Phraseologism (phraseological turn, phraseme) - stable in composition and structure, lexically indivisible and holistic 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 so-called phraseological calques are an exception. Phraseological units are described in special phraseological dictionaries.

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 Ballive 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 highlights an additional view - phraseological expressions.

General properties

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.

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 turn, the meaning of which is not at all derivable from the sum of the values ​​of its constituent components, their semantic independence has been completely lost. For example, sodom and gomorrah- "turmoil, noise." In a literal translation of phraseological fusions, it is usually impossible for a foreigner to understand their general meaning: in English. to show the white feather"to be afraid" (literally - "to show a white feather") none of the words hints at the meaning of the whole phrase.

Often the grammatical forms and 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 the original meaning - "to split a log into blanks for making 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, in which, nevertheless, the signs of the semantic separation of the components are clearly preserved. As a rule, its overall meaning is motivated and derived from the meaning of individual components.

Phraseological unity is characterized by figurativeness; each word of such a phrase has its own meaning, but in the aggregate they acquire a figurative meaning. Usually phraseological units of this type are tropes with a metaphorical meaning (for example, to study hard, to go with the flow, throw a bait). The individual words included in 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. However, with a literal translation, a foreigner can guess the meaning of the phrase.

Like idioms, phraseological units are semantically indivisible, their grammatical forms and syntactic structure are strictly defined. Replacing a word as part of a phraseological unity, including the substitution of a synonym, leads to the destruction of the metaphor (for example, science granite science basalt) or changing the expressive meaning: fall for the bait and get on the net are phraseological synonyms, but express different shades of expression.

However, unlike idioms, unities are subject to 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 a 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, keep a stone in one's bosom, lead by the nose; English to know the way the cat is jumping"know which way the wind blows" (literally - "know where the cat will jump").

→ Phraseological unions, unity, combinations and expressions

Phraseological unions, unity, combinations and expressions

Phraseological turns in terms of merging their constituent parts

Phraseological turns that exist in the Russian literary language are currently an extremely complex and diverse phenomenon. They differ from each other in their origin, stylistic and artistic-expressive qualities, and what they represent in terms of structure, lexical and grammatical composition and the fusion of their constituent parts into a single semantic whole.

From the point of view of merging the parts that make up phraseological turns, they can be divided into four groups:

The first two groups constitute semantically indivisible phrases. They are equivalent in terms of their meaning to one word. The third and fourth groups, i.e., phraseological combinations and phraseological expressions, are already semantically segmented turns. Their meaning is equivalent to the semantics of their constituent components.

Phraseological unions

Phraseological fusions are such semantically indivisible phraseological turns in which the integral meaning is completely inconsistent with the individual meanings of their constituent words. The meaning of this kind of phraseological turns is just as unmotivated and completely conditional as the semantics of words with a non-derivative basis.

For example, phraseological turns "" (to mess around) and "head-on" (recklessly) are the same unmotivated and conditional designations of the phenomena of objective reality, which are compound words such as "imitate", "peer", "headlong", etc. where the derivativeness is not felt at all and the meaning of the word is absolutely inconsistent with the meanings of their constituent parts. Indeed, just as the meaning of the word "headlong" is not deduced from the meaning of the parts striving- down (cf.: rapids, impetuous etc.) and chapters(cf.: chief, head etc.), and the meaning of the expression "head over heels" is not deduced from the meaning of the words outline and head.

Thus, phraseological fusions are such designations of certain phenomena of reality that are similar to what we observe in words with a non-derivative stem, in words in which the sign underlying the name is no longer felt. The sign underlying the name, both in non-derivative words and in phraseological fusions, can be revealed only from a historical point of view.

There are essentially no words with their independent meanings in phraseological fusions. The words included in them do not have any separate meanings. The meaning of the whole is not derived here and does not follow from the meaning of its constituent components.

The expression “uneven hour”, which is a phraseological fusion, is equal in meaning to “what if” (for example, uneven hour he will notice it). In its semantics, it is completely inconsistent with the meanings that are characteristic of the words "uneven" and "hour".

Such a turnover as “and no nails” is equal in meaning to the words “basta”, “enough”, “nothing more”. Its integral meaning as a phraseological unit is not made up of the meanings of words and no nails and does not follow from those individual meanings that are inherent in these words in their free use.

If the elements that make up the phraseological fusion have words that sound the same with them, then this ratio is purely homonymous.

So, for example, the combination of the words "wash the bones" on the one hand, can appear before us as a phraseological fusion, the meaning of which does not follow from the real meanings of the individual words "wash" and "bones" (gossip), but on the other hand, it can be the free use of these words in their direct, nominative meaning.

In this way, phraseological fusions - these are the equivalents of words, brought under certain grammatical categories as single, absolutely indecomposable semantic units. As examples one can cite such phraseological fusions as “get into a mess”, “sharpen balusters”, “beat the bucks”, where there are obsolete, obsolete words: slippage(machine for twisting ropes), balusters(turned railing posts), buckets(chocks for making small wood chips).

Secondly, due to the presence of grammatical archaisms within the phraseological fusion.

As examples, we can point out the phraseological fusions “slipshod”, “headlong”, in which the archaic form will be the gerunds “later”, “breaking” (in modern Russian, gerunds of the perfect form are formed, therefore it should have been “lowering”, “ breaking”, and not “later”, “breaking”; the phrase “now you let go” (cf. letting go), “dark is the water in the clouds” (cf. in the clouds) and etc.

Thirdly, due to the absence within its boundaries of a living syntactic connection between its constituent words, the presence of syntactic disorder and indivisibility. Compare, for example, phraseological fusions “than light”, “how to give a drink”, “tell a joke”, there was no”, “at least where”, “on your mind”, in which there are clear and distinct syntactic links between words, motivated from the point of view of modern grammatical rules, does not exist.

Phraseological units

The second group of phraseological turns are phraseological units. They are phraseological units that, like phraseological fusions, are semantically indivisible and integral, but in them, unlike phraseological fusions, their integral semantics is already motivated by the individual meanings of their constituent words. The indecomposable meaning of phraseological units arises as a result of the merging of the meanings of their individual parts in a single generalized figurative semantics of the whole.

The semantic indivisibility of such phraseological turns brings them closer to phraseological fusions, and their semantic derivative, the conditionality of their meaning by the meaning of individual words, distinguishes them from phraseological fusions.

If we take phraseological units as examples: “”, “pull the strap”, “bury talent in the ground”, “seven Fridays in the week”, “floats shallowly”, “suck it out of your finger”, “the first pancake is lumpy”, “put your teeth on shelf, etc., - then their meanings, in contrast to phraseological fusions, are derivative, motivated and arising from the semantics of the words that form them. In this respect, they are similar to words with a derived stem, i.e., a stem divided into morphological parts. However, it should be noted that this motivation, the derivativeness of the considered phraseological units is not direct, but indirect. All very numerous phraseological units in the Russian language are figurative expressions, constituent units, the understanding of which is necessarily connected with the understanding of the inner figurative core on which they are built.

The property of real-life figurativeness is the main property of phraseological units. This is what distinguishes them from homonymous free combinations of words.

Such combinations of words as: “soap your head”, “take it in your own hands”, “plug it in your belt”, “ride it on blacks”, etc., are equally possible as phraseological units (then these will be figurative expressions) and as ordinary free combinations of words (then these words will be used in their direct, nominative, meanings).

Unlike phraseological fusions, phraseological units do not represent a completely frozen mass: their constituent parts can be separated from each other by insertions of other words. This property of phraseological units sharply separates them not only from phraseological fusions, but also from most phraseological combinations and phraseological expressions.

Phraseological fusions and phraseological units as equivalents of words are often combined into one group. In such cases they are usually called idioms or idiomatic expressions. Phraseological fusions and phraseological units (“I ate the dog”; “In all Ivanovo”, “break through the open door”; “neither to the village nor to the city”; “powder”; “Siamese twins”, etc.) Phraseological combinations and phraseological expressions are opposed, which are not semantically indivisible equivalents of words, but are semantically segmented phrases, the meaning of which fully corresponds to the meaning of the words that form them (“furrow your eyebrows”; “sworn enemy”; “checking performance”; “struggle for peace” and etc.).

Phraseological combinations

Phraseological combinations are stable combinations of words in which there are words both with free use and with associated ones.

Consider the turnover "bosom friend". Before us is a phraseological combination made up of two words. Of these, the word "friend" has free use. It can be combined not only with the word "bosom", but also with a number of other words, very different in their lexical meaning, expressive-stylistic coloring, etc. As for the word "bosom", it is, as it were, attached to the word “friend” and can only be used in speech with him.

Another example: phraseological combinations "delicious question", "delicious situation" - combinations of the word "delicate" with the words "question" and "position".

The word "delicious" in the appropriate sense appears only in combination with these two words, that is, it has a related use. As for the word "question" and "position". then they have free use and can be combined with a variety of words.

Let us give some other examples of phraseological combinations: “break your nose”, “fragile boat”, “pitch hell”, “pitch darkness”, “sudden death”, “grin your teeth”, “biting frost”, “frown your eyebrows”, “hang your nose " etc.

Therefore, phraseological combinations are called such kind of turnovers that are stable in their composition, which are formed from words with a free and phraseologically related meaning.

Phraseological combinations have almost no homonymous free phrases. their peculiarity is that their constituent words with phraseologically related meanings can be replaced by synonymous ones ( sudden death - sudden death, bloody nose - break the nose etc.). The wider the range of words with which a member of a phraseological combination that has a non-free meaning can link, the closer this phraseological combination is to the category of phraseological expressions.

Phraseological expressions

Phraseological expressions one should name such phraseological phrases that are stable in their composition and use, which are not only semantically articulated, but also consist entirely of words with free meanings (“all ages are submissive to love”, “wholesale and retail”, “seriously and for a long time”, “ to be afraid of wolves - do not go into the forest", "socialist competition", "not all that glitters is gold", etc.).

They differ from phraseological combinations in that they do not contain a single word with a phraseologically related meaning. The words that make them up cannot have synonymous substitutions that are possible for words with a non-free meaning in the group of phraseological combinations (For example, open one's mouth open one's mouth).

By the nature of the connections of the words that make them up and by their general meaning, they do not differ in any way from free phrases.

the main specific feature that delimits them from free combinations of words is that in the process of communication they are not formed by the speaker, like the latter, but are reproduced as ready-made units with a constant composition and meaning.

The use of the phraseological expression “All ages are submissive to love” differs from the use, for example, of the sentence “Poems conquered readers with their sincerity and freshness” in that they are retrieved from memory as a whole, just like a single word or phraseological units equivalent to a word, while the sentence “The poems conquered the reader with their sincerity and freshness” is created by the speaker according to the laws of Russian grammar from individual words in the very process of communication.

Among phraseological expressions, there are both predicative phrases equal to a sentence, and combinations that are part of a sentence: “and Vaska listens and eats; “good impulses are destined for us”, “man - this sounds proud”; "work successes"; "at this stage"; "catch up and overtake"; “Without difficulty, you can’t even pull a fish out of a pond”; “Looks at a book, but sees a fig”; “radish horseradish is not sweeter”, etc.

The classification of phraseological units, as a rule, is often limited to considering them only from the point of view of the degree of merging of their constituent parts. However, phraseological turns do not represent uniformity in their structure and lexical and grammatical composition.

Phraseological combination of words

Phraseology(gr. phrase- expression + logos- doctrine) - the science of complex linguistic units that have a stable character: upside down, get into a mess, the cat cried, sleeveless. Phraseology is also called the whole set of these stable combinations that are complex in composition - phraseological units.

Phraseologisms, unlike lexical units, have a number of characteristic features.

1. Phraseologisms always complex in composition, they are formed by combining several components, which, as a rule, have a separate stress, but do not retain the meaning of independent words: puzzle, blood with milk, ate the dog.(Prepositional case combinations of the type with kondachka, under the arm.)

2. Phraseologisms semantically indivisible, they usually have an undivided meaning that can be expressed in one word: spread your mind- "think" fifth wheel on a cart- "extra", upside down- "back" the cat cried- "few", etc. True, this feature is not characteristic of all phraseological units. There are also those that are equated to a whole descriptive expression run aground- "to get into an extremely difficult situation", push all the pedals- "to make every effort to achieve or accomplish something." Such phraseological units arise as a result of figurative rethinking of free phrases.

3. Phraseological units, in contrast to free phrases, characterize constancy of composition. One or another component of a phraseological unit cannot be replaced by a word with a similar meaning, while free phrases easily allow such a replacement. For example, instead of the cat cried can't say "cat cried", "kitten cried", "puppy cried", instead of spread your mind- "scatter with the mind", "scatter the head"; (cf. free phrases reading a book, looking through a book, studying a book, reading a novel, reading a novel, reading a script).

However, some phraseological units have options: with all my heart - with all my heart, cast a shadow on the wattle fence - cast a shadow on a clear day. Nevertheless, the existence of variants does not mean that in these phraseological units one can arbitrarily update the composition: one cannot say "from the whole spirit", "from the whole consciousness", as well as " cast a shadow on the fence" (on a clear morning).

4. Phraseologisms are distinguished reproducibility. Unlike free phrases, which are built by us directly in speech, phraseological units are used in finished form, as they are fixed in the language, as our memory holds them. So, saying bosom, we will definitely say friend(not: friend, acquaintance, youth, comrade),accursed can only be enemy(not enemy, pest). This testifies to predictability components of phraseological units.

5. Most phraseological units are characterized by structure impermeability: you cannot arbitrarily include any elements in their composition. So, knowing phraseology look down we have no right to say "downcast your gaze low", "lower your gaze even lower", "lower your sad gaze" etc. The exception is phraseological units that allow the insertion of some clarifying words kindle passions - kindle fatal passions.

The structural feature of individual phraseological units is the presence of truncated forms along with complete:go through fire and water (... and copper pipes); drink a cup - drink a bitter cup (to the bottom), measure seven times (... cut once). The reduction in the composition of a phraseological unit in such cases is explained by the desire to save speech means.

6. Phraseological units are inherent stability of grammatical form their components: each member of the phraseological combination is reproduced in a certain grammatical form, which cannot be arbitrarily changed. Yes, you can't say "beat the bucket", "grind the lyas", replacing the plural forms baklush, lyas singular forms, do not use a full adjective instead of a short one in a phraseological unit barefoot etc. Only in special cases are variations of grammatical forms possible as part of individual phraseological units: warm hand- warm arms; heard whether it's - heard whether the case.

7. Most phraseological units are characterized by strictly fixed word order. For example, you cannot rearrange the components in phraseological units everything flows, everything changes, neither light nor dawn; blood with milk and others. At the same time, phraseological units of the verb type, i.e., consisting of a verb and words dependent on it, allow a rearrangement of components: dial in the mouth of water - in the mouth of water dial; not leave stone on stone - no stone on stone leave.

The heterogeneity of the structure of a number of phraseological units is explained by the fact that phraseology combines a rather motley language material, and the boundaries of some phraseological units are not clearly outlined.

Phraseological combinations

Phraseological combinations are called such stable turns, the general meaning of which completely depends 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 relations 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 this type of phrases, even lexically non-free components can be replaced by a synonym without prejudice to the general phraseological meaning (cf. ). This creates favorable conditions for the emergence of variants of phraseological units, and often synonyms.

The syntactic connections of words in such turns of phrase correspond to the 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 in this language, peculiar.

Canonical - taken as a model, firmly established.

Cliche - a common speech turnover, a 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 phraseology is a non-standard, specific construction, the structural properties and semantics of which go beyond regular syntactic links and patterns (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 the independent meanings of each word included in it ( roll down an 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 peculiarities of the semantics and functioning of language clichés of different types, and taking these features into account when teaching ICC. We call a cliché any ready-made speech form, the criterion for distinguishing which is the regularity of its appearance in certain repetitive 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 performs 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 the constancy of a holistic meaning, are called phraseological units of the language (or phraseological units, phraseological turns).

The main semantic feature of a phraseological unit is semantic fusion, cohesion, the essence of which is 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 a person who is insignificant from the point of view of social status, 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 the speaker's evaluative attitude, also express an 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.

Sustainability (permanence, stability) and reproducibility is the regular repetition of phraseological units in finished form. 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).

A separately designed structure is an important feature that characterizes the appearance of phraseological units (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 turns, the general meaning of which is to some extent motivated by the figurative meaning of 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. Unlike fusions, the figurativeness of which is extinct, already unmotivated and completely independent of the meaning of the constituent elements, phraseological units "have 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 single out a special group of phraseological units, which are called 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 the connections and relationships of the components from the point of view of living grammatical 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, the SF are specific Russian constructions, as they reflect the peculiarities of the Russian national mentality, the nature of the understanding of the real world by a Russian person. This explains, for example, the extremely detailed assessment, represented by a large number of 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. For example, in Korean there is a phraseological expression 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 symbolic, because it stands out and is 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 customs, traditions and cultural attitudes common to Slavic peoples. 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 is the symbolic space of the fall. In the XVII-beginning of the XIX century. there was a miniature depicting a sinner and a sinner being dragged by a demon down a hill to hell. Based on these ideas, rise, spiritual ascent were associated with approaching God, the divine principle, with moral perfection, moving an object down was associated with a moral fall, immoral behavior. Thanks to these ideas, probably, the phrases roll down, roll down the slippery path, moral decline, fail with shame, fall through the ground, fall in the eyes of someone have gained stability and reproducibility in the Russian language.

PU to stand / to stand in the way of someone, to stand on someone's life path, to interfere with someone's goal, to create obstacles for someone in life is associated with a superstitious prohibition to cross the road - otherwise he will not have good luck (same origin have idioms to cross / cross the road, cross / cross the road to someone).

In general, a number of phraseological units and metaphors are based on the linguistic metaphors “life is movement”, “movement is development”, 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, climbing a mountain, achieve a 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 for the better , 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. also He went the way to the end, and in Korean - He went the circle of life; I met a lot of good and kind people on the way; cf. jargon advanced, 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 of 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 soul of a person who has his own voice - the voice of conscience, says - conscience spoke, cleanses - a clear conscience, an unclean conscience - 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 is the regulator of behavior in accordance with the laws of higher morality.

Phraseologisms probably most clearly reflect the national image of the world, imprinted in the language, determined by it and fixed in it. They embody the "objectification" of general concepts, the names of which, acting as non-free combinations, turn out to be metaphorically and metonymically associated with specific persons 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 the linguistic picture of the world. 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 clichéd combinations, which E. M. Vereshchagin and V. G. Kostomarov call linguistic aphorisms and which, in their opinion, have the syntactic form of a phrase, while phraseological units have 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. brief quotations, figurative expressions, sayings of historical figures that have entered our speech from literary sources: 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 other catchphrases that 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 based on 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 (first of all, oral speech and the language of the media) show, it is very difficult to distinguish between the use of, for example, "folklore" precedent 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 ...; At the behest of the pike, at my will ...); 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, the surface value of the 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 signifier 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, with the general operation of the mechanism described above, the picture is somewhat different, because in the linguistic consciousness of the bearers 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 SPs 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 various directions), while understanding texts in which precedent statements of the last two types appear presents great difficulties for foreigners, even those who are fluent in in Russian.

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, the full text of the 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 is always actively involved 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 the 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 falls. 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 paremia, namely, to the ways of storing and presenting cultural information in various types of language and speech clichés.

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 worldview and worldview of the surrounding reality, inherent in a particular linguocultural community. In these units, the key concepts of national culture and national consciousness are “materialized”, “reified”.

In addition to phraseological units, precedent statements are distinguished. They are included in the CB of the linguocultural community, are in close relationship with other precedent phenomena, are actively used by native speakers and present serious difficulties for foreigners.

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.