Дипломная работа на тему "Semantic features of English proverbs"

ГлавнаяИностранный язык → Semantic features of English proverbs

Где заказать дипломную Хватит платить посредникам-паразитам!
И зачем вам проблемы с некачественной работой?
Обратитесь напрямую к автору! Автор сделает вам работу за те же деньги, но качественно, и доработает всё до успешной защиты!

Для заказа или оценки работы - кликайте сюда»

Текст дипломной работы "Semantic features of English proverbs":



I.  Chapter one. Proverbs in English language

1.1 Phraseology as a subsystem of language

1.2 Phraseological units and their types

1.3 Proverbs as a phraseological unit

II.  Chapter two. Semantic characteristics of proverbs

2.1  Classification of proverbs

2.2  Types of proverbs on meanings motivation

2.3 Proverbs as the way expressing people's wisdom and spirit and literary works


The list of the used literature


In folklore among all the variety and richness of its poetical significance and form it is difficult to find more interesting and researchable genre than proverbs and sayings. It was the subject of deep study of scientists in most different ideological branches. Most of the scientists agreed that the pro verbs are folklore speech. Where was not only the person's point of view but also general people's outlook is expressed. Proverbs and sayings play important role in language. They give emotionality, expressiveness to the speech. They have certain pure linguistic features that must always be taken into account in order to distinguish them from ordinary sentences. Proverbs are brief statements showing uncondensed form of the accumulated life experience of the community and serving as conventional practical symbols for abstract ideas. They are usually didactic and image bearing. Many of them become very polished and there is no extra word in proverbs and sayings. Summarizing above mentioned information the following definition can be given to a proverb: It is a short, meaningful has the rhythmic organization in poetic style - that people had created for centuries in their social and historical life.

The actuality of the study of the proverbs in Uzbek, English is that the usage of proverbs in speech is very important. The correct usage of these proverbs is also important, while translating any other work of art we should pay close attention to this point, and that is the reason of the study of the theme we have taken under discussion. So express any idea or plot of the work in translation as in original demands a person's high skill and deep knowledge. Translator ought to know the rules of translation, furthermore the history, slang, life, customs and traditions of the people whose language he / she translating into.

The novelty of this qualification paper is that the analysis of the problem of the folk proverbs have been taken under discussion in related and non related languages. Modem and classic writers' works have been used in collecting the examples. The qualification paper also includes the Shakespeareans and other proverbs used by English poets. The aim of the qualification paper is to study the proverbs and to distinguish the cultural features in every language that was taken under discussion. This qualification paper mainly discusses the Uzbek proverbs and their translation into foreign languages.

The aim of the qualification paper is:  to give the definition of the phraseological units;  to classify proverbs and sayings ;  to show the difference of proverbs and sayings;

The following task has been solved in this qualification paper:

1.  To deal with the history of the proverbs and analyze them. To show their components or equivalents if they exist in compared languages, and the ways of their translation.

2.  To point out the difference between proverbs and sayings.

3.  To research the structural type of English proverbs, to differ in the groups of types of proverbs according to their equivalents and synonymic row.

The practical value of this paper is that, practical result and all the given examples can be used in practical lessons, writing compositions in colloquial and written speech. This qualification paper also can be useful to other students who are' interested in this field as in this qualification paper there is given the table of the most often used proverbs in English.

The theoretical value of the qualification paper is to investigate the structural types of proverbs and sayings in English, to give their equivalents in related and related languages, to analyze and differentiate proverbs and sayings in investigated languages.

The structure of this qualification paper is as follows: introduction, main part, conclusion, the list of used literature.

Introduction, main part, conclusion and the list of used literature.

The introduction is the brief plot of the qualification paper theme, and also it gives us information about the structure of the qualification paper.

The main part consists of two chapters

Chapter one has three paragraphs: phraseology as a subsystem of language, a short information about phraseological units, the proverbs and sayings and their definitions.

Chapter two includes three paragraphs which deal with the problems of the study of the history of the origin of proverbs and sayings, scientists who worked on proverbs and sayings, the semantic classes of proverbs and sayings.

Conclusion deals with the theoretical and practical result of the work.

The list of used literature directs us to the list of literatures that have been used in carrying out the work.

The sources of the qualification paper. While investigating the diploma work we have widely used the following literature: 'Фразеология английского языка' by V.A. Koonin, textbooks on lexicology, on stylistics, scientific literature on • phraseology and phraseological units, books on origin and translation of proverbs and sayings in English, A universal proverb definition. Scholars around the world continue to find their own so-called "working definitions," of which some of the most recent attempts in the English language are those by Shirley Arora, Nigel Barley, Otto Blehr, Margaret Bryant, David Cram, Alan Dundes, Galit Hasan-Rokem, George Milner, Peter Seitel, Jan Fredrik Kindstrand "The Greek Concept of Proverbs," Bartlett Jere Whiting, "The Nature of the Proverb." 1932, V.I. Dal “dictionary of vivid Russian language”, V.L Dai "the proverbs of Russian nation" , Benjamin Franklin 'Poor Richard's Almanac', The Advanced Learner's Dictionary by A. Hornby, E. Gatenby, H. Wake-field; The Universal English Dictionary by H. Wild and Л General Service List of English Words with Semantic Frequencies by M, West, English idioms in: Logan Smith. Words and Idioms. London,

Word-Groups and Phraseological Units' and a lot other work of scientists. We have also had information on internet sites.



By phraseology I mean 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:

1.  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;

2.  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;

3.  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. To illustrate this point I shall give some 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.

4.  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 m 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

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.

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

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

7.  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 (cf. E.g. blackbird and black market).

Other aspects of their stability are: stability of use, lexical stability and semantic stability.

8.  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.

9.  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 smb a dance- to lead smb a pretty dance), mixed variants (e.g. raise (stir up) a hornets' nest about one's ears- arouse (stir up) the nest of hornets).

10.  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.

11.  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.

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 (e.g. hз hїfde hine) 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 structurally1 identical free phrases.1" 1"[1] (cf. OE. In spede and ME. In despit.)

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:

a)  When one of the components of a word-group becomes archaic or drops out of the language altogether the whole word-group may become completely or partially non-motivated. For example, lack of motivation in the word-group kith and kin may be accounted for by the fact that the member-word kith dropped out of the language altogether except as the component of the phraseological unit under discussion. This is also observed in the phraseological unit under discussion.

b)  When as a result of a change in the semantic structure of a polysemantic word some of its meanings disappear and can be found only in certain collocations. The noun mind, e.g., once meant 'purpose' or 'intention' and this meaning survives in the phrases to have a mind to do smth., to change one's mind, etc.

c)  When a free word-group used in professional speech penetrates into general literary usage, it is often felt as non-motivated. To pull (the) strings (wires), e.g., was originally used as a free word-group in its direct meaning by professional actors in puppet shows. In Modern English, however, it has lost all connection with puppet-shows and therefore cannot also be observed in the' phraseological unit to stick to one's guns, which can be traced back to military English, etc.

Sometimes extra-linguistic factors may account for the loss of motivation, to show the white feather - 'to act as a coward', e.g., can be traced back to the days when cock-fighting was popular. A white feather in a gamecock's plumage denoted bad breeding and was regarded as a sign of cowardice. Now that cock-fighting is no longer a popular sport, the phrase is felt as non-motivated.2" 2"[2]

d) When a word-group making up part of a proverb or saying begins to be used a self-contained unit it may gradually become non-motivated if its connection with the corresponding proverb or saying is not clearly perceived. A new broom, e.g., originates as a component of the saying new brooms sweep clean. New broom as a phraseological unit may be viewed as non-motivated because the meaning of the whole is not deducible from the meaning of the components. Moreover, it seems grammatically and functionally self-contained and inseparable too. In the saying quoted above the noun broom is always used im the plural; as a member-word of the phraseological unit it mostly used in the singular. The phraseological unit a new broom is characterized by functional inseparability. In the saying new brooms sweep clean the adjective new functions as an attribute to the noun brooms, in the phraseological unit a new broom (e.g. Well he is a new broom!) the whole word-group is functionally inseparable.

e) When part of a quotation from literary sources, mythology or the Bible begin to be used as a self-contained unit, it may also lose all connection with the original context and as a result of this become non-motivated. The phraseological unit the green-eyed monster (jealousy) can be easily found as a part of the quotation from Shakespeare "It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on" (Othello, II, i. 165). In Modern English, however, it functions as a non-motivated self-contained phraseological unit and is also used to denote the T.V. set. Achilles heel - 'the weak spot in a man's circumstances or character' can be traced back to mythology, but it seems that in Modern English this word-group functions as a phraseological unit largely because most English speakers do not connect it with the myth from which it was extracted.

1. The final criterion in the semantic approach is idiomaticity whereas in the functional approach syntactic inseparability is viewed as the final test, and in the contextual approach it is stability of context combined with idiomaticity of word-groups.

2.  The concept of idiomaticity is not strictly defined. The judgement as to idiomaticity is passed sometimes within the framework of the English language and sometimes from the outside - from the point of view of the mother tongue of the investigator.

It is suggested here that the term idiomaticity should be interpreted as an intralingual notion and also that the degree of idiomaticity should be taken into consideration since between the extreme of complete motivation and lack of motivation there are numerous intermediate group.

3.  Each of the three approaches has its merits and demerits. The traditional semantic approach points out the essential features of all kinds of idiomatic phrases as opposed to completely motivated free word-groups. The functional approach puts forward an objective criterion for singling out a small group of word-equivalents possessing all the basic features of words as lexical items. The contextual approach makes the criterion of stability more exact.

4.  All the three approaches are sufficient to single out the extreme cases: highly idiomatic phraseological units and free word-groups. The status of the bulk of word-groups possessing different degrees of idiomaticity cannot be decided with certainty by applying the criteria available in linguistic science.

5.  The distinguishing feature of the new approach is that phraseology is regarded as a self-contained branch of linguistics and not as a part of lexicology. According to this approach phraseology deals with all types of set expressions which are divided into three classes: phraseological units, phraseomatic units and border-line cases.


It has been repeatedly pointed out that word-groups viewed as functionally and semantically inseparable units are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of phraseology. It should be noted, however, that no proper scientific investigation of English phraseology has been attempted until quite recently. English and American linguists as a rule confine themselves to collecting various words, word- groups and sentences presenting some interest either from the point of view of origin, style, usage, or some other feature peculiar to them. These units are habitually described as idioms but no attempt has been made to investigate these idioms as a separate class of linguistic units or a specific class of word-groups.

The vocabulary of a language is enriched not only by words but also by phraseological units. 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. The same as words phraseological units express a single notion and are used in a sentence as one part of it. American and British lexicographers call such units «idioms». We can mention such dictionaries as: L.Smith «Words and Idioms»3" 3" title="">[3], V.Collins «А Book of English Idioms»4" 4"[4] etc.  In these dictionaries we can find words, peculiar in their semantics (idiomatic), side by side with word-groups and sentences. In these dictionaries they are arranged, as a rule, into different semantic groups. Phraseological units can be classified according to the ways they are formed, according to the degree of the motivation of their meaning, according to their structure and according to their part-of-speech meaning.

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:

a) The most productive in Modem English is the formation of phraseological units by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups, e.g. in cosmic technique we ran point out the following phrases: «launching pad» in its terminological meaning is «стартова площадка», in its transferred meaning - «вiдправний пункт», «to link up» - «стикуватися, стикувати космiчнi човни» in its tranformed meaning it means - «знайомитися»;

b)  a large group of phraseological units was formed from free word groups by transforming their meaning, e.g. «granny farm» - «пансионат для старых людей», «Troyan horse» - «компьютерная програма, яка навмиснестворена для приведения з ладу компьютера»;

c)  phraseological units can be formed by means of alliteration , e.g. «a sad sack» - «нещасний випадок», «culture vulture» - «людина, яка цiкавиться мистецтвом», «fudge and nudge» - «ухильнiсть».

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

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

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

g)  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,

h)  they can be formed when we use some unreal image, e.g. «to have butterflies in the stomach» - «вiчувати хвилювання», «to have green fingers» - «досягати ycnixiв як садовод-любитель» etc.

i)  they can be formed by using expressions of writers or polititions in everyday life, e.g. «corridors of power» (Snow), «American dream» (Alby) «locust years» (Churchil), «the winds of change» (Mc Millan).

Secondary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a phraseological unit is formed on the basis of another phraseological unit; they are:

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

b)  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»;

c)  analogy, e.g. «Curiosity killed the cat» was transferred into «Care killed the cat»;

d)  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»;

e)  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» was formed with the meaning «помилятись».

f)  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.

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 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 fugiratively) 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.

Sometimes traditional combinations are synonyms of words, e.g. to make inquiries = to inquire, to make haste=to hurry.

Some traditional combinations are equivalents of prapositions, e.g. fry means of, in connection with.

Some phraseological combinations have nearly become compounds, e.g. brown bread.

Traditional combinations often have synonymous expressions, e.g. to make a report=to deliver a report.

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 Prof. A. Smirnitskv's5" 5"[5] opinion traditional combinations are not phraseological units, as he considers only those word combinations to be phraseological units which are equivalents of words.

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 1 whole expression, e.g. to get on one's nerves, to cut smb short, to show one's teeth, to be at daggers drawn.

Phraseological unities are often synonyms of words, e.g. to make a clean breast of=to confess; to get on one's nerves=to irritate.

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.

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 comfusion); 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.

Prof. A.I.Smirnitsky worked out structural classification of phraseological units, comparing them with words. He points out one-top units which he compares with derived words because derived words have only one root morpheme. He points out two-top units which he compares with compound words because in compound words we usually have two root morphemes6" 6"[6].

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

a)  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.;

b)  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;

c) 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 (phrasisms) 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 others.

b)  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.

c)  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 shaddow of one's own self, at one's own sweet will

Phraseological units can be clasified 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.

b)  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.

c)  adjective phraseologisms denoting a quality, e.g. loose as a 'goose, dull as lead.

d)  adverb phraseological units, such as: with a bump, in the soup, like a dream , like a dog with two tails.

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!» etc.

There is one more type of combinations, also rigid and introduced into discource ready-made but different from all the types given above in so far as it is impossible to find its equivalent among the parts of speech. These are formulas used as complete utterances and syntactically shaped like sentences, such as the well-known American maxim Keep smiling! or British Keep Britain tidy

A.I. Smirnitsky was the first among Russian scholars who paid attention to' sentences that can be treated as complete formulas, such as How do you do? Or I beg you pardon; it takes all kinds to make the world; can the leopard change his spots? They differ from all the combinations so far discussed because they are not equivalent to words in distribution and are semantically analysable

And one more point: free word combinations can never be polysemantic, while there are polysemantic phraseological units, e.g.

To be on the go 1. to be busy and active

2.  to be leaving

3.  to be tipsy

4.  to be near one's end

have done with 1. Make an end of

1.  give up

2.  reach the end of

Two types of synonymy are typical of phraseological units:

1.  Synonymy of phraseological units that do not contain any synonymous words and are based on different images, e.g.

To leave no stone unturned = to move heaven and earth

To haul down colours = to ground arms

In free word combinations synonym}' is based on the synonymy of particular words (an old man = elderly man).

2.  Phraseological units have word synonyms: To make up one's mind = to decide

To haul down colours = to surrender

American and English dictionaries of unconventional English, slang and idioms and other highly valuable reference books contain a wealth of proverbs, saying, various lexical units of all kinds, but as a rule do not seek to lay down a reliable criterion to distinguish between variable word-groups and phraseological units. Paradoxical as it may seem the first dictionary in which theoretical principles for the selection of English phraseological units were elaborated was published in our country.10" 10"[10]

Attempts have been made to approach the problem of phraseology in different ways. Up till now, however, there is a certain divergence of opinion as to the essential feature of phraseological units as distinguished from other word- groups and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed phraseological units.

The complexity of the problem may be largely accounted for by the fact that the border-line between free or variable word-groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined. The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words is fundamentally delimited by their lexical and grammatical valency which makes at least some of them very close to set-phrases. Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable. Between the extremes of complete motivation and variability of member-words on the one hand and lack of motivation combined with complete stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure on the other hand there are innumerable border-line cases.

However, the existing terms,11" 11"[11] e.g. set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the main debatable issues of phraseology which centre on the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups. The term set-phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentaition is stability 6f the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack of motivation. The term habitually used by English and American linguists is very often treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit universally accepted in our country.12" 12"[12] The term word-equivalent stresses not only the semantic but also the functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their aptness to function in speech as single words.

Thus differences in terminology reflect certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish between free wore-groups and a specific type of linguistic units generally known as phraseology. These criteria and the ensuing classification are briefly discussed below.

Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units. This definition proceeds from the assumption that the essential features of phraseological units are stability of the lexical components and lack of motivation. It is consequently assumed that unlike components of free words-groups which may vary according to the needs of communication, member-words of phraseological units are always reproduced as single unchangeable collocations.

Thus, for example, the constituent red in the free word-group red flower may, if necessary, be substituted for by any other adjective denoting colour (blue, white, etc.), without essentially changing the denota-tional meaning of the word- group under discussion (a flower of a certain colour). In the phraseological unit red tape (bureaucratic methods) no such substitution is possible, as a change of the adjective would involve a complete change in the meaning of the whole group. A (blue (black, white, etc.) tape would mean 'a tape of a certain colour'. It follows that the phraseological unit red tape is semantically non-motivated, i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components and that it exists as a ready-made linguistic unit which does not allow of any variability of its lexical components.

It is also argued that non-variability of the phraseological unit is not confined to its lexical components. Grammatical structure of phraseological units is to a certain extent also stable. Thus, though the structural formula of the word- groups red flower and red tape is identical (A + +N), the noun flower may be used in the plural (red flowers), whereas no such change is possible in the phraseological unit red tape; red tapes would then denote 'tapes of red colour' but not 'bureaucratic methods'. This is also true of other types of phraseological units, e.g. what will Mrs. Grundy say?, where the verbal component is invariably reproduced in the same grammatical form.

Taking into account mainly the degree of idiomaticity phraseological units may be classified into three big groups: phraseological fusions, phraseological unities and phraseological collocations.14" 14" title="">[14]

Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups, such as red tape - 'bureaucratic methods'; heavy father – ‘serious or solemn part in a theatrical play’; kick the bucket - 'die'; and the like. The meaning of the components has no connections whatsoever, at least synchronically, with the meaning of the whole group. Idiomaticity is, as a rule, combined with complete stability of the lexical components and the grammatical structure of the fusion.

Phraseological unites are partially non-motivated as their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit. For example, to show one's teeth, to wash one's dirty linen in public if interpreted as semantically motivated through the combined lexical meaning of the component words would naturally lead one to understand these in their literal meaning. The metaphoric meaning of the whole unit, however, readily suggests 'take a threatening tone' or 'show an intention to injure' for show one's teeth and 'discuss or make public one's quarrels' for wash one's dirty linen in public. Phraseological unities are as a rule marked by a comparatively high degree of stability of the lexical components.

Phraseological collocations are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word-groups. In phraseological collocations variability of member-words is strictly limited. For instance, bear a grudge may be changed into bear malice, but not into bear a fancy or liking. We can say take a liking (fancy) but not take hatred (disgust). These habitual collocations tend to become kind of cliches15" 15"[15], where the meaning of member-words h to some extent dominated by the meaning of the whole group. Due to this phraseological collocations are felt as possessing a certain degree of semantic inseparability.

The current definition of phraseological units as highly idiomatic word- groups which cannot be' freely made up in speech, but are reproduced as ready- made units has been subject to severe criticism by linguists of different schools of thought. The main objections and debatable points may be briefly outlined as follows:

1.  The definition is felt to be inadequate as the concept ready-made units seems to be rather vague. In fact this term can be applied to a variety of heterogeneous linguistic phenomena ranging from word-groups to sentences (e.g. proverbs, sayings) and also quotations from poems, novels or scientific treatises all of which can be described as ready-made units.

2.  Frequent discussions have also led to questioning this approach to phraseology' from a purely semantic point of view as the criterion of idiomaticity is found to be an inadequate guide in singling out phraseological units from other word-groups. Borderline cases between idiomatic and non-idiomatic word-groups are so numerous and confusing that the final decision seems to depend largely on one's "feeling of the language". This can he proved by the fact that the same word- groups are treated by some linguists as idiomatic phrases and by others as free word-groups. For example, such word-groups as take the chair—'preside at a meeting', take one's chance—'trust to luck or fortune', take trouble (to do smth)—'to make efforts' and others are marked in some of the English dictionaries' as idioms or phrases, whereas in others they are found as free word-groups illustrating one of the meanings of the verb to take or the nouns combined with this verb16" 16"[16].

The impracticability of the criterion of idiomaticity is also observed in the traditional classification of phraseological collocations. The extreme cases, i.e. phraseological fusions and collocations are easily differentiated but the borderline units, as for example phraseological fusions and phraseological unities or phraseological collocations and free word-groups, are very often doubtful and rather vaguely outlined. We may argue, e.g., that such word-groups as high treason or show the white feather are, fusions because one finds it impossible to infer the meaning of the whole from the meaning of the individual components. Others may feel these word-groups as metaphorically motivated and refer them to phraseological unities.

The term idiomaticity is also regarded by some linguists as requiring clarification. As a matter of fact this term is habitually used to denote lack of motivation from the point of view of one's mother tongue. A word-group which defies word by word translation is consequently described as idiomatic. It follows that if idiomaticity is viewed as the main distinguishing feature of phraseological units, the same word-groups in the English language may be classified as idiomatic phraseological units by Russian speakers and as non-idiomatic word-groups by those whose mother tongue contains analogous collocations. Thus, e.g., from the point of view of Russian speakers such word-groups as take tea, take care, etc., are often referred to phraseology as the Russian translation equivalents of these word-groups (пить чай, заботиться) do not contain the habitual translation equivalents of the verb take. French speakers, however, are not likely to find anything idiomatic about theseword-groups as there are similar lexical units in the French language (cf. prendre du the, prendre soin). This approach to idiomaticity may be termed interlingual as it involves a comparison, explicit or implicit of two different languages.

The term idiomaticity is also understood as lack of motivation from the point of view of native speakers. As here we are concerned with the English language,, this implies that only those word-groups are to be referred to phraseology which are felt as non-motivated, at least syuchronically, by English speakers, e.g. red tape, kick the bucket and the like. This approach to idiomaticity may be termed intralingual. In other words the judgement as to idiomaticity is passed within the framework of the language concerned, not from the outside. It is readily observed that classification of factual linguistic material into free word-groups and phraseological units largely depends upon the particular meaning we attach to the term idiomaticity. It will be recalled, for example, that habitual collocations are word-groups whose component member or members possess specific and limited lexical, valency, as a rule essentially different from the lexical valency of related words in the Russian language.

3. The criterion of stability is al so criticized as not very reliable in distinguishing phraseological units from other word-groups habitually referred to as phraseology. We observe regular substitution of at least one of the lexical components. In to cast smth in smb's teeth, e.g. the verb cast may be replaced by fling; to take a decision is found alongside with to make a decision; not to care a twopenny is just one of the possible variants of the phrase, whereas in others the noun twopenny may be replaced by a number of other nouns, e.g. farthing, button, pin, sixpence, fig, etc.

It is also argued that stability of lexical components does not presuppose lack of motivation. The word-group shrug cue's shoulders, e.g., does not allow of the substitution of either shrug or shoulders; the meaning of the word-group, however, is easily deducible from the meanings of the member-words, hence the word-group is completely motivated, though stable. Idiomatic word-groups may be variable as far as their lexical components are concerned, or stable. It was observed that, e.g., to cast smth in smb's teeth is a highly idiomatic but variable word- group as the constituent member cast may be replaced by fling or throw; the word-group red tape is both highly idiomatic and stable.

It follows that stability and idiomaticity may be regarded as two different aspects of word-groups. Stability is an essential feature of set,-phrases both motivated and non-motivated. Idiomaticity is a distinguishing feature of phraseological units or idioms which comprise both stable set-phrases and variable word-groups. The two features are not mutually exclusive and may be overlapping,' but are not interdependent.

Stability of word-groups may be viewed in terms of predictability of occurrence of member-words. Thus, e.g., the verb shrug predicts the occurrence of the noun shoulders and the verb clench the occurrence of either fists or teeth. The degree of predictability or probability of occurrence of member-words is different in different word-groups. We may assume, e.g., that the verb shrug predicts with a hundred per cent probability the occurrence of the noun shoulders, as no other noun can follow this particular verb. The probability of occurrence of the noun look after the verb cast is not so high because cast may be followed not only by' look but also by glance, light, lots and some other nouns. Stability of the word- group in clench one's fists is higher than in cast a look, but lower than in shrug one's shoulders as the verb clench predicts the occurrence of either fists or teeth.

It is argued that the stability of all word-groups may be statistically calculated and the word-groups where stability exceeds a certain limit (say 50%) may be classified as set-phrases.

Predictability of occurrence may be calculated in relation to one or more than one constituent of the word-group. Thus, e.g., the degree of probability of occurrence of the noun bull after the verb take is very low and may practically be' estimated at zero. The two member-words take the bull, however, predict the occurrence of by the horns with a very high degree of probability.

Stability viewed in terms of probability of occurrence seems a more reliable criterion in differentiating between set-phrases and variable or free word-groups, but cannot be relied upon single out phraseological units.


Proverb is a brief saying that presents a truth or some bit of useful wisdom. It is usually based on common sense or practical experience. The effect of a proverb is to make the wisdom it tells seem to be self-evident. The same proverb often occurs among several different peoples. True proverbs are sayings that have been passed from generation to generation primarily by word of month. They may also have been put into written form. The Book of Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible, or old Testament, is the most notable collection of such sayings. They include: Hope deferred month the heartsick.

A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.

A soft answer turneth away.

Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Proverbs often find their way into literature. Hany of the lower-class characters in the Canterbury tales. By Geoffrey Chaucer18" 18" title="">[18] refer to proverbs. Miguel de Ce rvantes'19" 19" title="">[19] novel Don qui xote (1005, 1615)20" 20"[20] contains many proverbs. Cervantes collected the proverbs from the Spanish pea sands. The term itself phraseological units to denote a specific group of phrases was introduced by Soviet linguists and is generally accepted in our country.

Who supposedly could early on a sensible conversation for a whole evening in nothing but proverbs. Benjamin Franklin used many proverbial expressions in his Poor Richard's Almanac", issued every year from 1733 to 1758 Franklin wrote many of them himself, and took the rest from other sources.

Proverbs, Book of is a book o f the Hebrew Bible, or old Testament. It is also known as the Proverbs of Solomon because according to tradition king 'Solomon wrote it. However scholars believe that the book's assortment of moral and religious saying, poems and warnings come from various periods in the history of ancient form until after the period of the Babylanian Exile, which ended in 538 B.C.

The Book of Proverbs is a product of ancient Israel Children, were educated primarily at home. The introduction value of many sections of Proverbs reflects the teachings of parents trying to raise their children to become successful and responsible adults. Other sections of the Book of Proverbs may come from a palace school for the training of government officials.

The Book of Proverbs has earned universal appeal because it contains material valuable to all people who hope to live a life of wisdom, honesty, esponsibility, for God Hany as the book's saying have become part of everyday Speech.

Proverbs were always the most vivacious and at the same time the most stable part of the national languages, suitable competing with the sayings and aphorisms pf outstanding thinkers. In the proverbs and sayings picturesqueness of national thinking was more vivid expressed as well as their features of national character. The proverbs and sayings are the paper of folklore which is short but deep in the meaning. They express the outlook of the amount of people by their social and ideal functions. Proverbs and sayings include themselves the some certain features of historical development and the culture of people.

The semantic sphere of proverbs is very wide and cannot limit them. The proverbs describe the every branch of people's life. The fact is that proverbs and sayings are similar in meaning in spite of their diversity in form and language. To prove the said above some examples:

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Un tiens vaut mieux que deux tu’auras.

Un chien vivant vaut mieux qu'un lion mort.

Лучше синица в руках, чем журавль на небе.

Nasiya saryog'dan, naqd о 'pka yaxshi.

Even if the form, the word structure and the stylistic structure of these proverbs are different they have the same meaning. The proverbs change their meaning and form very rare, they have long living features. The spreading of any proverb among people is implemented as slow as it is created. Proverbs are retest by geographic area which is going to admit it only after that the proverb can become its property.

Many scholars tried to do the researches to show the differences between proverbs and sayings in order to point out their border of limit. One of the outstanding Russian scholars the author of "dictionary of vivid Russian language" and "the proverbs of Russian nation" V.I. Dal21" 21"[21] wrote: saying is the bud and proverb is the fruit. So from this point of view we can see that proverbs express the full finite meaning and saying is a phrase which expresses the fugitive meaning. The sayings are considered to be the half part of the proverbs. We can also add that proverbs and sayings are separate genres which are different from each other. The meaning and explanation of these terms in Turkish language show that the sema

Здесь опубликована для ознакомления часть дипломной работы "Semantic features of English proverbs". Эта работа найдена в открытых источниках Интернет. А это значит, что если попытаться её защитить, то она 100% не пройдёт проверку российских ВУЗов на плагиат и её не примет ваш руководитель дипломной работы!
Если у вас нет возможности самостоятельно написать дипломную - закажите её написание
опытному автору»

Просмотров: 689

Другие дипломные работы по специальности "Иностранный язык":

Studies lexical material of English

Смотреть работу >>

The socialist workers party 1951-1979

Смотреть работу >>

Французские заимствования в испанском языке

Смотреть работу >>