CC BY
35
Lingua mobilis №5 (24), 2010
THE PROBLEM OF PHRASEOLOGICAL ABSTRACTION (ON THE BASIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE)
T. N. Fedulenkova, K. S. Kokovina, A. S. Popova
Проблема фразеологической абстракции была впервые поднята В.Л. Архангельским, который подчеркивал, что различные уровни фразеологической абстракции говорят о фразеологической асимметрии. Развивая эти идеи, А.М. Мелерович назвала 3 типа фразеологической абстракции, к которым А.В. Кунин добавил еще один. Фразеологическая абстракция тесно связана с языковой мотивацией фразеологического значения. В статье трактуются понятия абстракция изоляции и абстракция идентификации.
Keywords: phraseology, phraseological abstraction, abstraction of isolation, analytical abstraction, abstraction of identification.
1. Abstraction of isolation and abstraction of identification
The encyclopaedic dictionary reads as follows “Abstraction is a form of cognition which is based on mental singling out essential characteristics and relations of the object without taking into consideration its other, minor peculiarities and relations”.
That is, if we mean “the man in general”, “the animal in general”, “the book in general”, we deal with abstraction, i.e. with mental diversion from a very large number of people, animals, books, etc. In reality there exists no man in general, no animal in general, no book in general, but there is a concrete man, a concrete animal, a concrete book, etc.
There are two types of abstraction in cognition: abstraction of isolation and abstraction of identification. Both types are to be found within the frame of phraseology.
Abstraction of isolation, or analytical abstraction, is observed when the properties denoted by a certain name are mentally extracted from the object and from some other features connected with it. Such extraction results in abstract general notions, e.g. the never-ending sleep - death, the green-eyed monster - jealousy, etc.
Abstraction of identification is observed when initial features of differentiation in the objects are mentally neglected and some general feature of the objects under study is simultaneously singled out, i.e. a kind
106
Лингвистика и перевод
of identification of the two subjects takes place. That does not mean, of course, that the objects under study are completely identical: partial identity is enough for abstraction of identification. This type of abstraction may be exemplified by metaphorical and metonymical phrases, e.g. the king of beast - the lion, the ship of the desert - the camel, a cup that cheers but not inebriates - tea, etc.
All the given phraseological units have lexical one-word equivalents: jealousy, lion, camel, tea. These words are non-motivated in modern English. They express general notions and contain no evaluation.
The corresponding phraseological synonyms are evaluative, they are characterized by imagery motivating them. The point is that, these PUs do not only denote the corresponding object but describe one of its features as well. That leads to the conclusion that such phraseological units have a lower degree of abstraction as compared to their lexical synonyms. But there are cases when a phraseological unit and its lexical synonym are both non-motivated, they both then have a high degree of abstraction, e.g. to go off to Gretna Green - to get married without the parents ’ consent; to send smb to Coventry - to punish someone for disloyalty to his companions by refusing to speak to him [4. C. 257].
Analogous regularity is observed while correlating phraseological units. Non-motivated PUs of the type to send smb to Coventry have a much higher degree of abstraction than those motivated of the type a cup that cheers but not inebriates. The fact is explained by a ‘longer distance’ from the meanings of PU components in the former PU as compared to the latter one.
2. The problem of phraseological abstraction
The problem of phraseological abstraction was first pointed out by Vladimir L. Arkhangelsky who introduced the term phraseological abstraction itself into the metalanguage of linguistics [1. C. 61]. The basic statements put forward by Vladimir L. Arkhangelsky are as follows:
1) phraseological abstraction consists in the diversion from the meanings of the words performing the part of PU components; phraseologisms are able to generally express emotions, wishes, relations of modality, e.g. my Lord! by George! not by a long chalk, not for the world(!);
2) there are different degrees of phraseological abstraction which testifies to its asymmetry, e.g. to play second fiddle - a) a professional term of musicians, b) to have a lower or less important position (when compared with another person) [7. C. 111].
Phraseological abstraction is closely connected with language motivation of phraseological meaning. More than that, these two categories stand
107
Lingua mobilis №5 (24), 2010
in reverse ratio to each other. The availability of some type of motivation of phraseological meaning testifies to the absence or to the partial character (non-fullness) of the correspondent type of phraseological abstraction; and vice versa - the fuller the phraseological abstraction is, the weaker the motivation of the correspondent type becomes [6. C. 128].
The following basic types of phraseological abstraction are found out by Alina Melerovich:
1) abstraction from the lexical and grammatical meanings of the PU components,
2) abstraction from the prototypical combination of words which serve as the basis of phrase formation,
3) abstraction from the typical meaning of the syntactic construction.
One more type of phraseological abstraction is added to the list by Alexander Vl. Kunin [5. C. 159], i.e. complicated abstraction which consists in various combinations of the types of abstraction mentioned.
3. Degrees of phraseological abstraction
The first type of abstraction has two degrees: full and non-full or partial ones. Full abstraction is revealed in cases when the meaning of the phraseological units is simultaneously abstracted from lexical and grammatical meanings of its components, e.g. in one’s cups meaning ‘not in control of oneself after drinking alcohol’, not a shot in the locker meaning ‘having no ideas, materials, etc., left that one can use, esp. having no money’, tooth and nail meaning ‘with great determination and effort’, etc.
Non-full (partial) abstraction takes place in two cases:
Case 1. When the phaseological meaning is abstracted from the lexical meanings of the PU components, and the PU category meaning is motivated by the word that plays the grammatically leading part in the basic (prototypical) combination of words: birds of a feather meaning ‘often derog. people who have the same interests’, Adam’s ale (or less common wine) meaning ‘water’. The categorical meaning of the grammatically leading component determines the class / subclass of the phraseological unit, i.e.: 1a) nominative PU class (substantive PU subclass): the man on horseback, a Roman holiday, a white elephant, 1b) nominative PU class (adjectival PU subclass): dry behind the ears, high and mighty, long in the tooth, 2) verbal PU class: bite off more than one can chew, bear one’s cross, kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, 3) interjectional PU class: oh, my eyes! bless my heart and soul! goodness gracious! 4) communicative PU class: The rotten apple injures its neighbours, Constant dropping
108
Лингвистика и перевод
wears away a stone, Distance lends enchantment to the view, A creaking door hangs long on its hinges, [3. C. 41] etc.
This type of abstraction is mostly characteristic of the PUs having the partial transfer of meaning , e.g. safe as the Bank of England, to talk to smb like a Dutch uncle, to leave smb in the learch, A new broom sweeps clean [2. C. 16], etc.
Case 2. When the phaseological meaning is abstracted from the grammatical meaning of the word that plays the grammatically leading part in the basic (prototypical) combination of words and at the same time it is motivated to a certain extent by the lexical meaning of some components:
hand over fist, by leaps and bounds, by fits and starts, in the twinkling of an eye, etc.
In his textbook on phraseology A.V. Kunin suggested and described four levels of phraseological abstraction: from the highest one to the low one [5. C. 159].
Thus, the problem of PU abstraction is considered to be one of the most complicated problems in the theory of phraseology. It is rather far from its solution as linguists are but making the first steps with the view of tackling it.
References
1. Arkhangelsky, V.L. Ustoychivi-ye frazy v sovremennom russkom yazike. Rostov-na-Donu, 1964.
2. Fedoulenkova, T.N. A new approach to the clipping of communicative phraseological units // Ran-am: European Society for the Study of English: ESSE 6 - Strasbourg 2002 / Ed. P. Frath & M. Rissanen.
Strasbourg: Universite Marc Bloch,
2003. - Vol. 36. - P. 11-22.
3. Fedoulenkova, T.N. Diachronic Approach to the Study of Communicative Phraseological Units //
Northern Development and Sustainable Livelihoods: Towards a Critical Circumpolar Agenda. Aberdeen:
109
Lingua mobilis №5 (24), 2010
University of Aberdeen, 6th CUCC,
1999. Pp. 41-42.
4. Fedoulenkova, T.N. Idioms in Business English: Ways to Crosscultural Awareness // Domain-specific English: textual practices across communities and classrooms / Giuseppina Cortese & Philip Riley (ed.). Bern; Berlin; Bruxelles;
Frankfurt am Mein; New York;
Oxford; Wien: Lang, 2002. P. 247269.
5. Kunin, A.V. Kurs frazeologii sovremennogo anglijskogo yazika.
Moskva: Visshaya shkola, 1996.
6. Melerovich, A.M. Smislovaya struktura frazeologicheskih ye-dinits v sovremennom russkom yazike. Moskva: INION AN SSSR,
1980.
7. Urdang, L. (ed) Longman Dictionary of English Idioms. Harlow and London: Longman Group UK Ltd., 1996.
110
