Lexical and phraseological unit - Ingliz tili - Diplom ishlar

Lexical and phraseological unit

Yuklangan vaqt:

26.09.2019

Ko'chirishlar soni:

0

Hajmi:

270.5 KB

Ko'chirib olish

Contents Introduction…………………… Chapter I. Phraseology as a branch of lexicology………… 1.1. Theoretical survey of lexical and phraseological units……… 1.2. Classifications of lexical and phraseological units…………… Chapter II. The role of phraseological and lexical units in the lexicographic practice ……………… 2.1. Characteristic features of using lexical and phraseological units………… 2.2. Semantic problems of phraseological and lexical units in the translating process……… Conclusion………………………………………………… Bibliography……………………………………………… 1

Introduction Our county’s future is very great that’s why the forthcoming generation is support of any society and people. The flourishing of the country mostly depends on the intellect, knowledge, aspiration of its young men and women. Since the early days of Uzbekistan’s independence, care about the harmonic development of the younger generation, its physical moral and spiritual upbringing has become one of the most important priorities of state policy. In 1997, upon the immediate leadership of the First President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Islom Karimov, the national program for Cadre Training was developed. On December 10, 2012 the First President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov signed a decree “On measures to further improvement of foreign language learning system”. It is noted that in the framework of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On education” and the National Program for Training in the country, a comprehensive foreign languages’ teaching system, aimed at creating harmoniously developed, highly educated, modern-thinking young generation, further integration of the country to the world community, has been created 1 . In the Decree of the President of our country, Sh. Mirziyoyev “On the Strategy of actions for further development of the Republic of Uzbekistan” of February 7, 2017, a number of tasks have been defined for the development of the social sphere, in particular, the sphere of education and science 2 . The document provides for strengthening the material and technical base of educational institutions, building new ones, carrying out reconstruction and capital repairs of existing buildings, equipping them with modern educational and laboratory equipment, computers, educational and methodical aids. A program for the radical improvement of the system of higher education in 2017-2021 will be developed, work will be carried out on further improvement of the curricula, gradually increasing independence of higher education institutions by 1 I.A. Karimov “On measures to further improvement of foreign language learning system”T, December 10,2012 2 Sh.M. Mirziyoyev “On the Strategy of actions for further development of the Republic of Uzbekistan” T,2017 2

expanding their powers in using additional sources of funding and providing paid services. For the first time this year, students are admitted to the 10th grade of the secondary special education system. This was carried out in parallel with the process of admission to academic lyceums and professional colleges. At the same time, the wishes and opinions of parents and students were mainly taken into account. The President of our country particularly noted the need to take into account the views of parents and students in further improving activities carried out in the sphere, organizing such events as Doors Open Days, holding meetings. The study of phraseological and lexical units has been the object of study of many linguists throughout Europe and all around the globe. The interest of their study has raised contributions steadily since the beginning of the twentieth century. Many researchers have attempted to give several definitions of idiomatic units along the years. The different approaches and different features of idioms have added to the complexity of the term. The subject matter of the qualification paper is Lexical and Phraseological units in the Lexicographic practice. The main base of this paper consists of well-known scholars, scientists and linguists researches and ideas. The object of the research paper is Lexical and Phraseological units, phrasemes, idioms, their classifications and the importance of them in the language and lexicographic practice. The actuality of the qualification paper is identified the necessity of Lexical and Phraseological units in the translation process and their usage in the lexicographic practice. The aim of the qualification paper is to carry out using Lexical and Phraseological units in written and communicative speech effectively. 3

According to this task the following particular points should be taken into consideration: - to analysis Phraseology as a branch of Lexicology; - to study existing theories about Lexical and Phraseological units; - to know about Lexical and Phraseological classifications; - to define the problems of semantics in the translating process and lexicographic practice; - to compare Phraseological and Lexical units in the Uzbek and English languages; - to analysis particular characteristic features of Lexical and Phraseological units in the language practice. The method of the research paper is that we try to identify the ways of using Lexical and Phraseological units effectively and observe some difficult and problematic situations of them in the translation process. The theoretical value of this qualification paper is that the language learners and translators are able to know and work out suggestions on how to work with Lexical and Phraseological units in the lexicographic practice. The practical necessity of this qualification paper is that scientific and linguistic researches of well-known scholars and interesting materials can play an important role as the valuable base for seminars on translation, stylistics, typology and lexicology. Theoretical methodology of this paper consists of ideas, researches and linguistic and theoretical points of views of great scientists and scholars such as: Ch. Bally, D. Polivanov, V. Vinogradov, V. Koonin, N. Amosova and many others. The scientific novelty of this qualification paper. The distinctive peculiarities of this work can be concluded that Phraseological and Lexicological units are observed according to their particular characteristic features and with the comparison of the Uzbek language. 4

The structure of the qualification paper consists of Introduction, two chapters, Conclusion and Bibliography. Introduction tells about the choice of the subject matter, main tasks and objects, practical and theoretical actuality of the qualification paper, the language materials of the methods, and indicates some further suggestions for researches in this field in the future. Chapter I is devoted to study linguistic branch- Phraseology, theoretical survey of scientific investigations on Lexical and Phraseological units and their classifications. Chapter II is devoted to the role of Lexical and Phraseological units in the lexicographic practice, characteristic features of using them and their semantic problems in the translation process. Conclusion deals with information about the results of this work. Bibliography informs us to the list at all literature we have used while carrying out the given qualification. 5

The science of linguistics admits that Ch. Bally is the father of the theory of Phraseology 1 . He systematized the combination of words in his book "Articles on Stylistics" and "French Stylistics". Ch. Bally presented the term "phraseology" in the meaning of a part of stylistics, which learns connected word combinations but this terms used in three meanings in the works of Western European and American linguists. They are given as in English and American dictionaries: a) The choice or arrangement of words and phrases in the expression of ideas; manner or style of expression the particular form of speech or diction which characterizes writer, literary production, language, etc. b) Choice of words; wording c) Manner of using and arranging words The problem about the phraseology as linguistic discipline was firstly given by famous linguistic scientist. E. D. Polivanov. He said that Lexicology studies lexical meaning of words, morphology - formal meanings of words, syntax- the meaning of word combinations". And there is a need for special branch which is connected with syntax and at the same time has not only a common type but also individual meaning of separate word-combinations. I’ll call this branch Phraseology (l must say that there is another term is also suggested for it as "idiomatics") 2 . E. D. Polivanov considered that phraseology obtains the main and stable positions in linguistic literature. B. A. Larin is another scientist who raised the problem of phraseology as a linguistic discipline after Polivanov. The researches done by V.V. Vinogradov opened the way to the appearance of a number of works on phraseology in different languages. To restore such systematized facts shows the creation of phraseologies as linguistic discipline. 1 Ch. Bally “French Stylistics”, London 1999 2 Koonin “English – Russian Phraseological dictionary” Moscow 1983 7

This way phraseology stepped to linguistics as a science. In our country there are a lot of works done on the theme of phraseology of different languages. It has been repeatedly pointed out that word groups viewed as functionally and semantically in separable units are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of phraseology. It should be noted however that no proper scientific investigation of English phraseology has been attempted among English and American linguists until quite recently English and American linguistics as a rule confine themselves to collecting various words, word group and sentences resenting some interest, either from point of view of origin, style, usage or some other particular feature peculiar to them. These units are habitually described as idioms, but no attempt has been made to investigate these idioms as a separate class of linguistic units or specific class of word groups. American and English dictionaries of unconventional English, slang, idioms and other highly valuable reference-books contain a wealth of proverbs, sayings, various Lexical units of all kinds, but as a rule don't seek to lay down a reliable criterion to distinguish between variable word – groups and phraseological units. Attempts have been made to approach the problem of phraseology indifferent ways. Up till now, however, there is an essential feature of phraseological units as distinguished from other word groups and the nature of phrases that can be property termed phraseological units. The complexity of the problem may be largely accounted for by the fact that the borderline between free of variable word - groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined. They so called free word - groups are only relatively free as collectability of their member words is fundamentally delimited by their lexical and grammatical valiancy which makes at least some of them very close to set phrases. Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically unspeakable. Between the extremes of complete motivation and variability of member, words on the one hand and lack of motivation combined with complete stability of 8

the lexical components and grammatical structure on the other hands. There are numeral borderline cases. However the exiting terms, e.g. set phrases, idioms, word - equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the main debatable issues of phraseology which centre on the disurgent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so called free word groups. The term set - phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word - group. The term idioms generally imply that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomatic or lack of motivation. This term habitually used by English and American linguistics is very often treated synonymous with the term "phraseological unit" universally accepted in our country. The term "word equivalent" stresses not only the semantic but also the function is speech as single words. Phraseological units are habitually defined as non motivated word groups that can be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready made units. This definition proceeds from the assumption that the essential features of phraseological units are stability of the lexical components and lack of motivation. At is consequently assumed that unlike components of free word groups which may very according to the needs of communication, member words of phraseological units are always reproduced as single unchangeable collocations. Languages differ greatly in their idiosyncrasies i.e. in the forms which they have adopted, in the peculiarities of their usage and the combinative power of words, in idiomatic forms of expression. It is to be marked in this connection that of all the ambiguous terms employed in linguistics, none seems to call for more careful definition than the term "idiom". An idiom or idiomatic phrase is often defined as phrase, developing a meaning which can't be readily analyzed into the several distinct ideas which would ordinarily be expressed by the words composing the phrase. It 9

transcends the ordinary syntactical constructions and must be studied as a grammatical unit, orientity in itself. On the other hand, “idiom” is a very broad term and includes all the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of the language constructions, and other conventional practices of an unusual character. Phraseology is also a term of wide inclusions but seems preferable or describing various, kind of phrases characterized by different degrees of stability and idiomatic in a given language. A major stimulus to intensive studies of phraseology in Russian linguistics was V.V. Vinogradov’s are search carried out in the history of the Russian vocabulary. The classification suggested by V. V. Vinogradov has been widely adopted by linguistic working on other languages. Investigation of English phraseology as initiated by A.V. Koonin whose dictionary of English phraseologisms has much valuable information on the theory of phraseology. A special point of interest is presented by the approach to the problem phraseology suggested 1 . In "Essentials of English Phraseology" Amosova defines phraseological units as units of fixed context, phrases with a specific and stable sequence of certain lexical components and peculiar semantic relations between them. In these terms, phraseological units are classified into phrasemes and idioms. Phrasemes are binary phrases in which one of the components has a phraseology bound meaning dependant on the other, e.g. in "black verse" the meaning of the adjective" blank" (rhyme less) is signaled only by the fixed indicator" verse" other examples are: bosom friend, husband's tea. Idioms as distinguished by the integral meaning and idiomacity of the whole word - group, e.g. "red tape" bureaucratic methods; to smell a rat to suspect something wrong; blue bird - politician, blue nose- conservator. So, we can say that the phraseological aspect of a language has always been the most difficult part for foreigners to master. A study of English phraseology, precise in force vivid and rich in scope, shows how 1 N.N. Amosova “Essentials of English Phraseology” Leningrad 1962 10

phraseological terms of explanation lend variety to the language. The study of phraseological units will be highly useful not only as an did in immediate difficulties but as means to extend the practical knowledge of the language. The present chapter deals with word-groups consisting of two more words whose combination is integrated as a unit with specialized meaning of the whole, such as not for the word, with half heart, ups and downs, for love or money, off and on, up to the mark, ships that pass in the night and so on. The chapter has received its heading because of the great ambiguity of the terms phraseology and idioms accepted in linguistics. Opinion differs as to how this part of the vocabulary should be defined, classified, described and analyzed. To make matters worse not two authors agree upon the terminology they use. The word "phraseology" for instance, has very different meanings in this country and in Great Britain or the United States. In Russian linguistic literary the term has come to be used for the whole ensemble of expressions where the meaning of one element is dependent on the other, irrespective of the structure and properties o f the unit with other authors it denotes only such set expression which, as distinguished from idioms do not possess expressiveness or emotional coloring and also vice versa: only those that are imaginative, expressive and emotional. Continued intelligent devotion to the problem of phraseology of such scholars as N.N.Amosova, A.V.Koonin and many-many others has turned phraseology into a full-fledged linguistic discipline; we include it into this course of lexicology only because so far this is where it belongs according to the curriculum. In English and American linguistics, the situation is very different. No special branch of study exists and the term "phraseology" is a stylistic device one, meaning mode of expression, peculiarities of diction, i.e. choice and arrangement of words and phrases characteristic of some author or literary work. The word "idiom" is even more polysemantic. The English use it to denote a mode of expression peculiar to a language without differentiating 11

between the grammatical and lexical levels also, as W.Lraff points it, "the semantically and structural form peculiar to a given language". It may also mean a group of words whose meaning it is difficult or impossible to understand from the knowledge of the words considered separately 1 . Moreover, “ idioms “ may be synonymous to the words "language" or "dialect" denoting a form of expression peculiar to a people, a country, a district, or to one individual. There seems to be no point enumerating further possibilities. The word "phrase" is no less polysemantic. The term “set expression” is on the contrary more defined and such explanatory because the just elements point out the most important characteristic of these units, namely, their stability, their fixed and ready-made nature. The word "expression" suits our purpose because it is a general term including words, groups of words and sentences, so that both give up and that's a horse of another color are expressions. That is why in the present chapter we shall use this term in preference of all the others. Set expressions are contrasted to free phrases and semi-fixed combinations. Such substitution is never unlimited but characterized by the factor of existentiality. In semi – fixed combinations, we are not able to say that such substitutes exist, but fix their boundaries by used for substitution, even listing them. That is to say, in semi –fixed combinations these lexico –semantic limits are manifest in destructions imposed upon types of words, which can be used in a given pattern. For example, the patterns consisting of the verb go followed by a preposition and a noun with no article before it is uses only with noun of places where definite actions or functions are performed. In a free phrase the semantic correlative ties are fundamentally different. The information is additive and each element has much greater semantic independence. Each component may be substituted without affecting the meaning of the other: to cut bread, to cut cheese, to eat bread. Eminent Russian linguists, academicians F.F. Fortunatov, A.A. Shakhmatov and others paved for serious syntactical analysis of expressions. Many 1 W. Lraff “Idioms and Phrases” Moscow 1979 12

Soviet scholars have shown a great interest in the theoretical aspects no the whole problem and its various parts, a special branch if linguistic termed phraseology came into being in this country the most significant advanced for Russian phraseology are those by V.V. Vinogradov and Larin. As to the English language, the number of works of our linguists denoted the phraseology is so great that is impossible to enumerate them; suffice it to say that there exist a comprehensive dictionary of English idioms by A. V. Koonin accompanied by books, articles on the theory of this part of the vocabulary and doctoral theses by N.N. Amosova and A. V. Koonin with complete bibliography. B. A. Larin’s approach is diachronic. His classification reflects three consecutive stages and set expressions pass through in its development. It originates as a free combination. The second stage is a clear motivated stereotyped metaphorical phrase. The third stage is that of an idiom with lost motivation the meaning of the expression is not built up by the hearer from the meaning of its separate elements, but grasped as a whole. Interlanguage Relations of English and Russian Phraseological Units and General outlook on phraseological units by phraseology I mean the branch of linguistics dealing with stable word - combinations characterized by certain transference of meaning. Despite difference of opinion, most authors agree upon some points concerning the distinctive features of phraseological units, such as: 1. Integrative (or transference) of meaning means that none of the idiom components is separately associated with any referents of objective reality, and the meaning of the whole unit cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components; 2. Stability (lexical and grammatical) means that no lexical substitution is possible in an idiom in comparison with free or variable word – combinations (with an exception of some cases when such substitutions are made by the author intentionally). The experiments conducted in the 1990s showed that the meaning of an idiom is not exactly identical to its literal paraphrase given in 13

the dictionary entry. That is why we may speak about lexical flexibility of many units if they are used in a creative manner. Lexical stability is usually accompanied by grammatical stability which prohibits any grammatical changes; 3. Separability means that the structure of an idiom is not something indivisible, certain modifications are possible within certain boundaries. Here we meet with the so – called lexical and grammatical variants. To illustrate this point I shall give some examples: “as hungry as a wolf (as a hunter)”, “as safe as a house (houses)”in English. Functionally and sematically inseparable units are usually called phraseological units. Phraseological units cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready – made units. The lexical components in phraseological units are stable and they are non –motivated i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components to be changed or substituted. In phraseological units the individual components do not seem to posses any lexical meaning outside the word group. Ex: red tape (bureaucratic methods); to get rid of; to take place; to lead the dance; to take care. A.V. Koonin thinks that phraseology must be an independent linguistic science and not a part of lexicology. His classification of phrasological units is based on the functions of them in speech. They are: nominating, intercectional and communicative. V.V.Vinogradov classified phraseological units into three groups taking into consideration their motivation. The classification of V. V. Vinogradov is synchronic. This classification is based upon the motivation of the unit the relationship existing between the meaning of the whole and the meaning of its component parts. The degree of motivation is correlated with the rigidity of changing the form or the order of components and of substituting the whole by a single word. The classification is naturally developed for Russian phraseology but we shall illustrate it with English examples. So, according to the type of motivation and the other above mentioned features, three types of phraseological 14

units are suggested: phraseological fusions phraseological unities and phraseological combinations. 1 . Phraseological fusions are completely non – motivated word – groeps, such as “tit for tat” , “red tape” – “bureaucratic methods”; “heavy father” –“serious or solemn part in a theatrical play” , “kick the basket” – “die” , represent as their name suggest the highest stage of blending together. The meaning of the components has no connection whatsoever, at least synchronically, with the meaning of the whole group. Phraseologial fusions are specific for every language and don’t lend themselves to literar translation into other language. 2. Praseological unities are much more numerous. They are clearly motivated. Their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit. Examples: “to show one’s teeth” , “to wash one’s dirty linen in public” if interpreted as semantically motivated through the combined lexical meaning of the component words would naturally lead one to understand these in their literal meaning. The metaphoric meaning of the whole unit, however, readily suggests “take a threating tone” or show an intention to injure” for “show one’s teeth and “discuss or make public one’s quarrels” for “wash one’s dirty linen in public. Phraseological unities are as a rule marked by a high degree of stability of the lexical components. The emotional quality is based upon the image created by the whole as in “to stick ( to stand) to one’s guns” “refuse to change one’s statements or opinions in the face of oppositions” implying courage and integrity. The examples reveals another characteristic of the type, namely the possibility of synonymic substitution which can be only very limited. Some of these are easily translated and even international. For example: “to know the way the wind is blowing”. 3.Phraseological collocations or combinations are not only motivated but contain one component used in it’s direct meaning while the other is used 15

figuratively: “meet the demand” meet the necessity, meet the requirements. The mobility of this type is much greater, the substitutions are not necessarily synonymical. In the other words, phraseological collocations are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word – groups. In phraseological collocations variability of member words in strictly limited 1 . For instance, “bear a gudge” may be changed into “bear malice”, but not into bear a fancy or liking. We can say “take a liking(fancy)” but not take hatred (disgust). This habitual collocations tend to become kind of clichés, where the meaning of member – words is to some extent dominated by the meaning of the whole group. Pill to this, phraseological collocations are felt as possessing a certain degree of semantic inseparability. It has been pointed out by N. N. Amosova and A. V. Koonin that this classification being developed for the Russian phraseology, does not fit the specifically English features. N. N. Amosova’s approach is contextological. She defines phraseological unita as units if fixed context. Proceeding from the assumotionthet individual meanings of polysemantic words can be observed in certain contexts and may be viewed as dependent on those contexts, it is argued that phraseological units are to be defined th rough specific types of contexts. Free word – groups make up variable contexts whereas the essential feature of phraseological units is a non – variable or fixed context. Fixed context is defined as a context characterized by a specific and unchanging sequence of definite lexical components and a peculiar semantic relationship between them. Non – variability is understood as stability of the lexical components within the semantic structure of the word – group. In variable contexts including Polysemantic words substitution of one components is possible within the limits of the lexical valency of the word under consideration. It is observed 1 R.S. Ginsburg ‘A course in modern English Lexicology” Moscow, 1986 16

that in such word – groups as “a small town” the word “town” may be substituted by a number of other nouns, e. g. room, audience etc, the adjective “small” by a number of other adjectives e. g. large, big. Substitution doesn’t effect the meaning of either “small” or “town” which denote in all word – groups. “not large” and “ a centre of population” respectively. These variability of the lexical components is the distinguishing feature of the so –called free word – groups. In other word – groups such as “small business, a small farmer” the variable member serve as a clue to the meaning of the adjective “small”. It may be observed that when combined with the words “town, room, etc. “small” denotes “not large” whereas it is only in combination whith the nouns “business, farmer,” etc. that “small” denotes “of limited size” or “having limited capital”. Word – groups of this type are described as traditional collocations. Unlike word -groups with variable member, phraseological units allow of no substitution. For example, in the phraseological unit “small hours” – “the early hours of the morning from about 1 a. m to 4 a. m” – there is no variable members as “small” denotes “early” only in collocation with “hours”. In the phraseological unit “small bear” – “small” has the meaning ”weak” only in this fixed non –variable context. As can be seen from the above, a non – variable context is indicative of a specialized meaning of one of the member – words. The specialized meaning of one of the components is understood as the meaning observed in the given phrase (e.g small hours ) this particular meaning cannot be found in the word taken in isolation or in any of the variable word – groups in which the word is used. It follows that specialized meaning and stability of lexical components are regarded as independent features of phraseological unit whose semantic structure is unique, no other word – groups can be created on this pattern 1 . 1 R.S. Ginsburg ‘A course in modern English Lexicology” Moscow, 1986 17

The two criteria of phraseological units – specialized meaning and non –variability of context – display unilateral dependence. Specialized meaning of one of the member – words or idiomatic meaning of the whole word – group is never observed outside fixed context. PHRASEMES AND IDIOMS Phraseological units or fixed context are subdivided into phrasemes and idioms according to whether or not one of the components or the whole – word – groups possesses specialized meaning. Phrasemes are as a rule, two member word – groups in which one of the members has specialized meaning dependent on the second component as e. g. “small hours”, the second component ( hours ) serves the only clue to this particular meaning of the whole first component as it found only in the given context ( small hours ), the word that serves as the clue to the specialized meaning of one of the components is habitually used inits central meaning. ( small hours, three hours, pleasant hours, small talk, small change ).In short phrasemes are serves as the determining context 2 . Idioms are distinguished from phrasemes by the idiomaticy of the whole word – group ( “red tape” – bureaucratic methods ). In idioms the new meaning is created by the whole, though every element may have its original meaning weakened or even completely lost: “in the nick of time” – “at the exact moment”. Idioms are semantically and grammatically inseparable units. They may compress unusual combinations of words which when understood in their literary meaning are normally uncollocable as, e. g. “Mare’s nest” ( “a mare – female horse”, a mare’s nest – a hoax, a discovery which proves false or wortheless ). 2 I.V. Arnold “The English word” Moscow, 1986 18

Unusualness of collocobility, logical incompatibility of member words is indicative of the idiomaticy of the phrase. Idioms may be motivated and demotivated. A motivated idioms, which made up of words normally brought together are homonymous with corresponding free word – groups ( are homonymous to a free – phrase ) e. g. “to let the cat out of the bag” – to divulge a secret, “take the bull by the horns – to face dangers without fear, and the clue to the idiomatic meaning is to be found in a wider context outside the phrase itself. “In the nick of time” is demotivated, because the word “nick is absolute 1 . 1.2 Types of lexical and phraseological units FORMAL CLASSIFICATION Now, we pass on to a formal and functional classification based on the fact that a set – expression functioning in speech is in distribution similar to definite classes of words, whereas structurally it can be identified with various types of sytagms or with complete sentences. We shall distinguish phraseological units that are nominal phrases: “the root of the trouble”; verbal phrases: “put one’s best foot forward”; adjectival phrases: “as good as gold”, red as a cherry”; adverbal phrases: “from head to foot”; prepositional phrases: “in the course of”; conjunctional phrases: “as long as, on the other hand”; interjectional phrases: Well, Never. A stereotyped sentence also introduced into speech as a ready – made formula may be illustrated by “Never say die” “never give up hope”, “Jake your time – don’t hurry”. The above classification takes into consideration not only the type of component parts but also the functioning of the whole, thus, “tooth and nail” is not a nominal but an adverbal unit; because it serves to modify a verb ( e. g. fight 1 I.P. Smith “Words and Idioms” London 1928 19

tooth and nail ), the identically structured “lord and master is a nominated phrase. Moreover, not every nominal phrase is used in all syntactic functions possible for nouns.Thus, “a bed of roses” or “a bed of nails” are used only predicatively. Functionally and semantically inseparable units are usually called phraseological units. Phraseological units can’t be freely made up in speech but they are reproduced as ready – made units. The lexical components in phraseological units are stable and they are non –motivated i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components to be changed or substituted. The vocabulary of language is enriched not only by words but also by phraseological units. Phraseological units are word – groups that cannot be made in the process of speech; they exist in the language as ready – made units. They are compiled in special dictionaries. The same as word phraseological units express a single notion and used in a sentence as one part of it. American and British lexicographers call such units “idioms”. We can mention such dictionaries as: L. Smith “Words and Idioms”, V. Collins “A book of English Idioms” etc. In these dictionaries we can find words, peculiar in their semantics (idiomatic), side by side with word – groups and sentences. In these dictionaries they are arranged, as a rule, into different semantic groups. A.V. Koonin classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. In phraseological units the individual components do not seem to possess any lexical meaning outside the word – group: Eg: red tape (bureaucratic methods); To take care; To get rid of; A.V. Koonin thinks that phraseology must be independent linguistic science and not a part of lexicology. His classification of phraseological units is based on the functions of them in speech. 20

In Smith’s classification we also find groups of idioms associated with domestic and wild animals and birds, agriculture and cooking. There also memories idioms drown from sports, arts, etc. This principle of classification is sometimes, called “etymological”. The term does not seem appropriate since we usually mean something different when we speak of the etymology of a word or a word – group. Whether the word (or word group) is native or borrowed, and if the latter, what is the course of borrowing. It is true that Smith makes a special study of idioms borrowed from other languages, but that is only a relatively small part of his classification system. Here are some examples connected with the sea: To be all at sea – to be unable to understand eg: How can I be a judge in a situation in which I am all at sea? I am afraid I am all at sea in this problem 1 . V.A Collins remarks that metaphor is that of a boot tossed about, out of control, with its occupants not knowing where they are. To sink or swim – to fail or succeed. Eg: It is a case or swim. All depends on his own effort. In deep water – in trouble or in danger; In low water, on the rocks – in strained financial circumstances. To show one’s color – to betray one’s real character or intentions. The allusion is, one more to a ship showing the flag of its country at the most. To strike one’s colors – to surrender, to give in, ad unit one us beaters. The metaphor refers to ships hurling down its flag. To bow the storm – to give in, to a know ledge one’s defeat. Three sheets in the wind very drunk. Half sea over– drunk. Though, as has been said, direct associations with sea faring in all these idioms have been severed, distant memories of the sea romance and adventure still linger in some of them. The considerable contribution made by Russian scholars in phraseological research cannot be exaggerated. We have already mentioned 1 V.A Collins “English Phraseologisms and Idioms” Oxford, 1978 21

the great contribution made by academician V.V Vinogradov to his branch of linguistic science. Vinogradov’s classification system is founded on the weakest cohesion between the components. The more distant meaning of the constituent parts, the greater is its degree of semantic cohesion. Accordingly, Vinogradov classifies phraseological units into 3 classes 1 : a. Phraseological combinations are word – groups with a partially changed meaning. They may be said to be clearly motivated, that is, the meaning of its constituents: To be good at something; To have bite; To come to a sickly end; To look sight; To rake something for granted; To stick one’s word; b. Phraseological units are word – groups with a completely changed meaning, that is the meaning of the unit does not correspond to the meaning of its constituent parts. They are motivated units or putting it another way, the meaning of the whole, unit can be deduced from the meaning of the constituent parts; to metaphor, on which the shift of meaning is based, is clear and transferring. Example: To sit on the fence. (- in discussion, in politest, etc. Refrain from committing oneself to either side); To lose one’s head. (to be at a loss what to do, to be out of one’s mind); To lose one’s heart to somebody. (to fall in love); A big bug pot (sl). (- a person of importance); A fish out of water. (- a person situated uncomfortable outside his usual or proper environment); c. Phraseological fusions are word – groups with a completely changing, but, in contrast to the unifies, they are demotivated, that is their meaning of the 1 V.S Vinogradov “Lexicology and Lexicography” M, 1986 22

constituent parts; the metaphor, on which the shift of meaning was based, has lost its clarity and observe. Example; Nick and crop (- entirely, altogether, thoroughly). To show the white feather. (- to try and please or attract somebody; to show exaggerated attention to somebody). It is obvious that this classification system does not take into account the structural characteristics of phraseological units. On the other hand, the border line separating unities from fusions is vague and even subjective. One and the same phraseological units may appear motivated to one person (and therefore be labeled as a unity). And demotivated to another (and be regarded as a fusion). Professor N. Amosova gives 2 categories of phraseological units depending on whether just one component or both are used in phrase logically bound meaning. If all the components have idiomatic meaning. Such phraseological units are called “idioms”. Example: To toe the line. (- to do exactly as one is told). If one of the components has bound specialized meaning dependent on the second components she celled “presumes”. Example: To bring to book. (- to bring to justice); Small years. (- in the childhood) The border-line between free or variable word-groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined. FREE-WORD GROUPS and PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS The free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words is fundamentally delimited by their lexical and syntactic valency. Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable. Between the extremes of complete motivation and variability of member- words and lack of motivation combined with complete stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure there are innumerable border-line cases. 23

There are differences between word-groups and phraseological units. The difference often is in the interrelation of lexical components, e.g.: Blue ribbon (or red, brown , etc.), but blue ribbon – an honour given to the winner of the first prize in a competition – no substitution is possible in a phraseological unit. Professor. A. I. Smirtinsky states that phraseological units may be defined as specific word groups functioning as a word – equivalent. The phraseological units are single semantically inseparable units. They are used in one function in the sentence and belong to one part of speech. According to their semantic and grammatical inseparability we may classify the phraseological units into: None equivalents; (heavy feather): Verb equivalents (to take place). Adverb equivalents; (in the long run). Professor. A.V. Koonin does not support Smirnitsky’s point of view on the equivalents of phraseological units. Koonin points out that the components of phraseological units are mounted separately and therefore, they can’t be used in one function in the sentence. Example: Hi gets rid of it. Proverbs, sayings and quotations exist also as ready – made units with a specialized meaning of their own which cannot be deduced from the meaning of their components. Therefore, they may be included in phraseological units. The classification system of phraseological units by professor A.V. Koonin is the latest outstanding achievement in the theory of phraseology. The classification is based on the combined structural semantic principle and it also considers the quotient of stability of phraseological units. Phraseological units are subdivided into the following 4 classes according to their communication determined by their function in the communication by their structural semantic characteristics 1 : 1 Koonin “A course of modern English Phraseology” M, 1987 24

1. Nominative phraseological units are represented by word – groups, including the ones which one of meaningful word and coordinative phrase of the type wear and tear, well and good. The first class also includes word – groups with a predicative structure, such as the crow flies and also, predicative phrase of the type see how the land lies, ship that pass in the night. 2. Nominative – communicative phraseological units include word –groups of the type to break the ice, the ice broken, that is, verbal word – groups which are transformed into a sentence when the verb is used in the passive voice. 3. Phraseological units which are neither nominative nor communicative include interjectional word – groups. 4. Communicative phraseological units are represented by proverbs and sayings. These for classes and divided into subgroups according to the type of structure of the phraseological units. The subgroups include further rubies representing types of structural – semantic meanings according to the kind of relation between the constituents and to either full or partial transference of meaning. The difference between free-word groups and phraseological units Free word-groups are but relatively free: they may possess some of the features characteristic of phraseological units. On the other hand, phraseological units are heterogeneous. Alongside absolutely unchangeable phraseological units, there are expressions that allow some degree of substitution. Phraseology is concerned with all types of set expressions including those that stand for certain sentences. Structural classification of Phraseological units (A.I. SMIRNITSKY ) Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky classified Phraseological units as highly idiomatic set expressions functioning as word equivalents , and characterized by their semantic and grammatical unity. He suggested three classes of stereotyped phrases 1 : 1 A.I Smirnitsky “Practical course of Phraseological units” M, 1876 25

1. traditional phrases ( nice distinction, rough sketch ; 2. phraseological combinations ( to fall in love, to get up ); 3. idioms ( to wash one’s dirty linen in public ); The second group (phraseological combinations) fall into two subgroups: I. one-top phraseological units , which were compared with derived words; 1. verb-adverb PUs of the type to give up , e.g. to bring up, to try out, to look up, to drop in, etc. 2. PUs of the type to be tired , e.g. to be surprised, to be up to, etc. 3. Prepositional substantative units , e.g. by heart . II. two-top phraseological units , which were compared with compound words 1. attributive-nominal , e.g. brains trust , white elephant , blind alley . Units of this type function as noun equivalents; 2. verb-nominal phrases , e.g. to know the ropes, to take place , etc. 3. phraseological repetitions , e.g. ups and downs , rough and ready, flat as a pancake. They function as adverbs or adjectives equivalents; 4. adverbial multi-top units , e.g. every other day . Structural-semantic classification of Phraseological units (A.V. Koonin) Prof. Kunin distinguishes: phraseological units, phraseomatic units and borderline (mixed) cases. phraseological units have fully or partly transferred meaning, while phraseomatic units are used in their literal meaning. Phraseological phraseomatic units are characterized by phraseological stability that distinguishes them from free phrases and compound words. Prof. A.V. Kunin develops the theory of stability which consists of the following aspects: 26

1. stability of usage , i.e. phraseological units are reproduced ready- made, not created in speech; 2. lexical stability , i.e. the components of phraseological units are either irreplaceable or partially replaceable within the bounds of phraseological variance: Lexical : a skeleton in the cupboard / closet ( family’s secret ), a blind pig / tiger (to sell alcohol illegally ; Grammatical : to be in deep water / waters (to be in a dificult situation) , a stony heart – a heart of stone ( a stern or cruel nature); Positional: a square peg in a round hole – a round peg in a square hole (a person in a situation unsuited to their abilities or character), to dot the i’s and cross the t’s – to cross one’s t’s and dot one’s i’s (ensure that all details are correct); Quantitative : Tom, Dick and Harry – every Tom, Dick and Harry (anybody and everybody); Mixed variants: raise/stir up the nest of hornets’ nest about one’s ears – to arouse/stir up the nest of hornets (to destroy the nest of wasps). 3. Semantic stability is based on lexical stability of phraseological units. In spite of occasional changes the meaning of a phraseological unit is preserved. It may only be specified, made more precise, weakened or strengthened. 4. Syntactic stability. The characteristic features of phraseological units are: 1. ready-made reproduction, 2. structural divisibility, 3. morphological stability, 4. permanence of lexical composition, 5. semantic unity, 27

6. syntactic fixity. Prof. A.V. Koonin’ definition: ‘a phraseplogical unit is a stable word-group with wholly or partially transferred meaning. Phraseological units are subdivided into 4 classes according to the function in communication determined by structural-semantic characteristics. Classification of Functions of Phraseological units 1. nominative phraseplogical units, standing for certain notions: a bull in a china shop ; 2. nominative-communicative phraseplogical units, standing for certain notions in the Active voice, and may be used in Passive constructions: to cross the Rubicon – the Rubicon is crossed ! 3. interjectional phraseplogical units, standing for certain notions interjections: a pretty (nice) kettle of fish! For crying out loud ! 4. Communicative phraseological units standing for sentences (proverbs and sayings): Still waters run deep. The world is a nice place . Communicative phraseological units, expressing statement: A proverb is a collection of words (phrase or sentence that states a general truth or gives advice: Idleness is the root of all evil. A penny saved is a penny gained. The pen is mightier than the sword. Ask no questions, hear no lies. Silence is something an answer . Distinctive features of proverbs: 28

1. Structural dissimilarity ( George liked her for she never put on airs (predicate). Big bugs like him care nothing about small fry like ourselves (a) subject, b) prepositional object). Proverbs, if viewed in their structural aspect, are sentences, and so cannot be used in the way in which phraseological units are used in the above examples. 2. Semantic aspect: Proverbs could be best compared with minute fables for, like the latter, they sum up the collective experience of the community. Proverbs: 1. moralize: Hell is paved with good intentions. 2. give advice: Don’t judge a tree by its bark . 3. give warning: If you sing before breakfast, you will cry before night. 4. admonish: Liars should have good memories. 5. criticize: Everyone calls his own geese swans. A saying is any common, colloquial expression, or a remark often made, e.g. 1. That cat won’t jump. 2. Woe betide you! . 3. The fat is in the fire . 4. What will Mrs. Grundy say? Proverbs and sayings are introduced in speech ready-made, their components are constant, and their meaning is traditional and mostly figurative. Proverbs often form the basis for phraseological units: 29

It’s the last straw that breaks the camel’s back: the last straw . There no use crying over spilt milk: cry over spilt milk, spilt milk . Generally proverbs and sayings are emotionally colored. Proverbs are short sayings that express popular wisdom, a truth or a moral lesson in a concise and imaginative way: It never rains, but it pours . Easy come, easy go . A miss is as good as a mile . Too many chiefs and not enough Indians . Least said, soonest mended . Practice what one peaches . You can’t teach an old dog new tricks . Charity begins at home. Many proverbs and sayings are metaphorical: Time is money. Little drops make the mighty ocean ( little drops). Rome wasn’t built in a day. (a day); Make the mighty ocean, building Rome ( a large task). It takes two to tango ( (both parties involved in a situation or argument are equally responsible for it. Types of Lexical units. The term u n i t means one of the elements into which a whole may be divided or analysed and which possesses the basic properties of this whole. The units of a vocabulary or lexical units are two-facet elements possessing form and meaning. The basic unit forming the bulk of the vocabulary is the word. Other units 30

are morphemes that is parts of words, into which words may be analysed, and s e t e x p r e s s i o n s or groups of words into which words may be com bined. Words are the central elements of language system, they face both ways: they are the biggest units of morphology and the smallest of syn tax", and what is more, they embody the main structural properties and functions of the language. Words can be separated in an utterance by other such units and can be used in isolation. Unlike words, morphemes cannot be divided into smaller meaningful units and are functioning in speech only as constituent parts of words. Words are thought of as representing integer concept, feeling or action or as having a single refer ent. The meaning of morphemes is more abstract and more general than that of words and at the same time they are less autonomous. S e t e x p r e s s i o n s are word groups consisting of two or more words whose combination is integrated so that they are introduced in speech, so to say, ready-made as units with a specialised meaning of the whole that is not understood as a mere sum total of the meanings of the elements. Many authors devoted a good deal of space to discussing which of the two: the word or the morpheme is to be regarded as the basic unit. Many American linguists (Ch. Hockett or Z. Harris, for instance) segmented an utterance into morphemes ignoring words. Soviet lexicologists proceed from the assumption that it is the word that is the basic unit, es pecially as all branches of linguistic knowledge and all levels of language have the word as their focal point. A convincing argumentation and an exhaustive review of literature is offered by A. A. Ufimtseva . If, however, we look now a little more closely into this problem, we shall see that the boundaries separating these three sets of units are sometimes fluid. Every living vocabulary is constantly changing adapting itself to the functions of communication in the changing world of those who use it. In this process the vocabulary changes not only quantitative ly by creating new words from the already available corpus of morphemes and according to existing patterns but also qualitatively. In these qual itative changes new morphemic material and new word-building 31

patterns come into being, and new names sometimes adapt features characteristic of other sets, those of groups of words, for instance. O r t h o g r a p h i c w o r d s are written as a sequence of letters bounded by spaces on a page. Yet, there exist in the English vocabulary lexical units that are not identical with orthographic words but e q u i v a l e n t to them. Almost any part of speech contains units indivisible either syntactically or in terms of meaning, or both, but graphically divided. A good example is furnished by complex prepositions: along with, as far as, in spite of, except for, due to, by means of, for the sake of, etc. The same point may be illustrated by phrasal verbs, so numerous in English: bring up ‘to educate’, call on ‘to visit’, make up ‘to apply cosmetics’, ‘to reconcile after a disagreement’ and some other meanings, put off “ to postpone’. The semantic unity of these verbs is manifest in the possibility to substitute them by orthographically single-word verbs. Though formally broken up, they function like words and they are integrated semantically so that their meaning cannot be inferred from their constituent elements. The same is true about phrasal verbs consisting of the verbs give, make, take and some others used with a noun instead of its homonymous verb alone: give a smile, make a promise, take a walk (to smile, to promise, to walk). To sum up: the vocabulary of a language is not homogeneous. If we view it as a kind of field, we shall see that its bulk, its central part is formed by lexical units possessing all the distinctive features of words, i.e. semantic, orthographic and morphological integrity as well as the capacity of being used in speech in isolation. The marginal elements of this field reveal only some of these features, and yet belong to this set too. Thus, phrasal verbs, complex prepositions, some compounds, phraseological units, formulaic expressions, etc. are divided in spelling but are in all other respects equivalent to words. Morphemes, on the other hand, a much smaller subset of the vocabulary, cannot be used as separate utterances and are less autonomous in other respects but otherwise also function as lexical items. The new term recently introduced in 32

mathematics to describe sets with blurred boundaries seems expressive and worthy of use in characterising a vocabulary — such sets are called fuzzy sets. Lexical System of Language It has been claimed by different authors that, in contrast to grammar, the vocabulary of a language is not systematic but chaotic. In the light of recent investigations in linguistic theory, however, we are now in a position to bring some order into this “chaos”. Lexicology studies the recurrent patterns of semantic relationships, and of any formal phonological, morphological or contextual means by which they may be rendered. It aims at systematisation. There has been much discussion of late, both in this country and abroad, concerning different problems of the systematic nature of the language vocabulary. The Soviet scholars are now approaching a satisfactory solution based on Marxist dialectics and its teaching of the general interrelation and interdependence of phenomena in nature and society. There are several important points to be made here. The term s y s t e m as used in present-day lexicology denotes not merely the sum total of English words, it denotes a set of elements associated and functioning together according to certain laws. It is a coherent homogeneous whole, constituted by interdependent elements of the same order related in certain specific ways. The vocabulary of a language is moreover an a d a p t i v e s y s t e m constantly adjusting itself to the changing requirements and conditions of human communications and cultural surroundings. It is continually developing by overcoming contradictions between its state and the new tasks and demands it has to meet. A set is described in the abstract set theory as a collection of definite distinct objects to be conceived as a whole. A set is said to be a collection of distinct elements, because a certain object may be distinguished from the other elements in a set, but there is no possibility of its repeated appearance. A set is called structured 33

when the number of its elements is greater than the number of rules according to which these elements may be constructed. A set is given either by indicating, i.e. listing, all its elements, or by stating the characteristic property of its elements. For example the closed set of English articles may be defined as comprising the elements: the, a/an and zero. The set of English compounds on the other hand is an infinite (open) set containing all the words consisting of at least two stems which occur in the language as free forms. In a classical set theory the elements are said to be definite because with respect to any of them it should be definite whether it belongs to a given set or not. proved to be more relevant to the study of vocabulary. The lexical system of every epoch contains productive elements typ ical of this some new phenomena, significant marks of new trends for the epochs to come. The present status of a system is an abstraction, a sort of scientific fiction which in some points can facilitate linguistic study, but the actual system of the language is in a state of constant change. Lexicology studies this whole by determining the properties of its elements and the different relationships of contrast and similarity existing between them within a language, as well as the ways in which they are influenced by extra- linguistic reality. The extra-linguistic relationships refer to the connections of words with the elements of objective reality they serve to denote, and their dependence on the social, mental and cultural development of the lan guage community. The reflection of objective reality is selective. That is, human thought and language select, reflect and nominate what is relevant to human ac tivity. Even though its elements are concrete and can be observed as such, a system is always abstract, and so is the vocabulary system or, as Aca demician V.V. Vinogradov has called it, the lexico-semantic system. The interdependence in this system results from a complex interaction of words in their lexical meanings and the grammatical features of the language. V.V. Vinogradov includes in this term both the sum total of words and expressions and the derivational and functional patterns 34

of word forms and word-groups, semantic groupings and relationships between words. The interaction of various levels in the language system may be illustrated in English by the following: the widespread develop ment of homonymy and polysemy, the loss of motivation, the great num ber of generic words and the very limited autonomy of English words as compared with Russian words are all closely connected with the mono- morphemic analytical character of the English language and the scarci ty of morphological means. All these in their turn result, partly at least, from levelling and loss of endings, processes undoubtedly connected with the reduction of vowels in unstressed syllables. In this book the relations between these elements and the regularity of these relations are shown. In terms of oppositions, differences, equivalencies and positional values. Equivalence should be clearly distinguished from equality or identity. E q u i v a l e n c e is the relation between two elements based on the common feature due to which they belong to the same set. The term s у s t e m as applied to vocabulary should not be understood to mean a well-defined or rigid system. As it has been stated above it is an adaptive system and cannot be completely and exactly characterised by deterministic functions; that is for the present state of science it is not possible to specify the system’s entire future by its status at some one instant of its operation. In other words, the vocabulary is not simply a probabilistic system but a set of interrelated adaptive sub systems. At this point it will be helpful to remember that it is precisely the most frequent words that show irregular or suppletive derivation and inflec tion. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic studies of meaning are f u n c t i o n al because the meaning of the lexical unit is studied first not through its relation to referent but through its functions in relation to other units. Functional approach is contrasted to r e f e r e n t i a l or onom a s i o l o g i c a l approach, otherwise called t h e o r y of nom i n a t i o n , in which meaning is studied as the interdependence between words and their referents, that is things or 35

concepts they name, i.e. various names given to the same sense. The onomasiological study of lexical units became especially prominent in the last two decades. The revival of interest in onomasiological matters is reflected in a large volume of publications on the subject. An outline of the main trends of current research will be found in the monographs on the Theory of Nomination issued by the Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sci enc Syntagmatic relationships being based on the linear character of speech are studied by means of contextual, valency, distributional, transformational and some other types of analysis. Paradigmatic linguistic relationships determining the vocabulary system are based on the interdependence of words within the vocabulary (synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, etc.). Diachronically the interdependence of words within the lexical subsystem may be seen by observing shifts in the meaning of existing words that occur when a new word is introduced into their semantic sphere. This interdependence is one of the reasons why historical linguistics can never achieve any valuable results if it observes only the development of isolated words. Almost any change in one word will cause changes in one or several other words. Characteristic examples are to be found in the influence of borrowings upon native words. The native OE haerfest (ModE harvest || Germ Herbst) originally meant not only the gathering of grain’ but also ‘the season for reaping’. Beginning with the end of the 14th century, that is after the Romance word autumne > autumn was borrowed, the second meaning in the native word was lost and transferred to the word autumn. When speaking about the influence of other aspects on the development of the vocabulary, we mean the phonetical, morphological and syntactical systems of the English language as they condition the sound form, morphological structure, motivation and meaning of words. This influence is manifold, and we shall have to limit our illustration to the most elementary examples. The monosyllabic phonological type of the English word, for instance, enhances homonymy. miss v ‘not hit’, ‘not catch’ and miss n — a title for a girl or unmarried woman. 36

The influence of morphology is manifest, for instance, in the development of non-affixed word-formation. harvest n and harvest v. The above considerations are not meant to be exhaustive; they are there to give some general idea of the relationships in question. In this connection it is necessary to point out that various interpretations of the same linguistic phenomena have repeatedly been offered and have even proved valuable for their respective purposes, just as in other sciences various interpretations may be given for the same facts of reality in conformity with this or that practical task. To be scientific, however, these interpretations cannot be arbitrary: they must explain facts and permit explanation and prediction of other facts. Therefore they must fit without bringing contradictions into the whole system of the theory created for the subject. Chapter II. The role of lexical and phraseological units in the lexicographic practice 2.1Characteristic features of using phraseological and lexical units. 37

Phraseology is a branch of linguistics which studies different types of set expressions, which like words name various objects and phenomena. They exist in the language as ready-made units. A Phraseological unit can be defined as a non-motivated word-group that cannot be freely made up in speech, but is reproduced as a ready-made unit. It is a group of words whose meaning cannot be deduced by examining the meaning of the constituent lexemes. The essential features of PU are : 1) lack of motivation; 2) stability of the lexical components. A dark horse is actually not a horse but a person about whom no one knows anything definite. A bull in a china shop : the idiom describes a clumsy person. A white elephant – it is a waste of money because it is completely useless. The green-eyed monster is jealousy, the image being drawn from Othello. To let the cat out of the bag : to let some secret become known. To bark up the wrong tree (Am) means ‘to follow a false scent; to look for somebody or something in a wrong place; to expect from somebody what he is unlikely to do’. The idiom is not infrequently used in detective stories: The police are barking up the wrong tree as usual, i.e. they suspect somebody who has nothing to do with the crime. The ambiguity of these interesting word-groups may lead to an amusing misunderstanding, especially for children who are apt to accept words at their face value. - Little Johnnie (crying): Mummy, mummy, my auntie Jane is dead. - Mother: Nonsense, child! She phoned me 5 minutes ago . - Little Johnnie: But I heard Mrs. Brown say that her neighbours cut her dead . 38

To cut somebody dead means ‘to rudely ignore somebody; to pretend not to know or recognize him’. Puns are frequently based on the ambiguousness of idioms: - Isn’t our Kate a marvel! I wish you could have seen her at the Harrisons’ party yesterday. If I’d collected the bricks she dropped all over the place, I could built a villa’. To drop a brick means ‘to say unintentionally a quite indiscreet or tactless thing that shocks and offended people’. The author of the “Book of English Idioms” Collins write: “In standard spoken and written English today idioms is an established and essential element that, used with care, ornaments and enriches the language.” Used with care is an important warning because speech overloaded with idioms loses its freshness and originality. Idioms, after all, are ready-made speech units, and their continual repetition sometimes wears them out: they lose their colours and become trite clichés. In modern linguistics, there is considerable confusion about the terminology associated with these word-groups Most Russian scholars use the term “phraseological units” introduced by academician V.V. Vinogradov. The term “idiom” used by western scholars has comparatively recently found its way into Russian phraseology but is applied mostly to only a certain type of phraseological unit as it will be clear from further explanations. There are some other terms: set-expressions, set-phrases, phrases, fixed word- groups, collocations . The ‘freedom’ of free word-groups is relative and arbitrary. Nothing is entirely ‘free’ in speech as its linear relationships are governed, restricted and regulated, on the one hand, by requirements of logic and common sense and, on the other, by the rules of grammar and combinability. A black-eyed girl but not of a black-eyed table. The child was glad is quite correct, but a glad child is wrong. 39

Free word-groups are so called not because of any absolute freedom in using them but simply because they are each time built up anew in the speech process whereas idioms are used as ready-made units with fixed and constant structures. 4. The function of lexical units. Naming process: causes, ways, types and results. To solve the problem of the constituents of the lexicon we have to view it from the functional or dynamic point of view, i.e. from the angle of what lexical units are functionally destined for and of how they arise in the language system. The theory that discusses these problems - the theory of naming, or nomination, or verbalization (giving a name to a class of objects, properties, processes). The roots of the naming theory go back to ancient times. One can easily quote Plato’s Cratylus as a very clear expression of ideas of those times on the processes of naming and correlation of names, or signs and things named, or signified. To keep in mind one’s experience of the environment and to communicate one’s ideas to other human beings one has to give expression to those psychic constructs that appear in our mind. The ever changing world, whose economic, social, political, scientific, etc. aspects are in the state of permanent change makes it an ever present necessity, a permanent cause for processes of naming to take place. It is not only the world that changes, our knowledge of the world, of nature of things, of their interrelations and changes too, and this change in our cognitive, conceptual, world predetermines another, also permanent, need of names to register our new ideas of our environment and its properties. Together with our understanding of the surrounding world our emotional attitudes towards things, events, or their properties may change thus creating a need for verbalization to express our changed emotions. All in all we have at least four types of causes that predermine the fact that naming is an ever present and regular enough process in the life of a language. These causes are: 1) social, or objective; 2) cognitive, or epistemological and 3) psychological, or emotional; 4) linguistic causes. There exist universal ways to satisfy the community hunger for names: 1) Imitation ( Onomatopoeia), when in order to give a name to an object or event, or property or a class of them the speaker imitates some property, usually, 40

the one which is connected with sound. The results of imitation naming processes pose a very serious linguistic problem- arbitrariness, conventionality of a name, or the form of a lexical unit: the animal world gives us numerous examples: Cats miaou - мяукают Cows mooh - му - му ( мычат ) People sneeze in English and чихают in Russian producing sounds different enough: atishoo and апчхи . 2) Semantic derivation (Transfer of Things) which seem to have no likeness are given the same name. E.g. eye is a name for an organ of sight, and eyes of a potato, eye of a needle, the eye of the tornado, etc. Though first it appeared as the name of a human organ later on the name was transferred to other objects. 3) Word derivation - creation of novel names on the basis of names already existent in the word stock, a vivid example being word composition. E.g. a room– a living room, a bedroom= various function of rooms. Milk-milkman, milkmaid, milk-shake, to milk and many more. Creation of various types of derived names and even terminological expressions is the result of combining names in order to give rent to a new name, complex in nature. 4) Borrowing . No lang. is free of borrowings. They come in different ways– directly or indirectly and in different shapes: in the form of lexical items, shaped according to the phonetic, grammatical norms of the language (assimilation of borrowings), record or in the form of translation (vodka in E. Vodkas). Of all the four techniques of verbalization semantic derivation and word composition are by far the most productive in the life of established languages. Analyzing units used for naming, scholars distinguish at least 3 types of verbalization: 1. Lexical - naming is fulfilled with the help of lexical items, w.w in particular. 1. Propositional - speakers name a situation they might use a word- combination or a sentence to name it. «Don’t trouble trouble until trouble troubles you. » 41

3. Discourse - when a text serves as a name for some usual complex situation, or a series of situations. Lexical verbalization is the major source for the lexicon thought to discard names created in the form of propositions or discourse units would be snobbish and wrong for though to a lesser degree their outcome might become established ways of expression, especially in the form of questions. Lexical units: their properties and specific features . Systemic structure of words:  Sentences -make up communicative level  Words -constitute lexical level  Morphemes -form morphological level  Phonemes -constituents of phonological level. Lexical units are multi-faceted linguistic units, which are characterized at least by 2 features: meaning and form . This leads to the phonemes being ousted out of the vocabulary as they don’t bear any signification but fulfill differentiating function, communicative role and performance of linguistic units in communication: words’ and morphemes’ function in communication is to serve as ready-made units at the speakers’ disposal. Communication- a creative process with ready-made language units. The results of the process- utterances. Lexical units are reproduced ready-made linguistic units which possess both form and meaning. According to this definition- classify not only words but morphemes as lexical units. Existence of fixed expressions: greetings, proverbs, sayings, quotations, etc. which are sentences in structure but are reproduced in speech- the lexicon of a language must include words , morphemes , ready-made word combinations and utterances, thus becoming a system of various types of lexical units. English vocabulary is half a million items. We can’t count lex.units cos of never-ending process of change of the lexicon. Derivation, i.e. of creating new items as soon communicative necessity demands it , turns the lexicon into an open system in which we find two broad categories of lexical units: closed and open. The closed categories are the functional words : pronouns, conjunctions ( and , if , 42

because ), determiners ( a , the ) and a few others. The major lexical categories : noun (N), verb (V), adjecti+ve (Adj.) and adverb (Adv.) are open . The count of the number of lexical units in the vocabulary is impossible due to constant flow of lexical items out of the present-day word stock. The description of the lexicon in generative grammar . In the generative tradition grammar embraces the whole of the language system: elements, sets of rules and conditions that allow people to speak and understand a language. Grammar in this sense of the term consists of the following components: Phonetics(function- articulation and perception of speech sounds),Phonology aimed at patterning of speech sounds, Morphology-word and word-form formation, Syntax, or sentence formation, and Semantics the interpretation of words and sentences 1 . This understanding of grammar goes to an attempt at modeling the language system to find answers to the following problems: The 1st version of this Grammar consisted of the syntactic component, phonological component, semantics and the transformational component the rules of which were to map the generated structures onto the surface, phonetic level. The lexicon had no place in the grammar and constituted merely a list of ready-made units each of which was assigned some categorial and sub-categorial features, like Countable/Uncountable, Animate/Unanimate for nouns, Transitive/Intransitive for verbs, etc. The lexicon happens to be a list of units introduced at a definite syntactic level. The main idea of the lexicalist treatment of the lexicon is that due to the idiosyncratic nature of complex lexical units (worker, writer, transmission, etc. which develop specific senses not predicted by the rules of their formation) or admission, permission, the phonological forms of which turn to be alternating and specific as compared to split - splitting, sit - sitting, the whole lexicon should be entered into the generative model in the form of a list. A great number of lexical units are patterned according to some derivation rules which are very much similar to syntactic rules. This allows a more economical treatment of the lexicon where complex units are generated on the basis of simple forms via rules of derivation 1 N. Chomsky “Syntactic Structures” Moscow, 1960 43

while non-derived forms and rules are presented in the form of a list. M. Aronoff ’s version.The starting point for all derivation processes is not a list of morphemes but that of words. The lexicon for M. Aronoff is a list of words, which function as bases. Word composition is a part of syntax, there is no list of morphemes nor is there a filter just as regular patterns devoid of idiosyncratic features are not part of the lexicon 1 . There are variations in the treatment of morphemes – morphemes as things in which morphemes are autonomous units which in the processes of affixation, compounding, etc. are combined; 2) morphemes as rules in which rules, or operations play a predominant role. Lexicon is a total stock of meaningful units: words, idioms (stable word- combination), parts of words-morphemes (prefixes, affixes) The function of lexical units. Naming processes: causes, ways, types and results . Theory that discusses problems of the constituents of the lexicon- theory of naming, or nomination, or verbalization -giving a name to a class of objects, properties, processes, events, etc. The ever changing world, whose economic, social, political, scientific, etc. aspects are in state of permanent change-necessity, a permanent cause for processes of naming. Not only world changes, knowledge of world, nature of things, of their interrelations changes, and this change in cognitive, conceptual, world predetermines need of names to register new ideas of environment and its properties. Analyzing units used for naming, 3 types of verbalization: 1. lexical - naming is fulfilled with the help of lexical items, words in particular. 2. propositional - when speakers try to name a situation they might use a word-combination or a sentence to name it. «Don’t trouble trouble until trouble 1 M. Aronoff “Introduction course on Lexicology” M, 1999 44

troubles you.» 3. discourse - when a text serves as a name for some usual complex situation, or a series of situations. Role of motivated lexical units in the structure of lexicon and communication Cases- to observe a direct connection between the structural pattern of the word and its meaning. This relationship between morphemic structure and meaning- morphological motivation. Main criterion in morphological motivation-relationship between morphemes.All one-morpheme words, e.g. sings, tell, eat- by definition non- motivated. In words composed of more than one morpheme carrier of word- meaning-combined meaning of the component morphemes and the meaning of the structural pattern of the word. This can be illustrated by the semantic analysis of different words composed of phonemically identical morphemes with identical lexical meaning. The words finger-ring and ring-finger, e.g., contain two morphemes, the combined lexical meaning of which is the same; the difference in the meaning of these words can be accounted for by the difference in the arrangement of the component morphemes. If direct connection between the structural pattern of the word and its meaning-this word is motivated. Words singer, rewrite, eatable- described as motivated. If the connection between the structure of the lexical unit and its meaning is completely arbitrary and conventional, we speak of non-motivated or idiomatic words, e.g. matter, repeat. M morphological motivation is “relative”, the degree of motivation may be different. Between the extremes of complete motivation and lack of motivation, there exist various grades of partial motivation. The word endless- completely motivated as both the lexical meaning of the component morphemes and the meaning of the pattern-perfectly transparent. The word cranberry -partially motivated cause of the absence of lexical meaning in the morpheme cran-. 45

Some linguists argue that words can be motivated in more than one way,another type of motivation-direct connection between the phonetical structure of the word and its meaning. Argues that speech sounds may suggest visual dimensions, shape, size, etc. Experiments showed that back open vowels are suggestive of big size, heavy weight, dark colour, etc. The experiments were repeated,the results-same. Native speakers-to listen to pairs of antonyms from non- existent language unrelated to English, e.g. ching — chung and then to try to find the English equivalents, e.g. light — heavy, (big — small, etc.), which foreign word translates which English word. About 90 per cent of English speakers felt that ching is the equivalent of the English light (small) and chung of its antonym heavy (large). The term m o t i v a t i o n is also used by a number of linguists to denote the relationship between the central and the coexisting meaning or meanings of a word which are understood as a metaphorical extension of the central meaning. Metaphorical extension may be viewed as generalisation of the denotational meaning of a word permitting it to include new referents which are in some way like the original class of referents. Similarity of various aspects and/or functions of different classes of referents may account for the semantic motivation of a number of minor meanings. For example, a woman who has given birth is called a mother; by extension, any act that gives birth is associated with being a mother, e.g. in Necessity is the mother of invention. The same principle can be observed in other meanings: a mother looks after a child, so that we can say She became a mother to her orphan nephew, or Romulus and Remus were supposedly mothered by a wolf, also mother country, a mother’s mark (=a birthmark), mother tongue, etc. Such metaphoric extension may be observed in the so-called trite metaphors, such as burn with anger, break smb’s heart, jump at a chance, etc. If metaphorical extension is observed in the relationship of the central and a minor word meaning it is often observed in the relationship between its synonymic or antonymic meanings. Thus, a few years ago the phrases a meeting at the summit, a summit meeting appeared in the newspapers. 46

The word as the basic lexical unit . Saussure, Humboldt, Vygotsky and Jean Aitcheson- the key role of a word in the structure and function of language. George Miller 1 ”Words- the fundamental units of language”. This, then, is a well-established tradition... and any approach aiming at a general theory of language must accord the word a central place. Few theories attribute to the word a truly central position in the language, and more than one approach either peripheralizes it or dispenses with it altogether as a linguistic entity. Their role as the elements of discourse, the building blocks of meaning from which sentences are constructed. L. Bloomfield viewed: “The word as a minimal free form. But it is not completely satisfying” 2 . Allan Gartner: “The word is the unit of tongue” 3 . A word has its own make-up and somehow has an existence prior to, and even independent of that of any particular sentence. Constituents of the word must be examined. The fact that a word can express different senses raises a serious problem. No generally acceptable principle of the word unity has been formed. Smirnitsky has unity of all its forms and meanings. It is words in general, not scientific words, that are scientifically important 1 Guillaume: « A word consists of meaning and its physical sign.» It is primarily a meaning construction and its inherent unity that lie in the mental component (of go-went as 1 word) The human principle underlying language is that expression is possible only if smth has first been represented. The necessity of representing smth before 1 George Miller “ Lexicology” German, 1991 2 L. Bloomfield “Semantic relations of lexical units” German, 1971 3 Alan Gartner “Lexemes and Lexical units” German, 1983 1 George Miller “ Lexicology” German, 1991 47

expressing it is universal in space and time. It is this that makes the word a necessity in every act of language. Thus, the boundaries of the lexicon also vary depending each time on the way we delimit words. Typologies of meaning. Lexical and grammatical meaning. W ord-meaning is not homogeneous but is made up of various components that combination and interrelation of which determine the inner facet of the word. The 2 main types of meaning-the grammatical and lexical meanings in words and word-forms. Grammatical meaning. Word-forms, such as girls, winters, joys, tables, etc. though denoting widely different objects of reality have something in common. This common element is the grammatical meaning of plurality which can be found in all of them. Thus grammatical meaning may be defined ,as the component of meaning recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of different words, as, e.g., the tense meaning in the word-forms of verbs (asked, thought, walked, etc.) or the case meaning in the word-forms of various nouns (girl’s, boy’s, night’s, etc.). In a broad sense it may be argued that linguists who make a distinction between lexical and grammatical meaning are, in fact, making a distinction between the functional (linguistic) meaning which operates at various levels as the interrelation of various linguistic units and referential (conceptual) meaning as the interrelation of linguistic units and referents (or concepts). In modern linguistic science it is commonly held that some elements of grammatical meaning can be identified by the position of the linguistic unit in relation to other linguistic units, i.e. by its distribution. Word-forms speaks, reads, writes have one and the same grammatical meaning as they can all be found in identical distribution, e.g. only after the pronouns he, she, it and before adverbs like well, badly, to-day, etc. 48

Certain component of the meaning of a word is de-scribed when you identify it as a part of speech; since different parts of speech are distributionally different (my work and I work). Lexical Meaning. Comparing word-forms of one and the same word-observe that besides grammatical meaning, there is another component of meaning in them. This component is identical in all the forms of the word. E.g. the word-forms go, goes, went, going, gone possess different grammatical meanings of tense, person and so on, but in each of these forms we find one and the same semantic component denoting the process of movement. This is the lexical meaning of the word which may be described as the component of meaning proper to the word as a linguistic unit, i.e. recurrent in all the forms of this word. The difference between the lexical and the grammatical components of meaning is not to be sought in the difference of the concepts underlying the two types of meaning, but rather in the way they are conveyed. The concept of plurality, e.g., may be expressed by the lexical meaning of the world plurality; it may also be expressed in the forms of various words irrespective of their lexical meaning, e.g. boys, girls, joys, etc. The concept of relation may be expressed by the lexical meaning of the word relation and also by any of the prepositions, e.g. in, on, behind, etc. (the book is in/on, behind the table). “ In general function is a role which an element plays in activity of that structure, part of which it makes. As to phraseological units they have the definite program of functioning which is predetermined by their essence itself as A. V. Kunin puts it. Some functions are constant, inherent in all phraseological units in any conditions of their realization; other functions are variable, peculiar only to some classes of phraseological units. Communicative, cognitive and nominative functions refer to the constant functions. The communicative function of phraseological units is their ability to serve as communicative or message means. Communication presupposes a mutual exchange of statements, and message presupposes the transfer of information without a feedback with the reader or the listener. The nominative function of phraseological units is their relation to objects 49

of the real world, including situations, and also replacement of these objects in speech activity by their phraseological denominations. Function which is closely connected with nominative function is the cognitive function that is the socially determined reflexion of objects of the real world mediated by consciousness, promoting their cognition. The social determinacy is shown in the fact that though potential phraseological units are created by separate individuals, these individuals are part of the society, and the realization of the cognitive function by them is possible only on the basis of previous knowledge. «The process of cognition also includes such forms of cogitative activity, as foresight, fantasy, imagination, dream, intuition…». Cognitive and nominative functions are realized within the limits of communicative function, forming a dialectic unity, and all other functions are realized within the limits of the given functions. The voluntative function is the function of will expression. E. g: Wish smb well — to wish good luck, success to smb, to treat smb benevolently: I wish Jane Fairfax very well; but she tires me to death ( J. Austen). Resultative function — a designation of the reason which has caused an action or a condition which is expressed by a phraseological unit. Come a cropper — to fail, to get to a trouble: Gerald: I may as well tell you at once that I’ve had very bad luck. I wanted to make money and I’ve came an absolute cropper (W. S. Maugham). The stylistic function is a special, in comparison with neutral way of expression, purposefulness of language means for achievement… of stylistic effect with preservation of the general intellectual content of the statement. 50

The stylistic function realizes in speech connotative features of a phraseological unit. Linguistics: only stylistic coloring. The idea about it is given by marks and comments in stylistic dictionaries which, unfortunately, are still far from being perfect. Comparison of a phraseological unit with its variable prototype also helps to reveal stylistic coloring. Developing, on the Russian material, the phraseological theory in its functional-semantic aspect, S. G. Garvin singles out some functions of phraseological units. These functions are peculiar also to English phraseological units 1 : 1) The expressively-figurative function (catch at a straw; forbidden fruit, etc.); 2) The emotionally-expressional function (damn your eyes!; go to the devil!); 3) The function of speech concision by omitting some components (do not count your chickens! instead of do not count your chickens before they are hatched). Proverbs, especially short ones, even not of the reduced kind, carry out the function of speech laconisation, for example, prevention is better than cure — action taken to prevent an illness, dangerous event, etc., from taking place is wiser and more useful than any action that is taken to reduce its harmful effect (LD). It is evident, that the definition is almost five times longer than the proverb itself. The semantic compression, characteristic for phraseological units, is one of the displays of language economy. All these functions, and also the function of hyperbolization and intensity are sub-kinds of the stylistic function. The cumulative function is peculiar, for example, to proverbs. They are generalization of life experience of the people.With the cumulative function «one more, the second function is closely connected — directly managing, directing, 1 S.G. Garvin “English Phraseological units’” Moscow 1988 51

influencing, and in separate prospect bringing up, forming a person. We named it directive. Examples of proverbs with the directive function can be the following: as you brew, so must you drink; cut your coat according to your clot; look before you leap, etc. The summarizing function of a phraseological unit consists in the fact that it is the short resume of the previous statement, e. g., that’s flat (coll.) — it is definitively solved, resolutely and irrevocably: Well, I will not marry her: that’s flat (G. B. Shaw). Summarizing function in a context is characteristic of many proverbs, for example, all’s well that ends well; in for a penny, in for a pound, etc. Introducing a luxury car that will not take you for a ride. The given advertising heading concerns the car, and two meanings of the phraseological unit. “Take smb for a ride” are played up 1) To kill, finish off smb; 2) To inflate, deceive smb. Proverbs are often used in the function of confirmation of a thought. It is also one of the sub-kinds of the pragmatic function. It is an ill bird that fouls its own nest — «only the bad bird defiles the nest»: Augustus: …Do you mean to say, you scoundrel, that an Englishman is capable of selling his country to the enemy for gold? The Clerk: Not as a general thing I would not say it, but there’s men here would sell their own mothers for two coppers if they got the chance. 52

Augustus:… It’s an ill bird that fouls its own nest. (G. B. Shaw). Interjectional phraseological units can carry out the compensatory function which is realized in the description of strong sincere emotional experience, affect, when speech of the subject is complicated and an interjectional phraseological unit is the only content of the whole remark. Oh dear — my God: Jimmy: They did not say much. But I think she’s dying. Cliff: Oh, dear ( J. Osborne). The text-building (or the context-building) function is characteristic of phraseological units at their realization. For the first time the question concerning text-building functions of phraseological units was raised by I. I. Chernysheva. The proposition that phraseological units can be binding means not only of contexts, but also context fragments is lawful. The task of defining what an idiomatic expression is remains still a rather difficult one. The border between literal and idiomatic expressions is still controversial. The difficulty in defining phraseological units is due to several factors. Current treatment of phraseology in specialized registers acknowledges the need for corpus-based studies of the prototypical lexico -grammatical patterns and discourse functions of lexical phrases across disciplines. Thus, the aim of this paper is to deal with some lexical, grammatical and functional features of phraseological units in order to understand their nature and to deal with idiomatization as a process. More precisely, this research study intends to explore prototypical lexico-grammatical features and patterns of phraseological units in English and Albanian. This analysis is based entirely on corpus evidence, since all collocational patterns discussed are extracted mainly from literary texts in both languages, specifically compiled for the current research study. 53

The most widely agreed-upon definition of an idiom is that which specifies that the meaning of the whole is not determinable given the meanings of its parts. This means that an idiom cannot be interpreted literally. Patricia G. Adkins defines idioms as “modes of expression or phrases which are peculiar to a given language”. She continues to point out that idioms “are the basis for understanding the language, since they constitute a large part of it. They are rarely translated literally and often the dictionary is of little aid in the determination of the meaning of a particular expression”. As a matter of fact, an idiom is an independent expression unit; it should be treated like every individual word in a dictionary, and thus the unit should be picked up as a whole 1 . An attempt to change the components of an idiom may sometimes result in confusing an audience. If someone says: “I’ve seen a lot of greedy people, but this person takes the cake”, we understand what the sentence means. However if he substitutes the idiom “take the cake” with “take the pie”, the sentence certainly will be confusing to us. In modern linguistics, there is considerable confusion about the terminology associated with these word-groups. Most Russian scholars use the term “phraseological unit” which was first introduced by Victor Vladimirovich Vinogradov. In Albanian there are not many studies on phraseology. The most well known scholar is Jani Thomai, who uses the term “phraseological unit” to describe what ‘idioms’ are in English. The term "idiom" is mostly applied to phraseological units with completely transferred meanings, that is, to the ones in which the meaning of the whole unit does not correspond to the current meanings of the components. There are many scholars who regard idioms as the essence of phraseology and the major focus of interest in phraseology research.Phraseological units, or idioms represent what can probably be described as the most picturesque, colorful and expressive part of the language's vocabulary. Generally, phraseological 1 Patrica Adkins “International Conference on Linguistics, Literature and Culture” London, 1968 54

units are defined as units made up of at least two words, as unique combinations of words not created according to a certain pattern and no other combinations can be created accordingly. Combinatory abilities of phraseological units are different from the combinatory abilities of regular language. Such an expression which has been used over time so frequently that it loses its special features with which many speakers are familiar with is considered an idiomatic expression. There have been diverse definitions of phraseological units and for that matter, scholars often approach the issue from their unique perspectives based on different research purposes. However, we have considered few of their features below: Non-compositionality of idioms This means that the meaning of the whole is not a sum of the meaning of the parts. For example, knowledge of the meaning of the words ‘to spill’ and ‘beans’ will not provide any clue at all to the idiomatic meaning of ‘to spill the beans’ (to tell a secret). The meaning of an idiom is comparable to the meaning of a single lexical item, and must be learned as a whole in the same way the meaning of any other lexical item is learned. Warsaw, Sag and Nurnberg point out that the parts of an idiom do have identifiable meanings which although non-literal, are derived from the literal meanings; these non-literal meanings combine to produce the whole idiom. In addition, idioms maintain their internal syntactic structure, which may be transformed and modified to varying degrees. These modifications affect the unitary meaning of the idiom. Transparency of idioms In order to understand why the meanings of some idioms are more transparent than others, it is necessary to first distinguish idioms from metaphors. Although idioms and metaphors are frequently grouped together, idioms should not be included in the category of figurative speech. Idioms 55

have conventionalized meanings, agreed upon by the speakers of the language, which actually can be figured out if they are not known. The meaning of a metaphor, is not fixed, and novel metaphors must be figured out. Thus, unfamiliar idioms will not be understood, except perhaps by guessing at the meaning from the context in which they are used. Translatabilility of idioms Students of foreign languages have often come to see idioms as strings of words which cannot be translated literally into the other language. This has led some people to believe that no idioms can be translated literally. There are however, many idioms which have direct word for word translations in other languages without losing their idiomatic meanings. Roos classifies idioms which can be translated as either congruent or equivalent. Congruent idioms have the same lexical form and meaning in both languages. For example, ‘to break the ice’ is translated ‘muzni yormoq’ in Uzbek. They have exactly the same lexical form, and both mean ‘to overcome initial difficulty in starting a conversation. Equivalent idioms use different lexical material to convey the same meaning. Equivalent idioms may be completely different or rather similar. Often there is no idiom in another language which conveys the same meaning. In this case, the idiom may be rendered in the other language by a single word, a fixed non-idiomatic formula or a free paraphrase. Closely related languages may have many idioms which are entirely different, due to their origins in different historical and geographical accidents. They may also have many idioms which are identical. Flavell gives reasons why the same idiom may be found in different languages: (a) different languages spontaneously generate similar idioms from the same source, because many idioms are based on ordinary, concrete objects; (b) similar languages may share a common culture; (c) idioms are frequently borrowed between languages. 56

The third reason for their popularity is the figurative nature of idioms. All idioms are figurative and because they are figurative, they add color and fun to the language. People enjoy using idioms because by so doing they feel that they can play with the words. A sentence like “you will not get anything done if you have too many irons in the fire” is more colorful and interesting than “You will not accomplish anything if you try to do too many things at one time”. The final reason may have to do with the semantic leakage. The reason that semantic leakage adds to the popularity of idioms is that it creates a double image, a figurative one accompanied by a literal one. The effect of this double image makes our speech interesting and sometimes witty, as in the following play on a pun cited by Chafe: “Just now he’s sitting on a cloud, but it may not support him very long” 2.2 Semantic problems of lexical and phraseological units in the translating process The translation of phraseological units is not on easy matter as it depends on several factors: different combinability of words, homonymy, synonymy, polysemy of phraseological units and presence of falsely identical units which make it necessary to take into account the context. Besides, a large number of phraseological units have stylistic – expressive components in meaning, which usually have a specific national feature. So, it’s just necessary to get acquainted with the main principles of the general theory of phraseology.The following types of phraseological units maybe observed: presumes and idioms. A unit of constant context consisting of a dependant and a constant indicators may be called a phrase me. An Idiom is a unit of constant context which is characterized by an integral meaning of the whole and by weakened meanings of the components, and in the whole lexical structural of the phrase. And type of a 58

phraseological unit can be presented a definite micro –system. In the process of translating phraseological units functional adequate linguistic units are selected by comparing two specific linguistic principles. These principles reveal elements of likeness and distinction. Certain part of these system may correspond in form and context or have no adequacy. The main types of phraseological conformities are as follows: 1. Complete conformities. 2. Partial conformities. I . Complete coincidence of form and context in phrasiological units is rarely met with. 1. Black frost (phrase me) – qorasovuq. 2. To bring oil to fire (idiom) – alangagayog’ quymoq. II. Partial conformities of phraseological units in two language assume lexical, grammatical and lexica – grammatical differences with identity of meaning, but differ in lexical composition, morphologic number and syntactic arrangement of word order. One may find: A. Partial lexical conformities by lexic parameters; No worth a bean – birgurunchdonasicha, sariqchaqaga ham arzimaslik. There the word “bean” means “loviya” in Uzbek, but we have changed “bean” loviya to “gurunch”. In this translation we take into account the social life, national meal of Uzbek country, as “rise” – “gurunch” is more widely used in Uzbekistan. To get out of bed the wrong feet. (Idiom) Chap yoni bilan turmoq. B. Partial conformities by the grammatical parametries: a. Differing as to morphological arrangement. (number) To fish in troubled waters. (idiom) Loyqa suvda baliq tutmoq. To agree like cats and dogs. (idiom) It – mushukdek yashamoq. b. Differing as to syntactical arrangement. 59

Strike while iron is hot. Temirni qizig’ida bos. All in not gold that glitters. Barcha yaltiragan narsalar oltin emas. Many English phraseological units have no phraseological conformities in Uzbek and Russian. In the first instance this concerns phraseological units based on really. When translating units of this find it’s advisable to use the following types of translation. A. A verbatim word for word translation. B. Translation by analogy. C. Descriptive translation. Verbatim translation is possible when the way of thinking is not necessary. Eg. To call thing by their true names. Bear a specific national feature: Har narsani o’z nomi bilan atamoq. The arms race (phraseme) Qurollanish poygasi. Cold war – (idiom). Sovuqurush. Translation by analogy. This way of translation is resorted to when the phraseological units has a specific national realize. 1) “Dick” said the dwarf, thrashing his head in at the door, - “my pet”, “my pencil”, apple of my eye, hey! - Dik, azizam, tolibim, ko’zginamningnuri, Hursandligidan xitob qildi mitti odam eshikdan boshini suqib. 2) To pool somebody’s leg (idiom) Mazahqilmoq, oyog;idanchalmoq. Descriptive translation. Descriptive translation that is translating phraseological units by a free combination of words, it is possible when the phraseological units has a particular national feature and has no analogue in the language, it is to be translated into; 1. To enter the House: (Phraseme) Parlamenta’zosibo’lmoq. 2. To cross the floor of the House: (idiom).Bir partiyadan boshqa partiyaga o’tib ketmoq. In the examples given about the word “House” is translated as “Parlament” 60

and “Partiya” as a political word. Phraseological units cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as readymade units. The lexical components in phraseological units are stable and they are non – motivated; that is its meaning cannot decoded from the meaning of its components and they don’t allow their lexical components In phraseological units the individual components don’t seem to possess any lexical meaning outside the word group. Eg.Red tape, to get rid of, to take place. To lead the dance to take care. Ma’ruza qilishdan menga bir dona guruchli kmanfaat yo’q” – Dedi domla o’ziga norozi bo’lib… A.Qahhor “Sarob” Toshkent 1995 y. 110-bet. “I’ll have benefit not worth a bean from having talk”, - said the teacher disagreebly. “bean” is translated into Uzbek as “lovia” and “gurunch” is translated into English as “rise”. But the English language has such Phraseological Units with the name of bean which coincides to the meaning of the Phraseological Unit in Uzbek with the name of “rise”: that is we found there a partial conforfity. Bir dona guruchga arzimaslik – ahamiyatsiz, muhim emas. Not worth a bean – having very small importance. Translation is pure art and it demands translators to be fully aware of all the principles of translation and creative hard work on translation. In this paragraph we are going to discuss and analyze the ways of translation of some lexical Phraseological Units and Idioms with the names of fruits. The translation of Phraseological Units and Idioms belong to the stylistic problems of the theory of translation. It is regarded to be one of the most important problems in linguistics. The beauty of the literary work depends not only on its general plot but also some criterion of it as the ornament of lexical Phraseological Units and Idioms. The art of literary translation demands us to deal with this problem in an aesthetic taste and translate not word by word, phrase 61

by phrase but try not to express their meaning semantics and emphasis in translated language as in the original one. One of the most actual tasks of the theory of translation is to pay close attention to the words of national coloring and express them by every nations own lexical and Phraseological Units 1 . Here we can observe this in the example: 1Hamma o’lib-tirilib ishlab yursa-yu, bir tirraqi buzoq podani Bulg’atsa, hali ko’rasan buning isnodi butun brigadaga tegadi, ko’zini moshday ochib qo’yish kerak bunaqalarni – dedi Sigbatulin. Everyone is working hard as much as possible, but don’t you see that one rotten apple is injuring its neighbors, it will cause shy to the whole brigade, I gamble, we must open their eyes wide,-said Sibgatulin. Here we have taken the component of the Uzbek Phraseological Unit “Bir tirraqi buzoq podani bulg’ar” in the English language as “One rotten apple injures its neighbors”. The English word “buzoq” means “calf’’ They are quite different by their lexical meaning. But the general meaning of these Phraseological Units and Idioms with the name apple of in the English language one can observe the meaning of negativeness or badness. The words “buzoq, “poda” are close to Uzbek daily life. We can hardly find the Phraseological Units or lexical unit with name of apple in the negative meaning in Uzbek language and this fact approves our point of view one more that any word or Phraseological Units in one language not all the time has the same semantic meaning in other languages. Conclusion 1 Виноградов В. С, Введение в переводоведение, М., 2001 62

The study of phraseological units has been the object of study of many linguists throughout Europe and all around the globe. The interest of their study has raised contributions steadily since the beginning of the twentieth century. Many researchers have attempted to give several definitions of idiomatic units along the years. The different approaches and different features of idioms have added to the complexity of the term. Traditionally, idioms are believed to be unpredictable or non- compositional. We can come across such kind particular peculiarities and definitions of Phraseological and Lexicological units in the famous works of well-known scientists and linguists such as: Chafe, Chomsky, Fraser, Katz and so many others. All have reached the conclusion that idioms are phrases the meaning of which is different from the grammatical or logical one. One of the greatest problems has been defining the limits of phraseology itself. There is general agreement that phraseology constitutes a continuum along which word combinations are situated, with the most opaque and fixed ones at one end and the most transparent and variable ones at the other. Thus the difficulty stands in distinguishing one type of phraseological unit from another and mainly in distinguishing the most variable and transparent multiword units from free combinations, which are considered as falling out of the realm of phraseology . Idioms are considered as frozen forms whose meanings are represented in the mental lexicon as one word. In this view, an idiom is an expression whose meaning is not a compositional function of its elements. Among the attempts of the linguists to define idioms, believes that the definition of ‘idioms‘ as ―lexicalized expressions with idiosyncratic meaning‖ has been the standard definition employed by the majority of linguists for more than a century . According to Johnson-Laird ―idioms are illogical and frustrating features of discourse since their meanings do not depend on the meanings of their parts and the syntactic relations of those parts. English scholars 63

have greatly contributed to the classification of idioms in English as well. They have categorized idioms in three main categories. From the analysis of idiomatic units in languages there emerge different semantic classification groups, selected for analysis in our present study, which will be treated in further detail below. To be all at sea – to be unable to understand e.g : How can I be a judge in a situation in which I am all at sea? I am afraid I am all at sea in this problem. V.A Collins remarks that metaphor is that of a boot tossed about, out of control, with its occupants not knowing where they are. To sink or swim – to fail or succeed. E.g : It is a case or swim. All depends on his own effort. In deep water – in trouble or in danger; In low water, on the rocks – in strained financial circumstances. To show one’s color – to betray one’s real character or intentions. The allusion is, one more to a ship showing the flag of its country at the most. To strike one’s colors – to surrender, to give in, ad unit one us beaters. The metaphor refers to ships hurling down its flag. To bow the storm – to give in, to a know ledge one’s defeat. Three sheets in the wind– very drunk. Half sea over– drunk. According to lots of scientific researches Phraseological units of any kind of language are considered as colorful, emotive and expressive statements. A Phraseological unit (PU) can be defined as a non-motivated word- group that cannot be freely made up in speech, but is reproduced as a ready-made unit. It is a group of words whose meaning cannot be deduced by examining the meaning of the constituent lexemes. The essential features of PU are : 1) lack of motivation; 64

2) stability of the lexical components. A dark horse is actually not a horse but a person about whom no one knows anything definite. A bull in a china shop : the idiom describes a clumsy person. A white elephant – it is a waste of money because it is completely useless. The green-eyed monster is jealousy, the image being drawn from Othello. To let the cat out of the bag : to let some secret become known. To bark up the wrong tree (Am) means ‘to follow a false scent; to look for somebody or something in a wrong place; to expect from somebody what he is unlikely to do’. The idiom is not infrequently used in detective stories: The police are barking up the wrong tree as usual, i.e. they suspect somebody who has nothing to do with the crime. Phraseological units are word – groups with a completely changed meaning, that is the meaning of the unit does not correspond to the meaning of its constituent parts. They are motivated units or putting it another way, the meaning of the whole, unit can be deduced from the meaning of the constituent parts; to metaphor, on which the shift of meaning is based, is clear and transferring. Example: To sit on the fence. (- in discussion, in politest, etc. Refrain from committing oneself to either side); To lose one’s head. (to be at a loss what to do, to be out of one’s mind); To lose one’s heart to somebody. (to fall in love); A big bug pot (sl). (- a person of importance); A fish out of water. (- a person situated uncomfortable outside his usual or proper environment); Professor N. Amosova gives 2 categories of phraseological units depending on whether just one component or both are used in phrase logically bound meaning. If all the components have idiomatic meaning. Such phraseological units are called “idioms”. 65

Example: To toe the line. (- to do exactly as one is told). If one of the components has bound specialized meaning dependent on the second components she celled “presumes”. Example: To bring to book. (- to bring to justice); Small years. (- in the childhood) Proverbs, sayings and quotations exist also as ready – made units with a specialized meaning of their own which cannot be deduced from the meaning of their components. Therefore, they may be included in phraseological units. The classification system of phraseological units by professor A.V. Koonin is the latest outstanding achievement in the theory of phraseology. The classification is based on the combined structural semantic principle and it also considers the quotient of stability of phraseological units. Phraseological units are subdivided into the following 4 classes according to their communication determined by their function in the communication by their structural semantic characteristics 1 : 1. Nominative phraseological units are represented by word – groups, including the ones which one of meaningful word and coordinative phrase of the type wear and tear, well and good. The first class also includes word – groups with a predicative structure, such as the crow flies and also, predicative phrase of the type see how the land lies, ship that pass in the night. 2. Nominative – communicative phraseological units include word –groups of the type to break the ice, the ice broken, that is, verbal word – groups which are transformed into a sentence when the verb is used in the passive voice. 3. Phraseological units which are neither nominative nor communicative include interjectional word – groups. 4. Communicative phraseological units are represented by proverbs and sayings. These for classes and divided into subgroups according to the type of 1 Koonin “A course of modern English Phraseology” M, 1987 66

structure of the phraseological units. The subgroups include further rubies representing types of structural – semantic meanings according to the kind of relation between the constituents and to either full or partial transference of meaning. The word as the basic lexical unit . Saussure, Humboldt, Vygotsky and Jean Aitcheson- the key role of a word in the structure and function of language. George Miller ”Words- the fundamental units of language”. This, then, is a well-established tradition... and any approach aiming at a general theory of language must accord the word a central place. Few theories attribute to the word a truly central position in the language, and more than one approach either peripheralizes it or dispenses with it altogether as a linguistic entity. Their role as the elements of discourse, the building blocks of meaning from which sentences are constructed. L. Bloomfield viewed: “The word as a minimal free form. But it is not completely satisfying”. Allan Gartner: “The word is the unit of tongue”. A word has its own make-up and somehow has an existence prior to, and even independent of that of any particular sentence. Why do we use idioms? Research has shown that, like non-idiomatic linguistic items (lexical, phrasal, or clausal), idioms, or phraseological units, are used for a variety of functions. There are reasons why native speakers of English or Albanian like to employ idioms in their speech. First, since idioms are composed mostly of familiar monosyllabic words of everyday speech, naturally people will find it easy to use idioms instead of using the longer or unfamiliar vocabulary. For example, it would be easier to say “She takes after her mother” than “she resembles her mother”. The second reason why native speakers like to use idioms in their speech may 67

have to do with idiomaticization: the way idioms are created. The elements of many idioms are either alliterated, rhymed, contrasted, synonymised or a combination of any of the above by hook or by crook (synonym & rhyme) take the cake (rhyme) move heaven and earth (contrast) Ma’ruza qilishdan menga bir dona guruchli kmanfaat yo’q” – Dedi domla o’ziga norozi bo’lib… A.Qahhor “Sarob” Toshkent 1995 y. 110-bet. “I’ll have benefit not worth a bean from having talk”, - said the teacher disagreebly. “bean” is translated into Uzbek as “lovia” and “gurunch” is translated into English as “rise”. But the English language has such Phraseological Units with the name of bean which coincides to the meaning of the Phraseological Unit in Uzbek with the name of “rise”: that is we found there a partial conforfity. Bir dona guruchga arzimaslik – axmiyatsiz, muxim emas. Not worth a bean – having very small importance. Translation is pure art and it demands translators to be fully aware of all the principles of translation and creative hard work on translation. In this paragraph we are going to discuss and analyze the ways of translation of some lexical Phraseological Units and Idioms with the names of fruits. The translation of Phraseological Units and Idioms belong to the stylistic problems of the theory of translation. It is regarded to be one of the most important problems in linguistics. The beauty of the literary work depends not only on its general plot but also some criterion of it as the ornament of lexical Phraseological Units and Idioms. The art of literary translation demands us to deal with this problem in an aesthetic taste and translate not word by word, phrase 68

by phrase but try not to express their meaning semantics and emphasis in translated language as in the original one. One of the most actual tasks of the theory of translation is to pay close attention to the words of national coloring and express them by every nations own lexical and Phraseological Units . Bibliography 69

1. Adam. M.A “The origin of Idioms and their classification” German 1978 2. Akhmanova O.S “Semantics of Phraseological units in Modern English” Moscow, 1972 3. Akhmanova O.S “Lexicology: theory and methods”. Moscow 1912. 4. Alan Gartner “Lexemes and Lexical units” German 1983 5. Amosova N.N. English contextology.Leningrad, 1963. 6. Amosova N.N. “Essentials of English Phraseology.” Leningrad 1962 7.Aron M.N. “Introduction course on Lexicology” Moscow 1976 8. Arnold I.V. “ The English Word” Moscow 1986. 9. A concise collection of American – English idioms for everyday use “Something to crow about” 1995. 10. Aznaurova E. S. “Translation – theory and practice” Tashkent 1989. 11. Bally Ch.S. “Articles on Stylistics” London 1999 12.Bally Ch.S. “French Stylistics” London 1999 13. Bloomfield L.V. “Semantic relation of Lexical units” German 1971 14. Buranov J.A. Muminov A practical course in English Lexicology” Tashkent 1990. 15. Collins V.A. “English Phraseologisms and Idioms” Oxford 1978 Chomsky N.A “Syntactic Structures” Moscow 1960 16. Flavell A.V. “English Phrasemes and Idioms” French 1973 17. Gak V.G “English Idioms” first edition, Oxford 1989 18. Galperin I..R. “Stylistics” second edition, revised Moscow “Higher school” 1977. 19. Gavrin S.G. “English Phraseological units” Moscow 1988 20. George Miller “Lexicology” third edition, German 1991 21. Ginsburg R.S. “A course in modern English Lexicology” Moscow 1986. 22. KaromatovaK.M., Karomatov H.S. “Proverbs – maqollar – пословицы .Toshkent “Mehnat” 2000 23. Koonin A.V ”A course of Modern English Phraseology” Moscow 1987 70

24.Koonin A.V “English-Russian Phraseological dictionary” Moscow 1973 25.Lraff W.S “Idioms and Phrases” Moscow 1979 26.Patrica Adkins “International Conference on Linguistics, Literature and Culture” London 1968 27. Schachmatov A. “Syntax” Moscow 1970 28. Smith I. P. “Words and idioms” London 1928. Smirnitsky A.I “Practical course of Phraseological units” second edition Moscow 1876 Used dictionaries. 1. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English London. 1992 2. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary Oxford University Press. 2000 3. V.K.Muller English – Russian Dictionary Moscow. 1997 4. И . Лисовская , И . Чернышев « Англо - русский русско - английский словарь » Тетра К . Москва 2004. 5. Т. А. Сиротина «Англо-русский русско-английский словарь» БАО ПРЕСС. Москва 2004. 6. J. Hinton and V. Baykov «English-Russian and Russian-English Dictionary” Bishkek 2004. 7. M. Merjanov “ Uzbek-English Dictionary ” Yangi Asr Avlodi. Tashkent 2005. 8. U. Isakov, M. Rahimov “ English-Uzbek Dictionary ” Edited by B. P. Tyers. Yangi Asr Avlodi. Tashkent 2005. 71

O'xshashlar

Proper nouns and their use in English and Uzbek languages

The problem of frequent verbs and their translation into English

The influence of society to the vocabulary system of the language

English idioms and their Russian equivalents

“Effective usage of synonyms on the novel of “Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck