Phrasemes as signs of secondary nomination and the result of phraseosemiosis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32589/2311-0821.2.2022.274923Keywords:
cognitive-discursive phraseology, phraseologism, phraseme, phraseosemiosis, secondary nomination, phrasemic sign, reproducibilityAbstract
The article presents the historiography of the issue connected to the terminological essence of phraseological units and the discussion concerning the development of their optimal classification, which took place among the representatives of historical-etymological, systemic-structural and functional-pragmatic/parametric phraseology. The results of searches in the field of phraseology are systematized through the prism of historical and etymological studies, and it is concluded that the efforts of linguists were aimed at reconstructing the origin of its units. Arguments are presented in favour of the universal nature of the classification of stable compounds, developed by L. H. Skrypnyk within the framework of system-structural syntax, where their differentiation according to the models of word combinations and sentences of different types was proposed as a basis. At the same time, special attention is focused on the concept developed by N. M. Amosova and presented in her work that studies the basics of English phraseology, where the author argued for the important role of context for a grammar-based combination
of words that makes up a fixed expression of a specific language, English in particular, in which the degree of word autonomy is much higher than in other languages due to its analyticity. Besides, the paper deals with the prerequisites for shifting the emphasis in phraseological studies to the functional-parametric approach, which application contributed to broadening the view of the essence of phraseological units based on two criteria: the criterion of their reproducibility and the criterion of wordiness.
The discussion about the choice of the optimal term to designate the object of phraseology in the broad sense is summarized and it is linguistically substantiated that such a multifunctional hyperonym is the term “phraseologism” and its full semantic equivalent – the phraseme, formed by analogy with linguistic terms with an -emic component.
The evolution of the term “phraseme” in the conditions of the formation of a new cognitive-discursive phraseology, where the concept of phraseosemiosis is included in its scientific definition, is considered in detail. It is proved and demonstrated on the concrete example of the English phraseme with a quantitative component “baker’s dozen (13)” that the result of this process is a phraseme as a sign of secondary nomination, the internal form of which encodes features that concentrate in a stable form valuable and figurative meanings of the national worldview and ethno-unique features of national life and national spirit, verbalized according to the laws of the lexical-semantic and grammatical systems of each language and easily reproduced in the minds of speakers of this language in the form of ready-made compounds.
References
Azhnyuk, B. M. (1989). Anhliysʹka frazeolohiya u kulʹturno-etnichnomu vysvitlenni.
Naukova dumka.
Alefirenko, N. F. (2008). Frazeologiya v svete sovremennykh lingvisticheskikh paradigm.
Elpis.
Amosova, N. N. (2013). Osnovy angliyskoy frazeologii (3-ê vid.). URSS.
Balli, SH. (2001). Frantsuzskaya stilistika (2-ye izd.). Editorial URSS.
Baranov, A. N., & Dobrovol’skiy, D. O. (2008). Aspekty teorii frazeologii. Znak.
Venzhinovich, N. F. (2020). O zaimstvovaniyakh v ukrainskoy frazeologii. In H. Walter,
V. M. Mokienko (Hrsg.), Die slawische Phraseologie: Entlehnungen und Kalkierungen
in der slawischen Phraseologie (s. 43–46). Universität Greifswald.
Gamzyuk, M. V. (2000). The emotional component of meaning in the process of creating
phraseological units (on the material of the German language). KNLU Publishing
Center.
Zavaryns’ka, I. F. (2022). Frazeolohizmy z onimnym komponentom v anhliysʹkiy, polʹsʹkiy
ta ukrayinsʹkiy movakh: linhvokulʹturolohichnyy aspekt. Osadtsa YU. V.
Ivchenko, A. O. (1999). Ukrayinsʹka narodna frazeolohiya: onomasiolohiya, arealy,
etymolohiya. Folio.
Kopylenko, M. M., & Popova, Z. D. (2010). Ocherki po obshchey frazeologii:
Frazeosochetaniya v sisteme yazyka (izd. 2). URSS.
Kramer, S. N. (2002). Shumery. Pervaya tsivilizatsiya na Zemle (A. V. Miloserdova, Per.).
ZAO “Tsentrpoligraf”.
Krasnobayeva-Chorna, ZH. (2013). Terminosystema frazeolohiyi: struktura ta skladnyky
terminolohichnoyi mikrosystemy “frazeoklasyfikatsiya”. Linhvistychni studiyi, 26,
–163.
Kubryakova, Ye. S. (2004). Yazyk i znaniye. Na puti polucheniya znaniy o yazyke. Chasti rechi s kognitivnoy tochki zreniya. Rol’ yazyka v poznanii mira. Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury.
Levchenko, O. (2005). Frazeologíchna simvolíka: Língvokul’turologíchniy aspekt. LRÍDU
NADU.
Mokiyenko, V. M. (2010). Istoricheskaya frazeologiya slavyanskikh yazykov. V J. Grković-Mejdžor (Ured.), Teoriǰa diǰakhroniǰske lingvistike i prouchavan̂e slovenskikh ǰezika
(s. 103–129). Srpska akademiǰa nauka i umetnosti.
Potebnya, A. A. (1999). Polnoye sobraniye trudov: Mysl’ i yazyk. Labirint.
Selivanova, O. O. (2004). Narysy z ukrainskoi frazeolohii (psykhokohnityvnyi ta
etnokulturnyi aspekty) . Brama.
Skrypnyk, L. H. (1973). Frazeolohiya ukrayinsʹkoyi movy. Naukova dumka.
Smit, L. P. (1959). Frazeologiya angliyskogo yazyka (A. S. Ignat’yeva, Per.). Uchpedgiz.
Sprinchak, YA. O. (1976). Etimologicheskiy analiz frazeologicheskikh vyrazheniy.
Ukrainskiy yazyk i literatura v shkole, 5, 33–38.
Teliya, V. N. (1996). Obyom frazeologii i tipy yeye yedinits. V V. Teliya,
Frazeologiya. Semanticheskiy, pragmaticheskiy i lingvokul’turologicheskiy aspekty
(s. 56–83). Shkola “Yazyki russkoy kul’tury”.
Uzhchenko, V. D., & Uzhchenko, D. V. (2007). Phraseology of the modern Ukrainian
language. Knowledge.
Uzhchenko, V. D. (1994). Historical-linguistic aspect of the formation of Ukrainian
phraseology (Diss. ... Doctor of Philology, Dnipropetrovsk State University).
Shutova, M. O. (2016). Ethnocultural stereotypical portraits of Englishmen and Ukrainians
(cognitive and onomasiological reconstruction of phraseological forms). KNLU
Publishing Center.
Altenberg, B. (1998). On the Phraseology of Spoken English: The Evidence of Recurrent
Word-Combinations. In A. P. Cowie (Еd.), Phraseology (p. 101–122). Clarendon Press.
Burger, H. (1998). Phraseologie. Eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen. Erich
Schmidt Verlag.
Burger, H. (Ed.). (2007). Phraseologie / Phraseology: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research: Volume 2 (Handbucher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 28/2)
(German and English Edition). Mouton de Gruyter.
Clark, Y. (2010). How idioms work. Garnet Publishing Ltd.
Colson, J. P. (2008). Cross-linguistic phraseological studies. In S. Granger, F. Meunier
(Eds.), Phraseology: an interdisciplinary perspective (р. 191–207). John Benjamins
Publishing Co.
Cowie, A. P. (1998). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Application. Clarendon Press.
Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2008). Disentangling the phraseological web. In S. Granger,
F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: an interdisciplinary perspective (р. 27–51). John
Benjamins Publishing Co.
Gries, S. Th. (2008). Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In S. Granger,
F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: an interdisciplinary perspective (р. 3–27). John
Benjamins Publishing Co.
Kipfer, B. N. (2008). Phraseology. Thousands of Bizarre Origins, Unexpected Connections,
and Fascinating Facts about Englishʹs best Expressions. Sourcebooks.
Langlotz, A. (2006). Idiomatic Creativity: A cognitive-linguistic model of idiom
representation and idiom variation in English. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Levin, M., & Lindquist, H. (2008). Foot and Mouth: The phrasal patterns of two frequent
nouns. Phraseology: an interdisciplinary perspective (р. 143–158). John Benjamins
Publishing Co.
Moon, R. (1998). Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.),
Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications (р. 79–100). Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, M. (2007). An example of frequent English phraseology: Distribution, structures
and functions. Corpus Linguistics 25 Years on, 89–105.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
1. Authors take full responsibility for the content of the articles as well as the fact of their publication.2. All the authors must follow the current requirements for publication of manuscripts. Plagiarism itself and its representation as the original work as well as submission to the editorial office previously published articles are unacceptable. In case of plagiarism discovery the authors of the submitted materials take all the responsibility.
3. Authors shall inform the editor of any possible conflict of interests which could be influenced by the publication of the manuscript results.
4. The editorial board has the right to refuse publication of an article in case of non-compliance with these requirements.
