in a number of restrictions.

First of all, restriction in substitution. As a rule, no word can be substituted for any meaningful component of a phraseological unit without destroying its sense. To bring owls to Manchester makes as little sense as В Харків зі своим самоваром.

The idiom to give somebody the cold shoulder means “to treat somebody coldly, to ignore or cut him”, but a warm shoulder or a cold elbow make no sense at all. The meaning of a bee in smb's bonnet was explained above, but a bee in his hat or cap would sound a silly error in choice of words, one of those absurd slips that people are apt to make when speaking a foreign language.

At the same time, in free word-groups substitution does not present any dangers and does not lead to any serious consequences. In This circus company is going to bring owls to Athens all the components can be changed:

This circus company/troupe is going to bring/take owls/lions to Athens/ any city.

The second type of restriction is the restriction in introducing any additional components into the structure of a phraseological unit.

In a free word-group such changes can be made without affecting the general meaning of the utterance: This famous circus company is going to bring white owls to the city of Athens.

In the phraseological unit to bring owls to Athens no additional components can be introduced. Nor can one speak about the big white elephant (when using the white elephant in its phraseological sense) or about somebody having his heart in his brown boots.

Yet, such restrictions are less regular. In Vanity Fair by W. M. Thackeray the idiom to build a castle in the air is used in this way:

“While dressing for dinner, she built for herself a most magnificent castle in the air of which she was the mistress ...”

In fiction such variations of idioms created for stylistic purposes are not a rare thing. In oral speech phraseological units mostly preserve their traditional structures and resist the introduction of additional components.

The third type of structural restrictions in phraseological units is grammatical invariability. A typical mistake with students of English is to use the plural form of fault in the phraseological unit to find fault with somebody (e. g. The teacher always found faults with the boy). Though the plural form in this context is logically well-founded, it is a mistake in terms of the grammatical invariability of phraseological units. A similar typical mistake often occurs in the unit from head to foot (e. g. From head to foot he was immaculately dressed). Students are apt to use the plural form of foot in this phrase thus erring once more against the rigidity of structure which is so characteristic of phraseological units [2, 233].

 

         1.3. Ways of  forming phraseological units

 

          Phraseological units can be classified according to the ways they are formed, according  to the degree of the motivation of their meaning, according to their structure and according to their part-of-speech meaning.

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

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

1. most productive in Modern English is the formation of phraseological     units by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups: in cosmic technique where are following phrases: launching pad, in its terminological meaning is “a base from which a weapon or spacecraft is sent up into the sky”, in its transferred meaning – “something that serves to launch or initiate”; to link up - “ to form a connection, especially in order to work or operate together”,  in its transferred meaning it means – “to meet.”
2. a large group of phraseological units was formed from free word group by transforming their meaning: granny farm - “a boarding house”, Troyan horse - “computer virus”;
3. phraseological units can be formed by means of alliteration: a sad sack – “an accident”, culture vulture – “a person who is interested in art”, fudge and nudge – “elusiveness”;
4. they can be formed by means of expressiveness, especially it is characteristic for forming interjections: My aunt!;
5. they can be formed by means of distorting a word group: odds and ends was formed from odd ends;
6. they can be formed by using archaisms: in brown study – in gloomy meditation ( both components preserve their archaic meanings);
7. they can be formed by using a sentence in a different sphere of life: 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;
8. they can be formed when we use some unreal image: to have butterflies in the stomach – “to very nervous about”, to have green fingers – “to be very good at gardening”;
9. they can be formed by using expressions of writers or polititions in everyday life: corridors of power(Snow), American dream(Alby).

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

1. changing the grammar form: make hay while the sun shines® to make hay while the sun shines ;
2. analogy: curiosity killed the cat ® care killed the cat;
3. contrast: acute surgery® cold surgery ;
4. shortening of proverbs or sayings: you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear® to make a sow’s ear ;
5. borrowing phraseological units from other languages, either as translation

loans: living space ( German), corpse d’elite ( French).

 

  

SECTION 2

        Research and experimental programme

 

        2.1. The structural analysis of the most frequent models of English phraseological units with the component have 

 

        As a theoretical basis of our work we have chosen the phraseological concept of Professor A.V.Koonin. We consider that phraseological model is a descriptive model taking into account the ability of the model to change in the discourse.

        Study of the structure of the language units is one of the rapidly developing way in the contemporary phraseology because it is impossible to study the semantics of the phraseological units not knowing their structure. Study of the structure of the phraseological units is also important for typological research. The structural – grammatical analysis of the phraseological material makes it possible to define the nature of compatibility of the verb to have with other words and to examine the most widespread phrases with this verb and to reveal the most used types of verbal set phrases in the contemporary English speech.

        There are the most widespread structural-grammatical models with a verbal component have in English:

1. Verb+(determinant)+Noun.
2. Verb+(determinant)+Adjective+Noun.
3. Verb+(determinant)+Noun+Preposition+smb/smth.
4. Verb+(determinant)+Noun+Preposition+smb/smth+ Noun.

        Common feature of the structural composition of all the models is in verbal-objective relations with subsequent extension by an adjectival component or prepositional -substantive phrase.

        The first model of our research is presented by the   structure Verb+(determinant)+Noun.

        This two-summit structural-grammatical organization is typical for a significant amount of verbal set phrases having the component have in the structure. These set phrases with the verb to have  are represented by the following set phrases: to have a sleep, to have a shower, to have a talk, to have a meal, to have a glimpse, to have a peek, to have a case, to have a pick, to have an argument.

         The main constituent appears in the converted meaning, where the seme of possession deviates to the second plan and the seme of completeness or momentary of the action comes to  the fore. Except the phraseological combinations which are in the structural-grammatical model, there is a number of peculiar phraseological units: set phrases with complicated interior form: to have a ball( to possess a ball) means to have a fun in its transferred meaning; to have a bite ( to bite) means to eat in its transferred meaning; to have a a case ( to deal) means to be right in its transferred meaning; to have a crack ( to have a blow) means to try in its transferred meaning; to have a fit ( to suit) means to be indignant in its transferred meaning.

        Phraseological units of the following model have the polysemy:

1. To have the wall ( to possess a wall) means: