Phraseologism
| This page is proposed to be merged with.
Explanation of reasons and discussion - on the page Wikipedia:Unification/March 25, 2012. |
Phraseologism (phraseological turn, phraseme) - stable in composition and structure, lexically indivisible and integral in meaning, a phrase or sentence that performs the function of a separate lexeme (vocabulary unit). Often phraseologism remains the property of only one language; the exception is the so-called phraseological tracing paper. Phraseologisms are described in special phraseological dictionaries.
Phraseologism is used as a whole that is not subject to further decomposition and usually does not allow rearrangement of its parts within itself. The semantic fusion of phraseological units can vary within a fairly wide range: from the non-derivation of the meaning of a phraseological unit from its constituent words in phraseological fusions ( idioms) to phraseological combinations with a meaning arising from the meanings that make up the combination. The transformation of a phrase into a stable phraseological unit is called lexicalization.
The concept of phraseological units (fr. unite phraseologique) as a stable phrase, the meaning of which cannot be deduced from the meanings of its constituent words, was first formulated by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally in his work Precis de stylistique, where he contrasted them with another type of phrases - phraseological groups (fr. series phraseologiques) with a variable combination of components. Later V. V. Vinogradov singled out three main types of phraseological units: phraseological fusions(idioms), phraseological units and phraseological combinations. N. M. Shansky also identifies an additional species - phraseological expressions.
Different scientists interpret the concept of phraseological unit and its properties in different ways, however, the most consistently distinguished by various scientific properties of phraseological units are
- reproducibility
- stability,
- overwordiness (separately formalized).
- belonging to the nominative inventory of the language.
Phraseological fusions (idioms)
Phraseological fusion, or idiom (from the Greek. ἴδιος “own, peculiar”) is a semantically indivisible turnover, the meaning of which is not at all deducible from the meanings of its constituent components. For example, sodom and gomorrah- "turmoil, noise."
Often grammatical forms and the meanings of idioms are not determined by the norms and realities of the modern language, that is, such fusions are lexical and grammatical archaisms. For example, idioms beat the buckets- "to mess around" (in initial value- "split a log into blanks for the manufacture of household wooden items") and slipshod- "carelessly" reflect the realities of the past, absent in the present (in the past, they were characterized by metaphor). In adhesions from small to large, without hesitation preserved archaic grammatical forms.
Phraseological units
Phraseological unity is a stable turnover, each of its words is used in direct and in parallel in figurative meanings. The figurative meaning is the content of phraseological unity. Phraseological unity is a trope with a metaphorical meaning For example, "go with the flow", "throw a bait", "reel the bait", fall for the bait", "get caught in the net". Phraseological units include all expressions of all the scriptures of the world. Since absolute majority people perceives the direct meanings of expressions, then they do not understand the ideas of the scriptures. For example, "Pigs love to bathe in mud." This expression is a statement of an observable sensually perceived fact - the truth of science. However, as in all scriptures world, this expression in its content has not a rational thought, but an irrational idea. rational thought is based on the perception of feelings, and the irrational idea draws knowledge from the spirit. An irrational idea is a pure idea. It is cleared of sensory information. The information of sensory perception is inaccessible to the ideas of phraseological units. This is what it consists the main problem understanding - hermeneutics. Unlike idioms, unities are motivated by the realities of the modern language and can allow the insertion of other words between their parts in speech: for example, bring (oneself, him, someone) to white heat , pour water on a mill (something or someone) and pour water on (one's own, someone else's, etc.) mill. Examples: come to a standstill, beat the key, to go with the flow, keep a stone in one's bosom, lead by the nose.
Phraseological combinations
A phraseological combination (collocation) is a stable turnover, which includes words both with a free meaning and with phraseologically related, non-free (used only in this combination). Phraseological combinations are stable turnovers, but their integral value follows from the values of their constituent individual words.
Unlike phraseological unions and unities, combinations are semantically divisible - their composition allows limited synonymous substitution or replacement of individual words, while one of the members of the phraseological combination turns out to be constant, while the others are variable: for example, in phrases burn with love, hate, shame, impatience word burn down is a constant member with a phraseologically related meaning.
As variable members of a combination, a limited range of words can be used, determined by semantic relations within language system: so, phraseological combination burn with passion is a hypernym for combinations of the type burn from..., while due to the variation of the variable part, the formation of synonymous series is possible burn with shame, disgrace, disgrace, burn with jealousy, thirst for revenge.
Phraseological expressions
Phraseological expressions - stable in their composition and use phraseological turns, which are not only semantically distinct, but also consist entirely of words with a free nominative meaning. Their only feature is reproducibility: they are used as ready-made speech units with a constant lexical composition and certain semantics.
Often phraseological expression is a complete sentence with a statement, edification, or conclusion. Examples of such phraseological expressions are proverbs and aphorisms. If there is no edification in the phraseological expression or there are elements of understatement, then this is a saying or a catchphrase. Another source of phraseological expressions is professional speech. Phraseological expressions also include speech stamps- stable type formulas good luck, see you again etc.
Many linguists do not classify phraseological expressions as phraseological units, since they lack the main features of phraseological units. no suggestions for example
Melchuk's classification
- The language unit affected by phraseologization:
- lexeme ( shepherd with suffix - rotten),
- phrase ( exaggerated authority, English red herring),
- syntactic phrase (sentences differing in prosody: You I have to read this book and You are in my house read this book).
- Participation of pragmatic factors in the process of phraseologization:
- pragmatems related to the extralinguistic situation ( best before date, English best before),
- semantic phrases ( kick back).
- Component of a linguistic sign subject to phraseologization:
- signified ( beat the buckets),
- signifier (suppletive units in morphology: person people),
- syntax of the sign itself He sort of laughed).
- Degree of phraseology:
- full phrases (= idioms) (eng. kick the bucket),
- semi-phrases (=collocations) (eng. land a job),
- quasi-phrases ham and eggs).
In general, as a result of such a calculation, Melchuk singles out 3 × 2 × 3 × 3 = 54 types of phrases.
see also
- Semantic classification of English phraseological units
Notes
Literature
- Amosova N. N. Fundamentals of English phraseology. - L., 1963
- Arsent'eva E.F. Phraseology and Phraseography in Comparative Aspect (on the Material of Russian and English Languages). - Kazan, 2006
- Valgina N. S., Rosenthal D. E., Fomina M. I. Modern Russian language. 6th ed. - M.: "Logos", 2002
- Kunin A. V. Course of phraseology of modern English. - 2nd ed., revised. - M., 1996
- Mokienko V. M. Slavic phraseology. 2nd ed., Spanish. and additional - M., 1989
- Teliya VN Russian Phraseology: Semantic, Pragmatic and Linguistic and Cultural Aspects. - M., 1996
- Baranov A.N., Dobrovolsky D.O. Aspects of the theory of phraseology / A.N. Baranov, D.O. Dobrovolsky. – M.: Znak, 2008. – 656 p.
- Vereshchagin E.M., Kostomarov V.G. Language and culture. Three linguistic and cultural concepts: lexical background, speech-behavioral tactics and sapientema / E.M. Vereshchagin, V.G. Kostomarov; under. ed. Yu.S. Stepanova. – M.: Indrik, 2005. – 1040 p.
- Vinogradov V.V. Phraseology. Semasiology // Lexicology and lexicography. Selected works. - M .: Nauka, 1977. - 118-161 p.
- Shansky N.M. Phraseology of the modern Russian language / N.M. Shansky. - 3rd ed., Rev. and additional - M., 1985. - 160 p.
Links
- Phraseological units (idioms) in English. archived (English) . Archived from the original on November 27, 2012. (Russian). Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
- Michelson's Big Dictionary of Explanatory Phraseology. Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
- Dictionary of phraseological units and set expressions. Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
- Wiki dictionary of phraseological units. Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
- Dictionary of phraseological units of the Russian language. Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
- Dictionary of phraseological units with illustrations. Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .
Synonyms:A phraseological combination (collocation) is a stable turnover, which includes words both with a free meaning and with phraseologically related, non-free (used only in this combination). Phraseological combinations are stable turns, but their holistic meaning follows from the meanings of their individual words.
Unlike phraseological unions and unities, combinations are semantically divisible - their composition allows limited synonymous substitution or replacement of individual words, while one of the members of the phraseological combination turns out to be constant, while the others are variable: for example, in phrases burn with love, hate, shame, impatience word burn down is a constant member with a phraseologically related meaning.
As variable members of the combination, a limited range of words can be used, determined by semantic relations within the language system: for example, the phraseological combination burn with passion is a hypernym for combinations like burn from..., while due to the variation of the variable part, the formation of synonymous series is possible burn with shame, disgrace, disgrace, burn with jealousy, thirst for revenge.
Another example: English to show one's teeth"snarl" (literally - "show your teeth"). Semantic independence in this combination is shown by the word one's"someone". It can be replaced with words my, your, his etc.
Phraseological expressions
Phraseological expressions are phraseological phrases that are stable in their composition and use, which are not only semantically articulated, but also consist entirely of words with a free nominative meaning. Their only feature is reproducibility: they are used as ready-made speech units with a constant lexical composition and certain semantics.
Often a phraseological expression is a complete sentence with a statement, edification or conclusion. Examples of such phraseological expressions are proverbs and aphorisms. If there is no edification in the phraseological expression or there are elements of understatement, then this is a saying or a catchphrase. Another source of phraseological expressions is professional speech. Speech cliches also fall into the category of phraseological expressions - stable formulas like good luck, see you again etc.
Many linguists do not classify phraseological expressions as phraseological units, since they lack the main features of phraseological units.
Pleonasm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation,search
Pleonasm(from other Greek πλεονασμός - superfluous, excess) - a turn of speech in which some element of meaning is duplicated; the presence of several language forms expressing the same meaning within a complete segment of speech or text; as well as the language expression itself, in which there is such duplication.
The term "pleonasm" came from ancient style and grammar. Ancient authors give different assessments of pleonasm. Quintilian, Donatus, Diomedes define pleonasm as speech congestion superfluous words hence as a stylistic flaw. On the contrary, Dionysius of Halicarnassus defines this figure as the enrichment of speech with words that at first glance are superfluous, but in reality give it clarity, strength, rhythm, persuasiveness, pathos, which are not feasible in laconic speech.
Stylistic figures close to pleonasm are tautology and, in part, paraphrase. Term Relationship pleonasm and tautology understood by linguists in different ways. Pleonasm is a linguistic term, tautology is both linguistic and logical (although in logic this word is used in a completely different sense).
Phraseological combinations
Phraseological combination is set expression, in which one of the components has a literal (dictionary) meaning, i.e. These are partially motivated phrases. Phraseological combinations are stable turns, but their holistic meaning follows from the meanings of their individual words.
Compared to phraseological unions and unities, phraseological combinations are semantically divisible, i.e. in their composition, the replacement or substitution of individual words is allowed. In Russian, for example, in phrases " burn with love, hate, shame, impatience" word " burn down" is a constant member with a phraseologically related meaning.
AT English language phrases: " to show one"s teeth"- "snarl" (literally - "show your teeth"). Semantic independence in this combination is shown by the word one"s- "someone". It can be replaced with words like: my, your, his etc.; " to talk through one"hat"-" talk nonsense, smack nonsense "(literally speak through a hat);" to burn one"s fingers"-" burn yourself on something "(literally burn your fingers).
Phraseological units
Phraseological unity - expressions with a single integral meaning, which arises by merging the meanings of lexical components.
Phraseological unity is characterized by figurativeness; each word must have its own meaning, but in the end, they acquire figurative sense. As a rule, phraseological units of this type are tropes with a metaphorical meaning (for example, " to study hard", "pull the wool over someone's eyes", "to go with the flow", "keep a stone in one's bosom", "go into your shell", "suck from the finger", "blood with milk"). The individual words that make up its composition are semantically dependent, and the meaning of each of the components is subject to the unity of the general figurative meaning of the entire phraseological expression as a whole. It should be noted that when literal translation a foreigner can only guess the meaning of the phrase.
Like idioms, phraseological units are semantically indivisible, their grammatical forms and syntactic structure are strictly defined. The replacement of a word as part of a phraseological unity, including the substitution of a synonym, leads to the destruction of the metaphor (for example, granite of science o basalt of science) or a change expressive meaning: fall for the bait and get caught in the net are phraseological synonyms, but express different shades of expression. But, unlike idioms, unities are subject to the realities of the modern language and allow the insertion of other words between their parts in speech. For example, "bring" (oneself, him, someone) to a white heat, "pouring water on the mill" (something or someone) and pouring water on (one's own, someone else's, etc.) mill. In English, examples of phraseological units: come to a standstill, beat with a key, hold a stone in your bosom, lead by the nose; English " to know the way the cat is jumping"-" to know which way the wind blows "(literally -
"know where the cat will jump"). Expression " to be born with a silver spoon in one"s mouth" it means "to be born in a shirt" (literally, to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth); " at the drop of the hat-" immediately, at the same hour, on the slightest occasion "(literally at the moment the hat falls);" to keep a dog and bark oneself"-" to do the work of his subordinate "(literally bark, scold, vent irritation, anger).
Phraseological combinations
Phraseological combinations are called such stable turns, general meaning which depends entirely on the meaning of the constituent words. Words in a phraseological combination retain relative semantic independence, however, they are not free and show their meaning only in conjunction with a certain, closed circle of words, for example: the word is tearfully combined only with the words ask, beg. Consequently, one of the members of the phraseological combination turns out to be more stable and even constant, the other - variable. The presence of permanent and variable members in combination noticeably distinguishes them from adhesions and unities. The meaning of constant members (components) is phraseologically related. For example, in combinations, burn with shame and longing, it takes constant burns and takes, since it is these words that will turn out to be the main (core) elements in other phraseological combinations: burn - from shame, from shame, from disgrace; burn - from love; burn - from impatience, envy; takes - longing, meditation; takes - annoyance, anger; takes - fear, horror; takes - envy; beret - hunting; takes - laughter. The use of other components is impossible (cf.: “burn with joy”, “takes a smile”), this is due to the existing semantic relationships within the language system. The meanings of such words are phraseologically related in the system of these revolutions (see § 2), i.e. are implemented only with a certain range of words.
Phraseological combinations differ from phraseological unions and unities in that they are not absolutely lexically indivisible. Despite the phraseological isolation of revolutions of this type, even lexically non-free components, without prejudice to the general phraseological meaning, can be replaced by a synonym (cf .: lower your head - lower your head; sit in a puddle - sit in a galosh; frown your eyebrows - frown your eyebrows, etc.). It creates favorable conditions for the emergence of variants of phraseological units, and often synonyms.
The syntactic connections of words in such phrases correspond to existing norms, according to which free phrases are also created. However, unlike the latter, these connections are stable, indecomposable and always reproduced in the same form, semantically inherent in one or another phraseological unit.
Phraseological combinations are quite numerous in composition and very common in use group.
An aphorism is a phrase that is known to everyone and therefore is not created anew in speech, but is extracted from memory.
A motto is a short saying, usually expressing the guiding idea of a behavior or activity. (Our motto is forward!).
idiomatic - inherent only given language, peculiar.
Canonical - taken as a model, firmly established.
Cliché - commonplace figure of speech, stamp.
A slogan is an appeal that concisely expresses a political idea, a demand (for example, the slogan of the era of socialism: The Party is the mind, honor and conscience of our era).
Paremia is a language cliché (phraseologism, proverb, saying, precedent statement).
Appeal - an appeal expressing in a concise form the guiding idea, political demand, slogan ( All up for the election!.
A prototype situation is a situation corresponding to the literal meaning of a phraseological unit.
Syntactic phraseological unit is a non-standard, specific construction, the structural properties and semantics of which go beyond regular syntactic links and rules (for example: Wouldn't it be nice to come in the summer!); auxiliary and pronominal words, particles and interjections do not function according to the current syntactic rules. Unlike lexical phraseology, syntactic phraseology is not reproduced, but is built.
Phraseologism - a phrase, the general meaning of which is not derived from independent values each word included in it ( roll on inclined plane - fall morally). The main features of phraseology are stability and reproducibility.
Standard - sample.
This lecture is devoted to the problems of paremia, i.e. the features of the semantics and functioning of language clichés different types and taking these features into account when teaching ICC. Cliché we call every ready speech form, the criterion for highlighting which is the regularity of its appearance in certain repeating speech situations. Let's focus on phraseological units - units that are especially relevant when teaching ICC.
The concept of phraseology
In Russian, as in a number of other languages, words are combined with each other, forming phrases. Some of them are free, others are not. Free combinations of words are constantly formed in the course of speech: the speaker selects the words that are necessary in meaning based on knowledge of their meaning and grammatically builds combinations of them in accordance with the intent and structure of the statement: drink tea, write with a pen, participate in a performance, organize a conference etc.
Each word in such free combinations of words retains its independent meaning and fulfills a certain syntactic function. Such combinations are created in the process of speech to achieve a communicative goal (to inform, ask, etc.) in accordance with personal perception, impression in a certain situation. Such combinations are not stored in memory: circumstances will change - new free combinations will arise.
There are also related combinations in the language, for example, cross someone's path prevent you from getting what you want: I know why he behaves this way. Once I ran across his path - I won the competition for the position for which he applied. Independent meaning of component words in a phrase cross the road weakened, since the nominative properties of words have disappeared, so the meaning of the entire turnover is no longer associated with the semantics of each word separately. Lexically, such a combination is indivisible and is reproduced in speech as a ready-made speech unit. Syntactically, the role of the phrase as a whole, and not of each word separately, is considered. Such semantically indivisible phrases, which are characterized by constancy holistic value, are called phraseological units of the language (or phraseological units, phraseological turns).
Basic semantic feature phraseologism - semantic fusion, solidarity, the essence of which lies in the fact that the general meaning of a phraseological unit is not derived from the independent meanings of each word included in it (cf., for example, phraseological units small fry- about insignificant from the point of view social position man, shot sparrow - about an experienced, experienced person, fool someone's head- not allowing to focus on the main thing, the main thing, to confuse, fool anyone).
The meaning of phraseologism is specific. Firstly, the meaning of a phraseological unit (PU) is always richer than the meaning of a synonymous word (or words). It is never equivalent to the volume of the meaning of the word-synonym. So, beat the buckets- it's not just messing around, but doing trifles; put a spoke in wheel- not only interfere or hinder, but do it at a time when someone is doing some business, as if in its course; take the rubbish out of the house- this is when the one to whom they are confidentially told gossips or divulges other people's secrets. And this means that the meaning of phraseological units is always more detailed than the meaning of words.
Secondly, the meaning of most phraseological units is situational. This feature of phraseological units requires not only knowledge of their meaning, but also those situations in which they can be used. Yes, in FE turn up one's nose, in addition to the meaning of putting on airs, contains information that before the speaker and the one in question were on an equal footing, and at present this latter boasts of his higher social or financial position.
The next feature of phraseological units is the evaluative nature of the meaning. Most phraseological units, thanks to the image that underlies them, not only denote some fragment of reality, but also express a positive or negative opinion of the speaker about what is being indicated. At the same time, the speaker evaluates whether it is good or bad, good or evil, useful or harmful. For example, phraseology turn up one's nose, along with the above content, expresses the negative opinion of the person using this phraseological unit: self-importance is a bad human trait.
The images on the basis of which phraseological units are formed can in themselves give an assessment to the signified. So, put sticks in someone's wheels - bad, but give the green light OK.
Most phraseological units, in addition to evaluative attitude speaker, expresses and emotional attitude. It is also suggested by the image. When they say: We are forced to work to the point of exhaustion, they describe and evaluate only the indicated situation. But if they say: All the juices are being squeezed out of us, then they also count on the sympathy and empathy of the listener, since in the meaning of the phraseological unit there is also conscience - emotional disapproval of what is indicated (cf. in the statement You lead me by the nose the speaker accuses the interlocutor of a dismissive attitude towards him).
From the above examples it can be seen that phraseological units are a kind of microtexts, in which, in addition to the figurative description of the actually designated fragment of reality, there are also connotations (connotations) that express the speaker's evaluative or emotional attitude to the designated. The addition of these meanings creates the effect of expressiveness, or expressiveness of phraseological units.
Phraseologism has a number of essential features:
1) stability,
2) reproducibility,
3) value integrity,
4) separate design.
Stability (permanence, stability) and reproducibility is the regular repetition of phraseological units in ready-made. PhUs are reproduced, and not constructed in speech each time anew, depending on the communicative situation.
The integrity of the meaning of a phraseological unit is connected with the fact that the meaning of a phraseological unit is difficult or impossible to derive from the meaning of its constituent parts. The integrity of the meaning of a phraseological unit is achieved by complete or partial rethinking of the components. As a result, they tend to diverge in meaning from the corresponding words of free use. So, for example, it is impossible phraseologism break into a cake try, exhausted, to do everything possible to interpret by interpreting the meanings of words break up, cake(cf. count a crow, keep a stone in your bosom, seven spans in your forehead, two steps away).
Separately designed structure is an important feature that characterizes appearance FE (plan of expression). All phraseological units have a separate structure, i.e. they are designed according to the model of various combinations of words.
Following V. V. Vinogradov, on the basis of the criterion of syntactic and semantic indecomposability of a word combination, freedom / lack of freedom of the words included in it, it is customary to distinguish several types of phraseological units - phraseological fusions, phraseological units and phraseological combinations.
F razeological adhesions
Phraseological fusions are such lexically indivisible phrases, the meanings of which are not determined by the meaning of the individual words included in them (for example, beat the buckets sit back, from the bay thoughtlessly Sodom and Gomorrah turmoil, noise, slipshod carelessly how to drink certainly. The meaning of these turns is not motivated by the value of the constituent elements. The main feature of phraseological fusions is its indivisibility, absolute semantic solidarity, in which the meaning of a whole phrase cannot be deduced from the meaning of its constituent words. (See also topsy-turvy, in all honesty, out of the blue, from young to old, without hesitation, in broad daylight, on your mind, to tell a joke, to be amazed).
F razeological unities
Phraseological units are such lexical phrases, the general meaning of which is to some extent motivated figurative meaning the words that make up this turn. For example, the general meaning of such unities as splurge, go with the flow, keep a stone in your bosom, go into your shell, suck out of your finger, blood with milk etc. depends on the meaning of the individual elements that make up the figurative "core" of the entire turnover. In contrast to fusions, the imagery of which is extinct, already unmotivated and completely independent of the meaning constituent elements, phraseological unity "possess the property of potential figurativeness." This allows some scholars to call turns of this type metaphorical combinations. Unlike fusions, parts of phraseological units can be separated from each other by inserting some words: pour water on (your, mine, yours) mill;
Phraseological combinations − such stable turns, the general meaning of which depends entirely on the meaning of the constituent words. Words in a phraseological combination retain relative semantic independence, but they are not free and show their meaning only in combination with a certain, closed circle of words, for example: word tearfully only goes with words ask, beg. Consequently, one of the members of the phraseological combination turns out to be more stable and even constant, the other - variable. The meaning of constant words (components) is phraseologically related.
For example: in combination burn with shame and longing takes will be permanent burn down and beret, since it is these words that will turn out to be the main (core) elements in other phraseological combinations: burn down - from shame, from shame, from shame; burn down- from love; burn down- from impatience, envy; beret- annoyance, anger; takes - fear, horror; beret- laugh. The use of other components is not possible (cf.: *burn with joy, *takes a smile).
The meanings of such words are phraseologically related in the data system of turnovers, i.e., they are realized only with a certain circle of words. Despite the phraseological isolation of this type of phrases, even lexically non-free components can be (without prejudice to the overall phraseological meaning) replaced by a synonym (cf .: bow your head - lower your head; sit in a puddle - sit in a galosh; furrow eyebrows - furrow eyebrows). This creates conditions for the emergence of phraseological units, and often synonyms. Phraseological units have idiomatic semantics, reproducibility, syntactic articulation, which does not prevent them from performing functions in a phrase similar to the functions of individual word forms, in their nominative nature, phraseological units are almost equal to a word.
Syntactic phraseological units
At present, it is also customary to distinguish special group phraseological units that call syntactic phraseological units. These are such “non-standard, specific constructions, the structural properties and semantics of which go beyond the framework of regular syntactic links and patterns. For example: Wouldn't it be nice to come in the summer!; What a rest there!; So that when he is late!. “Russian Grammar” calls syntactic phraseological units “such constructions in which connections and relations of components from the point of view of living grammar rules turn out to be inexplicable.” Syntactic phraseological units in Russian grammar include sentences in which "word forms are connected with each other idiomatically" and where "functional and pronominal words, particles and interjections function not according to the current syntactic rules." The syntactic phraseological unit differs from the lexical one in that it "is not reproduced, but is built." Syntactic and lexical phraseological units differ, as a rule, in stylistic and emotional expressiveness.
Syntactic phraseological units, unlike lexical ones, are not among the nominative means of the language, they play a somewhat smaller role in the storage and transmission of cultural information, but consideration of these units in the sociocultural aspect allows us to identify the characteristic features of the reflection in the language of the specifics of national perception and categorization of the surrounding reality. A. V. Velichko rightly points out: “When considering syntactic phraseological units (SF) in the sociocultural aspect, their dual nature can be traced. On the one hand, SF reflect in their semantics the properties of a human personality, a person outside of his national identity. On the other hand, SF are specific Russian constructions, as they reflect the peculiarities of the Russian national mentality, the nature of awareness real world just a Russian person. This explains, for example, the extremely detailed assessment presented by large quantity evaluative syntactic phraseological units (These are flowers! Roses are flowers / Flowers for all flowers! Why not flowers! Also flowers for me!) ”.
Phraseology and the national image of the world
Since the peculiarity of a phraseological unit is the irreducibility of its meaning to the sum of the meanings of its constituent units, it is obvious that phraseological units present special difficulties for foreigners studying the Russian language. So, for example, in Korean there is a phrase eat kuksu. Even knowing what kuksu, you can not guess that we are talking about a wedding. The fact is that the etymology of this expression is associated with the ancient Korean wedding custom of eating guksu. Therefore, the question "When will we eat guksu?" should be understood as "When will you get married?".
Phraseological units arise on the basis of a prototypical situation, i.e., a situation corresponding to the literal meaning of a phraseological unit. Prototypes reflect the national (in our case, Russian) culture, since “genetically free phrases describe certain customs, traditions, details of everyday life and culture, historical events and much more". (For example, the prototypes of phraseological units can tell about the typical Russian flora: from the forest and from the pine, some into the forest, some for firewood, like in a dark forest). A certain content is assigned to the situation - the result of rethinking this situation in this specific cultural code.
This situation is iconic character, since it is allocated and fixed in the collective memory. Its rethinking is born on the basis of some stereotypes, standards, myths, which are the implementation of the cultural concepts of a given society. Due to the fact that the stereotypes and standards to which the images that form phraseological units are oriented have a certain value, any phraseological unit that fits into the system of the cultural code of a given community acquires an evaluative meaning. It automatically accepts a general assessment of the concept, on the basis (or within) of which the given phraseological unit is formed.
Patterns of rethinking the prototype situation arise within a certain area formed on the basis of religious, mythological, ideological views. Therefore, for example, in languages common in the area of Christian civilization, common conceptual metaphors are found that have their origins in common for Slavic peoples customs, traditions and cultural attitudes. However, each linguistic and cultural ethnic community has its own, nationally specific rethinking.
One of the significant oppositions for Slavic (including Russian) culture is the opposition of top and bottom. In the mythological (and later - religious) consciousness, the top was associated with the location of the divine principle, the bottom is the location of hell, the Underworld - symbolic space fall. AT XVII-early XIX in. there was a miniature depicting a sinner and a sinner being dragged by a demon down a hill to hell. Based on these ideas, ascent, spiritual ascent were associated with approaching God, the divine principle, with moral perfection, moving an object down was associated with moral decline, immoral behavior. Thanks to these ideas, probably, the phrases roll down, roll down the slippery path, moral decline, fail from shame, fall through the ground, fall in the eyes of someone have gained stability and reproducibility in the Russian language.
FE to stand / stand across the road for someone to stand on life path for someone, to interfere with the achievement of someone's goal, to create obstacles for someone in life, is associated with a superstitious prohibition to cross a walking road - otherwise he will not have good luck (the phraseologisms have the same origin to cross / cross the road, cross / cross the road to someone or).
In general, on the linguistic metaphors "life is movement", "movement is development" is based whole line phraseological units and metaphors, for example, to punch your way with your forehead persistently, stubbornly, at the cost of great efforts to achieve success in life, to pave your way with your chest to achieve success, overcoming all obstacles, to climb the mountain to achieve high position in society, put someone on the road to help someone find their job and place in life, creating the necessary conditions turn to the path of truth under the influence of someone to change their behavior in better side, to go far ahead to change significantly, not to advance a single step at all, not at all; cf. also a ticket to life, on the road to success, to stand at a crossroads.
The image is highly productive due to the fact that the perception of life as a path is fixed in the ordinary consciousness of Russians (cf. He also went through the path, and in Korean - He went through the circle of life; On the way I met many good and good people; cf. advanced in jargon, slow down). In Russian culture, the image of the path is one of the central ones due to the richness of the semantic structure of the concept underlying it, which gives unlimited possibilities for a variety of metaphorical constructions when creating images.
Many phraseological units are, according to V. N. Teliya, figuratively motivated secondary names that reveal associative links, culturally significant frames and specific images abstract concepts. Thus, using the example of the cited author, one can describe the image of “conscience” in the national consciousness of Russians: “Conscience is a kind and at the same time punishing messenger of God in the soul, a “channel” of God’s control over the human soul, which has its own voice - voice conscience, says - conscience spoke, cleanses - clear conscience, an unclean conscience is sick, it torments, torments the subject, acting according to conscience means godly, just, and when there is no conscience, then the soul is open to spiritual permissiveness, etc. All these connotations indicate that conscience and Russian consciousness - the regulator of behavior according to the laws of higher morality.
Phraseologisms probably most clearly reflect national image of the world, imprinted in the language, determined by it and fixed in it. They embody "objectification" general concepts, whose names, speaking in non-free combinations, turn out to be metaphorically and metonymically connected with individuals or things. These concepts are subject to “materialization” in the language, it is the non-rational compatibility of the name that opens up in clichéd phrases, which include phraseological units, that makes it possible to identify the linguistic archetypes behind the name, to recreate language picture peace. It is no coincidence that scientists involved in conceptual analysis, in their research, pay special attention to non-free combinations of the name, behind which stands the concept of interest to them. So, for example, hope is presented to Russians as something fragile, a kind of shell, hollow inside - broken hopes, empty hope-yes; authority - something massive, columnar and at the same time devoid of stability - crush with your authority, shaken authority, knowledge, wisdom - something liquid, because they can be drunk (cf. thirst for knowledge) etc.
We agree that the study of such combinations, which most fully reveal the associative and connotative connections of names that denote key concepts of national culture, allows us to describe such concepts.
Case statements
Let us now turn to another type of cliched combinations, which E. M. Vereshchagin and V. G. Kostomarov call linguistic aphorisms and which, in their opinion, have syntactic form phrases, while phraseological units are the syntactic form of a phrase.
Understanding a linguistic aphorism as “a phrase that is known to everyone and therefore is not created anew in speech, but is retrieved from memory”, these scientists distinguish the following types of such units:
1) proverbs and sayings - short oral sayings dating back to folklore: They count chickens in the fall, Don't say gop until you jump over, It's time for business, it's time for fun;
2) winged words, i.e. included in our speech from literary sources short quotes, figurative expressions, sayings of historical persons: To be or not to be. That is the question; And nothing has changed; We wanted the best, but it turned out as always;
3) calls, mottos, slogans and others catchphrases which express certain philosophical, social, political views (Study, study, and study again ...; Freedom, equality, fraternity);
4) social scientific formulas ( Being determines consciousness) and natural science formulations.
The authors point out that “phraseologisms act as signs of concepts, and therefore they are meaningfully equivalent to words; aphorisms are signs of situations or relations between things, and are semantically equivalent to sentences.
As you can easily see, the above classification is carried out on the basis of the origin of those units that Vereshchagin and Kostomarov call linguistic aphorisms. D.B. Gudkov uses the term case statement (PV), the definition of which has already been given above (see lecture 6).
The semantics and functioning of SPs is determined not so much by their origin as by other factors. As observations on the modern Russian language show (primarily - oral speech and the language of the media), it is very difficult to distinguish between the use of, for example, “folklore” case statements and precedent statements-citations from classical works. It seems justified to distinguish between precedent statements: 1) rigidly associated with any precedent text (Tell me, uncle...; By pike command, according to my desire ...); 2) "autonomous" a) lost contact with the PT that gave rise to them (How good, how fresh were the roses) b) never had one (Quietly you go— you will continue).
The generation and perception of PVs related to the first and second types will differ from each other. As already mentioned, for the formation of the meaning of the text in which the SP appears, the greatest value is played, as a rule, not by the superficial, but by the deep meaning of the latter. So, surface value PV Was it a boy?(doubt about the existence of a certain boy, expressed in the form of a question) turns out to be “transparent”, its deep meaning comes to the fore, and this statement is used to express doubt about the existence of something / someone at all. Precedent statements are almost always associated with a precedent text and / or with a precedent situation (cf. But that's a completely different story.) Accordingly, when using and perceiving SP, a certain precedent situation and / or some precedent text is actualized in the minds of the speakers.
When generating "autonomous" precedent statements in the mind of the speaker, the real situation of speech reproduces some precedent situation, which acts as a standard for situations of this type in general. Accordingly, when perceiving such a precedent statement, the recipient understands it as a signifier, the signified of which is some precedent situation, and this latter is compared by the recipient with the situation of speech (cf. the use of such statements as Eureka!; Russia is great, but there is nowhere to retreat!).
A somewhat different picture is observed when the communicants operate on the SP, which is rigidly connected with the precedent text. In this case, when general action mechanism described above, the picture is somewhat different, because in linguistic consciousness carriers of a certain national cultural code, the precedent situation finds its reference expression in one or another PT and is updated through the actualization of the PT in which it is presented (I gave birth to you, I will kill you!- about a strict father punishing his son, and not necessarily as radically as in the corresponding PT; Manuscripts don't burn!- about the incorruptibility of the results of human creativity, and not necessarily literary).
In accordance with the three levels of meaning of the statement (superficial, deep and systemic meaning), one can single out SPs, the use of which actualizes various of these levels:
1) PVs that have only a superficial value:
Frost and sun- wonderful day!
There are two troubles in Russia-roads and fools!
The functional meaning of the statement (i.e., “who, when and where uses the precedent statement, what, why and why the author of the text containing this statement wants to say” can be understood without knowledge of the corresponding PF;
2) PV with surface and deep values:
The people are silent...- the superficial meaning (universal silence) is present, but it turns out to be “transparent”, and this PV begins to be used to express “submissive disobedience”, acquiring an additional symbolic meaning of the relationship between the authorities and the people;
3) PV, the surface meaning of which is actually absent, and through the deep, the systemic meaning is updated:
You are heavy Monomakh's hat- we are talking, of course, not about a cap and not even only about the burden of power, but about the burden of worries taken on by someone.
The use of SP of all three mentioned types turns out to be quite frequent in the speech of modern Russian speakers (especially in the language of the media of the most different directions), while understanding the texts in which the precedent statements of the last two types appear is great difficulties for foreigners, even those who speak Russian well.
When analyzing the use of PS, one more classification of these units seems necessary, which can be divided into two groups:
1) "canonical" PVs; they act as a strict quotation that is not subject to change: For what? - Just; Birds don't sing here...;
2) transformed PVs; they undergo certain changes. Despite this, full text PV is easily identified and restored:
When the actors were big;
Kuchma does not give up our proud "Varyag".
What is eternity - this is a bathhouse,
Eternity is a bath with spiders.
If this bathhouse
Forget Manka,
What will happen to the Motherland and to us?
(V. Pelevin. "Generation" P»).
The difference in the functioning of these two types of statements lies in the fact that the transformed case statement is first compared with the "canonical", and then the mechanism, which was discussed above, begins to work. At the same time, the surface meaning of the transformed PV is never “transparent”, it always actively participates in the formation of the meaning of the statement. The main emphasis in this case falls precisely on the word or phrase that replaces the “classical” in the “canonical” PV, i.e., a technique that can be called “deceived expectation” is actively used. Consider an example we borrowed from I.V. Zakharenko and V.V. Krasnykh.
"East- bad business"- the subtitle of the section of the article about the collapse of the USSR, which deals with the Central Asian republics. The deep meaning of the statement is the emphasis that the situation is delicate, requiring knowledge and careful handling; this is emphasized by the exact PV: East is a delicate matter. The indicated meaning is “removed” due to the use of a “low” word in the transformed PV, on which the main semantic load. In this way, the author expresses his skepticism about the possibilities of any serious transformations in the Central Asian republics.
Let's repeat the main points of the lecture. When ICC, it is necessary to pay attention to the phenomena of proverb, namely, to the ways of storing and presenting cultural information in language and speech clichés of various types.
Among the latter, we single out, firstly, phraseological units, which can be divided into lexical and syntactic ones. The main feature of both is the irreducibility of their value to the sum of the values of their constituent units. Lexical phraseological units vividly and clearly reflect the national "image of the world", the specifics of the worldview and worldview of the surrounding reality, inherent in that or other linguistic and cultural community. In these units, key concepts are “materialized”, “reified” national culture and national consciousness.
In addition to phraseological units, precedent statements are distinguished. They are included in the design bureau of the linguocultural community, they find themselves in close relationship with other precedent phenomena, are actively used by native speakers and present serious difficulties for foreign speakers.
PV can be classified:
a) on the basis of connection with the case text (related to the PT / "stand-alone");
b) on the basis of connection with the three levels of meaning of the statement (superficial, deep, systemic meaning);
c) based on the mode of reproduction (transformed / non-transformed). Texts in which SPs are present, as a rule, are distinguished by pronounced expressiveness.
