PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS

Free word groups vs Set-Phrases : Idioms, Set-Phrases, Word-

Equivalents

The term p h r a s e o l o g i c a l u n i t s was introduced by

Soviet linguists to denote a specific group of phrases.
Attempts have been made to approach the problem of
phraseology in different ways. Up till now, however, there is a
certain divergence of opinion as to the essential feature of
phraseological units as distinguished from other word-groups
and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed
phraseological units.
The complexity of the problem may be largely accounted for
by the fact that the border-line between free word-groups and
phraseological units is not clearly defined. The so-called free
word-groups are only relatively free as collocability (
համադրելիություն)of their member-words is fundamentally
delimited(որոշված է) by their lexical and grammatical valency
which makes at least some of them very close to set-phrases.
Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically
inseparable. Between the extremes of complete motivation and
variability (փոփոխականություն) of member-words on the
one hand and lack of motivation combined with complete
stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure on
the other hand there are innumerable border-line cases.
1
 However, the existing terms, e.g. set-phrases, idioms, word-
equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the main debatable issues
of phraseology which centre on the divergent views concerning
the nature and essential features of phraseological units as
distinguished from the so-called free word-groups.
The term s e t - p h r a s e implies that the basic criterion of
differentiation is stability of the lexical components and
grammatical structure of word-groups. The term i d i o m s
generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units
under consideration is idiomaticity or lack of motivation. This
term habitually used by English and American linguists is very
often treated as synonymous with the term p h r a s e o l o g i c a l
u n i t universally accepted in our country.2 The term w o r d -
e q u i v a l e n t stresses not only the semantic but also the
functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their
aptness (պիտանիություն)to function in speech as single words.

Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated

word-groups that cannot be freely made up in speech but are
reproduced as ready-made units. This definition proceeds from
the assumption that the essential features of
phraseological units are stability of the lexical components and
lack of motivation. It is consequently assumed that unlike
components of free word-groups which may vary according to
the needs of communication, member-words of phraseological

2
units are always reproduced as single unchangeable
collocations.
Thus, for example, the constituent red in the free word-group
red flower may, if necessary, be substituted for by any other
adjective denoting colour (blue, white, etc.), without essentially
changing the denotational meaning of the word-group under
discussion (a flower of a certain colour). In the phraseological
unit red tape (bureaucratic “methods) no such substitution is
possible, as a change of the adjective would involve a complete
change in the meaning of the whole group. A blue (black,
white, etc.) tape would mean ‘a tape of a certain colour’. It
follows that the phraseological unit red tape is semantically
non-motivated, i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced
(հասկանալ) from the meaning of its components and that it
exists as a ready-made linguistic unit which does not allow of
any variability of its lexical components.
It is also argued that non-variability of the phraseological unit
is not confined (սահմանափակվում) to its lexical components.
Grammatical structure of phraseological units is to a certain
extent also stable. Thus, though the structural formula of the
word-groups red flower and red tape is identical (A + +N), the
noun flower may be used in the plural (red flowers), whereas no
such change is possible in the phraseological unit red tape; red
tapes would then denote ‘tapes of red colour’ but not
‘bureaucratic methods’. This is also true of other types of
phraseological units, e.g. what will Mrs. Grundy say?, where the
3
verbal component is invariably reproduced in the same
grammatical form.

Classification of PhUs According to the Degree of

Motivation

Taking into account mainly the degree of idiomaticity

phraseological units may be classified into three big groups:
p h r a s e o l o g i c a l f u s i o n s , p h r a s e o l o g i c a l u n i t i e s and
p h r a s e o l o g i c a l coll o c a t i o n s .

P h r a s e o l o g i c a l f u s i o n s 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.

P h r a s e o l o g i c a l u n i t i e s are partially non-motivated as

their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric
4
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.

P h r a s e o l o g i c a l c o l l o c a t i o n s 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 clichés 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.

Criterion of Function
5
 It is argued that the final test of the semantic and grammatical
inseparability of phrases is their functional unity, i.e. their
aptness (պիտանիություն) to function in speech as single
syntactic units.
It will be observed that in the free word-groups, e.g. heavy
weight, long time, the adjectives heavy and long function as
attributes to other members of the sentence (weight, time),
whereas the phraseological units heavy father and in the long
run are functionally inseparable and are always viewed as
making up one and only one member of the sentence (the
subject or the object, etc.), i.e. they are functionally equivalent
to single words.
Proceeding from the assumption that phraseological units are
non-motivated word-groups functioning as word-equivalents by
virtue of their semantic and grammatical inseparability, we may
classify them into noun equivalents (e.g. heavy father), verb
equivalents (e.g. take place, break the news), adverb equivalents
(e.g. in the long run – He succeeded in the long run ), etc.
As far as their structure is concerned these groups are not
homogeneous and may be subdivided into the same groups as
variable phrases. Among verb equivalents, for example, we may
find verb-noun units (take place) and verb-adverb units (give
up), adverb equivalents comprise preposition-noun groups (e.g
by heart, at length), adverb-conjunction-adverb groups (e.g. far
and wide), etc.
6
 Sources of PhUs

The following may be perceived as the main causes accounting

for the loss of motivation of free word-groups:
a) When one of the components of a word-group becomes
archaic or drops out of the language altogether the whole word-
group may become completely or partially non-motivated. For
example, lack of motivation in the word-group kith and kin (
հարազատ) may be accounted for by the fact that the member-
word kith (OE. cÿth) dropped out of the language altogether
except as the component of the phraseological unit under
discussion. This is also observed in the phraseological unit to
and fro, and some others.
b) When as a result of a change in the semantic structure of a
polysemantic word some of its meanings disappear and can be
found only in certain collocations. The noun mind, e.g., once
meant ‘purpose’ or ‘intention’ and this meaning survives in the
7
phrases to have a mind to do smth., to change one’s mind, etc.
c) When a free word-group used in professional speech
penetrates into general literary usage, it is often felt as non-
motivated. To pull (the) strings (wires), e.g., was originally used
as a free word-group in its direct meaning by professional actors
in puppet shows. In Modern English, however, it has lost all
connection with puppet-shows and therefore cannot be
described as metaphorically motivated. Lack of motivation can
also be observed in the phraseological unit to stick to one’s guns
which can be traced back to military English, etc.
d) Sometimes extra-linguistic factors may account for the loss of
motivation, to show the white feather — ‘to act as a coward’,
e.g., can be traced back to the days when cock-fighting was
popular. A white feather in a gamecock’s plumage (
փետրածածկ) denoted bad breeding and was regarded as a sign
of cowardice. Now that cock-fighting is no longer a popular
sport, the phrase is felt as non-motivated.
e) When a word-group making up part of a proverb or saying
begins to be used as a self-contained unit it may gradually
become non-motivated if its connection with the corresponding
proverb or saying is not clearly perceived. A new broom, e.g.,
originates as a component of the saying new brooms sweep
clean. New broom as a phraseological unit may be viewed as
non-motivated because the meaning of the whole is not
deducible from the meaning of the components. Moreover, it
seems grammatically and functionally self-contained and
8
inseparable too. In the saying quoted above the noun broom is
always used in the plural; as a member- word of the
phraseological unit it is mostly used in the singular. The
phraseological unit a new broom is characterised by functional
inseparability. In the saying new brooms sweep clean the
adjective new functions as an attribute to the noun brooms, in
the phraseological unit a new broom (e.g. Well, he is a new
broom! /somebody with new ideas) the whole word-group is
functionally inseparable.
f) When part of a quotation from literary sources, mythology or
the Bible begins to be used as a self-contained unit, it may also
lose all connection with the original context and as a result of
this become non-motivated. The phraseological unit the green-
eyed monster (jealousy) can be easily found as a part of the
quotation from Shakespeare “It is the green-eyed monster which
doth mock the meat it feeds on” (Othello, II, i. 165). In Modern
English, however, it functions as a non-motivated self-contained
phraseological unit and is also used to denote the T.V. set.
Achilles heel — ‘the weak spot in a man’s circumstances or
character’ can be traced back to mythology, but it seems that in
Modern English this word-group functions as a phraseological
unit largely because most English speakers do not connect it
with the myth from which it was extracted.