VI Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2014

The notion of inner form of the language (innere Sprachform) was introduced into linguistics by outstanding German scientist Willhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835). The important role of the inner form in the semantic structure of phraseological units (PU) is paid attention to many papers. The inner form is usually understood as its initially etymological meaning or as imagery elements in its meaning. It is this understanding of inner form that Potebnya maintained: "... etymological meaning ... is also a form, only inner one" [2]. "The inner form is also the center of the image, one of its features, prevailing over all the others" [2].

This interpretation of the inner form with some modifications or without them is found in many later definitions. The inner form of PU is significantly more resistant than the inner form of the word, because of the transformed character of idiomatic meanings, predominance of motivated phraseological units, their descretness, as well as the specifics of their relationship with the prototypes.

All PU may be traced back to potential phraseology that denote objects that are known by the man outside of linguistic reality, including fantastic one. But this does not mean that all PU have the same way of development, as they are based on different prototypes. There are four types of PU prototypes - speech, language, extralinguistic and mixed, and inner forms - simple and complex. This classification is based on a single principle, as the material is taken into account , on the basis of which the idiom appears [1].

Speech and language prototypes correspond to simple or complex inner form, and extra-linguistic and mixed prototypes correspond to complicated ones.

Speech prototypes. The PU, having speech prototypes - variable phrases are set expressions with a transparent inner form: burn one's fingers – burn on anything; the cat among the pigeons – cat on a dovecote, making a stir; flog a dead horse - beat the wind.

The inner form is not characteristic of PU having the structure of a word combination and a sentence. So, in the basis of the playful phraseological unit the old woman is picking her geese, meaning it is snowing, lies the image of the old woman, plucking geese. At the core of PU that cock won't fight – this will not work lies the image of a rooster, not willing to fight.

Multicomponent inner form in such PU is also complicated, as formed by the interaction of explicit and implicit elements.

Language prototypes. The prototype of the second phraseosemantic version is often the first, the components of which have a literal meaning but complicated.

Such semantic structure peculiar to a whole class of phraseological units, namely idiophraseomatic units. An example is the idiom a running fire - 1) rapid fire, 2) deg criticisms. In idiophraseomatic units literal meanings of prototype components are explicit , and thus the inner form is also explicitly. The inner form is based on the fact that "hail criticisms" is likened to "a runaway fire". In idiophraseomatic units the inner form is multicomponent [1]. The linguistic prototypes are also PU from which in frames of tertiary nomination other PU are based. So, PU birds of a feather - one warehouse people, two of a kind; made ​​from the same cloth;tarred with the same brush, make hay - use the convenient moment (from proverbs make hay while the sun shines); an old bird (from proverbs old birds are not caught with chaff) and others do not rise directly to variable phrases, they are mediated by relevant proverbs. Phraseological derivatives are included in dictionaries as separate units along with their phraseological prototypes, although they are semantically associated with them, for example, the last straw retains the value last drop (overflowing bowl), but this value is expressed explicitly, then as a sign that breaks the camel's back is expressed implicitly. Thus, there is a rearrangement of semas - explicit seme proverbs are expressed in PU-derivatives explicitly and implicitly, as a result it does not rise directly to the variable phrase the last straw, but is mediated by the proverb it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back = last straw cup overflows. Consequently, the inner form of PU is complicated. Rearrangement of the semes within the meaning of PU-derivative, the simplified structure compared to the original proverb, more frequency than the original proverb contribute to its greater mobility in the context and to its broader stylistic use. The following example confirms this position.

As they steamed off, their friends massed on the plat­form began lustily to sing "men of Harlech". "My God!" Andrew said.... "That was the last straw." But his eyes were glistening, and a minute later he added, "I wouldn't have had us miss it for anything, Chris. Aren't people decent?" (A.J. Cronin).

In this example, the last straw PU is used to express a positive assessment. The last straw for Andrew are solemn farewell, arranged by his friends at the station.

From the biblical proverb can the leopard change his spots? (later the leopard cannot (or does not) change his spots) distinguished the PU changeone'sspots. In the first proverb implicitly in the form of a rhetorical question, and later explicitly states that a leopard can not change his spots. PU change one's spots is not related to a leopard, and to man, and archeseme of the proverb "immutability" in this phraseological unit is optional, as evidenced by the following examples.

"It's no use tackling Rosalind," Pamela agreed. "She'll never change her spots" (R. Macaulay).

That he should secretly have been changing his spots ... was really too bad (I. Murdoch).

Extralinguistic prototypes (complicated inner form). The extralinguistic prototypes include various extralinguistic factors which are related to PU with derivational relations.

These factors preceding the appearance of PU are legends, traditions of the British people, historical facts, etc. Lets limit with two examples: be born within the sound of Bow bells – to be born in London (in the center of London is situated known for its peal church of St. Mary-le-Bow); have kissed the Blarney stone - be a flatterer (traditionally each, who has kissed the stone, located in the Blarney castle in Ireland, received a grant flattering speech).

Mixed prototypes (complicated inner form).The mixed prototypes, i.e. to infrastructural and interstructural, are PU, dating back to a particular text, from which are formed other PU wih help of phraseological derivation. So, PU a girl Friday - assistant, reliable worker, the right hand (esp. about a girl - secretary) is formed by analogy with a man Friday.

PU the massacre (or slaughter) of the innocents - 1) drubbing of the babies 2) ( parl. slang) revising bill due to lack of time (at the end of the parliamentary session). This PU goes back to the Gospel legend, does not contain any part of phraseologism.

As was shown above, depending on the prototype and the semantic structure of the phraseological unit the inner form manifests differently in PU the tail wagging(or wags) the dog —subordinate command chief;the last straw;an ugly duckling;have kissed the Blarney stone – to be a flatterer;(as) cross as two sticks - surly as a bear.

In all these revolutions - live imagery exists, as it is recognized in modern English without these special etimological research. Inner form - this is the code name. Substantially, it is not a form, but one of the components of meaning​​s."... Form a way of existence and expression containing. The term "form" is also used to refer to the inner organization of the content and is related so with the notion of structure". If the inner form is a type of form, it would be common to all units of the language as the content without form does not exist. However, in the phraseology the inner form is characteristic only for motivated PU and no longer felt in phraseological seams.

Библиографический список

Кунин А.В. Фразеология современного английского языка. – Международные отношения, 1972. – 289 с. Потебня А.А.Мысль и язык. — 2-е изд. — Харьков, 1982.

Код для цитирования: Скопировать