The phraseological system of English.

1) The problem of terminology.

2) The problem of distinguishing phraseological units from free word-groups.
3) The problem of classification.
4) The origin of the English idioms.
1) The problem of terminology. Phraseology is a branch of linguistics examining idiomatic
expressions of a language. Opinions differ as to how this part of the vocabulary should be defined,
classified, described and analyzed. In modern linguistics there is also considerable confusion about the
terminology associated with these groups of words. The word ‘‘phraseology’’ has different meanings for
Russian and Western scholars. In Russian linguistic literature the term has come to be used for the whole
ensemble of expressions where the meaning of one element is dependent on the other, irrespective of the
structure and properties of the unit (Vinogradov). With other authors it denotes only such set expressions
which do not possess expressiveness or emotional coloring (Smirnitsky). And vice versa: only those that
are imaginative, expressive and emotional (Arnold). In English and American linguistics the situation is
different. No special branch of study exists and the term ‘‘phraseology’’ is a stylistic one.
Most Russian scholars use the term ‘’phraseological unit’’ first introduced by Academician V.V.
Vinogradov to denote a unit of this system. The term ‘’ idiom’’ widely used by western scholars has
comparatively recently found its way into Russian phraseology but applied mostly to only a certain type
of phraseological units. The English use it to denote a mode of expression peculiar to a language, without
differentiating between the grammatical and lexical levels. Hence, the idiom is an expression whose
meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements or from the general
grammatical rules of a language kick the bucket (i.e. die) [WEUDEL]. There are some other terms
denoting more or less the same linguistic phenomenon: set-expressions, set-phrases, phrases, fixed word-
groups, and collocations. Many scholars prefer the term ‘’set-expression‘‘, as it is more definite and self-
explanatory: it points out the most important characteristic of these units, namely, their stability, their
fixed and ready-made nature.
2) The problem of distinguishing phraseological units from free word-groups. One of the
most discussed and controversial problems in the field of phraseology is the problem of distinguishing
phraseological units from free word-groups. The main point of difference between a free word-group and
a set expression is the unity (целостность) and stability (устойчивость) of the latter. Scientists
distinguish the following types of phraseological stability:
1) stability of usage: used in a ready-made form, not individual expressions;
2) structural-semantic unity: phraseological units consist of more than two words and cannot
serve as a model for creating similar expressions, thus, each idiom is unique;
3) lexical unity means that no word can be substituted for any meaningful component without
destroying its sense excluding the possibility of lexical changes within a phraseological unit, e.g.
substitution of pronouns, verb forms; e.g. the idiom to give sb the cold shoulder means “to treat sb.
coldly, to ignore sb.” but the expressions * a warm shoulder or * a cold elbow make no sense at all.
4) structural unity: structural invariability is an essential feature, it suggests strict word order,
restriction in introducing any additional elements, and grammatical invariability, for example, a typical
mistake (though logically well-founded) is to use the plural form of fault in the expression to find fault
with sb.
According to these criteria a phraseological unit is a stable word-group characterized by a
completely or partially transferred meaning [Кунин 1972: 8].
3) The problem of classification. Another important and so far unsolved problem is the question
of classification. A phraseological unit is a complex phenomenon with a number of important features,
which can 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 is thematic which is based on the original content of the
phraseological units. On this principle, idioms are classified according to their origin, that is their
belonging to a particular sphere of human activity. The principle is also called etymological, though the
term is considered inappropriate as it means that the unit is either native or borrowed, thus, representing a
relatively small part of the classification system in question (L.P. Smith; W. Ball). The approach is widely
used in guides to idioms, phrase books, etc. The richness of the material makes these practical manuals of
everyday phrases very valuable for those interested in the language. However the thematic approach does
not take into consideration the linguistic characteristic features of the phraseological units.
 For instance, it seems questionable whether it may be possible to give an objective classification
without accepting the structural approach. The structural classification is based on the fact that a set
expression performs the same syntactical functions as words. Traditionally the following groups are
distinguished:
-substantive (nominal), e.g. the root of the trouble; dog's life; white lie; birds of feather (“people
of the same mentality, attitude to life”), etc.;
-verbal, e.g. to talk through one's hat(“talk about things one does not know, understand, talk
without proofs”); to take the bull by the horns; to snap one's fingers at (“To demonstrate one's contempt
to sb.”); to see how the land lies (“to discover the state of affairs”), etc.
-adjectival, e.g. as good as gold; safe and sound; brand new; as slippery as an eel (“a cunning,
wily, evasive person”); as mad as a hare in March, etc.;
-adverbial, e.g. from head to heel; to the bitter end (as in to fight to the bitter end); by heart; once
in a blue moon (“very seldom”), etc.;
-prepositional, e.g. in the course of; by reason of; on the ground of, etc.;
-conjunctional, e.g. as long as;
-interjectional, e.g. my God! Good Heavens! Take your time!
Then each of these classes is subdivided according to its structure, for example, set expressions
functioning like nouns: N+N: maiden name; N+prep+N: the arm of the law; N+and+N: rank and file
(“the ordinary people”), etc.; within verbal phrases: V+N: to take advantage; V+postpositive: to give
up; V+and+V: to pick and choose (“to be very careful, particular, selective when choosing sth.”), etc.
This brief review gives a clear notion of the contradictory nature of set expressions: structured like
phrases they function like words. The disadvantage of the classification is that it leaves out the semantic
aspect of phraseological units.
Many Russian scholars have shown a great interest in the theoretical aspects of the problem. One
of the most significant theories advanced for Russian phraseology is the classification system devised by
V.V. Vinogradov. His classification is based on the semantic principle, i.e. the relationship existing
between the meaning of the whole and the meaning of its component parts. To be more exact, the system
is founded on the degree of semantic cohesion between the components of a phraseological unit. Units
with a partially transferred meaning show the weakest cohesion between the elements. The more distant
the meaning of a phraseological unit from the current meaning of its constituent parts, the greater is its
degree of semantic cohesion. Accordingly three types of phraseological units are suggested:
phraseological fusions (фразеол. сращения), phraseological unities (фразеол. единства), phraseological
combinations (фразеол. сочетания).
Phraseological fusions are word-groups with a completely changed meaning (that is demotivated)
which cannot be understood from the meanings of their constituent parts, e.g. to set one's cap at sb. (“to
attract a man”). As it is seen from the examples the metaphor on which the shift of meaning was based
has lost its clarity and is obscure. Hence, phraseological fusions are the most picturesque, colourful and
expressive part of the language's vocabulary. Specific for every language, they present certain problems
not lending themselves to literal translation into other languages.
Phraseological unities are much more numerous. They are clearly motivated, i.e. the sense of the
whole can be worked out from the meaning of its elements. The metaphor on which the shift is based is
clear and transparent as in to lose one' s heart to sb. (“to fall in love”); the last drop / straw (“the final
culminating circumstance that makes a situation unendurable”); a big bug / pot (“a person of
importance”). The above examples reveal another characteristic of the type, namely the possibility of
synonymic substitution which can be only very limited without changing the meaning of the whole.
Phraseological combinations are word-groups with a partially changed meaning: one component is
used in its direct meaning, while the other is used metaphorically, e.g. to be a good hand at sth.; to stick
to one' s word; to meet the requirements, as mad as a hatter. Several authors (N.N. Amosova, Y.D.
Apresjan) have criticized the weak points of this classification. Firstly, the border-line separating unities
from fusions is vague and even subjective. The same set-expression may be motivated to one person (as a
result, be labelled as a unity) and demotivated to another (and be regarded as a fusion). The more
profound one's command of the language and one's knowledge of its history, the fewer fusions one is
likely to discover in it. Secondly, it does not take into consideration the structural characteristics of
phraseological units. Thirdly, the group of phraseological unities in the classification is heterogeneous: it
includes technical and scientific terms, stereotyped combinations, familiar quotations, proverbs and
sayings. Last but not least, the classification being developed for Russian phraseology does not fit the
specifically English features.
Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky offered a classification system for English phraseological units, which is
interesting as an attempt to combine their structural and semantic characteristics. The system groups the
phraseological units according to the number and semantic significance of their elements. He suggests
two groups of set-expressions: phraseological combinations and idioms. The first group includes such
phrases as to give up; to fall in love; to be tired; etc. whose metaphorical motivation is faded, and which
are emotionally and stylistically neutral. As for the idioms they are imaginative, stylistically coloured, e.g.
to take the bull by the horns; dead as a doornail. From the structural point of view, Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky
divides the whole bulk of phraseological units into one-summit, two-summit and multi-summit units.
One-summit units have one meaningful constituent: to pull out; to be surprised; to put on, etc. Two- and
multi-summit units have, correspondingly, two or more significant elements as first night, common sense,
to fish in troubled waters, etc. Within each of these large groups the phraseological units are classified
according to the category of parts of speech of the summit constituent. So, one-summit units are
subdivided into: a) verbal-adverbial units equivalent to verbs in which the semantic and the grammatical
centres coincide in the first constituent: to give up; make out; b) units equivalent to verbs which have
their semantic centre in the second element and their grammatical centre in the first, e.g. to be surprised;
c) prepositional-substantive units having their semantic centre in the substantive constituent and no
grammatical centre: by heart; by means of; in order that; etc. Establishing this class of units A.I.
Smirnitsky finds a place for units that have been for a long time the object of many discussions, do not fit
into any system, and so are always treated as some sort of exception. Though there are a few points in his
approach to set expressions well worthy of note as they cover the most important peculiarities of English,
the classification is considered very sketchy; some parts are not presented systematically – with structural,
stylistic and semantic criteria all mixed up.
N.N. Amosova suggests the procedure of contextual analysis. She treats phraseological units as
units of fixed context, defining the latter as a context characterized by a specific and unchanging sequence
of definite lexical components, and a peculiar semantic relationship between them. Units of fixed context
are subdivided into phrasemes and idioms. Phrasemes are always binary, i.e. one of the components has a
phraseologically bound meaning, the other serves as a determining context, e.g. beef tea; black frost; to
knit one's brows. As for the idioms, though every element keeps its usual meaning the combination as a
whole possesses a special one: red tape; play with fire. There are different types of idioms from the
viewpoint of the isolation of the components. Some of them contain obsolete elements not occurring
elsewhere, e.g. to cudgel one's brains (“to make great mental effort”). The presence of obsolete elements
signals that the combination is idiomatic. Other phrases may also be used as a free phrase, for instance,
ships that pass in the night (“transient encounters”). Though some parts of the classification are
questionable, the approach on the whole contributed a lot to the development of phraseological science.
The classification suggested by Prof. A.V. Koonin, the leading Russian authority on English
phraseology, is based on the combined structural-semantic and functional principle. Thus, according to
the function the unit fulfills in speech, the following four classes are distinguished: a) nominative
phraseological units which denote things, phenomena, actions, states, qualities, etc.: a bull in a china
shop; b) nominative-communicative phraseological units, these are mostly verbal phrases easily
transformed into the Passive Voice, e.g. to break the ice (“to eliminate, remove strained relations”); to
pull sb's leg (“to play a trick, a joke on sb., make a fool of sb.”); c) interjectional word-groups such as a
fine ( nice / pretty ) kettle of fish (“confusion” cf. a different kettle of fish “a situation different from the
existing one”); d) communicative units represented by proverbs and sayings. Further subdivision depends
on whether the units are changeable (open) or unchangeable (closed). “Open” expressions are those which
either have variable elements: to take one's time; to give sb. a run for his money or in which synonymic
variation is possible, e.g. not to lift / raise, stir, turn / a finger (“not to do anything to help sb.”), etc. or
which combine these two types of variability, for instance, to give sb. a bit / piece / of one's mind. Taking
into account all the relevant aspects of these linguistic phenomena, the classification system includes a
considerable number of subtypes and gradations and objectively reflects the wealth of types of
phraseological units existing in the language.
4) The origin of the English idioms. The creators of the majority of genuine idioms are
unknown: phraseological units have been invented by folk and show its wisdom, experience and
observance, e.g.pay through the nose (“to pay a large sum of money, to pay too much”); in for a penny,
in for a pound (“take a risk”).
 Many of them reflect traditions, customs, beliefs, history of the nation, e.g. blow one's trumpet
("to praise oneself, to glorify oneself”) – in Middle Ages the nobility and knights taking part in the
tournaments were greeted with trumpet sounds, good wine needs no (ivy) bush (“ proper goods need no
advertisement”) – the expression reflects the custom of the owners of inns and boarding-houses to hang
ivy branches as a sign of wine sold there, also ran (“an unlucky person”) – in the race accounts: the
names of the horses that failed to get any prize were enumerated at the end after the information about the
winners and started with these words, a black sheep (“about a person that brings shame on the family”) –
according to the beliefs a black sheep is marked by the devil. All the expressions with the adjective Dutch
were connected with negative associations as a result of competition between the English and the Dutch
on the sea, e.g. Dutch courage (“drunk courage”), a Dutch comfort (consolation) (“a consolation that
does not bring a relief”), etc.
A great number of idioms have come from professional speech on the crest of the wave (“to be
extremely happy”) or originated in literature of which the Bible is considered to be the most essential,
followed by works of Shakespeare. Works of other writers as well as nursery rhymes and fables
contributed a lot to the English phraseological system. The Bible: the olive branch – “symbol of peace
and solace”; to wash one's hands (A ritual washing of the hands symbolized that the person was not
involved in the matter), the phrase goes back to the legend about Pontius Pilatus who condemned Jesus to
death and washed his hands in front of the crowd. Shakespeare: the green-eyed monster (“jealousy”,
Othello), cakes and ale (“enjoying life”, Twelfth Night). Lord Chesterfield (English writer and statesman,
1694-1773): small talk (“talk about nothing, about trivial things”). Walter Scott, Ivanhoe: catch sb. red-
handed (“catch sb. who is in the middle of doing sth. bad or illegal, when they are not expecting it”).
Henry M. Stanley (explorer, 1841-1904): the dark continent (“Africa”). Some of them are derived from
other languages: these are mostly Latin and French borrowings, several have roots in Greek, Spanish,
Italian and other languages. French: an iron hand in a velvet glove (une main de fer dans un gant de
velours “cruelty hidden behind external gentleness”). Due to the grammatical rules of the language
phraseological units borrowed from other languages undergo certain changes, e.g. word order. Lexical
substitutions are considered to be more serious as they are connected with cultural differences, i.e. the
worldview, mentality, associations and images. French: to buy a pig in a poke – acheter chat en poche
(“to be careless when doing sth. important and have problems, as a result”).
Literature.
1) Амосова Н.Н. Основы английской фразеологии. Л., 1963.
2) Антрушина Г.Б., Афанасьева О.В., Морозова Н.Н. Лексикология английского языка.
Учебное пособие для студентов. М., 2000.
3) Большой Энциклопедический словарь. Языкознание. // гл. ред. В.Н. Ярцева. М.,
2000.
4) Виноградов В.В. Основные понятия русской фразеологии как лингвистической
дисциплины // Избр. Труды. т.3. Лексикология и лексикография. М., 1977.
5) Кунин А.В. Английская фразеология. Теоретический курс. М., 1970.
6) Кунин А.В. Фразеология современного английского языка. М., 1972.
7) Смирницкий А.И. Лексикология английского языка. М., 1956.
8) Телия В.Н. Русская фразеология. Семантический, прагматический и
лингвокультурологический аспекты. М., 1996.
9) Arnold I.V. The English Word. L., 1966.
10) CEEL. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. David Crystal. Cambridge,
1995.
11) WEUDEL. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.
N.Y., 1994.