Using phraseological units and idioms

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

phraseological translation etymological

It is generally accepted that interpreters did not know much about the laws and rules of translation at the dawn of civilization. They did not have enough scientific knowledge, and some writers maintained later that translation was a problem which could never be solved (e.g., "All translation seems to me to be simply an attempt to solve an insoluble problem." W. von Humboldt).

But life went on, and people wanted to communicate (they wanted to be good neighbors in those times, too) and take it or leave it they had to interpret and had to translate. But still their translations were not without shortcomings and even left much to be desired.

And now, while the British scientist Theodore Savory says, in an effort to convince his colleagues, that "...both in the original and in translation, the matter is more important than the manner" /1, 21/. Russian writer Korney Chukovsky records: "The translator's aspiration for achieving semantic and stylistic identity of translation and the original is a lasting gain of our culture." An interpreter may say that translation is a bridge for mutual understanding among nations and that one has to know the laws and rules of engineering as well as to have the proper material for its construction at hand /2, 61-62/.

Nowadays English is worth not just knowing, but it is worth really knowing. There is a great importance to understand up-to-date English. English is the chief language of international business and academic conferences, and the leading language of international tourism. English is the main language of popular music, advertising, home computers and video games. Most of the scientific, technological and academic information in the world is expressed in English. International communication expends very fast. The English language becomes the means of international communication, the language of trade, education, politics, and economics. People have to communicate with each other. It is very important for them to understand foreigners and be understood by them. In this case the English language comes to be one but very serious problem. A word comes to be a very powerful means of communication but also can be a cause of a great misunderstanding if it is not clearly understood by one of the speakers.

Idioms come to be a very numerous part of English. Idioms cover a lot of drawbacks of the English language and it is one-third part of the colloquial speech.

The object of the work is the process of using phraseological units and idioms.

The subject of the work is phraseological idioms and units in the English language.

The hypothesis of the work is as following: if we develop awareness of using idiomatic sentences, we are sure to bring them closer to the authentically sounding speech.

The objective of the work is an attempt to study the aspects of idioms, the cases of their usage and to analyze the frequency of idioms usage referring to English and Russian.

To achieve the set aim we determine the following tasks:

1. to classify idioms;

2. to study the problem of the translation of idioms;

3. to understand the aim of the modern usage of idioms;

4. to distinguish different kinds of idioms;

5. to analyze the frequency of idioms' usage referring to English and Russian.

For gaining the mentioned aim we used the following methods:

1. description;

2. observation;

3. critical study of scientific literature and fiction;

4. comparison and contrast.

Scientific novelty is concluded in the comparison of two languages, belonging to different language families.

Theoretical value consists in revealing the fact that idioms can't and mustn't be translated directly as such a branch of language as idioms are inseparably connected with nation's mentality and mode of life.

The introduction reveals the general survey of the whole work and determines idioms as an essential part of the general vocabulary.

The first part deals with semantic and stylistic identity when translating idioms.

The second part deals with practical try to analyze phraseological idioms.

PART I. Phraseological units and idioms as an expressive part of the language's vocabulary

A.V. Koonin classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.

Primary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on the basis of a free word-group:

Most productive in Modern English is the formation of phraseological units by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups, e.g. in cosmic technique we can point out the following phrases: «launching pad» in its terminological meaning is «стартовая площадка», in its transferred meaning - «отправной пункт», «to link up» - «стыковать космические корабли» in its transformed meaning it means - «знакомиться».

A large group of phraseological units was formed from free word groups by transforming their meaning, e.g. «granny farm» - «пансионат для престарелых», «Trojan horse» - «компьютерная программа»;

Phraseological units can be formed by means of alliteration, e.g. «a sad sack» - «несчачтный случай», «culture vulture» - «человек, увлекающийся культурой», «fudge and nudge» - «уклончивость».

They can be formed by means of expressiveness, especially it is characteristic for forming interjections, e.g. «My aunt!)), « Hear, hear!» etc.

They can be formed by means of distorting a word group, e.g. «odds and ends» was formed from «odd ends»;

They can be formed by using archaisms, e.g. «in brown study» means «in gloomy meditation» where both components preserve their archaic meanings.

They can be formed by using a sentence in a different sphere of life, e.g. «that cock won't fight» can be used as a free word-group when it is used in sports (cock fighting), it becomes a phraseological unit when it is used in everyday life, because it is used metaphorically;

They can be formed when we use some unreal image, e.g. «to have butterflies in the stomach» - «испытывать волнение», «to have green fingers» - «преуспевать как цветовод - любитель» etc.

They can be formed by using expressions of writers or politicians in everyday life, e.g. «corridors of power» (Snow), «American dream» (Alby) «locust years» (Churchil), «the winds of change» (Mс Millan). Secondary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a phraseological unit is formed on the basis of another phraseological unit; they are:

Conversion, e.g. «to vote with one's feet» was converted into «vote with one's feet»;

Changing the grammar form, e.g. «Make hay while the sun shines» is transferred into a verbal phrase - «to make hay while the sun shines»;

Analogy, e.g. ((Curiosity killed the cat» was transferred into «Care killed the cat»;

Contrast, e.g. «cold surgery» - «a planned before operation» was formed by contrasting it with «acute surgery», «thin cat» - «a poor person» was formed by contrasting it with «fat cat»;

Shortening of proverbs or sayings e.g. from the proverb «You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear» by means of clipping the middle of it the phraseological unit «to make a sow's ear».

Borrowing phraseological units from other languages, either as translation loans, e.g. «living space» (German), « to take the bull by the horns» (Latin) or by means of phonetic borrowings «meche blanche» (French), «corpse d'elite» (French), «sotto voce» (Italian) etc.

Phonetic borrowings among phraseological units refer to the bookish style and are not used very often.

Idioms and fixed expressions. Idioms are fixed expressions that are usually not clear or obvious. The expression to feel under the weather, which means to feel unwell is a typical idiom. The words do not tell us what it means, but the context usually helps.

There are some simple rules how to deal with idioms. At first it's important to think of idioms as being just like single words, and then we must record the whole phrase in the notebook, along with the information on grammar and collocation.

This tin - opener has seen better days (it is rather old and broken down; usually of things, always perfect tense form). Idioms are usually rather informal and include an element of personal comment on the situation. They are sometimes humorous or ironic. That's why we must be careful using them. It's not a good idea to use them just to sound “fluent” or “good at English”. In a formal situation we can't say: “How do you do, Mrs. Watson. Do take the weight off your feet” (sit down) instead of “Do sit down” or “Have a seat”. It is important to know that their grammar is flexible. Some are more fixed than others. For instance, Barking up the wrong tree (be mistaken) is always used in continuous, not simple form, e.g. I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Generally, set expression, for example, come to the wrong shop, go the way of all flesh, make somebody' s blood boil, are idiomatical, they are also named phraseological. Besides, there are set expression such as pay a visit, make one's appearance, give help. Their interpretation is disputable. Some linguists consider them to be a not idiomatical part of phraseology, which is opposed to idiomatical. If the expression is idiomatical, then we must consider its components in the aggregate, not separately /3, 3/. Idioms are a part of our daily speech /4, 37/. They give expressiveness and exactness to oral and written language. It's not easy to master idioms fluently. Word - for - word translation can change the meaning of the idiom. I've understood that the study of the English lexicology should necessarily include study of phraseology. So, what is an idiom and phraseology? How can we translate idioms? Is it possible to translate idioms word for word and not to change their meaning?

Term “phraseology” is defined as a section of linguistics, which studies word collocations, and, on the other hand, a set of all steady combinations of words of the language. The stock of words of the language consists not only of separate words, but also of set expressions, which alongside with separate words serve as means of expressing conceptions /5, 123/. A set expression represents a set phrase.

According to academician V. V. Vinogradov's classification there are three groups of idioms. The problem is the same as in the previous case. It's not easy to remember all of these phraseological units.

Classification of phraseological units according to the parts of speech there are four groups: nominal phrases: hard luck [misfortune]; adjective phraseological units: all fingers and thumbs [clumsy]; verbal: to get on like a house on fire [to make progress]; adverbial: vice versa [conversely]. At last I tried to divide idioms into several groups, as it's written in “English Vocabulary in Use”. I also added some more of them. According to this classification idioms can be divided into following groups. As everyday spoken language is full of fixed expressions that are not necessarily difficult to understand (their meaning May be quite' transparent') but which have a fixed form which does not change the first group is everyday expressions. These have to be learnt as whole expressions. These expressions are often hard to find in dictionaries. For example as I was saying (it takes the conversation back to an earlier point). This group includes three sub - groups.

Conversation - building expressions - these are some common expressions that help to modify or organize what we are saying. There are many expressions like these. For example: as I was saying (it takes the conversation back to an earlier point). Some everyday expressions can be grouped around key words. The preposition “in” for example occurs in several expressions: in fact (really), in practice (actually). Common expressions for modifying statements are also a part of this group. For example: as far as I'm concerned (from my point of view). As... similes and expressions with 'like' are easy to understand. If you see the phrase as dead as a doornail, you Don' T need to know what a doornail is, simply that the whole phrase means “totally dead”.

"In his case the exception proves the rule." (A legal maxim in full: "the exception proves the rule in cases not excepted". Widely used in both American English and British English.)

"To have the edge on/over someone." (This is originally American English idiom, now established in almost every other form of English, including British English.)

"A happy hunting ground." (Place where one often goes to obtain something or to make money. Originally American English idiom from the Red Indians' Paradise.)

In the old days English idioms rarely originated from any other form of English than British English. (French was also a popular source of idioms.) Nowadays American English is in this position. It is hard to find an American English idiom that has not established itself in "worldwide English" (usually British English). This is not the case with British English idioms which are not as widespread. It has to be remembered that it is hard to say which idioms are actively used in English and which are dying out or have already died. Idioms are constantly dying and new-ones are born.

Some idioms may have gone through radical changes in meaning. The phrase - There is no love lost between them - nowadays means that some people dislike one another. Originally, when there was only the British English form, it meant exactly the opposite. The shift in meaning is yet unexplained. All dialects of English have different sets of idioms and situations where a given idiom can be used. American English and British English may not, in this respect, be the best possible pair to compare because they both have been developing into the same direction, at least where written language is concerned, since the Second World War. The reason that there is so much American influence in British English is the result of the following:

· Magnitude of publishing industry in the US

· Magnitude of mass media influence on a worldwide scale

· Appeal of American popular culture on language and habits worldwide

· International political and economic position of the US

All these facts lead to the conclusion that new idioms usually originate in the US and then become popular in so-called "worldwide English". This new situation is completely different from the birth of American English as a "variant" of British English. When America was still under the rule of the Crown, most idioms originated from British English sources. Of course there were American English expressions and idioms too, before American English could be defined as dialect of English. Some examples of these early American English idioms follow:

"To bark up the wrong tree" (Originally from raccoon-hunting in which dogs were used to locate raccoons up in trees).

"Paddle one's own canoe" (This is an American English idiom of the late 18th Century and early 19th Century).

Some of these early American idioms and expressions were derived from the speech of the American natives like the phrase that "someone speaks with a forked tongue" and the "happy hunting ground" above. These idioms have filtered to British English through centuries through books, newspapers and most recently through powerful mediums like radio, TV and movies.

Where was the turning point? When did American culture take the leading role and start shaping the English language and especially idiomatic expressions? There is a lot of argument on this subject. Most claim that the real turning point was the Second World War. This could be the case. During the War English-speaking nations were united against a common enemy and the US took the leading role. In these few years and a decade after the War American popular culture first established itself in British English. Again new idioms were created and old ones faded away. The Second World War was the turning point in many areas in life. This may also be the case in the development of the English language.

Some say, translation is art based on knowledge. Of course, an interpreter must have a good knowledge of the idioms of the two languages as well as take decisions to the best of his (her) knowledge and taste.

Suppose one has to interpret the idiom "метать громы и молнии (в чей-л. адрес)" which is rather frequently used in the Russian press. The interpreter who wants to make his translation idiomatic has to look up a dictionary of Russian idioms to be sure of the idiom's meaning, and then to find in a dictionary of English idioms an adequate English idiom. This process seems to be ideal but our interpreter soon realizes that translation begins where dictionaries end.

The interpreter would realize that the idiom "метать громы и молнии" may mean three things in one: (1) быть в страшном гневе, (2) выкрикивать бранные слова и (3) что подобные действия "гнев" и "крик" дело напрасное или неразумное.

So, it seems impossible to find a single English equivalent for all contexts. At first glance, however, it appears quite possible to find several English idioms and translate the Russian idiomatically 'by parts', that is,

(1) "быть в страшном гневе" may be expressed by 'to be beside oneself with rage' or 'to go up into the air' (i.e. explode with rage) or 'to fly off the handle' (which may, sometimes, correspond to the Russian "он словно с цепи сорвался");

(2) "выкрикивать бранные слова" can be idiomatically expressed by 'to jump down smb's throat (i.e. shout angry words at smb though;

(3) “гнев и крик дело напрасное” it is needless and/or unwise to do or by 'to go off the deep end' (i.e. speak with unduly anger). However, the resulting combination of an idiom of 'rage' and of that 'of needless shouting' appears to be too long in time to suit interpretation purposes, e.g., 'Beside herself with rage, she was jumping down his throat' or even 'She went up into the air and off the deep end about it'. The latter we may note sounds particularly funny due to the zeugma's effect. (Recall Ch. Dickens' zeugma: 'She fell into a chair and a fainting fit simultaneously'.)

On the other hand, the shortest way of translating the idiom "метать громы и молнии" maybe 'to hurl thunderbolts at smb', that is, by means of a metaphor devised by experienced translators. This metaphor does not exist in the English language but is well understood when the context helps. We realize, at the same time that the latter part of our combined equivalents, that is, 'to jump down smb's throat' and 'to go off the deep end' seem to be satisfactory for the purpose because their usage cannot be imagined beyond the scope of anger.

As one can see now, interpreters are not able to deal, in their work, only with the idioms (e.g., "Привычка-вторая натура") that may have, in English, their ready-made equivalents (e.g., 'Custom is second nature'). Interpreters have to be ready to create what we might call 'contextual equivalents' which do not exist in dictionaries.

And it is not at all enough to know the existing types of translation, that is, for example, to know that Russian idiomatic phrases can be translated by means of

(1) an English absolute nonequivalent ("складывать оружие" - 'to lay down one's arms'),

(2) by a relative equivalent ("встречать что-либо в штыки" - 'to meet smth at dagger-point'),

(3) by a selected synonym ("метать громы и молнии" might, depending on a context, be translated either as 'to jump down smb's throat' or 'to go off the deep end' or 'to go up into the air', etc., etc., etc.),

(4) metaphorically ("метать громы и молнии"- `tо hurl thunder bolts at smb'),

(5) a description ("встречать что-либо в штыки"- `tо give smth. a hostile reception' or 'to meet smth with resistance', or the like).

It is only natural that this very classification /6, 94-100; 104-109/ (as any other) can and does show the result of the translation, whereas the process of translation is really quite different.



1. Phraseological units of english

Phraseology received increasing attention in the English-speaking world. Linguistic competence also includes a familiarity with restricted collocations (like break the rules), idioms (like spill the beans in a non-literal sense) and proverbs (like Revenge is sweet),as well as the ability to produce or understand metaphorical interpretations.

Vinogradov's classification of phraseological units:

a) phraseological combinations - are word - groups with a partially changed meaning. They may be said to be clearly motivated, that is the meaning of the units can be easily deduced from the meanings of its constituents.

Ex. to be good at smth., to have a bite….

b) unities - are word - groups with a completely changed meaning, that is, the meaning of the unit doesn't correspond to the meanings of its constituent parts.

Ex. to loose one's head (to be out of one's mind), to loose one's heart to smb.(to fall in love).

c) fussions - are word - groups with a completely changed meaning but, in contrast to the units, they are demotivated, that is, their meaning can't be deduced from the meanings of its constituent parts.

The lexical meaning of the word groups is the combined lexical meaning of the component words. The meaning of the word groups is motivated by the meanings of the component members and is supported by the structural pattern. But it's not a mere sum total of all these meanings! Polysemantic words are used in word groups only in 1 of their meanings. These meanings of the component words in such word groups are mutually interdependent and inseparable (blind man - «a human being unable to see», blind type - «the copy isn't readable).

Word groups possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed mainly by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents. The structural pattern of word groups is the carrier of a certain semantic component not necessarily dependent on the actual lexical meaning of its members (school grammar - «grammar which is taught in school», grammar school - «a type of school»). We have to distinguish between the structural meaning of a given type of word groups as such and the lexical meaning of its constituents.

It is often argued that the meaning of word groups is also dependent on some extra-linguistic factors - on the situation in which word groups are habitually used by native speakers.Words put together to form lexical units make phrases or word-groups. One must recall that lexicology deals with words, word-forming morphemes and word-groups.The degree of structural and semantic cohesion of word-groups may vary. Some word-groups, e.g. at least, point of view, by means, to take place, etc. seem to be functionally and semantically inseparable. They are usually described as set phrases, word-equivalents or phraseological units and are studied by the branch of lexicology which is known as phraseology. In other word-groups such as to take lessons, kind to people, a week ago, the component-members seem to possess greater semantic and structural independence. Word-groups of this type are defined as free word-groups or phrases and are studied in syntax. Before discussing phraseology it is necessary to outline the features common to various word-groups irrespective of the degree of structural and semantic cohesion of the component-words.

1.1 The phraseological composition of language

The branch of linguistics that studies the phraseological composition of language in its existing state and its historicaldevelopment. Linguists specializing in phraseology distinguish phraseological units from word groups formed but not regularlyused in speech, and on this basis define the features of phraseological units.

The scope of phraseology is broadest when phraseological units are defined by the criterion of regular usage in a fixed form,independently of the semantic unity of the word group or of the word group's divisibility into the meanings of its componentwords. The scope of phraseology is also broadest when such usage is independent of the nominative or communicative valueof the unit. On the other hand, the scope of phraseology is narrowed when phraseological units are defined by the criteria ofthe semantic unity of the word group's meaning and of the word group's equivalence to a single word in terms of nominativefunction. Scholars disagree as to whether proverbs and sayings should be considered as phraseological units; the samedisagreement applies to patterned word groups with an associated meaning, for example, vpadat' v iarost', vpadat' vbeshenstvo, and vpadat' v vostorg (“to fall into a rage,” “to fly into a passion,” and “to go into raptures,” respectively).

Specialists in phraseology deal with a number of problems. Such specialists determine the extent to which phraseologicalunits may be reduced to systems, and to this end they study the markers of phraseological units. They describe thesynonymity, antonymity, polysemy, homonymy, and variants of phraseological units, and they determine the specific featuresof words and word meanings in phraseological units. Specialists in phraseology also define the correlation of phraseologicalunits with parts of speech, determine the syntactic role of phraseological units, and study the formation of new word meaningsin relation to phraseological context.

Some linguists affirm the existence of a distinctive phraseological level in language and concern themselves solely withanalyzing systemic interrelationships among phraseological units. Other linguists examine phraseological units in theirrelationship with the entire lexical and semantic system of a language, with syntax, and with word formation. Specialists inphraseology also study the stylistic differences among phraseological units.

Various methods have been developed for the study of phraseological units. The synchronic classification methodpredominates in structural and semantic description. When emphasis is placed on the individual word components ofphraseological units, research into the capacity of word components to form phrases predominates, as does a dynamicapproach to the description of the structure of phraseological units. Other methods of classifying phraseological units correlatethe structural elements of such units with free word groups. The techniques of distributional analysis are used to describe theinterrelationships among the structural elements of phraseological units as well as the features of the units' externalenvironment.

The study of phraseology became a separate discipline in Soviet linguistics in the 1940's and 1950's owing to the work of V.V. Vinogradov and his school. Earlier studies in phraseology had been made by A. A. Potebnia, I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay,A. A. Shakhmatov, K. Brugmann, H. Paul, and O. Jesperson. These linguists had isolated closely related word groups inspeech that were syntactically indivisible and that could not be semantically systematized. The theoretical foundations for thefunctional and semantic analysis of phraseological units within the framework of lexicology were laid by C. Bally.The development of phraseology as a separate discipline was stimulated by Soviet research on lexical and semantic variationand its phraseological manifestations, as well as by an interpretation of the word group as a syntactic category equivalent interms of nominative function to the word. This interpretation led to the study of fixed word groups as the structural foundationsof the sentence.Soviet linguists analyze the phraseological composition of languages with different structures, and primarily the nationallanguages of the USSR. They use methods developed by different trends and schools in their study of phraseology. A centerof phraseological studies founded at the University of Samarkand coordinates Soviet research on phraseology and publishescollections of studies on phraseology.

1.2 Phraseology as a subsystem of language

Phraseology means the branch of linguistics dealing with stable word- combinations characterized by certain transference of meaning.

Despite differences of opinion, most authors agree upon some points concerning the distinctive features of phraseological units, such as:

Integrity (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 meanings of its components;

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 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;

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. For examples: "as hungry as a wolf (as a hunter)", "as safe as a house (houses)" in English, «как (будто, словно, точно) в воду опушенный», «оседлать своего (любимого) конька», «раскидывать умом (мозгами) Раскинуть (пораскинуть) умом (мозгами)» in Russian.

Expressivity and emotiveness means that idioms are also characterized by stylistic colouring. In other words, they evoke emotions or add expressiveness.

On the whole phraseological units, even if they present a certain pattern, do not generate new phrases. They are unique.

Interlanguage comparison, the aim of which is the exposure of phraseological conformities, forms the basis of a number of theoretical and applied trends of modern linguistic research, including the theory and practice of phraseography. But the question of determining the factors of interlanguage phraseological conformities as the main concept and the criterion of choosing phraseological equivalents and analogues as the aspect concepts is still at issue.

The analysis of special literature during the last decades shows that the majority of linguists consider the coincidence of semantic structure, grammatical (or syntactical) organization and componential (lexeme) structure the main criteria in defining the types of interlanguage phraseological conformities/disparities with the undoubted primacy of semantic structure.

Comparing the three approaches discussed above (semantic, functional, and contextual) we have ample ground to conclude that have very much in common as, the main criteria of phraseological units appear to be essentially the same, i.e. stability and idiomaticity or lack of motivation. It should be noted however that these criteria as elaborated in the three approaches are sufficient mainly to single out extreme cases: highly idiomatic non-variable and free (or variable) word- groups.

Thus red tape, mare's nest, etc. According to the semantic approach belong to phraseology and are described as fusions as they are completely non-motivated. According to the functional approach they are also regarded as phraseological units because of their grammatical (syntactic) inseparability and because they function, in speech as word-equivalents. According to the contextual approach red tape, mare's nest, etc. make up a group of phraseological units referred to as idioms because of the impossibility of any change in the 'fixed context' and their semantic inseparability.

The status of the bulk of word-groups however cannot be decided with certainty with the help of these criteria because as a rule we have to deal not with соmp1ete idiomaticity and stability but with a certain degree of these distinguishing features of phraseological units. No objective criteria of the degree of idiomaticity and stability have as yet been suggested. Thus, e.g., to win a victory according to the semantic approach is a phraseological combination because it is almost completely motivated and allows of certain variability to win, to gain, a victory. According to the functional approach it is not a phraseological unit as the degree of semantic and grammatical inseparability is insufficient for the word-group to function as a word-equivalent. Small hours according to the contextual approach it is literal meaning. If however we classify it proceeding from the functional approach is a word-groups which are partially motivated is decided differently depending on which of the criteria of phraseological units is applied.

There is still another approach to the problem of phraseology in which an attempt is made to overcome the shortcoming of the phraseological theories discussed above. The main features of this new approach which is now more or less universally accepted by Soviet linguists are as follows:

1.Phraseology is regarded as a self-contained branch of linguistics and, not as a part of lexicology.

2.Phraseology deals with a phraseological subsystem of language and not with isolated phraseological units.

3. Phraseology is concerned with all types of set expressions.

4. Set expressions are divided into three classes: phraseological units (e.g. red tape, mare's nest, etc.), phraseomatic units (e.g. win a victory, launch a campaign, etc.) and borderline cases belonging to the mixed class. The main distinction between the first and the second classes is semantic: phraseological units have fully or partially transferred meanings while components of, phraseomatic units are used in their literal meanings.

Phraseological and phraseomatic units are not regarded as word- equivalents but some of them are treated as word correlates.

Phraseological and phraseomatic units are set expressions and their phraseological stability distinguishes them from free phrases and compound words.

Phraseological and phraseomatic units are made up of words of different degree of wordness depending on the type of set expressions they are used in. (cf. e.g. small hours and red tape). Their structural separateness, an important factor of their stability, distinguishes them from compound words (E.g. comparing blackbird and black market).

1.3 Classification of phraseological units

Stability of use means that set expressions are reproduced ready-made and not created in speech. They are not elements of individual style of speech but language units.

Lexical stability means that the components of set expressions are either irreplaceable (e.g. red tape, mare's nest) or party replaceable within the bounds of phraseological or phraseomatic variance: lexical (e.g. a skeleton in the cupboard - a skeleton in the closet); grammatical (e.g. to be in deep water - to be in deep waters); positional (e.g. head over ears - over head and ears), quantitative (e.g. to lead somebody a dance- to lead somebody a pretty dance), mixed variants (e.g. raise (stir up) a hornets' nest about one's ears- arouse (stir up) the nest of hornets).

Semantic stability is based on the lexical stability of set expressions. Even when occasional changes are introduced the meaning of set expression is preserved. It may only be specified, made more precise, weakened or strengthened. In other words in spite of all occasional phraseological and phraseomatic units, as distinguished from free phrases, remain semantically invariant or are destroyed. For example, the substitution of the verbal component in the free phrase to raise a question by the verb to settle (to settle a question) changes the meaning of the phrase, no such change occurs in to raise (stir up) a hornets' nest about one's ears.

Phraseology, classification of phraseological units. Vinogradov's classification of phraseological units:

a) phraseological combinations (сочетания). b) unities (единства).c) fussions (сокращения).

a) phraseological combinations - are word - groups with a partially changed meaning. They may be said to be clearly motivated, that is the meaning of the units can be easily deduced from the meanings of its constituents.

Ex. to be good at smth., to have a bite….

b) unities - are word - groups with a completely changed meaning, that is, the meaning of the unit doesn't correspond to the meanings of its constituent parts.

Ex. to loose one's head (to be out of one's mind), to loose one's heart to smb.(to fall in love).

c) fussions - are word - groups with a completely changed meaning but, in contrast to the units, they are demotivated, that is, their meaning can't be deduced from the meanings of its constituent parts.

Ex. to come a cropper(to come to disaster).

The Koonin's classification is the latest outstanding achievement in the Russian theory of phraseology. The classification is based on the combined structural - semantic principle and it also considers the quotient of stability of phraseological units.

I. Nominative phraseological units - are represented by word - groups, including the ones with one meaningful word, and coordinative phrases of the type wear and tear, well and good.

II. Nominative - communicative phraseological units - include word - groups, of the type to break the ice - the ice is broken, that is, verbal word - groups which are transformed into a sentence when the verb is used in the Passive Voice.

III. Phraseological units - which are neither nominative nor communicative include interjectional word - groups.

IV. Communicative phraseological units - are represented by proverbs and sayings.

An integral part of this approach is a method of phraseological identification which helps to single out set expressions in Modern English.

The diachronic aspect of phraseology has scarcely been investigated. Just a few points of interest may be briefly reviewed in connection with the origin of phraseology has scarcely been investigated. Just a few points of interest may be briefly reviewed in connection with the origin of phraseological units and the ways they appear in language. It is assumed that almost all phrases can be traced back to free word-groups which in the course of the historical development of the English language have acquired semantic and grammatical process of grammaticalization or lexicalization.

Phonetic borrowings among phraseological units refer to the bookish style and are not used very often.

There are different combinations of words. Some of them are free, e.g. to read books (news papers, a letter, etc.) others are fixed, limited in their combinative power, e.g. to go to bed,, to make a report. The combinations of words which are fixed (set-expressions) are called phraseological units.

A free combination is a syntactical unit, which consists notional and form words, and in which notional words have the function of, independent parts of the sentence. In a phraseological unit words are not independent. They form set-expressions, in which neither words nor the order of words can be changed. Free combinations are created by the speaker. Phraseological units are used by the speaker in a ready form, without any changes. The whole phraseological unit has a meaning which may be quite different from the meaning of its components, and therefore the whole unit, and not separate words, has the function of a part of the sentence.

Phraseological units consist of separate words and therefore they are different words, even from compounds. Word have several structural forms, but in phraseological units only one of the components has all the forms of the paradigm of the part of speech it belongs to e.g. to go to bed, goes to bed, went to bed, gone to bed, going to bed, etc., the rest of the components do not change their form.

By the classification of Academician V.Vinogradov phraseological units are devided into three groups: phraseological combinations, phraseological unities and phraseological fusions. phraseological unit idiom translation.

Phraseological combinations are often called traditional because words are combined in their original meaning but their combinations are different in different languages, e.g. cash and carry - (self-service shop), in a big way (in great degree) etc. It is usually impossible to account logically for the combination of particular words. It can be explained only on the basis of tradition, e.g. to deliver a lection (but not to read a lecture).

In phraseological combinations words retain their full semantic independence although they are limited in their combinative power, e.g. to wage wax (but not to lead war), to render assistance, to render services (but not to render pleasure).

Phraseological combinations are the least idiomatic of all the kinds of phraseological units. In other words, in phraseological combinations the meaning of the whole can be inferred from the meaning of the components, e.g. to draw a conclusion, lo lend assistance, to make money, to pay attention to.

In phraseological combinations one of the components (generally the component which is used figuratively) can be combined with different words, e.g. to talk sports, politics, business (but to speak about life), leading worker, leading article (but the main problem), deadly enemy, deadly shot (but a mortal wound), keen interest, keen curiosity, keen sence of humour ( but the great surprise).

Words of wide meaning, as to make, to take, to do, to give, etc. form many phraseological units, e.g. to take an examination, to take a trip, to take a chance, to take interest, to make fun of, to make inquiries, to make a statement, to make friends, to make haste.

Phraseological combinations are not equivalents of words. Though the components of phraseological combinations are limited in their combinative power, that is, they can be combined only with certain words and cannot be combined with any other words, they preserve not only their meaning, but all their structural forms, e.g. nice distinction is a phraseological combinations and it is possible to say nice distinctions, nicer distinction, etc., or to clench one's fist. (clenched his fists, was clenching his fists, etc.).

In phraseological unities the meaning of the whole can be guessed from the meanings of its components, but it is transferred (metaphorical or metonymical), e.g. to play the first fiddle (to be a leader in something), old salt (experienced sailor) etc. The meaning of the whole word combination is not the sum of the meanings of its components, but it is based on them and the meaning of the whole can be inferred from the image that underlies the whole expression, e.g. to get on one's nerves, to cut somebody short, to show one's teeth, to be at daggers drawn..

Phraseological unities are equivalents of words as 1) only one of components of a phraseological unity has structural forms' e.g. to play (played, is playing, etc.) the first fiddle (but not played the first fiddles); to turn ( turned, will turn, etc.) a new leaf ( but not to turn newer leaf or new leaves); 2) the whole unity and not its components are parts of the sentence in syntactical analysis, e.g. in the sentence He took the bull by the horns (attacked a problem boldly) there are only two parts: he - the subject, and took the bull by the horns - the predicate.

1.4 The etymological classification of phraseological units

In phraseological fusions the degree of motivation is very low, we cannot guess the meaning of the whole from the meanings of its components, they are highly idiomatic and cannot be translated word for word into other languages, e.g.. to pull one's leg (to deceive); at sixes and sevens (in confusion); a mare's nest ( a discovery which turns out to be false or worthless); to show the white feather (to show cowardice); to ride the high horse (to put on airs).

Phraseological fusions are the most idiomatic of all the kinds of phraseological units.

Phraseological fusions are equivalents of words: fusions as well as unities form a syntactical whole in analysis.

Among one-top units he points out three structural types;

units of the type «to give up» (verb + postposition type), e.g. to art up, to backup, to drop out, to nose out, to buy into, to sandwich in etc.;

units of the type «to be tired» . Some of these units remind the Passive Voice in their structure but they have different prepositions with them, while in the Passive Voice we can have only prepositions «by» or «with», e.g. to be tired of, to be interested in, to be surprised at etc. There are also units in this type which remind free word-groups of the type «to be young», e.g. to be akin to, to be aware of etc. The difference between them is that the adjective «young» can be used as an attribute and as a predicative in a sentence, while the nominal component in such units can act only as a predicative. In these units the verb is the grammar centre and the second component is the semantic centre; prepositional - nominal phraseological units. These units are equivalents of unchangeable words: prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, that is why they have no grammar centre, their semantic centre is the nominal part, e.g. on the doorstep (quite near), on the nose (exactly), in the course of on the stroke of, in time, on the point of etc. In the course of time such units can become words, e.g. tomorrow, instead etc.

Among two-top units A.I. Smirnitsky points out the following structural types:

a) attributive-nominal such as: a month of Sundays, grey matter, a millstone round one's neck and many others. Units of this type are noun equivalents and can be partly or perfectly idiomatic. In partly idiomatic units (pharisms) sometimes the first component is idiomatic, e.g. high road, in other cases the second component is idiomatic, e.g. first night. In many cases both components are idiomatic, e.g. red tape, blind alley, bed of nail, shot in the arm and many other, verb-nominal phraseological units, e.g. to read between the lines, to speak BBC, to sweep under the carpet etc. The grammar centre of such units is the verb, the semantic centre in many cases is the nominal component, e.g. to fall in love. In some units the verb is both the grammar and the semantic centre, e.g. not to know the ropes. These units can be perfectly idiomatic as well, e.g. to burn one's boats, to vote with one's feet, to take to the cleaners' etc.

Very close to such units are word-groups of the type to have a glance, to have a smoke. These units are not idiomatic and are treated in grammar as a special syntactical combination, a kind of aspect.

Phraseological repetitions, such as: now or never, part and parcel, country and western etc. Such units can be built on antonyms, e.g. ups and downs, back and forth; often they are formed by means of alliteration, e.g. as busy as a bee. Components in repetitions are joined by means of conjunctions. These units are equivalents of adverbs or adjectives and have no grammar centre. They can also be partly or perfectly idiomatic, e.g. cool as a cucumber (partly), bread and butter (perfectly).

Phraseological units the same as compound words can have more than two tops (stems in compound words), e.g. to take a back seat, a peg to hang a thing on, lock, stock and barrel, to be a shadow of one's own self, at one's own sweet will А.Смирницкий «Лексикология английского языка» М.,1996. стр 45.

Phraseological units can be classified as parts of speech (syntactical classification).. This classification was suggested by I.V. Arnold. Here we have the following groups:

a) noun phraseologisms denoting an object, a person, a living being, e.g. bullet train, latchkey child, redbrick university, Green Berets.

verb phraseologisms denoting an action, a state, a feeling, e.g. to break the log-jam, to get on somebody's coat tails, to be on the beam, to nose out, to make headlines.

1.5 Phraseological units and their types

Cases of grammaticalization may be illustrated by the transformation of free word-groups composed of the verb have, a noun (pronoun) and Participle II of some other verb into the grammatical form- the Present Perfect in Modern English. The degree of semantic and grammatical inseparability in this analytical word-form is so high that the component has seems to possess no lexical meaning of its own.

The term lexicalization implies that the word-group under discussion develops into a word-equivalent, i.e. a phraseological unit or a compound word. These two parallel lines of lexicalization of free word-groups can be illustrated by the diachronic analysis of, e.g., the compound word instead and the phraseological unit in spite (of). Both of them can be traced back to structurally identical free phrases.

There are some grounds to suppose that there exists a kind of interdependence between these two ways of lexicalization of free word-groups which makes them mutually exclusive. It is observed, for example, that compounds are more abundant in certain parts of speech, whereas phraseological units are numerically predominant in others. Thus, e.g., phraseological units are found in great numbers as verb-equivalents whereas compound verbs are comparatively few. This leads us to assume that lexicalization of free word-groups and their transformation into words or phraseological units is governed by the fewer phraseological units we are likely to encounter in this class of words.

Very little is known of the factors active in the process of lexicalization of free word-groups which results in the appearance of phraseological units. This problem may be viewed in terms of the degree of motivation. We may safely assume that a free word-group is transformed into a phraseological unit when it acquires semantic inseparability and becomes synchronically non-motivated.

The following may be perceived as the main causes accounting for the less' of motivation of free word-groups:

...