Лексическая сочетаемость. Фразеология

КОНТРОЛИРУЕМАЯ САМОСТОЯТЕЛЬНАЯ

РАБОТА N 2

по курсу “Лексикология”

ТЕМА: «Лексическая сочетаемость. Фразеология».

Студентка

Минск 2011

Word-Groups and Phraseological Units

Words put together to form lexical units make phrases or word-groups.

It will be recalled that lexicology deals with words, word-forming morphemes and word-groups. We assume that the word is the basic lexical unit.1 The smallest two-facet unit to be found within the word is the morpheme which is studied on the morphological level of analysis. The largest two-facet lexical unit comprising more than one word is the word-group observed on the syntagmatic level of analysis of the various ways words are joined together to make up single self-contained lexical units.

The degree of structural and semantic cohesion of word-groups may vary. Some word-groups, e.g. at least, point of view, by means of, take place, seem to be functionally and semantically inseparable. Such word-groups are usually described as set-phrases, word-equivalents or phraseological units and are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of the branch of lexicological science that studies phraseology.

The component members in other word-groups, e.g. a week ago, man of wisdom, take lessons, kind to people, seem to possess greater semantic and structural independence. Word-groups of this type are defined as free or variable word-groups or phrases and are habitually studied in syntax.

Here, however, we proceed from the assumption that before touching on the problem of phraseology it is essential to briefly outline the features common to various types of word-groups viewed as self-contained lexical units irrespective of the degree of structural and semantic cohesion of the component words.

Some basic features of word-groups.

To get a better insight into the essentials of structure and meaning of word-groups we must begin with a brief survey of the main factors active in uniting words into word-groups. The two main linguistic factors to be considered in this connection are the lexical and the grammatical valency of words.

Lexical valency.

It is an indisputable fact that words are used in certain lexical contexts, i.e. in combination with other words.2 The noun question, e.g., is often combined with such adjectives as vital, pressing, urgent, disputable, delicate, etc. This noun is a component of a number of other word-groups, e.g. to raise a question, a question of great importance, a question of the agenda, of the day, and many others. The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability.

The range of the lexical valency of words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the English word-stock. This can be easily observed in the selection of synonyms found in different word-groups. Though the verbs lift and raise, e.g., are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is collocated with the noun question. The verb take may be synonymically interpreted as ‘grasp’, ’seize’, ‘catch’, ‘lay hold of, etc. but it is only take that is found in collocation with the nouns examination, measures, precautions, etc., only catch in catch smb. napping and grasp in grasp the truth.

There is a certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any departure from this norm is felt as a literary or rather a stylistic device. Such word-groups as for example a cigarette ago, shove a question and the like are illustrative of the point under discussion. It is because we recognise that shove and question are not normally collocable that the junction of them can be effective.

Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliché. We observe, for example, that the verb put forward and the noun question are habitually collocated and whenever we hear the verb put forward or see it written on paper it is natural that we should anticipate the word question. So we may conclude that put forward a question constitutes a habitual word-group, a kind of cliché. This is also true of a number of other word-groups, e.g. to win (or gain) a victory, keen sight (or hearing). Some linguists hold that most of the English in ordinary use is thoroughly saturated with cliches.1

The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. Both the English word flower and its Russian counterpart — цветок, for example, may be combined with a number of other words all of which denote the place where the flowers are grown, e.g. garden flowers, hot-house flowers, etc. (cf. the Russian садовые цветы, оранжерейные цветы, etc.). The English word, however, cannot enter into combination with the word room to denote flowers growing in the rooms (cf. pot flowers — комнатные цветы).

One more point of importance should be discussed in connection with the problem of lexical valency — the interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy as found in word-groups.

Firstly, the restrictions of lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word-groups. The adjective heavy, e.g., is combined with the words food, meals, supper, etc. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest’. But not all the words with more or less the same component of meaning can be combined with this adjective. One cannot say, for instance, heavy cheese or heavy sausage implying that the cheese or the sausage is difficult to digest."

Secondly, it is observed that different meanings of a word may be described through the possible types of lexical contexts, i.e. through the lexical valency of the word, for example, the different meanings of the adjective heavy may be described through the word-groups heavy weight (book, table, etc.), heavy snow (storm, rain, etc.), heavy drinker (eater, etc.), heavy sleep (disappointment, sorrow, etc.), heavy industry (tanks, etc.), and so on.

From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as the characteristic minimal lexical sets that operate as distinguishing clues for each of the multiple meanings of the word.

PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS

It has been repeatedly pointed out that word-groups viewed as functionally and semantically inseparable units are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of phraseology. It should be noted, however, that no proper scientific investigation of English phraseology has been attempted until quite recently. English and American linguists as a rule confine themselves to collecting various words, word-groups and sentences presenting some interest either from the point of view of origin, style, usage, or some other feature peculiar to them. These units are habitually described as idioms but no attempt has been made to investigate these idioms as a separate class of linguistic units or a specific class of word-groups.

American and English dictionaries of unconventional English, slang and idioms and other highly valuable reference-books contain a wealth of proverbs, sayings, various lexical units of all kinds, but as a rule do not seek to lay down a reliable criterion to distinguish between variable word-groups and phraseological units. Paradoxical as it may seem the first dictionary in which theoretical principles for the selection of English phraseological units were elaborated was published in our country.1

The term itself phraseological units to denote a specific group of phrases was introduced by Soviet linguists and is generally accepted in our country.

Free word-groups, set phrases, phraseological units, idioms, word-equivalents.

Attempts have been made to approach the problem of phraseology in different 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 phraseological units is not clearly defined. The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words is fundamentally 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 innumerable 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 phraseology which centre on the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups. The term set-phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity 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.

Criteria of stability and lack of motivation (Idiomaticity)

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 features 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 denoting colour (blue, white, etc.), without essentially changing the denotational 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 variability 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 phraseological units is to a certain extent also stable. Thus, though the structural formula 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.

Classification.

Taking into account mainly the degree of idiomaticity phraseological units may be classified into three big groups: phraseological fusions, phraseological unities and phraseological collocations.2

Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups, such as red tape — ‘bureaucratic methods’; heavy father — ’serious or solemn part in a theatrical play’; kick the bucket — ‘die’; and the like. The meaning of the components has no connections whatsoever, at least synchronically, with the meaning of the whole group. Idiomaticity is, as a rule, combined with complete stability of the lexical components and the grammatical structure of the fusion.

Phraseological unities are partially non-motivated as their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit. For example, to show one’s teeth, to wash one’s dirty linen in public if interpreted as semantically motivated through the combined lexical meaning of the component words would naturally lead one to understand these in their literal meaning. The metaphoric meaning of the whole unit, however, readily suggests ‘take a threatening tone’ or ’show an intention to injure’ for show one’s teeth and ‘discuss or make public one’s quarrels’ for wash one’s dirty linen in public. Phraseological unities are as a rule marked by a comparatively high degree of stability of the lexical components.

Phraseological collocations are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word-groups. In phraseological collocations variability of member-words is strictly limited. For instance, bear a grudge may be changed into bear malice, but not into bear a fancy or liking. We can say take a liking (fancy) but not take hatred (disgust). These habitual collocations tend to become kind of clichés1 where the meaning of member-words is to some extent dominated by the meaning of the whole group. Due to this phraseological collocations are felt as possessing a certain degree of semantic inseparability.

The current definition of phraseological units as highly idiomatic word-groups which cannot be freely made up in speech, but are reproduced as ready-made units has been subject to severe criticism by linguists of different schools of thought. The main objections and debatable points may be briefly outlined as follows:

1.    The definition is felt to be inadequate as the concept ready- made units seems to be rather vague. In fact this term can be applied to a variety of heterogeneous linguistic phenomena ranging from word-groups to sentences (e.g. proverbs, sayings) and also quotations from poems, novels or scientific treatises all of which can be described as ready-made units.

2.    Frequent discussions have also led to questioning this approach to phraseology from a purely semantic point of view as the criterion of idiomaticity is found to be an inadequate guide in singling out phraseological units from other word-groups. Borderline cases between idiomatic and non-idiomatic word-groups are so numerous and confusing that the final decision seems to depend largely on one’s “feeling of the language". This can be proved by the fact that the same word-groups are treated by some linguists as idiomatic phrases and by others as free word-groups. For example, such word-groups as take the chair — ‘preside at a meeting’, take one’s chance — ‘trust to luck or fortune’, take trouble (to do smth) — ‘to make efforts’ and others are marked in some of the English dictionaries as idioms or phrases, whereas in others they are found as free word-groups illustrating one of the meanings of the verb to take or the nouns combined with this verb.2

3.    The impracticability of the criterion of idiomaticity is also observed in the traditional classification of phraseological collocations. The extreme cases, i.e. phraseological fusions and collocations are easily differentiated but the borderline units, as for example phraseological fusions and phraseological unities or phraseological collocations and free word-groups, are very often doubtful and rather vaguely outlined. We may argue, e.g., that such word-groups as high treason or show the white feather are fusions because one finds it impossible to infer the meaning of the whole from the meaning of the individual components. Others may feel these word-groups as metaphorically motivated and refer them to phraseological unities.

4.    The term idiomaticity is also regarded by some linguists as requiring clarification. As a matter of fact this term is habitually used to denote lack of motivation from the point of view of one’s mother tongue. A word-group which defies word by word translation is consequently described as idiomatic. It follows that if idiomaticity is viewed as the main distinguishing feature of phraseological units, the same word-groups in the English language may be classified as idiomatic phraseological units by Russian speakers and as non-idiomatic word-groups by those whose mother tongue contains analogous collocations. Thus, e.g., from the point of view of Russian speakers such word-groups as take tea, take care, etc. are often referred to phraseology as the Russian translation equivalents of these word-groups (пить чай, заботиться) do not contain the habitual translation equivalents of the verb take. French speakers, however, are not likely to find anything idiomatic about these word-groups as there are similar lexical units in the French language (cf. prendre du thé, prendre soin). This approach to idiomaticity may be termed interlingual as it involves a comparison, explicit or implicit of two different languages.

The term idiomaticity is also understood as lack of motivation from the point of view of native speakers. As here we are concerned with the English language, this implies that only those word-groups are to be referred to phraseology which are felt as non-motivated, at least synchronically, by English speakers, e.g. red tape, kick the bucket and the like. This approach to idiomaticity may be termed intralingual. In other words the judgement as to idiomaticity is passed within’ the framework of the language concerned, not from the outside. It is readily observed that classification of factual linguistic material into free wort-groups and phraseological units largely depends upon the particular meaning we attach to the term idiomaticity. It will be recalled, for example, that habitual collocations are word-groups whose component member or members possess specific and limited lexical valency, as a rule essentially different from the lexical valency of related words in the Russian language.1 A number of habitual collocations, e.g. heavy rain, bad mistake, take care and others, may be felt by Russian speakers as peculiarly English and therefore idiomatic, whereas they are not perceived as such by English speakers in whose mother tongue the lexical valency of member words heavy, bad, take presupposes their collocability with rain, mistake, care.

3. The criterion of stability is also criticised as not very reliable in distinguishing phraseological units from other word-groups habitually referred to as phraseology. We observe regular substitution of at least one of the lexical components. In to cast smth in smb’s teeth, e.g. the verb cast may be replaced by fling; to take a decision is found alongside with to make a decision; not to care a twopenny is just one of the possible variantsof the phrase, whereas in others the noun twopenny may be replaced by a number of other nouns, e.g. farthing, button, pin, sixpence, fig, etc.

It is also argued that stability of lexical components does not presuppose lack of motivation. The word-group shrug one’s shoulders, e.g., does not allow of the substitution of either shrug or shoulders; the meaning of the word-group, however, is easily deducible from the meanings of the member-words, hence the word-group is completely motivated, though stable. Idiomatic word-groups may be variable as far as their lexical components are concerned, or stable. It was observed that, e.g., to cast smth in smb’s teeth is a highly idiomatic but variable word-group as the constituent member cast may be replaced by fling or throw; the word-group red tape is both highly idiomatic and stable.

It follows that stability and idiomaticity may be regarded as two different aspects of word-groups. Stability is an essential feature of set-phrases both motivated and non-motivated. Idiomaticity is a distinguishing feature of phraseological units or idioms which comprise both stable set-phrases and variable word-groups. The two features are not mutually exclusive and may be overlapping, but are not interdependent.

Stability of word-groups may be viewed in terms of predictability of occurrence of member-words. Thus, e.g., the verb shrug predicts the occurrence of the noun shoulders and the verb clench the occurrence of either fists or teeth. The degree of predictability or probability of occurrence of member-words is different in different word-groups. We may assume, e.g., that the verb shrug predicts with a hundred per cent probability the occurrence of the noun shoulders, as no other noun can follow this particular verb. The probability of occurrence of the noun look after the verb cast is not so high because cast may be followed not only by look but also by glance, light, lots and some other nouns. Stability of the word-group in clench one’s fists is higher than in cast a look, but lower than in shrug one’s shoulders as the verb clench predicts the occurrence of either fists or teeth.

It is argued that the stability of all word-groups may be statistically calculated and the word-groups where stability exceeds a certain limit (say 50%) may be classified as set-phrases.

Predictability of occurrence may be calculated in relation to one or, more than one constituent of the word-group. Thus, e.g., the degree of probability of occurrence of the noun bull after the verb take is very low and may practically be estimated at zero. The two member-words take the bull, however, predict the occurrence of by the horns with a very high degree of probability.

Stability viewed in terms of probability of occurrence seems a more reliable criterion in differentiating between set-phrases and variable or free word-groups, but cannot be relied upon to single out phraseological units. Besides, it is argued that it is practically impossible to calculate the stability of all the word-groups as that would necessitate investigation into the lexical valency of the whole vocabulary of the English language.

Criterion of functions.

Another angle from which the problem of phraseology is viewed is the so-called functional approach. This approach assumes that phraseological units may be defined as specify word-groups functioning as word-equivalents.1 The fundamental features of phraseological units thus understood are their semantic and grammatical inseparability which are regarded as distinguishing features of isolated words.

It will be recalled that when we compare a free word-group, e.g, heavy weight, and a phraseological unit, e.g. heavy father, we observe that in the case of the free wordgroup each of the member-words has its own denotational meaning. So the lexical meaning of the word-group can be adequately described as the combined lexical meaning of its constituents.2 In the case of the phraseological unit, however, the denotational meaning belongs to the word-group as a single semantically inseparable unit. The individual member-words do not seem to possess any lexical meaning outside the meaning of the group. The meanings of the member-words heavy and father taken in isolation are in no way connected with the meaning of the phrase heavy father — ’serious or solemn part in a theatrical play’.