Phraseology is a comparatively young field of linguistics which has only
relatively recently become established as a self-contained linguistic discipline.
Phraseology is pervasive in all language fields. The phraseology literature
represents it as a subfield of lexicology dealing with the study of word
combinations:
However the subject of phraseology has been a matter of growing interest since
the 1930‟s in applied linguistics amongst different fields as in lexicography with
the first collocational dictionaries like the Palmer and Hornby studies for a
Dictionary of English as a foreign language, the question about phraseology as
special linguistic discipline had not been arisen before the mid-1960s. It is due
to the expansive research of soviet school of linguists that phraseology has been
established as a discipline in its own right. As one of the most outstanding
modern lexicographers, the author of the famous and most reliable Oxford
Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English Anthony P. Cowie, pointing out to the
indisputable progress of the soviet school of phraseological analysis and its
influence on the world linguistics, underlines: "Recognition of phraseology as an
academic discipline within linguistics – the term itself, like the adjective
'phraseological', reflects Eastern European usage – is evident not only from
vigorous and widespread research activity, but also from the publication of
several specialized dictionaries reflecting one theoretical perspective or
another… 'Classical' Russian theory, with its later extensions and modifications,
is probably the most pervasive influence at work in current phraseological
studies and is unrivalled in its application to the design and ompilation of
dictionaries." (Cowie 1998).
Nowadays phraseology plays a central role in a wide range of linguistic
disciplines such as lexicography, contrastive linguistics, psycholinguistics,
foreign language learning and teaching and natural language processing.
As phraseology has strong links with several other fields of linguistics however,
notably morphology, syntax, semantics and discourse, linguists vary in their
opinions as to which range of subtypes in accordance with their degree of
semantic non-compositionality, syntactic fixedness, lexical restrictions and
institutionalization of word combinations or multi-word units should be included
in the field of phraseology. Compounds and grammatical collocations are cases
in point. This difficulty in establishing what exactly falls under field of
phraseology is compounded by the fact that phraseology is a dynamic
phenomenon, and displays both synchronic and diachronic variations (Moon
1998; Giegerich 2004).
Although there is still some considerable discrepancy between linguists as
regards the terminology and typology of word combinations and 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
(Cowie 1998: 4-7; Howarth 1998: 168-171; Gross 1996: 78). One of the main
preoccupations of linguists working within this tradition has been to find
linguistic criteria to distinguish one type of phraseological unit from another
(e.g. collocations vs. idioms or full idioms vs. semi-idioms) and especially to
distinguish the most variable and transparent multi-word units from free
combinations, which only have syntactic and semantic restrictions and are
therefore considered as falling outside the realm of phraseology (Cowie 1998:
6).
From the introduction, of Collins COBUILD Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs, we
quote the following lines to show the close relation between our research topic
and this reference: 'Idioms are one of the most interesting and difficult parts of
the English vocabulary. They are interesting because they are colourful and
lively and because they are linguistic curiosities. At the same time, they are
difficult because they have unpredictable meanings or collocations and
grammar, and often have special connotations. Idioms are frequently neglected
in general dictionaries and in classroom teaching, because they are considered
marginal items which are quaint but not significant. Yet research into idioms
shows that they have important roles in spoken language and in writing, in
particular in conveying evaluations and in developing or maintaining
interactions. (Sinclair et al. 1995:iv)
The central problem one comes up against in attempting to define "idiom" is
identifying the property (or properties) which will adequately capture all the
idioms in a language while excluding all the non-idioms. There are a number of
approaches to idiomaticity together with various definitions of what an idiom is
in today‟s linguistic study of phraseology.
Idiomaticity is the core of the notion of idioms. Mainly, the question in
idiomaticity is to analyze how idiomatic idioms are, i.e. how unpredictable the
meaning of an idiom is from its literal counterparts. Some idioms are wholly
idiomatic and the words constituting the idiom seem to have no sensible
meaning of their own as a unit without the idiomatic meaning, some idioms have
both literal and idiomatic meanings (metaphorical or arbitrarily different
meanings), which are used alongside; some idioms are only partially idiomatic,
i.e. one word of it can be taken literally and the rest of them idiomatically (semi-
idioms).
Idiomaticity can also be called phraseology. Gläser (1988, 265-266) clarifies as
follows: 'This is the corresponding term among Soviet and Eastern European
linguists when describing set expressions whose meaning cannot be derived
from the meanings of their parts. However, the term phraseology is also used to
describe "1) the inventory of phrases or set expressions, and not only idioms; 2)
the linguistic sub discipline of lexicology which studies and classifies set
expressions (phraseological units in the broadest sense)"
, a phraseological unit is a lexicalized, reproducible bilexemic or polylexemic word group in
common use, which has relative syntactic and semantic stability, may be idiomatized, may
carry connotations, and may have an emphatic or intensifying function in a text
Weinreich (1972:89) sees "idiomaticity ... a phenomenon which may be
described as the use of segmentally complex expressions whose semantic
structure is not deducible jointly from their syntactic structure and the semantic
structure of their components."
Idiomaticity According to the authors of the Oxford Dictionary of Current
Idiomatic English, "Idiomaticity is largely, though not wholly, a question of
meaning". That is to say, idioms are mainly characterized by their semantic
unity and lack of motivation"
According to Hockett (1956: 222) "An idiom is a grammatical form - single
morpheme or composite form the meaning of which is not deducible from its
structure."
Later, Hockett in his 1958 "Course in Modern Linguistics" is the first of the
modern western grammarians to give serious consideration to the definitions of
idiom and its consequences. His discussion is worth quoting at length:
'Let us momentarily use the term 'Y' for any grammatical form the meaning of
which is not deducible from its structure. Any 'Y' in any occurrence in which it
is not a constituent of a larger 'Y', is an idiom. A vast number of composite
forms in any language are idioms. . (Hockett 1958: 172 )
Idioms will thus range from morphemes to proverbs or even poems, taking
pronouns, proper names and figures of speech. Idiom formation is a constant
process, and Hockett makes this significant point in the following words: 'the
less productive a pattern is, the more likely it is that if a new form does get
coined by the pattern it will have idiomatic value'. (Hockett 1958:308) In
general, Hockett's account of idiom emphasized the following points:
Idiomaticity is taken to be completely pervasive of language i.e. idiomaticity is a
common throughout - present and seen or felt everywhere.
Hockett deliberately and carefully admits morphemes to idiom status while other
definitions exclude single morphemes (by referring to 'morpheme arrangements',
a 'group of morphemes', or by specifying an idiom as a complex, a morpheme as
a simple expression) or even words. It is not particularly forms which are idioms
but occurrences of forms in the context of particular utterances.
Generally speaking, Hockett is thorough in mapping out the full territory
covered by his definitions of idiom, and undoubtedly the class he has constituted
is linguistically significant. Hockett's definition of idiom might sound nitpicking,
but in the framework of generative linguistics, it is the logical consequence of
morphological analysis of words, and, hence, a necessary stage in forming an
idiom theory. Hockett regarded idioms as any kind of non-compositional
expressions.
Weinreich's article (1969:226). 'Problems in the Analysis of Idioms' is an
attempt to establish the criteria upon which to base the characteristic features of
idiomatic phrases. Weinreich accepts as idioms only multiword expressions
which have literal counterparts. Those expressions which cannot display this
criterion are considered ill-formed and therefore disqualified as idioms. The
reason he gives for not including units such as by and large is that they are
merely stable and familiar. Weinreich gives his definition of an idiom as 'a
phraseological unit that involves at least two polysemous constituents, and in
which there is a reciprocal contextual selection of subsenses...'
Weinreich also claims that 'the semantic difference between idioms and their
literary counterparts is arbitrary' (1969:229, 260). This should mean that the
relationship between the overall figurative meaning of idioms and their wording
(i.e. the selection of words in an idiomatic string) is completely ad hoc. This
claim cannot hold as it is very likely that 'the figurative meanings of idioms are
not arbitrary, but are partially determined by how people conceptualize the
domains to which idioms refer'.For example, the idiom 'cold feet' which means
according to the DEI If you get cold feet about something, you lose the courage
to do it. This idiom is used in the following article in the Guardian newspaper
dated March 25, 2006
Iraq hostages 'were saved by rift among kidnapper. Guards got cold feet after
American was shot"
If people conceptualize 'cold feet' as 'a loss of the courage to do something', the
way in which the word-string is selected will depend on the concepts of the 'cold
feet'whichpeople hold. Since 'cold feet' seems to symbolize loss of the courage.
As can be seen, Weinreich's assertion that idioms must have literal counterparts
cannot hold in a large number of cases, as idioms are unique in terms of their
semantics. Also, the arbitrary nature of the link between idioms and their literal
counterparts is doubtful when we consider that the way in which people
conceptualize the world around them is reflected in the language they use.
General Characteristics of Phraseological Units
Every utterance is a patterned, rhythmed and segmented sequence of signals. On
the lexical level these signals building up the utterance are not exclusively
words. Alongside the separate words, speakers use larger blocks consisting of
more that one word yet functioning as a whole. These collocations are extremely
variegated structurally, functionally, semantically and stylistically. Not only
expressive colloquialisms, whether motivated like a sight for sore eyes and to
know the ropes, or demotivated like tit for tat, but also terms like blank verse,
the great vowel shift, direct object, political cliches: cold war, round-table
conference summit meeting, any emotionally and stylistically neutral
combinations: in front of as well as, a great deal, give up, etc. may be referred to
this type. Even this short list is sufficient to show that the number of component
elements, both notional and formal, varies, and that the resulting units may have
the distribution of different parts of speech.
Collocations have sometimes been called word equivalents, and it has been
postulated that the vocabulary of a language consists of words and word
equivalents (word-groups), similar to words in so far as they are not created in
speech but introduced into the act of communication ready-made. It is most
important to keep in mind that here equivalence means only this and nothing
more. Much confusion ensures from taking equivalence too literally. It does not
concern us at this stage whether word equivalents have other features similar to
those of words, although we naturally hope that being guided by the most
important primary feature we shall obtain in its wake important secondary
characteristics. That is, we have reason to expect that at least some of the units
will show indivisibility, express one notion, and function as one member of the
sentence, but in selecting the units we shall not take these secondary
characteristics into consideration. This approach is not the only one possible- but
it meets the demands of applied linguistics, especially foreign language teaching
and machine translation. In both fields set expressions form a section of the
vocabulary which has to be set apart and learned or introduced into the
“memory” of machines as whole stereotyped groups of words The integration of
two or more words into a unit functioning as a whole with a characteristic unity
of nomination (bread and butter butter and bread) is chosen for the fundamental
property because it seems to permit checking by a rigorous enough linguistic
procedure, namely, by the substitution test.
Set expressions are contrasted to free phrases and semifixed combinations. All
these are but different stages of restrictions imposed upon co-occurrence of
words upon the lexical filling of structural patterns which are specific for every
language. The restrictions may be independent of the ties existing in extra-
linguistic reality between the objects spoken of and be conditioned by purely
linguistic factors, or have extra-linguistic causes in the history of the people. In
free combinations the linguistic factors are chiefly connected with grammatical
properties of words.
A free phrase permits substitution of any of its elements without semantic
change in the other element or elements. Such substitution is never unlimited but
characterized by the factor of existentionality.
In semi-fixed combinations we are not only able to say that such substitutes
exist, but fix their boundaries by stating the semantic properties of words that
can be used for substitution, or even listing them. That is to say, in semi-fixed
combinations these lexico-semantic limits are manifest in restrictions imposed
upon types of words which can be used in a given pattern. For example, the
pattern consisting of the verb go followed by a preposition and a noun with no
article before it (go to school, go to market, go to courts, etc.) is used only with
nouns of place where definite actions or functions are performed.
If the substitution is only pronominal, or restricted to a few synonyms for one of
the members only, or impossible, if the elements of the phrase are always the
same and make a fixed context for each other, the word groups is a collocation.
Here no variation and no substitution is possible because it would destroy the
meaning or the euphonic and expressive qualities of the whole. Many of these
expressions are also interesting from the viewpoint of their informational
characteristics, the sum total of information contained in the word-group
including expressiveness and stylistic and emotional colouring is created by
mutual interaction of elements. The expression red tape for instance, as a
derogatory name for trivial bureaucratic formalities, originates in the old custom
of Government officials and lawyers typing up their papers with red tape. Head
or tails from the old custom of deciding a dispute or settling which of two
possible alternatives shall be followed by tossing a coin. In a free phrase the
semantic correlative ties are fundamentally different. The information is additive
and each element has a much greater semantic independence. Each component
may be substituted without affecting the meaning of the other; to cut bread, to
cut cheese to cut bread. Information is additive in the sense that the amount of
information we had on receiving the first signal, having heard or read the word
cut, is increased, the listener obtains further details and learns what is cut. The
reference of cut is unchanged. Every notional word can form additional syntactic
ties with other words outside the expression. In a set expression information
furnished by each element is not additive: - actually it does not exist before we
get the whole.
No substitution for either cut or figure can be made without completely ruining
the following:
Had an uneasy fear that he might cut a poor figure beside ail these clever
Russian officers? (SHAW)
He was not managing to cut much of a figure. (MURDOCH) The only
substitution admissible for the expression to cut a poor figure concerns the
adjective. Poor may be substituted by ridiculous, grand, much of and a few other
adjectives characterizing the way in which a person‟s behaviour may appear to
others. The very limited character of this substitution seems to justify referring
cut a poor figure to semi-fixed set expressions. In the stereotyped set expression
cut no ice no substitution is possible.
Pronominal substitution of constant elements is also possible. It needs context to
be explained. A sullen December morning. Black frost. Such frost reminded me
of my last days in Stanton. (N. MITFORD) Black frost means „frost without ice
or snow‟. In a free combination the adjective would denote colour. It receives
this different meaning only in correlation with the word frost. The pronoun
when replacing it also signals this new meaning. But pronominal replacement of
this kind, according to N. N. Amosova, is possible only under certain very
definite circumstances, which show^ how close the semantic ties are between
the parts of a set expression.
Numerous intermediate types existing between free combinations cause many
discussions.
These are the problems of the units described as stone wall, take a walk and give
up types. The so-called typical phrases: get a talk with, give a laugh, give a look,
force a smile, make a blush, wear a grin, etc. are semantically almost equivalent
to the corresponding simple verbs talk, laugh, look, smile and so on, yet they are
more expressive, allowing syntactic expansion and inversion. She only gave him
one of liar deep-gleaming smiles; and there was that glance she had given him.
Verbs possess a great power of entering into such compilations. Extremely
generalized in their meaning, they make so great the variety of phrases that
compared with other elements of the English vocabulary they seem to process an
in exhausting store of life and energy. The metaphoric use of verbs especially
verbs of motion presents a peculiar interest in most languages.
Verb plays the main role in .the structure of the English language. That‟s why it
is so frequently used in collocations. The English language has a verbal style of
expression.
The more distinctive feature of this type of collocations is that they function like
verbs in the sentence expressing action or state. For example: Peter called up his
sister. It took his time to get to the city.
The second part of verbal collocations may be: noun (to do homework, to take
advantage, to give birth);verb (to pith and choose); a group of words (to snap
one‟s finger, to burst into tears); adjective (to get sick).