English phraseology.

Phraseology: the main principles for classifying phraseological units

Phraseologydescribes the context in which a word is used. This often includes typical usages/sequences, such as idioms, phrasal verbs, and multi-word units. Phraseological units are (according to Prof. Kunin A.V.) stable word-groups with partially or fully transferred meanings (e.g., "to kick the bucket").

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. Like words, phraseologocal units express a single notion and are used in a sentence as one part of it. American and British lexicographers call such units idioms.

3 types of lexical combinability of words:

1). Free combination
Grammatical properties of words are the main factor of their combinability.

Ex.: I'm talking to you. You are writing.

Free combinations permit substitution of any of its elements without semantic change of the other element.

Collocations.

Ex.: to commit a murder

Blue sky

Bright day

They are the habitual associations of a word in a language with other particular words. Speakers become accustomed to such collocations.

Very often they are related to the referential & situational meaning of words.
Sometimes there are collocations, which are removed from the reference to extra-linguistic reality.
(collocations involving, colour words)

Ex.: to be green with jealousy

Idioms

Idioms are also collocations, because they consist of several words that tend to be used together, but the difference - we can't guess the meaning of the whole idiom from the meanings of its parts.

This criterion is called the degree of semantic isolation.
In different types of idioms - it is different.

Ex.: to cry a blue murder = to complain loudly

Semantic classification of phraseological units

Phraseological units can be classified according to the degree of motivation of their meaning. This classification was suggested by acad. V.V. Vinogradov for Russian phraseological units. He pointed out three types of phraseological units:

a) fusions where the degree of motivation is very low, we cannot guess the meaning of the whole from the meanings of its components, e.g. on Shank`s mare (on foot); in Russian: бить баклуши;

b) unities where the meaning of the whole can be guessed from the meanings of its components, but it is transferred (metaphorically or metonimically), e.g. to play the first fiddle (to be a leader in something), old salt (experienced sailor);

c) collocations where 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).

Structural classification of phraseological units

Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky worked out a detaiked structural classification of phraseological units, comparing them with words. He points out one-top units which he compares with affixed words because affixed words have only one root morpheme. And he points out two-top units which he compares with compound words because in compound words we usually have two root morphemes.

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

a) units of the type to give up (verb + postposition type);

b) units of the type to be tired;

c) prepositional-nominal phraseological units. These units are equivalents of unchangeable words: prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, e.g. on the doorstep - quite near, in the course of - during.

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

a) attributive-nominal, e.g. a month of Sundays, grey matter;

b) verbal-nominal, e.g. to read between the lines; to speak BBC;

c) phraseological repetitions, e.g. now or never, part and parcel

Syntactical classification of Structural classification of phraseological units

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

a) noun phraseological units denoting an object, a person, a living being,

e.g. bullet train, a latchkey child;

b) verb phraseological units denoting an action, a state, a feeling,

e.g. to break the log-jam, to get on somebody`s coattails, to be on the beam;

c) adjective phraseological units denoting a quality,

e.g. loose as a goose, dull as lead;

d) adverb phraseological units, e.g. with a bump, in the soup;

e) preposition phraseological units, e.g. in the course of, on the stroke of;

f) interjection phraseological units, e.g. Catch me! Well, I never!

In I.V. Arnold classification there are also sentence equivalents: proverbs, sayings and quotations, e.g. The sky is the limit, What makes him tick, I am easy.

Proverbs are usually metaphorical, e.g. Too many cooks spoil the broth,

while sayings are, as a rule, non-metaphorical, e.g. Where there is a will, there is a way -

Кто хочет, тот добьется.

6. English lexicography.Types of dictionaries.

Lexicography,that is the theory and practice of compiling dictionaries, is an important branch of applied linguistics.

Practical lexicography is the art or craft of compiling, writing and editing dictionaries.

Theoretical lexicography is the scholarly discipline of analyzing and describing the semantic relationships within the lexicon (vocabulary) of a language and developing theories of dictionary components and structures linking the data in dictionaries

General lexicography focuses on the design, compilation, use and evaluation of general dictionaries, i.e. dictionaries that provide a description of the language in general use. Such a dictionary is usually called a general dictionary or LGP dictionary.

Specialized lexicography focuses on the design, compilation, use and evaluation of specialized dictionaries, i.e. dictionaries that are devoted to a (relatively restricted) set of linguistic and factual elements of one or more specialist subject fields, e.g. legal lexicography. Such a dictionary is usually called a specialized dictionary or LSP dictionary.

What we have noticed is that some of the principles involved in the making of dictionaries are clearly of a lexical or lexicological nature, while others derive rather from the area of book production. On occasions a decision may be affected by both kinds of principle, and one may be ignored in favour of the other. A decision of this kind is the one that relates to the treatment of lexemes with multiple word-class membership (such as skin п., v.). If these are accorded separate headwords because the layout of the page is thereby rendered more attractive, then the decision is informed by the principles of book production. If, however, only one headword is entered, with the consequently longer and denser entry, then it is likely that the decision has been taken on lexical grounds. It is possible, of course, that the separate headwords decision was based on lexical principles also.

To the extent that decisions in dictionary compilation are informed by lexical principles, we may say, as Doroszewski does, that they are derived from lexicological theory. Indeed many aspects of lexicography must derive from explicit or implicit lexicological theory. For example, the question of what constitutes a lexeme is a lexicological matter, including the definition of the class of compounds or the classes of derivations. Lexicology is likewise concerned to investigate questions of homonymy and poly­semy, which are of great importance to lexicography. Indeed generally, lexicology investigates how to describe lexemes, both formally and semantically. Some lexicological theory (e.g. lexical field analysis) which we may consider of particular relevance to lexicography, has not yet been applied widely in dictionary compilation. This may be either because lexicography as a profession does not or cannot conceive of dictionaries handling lexical description in that way, or because lexicography does not explicitly recognise lexicology as its theoretical basis.

It is probably fair to say that lexicography developed its own principles and traditions independently of the linguistic sciences generally; and it is only in the relatively recent past that explicit links between lexicography and linguistics have been recognised. Webster's Third New Inter­national Dictionary (1961) was the first to acknowledge the influence of modern linguistics, and then really in two areas only: the representation of pronunciation, and a generally descriptivist rather than prescriptivist stance. Many current dictionaries are, of course, linguistically informed, and compiled by lexicographers who have been trained in linguistics. Indeed, it is not just lexicology which provides descriptive apparatus for lexicography, but other branches of linguistics as well. For example, the study of language variety, which is part of sociolinguistics, contributes to the marking of style and register/domain in dictionaries.

Some of the main problems in lexicography

The most important problems of lexicography are connected with: 1) the selection of lexical units for inclusion; 2) the arrangement of the selected lexical units; 3) the setting of the entry; 4) the selection and arrangement of word-meanings; 5) the definition of meanings; 6) the illustrative material.

The selection of lexical units for inclusion.The choice of lexical units for inclusion is the first problem the lexicographer faces. It is ne­cessary to decide: a) what types of lexical units will be chosen for the inclusion; b) the number of these items; c) what to select and what to leave out in the dictionary; d) which form of the language, spoken or written or both, the dictionary is to reflect; e) whether the dictionary should contain obsolete units, technical terms, dialectisms, colloquial­isms, and some others.

Lexicography, that is the theory and practice of compiling dictionaries, is an important branch of applied linguistics. The fundamental paper in lexicographic theory was written by L.V. Shcherba as far back as 1940. A complete bibliography of the subject may be found in L.P. Stupin’s works. Lexicography has a common object of study with lexicology, both describe the vocabulary of a language. The essential difference between the two lies in the degree of systematisation and completeness each of them is able to achieve. Lexicology aims at systematisation revealing characteristic features of words. It cannot, however, claim any completeness as regards the units themselves, because the number of these units being very great, systematisation and completeness could not be achieved simultaneously. The province of lexicography, on the other hand, is the semantic, formal, and functional description of all individual words. Dictionaries aim at a more or less complete description, but in so doing cannot attain systematic treatment, so that every dictionary entry presents, as it were, an independent problem. Lexicologists sort and present their material in a sequence depending upon their views concerning the vocabulary system, whereas lexicographers have to arrange it most often according to a purely external characteristic, namely alphabetically.

It goes without saying that neither of these branches of linguistics could develop successfully without the other, their relationship being essentially that of theory and practice dealing with the same objects of reality. The term dictionary is used to denote a book listing words of a language with their meanings and often with data regarding pronunciation, usage and/or origin. There are also dictionaries that concentrate their attention upon only one of these aspects: pronouncing (phonetical) dictionaries (by Daniel Jones) and etymological dictionaries (by Walter Skeat, by Erik Partridge, “The Oxford English Dictionary").

For dictionaries in which the words and their definitions belong to the same language the term unilingual or explanatory is used, whereas bilingual or translation dictionaries are those that explain words by giving their equivalents in another language.¹ Multilingual or polyglot

dictionaries are not numerous, they serve chiefly the purpose of comparing synonyms and terminology in various languages. ¹

Unilingual dictionaries are further subdivided with regard to the time. Diachronic dictionaries, of which “The Oxford English Dictionary” is the main example, reflect the development of the English vocabulary by recording the history of form and meaning for every word registered. They may be contrasted to synchronic or descriptive dictionaries of current English concerned with present-day meaning and usage of words. ² The boundary between the two is, however, not very rigid: that is to say, few dictionaries are consistently synchronic, chiefly, perhaps, because their methodology is not developed as yet, so that in many cases the two principles are blended. ³ Some synchronic dictionaries are at the same time historical when they represent the state of vocabulary at some past stage of its development. ⁴

Both bilingual and unilingual dictionaries can be general and special. General dictionaries represent the vocabulary as a whole with a degree of completeness depending upon the scope and bulk of the book in question. The group includes the thirteen volumes of “The Oxford English Dictionary” alongside with any miniature pocket dictionary. Some general dictionaries may have very specific aims and still be considered general due to their coverage. They include, for instance, frequency dictionaries, i.e. lists of words, each of which is followed by a record of its frequency of occurrence in one or several sets of reading matter. ⁵ A rhyming dictionary is also a general dictionary, though arranged in inverse order, and so is a thesaurus in spite of its unusual arrangement. General dictionaries are contrasted to special dictionaries whose stated aim is to cover only a certain specific part of the vocabulary.

Special dictionaries may be further subdivided depending on whether the words are chosen according to the sphere of human activity in which they are used (technical dictionaries), the type of the units themselves (e. g. phraseological dictionaries) or the relationships existing between them (e. g. dictionaries of synonyms).

The first subgroup embraces highly specialised dictionaries of limited scope which may appeal to a particular kind of reader. They register and explain technical terms for various branches of knowledge, art and trade: linguistic, medical, technical, economical terms, etc. Unilingual books of this type giving definitions of terms are called glossaries. They are often prepared by boards or commissions specially appointed for the task of improving technical terminology and nomenclature.

The second subgroup deals with specific language units, i.e. with phraseology, abbreviations, neologisms, borrowings, surnames, toponyms, proverbs and. sayings, etc.

The third subgroup contains a formidable array of synonymic dictionaries that have been mentioned in the chapter on synonyms. Dictionaries recording the complete vocabulary of some author are called concordances,¹ they should be distinguished from those that deal only with difficult words, i.e. glossaries. Taking up territorial considerations one comes across dialect dictionaries and dictionaries of Americanisms. The main types of dictionaries are classified in the accompanying table.