Dribniuk Vira
Principles of phraseological unit classification in the discourse
Semantic principle: Language communicational function is
a leading one. It conveys information from one communicant to other. Despite
the character of transferring information the building material of the
communicative process is words, word blocks, among which are phraseological
units, the units which convey this information. Informative value of these
units is not equal that’s why they colour the
communicative process in which they participate differently. Komisarov claims that “meanings are sense blocks on the
basis of which content of expression is formed”. It is important to notice that
these ‘blocks’ have different weight and loading in the text structure [4, p.
74].
Phraseological units are more informative than words and in the
communicational process they have larger communicative loading.
The informational parameters of phraseological units are quantity,
character and independence.
The quantity is characterized by phraseological unit structure
(it consists of more than one word, which means that it is larger than the word
itself). And it is obvious that no separate word can be compared with
self-descriptiveness of the communicative phraseological unit.
The character of phraseological unit is defined by its
characteristics like abovelogicality, stability of
its structure and recomprehension, which are the
qualities outlined form phraseological unit definition (a phraseological unit
is “a stable combination of words with fully or partially transferred meaning”
[5 p. 210]).
Recomprehension
of phraseological unit is its inner characteristic which always has certain
expressive charge or it is pragmatically marked which helps to define communicative
intentions of the author.
The independence of this language unit contains phraseological
unit image which is all-sufficient [4, p. 77].
Semantic structure of phraseological unit is a complex formation with
different denotative, significant and connotative aspects of meaning.
The denotative aspect of phraseological meaning is the word
subject named by this unit [5 p.310]; 1) relation between a lexical unit and an
extralanguage subject or phenomena, 2) subject
denotation [6, p. 26]; the significant aspect is a phraseological unit
concept [5 p.310]; a reflection of certain object concept in human
consciousness [6, p. 81]; the connotative aspect is
emotionally-expressive side and stylistic colouring
of phraseological unit [5 p. 310]; additional word content, its stylistic colouring that superpose upon the main word meaning and
convey emotionally-expressive and estimative attitude of the speaker to the
denoted object [6, p. 47].
Correlation of these aspects in different types of phraseological units
is different. One of the aspects may prevail and it causes certain influence of
a phraseological unit on the communicative process.
In comparative phraseological units significant and connotative aspects
predominate. The communicative contribution of phraseological units of this
type is fixed with the help of certain object determination, in which they
carry pragmatic characteristic defined by emotionally-expressive factor of
their meaning.
Structural
principle: The
structure of comparative phraseological units has the following model: Adv (as)
+ Adj + Adv (as) + N. Though in some cases
comparative phraseological units contain additional elements (parts of speech)
which make the definition more precise and accurate: an adjective before
a noun of the main construction as
innocent as a new-born babe [10 p. 341] compare with as innocent as a babe [12, p.100]; a preposition with a noun as
an attribute plus a noun after a noun of the main construction as helpless as a fly in a spider’s web [13
p. 62]; a preposition with a noun after a noun of the main construction as soft as the passage of a cat [10 p,
109]; a noun as an attribute before a noun of the main construction as fine as spider’s web [10 p. 426]; an
adjective before a noun of the main construction and a preposition with
a noun after a noun of the main construction as fixed as the adamantine decrees of fate [9, p. 592]; a noun
as an attribute before a noun of the main construction and a preposition
with a noun after a noun of the main construction as fast as the seconds hand of a watch [11, p. 81]; an adjective
before a noun of the main construction and a preposition with a noun as an
attribute plus a noun after a noun of the main construction as pure as the sparkling water of a mountain
brook [13, p. 226].
Pragmatic principle: At this point, it will have become
clear that in order to derive a discourse from a text we have to explore two
different sites of meaning: on the one hand, the text’s intrinsic linguistic or
formal properties (its sounds, typography, vocabulary, grammar, and so on) and
on the other hand, the extrinsic contextual factors which are taken to affect
its linguistic meaning. These two interacting sites of meaning are the concern
of two fields of study: semantics is the study of formal meanings as
they are encoded in the language of texts, that is, independent of writers
(speakers) and readers (hearers) set in a particular context, while pragmatics
is concerned with the meaning of language in discourse, that is, when it is
used in an appropriate context to achieve particular aims. Pragmatic meaning is
not an alternative to semantic meaning, but complementary to it, because it is
inferred from the interplay of semantic meaning with context [15, p. 18].
The notion of ‘context’ has already been introduced, if somewhat not
very precise. Two kinds of context are distinguished: an internal linguistic
context built up by the language patterns inside the text, and the external
non-linguistic context drawing us to ideas and experiences in the world outside
the text. The latter is a very complex notion because it may include any number
of text-external features influencing the interpretation of a discourse:
a)
the text type, or genre;
b)
its topic, purpose, and function;
c)
the immediate temporary and physical
setting of the text;
d)
the text’s wider social, cultural,
and historical setting;
e)
the identities, knowledge, emotions,
abilities, beliefs, and assumptions of the writer (speaker) and reader
(hearer);
f)
the relationships holding between the
writer (speaker) and reader (hearer);
g)
the
association with other similar or related text types (Intertextuality)
[15, p.19].
The role of phraseological units in the text may be distinguished as
two-way process. On the one hand a phraseological unit in the text has certain
thematic and semantic (notional) relationship with other language communicative
units (lexical and stylistic means which transfer the information) and realizes
its informational potency with the help of which it influences its environment;
on the other hand, it is also influenced by its environment [3, p. 25].
The formation of pragmatics as a linguistic theory is tightly connected
with the works of Charles Piers and Charles Morris. They define pragmatics as
“sign formation, its use and influence”. Pragmatics sphere investigates the
relationship between a sign and a subject [8, p. 11].
G. Klaus determines pragmatics as a theory “that first of all studies
psychological and sociological aspects of language sign use”.
G.V. Kolshanskii defines pragmatics as
communicative language aspect that researches the ultimate result.
N.D. Arutiunova considers that one of the main
pragmatic tasks is theoretical interpretation of speech product, which appears
in different communicative contexts.
Y.S. Stepanov thinks that the subject of
pragmatics is a long coherent text in its dynamics that is discourse which is
tightly connected with its author and the text subject [8, p. 12].
Analyzing all these definitions
its quite easy to notice that each author’s determination differs from the other
but at the same time every definition underlines the most the most sufficient
sides of pragmatics as a science.
According to Laionz’ point of view “pragmatics
describes use in communication of the following language means which helps the
listener to interpret the message in the desired by the sender way” which means
that pragmatics main function is the explanation of the language means role in
the interpersonal communication [1, p. 3].
It follows that the sender of the information is free in language means
choice, but, while building a message, he possibly not all the time consciously
chooses these language means which could influence the receiver of the
information. During this process the receiver of the information remains in the
shadow but actually this very participant of the communication sufficiently
influence the choice and organization of language means as also the character
of their modification.
The ability of language sign to influence the receiver or the reader
pragmatically suppose some psychological correlation: the language sign ability
to be remembered, to cause associational relationship, to create and fix images
etc. Naturally that language unit more or less possesses pragmatic
peculiarities [2, p. 7].
The pragmatic peculiarities of phraseological units are:
v
communicative direction of
phraseological units (a certain type of expression in which this unit is used);
v
a character and a direction of a
communicative effect which a phraseological unit gives;
v
social-emotive
register of phraseological unit function [8, p. 13].
A direction and a character of a communicative effect made by a
phraseological unit, compose a very important pragmatic peculiarity of this
phraseological unit. It is tightly connected with phraseological unit
perception. S. Bally distinguishes several types of phraseological unit image
feeling:
a)
sense image – the image, the content
of which arouses imagination;
b)
emotional image – from a concrete
image remain only feelings;
c)
dead
image – an image and feelings are absent, it is perceived only logically [8,
p.18].
In the information which contains comparative phraseological units the
principle of holographic representation is used [1, p. 6]. According to the
holographic principle while transferring the message the peculiarities of the
receiver are taken into consideration.
The phraseological construction with the ‘colour’
component influences human psychological sphere through the abstract verbal and
specific visual image [2, p. 9].
Phraseological units which contain a comparative component influence the
receiver in the following way:
1) figurative meaning: as pale as a death [9, p.126]
2) literal meaning:
3) visual image: the picture where the colour plays the main role [2, p. 11].
Each of these types has its pragmatic potency. Phraseological unit
pragmatic potency depends directly on the character and intensity of the
expression.
The intensity of expression which in its turn depends on semantic and
stylistic peculiarities of phraseological unit causes different intensity of
the influence on the addressee in the process of communication.
Bibliography
1.
Баркова Л.А. Влияние фактора адресата на окказиональное
использование фразеологических единиц. Сб. науч. тр. / Моск. пед.
ин-т иностр. яз. им. М. Тореза, 1985. – Вып.244. – С.3-15.
2.
Баркова Л.А. Прагматические свойства фразеологизмов и их речевая
реализация / на материале англоязычной журнальной реклами / Фразеология и
контекст. Моск. пед. ин-т иностр. языков
им. М. Тореза. Сборник науч. тр.
Вып. 198. – М., 1982. – С.3-13.
3.
Дашевская В.Л.
Роль фразеологических единиц
в формировании информативной
структуры текста // Сб. науч. тр./
Моск. пед. ин-т иностр. языков,
1987. – Вып.287. – С.25-33.
4.
Коралова А.Л. Некоторые семантические особенности фразеологизмов в
коммуникативном аспекте. Сб. науч. тр. / Моск. пед.
ин-т иностр. яз. им. М. Тореза, 1985. – Вып.244. –
С.73-86.
5.
Кунин А.В. Английская фразеология. ( Теорет. курс. ) М., «Высшая
школа», 1970. – 343с.
6.
Левицький В.В., Іваницька М.Л.,
Іваницький Р.В. Основи мовознавства. Навчальний посібник. – Чернівці: Рута,
2000. – 150с.
7.
Рыжкова В.В. К проблеме изучения фразеологических единиц в современном английском языке ( к постановке вопроса) // Вісн. Харків. ун-ту. – Харків, 1996. №386. – С.109-110.
8.
Стебелькова Н.А. Прагматический аспект семантики фразеологической
единицы // Сб. науч. тр./ Моск.
пед. ин-т иностр. языков, 1986. – Вып.262.
– С.11-20.
9.
http://gutenberg.org/files/83/83-h/html. (W.
Scott Ivanhoe).
10.
http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLL/STELLA/STARN/prose/SCOTT/contents.htm
(W. Scott The Antiquary).
11.
http:// www.classicauthors.net/Classics/Wells/TimeMachine.html.
(H.G. Wells The Time Machine).
12.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16517/16517-h/16517-h.htm.
(S. Maugham Liza of Lambeth).
13.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext95/moona10.text. (S. Maugham
The Moon and the Sixpence).
14.
http://gutenberg.org/files/83/83-h/html.
(W. Scott Ivanhoe).
15.
http:// www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/mateescu/pdf/56.pdf.
(Text and dis-course).