The main problems of modern phraseology. Morphological analysis of “properties of phraseological units” Morphological properties of phraseological units

The words forming this or that phraseological turn of phrase appear in a stable combination of words either as morphologically unchangeable, or as realizing any grammatical forms that are characteristic of them in free use. Conventionally, we can talk about the morphological properties of a phraseological unit, always, however, keeping in mind that we are talking only about the morphology of its components.
Thus, the words read, beaten, clear, acting, running, days, hour, business, person, path, etc., used freely as separate lexical units, have all the forms of gender, number and case inherent to them. A different picture is observed in phraseological phrases: a few days, a full hour, of course, a character, a treadmill. In the first three turns, the words do not change at all; they are fixed in one single form. In stable combinations of words “actor”, “treadmill”, the components realize all the forms inherent in them, taken separately (actors, “actor”, “treadmills”, treadmill etc.). As you can see, despite the same structure (adjective + noun), phraseological units seriously differ from each other in their “morphology”.
The morphological properties of words within a phraseological unit depend primarily on its lexico-grammatical meaning and the degree of semantic unity. Adverbial, interjectional, modal and allied phraseological units always appear to us as morphologically unchangeable. In verbal, substantive and adjective phraseological units, the morphological forms of the components can be realized in one way or another. Grammatically dependent words implement these forms to a limited extent. They manifest themselves much more freely in components that, grammatically speaking, act as core components.
In adjectival phraseological units, only such members as adjectives and verbs have the ability to form forms (for example: no matter what, no matter what, no matter what, etc., seen types, seen types, etc. ).
Restrictions in the implementation of morphological forms of words within substantive phrases, which represent the “adjective + noun” model, concern only the formation of number forms and depend on the meaning of the word synonymous with the phrase: if the latter is characterized by an abstract meaning and does not have number forms, the equivalent will not have them According to its semantics, it is a phraseological unit (cf.: forbidden fruit and what is desired, but forbidden, cornerstone and foundation, Babylonian pandemonium and turmoil, etc.).
Limitations in the formation of morphological forms of words within verbal phraseological units are more clearly and most often manifested in the inability of many verbs to form aspect pairs. The latter primarily depends on the degree of semantic cohesion of the phraseological unit, as well as on the specific semantics that is characteristic of the phraseological unit as a significant unit (cf. single-type verbs in play the first violin, sharpen the lasses, pull up the nose, take water into the mouth, throw out of one’s head, etc. ., on the one hand, and to drive - to drive you crazy, to bring - to cast a shadow on the fence, to callus - to put an eyesore, to get into - to get into trouble, etc. - on the other).
In the case when the components of a phraseological unit are capable of forming certain morphological forms, various shapes the same phraseological unit (cf.: plucking flowers of pleasure, plucking flowers of pleasure, will pluck flowers of pleasure, plucking flowers of pleasure, etc.). Phraseological variants must be distinguished from them.
Variants of a phraseological phrase are its lexico-grammatical varieties, identical in their meaning and degree of semantic unity, for example: throw a stone and throw a stone, not worth a penny and not worth a penny.
Synonymous phraseological units should be distinguished from variants of phraseological units.

More on the topic § 35. Morphological properties of phraseological units:

§ 4. Main types of phraseological units in the Russian language
21. Types of phraseological units according to motivation of meaning and semantic cohesion

A phraseological unit is a linguistic unit characterized by integrity of meaning, stability of lexical composition, grammatical forms and syntactic structure. The main reason for the formation of a phraseological unit is the semantic transformation of the free meanings of the words included in its composition. The components of a phraseological unit acquire a general, holistic figurative meaning and, in a semantic sense, are likened to a word in a certain way. Therefore, the characterization of the morphological and syntactic properties of phraseological units is an auxiliary factor in their study.

A phraseological unit in a sentence usually plays the role of one of its members. The syntactic functional consolidation of a phraseological unit and its equivalence to a word create the opportunity to establish a certain parallelism between certain groups of phrases and parts of speech. Parallelism is not possible for all phraseological units and not with all parts of speech, but only with nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and rarely with interjections.

The following types of phraseological units are distinguished in the language:

1) verbal, or verbal (lat. verb - “verb”): fall into childhood, sharpen the lasses, wipe off the face of the earth - “destroy”, nod off - “doze”, circle one’s finger - “deceive” ", to kick the bucket - "to mess around";

substantive (lat. substantiv - "noun"): despicable metal - "gold", the luminary of the day - "sun", the embrace of Morpheus - "soybean", bear corner - "outback", hare soul - " coward", the land of the rising sun - Japan, the eternal city - Rome, the silver wedding - "twenty-fifth anniversary of married life", a play on words - "pun", etc.;

adjective (Latin adjectiv - "adjective"): skin and bones - "thin", dishonest in hand - "dishonest", wouldn't hurt a fly - "harmless", ate little porridge - "weak", for oneself in the mind - “cunning”, blood and milk - “healthy”, not a bastard, has seen the sights, there are not enough stars from the sky, for one block, for one face, without a king in the head, clean water, born in a shirt, no matter what;

adverbial, or adverbial (Latin adverb - "adverb"): at least a dime a dozen (a lot), forever and ever (forever), in three streams (strongly), a quick thread, in a hurry, without a year a week (recently), to the fullest, to the marrow of the bones, to the nines, headlong, up and down, like a squirrel in a wheel, like a chicken with its paw, some into the forest, some for firewood (unfriendly), in their youth, headlong (recklessly), by all fibers of the soul;

interjections: that's it! honest mother! that's cranberry! Here you go! know ours! no matter how it is! Tell me please! that's it! here's one for you!

The lexico-grammatical meaning of the dominant member of the phrase does not always coincide with the general grammatical meaning phraseology. For example, “vidal species” has the characteristics of an adjective, a broken hour or, to put it bluntly, an adverb, zero attention appears only as a predicative member.

Individual phraseological units can combine the lexical and grammatical meanings of several parts of speech. For example, in the phraseological unit ate the dog, the meanings of an adjective and a noun are combined: “experienced, knowledgeable in his field” and “master, expert in his field.” The phraseological unit so-so can act both as an adjective (the movie is so-so - neither bad nor good) and as an adverb (made so-so - neither bad nor good).

Thus, the following types of phraseological units are distinguished in the language: verbal, or verbal (fall into childhood, sharpen one's laces, wipe off the face of the earth), substantive (despicable metal - "gold", the luminary of the day - "sun", the embrace of Morpheus - “soybean”, bearish corner - “outback”), adjectival (skin and bones - “thin”, dishonest in hand - “dishonest”, wouldn’t hurt a fly - “harmless”), adverbial, or adverbial (though a dime a dozen (a lot), forever and ever (forever), in three streams (strongly)), interjectional (that’s it! honest mother! that’s cranberry! here you go! know ours! no matter how it is! please tell me! here so yes! here's one for you!).

Due to the fact that phraseological units have different properties, any of them can become the subject of detailed research and classification division. According to O. Jespersen, when systematizing linguistic units, “everything must be taken into account: form, function, and meaning” (Jespersen 1958:65).

In Russian phraseology, there are several types of classifications of phraseological units, which are based on one or another main classification feature: semantic (V.V. Vinogradov), structural (N.M. Shansky, A.I. Smirnitsky), historical (B.A. Larin), stylistic (N.M. Shansky, V.N. Telia, A.I. Fedorov) and others. Phraseological units are classified in terms of their composition, origin (N.M. Shansky), species dependence (V.L. Arkhangelsky), phraseological application (V.P. Zhukov), etc.

As is known, semantic classification FE V.V. Vinogradov (1946) is the first in-depth attempt to analyze and describe the phraseological system of the Russian language.

According to the degree of semantic cohesion (fusion) of the components and the degree of motivation of their meanings, V.V. Vinogradov distinguishes three types of phraseological units:

1) phraseological adjuncts– semantically indivisible, indecomposable and unmotivated units that act as equivalents of words ( ate the dog , how to give something to drink, kill the worm, byword );

2) phraseological unities– motivated and derived units that act as potential equivalents of words ( keep a stone in your bosom , the first damn thing is lumpy, shot sparrow, dance to someone else's tune );

3) phraseological combinations- units in which one of the components has a free, and the other has a phraseologically related meaning, limited to a narrow circle of verbal connections ( fear takes over , biting frost, snail's step ).

To the three types of phraseological units developed by V.V. Vinogradov, N.M. Shansky adds one more -

4) phraseological expressions– phraseological units that are stable in composition and use, which are not only semantically distinct, but also consist entirely of words with free meaning ( Love for all ages ; If you're afraid of wolves, don't go into the forest; seriously and for a long time ). Currently, the fourth type of phraseological units includes stable phrases of different structural types, having different semantic functions (proverbs, catchphrases, fragments of literary texts, greeting formulas and so on.).

The four-member semantic classification of Vinogradov-Shansky is recognized by most phraseologists and is generally accepted in modern linguistics.

IN structurally, depending on the independence of the component words, phraseological units are divided into “ single-vertex" And " double-vertex» (« multivertex"), i.e. consisting either of a combination of a function word with one significant word ( under a degree , in openwork, in earnest ), or from a combination of two or more significant words ( turn up one's nose, stew in one's own juices,rake in the heat with someone else's hands ).

IN structural classification Phrase phraseological units, taking into account the syntactic structure and functions of phraseological units, the following types are distinguished: phraseological units that correspond in structure to a sentence, and phraseological units that correspond in structure to a phrase.

The first type of phraseological units unites nominative phraseological units, naming this or that phenomenon of reality and acting as a member of a sentence ( chickens don't peck , my hands don't reach ), And communicative phraseological units, conveying a whole message of an aphoristic or non-aphoristic nature ( A rolling stone gathers no moss ; Don't spit in the well, you'll need to drink the water; In crowded but not mad; Peace to this house ).

The second structural type of phraseological units includes twelve typical groups of phraseological units, of which the most frequent are the “adj. + noun” models. and “verb + noun”: shot sparrow, soap bubble, counting crows, talking nonsense . Representatives of a narrow understanding of phraseology include only the second type of phraseology as its object.

Phraseological units of the Russian language can be correlated with in different parts speech, which allows them to be distributed among semantic-grammatical categories, which have fundamental similarities with lexical and grammatical categories of words.

Depending on the semantics, morphological properties and syntactic function of a phraseological unit in a sentence, it is customary to distinguish the following types of phraseological units:

1) substantive (or nominal): muslin young lady;

2) adjectival: I ate little porridge, I don’t mind;

3) verbal: cover your tracks, rack your brains;

4) adverbial: in a hurry, quietly;

5) interjection: was not!; no matter how it is!;

6) modal: how to give something to drink.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS

BELARUSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Philology

Department of Russian Language

Russian structure phraseological units with components “speech organs”

Course work

V year students

correspondence course of study in the specialty “Russian Philology”

Tchaikovskaya Natalia Alexandrovna

Scientific adviser -

Chechet R.G.

Minsk, 2015

Introduction

Chapter 1. Phraseology of the Russian language

1.1 Literature review

1.2 The concept of phraseology and phraseological units

1.3 Classification of Russian phraseological units.

1.3.1 Classification in terms of syntactic structure

1.3.2 Classification from a stylistic point of view

1.3.3 Phraseological phrases from the point of view of semantic unity of components

1.4 Morphological and syntactic properties of phraseological units

Chapter 2. Structure of Russian phraseological units with components “organs of speech”

2.1 Structure of Russian phraseological units with the “language” component

2.2 Structure of Russian phraseological units with the “teeth” component

2.3 Structure of Russian phraseological units with the “throat” component

Conclusion

List of used literature

INTRODUCTION

Relevance of the research topic. The study of Russian phraseology introduces us to the laboratory of the language-creator people, and it is no coincidence that writers study it with such attention, who see in Russian phraseology excellent examples of figurative expression of the phenomena of reality. The picturesqueness and imagery of the authors’ speech, which are created through the use of phraseological units, act on the imagination of the listener, forcing him to experience what was said more strongly than if the speech were ugly, purely logical.

Of particular importance is the study of phraseology for improving a person’s speech skills and improving speech culture.

Despite the close attention of researchers to the study of phraseological units, this topic remains insufficiently studied.

The question of studying phraseological units containing names of phenomena inanimate nature, in Russian still remains open. For this reason, this study is relevant.

Main goal course work is an analysis of the structure of Russian phraseological units with components “organs of speech”

The set goal necessitates the solution of a number of specific tasks:

1. study of literature on the theory of the study of phraseological units in the Russian language;

2. a selection of phraseological units containing the names of the speech organs (tongue, throat, teeth);

3. classification of phraseological units containing names of speech organs by structure;

Object of study- phraseological units;

Subject of study- phraseological units containing names of speech organs.

The selection of factual material was carried out by continuous sampling from the phraseological dictionary I. V. Fedosov, A. N. Lapitsky “Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language”. The total number is 65 phraseological units.

Practical significancecoursework is that the factual material and research results can be used in further study of the problems of Russian phraseology. The research materials will be used in preparing lectures and practical classes in the modern Russian language, as well as when teaching the Russian language in foreign classrooms.

CHAPTER 1.PHRASEOLOGY OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

1.1 Literature review

Phraseology is a branch of linguistics that studies semantic, grammatical and stylistic features phraseological units - in Russian linguistics relatively recently became an independent section, although phraseological units of the Russian language have attracted the attention of its researchers for a long time and have been explained under various names (sayings, catchwords, aphorisms, proverbs and sayings, expressions, figures of speech, idioms, etc.) both in special collections and in explanatory dictionaries starting from the end of the 18th century.

So, also M.V. Lomonosov, drawing up a plan for a Russian dictionary literary language, indicated that, in addition to individual words, it should also include “sayings”, “idioms” and “phrases”, i.e. turns of phrase, expressions.

However, the phraseological composition of the Russian language began to be subjected to special study only recently. Until the 40s of the XX century. in the works of domestic scientists on phraseology one can find only isolated thoughts and observations.

First of all, it should be noted here that A.A. raised the question of the internal form of phraseological units. Potebny, correct remarks by I.I. Sreznevsky on the connection between phraseology and word formation (in particular, the emergence of words from expressions), the teachings of F.F. Fortunatova about fused words and fused utterances , theoretical principles of A.A. Shakhmatov in connection with the analysis of various types of indecomposable phrases and, finally, the thoughts of E.D. Polivanov on the need to highlight phraseology in special section language sciences.

The emergence of phraseology as a linguistic discipline in Russian linguistics dates back to the 40s of the 20th century and is inextricably linked with the name of Academician V.V. Vinogradov. It was he who, in the works “Basic Concepts of Russian Phraseology as a Linguistic Discipline” and “On the Basic Types of Phraseological Units in the Russian Language,” raised and solved some general questions that made it possible to create a basis for the study of stable combinations of words in the modern Russian literary language. It was they who first gave a synchronous classification of phraseological units of the Russian language from the point of view of their semantic unity and outlined the ways and aspects of their further study.

THEM. Wulfius gives his classification, highlighting among the stable combinations of words in the Russian language the following groups: 1) idioms, which are a unity that cannot be decomposable into their verbal elements, 2) sayings like proverbs and 3) idioms (these are considered “expressions that violate the rules of syntax established in the language”, “expressions built on wordplay”, and expressions with words that do not exist outside the phraseological unit. The Wulfius classification is built on various logical foundations. The properties that it notes as characteristic only of idioms are found in idioms and in sayings such as proverbs, and vice versa. I. M. Wulfius did not see the importance and value for studying Russian phraseological units of synchronous classification of phraseological units from the point of view of their semantic unity by S. Bally. The genetic classification of phraseological units of the Russian language, which she proposed, was also logically disordered and superficial, built entirely on the basis of the original sphere of their existence. At the same time, her article contains very correct comments related to the problems of constructing phraseological dictionaries and comparative study of phraseological units of different languages.

The article “Stable combinations of words” by S.I. Abakumov seems more interesting and valuable. For the first time, an attempt is made to give a classification of phraseological units of the Russian language from the point of view of their structure and “etymological composition”, and also contains an attempt to describe the most important general properties of idioms (taking into account what was said about them in relation to the French language by S. Bally).

When considering phraseological units from the point of view of their origin in the Russian language, S. I. Abakumov correctly notes the presence of foreign-language and calque facts in the Russian phraseological system. From the point of view of semantic cohesion, S. I. Abakumov divides stable combinations of words into two groups:

1) idioms, which are a phrase that has a meaning that does not follow from the meanings of its constituent elements

2) names consisting of several words.

After the appearance of works on phraseology by V.V. Vinogradov's phraseological units became the subject of close attention and comprehensive study. In the future, phraseological units are also studied from the point of view of their structure, grammatical properties and origin.

Released a large number of works devoted to the study of specific phraseological material, especially many candidate dissertations on the phraseology of a particular writer.

Among the works that appeared before 1960 - for a number of reasons - the works of A.I. should be noted. Efimova, B.A. Larina, O.S. Akhmanova and S.I. Ozhegova.

In the book “On the Language of Artistic Works,” A. I. Efimov was the first to clearly and definitely formulate the goals and objectives of phraseological analysis of a literary text, gave a classification of phraseological material from a stylistic point of view, and outlined a range of issues related to the phraseological innovation of writers and publicists.

In “Essays on Phraseology” by B. A. Larin, it is especially important to pose a number of problems in the diachronic study of the phraseological system of the Russian language, in particular, the absolutely fair promotion of “the establishment of objective patterns of formation and development of non-free phrases” as the most relevant and responsible work of a phraseologist and the call to widespread use in research on phraseology of comparative and comparative-historical methods.

In the book by O. S. Akhmanova “Essays on General and Russian Lexicology”, special attention is drawn to the coverage of the nature of lexical and phraseological variation of the Russian word and a detailed lexical and semantic description of nominal and verbal phraseological models like old truth, wisdom tooth, know when to stop, go down in history.

In the article by S. I. Ozhegov “On the structure of phraseology” an attempt is made to determine on what scientific foundations a phraseological dictionary should be built as a manual, which will reflect “all specific forms of functioning of phraseological units, their stylistic functions, origin, etc.” Also noteworthy in this article is the introduction of the concept of phraseology in the broad and narrow sense and the concept of the reference word of a phraseological unit.

Since the 60s of the twentieth century, the study of the phraseological composition of the Russian language has become especially intensive and multidirectional. In addition to works on individual phraseological problems, various works of a general nature began to appear.

Here, first of all, it is necessary to note the works of V.L. Arkhangelsky (“Stable phrases in the modern Russian language.” Rostov, 1964), S.G. Gavrina (“Studying the phraseology of the Russian language at school.” M., 1963), A.M. Babkina (“Lexicographic development of Russian phraseology”, M.-L., 1964), A.N. Mordvilko (“Essays on Russian phraseology (nominal and verb phrases.” M., 1964), M.T. Tagieva (“Verbal phraseology of the modern Russian language.” Baku, 1966), V.N. Telia (“What is phraseology” . M., 1966) and N.M. Shansky (“Phraseology of the modern Russian language.” M., 1963).

1.2 The concept of phraseology and phraseological units

Phraseology is a branch of linguistics that studies stable combinations in language. Phraseology is also called a set of stable combinations in the language as a whole, in the language of a particular writer, in the language of an individual work of art etc.

Stable non-free phrases (beat the thumbs, count crows, get into trouble, win and so on) are also called phraseological units (PU), phraseological units, phraseological units, phrasemes, stable verbal complexes (SVC), phrase combinations, etc.

Phraseology emerged relatively recently as an independent linguistic discipline. The subject and tasks, scope and methods of studying it are not yet clearly defined and have not received full coverage. Less developed than others are questions about the main features of phraseological units in comparison with free phrases, about the classification of phraseological units and their relationship with parts of speech, etc. Russian scholars have not developed a consensus on what a phraseological unit is; therefore, there is no unity of views on the composition of these units in the language. Some researchers include all stable combinations in phraseology, others only certain groups. Thus, some linguists (including Academician V.V. Vinogradov) do not include proverbs, sayings and catchwords in the categories of phraseological units, believing that they differ in their semantics and syntactic structure (they have a sentence structure and are not semantic equivalents of words) from phraseological units.

One of the most important problems of modern phraseology is the question of whether to include prepositional nominal forms like in years- "elderly" on hand- "profitable" in moderation- “as much as needed”, etc. Some researchers point to their non-phraseological nature, others believe that the absolute majority of prepositional case expressions are stable verbal complexes, expressions of phraseological type. The issue of classifying stable combinations of a terminological nature as phraseological units is considered differently (White mushroom, blue fuel, railway), nomenclature combinations (Supreme Council, World Peace Council), formulas speech etiquette (good afternoon, please, good night) and etc.

Some researchers (A.I. Efimov, S.I. Ozhegov) consider it advisable to distinguish between the concept of phraseology in a narrow and in a broad sense words. In a narrow sense, they include only phraseological fusions, phraseological unities and phraseological combinations as phraseology. In a broad sense - everything set expressions(proverbs, sayings, aphorisms, etc.).

Since phraseological units are in many ways similar to words, phraseology itself is directly adjacent to lexicology. Some scholars even include phraseology as part of lexicology.

The volume of linguistic material, its specificity, and the development of the theory of phraseology give every reason to distinguish phraseology as an independent linguistic discipline.

The main unit of phraseology is a stable combination, a phraseological turn. This is a reproducible linguistic unit, consisting of two or more significant words, holistic in its meaning and stable in structure.

Phraseologism is the basic unit of the modern phraseological system, a complex, multifaceted unit, difficult to distinguish from the total number of words, and even more so phrases, and therefore difficult to define. Different researchers define the concept of phraseology in different ways.

Phraseological unit , phraseological unit, phraseological phrase - a phrase in which semantic monolithicity (integrity of the nomination) prevails over the structural separation of its constituent elements (the selection of features of an object is subordinate to its holistic designation), as a result of which it functions as part of a sentence as the equivalent of a separate word.

A phraseological unit is understood as a stable and reproducible separately formed unit of language, consisting of components, endowed with an integral (or less often partially integral) meaning and combined with other words. A phraseological unit begins where the semantic implementation of its components ends.

A phraseological unit is understood as a relatively stable, reproducible, expressive combination of lexemes, which (usually) has a holistic meaning .

A phraseological phrase is a ready-made unit of two or more stressed components of a verbal nature, fixed (i.e. constant) in its meaning, composition and structure.

The meaning of a phraseological unit will become more obvious if we consider the set of basic distinctive (or differentiating) categorical features that characterize it. To do this, let us compare the phraseological turn with a word, on the one hand, and a phrase, on the other.

In contrast to a word with its constant completeness (in the composition of sounds and morphemes) and single-stress, a phraseological unit is characterized by lexical and accentological separateness.

The lexical meaning of each word is separate. It directly or indirectly names (and also defines) an object, concept, action, etc. The meaning of a phraseological unit consisting of two or more words is single, holistic, generalized, always expressive. It is not free, semantically indivisible, since it is a completely (or partially) unmotivated meaning of the constituent words, which in its composition are no longer called words, but components, the more their complete or partial lexical emptiness and desemantization are emphasized. Some scientists call this meaning lexical, others phraseological, which seems more consistent to us (cf.: lexical meaning, grammatical meaning, etc.). Thus, one of the main, categorically significant features of a phraseological unit is the presence of a special, expressive, holistic phraseological meaning.

There are similarities between a word and a phraseological unit. It lies in the fact that both units are reproduced in finished form; each word and each phraseological unit is characterized by a regular correlation with the same part of speech, and therefore, performs similar syntactic functions.

Of these similar features, only the constancy of categorical (i.e. grammatical) correlation should be called the actual distinctive feature for a phraseological unit. A phraseological unit differs even more from a free phrase, to which genetically it would seem to be much closer than to a word.

The first difference is that a free phrase is modeled anew each time and exists only within the context for which it was created. Phraseologism is always reproduced in finished form, in the same constantly repeated component composition.

The following difference follows from this. Understanding the semantics of a free phrase depends entirely on the meaning of its constituent words, i.e., its meaning is fully motivated. The semantics of a phraseological unit does not depend on the meaning of its constituent components, that is, it is, as a rule, unmotivated.

In addition, in a free phrase you cannot replace or omit a single word so that the meaning of the entire combination does not change. In phraseological units such substitutions and omissions sometimes occur ( look down, look down). However, such changes must be determined by certain stylistic goals of the writer or speaker and compensated by the entire context, i.e. The possibility of using the technique of substitution, omission, and truncation, although relative, exists. And the general meaning of the entire phraseological unit does not change.

The next difference is that in a free phrase each of the words refers to one or another part of speech and their syntactic functions in a sentence are independent (with the exception of syntactically uniform phrases such as prepositions with nouns, numerals with nouns). The syntactic functions of a phraseological unit (as well as its correlation with parts of speech) are determined as a whole; they are the same for all its components.

The similarity between a free phrase and a phraseological unit is only formal - both consist of words, the first - of full meaning, with different types of meanings, the second contains desemantized words, which generally create an expressive, and sometimes metaphorical, figurative meaning. In the second unit, these are no longer actual words, but components.

So, comparison with a word and a free phrase allows us to identify the main features of phraseological units:

1) the presence of a special, holistic phraseological meaning;

2) constancy of reproduction of the same component composition;

3) expressiveness and metaphor in semantics.

The remaining signs are separateness; presence of two or more logical stresses: contextual conditioning of use; the complete (or partial) impossibility of word-by-word translation into other languages, etc., are less significant, although they are also necessary to characterize phraseological units. Consequently, identifying the main, as well as additional, so-called optional distinctive features makes it possible to define a phraseological unit as a semantically indecomposable phrase, which is characterized by the constancy of a special integral meaning, component composition, grammatical categories and expression. This definition We will adhere to this in our work.

1.3 Classification of Russian phraseological units

1.3.1 Classification in terms of syntactic structure

As reproducible linguistic units, phraseological units always act as a structural whole of a composite nature, consisting of words that differ in their morphological properties and are in different syntactic relationships. According to their structure, phraseological units are usually divided into three groups:

1. Pheu-word forms are represented by word forms: not to my liking, doesn’t burn, not one bit;

2. Phrase phrases are structurally no different from free phrases and are units of a nominative nature that act as individual members of a sentence: stuffed pea, Indian summer, palm goose;

1) a noun with an adjective (pronoun, ordinal number): stuffed pea, Indian summer, absolute zero, palmate goose, White spot, second youth, mouse fuss, first steps, eternal city, female gender, etc.;

noun in nominative case with a noun in the genitive case: servant of the people, flowers of life, friend of life, dove of peace, bonds of friendship, torment of the word, etc.;

a noun in the nominative case with a prepositional case form of the noun: a start in life, blood for blood, zero without a stick, knee-deep sea, head on shoulders, knife in the back, step by step;

prepositional case form of a noun with a noun in the genitive case: by the sweat of the brow, to the roots of the hair, worth its weight in gold, in the prime of life, in the order of things, on the topic of the day;

a combination of prepositional-case forms of nouns: from dawn to dusk, right off the bat, from minute to minute, eye to eye, from ship to ball, from head to toe;

prepositional case form of a noun with an adjective: for a long ruble, for a sweet soul, with iron fists, from kind heart, before gray hair, to the gravestone;

verb with a noun: pull the strap, grind into powder, go with the flow, soap your neck, remember well, stare your eyes, wash your bones;

verb with an adjoining adverb: fly like an arrow, see right through, get into trouble, turn inside out;

gerund with a controlled noun: folding your hands, rolling up your sleeves, reluctantly, placing your hand on your heart;

constructions with pronouns: for no reason, neither this nor her, everything and everyone, yours (ours, yours) took;

constructions with coordinating and subordinating conjunctions: both in the tail and in the mane, to judge and to dress, if only yes, no matter what, then it’s thick, it’s empty, like a bitter radish, cheap and cheerful, even if you don’t care, even if you run away, even shout guard, even roll a ball, even howl like a wolf, etc.;

12) constructions with negation: not a sip of salt, not from this world, not in the tooth with a foot, not in one eye, not by night, be it said, not in the teeth.

3. Phrase sentences are used independently or as part of another sentence : the ground disappears from under your feet, your soul sinks into your heels, your mouth is full of troubles, the trail is gone .

Phraseologisms-sentences are structurally organized according to the model of a particular sentence, usually two-part, can have a communicative meaning, are used independently or as part of another sentence: the soul sinks into the heels, the ears wither, the evil takes, the hands do not reach, the legs are tangled, the tongue is tangled, the soil disappears from under your feet, your mouth is full of troubles, the cat is crying, the chickens are not pecking, you ate the dog, it’s just a stone’s throw away, the trace has disappeared, etc.

Among the phraseological sentences, the following stand out:

a) Phraseological unities going back to a simple sentence:

Two-part (the reins are under the tail, the grandmother said in two)

One-piece (keep your pocket wider, I have the honor<кланяться>)

b) Phraseological unities, genetically representing parts complex sentences different types(what the soul holds on to, where the eyes look, as much as possible, as if nothing had happened).

Thus, according to the structure, phraseological units are divided into three groups: PU-word forms (not to my liking, doesn’t burn, not one iota), PU-word combinations (nominative phraseological units) (stuffed pea, Indian summer, palm-footed goose), PU-sentences (communicative phraseological units) (the ground is disappearing from under the feet, the soul is sinking into the heels, the mouth is full of troubles, the trail is gone).

1.3.2 Classification from a stylistic point of view

Being part of the vocabulary, phraseological units form several stylistic layers.

From a stylistic point of view (that is, depending on their predominant use in a particular sphere of public people), inter-style, bookish, colloquial and colloquial phraseological units are distinguished.

Interstyle phraseological units

Interstyle phraseological units are used in all styles of the modern Russian literary language. Inter-style ones include: in the end, New Year, cousin. Interstyle phraseology makes up a smaller part of phraseology, since most phraseological units are formed and function either in a conversational style or in a bookish style. Performing a purely nominative function, they do not express the speaker’s attitude to the designation of objects and their characteristics. These phraseological units can be called neutral both from a stylistic and emotional point of view.

Book phraseological units

Book phraseological units are used in the style fiction in journalism, scientific and formal business styles, for example: Baalam’s donkey, caliph for an hour, book with seven seals and others. Officially, business and terminological phraseological units are usually neutral from an emotional point of view. But in fiction and journalism, many bookish phraseological units are used that have different emotional connotations. A significant part of book phraseological units is characterized by solemnity and rhetoric; For example: on the battlefield, holiest of holies, mind, honor and conscience of our era. Among book phraseological phrases, ironic and humorous ones stand out, for example: comrade in misfortune, cry into a vest, calf's delight.

Conversational phraseological units

Conversational phraseological units; These include most of the phraseological units, unities and proverbs that were formed in living folk speech. These phraseological units have a pronounced expressiveness, which is facilitated by their metaphorical nature, for example : playing tricks, with the world on a thread - naked shirt, muddying the waters, at the end of the world. Among colloquial phraseological phrases, one can distinguish a group of tautological, outdated phrases, the expressiveness of which is expressed by the repetition of words that have the same root, for example: the darkness is dark, fool by fool, rank by rank. A very bright emotional and expressive coloring of playfulness is contained in phraseological phrases of a punning nature, for example: without a year a week, from vest sleeves, without hind legs.

Colloquial phraseological units

Colloquial phraseological phrases have a more reduced stylistic character than colloquial ones, for example: show Kuzkin's mother, swear, kick the goat, stupid head.

This group of phraseological units is characterized by pronounced emotionality; more often they have a negative connotation of disapproval, for example: petty bipod, poke your nose, scratch your tongue; disdain, for example : office rat, nettle seed, nut is weak; obscenities, for example: booby of the king of heaven, old pepper shaker.

Thus, from a stylistic point of view (that is, depending on their predominant use in one or another sphere of public people), phraseological units are divided into interstyle, bookish, colloquial and vernacular phraseological units.

phraseology structure organ speech

1.3.3 Phraseological phrases from the point of view of semantic unity of components

Linguists have studied various aspects of phraseology, but until today there is no consensus on the issue of the scope of phraseology, there is no unified classification of phraseological units of the Russian language from the point of view of their semantic unity. For the first time, the classification of phraseological units from the point of view of their semantic unity in the French language was presented by C. Bally. S.I. Abakumov in 1936 made an attempt to classify phraseological units from the point of view of their structure, semantic unity and “etymological composition”. V.V. Vinogradov was the first to provide a synchronous classification of phraseological units of the Russian language from the point of view of their semantic unity. V.V. Vinogradov identified three main types of phraseological units, which were called “phraseologism of fusion”, “phraseologism of unity”, “phraseologism of combination”.

Phraseological adhesions. Phraseological adhesions are absolutely indivisible, indecomposable stable combinations, the general meaning of which is completely independent of the meaning of the words that make them up: to beat the thumbs, to sharpen the laces (balusters), to eat a dog, to kill a worm, to speak one's teeth, to get into trouble, in the middle of nowhere, a mosquito will not undermine your nose, topsy-turvy, etc.

Phraseological conjunctions arose on the basis of figurative meanings of their components, but subsequently these figurative meanings became incomprehensible from the point of view modern language. The imagery of phraseological fusions is revealed only historically. For example, the meaning of the phraseological unit mosquito will not undermine your nose - “you can’t find fault, because it’s done very well” - does not follow from the meanings of the words mosquito and undermine. But if we remember that in the Old Russian language the word to sharpen meant “to palm off,” then we will understand the figurative meaning of the entire expression. We see something similar in the phraseological units goal like a falcon (falcon - “a smoothly planed pole, ram”), on the topic of the day (anger - the old meaning of “care”,) “to get into trouble (prosak - “a device for twisting ropes”), etc. .

Thus, in phraseological fusions the connection between direct and figurative meanings has been lost; the figurative has become the main one for them. That is why phraseological fusions cannot be translated into other languages. Untranslatability is one of the signs of phraseological adjuncts.

Phraseological fusions have a number of characteristic features:

1) they may include so-called necrotisms - words that are not used anywhere except for this fusion, and as a result are incomprehensible from the point of view of modern language (upside down, not visible in sight, to create antimonies, to set strekacha, to create shuras - moors, in the middle of nowhere, sharpening lasses, launching tours on wheels, etc.);

the composition of the adhesions may include archaic grammatical forms (dark water in the clouds - “in the clouds”, without knowing one’s own - “they didn’t recognize”, a proverb - “among the nations”, without hesitation - “in nothing doubting");

they are syntactically indecomposable (no matter where, it’s a joke, how much in vain, headlong, headlong, on your mind, as if nothing had happened);

in most cases, it is impossible to rearrange the components;

they are characterized by impenetrability - they do not allow additional words into their composition.

Losing their independent lexical meaning, words included in the structure of a phraseological fusion turn into components of a complex lexical unit, which approaches the meaning of a separate word. Therefore, most phraseological combinations are synonymous with the words: chickens do not peck - a lot, at first light - early, headlong - quickly, carelessly - lazily and under. .

Phraseological unities. Phraseological unities are such stable combinations of words in which, despite the presence of a common figurative meaning, the signs of semantic separation of components are clearly preserved: keeping a stone in your bosom, washing dirty linen in public, seven Fridays in a week, a shot sparrow, hanging by a thread, swimming shallowly, blood with milk, dance to someone else's tune, stab to death without a knife, scratch with your tongue, expose a leg, go with the flow, beat with a spring, take into your own hands, search during the day with fire, put under a cloth, etc.

Phraseological unities are somewhat closer to phraseological fusions in their imagery and metaphor. But unlike phraseological fusions, where figurative content is revealed only historically, in phraseological unities, figurativeness and portability are realized from the point of view of modern language. No wonder Academician V.V. Vinogradov considers imagery characteristic feature only phraseological unities.

The connection between the components of phraseological unity is motivated, metaphorization is clearly felt. To understand phraseological unity, it is necessary to perceive its components in a figurative meaning. For example, the meaning of the expression to make a mountain out of a molehill, i.e. “to greatly exaggerate something,” is revealed only if the word fly is considered to mean “something insignificant, small,” and the word elephant is “something it's very big." There are no words in the phraseological units that are not understandable from the point of view of modern language.

Characteristic features of phraseological units:

vivid imagery and the resulting possibility of coinciding with parallel existing free phrases (cf.: lather your head, go with the flow, sit on your neck, scratch your tongue, etc.);

preservation of the semantics of individual components;

impossibility of replacing some components with others, greater possibility of rearranging components; emotional-expressive coloring, which plays a decisive role here in the formal consolidation of a free phrase in the function of a stable one (cf. there’s nothing to say! Just hold on!),

the ability to enter into synonymous relationships with individual words or other phraseological units.

Phraseological combinations. Phraseological combinations are stable phrases that include words with both free and phraseologically related meanings: black horse, sensitive question, bosom friend, sudden death, bitter frost, archenemy, stunning view, eyesore, loose concept, cry my eyes out, etc.

A component with a non-free value is called permanent part, or the core word of a phraseological unit, a component with a free meaning - a variable part. For example, in combination, look down the first component -- permanent part, the second is a variable (cf. eyes, gaze, look, etc.).

Phraseological combinations are distinguished that contain a word form with a single combinability: indelible - only an impression, sworn - only an enemy, etc.

Unlike phraseological adhesions and phraseological unities, which have a holistic, indecomposable meaning, phraseological combinations are characterized by semantic decomposability. In this respect, they come close to free phrases.

Characteristic features of phraseological combinations: they allow variation of one of the components (pitch hell, pitch darkness);

synonymous replacement of the core word is possible (stain with blood, stain with blood);

it is possible to include definitions (black eyebrows furrowed, guilty eyes downcast);

rearrangement of components is permissible (search during the day with fire - search during the day with fire),

free use of one of the components and associated use of the other is mandatory.

Phraseological expressions. The promotion of reproducibility as the main feature of phraseological units allowed Professor N.M. Shansky to further develop the classification of Academician V.V. Vinogradov and identify the fourth type of phraseological units - the so-called phraseological expressions.

Phraseological expressions include phraseological units that are stable in their composition and use, which consist entirely of words with a free nominative meaning and are semantically divisible. Their only feature is reproducibility: they are used as ready-made speech units with a constant lexical composition and certain semantics.

Depending on the structure, phraseological expressions are divided into two types: phraseological expressions of a communicative and nominative nature. The first are predicative combinations, which are sentences and perform the function of communication (Long live the sun! Let the darkness hide! A.S. Pushkin). The second are phrases that perform a nominative function (higher educational institution, instigators of war). Phraseological expressions include numerous Russian proverbs and sayings, which are used in their literal meaning and do not have a figurative allegorical meaning: live forever, learn forever; finished the job - walk boldly, etc. This should also include stable terms consisting of two or more words, motivated in their meanings: comparative linguistics, atomic energy, animate noun, etc.

Thus, modern classification phraseological units from the point of view of semantic unity of components includes four types of phraseological units: phraseological fusions, phraseological unities, phraseological combinations, phraseological expressions.

1.4 Morphological and syntactic propertiesphraseological units

The following types of phraseological units are distinguished in the language:

adjective (Latin adjectiv - "adjective"): skin and bones - "thin", dishonest in hand - "dishonest", wouldn't hurt a fly - "harmless", ate little porridge - "weak", for oneself mind - “cunning”, blood and milk - “healthy”, not a bastard, has seen the sights, there are not enough stars from the sky, for one last, for one face, without a king in the head, clean water, born in a shirt, what not at all;

interjections: that's it! honest mother! that's cranberry! Here you go! know ours! no matter how it is! Tell me please! that's it! here's one for you!

The lexico-grammatical meaning of the dominant member of the phrase does not always coincide with the general grammatical meaning of the phraseological unit. For example, “vidal species” has the characteristics of an adjective, a broken hour or, to put it bluntly, an adverb, zero attention appears only as a predicative member.

CHAPTER 2.STRUCTURE OF RUSSIAN PHRASEOLOGICAL PURPOSES WITH COMPONENTS “SPEECH ORGANS”

2.1 Structure of Russian phraseological units with the “language” component

Russian phraseological units with the “language” component according to the structure of phraseological units are divided into three groups:

1. Pheu-word forms with the “language” component are represented by word forms: without tongue. This phraseological unit has the meaning “Someone has lost the ability to speak, pronounce words, is mute.”

2. Phrase phrases with the “language” component are structurally no different from free phrases and are units of a nominative nature that act as individual members of a sentence.

Phraseologisms-word combinations, like words, are units of a nominative nature and act as individual members of a sentence. Structurally, they are no different from free phrases and represent the following structural models:

1) a noun with an adjective (pronoun, ordinal number): evil tongue (1. Someone is sarcastic in conversation, often makes fun of someone or something. 2. Manner, the ability to speak sharply, harshly, mockingly, judge about someone or something) paper tongue(“bureaucratic style of old office official papers”), mother-in-law’s language, Aesopian language (“indirect, mysterious language, the ability to speak in roundabout words, in parables, the speech of people who fought against the authorities, revolutionaries of all countries and times”;

2) a noun in the nominative case with a noun in the genitive case: confusion of languages (“turmoil”, “a motley crowd where you can’t understand anything”);

3) a noun in the nominative case with a prepositional case form of the noun: a tongue without bones (“about a talkative person - is part of the proverb “A tongue without bones - whip whatever you want””), a tongue like a broom;

4) prepositional-case form of a noun with an adjective: tongue-in-cheek (“Eloquent, talkative”), tongue-in-cheek (“Talkative, talkative”).

5) verb with a noun: bite your tongue (“shut up, realizing the inappropriateness of your words”), beat your tongue (with your tongue) (“In vain, talk about something in vain, chatter”), wag your tongue (“1. Talk too much; talk nonsense). 2. Talk idle"), take (take) on the tongue ("Taste something"), flutter the tongue ("1. talk a lot, especially in vain or stupidly", 2. the same as blab; reveal some secret, secret"), swallow the tongue (“Shut up, stop talking (about someone’s reluctance to talk)”), scratch the tongue (tongue) (“To talk idle talk, engage in empty chatter”), loosen the tongue (“to force one to break the silence, to speak freely after a long silence"), on the tip of the tongue (“about the desire to say something”).

3. Phrase sentences with the “language” component are used independently or as part of another sentence.

Phraseologisms-sentences are structurally organized according to the model of a particular sentence, usually two-part, can have a communicative meaning, are used independently or as part of another sentence: the language is braided (“About someone who cannot say something clearly, articulately”), the language is well (poorly) suspended (“Someone (does not) know how to speak freely, smoothly”), someone’s tongue has been taken away (“about the inability to speak”), keep one’s tongue shut (“Be careful, fearing undesirable consequences, remain silent, do not say too much "), a peck on your tongue (“an ironic wish to someone who expressed an unkind thought, predicted something unpleasant”), like a cow licked its tongue (“Someone (something) disappeared without a trace in an instant, as if it never happened "), the language was loosened ("someone got talking, began to talk a lot (after silence)"), find a common language ("Achieve mutual understanding").

Thus, according to the structure, phraseological units with the “language” component are divided into three groups: PU word forms (without language), PU phrases (nominative phraseological units) (tongue without bones, tongue like a broom, strike the tongue, bite the tongue, beat the tongue ( language), etc.), PU-sentences (communicative phraseological units) (peck on your tongue, like a cow licked its tongue, tongue loosened, etc.).

2.2 Structure of Russian phraseological units with the “teeth” component

Russian phraseological units with the component “teeth” are divided into two groups according to the structure of phraseological units:

1. Phrase phrases with the component “teeth” are structurally no different from a free phrase and are units of a nominative nature that act as individual members of a sentence.

1. verb with a noun: to talk teeth (“to flatter someone with verbose evidence, to force someone to agree with undoubted nonsense”), to have a tooth (“to harbor a grudge against him, annoyance, as if some kind of unquenched thirst for revenge, a desire to settle scores”), look in the teeth (“Be flexible, submissive”), impose in the teeth, forcefully in the teeth (“very tired”), sharpen a tooth (“get angry, prepare for revenge”), give in the teeth (“hit”), show teeth ( “threaten”), scratching teeth (“the same as wagging your tongue”).

2. gerund with a controlled noun: armed to the teeth (“perfectly armed, in every possible way, by all means”).

3. constructions with coordinating and subordinating conjunctions: through teeth (“1) opening the mouth very little. 2) transfer haughtily, as if reluctantly, indistinctly, out of contempt for the listener").

4. constructions with negation: too tough (“1) difficult to chew. 2) transfer beyond one’s abilities, beyond one’s strength, beyond understanding”), neither in the tooth, nor in the tooth with one’s foot (“about someone who knows nothing, who cannot tell anything, who cannot answer any question”).

4. Phrase sentences with the component “teeth” are used independently or as part of another sentence.

Phraseologisms-sentences are structurally organized according to the model of a particular sentence, usually two-part, can have a communicative meaning, are used independently or as part of another sentence: put your teeth on the shelf (“due to lack of material resources, go to a half-starved existence”), an eye for an eye , a tooth for a tooth (“get what you deserve”, “whatever comes back, so it will respond”), a tooth doesn’t hit us (“about trembling from severe frost, cold”).

Thus, according to the structure, phraseological units with the “language” component are divided into two groups: PU-phrases (nominative phraseological units) (armed to the teeth, through the teeth, beyond the teeth, neither in the tooth, nor in the tooth with a foot, etc.), PU-sentences (communicative phraseological units) (put your teeth on a shelf, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a tooth doesn’t fall for us, etc.).

2.3 Structure of Russian phraseological units with the “throat” component

Russian phraseological units with the “throat” component according to the structure of phraseological units are divided into three groups:

1. Pheu-word forms with the component “throat” are represented by word forms: by the throat (“to force something, to put in a hopeless situation”), from the throat.

2. Phrase phrases with the component “throat” are structurally no different from free phrases and are units of a nominative nature that act as individual members of a sentence.

1. noun with an adjective (pronoun, ordinal number): insatiable throat (“about a gluttonous person”).

2. a noun in the nominative case with a prepositional case form of the noun: a lump in the throat (“spasm in the throat (from excitement).”

3. prepositional-case form of a noun with an adjective: fed up (“fed up (in the sense not of food, but of something unpleasant”), with a knife to the throat (stick) (colloquial) - extremely persistently, relentlessly.

4. verb with a noun: get stuck in the throat (“words remained unspoken, unsaid (from embarrassment, fear, due to reluctance, etc.”), dry throat, take someone by the throat (“force someone to do something” , put in a hopeless situation"), wet the throat ("drink a little"), sore throat, scratch the throat ("bawl, scream loudly"), approach the throat, roll up to the throat.

5. constructions with coordinating and subordinating conjunctions: across the throat (become) someone (“about something that interferes, annoys, bothers”).

3. Phrase sentences with the “throat” component are used independently or as part of another sentence.

Thus, according to their structure, phraseological units with the “throat” component are divided into three groups: PU-word forms (by the throat, from the throat), Phraseological phrases (nominative phraseological units ) ( lump in the throat, with a knife to the throat, fed up, stuck in the throat, etc.), PU-sentences (communicative phraseological units) (put knife to throat).

...

The main problems of modern phraseology. Morphological analysis of “properties of phraseological units” Morphological properties of phraseological units

More on the topic § 35. Morphological properties of phraseological units:

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Who painted the picture Bezhin Meadow

Characteristics of the hero Lisa, Poor Lisa, Karamzin

Repression like a general

Categories

Latest articles

Analysis of “The Station Warden” by Pushkin When was the work The Station Warden written?

The meaning of the word cooperation Cooperation means

The Lion King The Lion King Musical Broadway

What color is your name?

Hydroacoustic Doppler logs current speed meters

Fleet patrol ships - classification and purpose See what "Passault ship" is in other dictionaries

History of samurai in Japan Samurai school in Japan

History of samurai in Japan Types of Japanese warriors

Thrush eggs, chicks and nests

Advertising

The main problems of modern phraseology. Morphological analysis of “properties of phraseological units” Morphological properties of phraseological units

More on the topic § 35. Morphological properties of phraseological units:

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

You might be interested:

Categories

Latest articles

Advertising