Фразеологизмы с использованием названий животных (этимологическая классификация)
CHAPTER ONE PHRASEOLOGY AS A LINGUISTIC SUBJECT.
1. Phraseology: word groups with transferred meanings
1.1.1. Various approaches;
1.1.2. Problem of meaning;
2. The Sources of idioms
2.2.1. “American” idioms;
2.2.2. Borrowings from other languages;
2.2.3. Idioms borrowed from tales;
2.2.4. Idioms connected with traditions, customs of England;
2.2.5. Phraseological units with classical and mythical names.
3. Other English literary sources of idioms
3.3.2. Biblical expressions (idioms);
3.3.3. Shakespeare’s expressions
CHAPTER TWO THE ETYMOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
2.1. Idioms with meaning of features of character.
2.2. Person’s attitude to somebody or something.
2.3. Description of people.
2.4. Relationships between people.
2.5. Person’s mood and health.
2.6. Bad habits.
2.7. Way of life.
2.8. Offense of rules, law.
2.10. Professional skills.
2.11. Person’s age.
LIST OF REFERENCE SOURCES
LIST OF DATA SOURCES
There are different opinions as to how the term phraseology should be defined, classified, described and analyzed. The word “phraseology” for instance, has very different meanings in Great Britain or the United States. One definition is that an idiom is “assigning of a new meaning to a group of words which already have their own meaning” (Makkai) idioms are informal in nature although they appear in literature, they are not necessarily considered to be “literary”. They are often colloquial, often slang, and through overuse can become cliches. Idioms may be adjectival, adverbial, verbal or nominal. “The All Nations English Dictionary” [10;86] gives such understanding of idiom. “1. A phrase that means something different from the meaning of the individual words. 2. The language used by a particular people or group”.[10;86]
The pioneer of studying idioms was A. C. Kennedy, he was just who pointed out importance of these expressions. Among other authors we may name V.H.Collins, St.Ullmann. These philologist studied problems of phraseological meanings. A lot of scientists such as A.V. Koonin [13;25], Anisimova V.N. And other worked on this part of vocabulary.
As for vocabularies of idioms, books, we may name such as “A Third Book of English Idioms” by V.H.Collins, “You can’t Do Without them” by L.S.Pamukhina , “Illustrated American Idioms Vocabulary” by Dean Cury [5;90] and many other authors.
That is actuality of our investigation lies in the importance of phraseology in the vocabulary not only in English, but also in other languages. And one more fact we are interested in the analyzing the phraselogical units containing the names of animals as we consider them to be the most interesting and at the same time this class of phraselogical units are closer to our usage them in speech. So, these facts define our choice the phraselogical units containing the names of animals as the subject of our scientific work.
The aim of our investigation is to define and analyze the systemic characteristic features of the phraselogical units with the names of animals and to establish the etymology of the phraselogical units under analysis.
The object of research: phraseological units (their usage, role, place in language, speech, meanings, classification).
Tasks of research:
1. Research all possible points of view on phraseology;
2. Explain various approaches about phraseological units;
3. Study the problem of meaning, and find the most practical approach;
4. Explore all types of classification and create own on base of vocabularies.
5. Find out the role of phraseology in English.
The theoretical and practical value of our scientific work is to broaden our knowledge about phraseology as the part of the vocabulary; the results of the investigation give us possibilities to use and learn deeply the names of animals and use them in a proper way.
The matter of phraseological units with the names of animals is rather interesting from all points of view. And our topic “Phraseological units with the names of animals (the etymological classification)” was approbated at the IV-th students conference which explored such topic: “Problems of studying foreign languages: linguistic and pedagogic aspects”.
1. Phraseology as a linguistic subject
Perhaps, the best way to begin the discussion of the problem will be to see what the pioneer and expert in this matter A.G.Kennedy has to say about it. “The use of the verb-adverb combinations has developed so gradually in English, and ever so long a period of time that many philologists fall to appreciate even yet how important a place it has assumed in Modern English Indeed, there has been much sputtering about it and superficial criticism of the so-called parasitic preposition. But in order to appraise these many combinations in a satisfactory manner, it is necessary to understand them and such understanding can result only from a careful and detailed examination of various aspects of the usage.
For many decades, according to the same author, the “verb-adverb combinations” (henceforth “the combinations” unless otherwise specified) have been the subject of protests and controversies on the part of those who jealousy watch the use of the English language. While discussing the combinations used in speech most of the critics attempted to show that certain combinations were either colloquialisms not yet justified by general usage, or else that in many cases the second component was a mere verbosity, an unnecessary or even parasitical preposition. For, as V.H.Collins remarks, deprecation of some particular usage does not imply that all such combinations are bad. On the contrary, in the development of the language such formations have introduced innumerable valuable additions to the vocabulary.
1.1. Various approaches
One of the possible ways to discuss the combinations world be to analyze them long the lines of the two problems just stated. Indeed, the exact individual meanings of the two combining components – the verb (noun, adverb, etc.), on the one hand, and the particle (= relative) on the other, – once established, would be easily traced in all syntatic combinations (It will be shown below that these linguistic units denote various relationships and their general (grammatical) meaning is independent of their position with respect to verbs or nouns in a sentence. Considering their general meaning (not position) they are understood to be relation words (as against prep, postpositions, adverb, etc.) and are termed relatives on analogy with substantives and adjectives. In the former case the regularity of combining the individual meanings to produce various predetermined senses would serve as a reality linguistic criterion to cheek out all the “phrasal verbs” – the fossilized set combinations with fixed irregular senses.
Unfortunately, the above expects of the combinations were inadequately treated in the publications on the subject. These may be rougly divided into
a. reference and exercise books as exemplified by
“A Third Book of English Idioms” by V.H.Collins,
“English Verbal Collocations” by S.Berlizon,
“You Can’t Do Without Them” by L.G.Pamukhina et all,
b. Special theoretical studies of the problem (with or without reference
parts attached to them). The following is by no means a complete list
of the authors whose works are referenced below: G. O. Curme,
A. G. Kennedy, S. P. Smith, I. C. Anichkor, V .A. Zhluktenko,
I.A.Yershova, S.B.Berlizon, G.Dietrich, O.Spasov, L.A.Hill, and the
latest publications by D.Bolinger.
Each of the above studies has been a notable contribution to the treatment of various aspects of the combinations, yet this puzzling problem has been defying all the attempts, its linguistic essence remaining almost as enigmatic as ever.
1.2. PROBLEM OF MEANING
While examining the meaning of the relatives one has to preceed from certain general principles, for the meaning of any one word in its purely theoretical aspect is a particular case of the linguistic problem of meaning in general. Although semasiology (=semantics) has long been recognized as the most important as well as the most difficult and complicated branch of linguistics, it is the very brand which until recently has been badly neglected as compared to phonology and morphology.
One of the probable reasons for this is evidently the fact that it is much more difficult to determined the general principles at work in semantics than, say, in phonology, morphology or syntax. Another reason is the many linguistic (notably American) have been making attempts to analyze linguistic structures without reference to meaning because they seem to have come no doubt the very possibility for meaning to the studied as objectively and as vigorously as phonology or morphology. The complexity of the problem lies in its very nature: while phonology and grammar are purely and entirely linguistics disciplines, the problem of meaning inevitable involves philosophy, logic and psychology and even sociology. The definition of semantics as “the study of meaning” is, as J.Lyons has wittily observed, the only point of agreement among scholars. But as soon as they come to consider particular aspects of the subject they show “a bewildering variety of approaches to the definition and determination of “meaning”. In consequence of this great variety of approaches, there appears a still greater number of various definitions of meaning.
It is only natural that this state of things in the general theory of meaning is reflected in different quantities and qualities of meanings of most of the words in the lexical studies of certain groups of words the author have been making great efforts to work out certain general principles or techniques for describing different meanings of one and the same word as well as some objective reliable criteria to distinguish one from another, and their views may be roughly divided into two major groups with two varieties in each depending on the way of approach to this problem.
As R.S.Ginzburg has pointed out, there are two schools of thought in present-day linguistics representing the main line of contemporary thinking on the problem. There are the refential and the functional approaches. The adherents of the first school of thought endeavour to establish the “interdependence between words and a) things or b) concepts they refer to (hence the term “refential approach”), while those holding the views of the second school investigate the function of the word in speech (hence the term “functional approach”) and show much more interest in a) how meaning actually works in speech than in, b) what meaning is. In what follows below there points will discussed in detcúl.
Количество страниц: 81