Semantic cohesion

Types of phraseological units according to motivation of meaning and

The criterion for identifying types of indecomposable combinations is, first of all, the degree of merging of individual words in them. The stability and indecomposability of phraseological elements is considered, as a rule, from two points of view. Firstly, from the point of view of their semantic cohesion and, secondly, from the point of view of the possibility of morphological changes in the words that make up a given phrase.

At the same time, the unity of phrases in meaning is reflected in their grammatical properties. Thus, the more clearly the semantic indecomposability of the phrase as a whole is expressed, the weaker the grammatical connections become, and sometimes they are completely lost (cf. the hour is uneven, it’s a joke to say, headlong And mislead- mislead, deceive- rub glasses- rubbed glasses etc.).

In terms of the degree of lexical indivisibility and grammatical fusion of component parts, many researchers, following Academician. V.V. Vinogradov distinguishes the following types of phraseological units: phraseological adhesions, phraseological unities, phraseological combinations.

A special group should include some quotes, proverbs, sayings and a number of terminological phrases that acquire certain features of phraseological units proper, for example, reproducibility in the same composition and emerging metaphoricality. Such turns of phrase are called phraseologized; they gradually move into one or another group of phraseological units proper. (Note that N.M. Shansky calls them phraseological expressions and includes them in the general composition of phraseology).

Phraseological adhesions These are lexically indivisible phrases whose meaning is not determined by the meaning of the individual words they contain.

For example, the meaning of revolutions kick your ass- "to mess around" from the bay-floundering- “rashly”, sodom and gomorrah- “turmoil, noise”, carelessly- "carelessly" how to give something to drink- “certainly” and others are not motivated by the meaning of the constituent components, since, firstly, in the lexical system modern language there are no independently existing words with full meaning baklusha, bays, floundering, sodom, gomorrah; secondly, the meaning of words beat, lower (later), sleeves, give, drink turns out to be lexically weakened, even emptied, under the conditions of this phrase (cf.: basic meanings beat- "to strike" lower- “move from top to bottom”, sleeves- “a piece of clothing covering the hand”; give- “to hand over” drink- “absorb liquid”).

Thus, the main feature of phraseological fusion is its lexical indivisibility, absolute semantic cohesion, in which the meaning of the whole phrase cannot be deduced from the meaning of its constituent words.

Semantically, the fusion in most cases turns out to be the equivalent of a word (“a kind of syntactically compound word,” in the terminology of Academician V.V. Vinogradov). For example: inside out- "vice versa", hand on heart- “frankly, sincerely”, out of hand- "Badly", coward(or coward) celebrate- “to be afraid, to be wary”, etc.

The grammatical forms of the words that make up the phraseological unit can sometimes change. For example, in sentences Prokhor also invited Protasov: he is universally educated and has a knack for mining. Or: - As for fabrics, I am not an expert in them; ask Queen Marya about them. The women ate the dog on that one- the relationship between the word is preserved ate and the subject of the action: he ate, they ate etc. However, on general meaning splices, such a change in grammatical forms has no effect.

In some splices, the grammatical forms of words and grammatical connections also cannot be explained or motivated from the point of view of the modern Russian language, i.e. they are perceived as a kind of grammatical archaism. For example: from young to old, on bare feet, in broad daylight, so-so, no matter what, on your own mind, just a joke, wonder etc. Outdated grammatical forms of words (and sometimes the word as a whole) and unmotivated syntactic connections only support the lexical indivisibility of the phrase, its semantic unity.

Syntactically, phraseological fusions act as a single member of a sentence. For example, in the sentence: He reproached me all the way for the fact that we... do nothing, work carelessly - the highlighted phraseological fusion performs the function of an adverbial manner of action. In a sentence: His speech confuses you- fusion is a predicate.

Learning any language begins with learning the written language, then learning the pronunciation of sounds and, finally, all this is put into words. And if at first it becomes easy to learn the rules for the formation of phrases, and, in principle, you can remember a certain pattern with the help of which parts of speech are formed in a language, then they will always remain a stumbling block - phraseological unities, or, more simply put, idioms that You can learn only through long cramming and nothing else.

Why are phraseological unities needed?

However, it is not for us, Russian-speaking people, to complain about the inability to understand in another language, since Russian people always have a kind of “cure word” that completely describes the current situation.

The Russian language is considered one of the most difficult to learn due to the presence of many tenses, verb conjugations, ways of forming new parts of speech, but the most damning thing is precisely the idioms, those very phraseological adhesions, unities. Compete with riches catchphrases The Russian language can only work with Chinese.

Idioms are used in speech in order to decorate it, make it more interesting, and less often - to give a certain emotional coloring. Even native speakers themselves do not always know where this or that expression came from, but they are always happy to use stable expressions in their speech.

To understand what certain expressions mean in any language, you need to become more familiar with the mentality of this people, study their habits and habits, and the rules of life. And then, perhaps, this whole mess of words will become more understandable.

What are phraseological units and idioms?

The most difficult thing is to explain an illogical combination of words to children, because in their concept the world is logical and consistent, which means that phraseological unities are something that falls out of the usual course of events, and we need to find an explanation for this.

First, we need to sort out all this confusion: are phraseological adhesions, phraseological unities and phraseological expressions - are they all the same thing or are there still differences between them? Yes, in fact, the differences between them for linguists and philologists are almost colossal, but for ordinary people these are all idioms. But to explain briefly:

• Phraseological fusion is an indivisible combination of words, since if these words are divided, then the general meaning of the entire phrase is lost. In other words, by connecting with each other, words form a completely new, figurative meaning.
• Phraseological unity - unlike the first option, in this case the words are still used in their literal meaning, and the phrase, in principle, can be understood even if it is translated into another language: the allegorical image still shines through.
• or expressions are characterized by having one constant word that can be combined with other variables. Simply put, this is a metaphorical expression of one’s feelings, which is just more understandable from all of the above.

Examples of phraseological units

Any person has no problems with the selection of idioms. Everyone knows the common expressions “play the fool”, “play the fool”, “out of the blue”, “out of the blue”, “bend to death”, “pour in on the first day” and so on. These adhesions are indivisible in themselves; to disconnect these words from each other means to destroy the very canonicity of the statement. Examples of such phrases are found in Everyday life so often that the use of such combinations does not hurt the ear of a Russian at all, but a foreigner will have to explain for a very long time who the fool is and why he needs to be played.

Everyone is familiar with the expressions “go with the flow”, “gnaw the granite of science”, “catch with live bait”, “a storm in a teacup”, “work tirelessly” and so on. These are already phraseological unities. Examples of such expressions are even more common than idioms. And since they do not hurt the ears of native speakers, sometimes we don’t even notice it.

Combinations and unities

Everything is a little more complicated with phraseological combinations, since it really requires imagination in order to understand a person. Russian people, for example, love to “burn” with their feelings, be it shame, resentment or love. Or here’s another thing: well, a foreigner can’t understand where the Russians are talking nonsense or nonsense. That is, in these expressions there is a constant word, which is used in a figurative meaning, and a second variable word.

As can be seen from the description, phraseological unities and phraseological combinations are sometimes much easier for a foreigner to understand, but there is only one way to deal with adjuncts: learn them by heart. And it is advisable once again not to ask a Russian what a “mite”, “baklushi” or “arshin” is - he, frankly, does not know.

Folklore

The view of the world for many generations is formed by passing information from parents to children, and so on for many generations to come. Poems, songs, fairy tales, epics, tongue twisters, proverbs and sayings - all this is oral folk art, and each nation has its own. By studying the culture of our ancestors, it is often much easier to understand how people behaved and thought about something at that time, and it is also easier to understand where the wisdom of those times found a place in modern science.

Phraseological unities are nothing more than the same sayings that people used to talk with before. V.I. Dal, for example, loved to travel through villages and perpetuate such expressions, write them down and explain them. And it is partly to his credit that many expressions have survived to this day.

With what

The fact that, as a rule, they carry a certain instructive moral contained in one sentence. That is, a sentence can be paraphrased, replaced or omitted some words, while maintaining the meaning - it is not a single whole, unlike sayings, the words in which are unchanged. It was proverbs that were often used to describe situations, express emotions, and simply communicate in Rus'.

Where do wings come from?

Most of the idioms and set expressions have been known since the times when Russia was Russia, and Kyiv was the mother of Russian cities, but it cannot be denied that the strong influence on lexicon provide and classical writers, whose catchphrases are so loved by people.

The most famous Russian work, from which many expressions are borrowed, is “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov. Everyone is familiar with the phrases: “new legend”, or the exclamation “Give me a carriage, give me a carriage!”, or “I don’t go here anymore.” But few people know that all this is taken from the great Russian work. Often the title of the play itself is used as a phraseological unit.

Expressions from the works of Pushkin, Tolstoy, Bulgakov and many other classics have become so tightly integrated into speech that they have already lost their roots. That's why it's a classic, because it's familiar to everyone.

Speaking about catchphrases, it is impossible not to mention Soviet cinema, when many books were also filmed. Just remember “The Golden Calf”! “Money in the morning, chairs in the evening,” a Russian person may say and will not even think about how phraseological unities of this kind are perceived by foreigners. To some this may seem arrogant, but we will understand the reference to Ostap Bender and even laugh together.

Phraseology in everyday life

Many of us don’t even think about why we use certain expressions and where the legs of these statements grow. Phraseological unities, examples of which any Russian person will immediately remember, actually reflect the mentality, customs and thinking of the people.

For example, we can consider the difference between two set phrases in Russian and in English language: "Do or die!" - say the British. At the same time, a Russian person will say the opposite: “Die, but do it,” which means fearlessness before death.

Or another expression: “to give away your last shirt,” which speaks of the habit of sacrificing everything for the well-being of other people.

Russian heart

Phraseologisms in which the heart is touched also deserve attention. “Break your heart”, “with all your heart/with all your soul”, “heart skips a beat”, “heart bleeds” and so on. The point is that in great attention is given inner world person. It has long been believed that the soul lives in the chest; all feelings and the most intimate are accumulated in the very heart.

The phraseological unity “hand on heart” arose from the custom of placing a hand on the chest when someone speaks sincerely. This gesture suggests that a person literally opens his heart to another and thus confirms the truth of his words. Remember the custom of taking an oath on the Bible, while placing your hand on it. But what if you don’t have a book at hand? Put your hand on something that is sacred to a person to the same extent as the mentioned book. That's why he puts his hand on his heart.

Phraseologisms in English

It is not only the Russian language that sometimes introduces combinations of the incongruous, but phraseological unities are also present in the English language. Some of them are connected with history, others with the mentality and habits of the British.

The most common English expression probably sounds like this: “Every cloud has a silver lining.” As in the case of Russian, it’s not even worth trying to translate this word for word. You just have to remember that this expression sounds like encouragement, like, “things can’t be that bad.”

The English love to eat words. That’s exactly what they say: “To eat one’s words,” which is very similar in meaning to the Russian “take the words back.” Many expressions in English often have analogues in Russian, and vice versa, so both Russians and Russians can understand some phraseological units and it’s easy for the British.

Chinese phraseological units

Only the Chinese language can compete with the Russian language in terms of the number of different expressions. As you know, it contains about a thousand hieroglyphs and many times more words. In one thing, the inhabitants of the Celestial Empire are exactly like Russians: to this day, expressions invented by distant ancestors in past centuries have been preserved in their native language. The Chinese treat the history of their people very carefully, and therefore the allied phraseological unities in the Chinese language, despite the fact that the grammar has changed significantly since then, have been preserved to this day.

A distinctive feature of succinct statements in Chinese is that such phrases, as a rule, consist of two parts: the first - the second part itself - an explanation of what is meant. For example: 守株待兔 - “wait by the sea for weather”, “trust in fate.” It is especially interesting for Chinese translators to translate this kind of phraseological units, since they were formed back when even the written language was different.

Phraseologism

Phraseologism (phraseological turn, phraseme) - a phrase or sentence that is stable in composition and structure, lexically indivisible and integral in meaning, performing the function of a separate lexeme (dictionary unit). Often a phraseological unit remains the property of only one language; the exception is the so-called phraseological tracing paper. Phraseological units are described in special phraseological dictionaries.

A phraseological unit 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 cohesion of phraseological units can vary within fairly wide limits: from the non-deducibility of the meaning of a phraseological unit from its constituent words in phraseological conjunctions ( idioms) to phraseological combinations with meaning arising from the meanings that make up the combination. Transforming a phrase into a stable phraseological unit is called lexicalization.

The concept of phraseological units (fr. unité phraséologique) as a stable phrase, the meaning of which cannot be derived 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 phraséologiques) with a variable combination of components. Subsequently, V.V. Vinogradov identified three main types of phraseological units: phraseological adjuncts(idioms), phraseological unities And phraseological combinations. N. M. Shansky also highlights additional view - phraseological expressions.

Different scientists interpret the concept of a phraseological unit and its properties in different ways, however, the properties of a phraseological unit most consistently identified by various scientists are

• reproducibility,
• sustainability,
• superverbal (separately formed).
• belonging to the nominative inventory of the language.

Phraseological adjunctions (idioms)

Phraseological fusion, or idiom (from Greek. ἴδιος “own, characteristic”) is a semantically indivisible phrase, the meaning of which is completely indeducible from the meanings of its constituent components. For example, sodom and gomorrah- "turmoil, noise."

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 kick your ass- “to mess around” (in the original meaning - “to split logs into blanks for making household wooden objects”) and carelessly- “carelessly” reflect the realities of the past that are absent in the present (in the past they were characterized by metaphor). In unions from small to large, without hesitation archaic grammatical forms are preserved.

Phraseological unities

Phraseological unity is a stable turnover, each of its words is used in a literal and parallel figurative meaning. The figurative meaning constitutes the content of phraseological unity. Phraseological unity is a trope with a metaphorical meaning. For example, “go with the flow”, “cast a fishing rod”, “reel in a fishing rod”, fall for the bait”, “get caught in the net”. Phraseological unity includes all expressions of all the sacred scriptures of the world. Since the absolute Most people perceive the direct meaning of expressions, then they do not understand the ideas of the sacred scriptures. For example, “Pigs love to bathe in mud.” This expression is a statement of an observable sensory fact - the truth of science. However, as in all scriptures world, this expression in its content does not have a rational thought, but an irrational idea. Rational thought is based on the perception of feelings, and irrational idea draws knowledge from the spirit. An irrational idea is a pure idea. It is cleared of information from sensory perception. Ideas of phraseological unities are inaccessible to information from sensory perception. This is what the main problem understanding - hermeneutics. Unlike idioms, unities are motivated by the realities of 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, to pour water into the mill (of something or someone) And pour water into (one's own, someone else's, etc.) mill. Examples: reach a dead end, be in full swing, to go with the flow, keep a stone in your bosom, lead by the nose.

Phraseological combinations

A phraseological combination (collocation) is a stable phrase that includes words with both a free meaning and those with a phraseologically related, non-free meaning (used only in this combination). Phraseological combinations are stable phrases, but their holistic meaning follows from the meanings of the individual words that make them up.

Unlike phraseological adhesions 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 out is a constant member with a phraseologically related meaning.

A limited range of words, determined by semantic relationships within the language system, can be used as variable members of a combination: for example, a phraseological combination burn with passion is a hypernym in relation to combinations like burn from..., and due to varying 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 are phraseological units that are stable in their composition and use, 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 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 a phraseological expression or there are elements of understatement, then it is a proverb or a catchphrase. Another source of phraseological expressions is professional speech. The category of phraseological expressions also includes speech cliches - stable formulas like best wishes, see you again and so on.

Many linguists do not classify phraseological expressions as phraseological units, since they lack the basic features of phraseological units. no suggestions for example

Melchuk's classification

1. The linguistic unit affected by phraseologization:
   • lexeme ( shepherd with the suffix - duh),
   • phrase ( inflated authority, English red herring),
   • syntactic phraseme (sentence options differing in prosody: You I have you read this book And You are in my house read it this book).
2. Participation of pragmatic factors in the process of phraseologization:
   • pragmathemes associated with the extra-linguistic situation ( best before date, English best before),
   • semantic phrasemes ( throw off the hooves).
3. Component of a linguistic sign subject to phraseologization:
   • signified ( kick your ass),
   • meaning (supplemental units in morphology: person people),
   • syntactics of the sign itself (eng. He sort of laughed).
4. Degree of phraseologization:
   • complete phrasemes (=idioms) (English) kick the bucket),
   • semiphrases (=collocations) (English) land a job),
   • quasi-phrases (English) ham and eggs).

In general, as a result of such a calculation, Melchuk identifies 3×2×3×3=54 types of phrasemes.

see also

• Semantic classification of phraseological units of the English language

Notes

Literature

• Amosova N. N. Fundamentals of English phraseology. - L., 1963
• Arsentyeva E. F. Phraseology and phraseography in a comparative aspect (based on the material of the 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
• Telia V.N. Russian phraseology: Semantic, pragmatic and linguocultural 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

• Phraseologisms (idioms) in the English language. Archived (English) . Archived from the original on November 27, 2012. (Russian) . Archived from the original on November 27, 2012.
• Michelson's large explanatory and phraseological dictionary. 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.

An aphorism is a phrase that is known to everyone and therefore is not created anew in speech, but is retrieved from memory.

Motto - a short saying, usually expressing the guiding idea of ​​behavior or activity (Our motto is forward!).

Idiomatic - inherent only to a given language, peculiar.

Canonical - accepted as a model, firmly established.

A cliché is a common speech pattern, a cliche.

A slogan is an appeal that expresses in a laconic form political idea, demand (for example, the slogan of the era of socialism: The Party is the mind, honor and conscience of our era).

Proverb is a linguistic cliche (phraseologism, proverb, saying, precedent statement).

An appeal is an appeal that in a laconic form expresses a guiding idea, a political demand, a slogan ( All for the elections!).

A prototype situation is a situation that corresponds 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 connections and patterns (for example: I wish I could come in the summer!); function and pronominal words, particles and interjections do not function according to the current syntactic rules. Unlike a lexical phraseological unit, a syntactic phraseological unit is not reproduced, but constructed.

Phraseologism is a phrase whose general meaning is not derived from the independent meanings of each word included in it ( roll down an inclined plane - to decline morally). The main features of a phraseological unit are stability and reproducibility.

The standard is a sample.

This lecture is devoted to consideration of the problems of paremia, i.e., the features of the semantics and functioning of linguistic clichés of different types and taking into account these features when teaching ICC. We call a cliche any ready-made speech form, the criterion for identifying which is the regularity of its appearance in certain recurring speech situations. Let's focus our attention 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 to form phrases. Some of them are free, others are not free. Free combinations of words are constantly formed during speech: the speaker selects words that are necessary in meaning based on knowledge of their meaning and grammatically builds combinations from them in accordance with the intent and structure of the utterance: drink tea, write with a pen, take part in a play, organize a conference and so on.

Each word in such free combinations of words retains its independent meaning and performs a specific 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 change and new free combinations arise.

There are also related combinations in the language, for example, cross someone's path prevent you from achieving your goal: I know why he behaves this way. Once I crossed his path - I won a 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 phrase is no longer connected with the semantics of each word separately. Lexically, such a combination is indivisible and is reproduced in speech as a ready-made speech unit. The role of the phrase as a whole is considered syntactically, and not each word separately. Such semantically indivisible phrases, which are characterized by constancy of integral meaning, are called phraseological units of language (or phraseological units, phraseological units).

The main semantic feature of a phraseological unit is semantic unity, 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 something insignificant from the point of view social status person shot sparrow- about an experienced, experienced person, fool someone's head- not allowing you to concentrate on the main thing, the main thing, to confuse, to fool someone).

The meaning of phraseological units 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 meaning of the synonym word. So, kick your ass- this is not just idleness, but doing trifles; put a spoke in wheel- not only interfere or impede, but do it while someone is doing something, as if in the course of it; wash dirty linen in public- this is when someone to whom they were confidentially told gossips or divulges other people’s secrets. 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 the 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 the speaker and the one about whom we're talking about, were on equal terms, but now this latter boasts of his higher social or material 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 any fragment of reality, but also express the positive or negative opinion of the speaker about what is denoted. At the same time, the speaker evaluates whether it is good or bad, kind 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 phrase: self-importance is a bad human trait.

The images on the basis of which phraseological units are formed can themselves provide an assessment of the signified. So, put a spoke in someone's wheels - bad, but give a green light - Fine.

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 until exhaustion, then they describe and evaluate only the designated situation. But if they say: They're squeezing all the juice out of us, then they also count on the sympathy and empathy of the listener, since in the meaning of a phraseological unit there is also connotation - emotional disapproval of what is denoted (cf. in the statement You're leading me by the nose the speaker accuses the interlocutor of disdainful attitude towards him).

From the above examples it is clear that phraseological units are a kind of microtexts in which, in addition to a figurative description of the actual fragment of reality being designated, there are also connotations (connotations) that express the speaker’s evaluative or emotional attitude to the signified. The addition of these meanings creates the effect of expressiveness or expressiveness of phraseological units.

Phraseologism has a number of significant features:

1) stability,

2) reproducibility,

3) integrity of meaning,

4) separate design.

Stability (constancy, stability) and reproducibility are the regular repeatability of phraseological units in finished form. Phrase phrases are reproduced and not constructed anew in speech each time, depending on the communicative situation.

The integrity of the meaning of a phraseological unit is due to 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 differ in meaning from the corresponding freely used words. So, for example, it is impossible to phraseologically break into pieces try, exhaustingly, to do everything possible to interpret by interpreting the meanings of words break, cake(cf. count crows, hold a stone in your bosom, seven spans in your forehead, two steps away).

A separate structure is an important feature characterizing appearance PU (plane of expression). All phraseological units have a separate structure, i.e. they are constructed according to the model various combinations words

Following V.V. Vinogradov, based on the criterion of syntactic and semantic indecomposability of a word combination, freedom/non-freedom of the words included in it, it is customary to distinguish several types of phraseological units - phraseological adhesions, phraseological unities and phraseological combinations.

F Raseological adhesions

Phraseological fusions are lexically indivisible phrases, the meanings of which are not determined by the meaning of the individual words included in them (for example, kick your ass sit back, from the bay-floundering thoughtlessly Sodom and Gomorrah turmoil, noise, carelessly carelessly, how to give something to drink certainly. The meaning of these phrases is not motivated by the meaning of the constituent elements. The main feature of phraseological fusions is its indivisibility, absolute semantic cohesion, in which the meaning of the whole phrase cannot be deduced from the meaning of its constituent words. (See also topsy-turvy, hand on heart, extremely bad, from young to old, without hesitation, in broad daylight, on one’s mind, to tell a joke, to be amazed).

F raseological unities

Phraseological units are lexical units, the general meaning of which is to some extent motivated by the figurative meaning of the words that make up the given phrase. 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 blood and milk out of your finger etc. depends on the meaning of individual elements that make up the figurative “core” of the entire turnover. Unlike adhesions, the imagery of which is extinct, already unmotivated and completely independent of the meaning of the constituent elements, phraseological unities “have the property of potential imagery.” This allows some scientists to call phrases of this type metaphorical combinations. In contrast to fusions, parts of phraseological units can be separated from each other by inserting some words: pour water into (your, my, your) mill;

Phraseological combinations − such stable phrases, the overall meaning of which completely depends on the meaning of the constituent words. Words as part of a phraseological combination retain relative semantic independence, but are not free and manifest their meaning only in combination with a certain, closed circle of words, for example: word tearfully can only be combined 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 combinations burn with shame And melancholy takes over will be permanent burn out And beret, since these words will turn out to be the main (core) elements in other phraseological combinations: burn out - from shame, from disgrace, from disgrace; burn out- from love; burn out- from impatience, envy; beret- frustration, anger; takes - fear, horror; beret- laughter. The use of other components is impossible (cf.: *burn with joy, *takes smile).

The meanings of such words are phraseologically related in the system of these phrases, that is, they are realized only with a certain range of words. Despite the phraseological closedness of phrases of this type, even lexically non-free components can be (without prejudice to the general phraseological meaning) replaced by a synonym (cf.: lower your head - lower your head; sit in a puddle - sit in a galosh; frown - frown). This creates conditions for the emergence of phraseological unities, 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 the word.

Syntactic phraseological units

Currently, it is also customary to distinguish a special group of phraseological units called syntactic phraseological units. These are “non-standard, specific constructions, the structural properties and semantics of which go beyond the framework of regular syntactic connections and patterns. For example: I wish I could come in the summer!; What a relaxing time there!; So that when he’s late!”. “Russian Grammar” calls syntactic phraseological units “such constructions in which the connections and relationships of 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 associated with each other idiomatically” and where “functional and pronominal words, particles and interjections do not function according to the current syntactic rules.” A syntactic phraseological unit differs from a lexical one in that it is “not reproduced, but constructed.” Syntactic and lexical phraseological units are distinguished, as a rule, by stylistic and emotional expressiveness.

Syntactic phraseological units, unlike lexical ones, are not among the nominative means of 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 surrounding reality. A.V. Velichko rightly points out: “When considering syntactic phraseological units (SPs) in the sociocultural aspect, their dual nature can be traced. On the one hand, SF reflect in their semantics the properties of the human personality, a person beyond his nationality. On the other hand, SF represent specific Russian constructions, since they reflect the peculiarities of the Russian national mentality, the nature of the awareness of the real world by the Russian person. This explains, for example, the extreme detail of the assessment presented big amount evaluative syntactic phraseological units (These are flowers! Roses are flowers/ Flowers for all flowers! Why not flowers! Flowers for me too!)”.

Phraseology and national image of the world

Since the peculiarity of a phraseological unit is that its meaning is not reducible 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 the Korean language there is a phraseological expression eat kuksu. Even knowing what it is kuksu, you can’t guess that we are talking about a wedding. The fact is that the etymology of this expression is associated with the ancient Korean custom of eating guksu at a wedding. Therefore, the question “When will we eat kuksu?” should be understood as “When will you get married?”

Phraseologisms arise on the basis of a prototype situation, that is, a situation corresponding to the literal meaning of the phraseological unit. Prototypes reflect national (in our case, Russian) culture, since “genetically free phrases describe certain customs, traditions, details of life and culture, historical events and much more.” (For example, prototypes of phraseological units can tell about typical Russian flora: from a forest and from a pine tree, some to the forest, some for firewood, as in dark forest). A certain content is assigned to a situation - the result of rethinking a given situation in a given specific cultural code.

This situation is symbolic in nature, 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 the framework) of which a given phraseological unit is formed.

The 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 the 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 between top and bottom. In mythological (and later religious) consciousness, the top was associated with the location of the divine principle, the bottom was the location of hell, and the Underworld was the symbolic space of the Fall. In the XVII-early XIX centuries. There was a miniature depicting a sinner and a sinner being dragged downhill to hell by a demon. Based on these ideas, ascent, spiritual ascent was associated with approaching God, the divine principle, with moral improvement; moving an object down was associated with moral decline, immoral behavior. Thanks to these ideas, it is likely that the phrases roll down, roll down a slippery slope, decline in morals, fail out of shame, fall through the ground, fall in the eyes of someone, have gained stability and reproducibility in the Russian language.

The phrase “to stand in the way of someone”, to stand in the way of someone’s life, to interfere with someone’s achievement of a goal, to create obstacles in someone’s life is associated with the superstitious prohibition to cross the road for someone walking - otherwise he will not have good luck (same origin have phraseological units to cross/cross the road, cross/cross someone's road).

In general, a whole series of phraseological units and metaphors are based on the linguistic metaphors “life is movement”, “movement is development”, for example, to pave one’s way with one’s forehead persistently, persistently, at the cost of great effort to achieve success in life, to pave one’s way with one’s chest to achieve success, overcome all obstacles, climb the mountain to achieve high position in society, put someone on the road, help someone find their business and place in life, creating the necessary conditions, turn to the path of truth under the influence of someone, change your behavior in better side, go far ahead, change significantly, not advance one step at all, not at all; Wed also a start in life, on the path to success, to stand at a crossroads.

The image is highly productive due to the fact that ordinary consciousness Russians have a fixed perception of life as a path (cf. also He walked the path to the end, and in Korean - He walked the circle of life; I met a lot of good and kind people on the way; cf. in the jargon advanced, to 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 provides unlimited possibilities for a variety of metaphorical constructions when creating images.

Many phraseological units are, according to V.N. Telia, figuratively motivated secondary names that reveal associative connections, culturally significant frames and specific images of abstract concepts. Thus, using the example of the quoted author, we 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-voice conscience, says - conscience has spoken, clears - a clear conscience, a bad conscience is sick, it torments, torments the subject, to act according to conscience means in a divine, fair way, and when there is no conscience, then the soul is open to spiritual permissiveness and etc. All these connotations indicate that conscience in the Russian consciousness is a regulator of behavior according to the laws of the highest morality.”

Phraseologisms probably most clearly reflect national image the world, imprinted in language, determined by it and fixed in it. They embody “objectification” general concepts, whose names, appearing in extra-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 a name, revealed in clichéd phrases, which include phraseological units, that makes it possible to identify the linguistic archetypes behind the name and 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 the concept they are interested in stands. So, for example, hope appears to Russians as something fragile, a kind of shell, hollow inside - broken hopes, empty hope; authority is something massive, column-shaped and at the same time devoid of stability - crush with your authority, shaky authority, knowledge, wisdom are 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.

Precedent 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 identify the following types of similar units:

1) proverbs and sayings - oral short sayings that go back to folklore: They count chickens in the fall, Don't say hello until you jump, 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 figures: 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) appeals, mottos, slogans and other catchphrases that express certain philosophical, social, political views (Study, study, and study again...; Freedom, equality, brotherhood);

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 relationships between things, and are semantically equivalent to sentences.”

As is easy to 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 precedent statement (PV), the definition of which has already been given above (see lecture 6).

The semantics and functioning of PVs is determined not so much by their origin as by other factors. As observations of 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” precedent statements and precedent statements-quotes from classical works. It seems justified to distinguish precedent statements: 1) strictly related to any precedent text (Tell me, uncle...; At the behest of the pike, at my will...); 2) “autonomous” a) having lost contact with the PT that gave birth to them (How beautiful, how fresh the roses were) b) have never had one (Go slower— you will continue).

The generation and perception of PVs belonging to the first and second types will differ from each other. As already indicated, to form the meaning of the text in which the PV appears, highest value As a rule, it plays not the superficial, but the deep meaning of the latter. Thus, the surface value of PV Was there 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 in general. Precedential 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 PV, a certain precedent situation and/or some precedent text is updated in the minds of speakers.

When “autonomous” precedent utterances are generated in the mind of the speaker, the real speech situation reproduces a certain precedent situation, which acts as a standard for situations of this type in general. Accordingly, when perceiving such a precedent utterance, the recipient understands it as a signifier, the signified of which is a certain 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 communicants operate with PV that is strictly connected with the precedent text. In this case, with the general action of the mechanism described above, the picture is somewhat different, because in the linguistic consciousness of the carriers of a certain national cultural code, the precedent situation finds its standard expression in one or another PT and is updated through the actualization of the PT in which it is represented (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 ones).

In accordance with the three levels of meaning of a statement (surface, deep and systemic meaning), it is possible to distinguish PVs, the use of which actualizes various of these levels:

1) PVs that have only superficial meaning:

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) PVs with surface and deep meanings:

The people are silent...- the superficial meaning (general silence) is present, but turns out to be “transparent”, and this PV begins to be used to express “obedient disobedience”, acquiring an additional symbolic meaning of the relationship between the authorities and the people;

3) PV, the surface meaning of which is virtually absent, and through the deep one the systemic meaning is updated:

Monomakh's hat is heavy- we are talking, naturally, not about the cap and not even only about the burden of power, but about the burden of care taken on by someone.

The use of PVs 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 speak well in Russian.

When analyzing the use of PV, another classification of these units seems necessary, which can be divided into two groups:

1) “canonical” PV; they act as a strict quotation that is not subject to change: For what? - Just; Birds don't sing here...;

2) transformed PV; they undergo certain changes. Despite this, full text PV is easily recognized and restored:

When actors were big;

Our proud “Varyag” does not surrender to Kuchma.

What is eternity - it's a bathhouse,

Eternity is a bathhouse with spiders.

If this bathhouse

Manka will forget,

What will happen to the Motherland and to us?

(V. Pelevin. “Generation” P»).

The difference in the functioning of these two types of statements is that the transformed precedent statement is first compared with the “canonical” one, and then the mechanism 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 “classical” in the “canonical” PV, i.e., a technique that can be called “deceived expectation” is actively used. Let’s consider an example we borrowed from I.V. Zakharenko and V.V. Krasnykh.

"East- it's a dead thing"- the subtitle of the section of the article about the collapse of the USSR, which talks about the Central Asian republics. The deep meaning of the statement is to emphasize that the situation is delicate, requiring knowledge and careful handling; this is emphasized by the precise PV: East is a delicate matter. The indicated meaning is “removed” due to the use of a “low” word in the transformed PV, which bears 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 us repeat the main points of the lecture. In ICC, it is necessary to pay attention to the phenomena of paremia, namely, to the ways of storing and presenting cultural information by linguistic and speech clichés various types.

Among the latter, we highlight, firstly, phraseological units, which can be divided into lexical and syntactic. The main feature of both is that their value is not reducible to the sum of the values ​​of their constituent units. Lexical phraseological units clearly and visually reflect the national “image of the world”, the specificity of the 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 highlighted. They are included in the KB of the linguocultural community, are in close relationship with other precedent phenomena, are actively used by native speakers and pose serious difficulties for foreign speakers.

PV can be classified:

a) based on connection with the precedent text (related to PT/“autonomous”);

b) based on connection with three levels of meaning of the statement (surface, deep, systemic meaning);

c) based on the method of reproduction (transformed/non-transformed). Texts in which PVs are present, as a rule, are distinguished by their pronounced expressiveness.

Phraseological combination of words

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

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

1. Phraseologisms are always complex in composition, they are formed by the combination of several components, which, as a rule, have a separate stress, but do not retain the meaning of independent words: rack my brains, blood and milk, ate the dog.(Prepositional-case combinations like from the end, under the arm.)

2. Phraseologisms semantically indivisible, they usually have an undifferentiated meaning that can be expressed in one word: spread your mind- "to think" fifth wheel in the cart- "extra", upside down- "lay down" the cat cried- “little”, 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- "getting into an extremely difficult situation" press 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. Phraseologisms, in contrast to free phrases, characterize consistency of composition. One or another component of a phraseological unit cannot be replaced with a word close in meaning, while free phrases easily allow such a replacement. For example, instead of the cat cried can't say “the cat cried”, “the kitten cried”, “the puppy cried”, instead of spread your mind- “scatter with your mind”, “spread your head”; (cf. free phrases reading a book, looking through a book, studying a book, reading a novel, reading a story, reading a script).

However, some phraseological units have options: with all my heart - with all my soul, to cast a shadow on a fence - to cast a shadow on a clear day. Nevertheless, the existence of variants does not mean that in these phraseological units the composition can be arbitrarily updated: it cannot be said "with all my spirit", "with all my consciousness", and " cast a shadow on the fence" (on a clear morning).

4. Phraseologisms are distinguished reproducibility. Unlike free phrases, which we construct directly in speech, phraseological units are used in ready-made form, the way they are fixed in the language, the way our memory retains them. So, having said bosom, we will definitely say Friend(Not: friend, acquaintance, young man, comrade),nemesis maybe just enemy(Not enemy, pest). This indicates predictability components of phraseological units.

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

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

6. Phraseologisms 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 “to beat the buck”, “to grind out the lasa”, replacing the forms plural baklushi, lasy forms singular, do not use full adjective instead of short in phraseology barefoot etc. Only in special cases variations of grammatical forms within individual phraseological units are possible: warm hand- warm hands; heard does it matter - heard Is it a matter?

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

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