V Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2013

All domestic textbooks on lexicology have a section «Phraseology, Idioms, or Stable Combinations of Words». Now this section is included into the manuals as a part of the traditional lexicology. For a long time the official phraseology was not framed as a linguistic discipline. Moreover, it should be noted that phraseology has for a long time been the part of the teaching of the word in our country, and pure lexicological approach to phraseology is not as rare a phenomenon. Some researchers still include phraseological units into the vocabulary/ lexicon of the language mainly for the reason that the idioms serve as equivalents of words, and lexicology as a linguistic discipline studies the vocabulary of a language, that is, words and their equivalents.

Nevertheless the theory of complete equivalence of the phraseological unit and the word deserves special consideration (see also: [Федуленкова 1994: 9; 1996: 119; 2000: 29; 2006: 55]). It goes back to the theory of expressive identification of the facts developed by Charles Bally, who pointed out that the most common feature of the phraseological expression, superseding all the other features, is the ability or inability of the expression to be substituted by one simple word. Bally Such word was called by Ch. Bally word-identifier (Bally, 1905). Bally considered such a PU synonym as an index of internal integrity of the phraseological unit.

This view is objectionable. Semantic integrity of the phraseological unit cannot be set in this way, because both words and word combinations can have word-synonyms, for example look fixedly = to stare; sufferings of mind or body = pain and so on. Moreover, a lot of phraseological units have no word- identifier, and they may be identified only with the help of variable combinations of words, for example: drink like a fish = drink too much; in a small way = on a small scale и др.

It should also be born in mind that proverbs and sayings, i.e. idioms having the structure of the sentence, can be identified only with the help of sentences [Федуленкова 2006: 238], for example: birds of a feather flock together — people who have the same interests, ideas, etc. are attracted to each other and stay close together; the blind leading the blind — a situation in which the person who is leading or advising others knows as little as they do (LD); the rotten apple injures its neighbours — evil communications corrupt good manners, etc.

Semantic integrity of the phraseological unit can be established by comparing its meaning with the meanings of its components as separate words, as well as the identification of the features of the PU use in context. The term 'equivalent of the word' was suggested by L.V. Sherba. He emphasized that such a group of words represents one concept and is a potential equivalent of the word. Indeed, a close group of words, if it is a combination of words can mean the same concept.

The vast majority of phraseological units have no words-identifiers, lexical synonyms. There are only accurate data on the percentage of phraseology and vocabulary of synonyms in French. The calculations showed that among 22,851 French idioms only 12.5% (2867 PUs) have identifiers [Назарян 1980] (cited after: [Kunin 2005: 17]). There is no particular reason to believe that in the English language there is a similar phenomenon.

It goes without saying that both words and phraseological units are ready-made linguistic signs. But that does not prove their equivalence. As to the structure and semantics of the phraseological unit, it is a discrete language unit, which means that it is much more complex than the word. And it becomes quite evident when the phraseological unit is used in the context [Кунин 1970].

On the other hand too much emphasis is not to be attributed to the partial identity of some grammatical functions of phraseological units and words [Кунин 1972; Федуленкова 2006: 56, 71].

Summing it up, the theory of equivalence of the phraseological unit and the word is still highly debatable.

References

Кунин A.B. О соотнесенности фразеологической единицы со словом // Вопросы фразеологии III: Тр. СамГУ им. А. Навои, нов. сер. – Самарканд, 1970. – Вып. 178. – С. 94-112.

Кунин A.B. Соотнесенность фразеологических единиц со словами, переменными словосочетаниями и переменными предложениями: Учеб.-метод. задание по английской фразеологии. Сб. № 3. – М.: Моск. гос. пед. ин-т иностр. яз. им. М. Тореза, 1972. – 30 с.

Кунин А.В. Курс фразеологии современного английского языка: Учеб. для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. – 3-е изд. – Дубна: Феникс+, 2005. – 488с.

Назарян А.Г. Историко-семантические основы французской фразеологии: Автореф. дис. ... д-ра филол. наук. – Л., 1980. – 36 с.

Федуленкова Т.Н. Английская фразеология: Курс лекций. – Архангельск: Поморский гос. ун-т, 2000. – 132 с.

Федуленкова Т.Н. Изоморфизм и алломорфизм в германской фразеологии (на материале английского, немецкого и шведского языков): Дис. … д-ра филол. наук. Северодвинск, 2006. – 544 с.

Федуленкова Т.Н. Некоторые особенности фразеологи­ческих единиц как знаков вторич­ной номинации / Тюменский гос. ун-т. – Тюмень, 1994. – 28 с. – Рукопись деп. в ИНИОН РАН № 49518 от 27.07.94 г. – См. Библиограф. указатель «Нов. лит. по соц. и гуманитарным наукам. Языкознание», 1995. – № 5-6.

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

Код для цитирования: Скопировать