We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

See Pricing

What's Your Topic?

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

What's Your Deadline?

Choose 3 Hours or More.
Back
2/4 steps

How Many Pages?

Back
3/4 steps

Sign Up and See Pricing

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Back
Get Offer

Semantic features of English proverbs

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

Deadline:2 days left
"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

Content

Introduction

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Semantic features of English proverbs
Just from $13,9/Page
Get custom paper

I. Chapter one. Proverbs in English linguistic communication

1.1 Phraseology as a subsystem of linguistic communication

1.2 Phraseological units and their types

1.3 Proverbs as a phraseological unit

II. Chapter two. Semantic features of Proverbs

2.1 Categorization of Proverbs

2.2 Types of Proverbs on significances motive

2.3Proverbs as the manner showing people ‘s wisdom and spirit and literary plants

Decision

The list of the used literature

Introduction

In folklore among all the assortment and profusion of its poetical significance and signifier it is hard to happen more interesting and researchable genre than Proverbss and expressions.

It was the topic of deep survey of scientists in most different ideological subdivisions. Most of the scientists agreed that the pro verbs are folklore address. Where was non merely the individual ‘s point of position but besides general people ‘s mentality is expressed. Proverbs and expressions play of import function in linguistic communication. They give emotionalism, expressiveness to the address. They have certain pure lingual characteristics that must ever be taken into history in order to separate them from ordinary sentences.

Proverbs are brief statements demoing uncondensed signifier of the accrued life experience of the community and helping as conventional practical symbols for abstract thoughts. They are normally didactic and image bearing. Many of them become really polished and there is no excess word in Proverbs and expressions. Sum uping above mentioned information the undermentioned definition can be given to a adage: It is a short, meaningful has the rhythmic organisation in poetic manner – that people had created for centuries in their societal and historical life.

The actuality of the survey of the Proverbs in Uzbek, English is that the use of Proverbs in address is really of import. The right use of these Proverbss is besides of import, while interpreting any other work of art we should pay close attending to this point, and that is the ground of the survey of the subject we have taken under treatment. So express any thought or secret plan of the work in interlingual rendition as in original demands a individual ‘s high accomplishment and deep cognition. Translator ought to cognize the regulations of interlingual rendition, moreover the history, slang, life, imposts and traditions of the people whose linguistic communication he / she interpreting into.

The freshness of this making paper is that the analysis of the job of the common people Proverbs have been taken under treatment in related and non related linguistic communications. Modem and authoritative authors ‘ plants have been used in roll uping the illustrations. The making paper besides includes the Shakespeareans and other Proverbss used by English poets. The purpose of the making paper is to analyze the Proverbs and to separate the cultural characteristics in every linguistic communication that was taken under treatment. This making paper chiefly discusses the Uzbek Proverbs and their interlingual rendition into foreign linguistic communications.

The purpose of the making paper is:

2.2.1.1.1.1 to give the definition of the phraseological units ;

2.2.1.1.1.2 to sort Proverbss and expressions ;

2.2.1.1.2 to demo the difference of Proverbss and expressions ;

The undermentioned undertaking has been solved in this making paper:

1. To cover with the history of the Proverbs and analyse them. To demo their constituents or equivalents if they exist in compared linguistic communications, and the ways of their interlingual rendition.

2. To indicate out the difference between Proverbss and expressions.

3. To research the structural type of English Proverbs, to differ in the groups of types of Proverbs harmonizing to their equivalents and synonymic row.

The practical value of this paper is that, practical consequence and all the given illustrations can be used in practical lessons, composing composings in conversational and written address. This making paper besides can be utile to other pupils who are ‘ interested in this field as in this making paper there is given the tabular array of the most frequently used Proverbss in English.

The theoretical value of the making paper is to look into the structural types of Proverbs and expressions in English, to give their equivalents in related and related linguistic communications, to analyse and distinguish Proverbss and expressions in investigated linguistic communications.

The construction of this making paper is as follows: debut, chief portion, decision, the list of used literature.

Introduction, chief portion, decision and the list of used literature.

The debut is the brief secret plan of the making paper subject, and besides it gives us information about the construction of the making paper.

The chief portion consists of two chapters

Chapter one has three paragraphs: wording as a subsystem of linguistic communication, a short information about phraseological units, the Proverbs and expressions and their definitions.

Chapter two includes three paragraphs which trade with the jobs of the survey of the history of the beginning of Proverbs and expressions, scientists who worked on Proverbs and expressions, the semantic categories of Proverbs and expressions.

Decision trades with the theoretical and practical consequence of the work.

The list of used literature directs us to the list of literatures that have been used in transporting out the work.

The beginnings of the makingpaper.While look intoing the sheepskin work we have widely used the undermentioned literature: ‘ & # 1060 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1081 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1072 ; ‘ by V.A. Koonin, textbooks on lexicology, on stylistics, scientific literature on & # 8226 ; wording and phraseological units, books on beginning and interlingual rendition of Proverbs and expressions in English, A cosmopolitan adage definition. Scholars around the universe continue to happen their ain alleged “ working definitions, ” of which some of the most recent efforts in the English linguistic communication are those by Shirley Arora, Nigel Barley, Otto Blehr, Margaret Bryant, David Cram, Alan Dundes, Galit Hasan-Rokem, George Milner, Peter Seitel, Jan Fredrik Kindstrand “ The Greek Concept of Proverbs, ” Bartlett Jere Whiting, “ The Nature of the Proverb. ” 1932, V.I. Dal & # 8220 ; lexicon of graphic Russian linguistic communication & # 8221 ; , V.L Dai “ the Proverbs of Russian state ” , Benjamin Franklin ‘Poor Richard ‘s Almanac ‘ , The Advanced Learner ‘s Dictionary by A. Hornby, E. Gatenby, H. Wake-field ; The Universal English Dictionary by H. Wild and & # 1051 ; General Service List of English Words with Semantic Frequencies by M, West, English parlances in: Logan Smith. Wordss and Idioms. London,

Word-Groups and Phraseological Units ‘ and a batch other work of scientists. We have besides had information on cyberspace sites.

Chapter I. PROVERBS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE

1.1 PHRASEOLOGY AS A SUBSYSTEM OF LANGUAGE

By wording I mean the subdivision of linguistics covering with stable word- combinations characterized by certain transference of significance.

Despite differences of sentiment, most writers agree upon some points refering the typical characteristics of phraseological units, such as:

1. Integrity ( or transference ) of significance agencies that none of the idiom constituents is individually associated with any referents of nonsubjective world, and the significance of the whole unit can non be deduced from the significances of its constituents ;

2. Stability ( lexical and grammatical ) means that no lexical permutation is possible in an parlance in comparing with free or variable word-combinations ( with an exclusion of some instances when such permutations are made by the writer deliberately ) . The experiments conducted in the 1990s showed that, the significance of an parlance is non precisely indistinguishable to its actual paraphrasis given in the dictionary entry. That is why we may talk about lexical flexibleness of many units if they are used in a originative mode. Lexical stableness is normally accompanied by grammatical stableness which prohibits any grammatical alterations ;

3. Separability means that the construction of an parlance is non something indivisible, certain alterations are possible within certain boundaries. Here we meet with the alleged lexical and grammatical discrepancies. To exemplify this point I shall give some illustrations: “ every bit hungry as a wolf ( as a huntsman ) ” , “ every bit safe as ahouse ( houses ) ” in English, & # 171 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1082 ; ( & # 1073 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1086 ; , & # 1089 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1086 ; , & # 1090 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1095 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1086 ; ) & # 1074 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1096 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1081 ; & # 187 ; , & # 171 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1086 ; ( & # 1083 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1086 ; ) & # 1082 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1072 ; & # 187 ; , & # 171 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; ( & # 1084 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1080 ; ) & # 1056 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; ( & # 1087 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; ) & # 1091 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; ( & # 1084 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1080 ; ) & # 187 ; in Russian.

4. Expressivity and emotiveness agencies that parlances are besides characterized by stylistic coloring. In other words, they evoke emotions or add expressiveness.

On the whole phraseological units, even if they present a certain form, do non bring forth new phrases. They are alone.

Interlanguage comparing, the purpose of which is the exposure of phraseological conformances, forms the footing of a figure of theoretical and applied tendencies of modern lingual research, including the theory and pattern of phraseography. But the inquiry of finding the factors of lingua franca phraseological conformances as the chief construct and the standard of taking phraseological equivalents and parallels as the facet construct is still at issue.

The analysis of particular literature during the last decennaries shows that the bulk of linguists consider the happenstance of semantic construction, grammatical ( or syntactical ) organisation and componential ( lexeme ) construction the chief standards in specifying the types of lingua franca phraseological conformities/disparities with the undoubted primacy of semantic construction.

Comparing the three attacks discussed above ( semantic, functional, and contextual ) we have ample land to reason that have really much in common as, the chief standards of phraseological units appear to be basically the same, i.e. stableness and idiomaticity or deficiency of motive. It should be noted nevertheless that these standards as elaborated in the three attacks are sufficient chiefly to individual out utmost instances: extremely idiomatic non-variable and free ( or variable ) word- groups.

Therefore ruddy tape, female horse ‘s nest, etc. Harmonizing to the semantic attack belong to wording and are described as mergers as they are wholly non-motivated. Harmonizing to the functional attack they are besides regarded as phraseological units because of their grammatical ( syntactic ) inseparability and because they function, in address as word-equivalents. Harmonizing to the contextual attack ruddy tape, female horse ‘s nest, etc. do up a group of phraseological units referred to as parlances because of the impossibleness of any alteration m the ‘fixed context ‘ and their semantic inseparability.

The position of the majority of word-groups nevertheless can non be decided with certainty with the aid of these standards because as a regulation we have to cover non with & # 1089 ; & # 1086 ; mp1ete idiomaticity and stableness but with a certain grade of these separating characteristics of phraseological units. No nonsubjective standards of the grade of idiomaticity and stableness have as yet been suggested. Therefore, e.g. , to win a triumph harmonizing to the semantic attack is a phraseological combination because it is about wholly motivated and allows of certain variableness to win, to derive, a triumph. Harmonizing to the functional attack it is non a phraseological unit as the grade of semantic and grammatical inseparability is deficient for the word-group to map as a word-equivalent. Small hours harmonizing to the contextual attack it is actual significance. If nevertheless we classify it continuing from the functional attack is a word-groups which are partly motivated is decided otherwise depending on which of the standards of phraseological units is applied.

There is still another attack to the job of wording in which an effort is made to get the better of the defect of the phraseological theories discussed supra. The chief characteristics of this new attack which is now more or less universally accepted by Soviet linguists are as follows:1

1. Wording is regarded as a self-contained subdivision of linguistics and, non as a portion of lexicology.

2. Wording trades with a phraseological subsystem of linguistic communication and non with stray phraseological units.

3. Phraseology is concerned with all types of set looks.

4. Fit looks are divided into three categories: phraseological units ( e.g. ruddy tape, female horse ‘s nest, etc. ) , phraseomatic units ( e.g. win a triumph, launch a run, etc. ) and marginal instances belonging to the assorted category. The chief differentiation between the first and the 2nd categories is semantic: phraseological units have to the full or partly transferred significances while constituents of, phraseomatic units are used in their actual significances.

5. Phraseological and phraseomatic units are non regarded as word- equivalents but some of them are treated as word correlatives.

6. Phraseological and phraseomatic units are set looks and their phraseological stableness distinguishes them from free phrases and compound words.

7. Phraseological and phraseomatic units are made up of words of different grade of wordness depending on the type of set looks they are used in. ( californium. e.g. little hours and ruddy tape ) . Their structural discreteness, an of import factor of their stableness, distinguishes them from compound words ( californium. E.g. blackbird and black market ) .

Other facets of their stableness are: stableness of usage, lexical stableness and semantic stableness.

8. Stability of usage agencies that set looks are reproduced ready-made and non created in address. They are non elements of single manner of address but linguistic communication units.

9. Lexical stableness means that the constituents of fit looks are either unreplaceable ( e.g. ruddy tape, female horse ‘s nest ) or party replaceable within the bounds of phraseological or phraseomatic discrepancy: lexical ( e.g. a skeleton in the closet & # 8211 ; a skeleton in the cupboard ) .grammatical ( e.g. to be in deep H2O & # 8211 ; to be in deep Waterss ) , positional ( e.g. caput over ears & # 8211 ; over caput and ears ) , quantitative ( e.g. to take smb a dance- to take smb a pretty dance ) , assorted discrepancies ( e.g. rise ( stir up ) a hornets ‘ nest about one ‘s ears- arouse ( stir up ) the nest of hornets ) .

10. Semantic stableness is based on the lexical stableness of set looks. Even when occasional alterations are introduced the significance of set look is preserved. It may merely be specified, made more precise, weakened or strengthened. In other words in malice of all occasional phraseological and phraseomatic units, as distinguished from free phrases, remain semantically invariant or are destroyed. For illustration, the permutation of the verbal constituent in the free phrase to raise a inquiry by the verb to settle ( to settle a inquiry ) changes the significance of the phrase, no such alteration occurs in to raise ( stir up ) a hornets ‘ nest about one ‘s ears.

11. An built-in portion of this attack is a method of phraseological designation which helps to individual out fit looks in Modern English.

The historical facet of wording has barely been investigated. Just a few points of involvement may be briefly reviewed in connexion with the beginning of wording has barely been investigated. Just a few points of involvement may bebriefly reviewed in connexion with the beginning of phraseological units and the ways they appear in linguistic communication. It is assumed that about all phrases can be traced back to liberate word-groups which in the class of the historical development of the English linguistic communication have acquired semantic and grammatical procedure of grammaticalization or lexicalisation.

Cases of grammaticalization may be illustrated by the transmutation of free word-groups composed of the verb have, a noun ( pronoun ) and Participle II of some other verb ( e.g. H & # 1079 ; h & # 1111 ; fde hine ) into the grammatical form- the Present Perfect in Modern English. The grade of semantic and grammatical inseparability in this analytical word-form is so high that the constituent has seems to possess no lexical significance of its ain.

The term lexicalisation implies that the word-group under treatment develops into a word-equivalent, i.e. a phraseological unit or a compound word. These two parallel lines of lexicalisation of free word-groups can be illustrated by the historical analysis of, e.g. , the compound word alternatively and the phraseological unit in malice ( of ) . Both of them can be traced back to structurally1indistinguishable free phrases. [ 1 ]( californium. OE. In spede and ME. In despit. )

There are some evidences to say that there exists a sort of mutuality between these two ways of lexicalisation of free word-groups which makes them reciprocally sole. It is observed, for illustration, that compounds are more abundant in certain parts of address, whereas phraseological units are numerically prevailing in others. Therefore, e.g. , phraseological units are found in great Numberss as verb-equivalents whereas compound verbs are relatively few. This leads us to presume that lexicalisation of free word-groups and their transmutation into words or phraseological units is governed by the fewer phraseological units we are likely to meet in this category of words.

Very small is known of the factors active in the procedure of lexicalisation of free word-groups which consequences in the visual aspect of phraseological units. This job may be viewed in footings of the grade of motive. We may safely presume that a free word-group is transformed into a phraseological unit when it acquires semantic inseparability and becomes synchronically non-motivated.

The followers may be perceived as the chief causes accounting for the less ‘ of motive of free word-groups:

a ) When one of the constituents of a word-group becomes archaic or drops out of the linguistic communication wholly the whole word-group may go wholly or partly non-motivated. For illustration, deficiency of motive in the word-group kith and family may be accounted for by the fact that the member-word kith dropped out of the linguistic communication wholly except as the constituent of the phraseological unit under treatment. This is besides observed in the phraseological unit under treatment.

B ) When as a consequence of a alteration in the semantic construction of a polysemous word some of its significances disappear and can be found merely in certain collocations. The noun head, e.g. , one time meant ‘purpose ‘ or ‘intention ‘ and this significance survives in the phrases to hold a head to make smth. , to alter one ‘s head, etc.

degree Celsiuss ) When a free word-group used in professional address penetrates into general literary use, it is frequently felt as non-motivated. To draw ( the ) strings ( wires ) , e.g. , was originally used as a free word-group in its direct significance by professional histrions in marionette shows. In Modern English, nevertheless, it has lost all connexion with puppet-shows and hence can non besides be observed in the ‘ phraseological unit to lodge to one ‘s guns, which can be traced back to military English, etc.

Sometimes extra-linguistic factors may account for the loss of motive, toshow the white plume – ‘to act as a coward ‘ , e.g. , can be traced back to the yearss when cock-fighting was popular. A white plume in a fighting cock ‘s feather denoted bad genteelness and was regarded as a mark of cowardliness. Now that cock-fighting is no longer a popular athletics, the phrase is felt as non-motivated. [ 2 ]

vitamin D ) When a word-group doing up portion of a adage or stating Begins to be used a self-contained unit it may bit by bit go non-motivated if its connexion with the corresponding adage or stating is non clearly perceived. A new broom, e.g. , originates as a constituent of the stating new brooms sweep clean. New broom as a phraseological unit may be viewed as non-motivatedbecause the significance of the whole is non deducible from the significance of the constituents. Furthermore, it seems grammatically and functionally self-contained and inseparable excessively. In the stating quoted above the noun broom is ever used im the plural ; as a member-word of the phraseological unit it largely used in the singular. The phraseological unit a new broom is characterized by functional inseparability. In the stating new brooms sweep clean the adjectival new maps as an property to the noun brooms, in the phraseological unit a new broom ( e.g. Well he is a new broom! ) the whole word-group is functionally inseparable.

vitamin E ) When portion of a citation from literary beginnings, mythology or theBible Begin to be used as a self-contained unit, it may besides lose all connexion with the original context and as a consequence of this become non-motivated. The phraseological unit the jealous monster ( jealousy ) can be easy found as a portion of the citation from Shakespeare “ It is the jealous monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on ” ( Othello, II, I. 165 ) . In Modern English, nevertheless, it functions as a non-motivated self-contained phraseological unit and is besides used to denote the T.V. set. Achilles heel – ‘the weak topographic point in a adult male ‘s fortunes or character ‘ can be traced back to mythology, but it seems that in Modern English this word-group maps as a phraseological unit mostly because most English talkers do non link it with the myth from which it was extracted.

1. The concluding standard in the semantic attack is idiomaticity whereas in the functional attack syntactic inseparability is viewed as the concluding trial, and in the contextual attack it is stableness of context combined with idiomaticity of word-groups.

2. The construct of idiomaticity is non purely defined. The opinion as to idiomaticity is passed sometimes within the model of the English linguistic communication and sometimes from the outside – from the point of position of the female parent lingua of the research worker.

It is suggested here that the term idiomaticity should be interpreted as an intralingual impression and besides that the grade of idiomaticity should be taken into consideration since between the extreme of complete motive and deficiency of motive there are legion intermediate group.

3. Each of the three attacks has its virtues and demerits. The traditional semantic attack points out the indispensable characteristics of all sorts of idiomatic phrases as opposed to wholly motivated free word-groups. The functional attack puts frontward an nonsubjective standard for singling out a little group of word-equivalents possessing all the basic characteristics of words as lexical points. The contextual attack makes the standard of stableness more exact.

4. All the three attacks are sufficient to individual out the utmost instances: extremely idiomatic phraseological units and free word-groups. The position of the majority of word-groups possessing different grades of idiomaticity can non be decided with certainty by using the standard available in lingual scientific discipline.

5. The distinguishing characteristic of the new attack is that wording is regarded as a self-contained subdivision of linguistics and non as a portion of lexicology. Harmonizing to this attack wording trades with all types of set looks which are divided into three categories: phraseological units, phraseomatic units and border-line instances.

1.2 PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS AND THEIR TYPES

It has been repeatedly pointed out that word-groups viewed as functionally and semantically inseparable units are traditionally regarded as the capable affair of wording. It should be noted, nevertheless, that no proper scientific probe of English wording has been attempted until rather late. English and American linguists as a regulation confine themselves to roll uping assorted words, word- groups and sentences showing some involvement either from the point of position of beginning, manner, use, or some other characteristic peculiar to them. These units are habitually described as parlances but no effort has been made to look into these parlances as a separate category of lingual units or a specific category of word-groups.

The vocabulary of a linguistic communication is enriched non merely by words but besides by phraseological units. Phraseological units are word-groups that can non be ‘ made in the procedure of address, they exist in the linguistic communication as ready-made units. They are compiled in particular lexicons. The same as words phraseological units express a individual impression and are used in a sentence as one portion of it. American and British lexicologists call such units & # 171 ; parlances & # 187 ; . We can advert such lexicons as: L.Smith & # 171 ; Wordss and Idioms & # 187 ; [ 3 ], V.Collins & # 171 ; & # 1040 ; Book of English Idioms & # 187 ; [ 4 ]etc. In these lexicons we can happen words, peculiar in their semantics ( idiomatic ) , side by side with word-groups and sentences. In these lexicons they are arranged, as a regulation, into different semantic groups. Phraseological units can be classified harmonizing to the ways they are formed, harmonizing to the grade of the motive of their significance, harmonizing to their construction and harmonizing to their part-of-speech significance.

A.V. Koonin classified phraseological units harmonizing to the manner they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of organizing phraseological units.

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

a ) The most productive in Modem English is the formation of phraseological units by agencies of reassigning the significance of terminological word-groups, e.g. in cosmic technique we ran point out the undermentioned phrases: & # 171 ; establishing tablet & # 187 ; in its terminological significance is & # 171 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1097 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1072 ; & # 187 ; , in its transferred significance – & # 171 ; & # 1074 ; i & # 1076 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1081 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1090 ; & # 187 ; , & # 171 ; to associate up & # 187 ; – & # 171 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1103 ; , & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1084 ; i & # 1095 ; & # 1085 ; i & # 1095 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 187 ; in its tranformed significance it means – & # 171 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1081 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1103 ; & # 187 ; ;

B ) a big group of phraseological units was formed from free word groups by transforming their significance, e.g. & # 171 ; granny farm & # 187 ; – & # 171 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1093 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1081 ; & # 187 ; , & # 171 ; Troyan Equus caballus & # 187 ; – & # 171 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1072 ; , & # 1103 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 187 ; ;

degree Celsius ) phraseological units can be formed by agencies of initial rhyme, e.g. & # 171 ; a sad poke & # 187 ; – & # 171 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1097 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1081 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1082 ; & # 187 ; , & # 171 ; civilization vulture & # 187 ; – & # 171 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; , & # 1103 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1094 ; i & # 1082 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1094 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; & # 187 ; , & # 171 ; fudge and jog & # 187 ; – & # 171 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1093 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1085 ; i & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; & # 187 ; .

vitamin D ) they can be formed by agencies of expressiveness, particularly it is characteristic for organizing ejaculations, e.g. & # 171 ; My aunt! & # 187 ; , & # 171 ; Hear, hear! & # 187 ; etc

vitamin E ) they can be formed by agencies of falsifying a word group, e.g. & # 171 ; odds and ends & # 187 ; was formed from & # 171 ; uneven ends & # 187 ; ,

degree Fahrenheit ) they can be formed by utilizing archaicisms, e.g. & # 171 ; in brown survey & # 187 ; means & # 171 ; in glooming speculation & # 187 ; where both constituents preserve their antediluvian significances,

g ) they can be formed by utilizing a sentence in a different domain of life, e.g. & # 171 ; that prick wo n’t contend & # 187 ; can be used as a free word-group when it is used in athleticss ( cock contending ) , it becomes a phraseological unit when it is used in mundane life, because it is used metaphorically,

H ) they can be formed when we use some unreal image, e.g. & # 171 ; to hold butterflies in the tummy & # 187 ; – & # 171 ; & # 1074 ; i & # 1095 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1093 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1103 ; & # 187 ; , & # 171 ; to hold greenfingers & # 187 ; – & # 171 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; ycnixi & # 1074 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1076 ; – & # 1083 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1100 ; & # 187 ; etc.

I ) they can be formed by utilizing looks of authors or polititions in mundane life, e.g. & # 171 ; corridors of power & # 187 ; ( Snow ) , & # 171 ; American dream & # 187 ; ( Alby ) & # 171 ; locust old ages & # 187 ; ( Churchil ) , & # 171 ; the air currents of alteration & # 187 ; ( Mc Millan ) .

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

a ) transition, e.g. & # 171 ; to vote with one ‘s pess & # 187 ; was converted into & # 171 ; ballot with one’sfeet & # 187 ; ;

B ) altering the grammar signifier, e.g. & # 171 ; Make hay while the Sun shines & # 187 ; is transferred into a verbal phrase – & # 171 ; to do hay while the Sun shines & # 187 ; ;

degree Celsius ) analogy, e.g. & # 171 ; Curiosity killed the cat & # 187 ; was transferred into & # 171 ; Care killed the cat & # 187 ; ;

vitamin D ) contrast, e.g. & # 171 ; cold surgery & # 187 ; – & # 171 ; a planned before operation & # 187 ; was formed by contrasting it with & # 171 ; ague surgery & # 187 ; , & # 171 ; .thin cat & # 187 ; – & # 171 ; a hapless individual & # 187 ; was formed by contrasting it with & # 171 ; fat cat & # 187 ; ;

vitamin E ) shortening of Proverbs or expressions e.g. from the adage & # 171 ; You ca n’t do a silk bag out of a sow ‘s ear & # 187 ; by agencies of niping the center of it the phraseological unit & # 171 ; to do a sow ‘s ear & # 187 ; was formed with the significance & # 171 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1100 ; & # 187 ; .

degree Fahrenheit ) borrowing phraseological units from other linguistic communications, either as interlingual rendition loans, e.g. & # 171 ; populating infinite & # 187 ; ( German ) , & # 171 ; to take the bull by the horns & # 187 ; ( Latin ) or by agencies of phonic adoptions & # 171 ; meche blanche & # 187 ; ( Gallic ) , & # 171 ; cadaver d’elite & # 187 ; ( Gallic ) , & # 171 ; sotto voce & # 187 ; ( Italian ) etc.

Phonetic adoptions among phraseological units refer to the studious manner and are non used really frequently.

There are different combinations of words. Some of them are free, e.g. to read books ( intelligence documents, a missive, etc. ) others are fixed, limited in their combinatory power, e.g. to travel to bed, , to do a study. The combinations of words which are fixed ( set-expressions ) are called phraseological units.

A free combination is a syntactical unit, which consists fanciful and form words, and in which fanciful words have the map of, independent parts of the sentence. In a phraseological unit words are non independent. They form set-expressions, in which neither words nor the order of words can be changed. Free combinations are created by the talker. Phraseological units are used by the talker in a ready signifier, without any alterations. The whole phraseological unit has a significance which may be rather different from the significance of its constituents, and hence the whole unit, and non separate words, has the map of a portion of the sentence.

Phraseological units consist of separate words and therefore they are different words, even from compounds. Word have several structural signifiers, but in phraseological units merely one of the constituents has all the signifiers of the paradigm of the portion of address it belongs to e.g. to travel to bed, goes to bed, went to bed, gone to bed, traveling to bed, etc. , the remainder of the constituents do non alter their signifier.

By the categorization of Academician V.Vinogradov phraseological units are devided into three groups: phraseological combinations, phraseological integrities and phraseological mergers.

Phraseological combinations are frequently called traditional because words are combined in their original significance but their combinations are different in different linguistic communications, e.g. hard currency and carry – ( self-service store ) , in a bigway ( in great grade ) etc. It is normally impossible to account logically for the combination of peculiar words. It can be explained merely on the footing of tradition, e.g. to present a lection ( but non to read a talk ) .

In phraseological combinations words retain their full semantic independency although they are limited in their combinatory power, e.g. to pay wax ( but non to take war ) , to render aid, to render services ( but non to render pleasance ) .

Phraseological combinations are the least idiomatic of all the sorts of phraseological units. In other words, in phraseological combinations the significance of the whole can be inferred from the significance of the constituents, e.g. to pull a decision, lo lend aid, to do money, to pay attending to.

In phraseological combinations one of the constituents ( by and large the constituent which is used fugiratively ) can be combined with different words, e.g. to speak athleticss, political relations, concern ( but to talk about life ) , leadingworker, taking article ( but the chief job ) , lifelessly enemy, lifelessly changeable ( but a mortal lesion ) , acute involvement, acute wonder, acute sence of temper ( but the great surprise ) .

Wordss of broad significance, as to do, to take, to make, to give, etc. Form many phraseological units, e.g. to take an scrutiny, to take a trip, to take a opportunity, to take involvement, to do merriment of, to do enquiries, to do a statement, to do friends, to do hastiness.

Sometimes traditional combinations are equivalent word of words, e.g. to do enquiries = to ask, to do haste=to haste.

Some traditional combinations are equivalents of prapositions, e.g. fry agencies of, in connexion with.

Some phraseological combinations have about become compounds, e.g. brown staff of life.

Traditional combinations frequently have synonymous looks, e.g. to do a report=to deliver a study.

Phraseological combinations are non equivalents of words. Though the constituents of phraseological combinations are limited in their combinatory power, that is, they can be combined merely with certain words and can non be combined with any other words, they preserve non merely their significance, but all their structural signifiers, e.g. nice differentiation is a phraseological combinations and it is possible to state nice differentiations, nicer differentiation, etc. , or to clinch one ‘s fist. ( clenched his fists, was clinching his fists, etc. ) .

In Prof. A. Smirnitskv ‘s [ 5 ]sentiment traditional combinations are non phraseological units, as he considers merely those word combinations to be phraseological units which are equivalents of words.

In phraseological integrities the significance of the whole can be guessed from the significances of its constituents, but it is transferred ( metaphorical or metonymical ) , e.g. to play the first violin ( to be a leader in something ) , old salt ( experient crewman ) etc. The significance of the whole word combination is non the amount of the significances of its constituents, but it is based on them and the significance of the whole can be inferred from the image that underlies the 1whole look, e.g. to acquire on one ‘s nervousnesss, to cut smb short, to demo one ‘s dentition, to be at stickers drawn.

Phraseological integrities are frequently synonyms of words, e.g. to do a clean chest of=to confess ; to acquire on one ‘s nerves=to irritate.

Phraseological integrities are equivalents of words as 1 ) merely one of constituents of a phraseological integrity has structural signifiers ‘ e.g. to play ( played, is playing, etc. ) the first violin ( but non played the first violins ) ; to turn ( turned, will turn, etc. ) a new foliage ( but non to turn newer foliage or new foliages ) ; 2 ) the whole integrity and non its constituents are parts of the sentence in syntactical analysis, e.g. in the sentence He took the bull by the horns ( attacked a job boldly ) there are merely two parts: he – the topic, and took the bull by the horns – the predicate.

In phraseological mergers the grade of motive is really low, we can non think the significance of the whole from the significances of its constituents, they are extremely idiomatic and can non be translated word for word into other linguistic communications, e.g.. to draw one ‘s leg ( to lead on ) ; at 6s and fantans ( in comfusion ) ; a female horse ‘s nest ( a find which turns out to be false or worthless ) ; to demo the white plume ( to demo cowardliness ) ; to sit the high Equus caballus ( to set on poses ) .

Phraseological mergers are the most idiomatic of all the sorts of phraseological units.

Phraseological mergers are equivalents of words: mergers every bit good as integrities form a syntactical whole in analysis.

Prof. A.I.Smirnitsky worked out structural categorization of phraseological units, comparing them with words. He points out one-top units which he compares with derived words because derived words have merely one root morpheme. He points out two-top units which he compares with compound words because in compound words we normally have two root morphemes [ 6 ].

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

a ) units of the type & # 171 ; to give up & # 187 ; ( verb + postposition type ) , e.g. to art up, to backup, to drop out, to intrude out, to purchase into, to sandwich in etc. ;

B ) units of the type & # 171 ; to be tired & # 187 ; . Some of these units remind the Passive Voice in their construction but they have different prepositions with them, while in the Passive Voice we can hold lone prepositions & # 171 ; by & # 187 ; or & # 171 ; with & # 187 ; , e.g. to be tired of, to be interested in, to be surprised at etc. There are besides units in this type which remind free word-groups of the type & # 171 ; to be immature & # 187 ; , e.g. to be kindred to, to be cognizant of etc. The difference between them is that the adjectival & # 171 ; immature & # 187 ; can be used as an property and as a predicative in a sentence, while the nominal constituent in such units can move merely as a predicative. In these units the verb is the grammar Centre and the 2nd constituent is the semantic Centre ;

degree Celsius ) prepositional – nominal phraseological units. These units are equivalents of unchangeable words: prepositions, concurrences, adverbs, that is why they have no grammar Centre, their semantic Centre is the nominal portion, e.g. on the doorsill ( rather near ) , on the olfactory organ ( precisely ) , in the class of on the shot of, in clip, on the point of etc. In the class of clip such units can go words, e.g. tomorrow, alternatively etc.

Among two-top units A.I. Smirnitsky points out the undermentioned structuraltypes:

a ) attributive-nominal such as: a month of Sundays, gray affair, a albatross unit of ammunition one ‘s cervix and many others. Unit of measurements of this type are noun equivalents and can be partially or absolutely idiomatic. In partially idiomatic units ( phrasisms ) sometimes the first constituent is idiomatic, e.g. high route, in other instances the 2nd constituent is idiomatic, e.g. first dark. In many instances both constituents are idiomatic, e.g. ruddy tape, blind back street, bed of nail, shooting in the arm and many others.

B ) verb-nominal phraseological units, e.g. to read between the lines, to talk BBC, to brush under the rug etc. The grammar Centre of such units is the verb, the semantic Centre in many instances is the nominal constituent, e.g. to fall in love. In some units the verb is both the grammar and the semantic Centre, e.g. non to cognize the ropes. These units can be absolutely idiomatic every bit good, e.g. to fire one ‘s boats, to vote with one ‘s pess, to take to the cleaners ‘ etc.

Very near to such units are word-groups of the type to hold a glimpse, to hold a fume. These units are non idiomatic and are treated in grammar as a particular syntactical combination, a sort of facet.

degree Celsius ) phraseological repeats, such as: now or ne’er, portion and package, state and western etc. Such units can be built on opposite word, e.g. ups and downs, back and Forth ; frequently they are formed by agencies of initial rhyme, e.g. every bit busy as a bee. Components in repeats are joined by agencies of concurrences. These units are equivalents of adverbs or adjectives and have no grammar Centre. They can besides be partially or absolutely idiomatic, e.g. cool as a Cucumis sativus ( partially ) , bread and butter ( absolutely ) .

Phraseological units the same as compound words can hold more than two tops ( stems in compound words ) , e.g. to take a back place, a nog to hang a thing on, lock, stock and barrel, to be a shaddow of one ‘s ain ego, at one ‘s ain Sweet will [ 7 ].

Phraseological units can be clasified as parts of address ( syntactical categorization ) .. This categorization was suggested by I.V. Arnold. Here we have the undermentioned groups:

a ) noun phraseologisms denoting an object, a individual, a life being, e.g. slug train, latchkey kid, red-brick university, Green Berets.

B ) verb phraseologisms denoting an action, a province, a feeling, e.g. to interrupt the log-jam, to acquire on person ‘s coat dress suits, to be on the beam, to intrude out, to do headlines.

degree Celsius ) adjectival phraseologisms denoting a quality, e.g. loose as a ‘goose, dull as lead.

vitamin D ) adverb phraseological units, such as: with a bump, in the soup, like a dream, like a Canis familiaris with two dress suits.

vitamin E ) preposition phraseological units, e.g. in the class of, on the shot of

degree Fahrenheit ) ejaculation phraseological units, e.g. & # 171 ; Catch me! & # 187 ; , & # 171 ; Well, I ne’er! & # 187 ; etc.

There is one more type of combinations, besides stiff and introduced into discource ready-made but different from all the types given above in so far as it is impossible to happen its equivalent among the parts of address. These are expressions used as complete vocalizations and syntactically shaped like sentences, such as the well-known American axiom Keep smile! or British Keep Britain tidy [ 8 ].

A.I. Smirnitsky was the first among Russian bookmans who paid attending to ‘ sentences that can be treated as complete expressions, such as How do you make? Or I beg you pardon ; it takes all sorts to do the universe ; can the leopard alteration his musca volitanss? They differ from all the combinations so far discussed because they are non tantamount to words in distribution and are semantically analysable [ 9 ]. The expressions discussed by N. N. Amosova are on the contrary semantically specific, e.g. salvage your breath ‘shut up’or Tell it to the Mariness ( one of the suggested, origins is Tell that to the Equus caballus Mariness ; such a corps being non-existent, as Mariness are sea-going force, the last look means ‘tell it to person who does non be because rel people will non believe it ‘ ) really frequently such expressions, officially indistinguishable to ‘ sentences, are in world used merely as interpolations into other sentences: the cap fits ‘the statement is true ‘ ( e.g. “ He called me a prevaricator. ” – “ Well, you should cognize if the cup fits. ” ) Cf. besides: Butter would non run in his oral cavity ; His bark is worse than his bite.

And one more point: free word combinations can ne’er be polysemous, while there are polysemous phraseological units, e.g.

To be on the go1. to be busy and active

2. to be go forthing

3. to be potty

4. to be near one ‘s terminal

hold done with1. Make an terminal of

1. give up

2. reach the terminal of

Two types of synonymity are typical of phraseological units:

1. Synonymy of phraseological units that do non incorporate any synonymous words and are based on different images, e.g.

To go forth no rock unturned = to travel heaven and Earth

To hale down colorss = to land weaponries

In free word combinations synonym } ‘ is based on the synonymity of peculiar words ( an old adult male = aged adult male ) .

2. Phraseological units have word equivalent word: To do up one ‘s head = to make up one’s mind

To hale down colorss = to give up

American and English lexicons of unconventional English, slang and parlances and other extremely valuable mention books contain a wealth of Proverbs, stating, assorted lexical units of all sorts, but as a regulation do non seek to put down a dependable standard to separate between variable word-groups and phraseological units. Paradoxical as it may look the first lexicon in which theoretical rules for the choice of English phraseological units were elaborated was published in our state. [ 10 ]

Attempts have been made to near the job of wording in different ways. Up till now, nevertheless, there is a certain divergency of sentiment as to the indispensable characteristic of phraseological units as distinguished from other word- groups and the nature of phrases that can be decently termed phraseological units.

The complexness of the job may be mostly accounted for by the fact that the border-line between free or variable word-groups and phraseological units is non clearly defined. The alleged free word-groups are merely comparatively free as collocability of their member-words is basically delimited by their lexical and grammatical valency which makes at least some of them really near to set-phrases. Phraseological units are relatively stable and semantically inseparable. Between the extremes of complete motive and variableness of member-words on the one manus and deficiency of motive combined with complete stableness of the lexical constituents and grammatical construction on the other manus there are countless border-line instances.

However, the bing footings, [ 11 ]e.g. set-phrases, parlances, word-equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the chief problematic issues of wording which Centre on the divergent positions refering the nature and indispensable characteristics of phraseological units as distinguished from the alleged free word-groups. The term set-phrase implies that the basic standard of differentaition is stability 6f the lexical constituents and grammatical construction of word-groups. The term parlances by and large implies that the indispensable characteristic of the lingual units under consideration is idiomaticity or deficiency of motive. The term habitually used by English and American linguists is really frequently treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit universally accepted in our state. [ 12 ]The term word-equivalent emphasiss non merely the semantic but besides the functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their propensity to map in address as individual words.

Therefore differences in nomenclature reflect certain differences in the chief standards used to separate between free wore-groups and a specific type oflinguistic units by and large known as wording. These standards and the resulting categorization are briefly discussed below.

Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that can non be freely made up in address but are reproduced as ready-made units. This definition returns from the premise that the indispensable characteristics of phraseological units are stableness of the lexical constituents and deficiency of motive. [ 13 ]It is accordingly assumed that unlike constituents of free words-groups which may change harmonizing to the demands of communicating, member-words of phraseological units are ever reproduced as individual unchangeable collocations.

Therefore, for illustration, the component red in the free word-group ruddy flower may, if necessary, be substituted for by any other adjectival denoting coloring material ( bluish, white, etc. ) , without basically altering the denota-tional significance of the word- group under treatment ( a flower of a certain coloring material ) . In the phraseological unit ruddy tape ( bureaucratic methods ) no such permutation is possible, as a alteration of the adjective would affect a complete alteration in the significance of the whole group. A ( bluish ( black, white, etc. ) tape would intend ‘a tape of a certain coloring material ‘ . It follows that the phraseological unit ruddy tape is semantically non-motivated, i.e. its significance can non be deduced from the significance of its constituents and that it exists as a ready-made lingual unit which does non let of any variableness of its lexical constituents.

It is besides argued that non-variability of the phraseological unit is non confined to its lexical constituents. Grammatical construction of phraseological units is to a certain extent besides stable. Therefore, though the structural expression of the word- groups ruddy flower and ruddy tape is indistinguishable ( A + +N ) , the noun flower may be used in the plural ( ruddy flowers ) , whereas no such alteration is possible in the phraseological unit ruddy tape ; ruddy tapes would so denote ‘tapes of ruddy coloring material ‘ but non ‘bureaucratic methods ‘ . This is besides true of other types of phraseological units, e.g. what will Mrs. Grundy state? , where the verbal constituent is constantly reproduced in the same grammatical signifier.

Taking into history chiefly the grade of idiomaticity phraseological units may be classified into three large groups: phraseological mergers, phraseological integrities and phraseological collocations. [ 14 ]

Phraseological mergers are wholly non-motivated word-groups, such as ruddy tape – ‘bureaucratic methods ‘ ; heavy male parent & # 8211 ; & # 8216 ; serious or grave portion in a theatrical drama & # 8217 ; ; kick the pail – ‘die ‘ ; and the similar. The significance of the constituents has no connexions whatsoever, at least synchronically, with the significance of the whole group. Idiomaticity is, as a regulation, combined with complete stableness of the lexical constituents and the grammatical construction of the merger.

Phraseological unites are partly non-motivated as their significance can normally be perceived through the metaphoric significance of the whole phraseological unit. For illustration, to demo one ‘s dentition, to rinse one ‘s soiled linen in public if interpreted as semantically motivated through the combined lexical significance of the constituent words would of course take one to understand these in their actual significance. The metaphoric significance of the whole unit, nevertheless, readily suggests ‘take a endangering tone ‘ or ‘show an purpose to wound ‘ for show one ‘s dentition and ‘discuss or do public one ‘s wrangles ‘ for wash one ‘s soiled linen in public. Phraseological integrities are as a regulation marked by a relatively high grade of stableness of the lexical constituents.

Phraseological collocations are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain grade of stableness in such word-groups. In phraseological collocations variableness of member-words is purely limited. For case, bear a score may be changed into bear maliciousness, but non into bear a illusion or liking. We can state take a liking ( fancy ) but non take hatred ( disgust ) . These accustomed collocations tend to go sort of platitudes [ 15 ], where the significance of member-words H to some extent dominated by the meaningof the whole group. Due to this phraseological collocations are felt as possessing a certain grade of semantic inseparability.

The current definition of phraseological units as extremely idiomatic word- groups which can non be ‘ freely made up in address, but are reproduced as ready- made units has been capable to severe unfavorable judgment by linguists of different schools of idea. The chief expostulations and problematic points may be briefly outlined as follows:

1. The definition is felt to be unequal as the construct ready-made units seems to be instead obscure. In fact this term can be applied to a assortment of heterogenous lingual phenomena runing from word-groups to sentences ( e.g. Proverbs, expressions ) and besides citations from verse forms, novels or scientific treatises all of which can be described as ready-made units.

2. Frequent treatments have besides led to oppugning this attack to phraseology ‘ from a strictly semantic point of position as the standard of idiomaticity is found to be an unequal usher in singling out phraseological units from other word-groups. Borderline instances between idiomatic and non-idiomatic word-groups are so legion and confounding that the concluding determination seems to depend mostly on one ‘s “ feeling of the linguistic communication ” . This can he turn out by the fact that the same word- groups are treated by some linguists as idiomatic phrases and by others as free word-groups. For illustration, such word-groups as take the chair & # 8212 ; ‘preside at a meeting ‘ , take one ‘s opportunity & # 8212 ; ‘trust to luck or fortune ‘ , take problem ( to make smth ) & # 8212 ; ‘to do attempts ‘ and others are marked in some of the English lexicons ‘ as parlances or phrases, whereas in others they are found as free word-groups exemplifying one of the significances of the verb to take or the nouns combined with this verb [ 16 ].

The impracticableness of the standard of idiomaticity is besides observed in the traditional categorization of phraseological collocations. The utmost instances, i.e. phraseological mergers and collocations are easy differentiated butthe borderlineunits, as for illustration phraseological mergers and phraseological integrities or phraseological collocations and free word-groups, are really frequently dubious and instead mistily outlined. We may reason, e.g. , that such word-groups as high lese majesty or demo the white plume are, mergers because one finds it impossible toinfer the significance of the whole from the significance of the single constituents. Others may experience these word-groups as metaphorically motivated and mention them to phraseological integrities.

The term idiomaticity is besides regarded by some linguists as necessitating elucidation. As a affair of fact this term is habitually used to denote deficiency of motive from the point of position of one ‘s female parent lingua. A word-group which defies word by word interlingual rendition is accordingly described as idiomatic. It follows that if idiomaticity is viewed as the chief distinguishing characteristic of phraseological units, the same word-groups in the English linguistic communication may be classified as idiomatic phraseological units by Russian talkers and as non-idiomatic word-groups by those whose female parent lingua contains correspondent collocations. Therefore, e.g. , from the point of position of Russian talkers such word-groups as return tea, take attention, etc. , are frequently referred to phraseology as the Russian interlingual rendition equivalents of these word-groups ( & # 1087 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1095 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1081 ; , & # 1079 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1103 ; ) do non incorporate the accustomed interlingual rendition equivalents of the verb take. Gallic talkers, nevertheless, are non likely to happen anything idiomatic approximately theseword-groups as there are similar lexical units in the Gallic linguistic communication ( californium. prendre du the, prendre soin ) . This attack to idiomaticity may be termed interlingual as it involves a comparing, explicit or implicit of two different linguistic communications.

The term idiomaticity is besides understood as deficiency of motive from the point of position of native talkers. As here we are concerned with the English linguistic communication, , this implies that merely those word-groups are to be referred to phraseology which are felt as non-motivated, at least syuchronically, by English talkers, e.g. ruddy tape, kick the pail and the similar. This attack to idiomaticity may be termed intralingual. In other words the opinion as to idiomaticity is passed within the model of the linguistic communication concerned, non from the exterior. It is readily observed that categorization of factual lingual stuff into free word-groups and phraseological units mostly depends upon the peculiar significance we attach to the term idiomaticity. It will be recalled, for illustration, that accustomed collocations are word-groups whose component member or members possess specific and limited lexical, valency, as a regulation basically different from the lexical valency of related words in the Russian linguistic communication. [ 17 ]A figure of accustomed collocations, e.g. heavy rain, bad error, take attention and others, may be felt by Russian talkers as peculiarly English and hence idiomatic, whereas they are non perceived as such by English talkers in whose female parent tongue the lexical valency of member words heavy, bad, take presupposes their collocability with rain, error, attention.

3. The standard of stableness is al so criticized as non really dependable in separating phraseological units from other word-groups habitually referred to as wording. We observe regular permutation of at least one of the lexical constituents. In to project smth in smb ‘s dentition, e.g. the verb dramatis personae may be replaced by fling ; to take a determination is found aboard with to do a determination ; non to care a twopenny is merely one of the possible discrepancies of the phrase, whereas in others the noun twopenny may be replaced by a figure of other nouns, e.g. farthing, button, pin, tanner, fig, etc.

It is besides argued that stableness of lexical constituents does non presuppose deficiency of motive. The word-group shrug cue ‘s shoulders, e.g. , does non let of the permutation of either shrug or shoulders ; the significance of the word-group, nevertheless, is easy deducible from the significances of the member-words, therefore the word-group is wholly motivated, though stable. Idiomatic word-groups may be variable every bit far as their lexical constituents are concerned, or stable. It was observed that, for example, to project smth in smb ‘s dentition is a extremely idiomatic but variable word- group as the constitutional member dramatis personae may be replaced by fling or throw ; the word-group ruddy tape is both extremely idiomatic and stable.

It follows that stableness and idiomaticity may be regarded as two different facets of word-groups. Stability is an indispensable characteristic of set, -phrases both motivated and non-motivated. Idiomaticity is a distinguishing characteristic of phraseological units or parlances which comprise both stable set-phrases and variable word-groups. The two characteristics are non reciprocally sole and may be overlapping, ‘ but are non mutualist.

Stability of word-groups may be viewed in footings of predictability of happening of member-words. Therefore, e.g. , the verb shrug predicts the happening of the noun shoulders and the verb clench the happening of either fists or dentitions. The grade of pr

Cite this Semantic features of English proverbs

Semantic features of English proverbs. (2017, Jul 20). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/semantic-features-of-english-proverbs/

Show less
  • Use multiple resourses when assembling your essay
  • Get help form professional writers when not sure you can do it yourself
  • Use Plagiarism Checker to double check your essay
  • Do not copy and paste free to download essays
Get plagiarism free essay

Search for essay samples now

Haven't found the Essay You Want?

Get my paper now

For Only $13.90/page