Problems of Phraseology

Attempts have been made to approach the problem of phraseology in dif-ferent 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 phrase-ological units is not clearly defined. The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words is fundamen-tally 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 and lack of motivation combined with complete stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure on the other hand there are innu-merable border-line ca’ses.

• However, the existing terms,1 e.g. set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the main debatable issues of phrase-ology which centre on the divergent views concerning the nature and es-sential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups. The term set-phrase implies that the basic crite-rion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammati-cal structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idio-maticity 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 our country.2 The term word-equivalent 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. These criteria and the ensuing classification are briefly discussed below. 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. This definition proceeds from the assumption that the essential fea-tures of

phraseological units are stability of the lexical components and lack of motivation.1 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.

Thus, for example, the constituent red in the free word-group red flower may, if necessary, be substituted for by any other adjective denot-ing colour (blue, white, etc.), without essentially changing the denota-tional 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. A blue (black, white, etc.) tape would mean ‘a tape of a certain colour’. It follows that the phraseological unit red tape is semantically non-motivated, i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components and that it exists as a ready-made linguistic unit which does not allow of any vari-ability of its lexical components.

It is also argued that non-variability of the phraseological unit is not confined to its lexical components. Grammatical structure of phraseologi-cal units is to a certain extent also stable. Thus, though the structural for-mula of the word-groups 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’. This is also true of other types of phraseological units, e.g. what will Mrs. Grundy say?, where the verbal component is invariably reproduced in the same grammatical form.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14