4. The traditional principle for classifying phraseological units
A phraseological unit is a complex phenomenon with a number of important features, which can therefore be approached from different points of view. Hence, there exist a considerable number of different classification systems devised by different scholars and based on different principles.
The traditional and oldest principle for classifying phraseological units is based on their original content and might be alluded to as“thematic” (although the term is not universally accepted). The approach is widely used in numerous English and American guides to idiom, phrase books, etc. On this principle, idioms are classified according to their sources of origin.
This principle of classification is sometimes called “etymological”. The term does not seem appropriate since we usually mean something different when we speak of the etymology of a word or word-group: whether the word (or word-group) is native or borrowed. So, the general principle is not etymological.
The thematic principle of classifying phraseological units has real merit but it does not take into consideration the linguistic characteristic features of the phraseological units.
5. The semantic principle of classification for phraseological units
The considerable contribution made by Russian scholars in phraseological research cannot be exaggerated. The classification system of phraseological units devised by V.V. Vinogradov is considered by some linguists of today to be outdated, and yet its value is beyond doubt because it was the first classification system which was based on the semantic principle. It goes without saying that semantic characteristics are of immense importance in phraseological units. It is also well known that in modern research they are often sadly ignored. That is why any attempt at studying the semantic aspect of phraseological units should be appreciated.
Vinogradov’s classification system is founded on the degree of semantic cohesion (сцепление) between the components of a phraseological unit. Units with a partially transferred meaning show the weakest cohesion between their components. The more distant the meaning of a phraseological unit from the current meaning of its constituent parts, the greater is the degree of semantic cohesion. Accordingly, V.V. Vinogradov classifies phraseological units into three classes: phraseological combinations, unities and fusions (фразеологические сочетания, единства и сращения).
1) Phraseological combinations are word-groups with a partially changed meaning. They may be said to be clearly motivated, that is, the meaning of the unit can be easily deduced from the meanings of its constituents. E.g. to look a sight (coll.) (выглядеть пугалом), to take something for granted (принимать как должное), bosom friends (закадычные друзья).
2) Phraseological unities are word-groups with a completely changed meaning, that is, the meaning of the unit does not correspond to the meanings of its constituent parts. They are motivated units; the meaning of the whole unit can be deduced from the meanings of the constituent parts; the metaphor, on which the shift of meaning is based, is clear and transparent.
E.g. to stick to one’s guns (стоять на своём) – (= to be true to one’s views or convictions); to sit on the fence (сохранять нейтралитет) – (= in discussion, politics refrain from committing oneself to either side); to lose one’s head (потерять голову) – (= to be at a loss what to do); to
lose one’s heart to smb. (полюбить кого-либо) – (= to fall in love); to look a gift horse in the mouth (смотреть в зубы дарёному коню; критиковать подарок) – (= to examine present too critically); to ride the high horse (важничать) – (= to behave in a superior, haughty way); a big bug/pot, sl. (важная шишка) – (= a person of importance); a fish out of water (человек не в своей тарелке; рыба без воды) – (a person situated uncomfortably outside his usual or proper environment).
3) Phraseological fusions are word-groups with a completely changed meaning but, in contrast to the unities, they are demotivated, that is, their meaning cannot be deduced from the meanings of the constituent parts; the metaphor, on which the shift of meaning was based, has lost its clarity and is obscure.
E.g. to come a cropper (to come to disaster – попасть в беду; прямое значение – упасть с лошади вниз головой); at sixes and sevens (in confusion or in disagreement – в беспорядке); to set one’s cap at smb. (to try and attract a man; spoken about girls and women - завлекать, охотиться за женихом).
It is obvious that this classification system does not take into account the structural characteristics of phraseological units. On the other hand, the border-line separating unities from fusions is vague and even subjective. One and the same phraseological unit may appear motivated to one person (and therefore be labelled as a unity) and demotivated to another (and be regarded as a fusion).
6. The structural principle of classification for phraseological units
The structural principle of classifying phraseological units is based on their ability to perform the same syntactical functions as words. In the traditional structural approach, the following principal groups of phraseological units are distinguishable.
1. Verbal. E.g.to run for one’s (dear) life (бежать сломя голову); to talk through one’s hat (говорить вздор); to sit pretty (командовать; руководить).
2. Substantive.E.g.dog’s life (собачья жизнь); cat-and-dog life (живут, как кот с собакой); white lie (ложь во спасение); red tape (волокита).
3. Adjectival. In this group the so-called comparative word-groups are particularly expressive and sometimes amusing: E.g.high and mighty (высокомерный); safe and sound (жив, здоров; цел и невредим); (as) cool as a cucumber (хладнокровный); dead as a doornail (без всяких признаков жизни).
4. Adverbial.E.g.high and low (люди высокого звания); by hook or by crook (всеми правдами и неправдами); in cool blood (хладнокровно).
5. Interjectional (восклицательные).E.g.my God! good Heavens! Goodness Gracious!
7. Classification system offered by Professor A.I. Smirnitsky
Professor Smirnitsky offered a classification system for English phraseological units which is interesting as an attempt to combine the structural and the semantic principles. Phraseological units in this classification system are grouped according to the number and semantic significance of their constituent parts. Accordingly two large groups are established:
1. One-summit units (одновершинные фразеологические единства), which have one meaningful constituent (e.g.to give up, to make out (разбирать), to be tired, to be surprised). It should be pointed out that most Russian scholars do not regard these as phraseological units; so this is a controversial point.
2. Two-summit and multi-summit units (двухвершинные и многовершинные фразеологические единства) which have two or more meaningful constituents.Е.g.black art (чёрная магия), first night (премьера), common sense (здравый смысл), to fish in troubled waters (ловить рыбу в мутной воде).
Within each of these large groups the phraseological units are classified according to the category of parts of speech of the summit constituent.
Professor Smirnitsky also distinguishes proper phraseological units (собственно фраз. единства) which, in his classification system, are units with non-figurative meanings, andidioms, that is, units with transferred meanings based on a metaphor.
Professor Koonin, the leading Russian authority on English phraseology, pointed out certain inconsistencies in this classification system.
1) First of all, the subdivision into phraseological units (as non-idiomatic units) and idioms contradicts the leading criterion of a phraseological unit suggested by Pr. Smirnitsky: it should be idiomatic.
2) Pr.Koonin also objects to the inclusion of such word-groups asblack art, first night in phraseology as all these word-groups are not characterized by a transferred meaning.
3) It is also pointed out that verbs with post-positions (e.g.give up) are included in classification but their status as phraseological units is not supported by any convincing argument.
* * *
8. The classification system of phraseological units suggested by Professor A.V. Koonin
The classification system of phraseological units suggested by Professor A.V. Koonin is the latest outstanding achievement in the Russian theory of phraseology. The classification is based on the combined structural-semantic principle and it also considers the quotient of stability of phraseological units.
Phraseological units are subdivided into the following four classes according to their function in communication determined by their structural-semantic characteristics.
1) Nominative phraseological units are represented by word-groups, including the ones with one meaningful word, and coordinative phrases of the type wear and tear (износ), well and good.
The first class also includes word-groups with a predicative structure, such as as the crow flies (напрямик, кратчайшим путём) and predicative phrases of the typesee how the land lies (понимать положение вещей).
2) Nominative-communicative phraseological units include word-groups of the type to break the ice (нарушить молчание)– the ice is broken.
3) Phraseological units which are neither nominative nor communicative include interjectional word-groups.
4) Communicative phraseological units are represented by proverbs and sayings.
These four classes are divided into sub-groups according to the type of structure of the phraseological unit.
The classification system is based on truly scientific and modern criteria.
