CC BY
11PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
LiNGUiSTiC ANALYSiS OF VARiABiLiTY iN PHRASEOLOGiCAL COMBiNATiONS
Nuri A.
master, Nakhchivan State University Lecturer at the Department of English Language and Methods, Faculty of Foreign Languages
Abstract
Variability is a manifestation of the instability of language, its internal dynamics in synchrony, and the stimulus of its historical change in diachrony. There are many opinions in linguistics about the trends that lead to language change. These include social and psychological factors, teleology, and freedom of speech. Phraseological combinations, like other language units, have a variety of content and expression. Variation of phraseologies exists only in the form of their expression. We have investigated variability in phraseological units and we used observation and linguistic methods in writing this article.
Keywords: phraseological units, variability, the English language
Very different terms are used to express fixed word combinations. This chaotic terminological diversity is reflected in the works of several authors. Taking into account the diversity of opinions and the plurality of terms in this field, S.I. Ojegov (1974) writes: "Different researchers have given different names to similar events: phraseological combinations, phraseological expressions, fixed structures, idioms, etc. It is necessary to prefer the term phraseological unit as the main term for naming phraseological events." [1, p. 38].
The Swedish linguist Charles Balli (1961) is considered to be the founder of the theory of phraseology in linguistics, and he divides word combinations into 4 groups: free, ordinary, phraseological group, and phraseological combinations. He also sees the existence of phraseology in its semantic features, thus contradicting idiomatic and non-idiomatic fixed word groups [2, p. 21].
V. Fleischer (1997) also understands the term "phraseology" - the field of linguistics, which deals with the study of phraseological combinations, or as a phraseological inventory of any specific language [3, p. 22].
The peculiar formative structure of phraseologies is that they are a strong union of words intertwined based on a single internal meaning. Within this union, the words that form the union lose more or less their meaning, and the whole union is established based on a single meaning.
Western linguists call phraseological units "idioms." For example, Ch. Hocket (1958) writes: "An idiom is a grammatical form consisting of a single morpheme or a complex form that cannot be determined based on the existing structure of meaning." [4, p. 172]
R. Gibb (1997) believes that idioms are formed from "dead metaphors"[5, p. 111].
U. Weinreich (1969) believes that idioms are part of polysemy because of the ambiguity of the lexical unit [6, p. 23].
U. Chafe (1968) and A. Cutler (1982), studying idiomatic, write that idioms are easily subject to structural change.
J. Katz and P. Postal's (1963) views on the description of the idiom are such that the idiom can consist of even one word [9, p. 275].
As theoretical and practical knowledge gained in twentieth-century linguistics, it was argued that language as a functional system, regardless of its complexity, differed in its degree of variability. It is as such an organic property that the variability of language makes it flexible and smooth.
Variability is a manifestation of the instability of language, its internal dynamics in synchrony, and the stimulus of its historical change in diachrony. There are many opinions in linguistics about the trends that lead to language change. These include social and psychological factors, teleology, and freedom of speech.
Recently, issues such as language variability and change of style have been raised more and more. However, this problem is quite complex, and the place of variability in the process of the historical transformation of languages is not clear enough at first glance. On the one hand, historical changes are one of the important sources of variability, on the other hand, the emergence of variant forms and structures is an important step in historical changes that often occur as a result of the replacement of some elements with others.
However, variability does not lead to changes in the language system. The parallelism of forms and constructions, as well as the variability and synonymy of lexemes, can be preserved in the language by providing its dynamics along with historical changes.
The problem of variability has been studied in both foreign and Azerbaijani linguistics. The study of the problem of variability in foreign linguistics began in the early twentieth century. The study of the concepts of "variant" and "invariant" in phonology has been associated with the phoneme and its phonetic manifestation. With the introduction of these concepts into linguistics from phonology, the scope of research on the problem in English, American, and Prague schools of linguistics has expanded. The English scientist U.L. Chaif (1975), when discussing the issue of variability, suggested that the variants at different levels appear on the outer shell of the word, which is more of a formal logic [10, p. 230].
In American linguistics, Bloomfield's theory also provided ample opportunity to study the problem of variability and invariance in the language system and had some influence on the development of linguistics in the United States. According to N. Chomsky's generative grammar, known as the third stage in American linguistics, the components of semantic variants do not exist based on grammatical relations, semantics in the internal structure of a language determines the structure of the sentence and its formation in the speech flow. In this regard, several linguists in American linguistics (Tomris, Liz, Chomsky, and others) have emphasized the importance of exploring variability in specific speech facts beyond meaning.
Research on variability showed that in the former Soviet school of linguistics L. Sherba, M. Panov, S. Ojegov, G. Torsuyev, G. Stepanov and other linguists conducted research on the general theoretical aspects of the problem of variability, studied the manifestations of variability in Russian.
The problem of variability has also been in the focus of Azerbaijani and German linguistics, and a large number of large and small research works have appeared. M.Shiraliyev, A.Demirchizade, A.Abdullayev, Z.Verdiyeva, M.Adilov, Y.Seyidov, H.Bayramov, F.Veysalli, D.Yunusov, N.Valiyeva and many linguists spoke about the issue of variability to some extent, expressed scientific views. Akhundov's research on phonemic variants has a deep scientific character.
The study of phraseological variability showed that H. Bayramov spoke in detail in this direction in Azerbaijani linguistics. N. Valiyeva classified phraseological variants in different system languages (based on materials of Azerbaijani, English, and Russian languages), explained their lexical, grammatical, and semantic features.
In Chingiz Gurbanov's research work on phraseological variants, the problem is comprehensively explained in linguistic terms: "Phraseological variants mean changes in the form and structure of the same phraseological unit resulting from fragmentation, branching from the same source, often with stylistic and emotionally-expressive shades, differing in quantity and quality of meaning and frequency of development, common content association, same valence and only partially different lexical phraseologies with distribution in specific conditions are considered."[12, p. 11]
Ch. Gurbanov concludes that phraseological variants should be defined based on structural criteria, the semantic approach does not justify itself in the actual language material. Determining the influence of both internal and external factors on language variability reveals the functionality of several terms (dialect, dialect, standard language, etc.).
The realization of the language system at all levels in the act of speech, the influence of some internal and external linguistic factors, that is, the acquisition of various changes and shades of specific language units should be assessed as a fundamental feature of language functionally.
The relationship of variability with language changes as a universal property of language is postulated in various linguistic schools, researches of linguists, and in the most diverse language materials (K. Mattayer, V.N. Yartseva, N.N. Semenyuk, D. Nerius). Variety is used as a tool for the study of historical language changes in the grammatical system, for example, in English and German materials by T.A. Rostorgueva, O.I. Brodovich, and R.P. Ebert. Variability is also a major problem in studies of historical normalization processes.
Phraseological combinations, like other language units, have a variety of content and expression. Variation of phraseologies exists only in the form of their expression. Violation of the stability of the components in phraseological combinations creates conditions for variability. Because stability is often relative, different variants of phraseological combinations arise, resulting in several variants of the same unit.
For example, draw the curtain (over something) -1) to be silent, to hide something; 2) not to bring something in front of the eyes, not to lift the curtain. This phraseology is also available as lift the curtain over something and raise the curtain over something.
Variation is thus intrinsic to any natural language: it is through variation that language change takes place and some forms or uses supersede others diachroni-cally. In the realm of phraseology, multi-word units can be varied morphologically, syntactically, semantically, and pragmatically. Recurrent and systematic variation may result in phraseological units having their entry forms altered in general dictionaries and dictionaries of idioms. The insertion of an adjective may eventually become so common and widespread that certain phraseological units can be considered as having an open slot in their lexicographic form, as is the case with cut your teeth which is recorded by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (CALD) as Cut your political/professional, etc. teeth and defined as "to get your first experience of the type mentioned". The definition itself represents a clear sign of the semantic openness of this string which is normally instantiated with the insertion of a qualifying adjective that specifies and restricts its sphere of application delimiting its referential scope.
Some lexicographers opt, in cases like this, for a solution such as "Cut one's teeth". In respect to this string, the Collins Cobuild Dictionary of Idioms (CCDI) includes the following information in the body of the entry 'This expression can be varied by adding an adjective before "teeth", which reveals to what extent lexicographers are aware of phraseological variation and how much they take into account its recurrence for matters of lemmatization, as well as for lexicographic definitions and linguistic description. The phrase in italics in the example is illustrative of the fact that variation on idiomatic expressions through adjective insertion can be a fundamental linguistic issue:
Her parents disapproved of subversive forms like rhythm & blues or rock and roll - they also forbade their four children from going to the cinema - so Doris cut her musical teeth by singing in her father's church choir. (The Guardian, February 20, 2004)
- Types of phraseological variation
Five distinct types of variation on phraseological units can be outlined: lexical substitution, lexical insertion, truncation, grammatical transformation, and trans-categorisation.
Lexical substitution is the most frequent and widespread type of variation on phraseological units. It is usually found in predicate phrases, schematized as VP + NP, in which either the verbal constituent or the nominal constituent (or sometimes both) is replaced by another item of the same word class with which it can bear different kinds of semantic relation. Examples such as shed/weeping crocodile tears or right up your alley/street show how well-established, widespread and straightforward this type of variation is.
Alternative lexical realizations do not change the holistic meaning of the unit nor do they add new semantic information or restrict its application to a certain domain but they can modify the mental scenario of the metaphor involved. Lexical insertion constitutes the second most important means of variation on phraseological units. We will be dealing with this type of variation in-depth and in detail further down this paper.
Other minor types of variation are truncation, in which part of the original unit is elided as in scrape (the bottom of) the barrel or a weak link (in the chain), and grammatical transformation, which stands for a minor part of phraseological variants and does not normally attain lexicalized status.
It should be noticed that not all phraseological units can be varied from a grammatical or syntactic point of view. The classical and rather hackneyed example "kick the bucket" cannot be passivized as, for instance, the bucket was kicked.
We have found some examples of pluralization, as in "keep a straight face - keep straight faces" where the nominal constituent changes according to a plural subject.
Finally, transcategorisation, also known as word-class transforms, allows certain phraseological units to be transformed into units of a different word class to adapt to the constraints of specific syntactic contexts. One of the commonest means of achieving this adaptation is represented by adjectivization by which, as in the example, a prepositional phrase with an adverbial function (off the top of one's head) becomes an adjective:
There is nothing top-of-the-head about what Mr. Hain has to say either; his pamphlet is the product of extensive online consultation and several focus-group discussions. (The Guardian, March 11, 2004)
Phraseological variants are a form of the image of units of the same distribution, where the interchangeable components have a functional, expressive style within the phraseological combinations and differ from each other in the frequency of processing. For example, the phraseological unit - die in the harness can be used in several ways: die in one's boots / die in one's shoes / die with one's shoes / die with one's shoes on - 1) die prematurely, die unexpectedly; 2) to be killed, assassinated, etc. by someone.
- Semantic prosody and variational collocates
Phraseological units have traditionally been regarded as fixed and non-compositional and their constituent parts as non-analyzable. More recent phraseological research has shown that there is a cline of fixedness and that therefore there are multi-word units that are more fixed than others.
Most idioms are not lexically frozen if we understand this concept as total frozenness since "at least 90% of V-NP idioms, including many usually regarded as completely frozen, appear to allow some form of (syntactically) internal modification" [15, p. 233] and are regularly lexically modified either through substitution or insertion, or both.
Syntactic flexibility, lexical substitution, and lexical insertion in phraseological units can be explained if we consider that these units are not simply long words but that their constituents have a meaning of their own. This characteristic, a sort of semantic autonomy assigned to the core constituent(s) of multi-word units, has been identified as the analyzability of idioms. The compositional view of idiom representation regards them as having a "motivated semantic structure" and states that "this structure influences their syntactic and lexical flexibility" [14, p. 15].
Words that currently collocate with other words end up establishing associations that are generally positive or negative: this extra semantic value constitutes their "semantic prosody".
S. Hunston (1995) summarises the notion of semantic prosody thus: "Briefly, a word may be said to have a particular semantic prosody if it can be shown to co-occur typically with other words that belong to a particular semantic set." [13, p. 137]
Extraneous adjectives co-occurring with the nominal constituents of predicate phraseological units make up a regular paradigm of what we have termed "variational collocates". Let us consider the following example of a variation on a phraseological unit through the insertion of an adjective:
He had an idiosyncratic ear for orchestral color, a classical composer's ability to create long, through-composed pieces from a handful of motifs, and a jazz bandleader's ability to write for specific personalities. (The Guardian, March 4, 2004)
The term "variational collocates" refers to the paradigm of adjectives that collocate inside the phraseological unit with the main nominal constituent. The adjective idiosyncratic is normally associated with nouns such as way, approach, style, factors, behavior, character, interpretation, features, views, etc., with which it commonly collocates. However, when it is inserted in a multi-word unit such as the one in, it immediately makes part of a regular paradigm of other adjectives such as acute, sympathetic, trained, or commiserative. This adjective when used as a variational collocate displays a distinct preference for co-occurring with items denoting sympathy or accuracy, which leads us to conclude that the variational semantic prosody of having an ear for is positive.
Another example of variational semantic prosody can be observed in the instantiations of the phraseological unit that cast an eye on something. This phrase is normally found in actual contexts of use modified by
the insertion of an adjective. A search in the BNC shows that the variational collocates of the phraseological nominal base eye are critical, experienced, cold, professional, shrewd, speculative, acute, cautious, and appraising to mention just the most frequently used adjectives. These collocates form a homogenous group and share the same semantic trait, that of expertise, except for the adjective speculative which deviates from the general pattern. New paradigmatic relations are then established between the core nominal constituent of a phraseological unit whenever an internal modification through the insertion of an adjective takes place.
- Variation through the lexical insertion
Insertion of external constituents is a very recurrent means of instantiating phraseological units, especially in media discourse. This phenomenon is overwhelmingly widespread in the press and the number of occurrences can be at times extraordinary. These insertions are either a result of the contextualization of phraseological units or the processes of quantification or qualification concerning all the lexical units of the language, including phraseological units. This significant trend has been extensively studied [15] and is gaining more and more attention in phraseological research.
The interesting thing is that we can find some regularity if we look, for example, at the adjectives that are normally used for this purpose: political, moral, judicial, domestic, academic, financial, economic, intellectual, historical, commercial, statistical, etc., which all belong to the same notional paradigm. These adjectives function as "domain delimiters" or as "viewpoint modification", considered to be "the most widely available form of internal modification for idioms" [15, p.241].
These intrusive adjectives have lately been identified as "concern modifiers" and can be used with the majority of idioms, even with the most frozen ones which can also allow this type of modification. But other word classes can find their way into the lexicographic form of phraseological units.
Adverbs and nouns are sometimes inserted to modify the whole string or only a specific constituent part. Insertion is numerically mainly adjectival although adverbs, nouns (generally as adnominal premod-ifiers), and even prepositions can be inserted in the canonical forms of idioms. Apart from adverbs, which represent the second most important variation through lexical insertion, and noun modifiers, the presence of other word classes represents either minor instances or nonce variants.
Conclusion
in this article, we have investigated the variability of phraseological units. As a result of our investigation, we learned that variation is thus intrinsic to any natural language: it is through variation that language change takes place and some forms or uses supersede others diachronically. The problem of variability has been
studied in both foreign and Azerbaijani linguistics. The study of the problem of variability in foreign linguistics began in the early twentieth century.
Five distinct types of variation on phraseological units can be outlined: lexical substitution, lexical insertion, truncation, grammatical transformation, and trans-categorisation.
REFERENCES:
1. Ожегов С.И. О структуре фразеологии (в связи с проектом фразеологического словаря русского языка). Лексикографический сборник. М., 1974, вып. II., с.38
2. Балли Ш. Французская стилистика. М.: Иностр. литер., 1909, русский перевод -1961, с.21.
3. Fleischer W. Phraseologie der deutsche Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen, 1997, s.22.
4. Hockett C.F. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Prentice Hall College Div., 1958, s. 172.
5. Gibb R., Josephine Jr., Bogdanovich M., Jeffrey R.Sykes, Dale J.Barr. Metaphor in Idiom Comprehension // Journal of memory and language, 1997, № 37, s. 111.
6. Weinreich U. Problems in the Analysis of Idioms. Substance and Structure of Language. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969, s. 23-25
7. Chafe W.L. Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomsky paradigm //Foundations of Language, 1968, № 4, s. 109-127.
8. Cutler A. Idioms, The colder - the older // Linguistic Inquiry. London, 1982, № 13, s. 317-320.
9. Katz J., Postal P. Semantic interpretation of idioms and sentences containing them. Massachusetts: MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, Quartely Progress Report, vol. 70, 1963, s. 275-282.
10. Чейф Л. Уоллес. Значение и структура языка. М.: Прогресс, 1975, с. 230.
11. Valiyeva N.Q. Dil tipologiyasinin aktual prob-lemlari. Actual problems of language typology. Актуальные проблемы языковой типологии. Baki: Elm va Tahsil, 2011, 512 p.
12. Курбанов Ч.Г. Диапазон лексических вариантов во фразеологии: Автореф. ...канд.фи-лол.наук. Тбилиси, 1980, с. 11.
13. Hunston S. "A corpus study of some English verbs of attribution", Functions of Language, 2, 1995, pp. 133-158.
14. Langlotz A. "Occasional adnominal idiom modification - a cognitive linguistic approach", IJES, 6, 1, 2006 b, pp. 85-108.
15. Nicolas T., 1995, "Semantics of idiom modification", in M. Everaert, E-J van der Linden, A.Schenk & R.Schreuder (eds.), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 233-252.
