Hierarchy of meaning in phraseology

Metina V., Fedulenkova T.

 

Hierarchy of meaning in phraseology

 

Singling out phraseological meaning gives an opportunity to establish its main varieties: idiomatic meaning, idiophraseomatic meaning and phraseomatic meaning in accordance with the three classes of phraseological units: idiomatic ones, idiophraseomatic ones and phraseomatic ones [1, c. 136]. Those meanings comprise the phraseological microsystem of the language, and enable us to single out their varieties in accordance with the structural-semantical peculiarities of phraseological units characteristic of every class of PUs.

It must be noted that the term phraseological meaning was almost simultaneously and independently introduced in the early sixties by the two authors: by V.L. Arkhangelsky [2, c. 9] and by A.V. Kunin [3, c. 759].

Stable establishing of phraseological meaning as a linguistic category is complicated by the fact that there exist different interpretations of the phraseological unit, of its componential structure and of the volume of phraseology. Nevertheless the determination of the status of phraseological meaning is very important because it will prevent some authors to substitute the notion of idiomatism by the notion of phraselogism, it will prevent them to see phraseological meaning at all the structural levels of the language including the lexical level, it will prevent them to ascribe lexical meaning to the phraseological unit itself.

No doubt, the establishing of phraseological meaning is an extraordinarily difficult task. Tackling this problem, A.V. Kunin thinks it necessary to take into consideration the experience of a number of linguists who worked in the field under study, such as S.G. Gavrin, V.P. Zhukov, A.M. Melerovich, A.M. Kaplunenko et al. The observations of E.V. Bogoyavlenskaya on the theme enable us to widen this list with such names as V.N. Telia, S.G. Ter-Minasova, V.G. Gak, T.N. Fedulenkova (see also: [4, с. 170]).

Dwelling upon the definition of phraseological meaning A.V. Kunin appeals to V.A. Zvegintsev's ideas on the structure of a linguistic sign and its peculiarities and on distinctive features of different types of language meaning and as a result, in his phraseological theory the author pays much attention to the dichotomy of form and meaning (see also: [5, c. 146]), i.e. it is important not only what is expressed, but also how it is expressed.

In the course of time A.V. Kunin comes to the conclusion that phraseological meaning cannot be realized without the existence of definite structures, i.e. it is impossible to study the features of phraseological units not knowing their structure. There are, as A.V. Kunin puts it, seven main structural types of phraseological units in the English language. They are as follows:

1. Unitop phraseological units. i.e. constructions consisting of one notional and one functional lexeme, or one notional and two or three functional lexemes (at hand – nearby; at large – on the whole, весь; by the way – incidentally; out of the way – remote). By functional lexemes one should consider lexemes which do not function as independent members of the sentence and serve for word connection in the sentence (prepositions, conjunctions), and also for characterization of the categories of number, definiteness or indefiniteness of nouns (e.g. articles).

2. Phraseological units with the structure of subordinate or coordinate combination of words (burn one’s fingers – have some unpleasant experience.; high and mighty – powerful people).

3. Phraseological units with the partially predicative structure (i.e. lexeme + subordinate clause): ships that pass in the night – occasional acqaintances).

4. Phraseological units with the structure of subordinate clause (when pigs fly (colloq.) – never);

5. Phraseological units of nominative-communicative class, i.e. verbal constructions with the structure of a word combination with a verb in the form of infinitive and the structure of a sentence with a verb in the passive voice (break the ice – to start smth > the ice is broken – smth is started).

6. Phraseological units with the structure of a simple or complex sentence (Tell it to the marines! Do you see any green in my eye? It is too late to lock the stable door when the horse is stolen).

7. Phraseological units that are equivalents of a sentence, i.e. some structural types of interjectional constructions that have a power of expression and are characterized by its own (independent) intonation (my foot! – I don't believe it!). However, referring of interjections of this type to sentence equivalents is doubtless (Translation is ours – T.F.)..

In fact, specific character of phraseological meaning is described by scholars on a purely semantic basis without proper consideration of PU structural peculiarities. Though phraseological units exist within the boundaries of the definite structures, all the specific features of phraseological meaning cannot be explained only by relations between PU meaning and its structure. It is known that monostructural constructions can differ in their meaning and vice versa polystructural constructions can be close in their meaning. Phraseological meaning possesses a well-known degree of notional independence, which is not to be mixed in those relations, which can easily happen during the absolutization of the structure as V.I. Svidersky put it.

The matter is that the main contradiction, which is peculiar to phraseological units, is the linguistic contradiction between the integrity of the PU meaning on the one hand and the discreteness of PU structure on the other hand [Федуленкова 1996: 121. Lexical meanings of the PU components and the integral meaning of the PU are in the inverse proportion to each other: the more weakened the lexical meaning of the components is, the more integral the meaning of the PU is, which cannot be distributed among its components. The mentioned contradiction is partially solved, on the one hand, by the loss of the discreteness of PU, and, consequently, transformation of a PU into a word (cf. goodbye – at first: God be with you) and, on the other hand, by means of high specific gravity of the inner form in the semantic structure of PU, which leads to the motivation of the lexical meanings of the components and, consequently, to the weakening of the integrity of the meaning in the phraseological unit.

There are types of PUs with partially transferred meaning which are characterized by double asymmetry [7, c. 99]. This is true, for example, for comparative constructions such as, plain as the nose on your face (colloq.) – quite evident; take to something like a duck to water (colloq.) – take up smth willingly, etc. Double character of asymmetry in such constructions is created by means of, on the one hand, asymmetry of the components with literal meanings and components with transferred meanings, on the other hand, asymmetry of the partitioned figurative part and the integral meaning expressed by it.

The analysis of various aspects of the content, of the form and of the function of PUs and words gives all the reasons for singling out the PU meaning as a linguistic category alongside with the lexical meaning. The notion invariant of information is important for PU meaning. A.V. Kunin (1986) follows I.S. Narsky and considers invariant of information as “something which is constantly preserved in the process of transformation of information”. As applied to PUs and words, information is a generalized conscious-reflected form of objects of reality, expressed by means of language signs.

At defining PU meaning it is important to take into consideration that PUs are not made up according to generative structural-semantic model of variable word combinations, as it is not possible to predict, which feature of the prototype will be the semantic basis of the next PU, and whether it will be created at all. We maintain after A.V. Kunin that phraseological meaning is an invariant of information, expressed by semantically complicated, discrete language units, which are not formed by generative structural-semantic models of the variable word combinations.

Such an understanding of the phraseological meaning gives the author an opportunity to define its three main kinds: idiomatic meaning, idiophraseomatic meaning and phraseomatic meaning.

Idiomatic meaning is an invariant of information, expressed by means of discrete language units with completely or partially transferred meanings.

Idiophraseomatic meaning is an invariant of information expressed by means of discrete language units, one of which phraseosemantic variants have literal, but complicated meanings, and the others, being their derivatives, are completely transferred.

When a phraseological unit is formed on the basis of a set expression being a term or a professionalism with a complicated semantic structure, it should be regarded as a phraseosemantic variant with literal meaning [8, c. 267], for example fight a battle – 1) milit.) to battle; 2) to launch a struggle (transferred meaning).

Such a peculiar combination of idiomatics and phraseomatics leads the linguist to singling out ideophraseomatic meaning. Phraseomatic meaning, according to A.V. Kunin, is invariant of information expressed by means of discrete language units, having non-transferred but complicated meanings (see also: [9, c. 86]).

Phraseomatic meanings can be found not only in structures with non- transferred, bound-free meanings (better late than never (proverb), but also in constructions with non-transferred, bound meanings, such as pay attention, pay a call (visit), etc. [10, c. 127].

Hierarchical character of phraseological meaning consists in the fact that semes, denoting different features which refer to the meaning as the aspect to the gender, are singled out in it, for example the semantic feature of purpose: to draw the long bow – to go beyond the limits of the truth, e.g. in order to impress or surprise and etc.

To sum it up we should press the point that analysis of types of meanings in the field of phraseology is important not only for the theory of phraseology but also for the progress of the language science as a whole, as without semantics the existence of any language is hardly possible.

 

References

 

1. Кунин А.В. Курс фразеологии современного английского языка: Учеб. для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. 2-е изд., перераб. М.: Высшая школа, Дубна: Изд. центр «Феникс», 1996.

2. Архангельский В.Л. Устойчивые фразы в современном русском языке. Ростов-на-Дону, 1964.

3. Кунин А.В. Основные понятия английской фразеологии как лингвистической дисциплины и создание англо-русского фразеологического словаря: Дис. … д-ра филол наук. М., 1964.

4. Богоявленская Е.В. Национально-культурная специфика фразеологизмов английского языка // Язык и культура: Материалы III международ. конф. М.: РАН, Российская Академия лингвистических наук, научный журнал «Вопросы филологии», 2005. С. 169-170.

5. Федуленкова Т.Н. Фразеологическая метафора: двойная дихотомия содержания и смысла // Когнитивная семантика: Сб. материалов второй международной школы-семинара. Ч. 2. Тамбов: РАН, Ин-т языкознания, 2000. С. 146-148.

6. Федуленкова Т.Н. Проблема соотношения содержания и смысла в современной английской фразеологии // Лингвистика: Бюллетень Уральского лингвистического общества / Урал. гос. пед. ун-т; Отв. ред. и составитель В.И. Томашпольский. Екатеринбург, 1996. Т.2. С. 119-124.

7. Кунин А.В. Асимметрия в сфере фразеологии // Вопросы языкознания. М., 1988. № 3. С. 98-107.

8. Fedulenkova T. Idioms in Business English: Ways to Cross-cultural Awareness // Domain-specific English: textual practices across communities and classrooms / Giuseppina Cortese & Philip Riley (ed.). – Bern; Berlin; Bruxelles; Frankfurt am Mein; New York; Oxford; Wien: Lang, 2002. P. 247-269.

9. Fedulenkova T. Phraseological Units in Discourse: Towards Applied Stylistics by Anita Naciscione, 2001. Riga: Latvian Academy of Culture, pp. xi + 283, ISBN 9984 95 19 01 // Language and Literature. London, 2003, № 12 (1), p.  86-89.

10. Fedulenkova T. Isomorphism and Allomorphism of English, German and Swedish Phraseological Units Based on Metaphor // Phraseology 2005: The many faces of Phraseology: Proceedings of an interdisciplinary conference. Louvain-la-Neuve, 2005. P. 125-128.