Margarita Kovtun
Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynskyi State Pedagogical University
Scientific Supervisor: I. E. Hrachova, PhD
SEMANTICS OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
Particular emphasis should be placed on the interpretation of phraseological meaning. It is undeniable that this phenomenon is quite complex. We know, that it is due to the specific attitude to the denoted objects or phenomena of reality, the nature of the internal figurative basis, overword, the relationship between lexical components of FU and completely or partially rethought their meaning.[4].
According to linguists phraseology is called stable verbal complexes (SSCs), which are characterized by the fact that they exist in language as ready-made units capable of creating speech as its building material: only this feature unites all units in the fund. All other traits, no matter how important, cannot really be unifying.
Some authors tend to attribute lexical meaning to phraseology or to consider phraseological meaning at the word level. Thus, FU and word can be semantically close, i.e. to express a common concept, but such commonality is relative. Phraseology and word are qualitatively different. This difference is inherent in their different natural basis.[1].
The semantics of FU and its form are in dialectical unity. The process of phraseologizing for each such unit of language was long and difficult. Formed as a result of repeated use in the human team, in a particular industry, the expressions gradually often involuntarily the carriers themselves, expanded their functions, acquired new meaning, their narrow specific meaning was replaced by broader, more generalizing. Along with the new meaning, these expressions acquired qualitatively new semantic features and became qualitatively new linguistic units. This is easy to see by considering the semantics of phraseology, which were formed in different spheres of human production: to give smb a crop – to cut under one comb (from the language of hairdressers); to put the screws on smb. – tighten the nut, remove chips (from the language of technical staff); to set out on the path of – to stand on the rails (from the language of railwaymen) [2].
Ukrainian phraseologist L.G. Skrypnyk singles out such a feature of FU as “overword”, which clearly contradicts the theory of equivalence. The term “correlation of phraseology and words”, proposed by O.V. Kunin, best conveys the specifics of phraseological inflections [1].
Speaking about the presence of its semantics in the FU, it is necessary to say that every full word has a similar meaning. This, of course, commonality, and at the same time the difference between words and phraseology. Having thoroughly studied the semantics of words and phraseological units in the comparative aspect, V.P. Zhukov identified the main types of phraseological meaning and showed on a large factual material that the specifics and features of lexical meaning in words and phraseological meaning in phraseology are due to the nature of these language units.
Structurally, the meanings of phraseology are expressed not in one word, but in the obligatory combination of at least two components. The constituent parts of words – morphemes – are not independent units of language. The lexical meanings of the word and phraseology are not adequate, although the features of the common, of course, can be [1]. Thus, phraseology, like words, is characterized by the phenomena of synonymy and antonymy, i.e. they are able to form independent synonymous series and antonymous pairs. For example: synonymous series meaning “to die” – to go to glory – to pass away – to kick the bucket – to turn up one’s toes; antonyms: bone idle – hard-working (lazy – hard-working); the naked truth – the sweet lie [2].
Speaking about the meaning of FU, we can not ignore the concept of internal and external form, which O.O. Potebnya distinguished in the word. These two forms are also present in phraseology. The outer is a separate sound, and the inner is the meaning. Accordingly, in interpreting the concept of “meaning of phraseology”, the phraseologist takes into account various aspects of the plan of content and plan of functioning of phraseology and words. Moreover, we shouldn’t forget about the fact, that phraseology and FU are the resemblance of the language in the culture.[3].
Thus, as we see, the semantics of phraseology requires special attention, because the sum of the meanings of the components does not always mean the meaning of the expression. Here you need to take into account the verbosity of the expression, the relationship between the lexical components of the FU and completely or partially rethought their meaning.
References
- Bilodid I.K. Modern Ukrainian literary language. Vocabulary and phraseology. К., 1973. 439 p.
- Dobrovol’skij D. Phraseological universals: theoretical and applied aspects // Meaning and grammar: cross-linguistic perspectives / [ed. by Michel Kefer, Johan van der Auwera]. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992. P. 279–301.
- Kolshenskaya E.S., Dyakova A.A., Ethnonym-containing phraseology and ethnic heterostereotypes in the context of the relationship between language and culture. [Electronic resource]: article. // Humanities research. 2015. №4. Part 1. URL: http://human.snauka.ru/2015/04/10613`
- Szalek J. Estructura fraseológica del Español moderno // Seria Filología Romanska. Poznan, 2010. P. 30–38.