Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
English Lexicology Theory and Practice.doc
Скачиваний:
265
Добавлен:
23.11.2019
Размер:
2.68 Mб
Скачать

Semantic classification of phraseological units

This classification was suggested by acad. V.V. Vinogradov for Russian phraseological units. He developed some points first advanced by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally and gave a strong impetus to a purely lexicological treatment of the material. It means that phraseological units were defined as lexical complexes with specific semantic features and classified accordingly. Phraseological units can be classified according to the degree of motivation аnd idiomaticity of their meaning. He pointed out three types of phraseological units:

1) phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups where the meaning of the whole expression is not derived from the meaning of components, it’s highly idiomatic, e.g. show the white feather ‘to act in a cowardly manner’, to talk through one’s hat ‘to talk foolishly’, a fishy story ‘a suspicious story’, on Shank’s mare ‘on foot’;

2) phraseological unities are partially non-motivated word-groups where the meaning of the whole can be guessed from the meaning of its components, it’s less idiomatic, e.g. to show one’s teeth ‘to threaten’, to stand to one’s guns ‘to refuse to change one’s opinion’, to skate on thin ice ‘to take risks’, to be caught napping ‘be taken unawares’. Phraseological unities can vary structurally, substitutions of their components are sometimes possible, e.g. to stick to / hold / stand one’s ground, old boy / chap / fellow; against / for a rainy day ‘until a time in the future when you might need it (esp. money will be needed)’.

3) phraseological combinations (collocations) are relatively stable motivated word groups which contain one element used in its direct meaning, while the other is used metaphorically, e.g. to meet the demand / the requirements / the necessity / the needs, to break a word / a promise / an agreement / a rule, to inflict harm / injury / strike / blow / a loss / damage. These above substitutions are not synonymic as the meaning of the whole changes, while the meanings of the verbs ‘meet’, ‘break’ and ‘inflict’ are kept intact.

The shortcoming of the classification is that it’s difficult to distinguish between the phraseological fusions and phraseological unities basing on the criterion of motivation only, as the latter works differently for people of different background.

Structural classification of phraseological units

Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky states that a phraseological unit may be defined as specific word groups functioning as word-equivalents, and characterized by semantic and grammatical unity. He suggested two semantic classes of phraseological units: idioms (to wash one’s dirty linen in public), which are metaphoric and stylistically marked, and phraseological combinations (to fall in love, to get up), which are trite metaphors who have lost their figurativeness, that’s why they are stylistically neutral. Only the second group of the set expressions is given a detailed analysis.

A.I. Smirnitsky worked out structural classification of phraseological combinations according the number and semantic significance of their constituent parts. He points out one-top (one-summit) units which have one semantically significant element in their structure. They are called phrasal verbs now. He compares one-top units with derived words because derived words have only one root morpheme. He points out two-top (two-summit) units which have two semantically significant elements in their structure. He compares them with compound words because in compound words we usually have two root morphemes. He also distinguishes multi-top (multi-summit) units. The number of tops (summits) is defined by the number of notional words.

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

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

b) units of the type “to be tired”. Some of these units remind the Passive Voice in their structure but they have different prepositions 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, to be up to, to be akin to, to be aware of, etc.;

c) prepositional-nominal phraseological units, e.g. by heart, on the doorstep, on the nose, in the course of, on the stroke of, in time, on the point of, etc.

Among two-top and multi-top units A.I. Smirnitsky points out the following structural types:

a) attributive-nominal two-top units, e.g. a month of Sundays, grey matter, high road, a millstone round one’s neck, first night, blind alley, bed of nails, etc. Units of this type function as noun equivalents;

b) verb-nominal phraseological two-top units, e.g. to read between the lines, to sweep under the carpet, to fall in love, not to know the ropes, to burn one’s boats, to vote with one’s feet, to take to the cleaners’, etc.;

c) phraseological repetitions, e.g. now or never, part and parcel, ups and downs, back and forth, cakes and ale, as busy as a bee. These units are equivalents of adverbs or adjectives;

d) adverbial multi-top units, e.g. every other day, to take a back seat, a peg to hang a thing on, lock, stock and barrel, to be a shadow of one’s own self, at one’s own sweet will, etc.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]