Филологические науки/

3. Теоретические и методологические

проблемы исследования языка

Zharkimbayeva D.K.

Eurasian National University named after Leo Gumilyov, Kazakhstan

TO THE PROBLEM OF USING TERMINOLOGY WITHIN ENGLISH, RUSSIAN AND KAZAKH PHRASEOLOGY

In modern linguistics there is not any united opinion about the essence and definition of a “phraseological unit” (PhU for short) as a language unit. It should be noted that there are numerous disagreements about the volume of phraseology and the character of language facts treated as phraseologisms. According to Y.A. Subbotin, the lexicographical practice is the evidence of importance of finding exact definition of PhU, when in vocabularies ordinary combinations of words are given as phraseologisms (чувство локтя, военные действия, прибрать к рукам, даром что и др.) and words (с ходу, в общем, ни-ни, на руку, на мази и др.) [1].

As it is known, Phraseology has appeared in the domain of Lexicology and now is treated as a separate branch of linguistics. The reason is clear – while Lexicology deals with words and their meanings, Phraseology studies such collocations of words as phraseologisms, PhUs and idioms, where the meaning of the whole collocation is different from the simple sum of literal meanings of the words, comprising a PhU, e.g. "Dutch auction" is not an auction, taking place in the Netherlands. The meaning of this PhU refers to any auction, where instead of rising, the prices fall (compare “Dutch comfort”, “Dutch courage”, “Dutch treat” reflecting complicated historical factors). According to Professor A.V. Koonin, phraseological units are stable word-groups with partially or fully transferred meanings (e.g. "to kick the bucket", “Greek gift”, “drink till all's blue”, “drunk as a fiddler (drunk as a lord, as a boiled owl)”, “as mad as a hatter (as a March hare)”[2].

R. Glaser states that a PhU is a lexicalized, reproducible bilexemic or polylexemic word group in common use, which has relative syntactic and semantic stability, which may be idiomatized, carry connotations and have an emphatic or intensifying function in a text [3].

Difference in terminology (“set-phrases”, “idioms” and “word-equivalents”) reflects certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish types of phraseological units and free word-groups.

Soviet linguists (A.V. Koonin, A.R. Smirnitsky and others) believe that the term “set phrase” implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. There is a certain divergence of opinion as to the essential features of PhU as distinguished from other word-groups and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed “phraseological units”. The habitual terms “set-phrases”, “idioms”, “word-equivalents” are sometimes treated differently by different linguists. However, these terms reflect to a certain extend the main debatable points of phraseology which centre in the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of PhUs as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups; the term “set expression” implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups; the term “word-equivalent” stresses not only semantic but also functional inseparability of certain word-groups, their aptness to function in speech as single words [4].

The term “idiom” generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack of motivation. U. Weinreich expresses his view that an idiom is a complex phrase, the meaning of which cannot be derived from the meanings of its elements. He developed a more truthful supposition, claiming that an idiom is a subset of a phraseological unit [4].

R. Jackendoff and Ch. Fillmore offered a fairly broad definition of the idiom, which, in Fillmore’s words, reads as follows: “…an idiomatic expression or construction is something a language user could fail to know while knowing everything else in the language” [4].

W. Chafe also lists four features of idioms that make them anomalies in the traditional language unit paradigm: non-compositionality, transformational defectiveness, ungrammaticality and frequency asymmetry [4].

The term “idiom” is mostly applied to phraseological units with completely transferred meanings, that is, to the ones in which the meaning of the whole unit does not correspond to the current meanings of the components [4].

A number of the great Russian linguists put their contribution to Phraseology as well. Thus, S. Balli gave the following definition of PhUs: “… combinations, firmly went down into the language are called phraseological units” [1].

The following researchers – V.L. Arhangelsky, S.G. Gavrin, and V.N. Teliya – have defined phraseologism as a language unit, which has such secondary signs as metaphorical usage, equivalentness and synonymity to words. However, in academician N.M. Shansky`s opinion, metaphorical usage is inherent to many of words and equivalence – not to all the stable combinations. That is why these minor signs are not correct in defining phraseologisms. Academician N.M. Shansky underlined that the right definition of phraseologisms is impossible disregarding its distinctions from the words and free-word groups. In his work “Phraseology in Modern Russian Language” N.M. Shansky gives the following definition: “PhU is a readymade reproductive language unit, consisting of two or more stressed components of word character recorded by its meaning, content and structure”. Also the linguist supposes that the main characteristic of PhUs is its reproducibility, since phraseologisms are not created when a speech is taking place, but is reproduced as readymade complete units, as phraseologisms like “за тридевять земель”, “след простыл”, “нечем крыть” and others are derived wholly from memory. Phraseologisms are meaningful language units with its own meaning which is independent from the meaning of its components. PhUs consist of the same components arranged one after another in strictly fixed order [1].

Kazakh Phraseology comes across the similar difficulties in defining and classifying stable word combinations. As English and Russian dictionaries, Kazakh phraseological dictionaries and other highly valuable reference books contain a great wealth of proverbs, sayings, various lexical units of all kinds, but as a rule do not seek to lay clown a reliable criterion to distinguish between variable word-groups and phraseological units. Academician Smet Kenesbayev`s dictionary may seem the first one in which the theoretical principles for the selections of Kazakh phraseological units have been elaborated. It should be noted that investigation of Kazakh Phraseology was initiated by academician S. Kenesbayev. His approach to Phraseology is discussed below.

Various attempts have been made to investigate the problem of phraseology in different ways in the Kazakh language. There still exits a certain divergence of opinion as to the essential feature of phraseological units as distinguished from other word-groups and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed as phraseological units [5].

The complexity of the problem may be largely accounted for by the face that the borderline between free or variable word-groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined in Kazakh either.

The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as their lexical and grammatical valency, which makes at least some of them very close to set-phrases, fundamentally delimits collocability of their member-words. Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable. For example, the constituent “kesu” (to wink) in the word-group “koz kesu” (to wink at smb.) may be substituted for by any other verbs (jumu, axu, keru, etc.) without changing the denotative meaning of the word-group under discussion (closing one’s eyes). In the phraseological unit “barmak baste, koz keste” (everything is done on the quiet (on the sly), no such substitution is possible, as a change of the noun or verb would involve a complete change in the meaning of the whole group. Moreover, when PhUs are translated from Kazakh into English, it is rather difficult to interpret them word for word. We pay much more attention to the general meaning of the phraseological units in Kazakh and try to give them equivalents in English. For example, in the Kazakh language the phraseological unit “barmak baste, koz keste” means “everything is done on the sly”, but it has the English equivalent “everything is hush-hush”[5].

No substitution of any elements whatever is possible in the following Kazakh unchangeable set expressions: “airandai aptap, kobedei koptep” (to take smb in hand), “akpa kullak” (disobedient); “ogez ayan” (to walk as a turtle); “oz kotereren oz kasu” (without contact , separately); “berin ait ta, birin ait” (to cut a long story short).

As G.B. Аntrushina states, "… phraseology is a kind of picture gallery in which vivid and amusing sketches of the nation’s customs, traditions and prejudices, recollections of its past history, scraps of folk songs and fairy-tales are collected. Quotations from great poets are preserved here, for phraseology is not only the most colorful but probably the most democratic area of vocabulary and draws its resources mostly from the very depths of popular speech" [6].

Kazakhstanian academician S. Kenesbayev is the first one to open the field of investigation of Kazakh Phraseology. His Kazakh phraseological dictionary is a highly valuable reference book [5].

Considering all the pros and cons of the above mentioned terms used within English, Russian and Kazakh Phraseology, we accept the term “phraseological unit” (PhU) in our research work for this term is the most neutral and dimensional one if compared to such terms like “idiom” in English linguistics and “phraseologisms” in Russian and Kazakh linguistics. To confirm the given allegation we would like to pay attention to the fact that the term “idiom” which is widely used in English linguistics does not have the exact usage in Russian and Kazakh linguistics. It can be proved by the investigation by a Kazakhstanian linguist A. Kemelbekova who considers the term “idiom” to be a synonym to the terms “phraseological unities”, “phraseological fusions” and “phraseological combinations” though these terms constitute the types of PhUs [7].

Summing up the above analysis and striving to avoid any possible disagreements on the point of using this or that terminology within our research, it should be noted that the term “phraseological unit” is most preferable for the already mentioned reasons.

Bibliography

1. Субботин Ю.А. Фразеологизмы и их классификации. www.5ka.ru

2. Кунин А.В. Фразеология современного английского языка. – Москва, 1972. www.en.wikipedia.org

3. Gläser R. The Stylistic Potential of Phraseological Units in the Light of Genre Analysis // Phraseology. Ed. A.P. Cowie. – Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. www.en.wikipedia.org

4. Dribniuk V. Typology of phraseological units in English. www.rusnauka.com

5. www.hi.baidu.com. The way of interpreting English word combination into Kazakh.

6. Антрушина Г.Б., Афанасьева О.В. Лексикология английского языка. – М.:Дрофа, 2004. – 288 С.

7. Кемельбекова Э.А. Фразеологические единицы английского языка и способы их перевода на русский и казахский языки. www.lifebeauty.info