 |
|
Классификации фразеологических единиц
Ethymological classification /Smith/
Phraseological units are classified according to their source of origin. Source here refers to the perticular sphere of human activity or life of nature. Ph.units can be associated with certain professions (idioms used by sailors, sportsmen, soldiers, artists etc.) or some natural phenomena and living beings (animals, birds etc.) To hit below the bent = удар ниже пояса; to be all at sea = to be at a loss; to hold fire = to take one's time. Stricktly speaking, this classification is not purely ethymological, since ethymological studies are concerned with distinctions between native and borrowed words. It's better to call this approach "thematic classification".
Semantic classification /Виноградов/
Taking into account mainly the degree of idiomaticity phraseological units may be classified into three big groups:
1. phraseological fusions,
2. phraseological unities,
3. phraseological collocations.
Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups, such as red tape — ‘bureaucratic methods’; heavy father — ’serious or solemn part in a theatrical play’; kick the bucket — ‘die’; and the like. The meaning of the components has no connections whatsoever, at least synchronically, with the meaning of the whole group. Idiomaticity is, as a rule, combined with complete stability of the lexical components and the grammatical structure of the fusion.
Phraseological unities are partially non-motivated as their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit. For example, to show one’s teeth, to wash one’s dirty linen in public if interpreted as semantically motivated through the combined lexical meaning of the component words would naturally lead one to understand these in their literal meaning. The metaphoric meaning of the whole unit, however, readily suggests ‘take a threatening tone’ or ’show an intention to injure’ for show one’s teeth and ‘discuss or make public one’s quarrels’ for wash one’s dirty linen in public. Phraseological unities are as a rule marked by a comparatively high degree of stability of the lexical components.
Phraseological collocations are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word-groups. In phraseological collocations variability of member-words is strictly limited. For instance, bear a grudge may be changed into bear malice, but not into bear a fancy or liking. We can say take a liking (fancy) but not take hatred (disgust). These habitual collocations tend to become kind of clichés1 where the meaning of member-words is to some extent dominated by the meaning of the whole group. Due to this phraseological collocations are felt as possessing a certain degree of semantic inseparability.
Functional (part of speech) classification /Arnold/
This classification is based on the grammatical unity of ph.units and their functioning in the language as word equivalents. Irina Vladimirovna Arnold divides them into:
1. noun equivalents: a bull in a hina shop
2. verb equivalents: to take a bull by the horns
3. adjective equivalents: safe and sound
4. adverb equivalents: side by side
5. interjectional ph.units: my eye!
Detailed functional, structural and semantic classification /Кунин/
The main classes of ph.units are based on the function the unit fulfills in speech. According to it, ph.units may be the following:
1. Nominative — they denote things, actions, phenomena etc., e.g.: to fit smb like a glove, cackes and ale.
2. Nominative-communicative — may be transferred into sentences, e.g.: to break the eyes —> the eyes are broken; to put the card before the horse —> the card is put before the horse.
3. Interjectional — stand for certain interjections, e.g.: Jesus Christ!
4. Communicative — ph.units with a structure of a sentence, proverbs, sayings, e.g.: that's another pair of shous!, a friend in need is a friend indeed.