VI Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2014

To begin with, the problem of phraseological modeling has been one of the most debatable issues within linguistics in the last few decades.

The absence of the basic model does not necessarily means that modeling is impossible in phraseology, as A.V. Kunin puts it. It is possible, the linguist insists, but it is quite specific and different from modeling of variable combination of words.

The grammatical model is universal as the vast majority of phraseological units is formed on grammatical models of sentences, collocations and the exocentric phrases (acc. to L. Bloomfield's terminology), i.e. one-topmost phrases (acc. to A.I. Smirnitskiy’s terminology) with one denominative word (at all — 1) absolutely; 2) in general; at least — at any rate; by heart — for good; by the way — appositely, etc.).

Less often the PU models without denominative words are met: by and by — gradually, over time; by the by — by the way, by the way, by the way; out and out — 1) is undoubted, indisputable; entirely; 2) full, perfect; hard boiled, etc.

At allocation of the PU semantic models the semantic regularity which is carried out within various structures is considered. Thus there is no regular compliance between semantic information and grammatical structure. For example, the concept of economy is expressed by the following metaphorical phraseological units: cut one's coat according to one's cloth — to live within means; keep one's head above water — 'to keep on a surface', to fight for existence, not to get into debt; make both ends meet — to live a very poor life; pay one's way — to be able to live within means, not to get into debt; (or save) for a rainy day — to provide put by against a rainy day.

The semantic modeling is observed, for example, in groups of phraseological synonyms having different structure: the concept of 'angering someone' is transferred by the following phraseological units: get smb's goat, make smb's blood boil, put smb's back up, rub smb wrong way.

About people of the same kind one say that they are 'cast in the same mould', 'not a pin to choose between them', 'of the same ilk (or kidney)', 'tarred with the same brush' (cf. they make a pair, made of one dough, one bast boards, one of our kind). All PU entering into similar groups, are metaphorical synonyms [Kunin 1996: 127].

In the group given below PU are metaphorical antonyms [Kunin 1996: 130]:

to keep mum — keep one's own counsel, keep one's mouth shut < > to let out, give out a secret — blow the gab (or the gaff), let the cat out of the bag, spill the beans.

At structural-semantic modeling of PU, regularity of co-relation is observed between semantic information transferred by them and their grammatical structure.

A peculiar structural-semantic modeling is observed in the steady comparisons (similes) which are usually called comparative phrases. The main types of the comparative phrases with the structure of the collocation are adjectival and verbal. Adverbial comparatives are rather rare. For modeling comparatives a high degree of regularity is typical.

The model of adjectival comparatives 'conjunction ‘as’ + adjective + conjunction ‘as’ + indefinite (or definite) article + noun (or collocation)' shows the attributive relations, calling a feature and pointing out to its degree.

The first conjunction ‘as’ is often reduced. In some adjectival comparatives articles, for example, before proper names or abstract nouns, are not used.

Here are some examples of adjectival comparatives: (as) busy as a bee — hardworking as the bee; (as) cunning as a fox — extremely cunning; (as) drunk as a lord — dead drunk; (as) fierce as a tiger — very furious; (as) good as gold — very nice, etc.; (as) old as the hills — is old as the world; (as) ugly as sin — terrible as a mortal sin; (as) white as snow — extremely white; (as) plain as the nose on your face —as clear as a day; (as) welcome as flowers in May — long-awaited, etc.

The model of verbal comparatives 'verb + ‘like’ + an indefinite article + noun (or collocation)' transfers attributive and adverbial relations, giving the name to the action and its qualitative characteristic including the degree of the intensity of action. The article isn't used in some verbal comparatives. In verbal and objectival comparisons the pronouns “somebody” or” something” are used after the verb.

Verbal comparatives can be exemplified as follows: bleed like a pig — to bleed profusely; fit like a glove — to fit perfectly; run like a hare — to run at top speed; smoke like a chimney — to smoke heavily; spread like wildfire — to escalate immediately; swear like a trooper — to trashtalk violently; swim like a fish — to swim well; talk like a book — to speak confidently; agree like cats and dogs — to lead cat-and-dog life; sell like hot cakes — to go in great demand; drop smb (or smth) like a hot potato — hasty to get rid of someone (or something), etc.

The metaphorical models which structural types considerably differ from the models given above comparatives, for example, " verb + definite article + noun", transferring uniform semantic information — the metaphorical image based on a seed "similarity of commission of action" are widespread: clear the air — to relieve the tension, to settle misunderstanding; gild the pill — to embellish the issue; lead the dance — to play a major role, to take priority; open the ball — to start working, showing an initiative; stem the tide — to constrain, counteract, block a way, etc.

The metonymical model with the basic word 'street' is also possible: Downing Street, Fleet Street, Harley Street, Wall Street, etc. [Kunin 1996: 247].

Structural-semantic models are peculiar not only to phraseological units with phrase structure, but also to phraseological units with a sentence structure.

The 'adverbial complex sentence with a conditional subordinate clause' model transfers the same semantic information of metonymical character — a condition at which realization the action of the main clause becomes possible. Within this model the phraseological metaphor based on the similarity of actions, and metonymy are modeled.

In that case proverbs can serve as examples: if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch — any good is impossible when blind leads the blind; if the cap fits, wear it — if you take the blame to heart, it means, you are to be to blame; if the sky falls, we shall catch larks — lit.: "when the sky falls off, we will catch larks"; if ifs and ans were pots and pans; if you can't bite, never show your teeth — don’t threat if you can’t act; if you dance, you must pay the fiddler — if you like to sledge, you have to drive the sledge; if wishes were horses, beggars might (or would) ride — intention itself is meaningless; if you run after two hares, you will catch neither — try to make two deeds simultaneously and fail at both, etc.

This model is unproductive. The limited number of proverbs is based on it, and new can’t be formed. On structural-semantic descriptive models many other PU categories, for example, one-topmost verbal intensifiers: like blazes, like fun, like fury, like sixty, etc. are formed [Kunin 1996: 290], substantive PU: old chap, old cock, old fellow, old man, old thing, old times, buddy, etc.

It is possible to allocate two types of structural-semantic models. In one type there is no basic component in all phraseological units formed on this model, in others such basic word is available. But both of them are 'the models of description' deprived of the predicting force, unlike the models of variable combinations of words. Besides, models of variable combinations of words differ from models in the sphere of phraseology in the fact that any significant components of modeled variable combinations of words can become basic words of other models (lose a book, coat, hat, etc.; read, see, write a book, etc.).

The structural-semantic patterning doesn’t cover all phraseological units. For example, single grammatical structure of PU: by all that's blue — damn it!; it goes without saying — it needless to say, are calque from French, which removes from structural-semantic model. The same goes for PU 'go up like a rocket and come down like a stick' — to fly up high and fall down miserably. There are also other similar examples.

Outside the structural-semantic model there are also pun phraseological units such as “(as) crooked as a dog's hind leg — disgraceful, dishonourable (the pun based on two homonyms: 'crooked' — disgraceful and 'crooked' — curved, curve); (as) cross as two sticks — in bad mood, not in the spirit of; it is sulky as a bear (the pun based on two homonyms: 'cross' — not in the mood, angry and 'cross' — crossing), etc.

The structural-semantic non-patterning is also typical of unmotivated PU, i.e. the phraseological units which plan of contents doesn't correspond to the plan of form. In such set expressions the meaning of the whole unit is not made by the sum of meanings of the PU components, even if those meanings are familiar to those speaking or writing.

Phraseological intensifiers of adjectives can be examples of such PU: 'as they come' and 'as they make them (or 'em)' — extraordinary, unique. The PU 'baker's dozen' — thirteen — belong to the same PU group; to go the whole hog (sl.) — to do something thoroughly, to finish, not to stop on half measures (orig. American. ); = to pay through the nose — to pay a fantastic sum; send smb to Coventry — to ignore someone; show the white feather — to show cowardice, etc.; PU with obsolete words and word meanings: all told — in total, generally {or. Old. Eng. tellan — to count; see ger. zahlen), without let or hindrance — with impunity, freely, without hindrances (the word let in this expression keeps the outdated value a hindrance, an obstacle); PU with the distorted words: beat smb hollow (misspelled wholly) — 1) to win a clear victory, to crush; 2) to surpass, overshadow someone; = to stop up someone for a belt (orig. American. ); odds and ends (distortion of earlier existing turn of odd ends) — the remains, scraps, separate subjects; fragments of the conversation.

As for some phraseological units the structural-semantic patterning is typical, and for the others — it is not, it can't be considered as a universal indicator of idiomaticity. Both the specific structural-semantic modelability of phraseological units, and absence it give the chance to delimit phraseological units from variable combinations of the words formed on generating model.

All then specified synchronic models of description in the domain of phraseology are static as they are based on a natural arrangement of phraseological units depending on their properties, but without taking into consideration their development.

In phraseology, according to A.V. Kunin, dynamic models are also possible. Those models are diachronic, based on regularities of the phrase-building process. The minimal phrase-building model is the three-stage model, as the linguist puts it.

As to the modern approach to the problem of modeling of phraseological units, one must see the recent papers and monographs by Tatiana N. Fedulenkova (e.g. as in references).

References

Kunin A.V. Angliyskaya frazeologia: Teoreticheskiy kurs. M., 1970.

Kunin A.V. Kurs frazeologii sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka. M., 1996.

Fedulenkova T. A new approach to the clipping of communicative phraseological units // Ranam: European Society for the Study of English: ESSE 6 Strasbourg 2002 / Ed. P. Frath & M. Rissanen. Strasbourg: Université Marc Bloch, 2003. Vol. 36. P. 11-22.

Fedulenkova T. Idioms in Business English: Ways to Cross-cultural Awareness // Domain-specific English: textual practices across communities and classrooms / Giuseppina Cortese & Philip Riley (ed.). Bern; Berlin; Bruxelles; Frankfurt am Mein; New York; Oxford; Wien: Lang, 2002. P. 247-269.

Fedulenkova T. Isomorphism and Allomorphism of English, German and Swedish Phraseological Units Based on Metaphor // Phraseology 2005: The many faces of Phraseology: Proceedings of an interdisciplinary conference. Louvain-la-Neuve, 2005. P. 125-128.

Fedulenkova T. Odnomernye i dvumernye modeli v angliyskoi, nemetskoi i shvedskoi frazeologii: monografia. Arkhangelsk, 2006.

Fedulenkova T. Phraseological Units in Discourse: Towards Applied Stylistics by Anita Naciscione, 2001. Riga: Latvian Academy of Culture, pp. xi + 283, ISBN 9984 95 19 01 // Language and Literature. London, 2003, № 12 (1), p. 86-89.

Код для цитирования: Скопировать