Phraseology is a branch of the science of language that studies stable combinations of words. Phraseologism is a stable combination of words, or a stable expression. Used to name objects, signs, actions. It is an expression that arose once, became popular and entrenched in the speech of people. The expression is endowed with figurativeness, it can have a figurative meaning. Over time, the expression may take on a daily basis broad sense, partially including the original value or completely excluding it.

Lexical meaning has a phraseological unit in general. The words included in the phraseological unit separately do not convey the meaning of the entire expression. Phraseologisms can be synonymous (at the end of the world, where the raven did not bring bones) and antonymous (lift up to heaven - trample into the dirt). Phraseologism in a sentence is one member of the sentence. Phraseologisms reflect a person and his activities: work (golden hands, fool around), social relations (bosom friend, put sticks in wheels), personal qualities (turn up your nose, sour mine), etc. Phraseologisms make the statement expressive, create imagery. Set expressions used in works of art, in journalism, in everyday speech. Set expressions are otherwise called idioms. Many idioms in other languages ​​- English, Japanese, Chinese, French.

To clearly see the use of phraseological units, refer to their list on the page below or.

Semantic fusion

Types of phraseological units according to the motivation of the meaning and

The criterion for selecting types of indecomposable combinations is, first of all, the degree of fusion of individual words in them. The stability and indecomposability of the elements of phraseological turnover is considered, as a rule, from two points of view. Firstly, from the point of view of their semantic cohesion and, secondly, from the point of view of the possibility of morphological changes in the words that make up this turnover.

At the same time, the fusion of turns in meaning is also reflected in their grammatical properties. Thus, the more clearly the semantic indecomposability of a phrase as a whole is expressed, the weaker the grammatical connections become, and sometimes they are completely lost (cf. uneven hour, joke to say, headlong and mislead- to mislead, rub glasses- rub glasses- vter glasses etc.).

According to the degree of lexical indivisibility and grammatical fusion of constituent parts, many researchers, following Acad. V.V. Vinogradov allocate the following types phraseological units: phraseological unions, phraseological units, phraseological combinations.

AT special group it is necessary to single out some quotations, proverbs, sayings and a number of terminological phrases that acquire certain features of phraseological units proper, for example, reproducibility in the same composition and emerging metaphor. Such turns are called phraseologized, they gradually move into one or another group of phraseological units proper. (Note that N.M. Shansky calls them phraseological expressions and includes them in the general composition of phraseology).

Phraseological unions such lexically indivisible phrases are called, the meaning of which is not determined by the meaning of the individual words included in them.

For example, the meaning of turns beat the buckets- "to mess around" from the bay- "thoughtlessly" sodom and gomorrah- turmoil, noise slipshod- "carelessly" how to drink- “certainly” and others are not motivated by the meaning of the constituent components, since, firstly, in the lexical system modern language there are no self-existing words that are complete in meaning buckets, bays, flounders, sodom, gomorrah; second, the meaning of the words beat, lower (later), sleeves, give, drink turns out to be lexically weakened in the conditions of this phrase, even devastated (cf .: the main meanings beat- "strike" lower- "move from top to bottom", sleeves- "a piece of clothing covering the hand"; to give- "give" drink- absorb liquid.

Thus, the main feature of phraseological fusion is its lexical indivisibility, absolute semantic cohesion, in which the meaning of a whole phrase cannot be deduced from the meaning of its constituent words.

Semantically, fusion in most cases turns out to be the equivalent of a word (“a kind of syntactically compound word,” in the terminology of Academician V.V. Vinogradov). For example: inside out- "vice versa", hand on heart- frankly, candidly out of hand- "poorly", coward(or coward) celebrate- “to be afraid, to be afraid”, etc.

The grammatical forms of the words that make up the phraseological fusion can sometimes change. For example, in sentences Prokhor also invited Protasov: he was universally educated and ate a dog in mining. Or: - As for fabrics, I am not an expert in them, ask Queen Mary about them. The women ate the dog on that- the relationship between the word is preserved ate and subject of action: he ate, they ate etc. However, such a change in grammatical forms does not affect the general meaning of the fusion.

In some fusions, the grammatical forms of words and grammatical connections also cannot be explained, motivated from the point of view of the modern Russian language, i.e. they are perceived as a kind of grammatical archaisms. For example: from young to old, on bare feet, in broad daylight, so-so, no matter what, on your mind, to say a joke, to be amazed etc. Outdated grammatical forms of words (and sometimes the word as a whole) and unmotivated syntactic connections only support the lexical indivisibility of the phrase, its semantic unity.

Syntactically, phraseological fusions act as a single member of the sentence. For example, in a sentence: He reproached me all the way for the fact that we ... do nothing, we work carelessly - the highlighted phraseological fusion performs the function of the circumstance of the mode of action. In the offer: His speech puts you in a dead end- fusion is a predicate.

Glossary of terms

Plan

Intercultural communication

Russian phraseology and problems

Lecture 8

1. Types of phraseological units.

1.1. Phraseological unions .

1.2. phraseological unity.

1.3. phraseological combinations.

1.4. Syntactic phraseological units.

2. Phraseology and the national image of the world.

3. Precedent statements.

An aphorism is a phrase that is known to everyone and, therefore, is not created anew in speech, but is retrieved from memory.

A motto is a short saying, usually expressing the guiding idea of ​​a behavior or activity. (Our motto is forward!).

Idiomatic - inherent only in this language, peculiar.

Canonical - taken as a model, firmly established.

Cliche is a common speech turnover, a stamp.

A slogan is an appeal that succinctly expresses a political idea, a demand (for example, the slogan of the era of socialism: The Party is the mind, honor and conscience of our era).

Paremia is a language cliché (phraseologism, proverb, saying, precedent statement).

Appeal - an appeal that succinctly expresses the guiding idea, political demand, slogan ( All up for the election!.

A prototype situation is a situation corresponding to the literal meaning of a phraseological unit.

A syntactic phraseological unit is a non-standard, specific construction, the structural properties and semantics of which go beyond regular syntactic links and patterns (for example: Wouldn't it be nice to come in the summer!); auxiliary and pronominal words, particles and interjections do not function according to the current syntactic rules. Unlike lexical phraseology, syntactic phraseology is not reproduced, but is built.

Phraseologism is a phrase, the general meaning of which is not derived from the independent meanings of each word included in it ( roll down an inclined plane‘go down morally’). The main features of phraseology are stability and reproducibility.

The standard is an example.

This lecture is devoted to the problems of paremia, i.e. the features of the semantics and functioning of language clichés different types and taking these features into account when teaching ICC. We call a cliché any ready-made speech form, the criterion for distinguishing which is the regularity of its appearance in certain repetitive speech situations [Dridze, 1972, p. 43]. Let's focus on phraseological units - units that are especially relevant when teaching ICC.

1. The concept of phraseology

In Russian, as in a number of other languages, words are combined with each other, forming phrases. Some of them are free, others are not free. Free combinations of words are constantly formed in the course of speech: the speaker selects the words that are necessary in meaning based on knowledge of their meaning and grammatically builds combinations of them in accordance with the intent and structure of the statement: drink tea, write with a pen, participate in a performance, organize a conference etc.

Each word in such free combinations of words retains its independent meaning and performs a certain syntactic function. Such combinations are created in the process of speech to achieve a communicative goal (to inform, ask, etc.) in accordance with personal perception, impression in a certain situation. Such combinations are not stored in memory: circumstances will change - new free combinations will arise.

There are also related combinations in the language, for example, cross someone's path‘to interfere with achieving one’s own’: I know why he behaves this way. Once I ran across his path - I won the competition for the position for which he applied. Independent meaning of component words in a phrase cross the road weakened, since the nominative properties of words have disappeared, in connection with this, the meaning of the entire turnover is no longer associated with the semantics of each word separately. Lexically, such a combination is indivisible and is reproduced in speech as a ready-made speech unit. Syntactically, the role of the phrase as a whole, and not of each word separately, is considered. Such semantically indivisible phrases, which are characterized by the constancy of a holistic meaning, are called phraseological units of the language (or phraseological units, phraseological phrases).

The main semantic feature of a phraseological unit is semantic fusion, cohesion, the essence of which is essentially that the general meaning of a phraseological unit is not derived from the independent meanings of each word included in it (cf., for example, phraseological units small fry- about insignificant from the point of view social position man, shot sparrow- about an experienced, experienced person, fool someone's head- not allowing you to focus on the main thing, the main thing, to confuse, fool anyone).

The meaning of phraseologism is specific. First of all, the meaning of a phraseological unit (PU) is always richer than the meaning of a synonymous word (or words). It is never equivalent to the volume of the meaning of the word-synonym. So, beat the buckets- ϶ᴛᴏ not just ‘to mess around’, but to engage in trifles; put a spoke in wheel- not only ‘interfere or hinder’, but do it at a time when someone is doing some business, as if in its course; take the rubbish out of the house- ϶ᴛᴏ when gossiping or divulging other people's secrets is the one to whom they are confidentially told. And this means that the meaning of phraseological units is always more detailed than the meaning of words.

Secondly, the meaning of most phraseological units is situational. This feature of phraseological units requires not only knowledge of their meaning, but also those situations in which they can be used. Yes, in FE turn up one's nose, in addition to the meaning of ‘to put on airs’, contains information that the speaker and the one about whom in question, were on an equal footing, and at present the latter boasts of his higher social or material position.

The next feature of phraseological units is the evaluative nature of the meaning. Most phraseological units, thanks to the image that underlies them, not only denote some fragment of reality, but also express a positive or negative opinion of the speaker about what is being indicated. At the same time, the speaker evaluates whether it is good or bad, good or evil, useful or harmful. For example, phraseology turn up one's nose, along with the above content, expresses the negative opinion of the person using this phraseological unit: self-importance is a bad human trait.

Images, on the basis of which phraseological units are formed, can in themselves give an assessment to the signified. So, to put sticks in someone's wheels - bad, but give a green street - OK.

Most phraseological units, in addition to the speaker's evaluative attitude, also express an emotional attitude. It is also suggested by the image. When they say: We are forced to work to the point of exhaustion, they describe and evaluate only the indicated situation. But if they say: All juices are squeezed out of us, then they also count on the sympathy and empathy of the listener, since in the meaning of the phraseological unit there is also conscience - emotional disapproval of what is indicated (cf.
Hosted on ref.rf
in a statement You lead me by the nose the speaker expresses to the interlocutor an accusation of a dismissive attitude towards him).

From the above examples, it can be seen that phraseological units are a kind of microtexts, in which, in addition to the figurative description of the actually designated fragment of reality, there are also connotations (connotations) that express the speaker's evaluative or emotional attitude to the designated. The addition of these meanings creates the effect of expressiveness, or expressiveness of phraseological units.

Phraseologism has a number of essential features:

1) stability,

2) reproducibility,

3) value integrity,

4) separate design.

Stability (permanence, stability) and reproducibility - ϶ᴛᴏ regular repetition of phraseological units in finished form. PhUs are reproduced, and not constructed in speech each time anew based on the communicative situation.

The integrity of the meaning of a phraseological unit is connected with the fact that the meaning of a phraseological unit is difficult or impossible to derive from the meaning of its constituent parts. The integrity of the meaning of a phraseological unit is achieved by complete or partial rethinking of the components. As a result, they tend to diverge in meaning from the corresponding words of free use. So, for example, it is impossible phraseologism break into a cake‘try, exhausted, to do everything possible’ interpret by interpreting the meanings of words break up, cake(cf.
Hosted on ref.rf
count a crow, keep a stone in your bosom, seven spans in your forehead, two steps away).

Separately designed structure is an important feature that characterizes appearance FE (plan of expression). All phraseological units have a separate structure, i.e. they are designed according to the model various combinations words.

Following V. V. Vinogradov, on the basis of the criterion of syntactic and semantic indecomposability of a phrase, freedom / lack of freedom of the words included in it, it is customary to distinguish several types of phraseological units - phraseological fusions, phraseological units and phraseological combinations.

1.1.F razeological adhesions

Phraseological fusions are such lexically indivisible phrases, the meanings of which are not determined by the meaning of the individual words included in them (for example, beat the buckets'sit back', from the bay‘thoughtlessly’ Sodom and Gomorrah‘turmoil, noise’ slipshod‘carelessly’ how to drink‘definitely’. The meaning of these turns is not motivated by the value of the constituent elements. The main feature of phraseological fusions is its indivisibility, absolute semantic solidarity, in which the meaning of the whole turnover should not be derived from the meaning of its constituent words. (cf.
Hosted on ref.rf
also topsy-turvy, in all honesty, out of the blue, from young to old, without hesitation, in broad daylight, on your mind, to tell a joke, to be amazed).

1.2. F razeological unities

Phraseological units are such lexical turns, the general meaning of which is to some extent motivated by the figurative meaning of the words that make up this turn. For example, the general meaning of such unities as splurge, go with the flow, keep a stone in your bosom, go into your shell, suck out of your finger, blood with milk and etc.
Hosted on ref.rf
depends on the value individual elements, which make up the figurative ʼʼrodʼʼ of the entire turnover. Unlike fusions, the imagery of which is extinct, already unmotivated and completely independent of the meaning of the constituent elements, phraseological units ʼʼhave the property of potential imageryʼʼ [Vinogradov, 1972, p. 26]. This allows some scholars to call turns of this type metaphorical combinations. Unlike fusions, parts of phraseological units are separated from each other by inserting some words: pour water on (your, mine, yours) mill;

Phraseological combinations - such stable turns, the general meaning of which depends entirely on the meaning of the constituent words. Words in the composition phraseological combination retain relative semantic independence, however, they are not free and show their meaning only in combination with a certain, closed circle of words, for example: the word tearfully only goes with words ask, beg. Consequently, one of the members of the phraseological combination is more stable and even constant, the other is variable. The meaning of constant words (components) is phraseologically related. For example: in combination burn with shame and longing takes will be permanent burn down and beret, since it is these words that will turn out to be the main (core) elements in other phraseological combinations: burn down - from shame, from shame, from shame; burn down- from love; burn down- from impatience, envy; beret- annoyance, anger; takes - fear, horror; beret- laugh. The use of other components is not possible (cf.: *burn with joy, *takes a smile). The meanings of such words are phraseologically related in the data system of revolutions, that is, they are realized only with a certain range of words. Despite the phraseological isolation of revolutions of this type, even lexically non-free components are (without prejudice to the general phraseological meaning) replaced by a synonym (cf .: bow your head - lower your head; sit in a puddle - sit in a galosh; furrow one's eyebrows - furrow one's eyebrows). This creates conditions for the emergence of phraseological units, and often synonyms [Vinogradov, 1977]. Phraseological units have idiomatic semantics, reproducibility, syntactic articulation, which does not prevent them from performing functions in a phrase similar to the functions of individual word forms; in their nominative nature, phraseological units are almost equal to a word [Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 1990, p. 81–82].

2. Syntactic phraseological units

Today it is also customary to single out a special group of phraseological units, which are called syntactic phraseological units. These are such ʼʼnon-standard, specific constructions, the structural properties and semantics of which go beyond the framework of regular syntactic links and patterns. For example: Wouldn't it be nice to come in the summer!; What a rest there!; So that when he is late!ʼʼ[Velichko, 1996, p. 5]. ʼʼRussian Grammarʼʼ calls syntactic phraseological units ʼʼsuch constructions in which connections and relations of components from the point of view of living grammatical rules turn out to be inexplicableʼʼ [Russian Grammar, 1980, p. 217]. Syntactic phraseological units in Russian grammar include sentences in which ʼʼword forms are connected with each other idiomaticallyʼʼ and where ʼʼfunctional and pronominal words, particles and interjectionsʼʼ function not according to the current syntactic rules [Ibid., p. 383]. A syntactic phraseological unit differs from a lexical one in that it ʼʼ is not reproduced, but is builtʼʼ [Velichko, 1996, p. ten]. Syntactic and lexical phraseological units differ, as a rule, in stylistic and emotional expressiveness.

Syntactic phraseological units, unlike lexical ones, are not among the nominative means of the language, they play a somewhat smaller role in the storage and transmission of cultural information, but consideration of these units in the sociocultural aspect allows us to identify characteristics reflections in the language of the specifics of national perception and categorization of the surrounding reality. A.V. Velichko rightly points out: ʼʼWhen considering syntactic phraseological units (SF) in the sociocultural aspect, their dual nature can be traced. On the one hand, SF reflect in their semantics the properties of the human personality, a person outside of his national identity. (...) On the other hand, the SF are specific Russian constructions, as they reflect the peculiarities of the Russian national mentality͵ the nature of awareness real world just a Russian person. (...) This explains, for example, the extreme detail of the assessment presented by large quantity evaluative syntactic phraseological units (These are flowers! Roses are flowers / Flowers for all flowers! Why not flowers! Flowers for me too!) ʼʼ[Cit. Quoted from: Gudkov, p. 82, p. 108].

3. Phraseology and the national image of the world

Since the peculiarity of a phraseological unit is the irreducibility of its meaning to the sum of the meanings of its constituent units, it is obvious that phraseological units present special difficulties for foreigners studying the Russian language. So, for example, in Korean there is a phraseological expression eat kuksu. Even knowing what kuksu, you can not guess that we are talking about a wedding. The fact is that the etymology of this expression is associated with the ancient Korean wedding custom of eating guksu. For this reason, the question ʼʼWhen will we eat guksu?ʼʼ should be understood as ʼʼWhen will you get married?ʼʼ.

Phraseological units arise on the basis of a prototypical situation, i.e., a situation corresponding to the literal meaning of a phraseological unit. Prototypes reflect the national (in our case, Russian) culture, since ʼʼgenetically free phrases describe certain customs, traditions, details of everyday life and culture, historical events and much moreʼʼ [Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 1990, p. 60]. (For example, the prototypes of phraseological units can tell about the typical Russian flora: from the forest and from the pine, some into the forest, some for firewood, like in a dark forest). A certain content is assigned to the situation - the result of rethinking this situation in this particular cultural code. This situation is symbolic, because it stands out and is fixed in the collective memory. Its rethinking is born on the basis of some stereotypes, standards, myths, which are the implementation of the cultural concepts of a given society. Due to the fact that the stereotypes and standards to which the images that form phraseological units are oriented have a certain value, any phraseological unit that fits into the system of the cultural code of a given community acquires an evaluative meaning. It automatically accepts a general assessment of the concept ͵ on the basis (or within) of which the given phraseological unit is formed.

The patterns of rethinking the prototype situation arise within a certain area formed on the basis of religious, mythological, ideological views. For this reason, for example, in languages ​​common in the area of ​​Christian civilization, common conceptual metaphors are found that have their origins in customs, traditions and cultural settings common to Slavic peoples. However, each linguistic and cultural ethnic community has its own, nationally specific rethinking.

One of the significant oppositions for Slavic (including Russian) culture is the opposition of top and bottom. In the mythological (and later - religious) consciousness, the top was associated with the location of the divine principle, the bottom - the location of hell, the Underworld - the symbolic space of the fall. In the XVII-early XIX century. there was a miniature depicting a sinner and a sinner being dragged by a demon down a hill to hell. Based on these ideas, ascent, spiritual ascent were associated with approaching God, the divine principle, with moral perfection, moving an object down was associated with moral decline, immoral behavior. Thanks to these ideas, probably, the phrases roll down, roll down the slippery path, moral decline, fail from shame, fall through the ground, fall in the eyes of someone have gained stability and reproducibility in the Russian language.

FE to become / to stand across the road to someone ‘to stand on life path for someone, to interfere with the achievement of someone's goal, to create obstacles for someone in life 'is associated with a superstitious prohibition to cross the road for someone walking - otherwise he will not have good luck -or). In general, on the linguistic metaphors ʼʼ life - ϶ᴛᴏ movementʼʼ, ʼʼ movement - ϶ᴛᴏ developmentʼʼ is based whole line phraseologisms and metaphors, for example, to punch one's own way with one's forehead "persistently, stubbornly, at the cost of great efforts to achieve success in life", paving one's own way with one's chest "to achieve success, overcoming all obstacles", climb uphill "to achieve a high position in society" , put someone on the road 'help someone find their job and place in life, creating the necessary conditions', turn to the path of truth 'under the influence of someone to change their behavior in better side’, go far ahead ‘significantly change’, do not advance a single step ‘not at all, not at all’; cf.
Hosted on ref.rf
also a ticket to life, on the road to success, to stand at a crossroads. The image is highly productive due to the fact that the perception of life as a path is fixed in the ordinary consciousness of Russians (cf.
Hosted on ref.rf
He also walked the path to the end, and in Korean - He walked the circle of life; I met many good people along the way. good people; cf.
Hosted on ref.rf
advanced in jargon, slow down). In Russian culture, the image of the path is one of the central ones due to the richness of the semantic structure of the concept underlying it, which gives unlimited possibilities a variety of metaphorical constructions when creating images.

Many phraseological units are, according to V. N. Teliya, figuratively motivated secondary names [Teliya, 1996, p. 82], revealing associative links, culturally significant frames and specific images of abstract concepts. Thus, using the example of the cited author, one can describe the image of ʼʼconscienceʼʼ in national consciousness Russian: ʼʼConscience is a good and at the same time punishing messenger of God in the soul, ʼʼʼʼʼ of God's control over the soul of a person who has his own voice - the voice of conscience, speaks - the conscience spoke, clears - a clear conscience, an unclean conscience - sick, it torments, torments the subject ͵ act according to conscience - it means godly, just, and when there is no conscience, then the soul is open to spiritual permissiveness, etc. All these connotations indicate that conscience and Russian consciousness is the regulator of behavior according to the laws of higher moralityʼʼ [ Ibid, p. 84].

Phraseologisms probably most clearly reflect the national image of the world, imprinted in the language, determined by it and fixed in it. They embody ʼʼobjectificationʼʼ general concepts, whose names, speaking in non-free combinations, turn out to be metaphorically and metonymically associated with specific persons or things. These concepts are subject to ʼʼmaterializationʼʼ in the language, namely, opening in clichéd turns, which include phraseological units, the non-rational compatibility of the name makes it possible to identify the linguistic archetypes behind the name [Cherneiko, 1997], to recreate the linguistic picture of the world. It is no coincidence that scientists involved in conceptual analysis in their research turn Special attention to non-free combinations of a name followed by a concept of interest to them. So, for example, hope is presented to Russians as something fragile, a kind of shell, hollow inside - broken hopes, empty hope; authority - something massive, columnar and at the same time devoid of stability - crush with your authority, shaken authority, knowledge, wisdom are something liquid, because they can be drunk (cf.
Hosted on ref.rf
thirst for knowledge) etc.

We agree that the study of such combinations, with the greatest completeness revealing the associative and connotative connections of names that designate the key concepts of national culture, allows us to describe such concepts.

4. Case statements

Let us now turn to another type of clichéd combinations, which E. M. Vereshchagin and V. G. Kostomarov call linguistic aphorisms and which, in their opinion, have the syntactic form of a phrase, while phraseological units have the syntactic form of a phrase [Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 1990 , pp.71-76]. Understanding a linguistic aphorism as a ʼʼ phrase that is known to everyone and in connection with this, it is not created anew in speech, but is retrieved from memoryʼʼ [Ibid., p. 71], these scientists distinguish the following types of such units:

1) proverbs and sayings - short oral sayings dating back to folklore: They count chickens in the fall, Don't say gop until you jump over, It's time for business, it's time for fun;

2)winged words, i.e. included in our speech from literary sources short quotes, figurative expressions, sayings of historical figures: To be or not to be. That is the question; And nothing has changed; We wanted the best, but it turned out as always;

3) appeals, mottos, slogans and others catchphrases that express certain philosophical, social, political views (Study, study, and study again...; Freedom, equality, fraternity);

4) social scientific formulas ( Being determines consciousness) and natural science formulations [Ibid., p. 71–72].

The authors point out that ʼʼphraseological units act as signs of concepts, and in this regard, they are meaningfully equivalent to words; aphorisms are ϶ᴛᴏ signs of situations or relations between things, and they are semantically equivalent to sentences ʼʼ [Ibid., p. 92].

As you can easily see, the above classification is based on the origin of those units that Vereshchagin and Kostomarov call linguistic aphorisms. D.B. Gudkov uses the term case statement (PV), the definition of which has already been given above (see lecture 6).

The semantics and functioning of SPs is determined not so much by their origin as by other factors. As observations on the modern Russian language (first of all, oral speech and the language of the media) show, it is very difficult to distinguish between the use of, for example, ʼʼʼʼ precedent statements and precedent statements-citations from classical works [see, for example, Zakharenko, 1997 ]. It seems justified to distinguish between precedent statements: 1) rigidly associated with any precedent text (Tell me, uncle ...; By pike command, at my will ...);2) ʼʼautonomousʼʼ a) lost contact with the PT that gave rise to them (How good, how fresh were the roses) b) never had one (Quietly you go- you will continue).

The generation and perception of PVs belonging to the first and second types will differ from each other. As already mentioned, in order to form the meaning of the text, in which PV appears, highest value plays, as a rule, not the superficial, but the deep meaning of the latter. So, surface value PV Was it a boy?(doubt about the existence of a certain boy, expressed in the form of a question) turns out to be ʼʼtransparentʼʼ, its deep meaning comes to the fore, and this statement is used to express doubt about the existence of something / someone at all. Precedent statements are almost always associated with a precedent text and / or with a precedent situation (cf.
Hosted on ref.rf
But that's a completely different story.) Accordingly, when using and perceiving SP, a certain precedent situation and / or some precedent text is actualized in the minds of the speakers.

When generating ʼʼautonomousʼʼ precedent statements in the mind of the speaker, the real situation of speech reproduces some precedent situation, which acts as a standard for situations of this type in general. Accordingly, when perceiving such a precedent statement, the recipient understands it as a signifier, the signified of which is some precedent situation, and this latter is compared by the recipient with the situation of speech (cf.
Hosted on ref.rf
using expressions such as Eureka!; Russia is great, but there is nowhere to retreat!).

A somewhat different picture is observed when the communicants operate on the SP, which is rigidly connected with the precedent text. In this case, with the general operation of the mechanism described above, the picture is somewhat different, because in the linguistic consciousness of the carriers of a certain national cultural code, the precedent situation finds its reference expression in one or another TP and is updated through the actualization of the TP in which it is presented (I gave birth to you, I will kill you!- about a strict father punishing his son, and not necessarily as radically as in the corresponding PT; Manuscripts don't burn!- about the incorruptibility of the results of human creativity, and not necessarily literary).

In accordance with the three levels of meaning of the statement (superficial, deep and systemic meaning), one can single out SPs, the use of which actualizes various of these levels:

1) PVs that have only a superficial value:

Frost and sun– wonderful day!

There are two troubles in Russia–roads and fools!

The functional meaning of the statement (i.e. ʼʼ who, when and where uses the precedent statement, what, why and why the author of the text containing this statement wants to sayʼʼ should be understood without knowledge of the corresponding PF;

2) PV with surface and deep values:

The people are silent...- a superficial meaning (general silence) is present, but it turns out to be ʼʼtransparentʼʼ, and this PV begins to be used to express ʼʼsubmissive disobedienceʼʼ, acquiring an additional symbolic meaning of the relationship between the authorities and the people;

3) SP, the surface meaning of which is actually absent, and the systemic meaning is updated through the deep:

Heavy is your Monomakh's hat...- it is, of course, not about a hat and not even only about the burden of power, but about the burden of worries taken on by someone.

The use of PVs of all three mentioned types turns out to be quite frequent in the speech of modern native speakers of the Russian language (especially in the language of the media of the most different directions), while understanding the texts in which the precedent statements of the last two types appear presents great difficulties for foreigners, even those who speak Russian well. (For more details, see Zakharenko and Krasnykh, 1997; Krasnykh, 2001).

When analyzing the use of PV, one more classification of these units seems to be extremely important, which are divided into two groups:

1) ʼʼcanonicalʼʼ PV; they act as a strict quotation, not subject to change: For what? - Just; Birds don't sing here...;

2) transformed PVs; they are subject to certain changes. Despite this, full text PV is easily identified and restored:

When the actors were big;

Kuchma does not give up our proud ʼʼVarangianʼʼ.

What is eternity - ϶ᴛᴏ bathhouse,

Eternity - ϶ᴛᴏ bathhouse with spiders.

If this bath

Forget Manka,

What will happen to the Motherland and to us?

(V. Pelœvin. ʼʼGeneration ʼʼ Pʼʼ).

The difference in the functioning of these two types of statements is, in fact, that the transformed case statement is first compared with the ʼʼcanonicalʼʼ, and then the mechanism discussed above starts working. At the same time, the surface meaning of the transformed PV is never ʼʼtransparentʼʼ, it is always actively involved in the formation of the meaning of the statement. The main focus in this case falls precisely on that word or phrase, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ replaces ʼʼclassicalʼʼ in ʼʼʼʼ PV, i.e., a technique is actively used, which should be called ʼʼdeceived expectationʼʼ Consider an example borrowed by us from I. V. Zakharenko and V. V. Krasnykh.

"East– bad business"– subtitle of the section of the article on the collapse of the USSR, which deals with the Central Asian republics. The deep meaning of the statement is to emphasize that the situation is delicate, requiring knowledge and careful handling; this is emphasized by the exact PV: East is a delicate matter. The indicated meaning of ʼʼ is removedʼʼ due to the use of the ʼʼ lowʼʼ word in the transformed PV, on ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ and the main semantic load falls. In this way, the author expresses his skepticism about the possibilities of any serious transformations in the Central Asian republics.

Let's repeat the main points of the lecture. In ICC, it is extremely important to pay attention to the phenomena of paremia, namely, to the ways of storing and presenting cultural information in various types of language and speech clichés.

Among the latter, we single out, firstly, phraseological units, which are divided into lexical and syntactic ones. The main feature of both is the irreducibility of their value to the sum of the values ​​of their constituent units. Lexical phraseological units vividly and clearly reflect the national ʼʼimage of the worldʼʼ, the specifics of worldview and worldview of the surrounding reality, inherent in a particular linguocultural community. In these units, the key concepts of national culture and national consciousness are ʼʼmaterializedʼʼ, ʼʼreifiedʼʼ.

In addition to phraseological units, precedent statements are distinguished. Οʜᴎ are included in the CB of the linguocultural community, are in close relationship with other precedent phenomena, are actively used by native speakers and present serious difficulties for foreigners.

PVs are classified: a) on the basis of connection with the precedent text (related to PT / ʼʼautonomousʼʼ); b) on the basis of connection with three levels of meaning of the statement (superficial, deep, systemic meaning); c) based on the method of reproduction (transformed / non-transformed). Texts in which SPs are present, as a rule, are distinguished by pronounced expressiveness.

Questions and tasks

1. What types of phraseological units are divided into?

2. What is the national and cultural specificity of phraseological units expressed in?

3. Give examples of syntactic phraseological units. Do such phraseological units exist in other languages?

4. What is meant by linguistic aphorism? How do linguistic aphorisms correlate with phraseological units? Illustrate with examples.

5. What proverbs are used in the title, explain their meaning:

a) Economic reform in the PRC. Is it possible to catch two birds with one stone?

b) From the world on a thread - deceived into a caftan?

c) Strip and conquer.

d) Is it worth taking SORM out of public? (SORM - system technical means assistance to operational-search activities).

e) "A thin mayor" is better than a good quarrel.

e) Far East now it will be in Khristenko's bosom.

5. What is the mechanism for using case statements?

6. Select a newspaper text that would use PV. Classify it.

7. State the classification of PV based on levels of representation of meaning.

8. What are ʼʼcanonicalʼʼ ROIs and transformed ROIs? Give examples. Determine the source and authorship (if possible) of the PVs used in the titles:

A) ʼʼRussia cuts a new window to Europeʼʼ?

B) They sow insane, evil, instantaneous ...

C) And tomorrow your money will swell there ...

D) Different mice are important ... (about computer mice).

E) Who can live well on the fragments of the empire.

E) Brilliance and poverty of Russian governors.

G) Mullet, you always think about us.

H) Lenin's body lives and wins.

i) President's mistake.

9. Read a fragment of the study of the national specifics of Russian phraseological units. Try to correlate Russian phraseological units with phraseological units (in the same meanings or with the same figurative bases) in another language. Prove that phraseological units and metaphors reflect the national image of the world.

Words in a language are combined with each other and form phrases. Syntax, a section of grammar, deals with free combinations of words in a sentence. However, there are also such combinations of words that lexicology is interested in, these are not free combinations of words, but lexicalized ones, i.e. as if striving to become one word, one lexeme, although they have not yet lost the form of a phrase.

Let's compare two phrases, where there is a defined noun and a definition-adjective agreed with it : iron bench and railroad; the first of them is free, it is a combination of two full-valued words, where it is clear that this is indeed a bench, and it is made of iron; i.e. "made of iron." In this combination, the total meaning is the sum of the meanings of individual words; we can replace them with synonyms without losing the meaning: metal bench, iron bench, metal bench; we can replace the adjective with a noun with a preposition: iron bench; we can replace the main word with a derivative: iron bench, iron bench; we can change the word order: iron bench (for example, in the list: wooden benches, iron benches, etc.). But, for example, we cannot say in any way a wooden iron bench, because it is made of iron, not wood. The railway is quite another matter; we cannot perform any of the listed operations, it will turn out to be nonsense, since the railway is not a road made of iron, but a single concept of a mode of transport. Therefore, one cannot say neither a metal road, nor a railway, nor an iron road, nor a railway, nor a railway. The railway is a non-free, lexicalized combination, where the road is not a “road”, and the railway is not “rail”, so we are not at all embarrassed by the following sentence: “The pioneers built a wooden railway”, just as we are not embarrassed by red ink, pink underwear, black squirrel, etc.

In a sentence, such lexicalized combinations are one member, for example: “You can get to Novogireevo by rail or tram”, where both the tram and the railroad are the same circumstances; cf. also: “He works carelessly”, “The landowners lived in grand style”, “They managed to talk face to face”, etc., where all the highlighted combinations are circumstances.

Phraseology- the phraseological composition of the language, as well as the section of linguistics that studies it. The basic unit of phraseology is phraseological unit- a stable combination of words. In many respects, phraseological units are closer to a word than to a phrase, so they are studied in the course of lexicology.

The degree of cohesion of words, the motivation of the meaning of the entire phraseological unit by the meanings of its constituent components can be different. This gave Academician Vinogradov the opportunity to create the following classification of phraseological units.

1. Phraseological unions- stable, lexically indivisible turns, the meanings of which are in no way derived from the meanings of the constituent words, are not motivated by them (play the fool, ask a rattle). This group also includes phraseological units containing obsolete words or grammatical forms (parable of the town, easy to remember). Understanding the whole does not depend on incomprehensible words (“get into a mess”, “in the middle of nowhere”, “sharpen folly”), on incomprehensible grammatical forms (“no hesitation”, “I can hardly”, “parable of the town”, “and all not long”) or where the words and forms are understandable, but the meaning of individual words does not explain the whole (starve a worm, sit on beans, how to drink), finally, in cases where this combination requires a special intonation that conveys a special expression (here you time! what a good thing! that's cranberry! remember what they were called!).

2. Phraseological units- stable, lexically indivisible turns, the meanings of which are motivated by the meanings of their constituent words, but are not derived directly from them, but arise on the basis of figurative rethinking. In most cases, phraseological unity corresponds to a free phrase, which, being associatively rethought, served as the basis for metaphorical phraseologization (go with the flow, roll up your sleeves, neither fish nor meat, come to a dead end). You never know; and cheap and cheerful; neither bottom nor tire; a pellet for an elephant; pour from empty to empty; to make mountains out of molehills; keep a stone in your bosom; to take dirty linen out of the hut); in these cases, partial substitutions of individual words are also possible.

3. Phraseological combinations- stable combinations of words that include both a component with a free meaning (realized in different contexts) and a component with a non-free (phraseologically related) meaning. For example, in the phrase sworn enemy, the noun enemy has free compatibility, and the adjective sworn is used only with the word enemy, has phraseologically associated value. The meanings of phraseological combinations are motivated directly by the meanings of their constituent words. Lower your gaze (look, eyes, head), thought (doubt, inspiration), horror takes (fear, longing, annoyance, envy).

Sometimes they allocate phraseological expressions. These are separable, decomposable phrases and sentences, the meaning of which is made up of the meanings of their constituent words. They are brought together with phraseological units by the constancy of composition and reproducibility in speech as ready-made units. These are proverbs, sayings, "winged words", quotes from famous works of art.

According to the structure, phraseological units can be represented by phrases or sentences. They can be classified depending on the part of speech with which the entire phraseological unit corresponds in meaning: verbal, nominal, adjectival, adverbial.

Because Since lexicalized combinations are closely related in their origin to the conditions of place and time, with any given case, they are individual and peculiar in each language and cannot be literally translated. Therefore they are called idioms, and the set of idioms in a language is called idiomatic.

For example, a hare direct meaning- der Hase (not an idiom), but in the sense of a stowaway - an idiom (Blinder) English compound word killjoy literally means "kill joy", but it should be translated idiomatically as a grump; in the literal sense.

Phraseological combination of words

Phraseology(gr. phrase- expression + logos- doctrine) - the science of complex in composition language units having a stable character: upside down, get into a mess, the cat cried, sleeveless. Phraseology is also called the whole set of these complex in composition sustainable combinations - phraseological units.

Phraseologisms, unlike lexical units, have a number of characteristic features.

1. Phraseologisms always complex in composition, they are formed by combining several components, which, as a rule, have a separate stress, but do not retain the meaning of independent words: puzzle, blood with milk, ate the dog.(Prepositional case combinations of the type with kondachka, under the arm.)

2. Phraseologisms semantically indivisible, they usually have an undivided meaning that can be expressed in one word: spread your mind- "think" fifth wheel on a cart- "extra", upside down- "back" the cat cried- "few", etc. True, this feature is not characteristic of all phraseological units. There are also those that are equated to a whole descriptive expression run aground- "to get into an extremely difficult situation", push all the pedals- "to make every effort to achieve or accomplish something." Such phraseological units arise as a result of figurative rethinking of free phrases.

3. Phraseological units, in contrast to free phrases, characterize constancy of composition. One or another component of a phraseological unit cannot be replaced by a word with a similar meaning, while free phrases easily allow such a replacement. For example, instead of the cat cried can't say "cat cried", "kitten cried", "puppy cried", instead of spread your mind- "scatter with the mind", "scatter the head"; (cf. free phrases reading a book, looking through a book, studying a book, reading a novel, reading a novel, reading a script).

However, some phraseological units have options: with all my heart - with all my heart, cast a shadow on the wattle fence - cast a shadow on a clear day. Nevertheless, the existence of variants does not mean that in these phraseological units one can arbitrarily update the composition: one cannot say "from the whole spirit", "from the whole consciousness", as well as " cast a shadow on the fence" (on a clear morning).

4. Phraseologisms are distinguished reproducibility. Unlike free phrases, which are built by us directly in speech, phraseological units are used in finished form, as they are fixed in the language, as our memory holds them. So, saying bosom, we will definitely say friend(not: friend, acquaintance, youth, comrade),accursed can only be enemy(not enemy, pest). This testifies to predictability components of phraseological units.

5. Most phraseological units are characterized by structure impermeability: you cannot arbitrarily include any elements in their composition. So, knowing phraseology look down we have no right to say "downcast your gaze low", "lower your gaze even lower", "lower your sad gaze" etc. The exception is phraseological units that allow the insertion of some clarifying words kindle passions - kindle fatal passions.

The structural feature of individual phraseological units is the presence of truncated forms along with complete:go through fire and water (...and copper pipes); drink a cup - drink a bitter cup (to the bottom), measure seven times (... cut once). The reduction in the composition of a phraseological unit in such cases is explained by the desire to save speech means.

6. Phraseological units are inherent stability of grammatical form their components: each member of the phraseological combination is reproduced in a certain grammatical form, which cannot be arbitrarily changed. Yes, you can't say "beat the bucket", "grind the lyas", replacing the forms plural baklush, lyas singular forms, do not use a full adjective instead of a short one in a phraseological unit barefoot etc. Only in special cases, variations of grammatical forms are possible in the composition of individual phraseological units: warm hand- warm arms; heard whether it's - heard whether the case.

7. Most phraseological units are characterized by strictly fixed word order. For example, you cannot rearrange the components in phraseological units everything flows, everything changes, neither light nor dawn; blood with milk and others. At the same time, phraseological units of the verb type, i.e., consisting of a verb and words dependent on it, allow a rearrangement of components: dial in the mouth of water - in the mouth of water dial; not leave stone on stone - no stone on stone leave.

The heterogeneity of the structure of a number of phraseological units is explained by the fact that phraseology combines a rather motley language material, and the boundaries of some phraseological units are not clearly outlined.