Classification of Phraseological Units

2

Content

Introduction……………………………………………………………………….….3

Chapter 1. General Characteristics of Phraseological Units…………………………5

           1.1. Phraseology as a Science. Definition of Phraseological Unit……………5

           1.2. Criteria of phraseological units…………………………………………..7

Chapter 2. Classification of Phraseological Units…………………………………..10

            2.1. Etymological Classification of Phraseological Units…………………..10           

            2.2. Semantic Classification of Phraseological Units………………………12          

            2.3. Structural Classification of Phraseological Units…………………...…14          

            2.4. Structural-Semantic Classification of Phraseological Units ………......15

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..…18

Resources……………………………………………………………………...……20

Introduction

Nowadays English is the chief language of international business and academic conferences, the leading language of international tourism. English is the main language of popular music, advertising, home computers and video games. Most of the scientific, technological and academic information in the world is expressed in English. International communication develops and expends very fast. The English language has become the means of international communication, the language of trade, education, politics, and economics. People have to communicate with each other, it is very important for them to understand the foreigners and be understood by them. A word comes to be a very powerful means of communication but also can be a cause of a great misunderstanding if it is not clearly understood by one of the speakers. Idioms are a very numerous part of the English language. It comprises one-third part of the colloquial speech. That is why good knowledge of the language, including English, is impossible without knowledge of its phraseology.  Competence in this area makes it easier to read both journalistic and fiction literature. The metaphorical and emotional character of the phraseology makes the speech more figurative and expressive. Therefore, for those who learn the English language, this layer of the English vocabulary is of particular interest.

Today it is difficult to find the aspect of the language study which has not be considered by the Russian or foreign scientists. Nevertheless, phraseology is a field of science where not all the questions have been resolved. The problem of classification of phraseological units, for example, still remains one of the most controversial. Therefore, the study of phraseological units in the modern English language is relevant in the present circumstances.

The purpose of this research is to study the general characteristics of phraseological units as a constituent part of the English vocabulary and to examine different classifications of phraseological units.

In order to achieve the set aim we are to determine the following tasks:

1. To consider the phraseology as a linguistic discipline and to conclude the definition of phraseological unit.

2. To investigate the criteria for distinguishing phraseological units from free word-groups.

3. To explore classifications of phraseological units made on the basis of different principles of classification.

The object of the present work is the phraseological units of the English language. The subject is the phraseology in English and the problem of classification of phraseological units.

Methodological bases of research the works of Russian and foreign experts in the field of phraseology as well as dictionaries’ data served as methodological bases of research.

1. General Characteristics of Phraseological Units

1.1. Phraseology as a Science. Definition of Phraseological Unit

Phraseology is a relatively new branch of linguistics which attracts the attention of an increasing number of scholars [15, 484]. The vocabulary of any developed language is enriched not only by words but also by phraseological units which are not created by the speaker in the process of speech but used as ready-made units [11]. It was a long time ago that linguists became aware of the existence in the language of special larger-than-word units: word-groups consisting of two or more words whose combination is integrated as a unit with a specialized meaning of the whole. The term phraseology was first used by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally when he wrote about different types of word-groups that vary in the degree of stability from free word-groups to phraseological unities. He compared the latter with chemical substances which have a set of properties different from the properties of the elements that make them up.

As for our country, the first attempt to study various word-groups on a scientific basis was made by the outstanding Russian linguist A. A. Shakhmatov (1925) and a few years later another linguist, Professor E. D. Polivanov (1931), pointed out the need to establish a branch of linguistics that would study the peculiarities of word-groups. However, it was not until the 1940s that Academician V. V. Vinogradov (1947) actually understood such an investigation and suggested the first classification of phraseological units in the Russian language. Later years saw a remarkable rise in the interest in this new branch of linguistics and a further development of its theory.

The Soviet school of English phraseology is connected with the names of N. N. Amosova (1963) and A. V. Kunin who is the author of several books on the theory of English phraseology (1970, 1972, 1986) and the English-Russian phraseological dictionary (1984). A. V. Kunin is a founder of a phraseological school as the advisor for about 80 doctoral dissertations on the subject. Some other linguists contributed greatly to investigations in phraseology are B. A. Larin, V. L. Arkhangelsky, A. I. Smirnitsky, V. N. Telya [15, 484].

At present, phraseology is defined as a branch of linguistics the subject matter of which is study and systematic description of phraseological units, i.e. reproduced and idiomatic (non-motivated) or partially motivated units built up according to the model of free word-groups or sentences and semantically and syntactically brought into correlation with words [16, 128-129]. Opinions differ as to how this part of the vocabulary should be defined, classified, described and analysed. To make matters worse no two authors agree upon the terminology they use. The word phraseology, for instance, has different meanings in our country and in Great Britain or the United States.

In Soviet linguistic literature the term phraseology has come to be used for the whole ensemble of expressions where the meaning of one element is dependent on the other, irrespective of the structure and properties of the unit (V. V. Vinogradov); with other authors it denotes only such set expressions which do not possess expressiveness or emotional colouring (A. I. Smirnitsky), and also vice versa: only those that are imaginative, expressive and emotional (I. V. Arnold). N. N. Amosova overcomes the subjectiveness of the two last mentioned approaches when she insists on the term being applicable only to what she calls fixed context units, i.e. units in which it is impossible to substitute any of the components without changing the meaning not only of the whole unit but also of the elements that remain intact. O. S. Ahmanova has repeatedly insisted on the semantic integrity of such phrases prevailing over the structural separateness of their elements. A. V. Kunin lays stress on the structural separateness of the elements in a phraseological unit, on the change of meaning in the whole as compared with its elements taken separately [10, 165].

There are also another terms which are used by linguists besides the term phraseological unit. The existing terms reflect different views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups. The term set-phrases implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally means that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is ideomaticity or lack of motivation. This term usually used by English and American linguists is very often treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit universally accepted in our country. The term word-equivalent stresses not only the semantic but also the functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their ability to function in speech as single words [12, 74].

Thus, as it was already mentioned, differences in terminology reflect certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish between free word-groups and a specific type of linguistic units generally known as phraseology. These criteria are discussed below.

1.2. Criteria of Phraseological Units

One of the most important and difficult problems of phraseology is how to distinguish between free word-groups and phraseological units. It is necessary to point out the criteria of phraseological units because they have certain features in common with free word-groups and compound words.

The criteria offered by linguists are ideomaticity, stability, word-equivalency. We decided to stop on the criteria described by A. V. Kunin in his researches.

The first criterion is the structural separateness, or divisibility of phraseological units into separate structural elements. Structural separateness helps to distinguish phraseological units from compound words. In the case of compound words there is a common grammatical form for all elements of this word [14, 105]. For example, the grammatical change in the word shipwreck implies that inflections are added to both elements of the word simultaneously – ship-wreak-( ), ship-wreak-(s), while in the word-group the wreck of a ship each element can change its grammatical form independently from the other – (the) wreck-( ) of the ship-s, (the) wreck-s of the ship-s. Like in word-groups, in phraseological units any component may be changed grammatically, but these changes are rather few, limited and occasional [16, 129]. For example, a phraseological unit a hard nut to crack (a problem difficult to find an answer to) can be used in the following forms: they are hard nuts to crack, it is a harder nut to crack.

The next important criterion of phraseological units is stability. A. V. Kunin distinguishes several aspects of stability:

a) Stability of use means that phraseological units are introduced in speech ready-made and not created each time anew like free word-groups. Stability of use proves that a phraseological unit like a word is a language unit. Phraseological units are firstly the individual creations and later they become common property. For example, Shakespeare’s writings play a great role in the life of English-speaking communities, and many phraseological units, first being Shakespeare’s individual creations, became world’s value and joined the stock of phraseological units of the English language [14, 105], such as: cakes and ale (material comforts), give the devil his due (give back what you owe), neither rhyme nor reason (without logic, order, or planning), to one’s heart’s content (as much as one wants, to one's entire satisfaction, without limitation), et cetera [17].

b) Lexico-semantic stability means that components of phraseological units are either irreplaceable or can be partly replaced in some cases because the meaning of phraseological unit is understood as a whole and not related to the meaning of individual words. This type of stability is of great help in stating the semantic difference between free word-groups and phraseological units. For example, one cannot change the noun component in the phraseological unit to give the sack (to dismiss from work) without destroying its phraseological meaning. In the following examples one of the components can be replaced by its synonym: to tread/walk on air (to be delighted), a skeleton in the cupboard/closet (a family secret), not to lift/raise/stir a finger (not to help). Semantic stability is preserved in such cases.

c) Morphological stability means that the components of phraseological units are restricted as to the usage of morphological forms. For example, noun components in phraseological units are used either only in the singular (chase the wild goose (to strive for the impossible), play a lone hand (to act alone)) or in the plural (small potatoes (trifles)). Although in some cases changing is possible: to be in deep water (s), as happy as a king (kings).

d) Syntactic stability is stability of the order of the components of a phraseological unit. For example, changing of the order of the components in the following phraseological units: cakes and ale (material comforts), bread and butter (simple and wholesome) results in destruction of phraseological units. But there might be variations within syntactic stability – grammatical and stylistic inversion. To grammatical inversion belongs transformation of passivisation, i.e. conversion of a verbal phraseological unit from active into passive voice: break the ice (do or say something to remove or reduce social tension) – the ice is broken; to stylistic inversion belongs the change of the word order for the sake of expressivity: bear one’s cross (suffer from responsibility as a condition of life or for a period) – What a cross he has to bear! [14, 105-106].

So, speaking about the criterion of stability we may draw the following conclusion. Phraseological units as a rule possess a high degree of stability, although their stability is relative. There are phraseological units with the highest level of stability, allowing no changes; phraseological units with medium degree of stability, allowing minimal changes; phraseological units with low level of stability, allowing higher changes. Accordingly, the criterion of stability is criticized by many linguists as not very reliable in distinguishing phraseological units from free word-groups.

Semantically all word-groups can be classified into motivated and non-motivated. A word-group is lexically motivated if the combined lexical meaning of the group is deducible from the meanings of its components, for example, red flower, heavy weight, et cetera. If the combined lexical meaning of a word-group is not deducible from the meanings of its constituent components, such a word-group is lexically non-motivated [16, 124]. So, another criterion of phraseological units is ideomaticity, or lack of motivation. Phraseological units are partially motivated or non-motivated (idiomatic). To partially motivated phraseological units belong examples like a dog in the manger (a person who selfishly prevents others from using or enjoying something which he keeps for himself, though he cannot use or enjoy it) and a great number of others. The phraseological unit to kick the bucket, for example, is non-motivated. The lack of motivation can be explained by the fact that in the course of time the association between each particular meaning of the component lexemes and the meaning of the whole word combination was faded and lost.

There is another criterion of phraseological units, that is the criterion of function. Idiomaticity and stability of phraseological units bring them closer to words. A. I. Smirnitsky considered phraseological units to be word equivalents because phraseological units like words are introduced into speech ready-made and function in speech as single words. Phraseological units and words have identical syntactic functions and they are interchangeable in certain cases. For example, we can use the words to rejoice and the sun instead of the phraseological units to throw one’s hat in the air and the eye of the day. Phraseological units like words have synonyms. For instance, the following phraseological synonyms convey the meaning “to have not enough money for one’s needs”: to be in low waters, to be on the rocks, to be on one’s beam ends, to be as poor as a church mouse, to be hard up, to be on one’s uppers. Phraseological units like words have also antonyms: a good mixer – a bad mixer, bad (foul) language, unparliamentary language – parliamentary language. Phraseological units like words though in a much smaller degree are characterized by polysemy and homonymy [14, 106-107].

Although words and phraseological units have much in common, they are different language units, the main difference between them is structural, that is phraseological units are characterized by structural separateness, while words are marked by structural integrity.

Thus, phraseological units occupy an intermediate position between words and free word-groups. Being intermediate units, they have features of words, on the one hand, and features of free word-groups, on the other. That is why it is difficult to distinguish between them. Moreover, these difficulties are enhanced by the fact that some properties of phraseological units (such as idiomaticity, stability, word-equivalency) are expressed in different phraseological units in different degree. These difficulties are revealed in various classifications of phraseological units.

2. Classifications of Phraseological Units

Phraseological units must be sorted out and arranged in certain classes which possess identical characteristics. But a phraseological unit is a complex phenomenon with a number of important features, which can be therefore approached from different points of view.  Hence, there is diversity of opinion concerning principles and criteria of classification of phraseological units.

2.1. Etymological Classification of Phraseological Units

There are various ways and sources of the origin of phraseological units in the English language. The consideration of the origin of phraseological units contributes to a better understanding of phraseological meaning. As any lexical item they can be divided into two large groups that is they can be either native English by origin or borrowed from other languages. Let us consider the main sources of native and borrowed phraseological units in English.

The majority of phraseological units in English are native English. In most cases the creators of them are unknown. The main sources of native phraseological units are:

1) Terminological and professional lexics, for example, physics: center of gravity (центр тяжести), specific weight (удельный вес); navigation: to cut the painter (обрубить канат; to become independent), to lower one’s colours (спустить свой флаг; to yield, to give in); military sphere: to fall into line (стать в строй; to conform/agree with others), to draw one’s/the enemy’s fire (to cause somebody to concentrate attack, criticism, etc. in a particular direction); sports: to hit below the belt (нанести удар ниже пояса, предательский удар) [16, 135-136; 14, 113-115].

2)  British literature. The majority of them come from Shakespeare’s writings: the green-eyed monster (jealousy), to one’s heart’s content (as much as one wants), cakes and ale (material comforts, merry-making), the salt of youth (enjoyable living), a fool’s paradise (illusory happiness, the world of dreams), like Hamlet without the prince (the most important person at event is absent). Other writers who contributed to the stock of phraseological units are J. Milton: to fall evil days (to live in poverty after having enjoyed better times); J. Swift: all the world and his wife (many people, everyone without exception), to quarrel with one’s bread and butter (to quit the job that provides means of existence); W. M. Thackeray: a skeleton in the cupboard (something in one’s family which is kept concealed); Ch. Dickens: never say die (do not give up hope in a difficult situation); W. Scott: to catch somebody red-handed (to discover somebody while he is doing something wrong) and others.

3) British customs and traditions. Example: a baker’s dozen (a group of thirteen), in the past British merchants of bread received from bakers thirteen loaves instead of twelve and the thirteenth loaf was merchant’s profit.

4) Superstitions and legends: a black sheep (a less successful or more immoral person in a family or a group), people believed that a black ship was marked by the devil.

5) Historical facts and events, personalities. Examples: blue stocking – one admiral from Holland called the members of one literary society “the gathering of blue stockings” because one of scientists appeared there in blue stockings; to do a Thatcher (to stay in power as Prime Minister for three consecutive terms), from the former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher; according to Cocker (according to rules), Cocker is the author of a text-book on arithmetics in the 17th century; Queen Ann is dead! (iron. It was known long ago).

6) Phenomena and facts of everyday life: carry coals to Newcastle (to take something to a place where there is plenty of it available), Newcastle is a town in Northern England where a lot of coal was produced; to get out of wood (to be saved from danger or difficulty) [16, 135-136; 14, 113-115].

  Phraseological units borrowed from other languages entered English phraseology through both literary sources and oral contacts with other nations. The main sources of borrowed phraseological units are:

1) The Bible – the most important source of borrowed phraseology. The idioms borrowed from the bible are quite numerous: forbidden fruit (something that is desired because it is forbidden of disapproved of), the root of all devil (money), the olive branch (the symbol of peace and quite), new vine in old bottles (new contents in the old shape), a wolf in a sheep’s clothing (a person who appears to be friendly, or harmless, but is really an enemy or evil-doer), can the leopard change his sports? (some people cannot change some of their habits or manners, behaviour), pride goes before a fall (pride is a sin that leads to a collapse), the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing (communication in an organization is bad so that one part does not know what is happening in another part).

2) Ancient legends and myths: to cut the Gordian knot (to deal with a difficult problem in a strong, simple and effective way), the apple of discord (a reason for quarrel), an Achilles’ heel (a weakness or fault which may not be known but which when discovered can be used to damage or destroy somebody), a Trojan horse (a disguised means of introducing something harmful or disadvantageous), a bed of roses (happy careless life).

3) Fairy-tales: an ugly duckling (a child, chick, puppy, etc. born less attractive than his brothers or sisters who later surprises them), Alladdin’s lamp (a thing of magic which fulfills every wish of its master) [16, 135-136; 14, 113-115].

4) Facts and events of the world history. Example: to cross the Rubicon (to do something which will have very important results which cannot be changed after), Julius Caesar started a war which resulted in victory for him by crossing the river Rubicon in Italy. Another example: to meet one’s Waterloo (to be faced with a final defeat, especially after previous success, a difficulty or obstacle one cannot overcome), from the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815.

5) Variants of the English language. There are a lot of Americanisms among English phraseological units: a heavy hitter (someone who is powerful and has achieved a lot), to look/feel like a million dollars (to feel and look fine), to cut a pie (to interfere), to smoke the pipe of peace (to make peace), the last of the Mohicans (a man possessing some rare qualities).

6) Other languages (both classical and modern): second to none (equal with any other and better than most) from Latin, for somebody’s fair eyes (because of personal sympathy, for nothing) from French, the fair sex (women) from French, let the cat out of the bag (to reveal a secret carelessly or by mistake) from German, blue blood (aristocracy) from Spanish, every dog is a lion at home (to feel significant in the familiar surrounding) from Italian, the Sick Man of Europe (originally Turkey, at present any European country in a difficult economic position) from Russian [16, 135-136; 14, 113-115].

2.2. Semantic Classification of Phraseological Units

The classification of phraseological units on a semantic principle was suggested by the prominent Russian scholar V. V. Vinogradov, who made the great contribution to this branch of linguistic science. He took into account the degree of idiomaticity (motivation of meaning) of phraseological units that is the relationship existing between the meaning of the whole and the meaning of their component parts. In other words, he considered the degree of semantic cohesion between the components of a phraseological unit: the more distant the meaning of a phraseological unit from the current meaning of its constituent parts, the greater is its degree of semantic cohesion [9, 245]. Thus, according to this principle Academician V. V. Vinogradov pointed out three types of phraseological units, namely phraseological fusions, phraseological unities and phraseological collocations.

Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups. The meaning of the whole in phraseological fusion cannot be deduced at least synchronically from the meanings of its constituent parts. So the degree of motivation is very low in this case, and idiomaticity is, as a rule, combined with complete stability of the lexical components and the grammatical structure of the fusion [12, 75]. Phraseological fusions are specific for every language and do not lend themselves to literal translation (that is they cannot be translated word for word) into other languages [10, 170]. We may give the following examples of phraseological fusions: a red tape (bureaucratic methods), a heavy father (serious or solemn part in a theatrical play), to kick the bucket (to die) [12, 75], a blue stocking (a pedantic woman devoid of feminine qualities), to show the white feather (to get frightened), to be in the red (to have debts) [14, 108], a white elephant (an expensive but useless thing) [16, 134], at sixes and sevens (in a mess) [11], et cetera.

Phraseological unities are much more numerous. They are partially motivated word-groups because their meaning can be usually guessed from the meanings of its components through the metaphorical meaning of the whole phraseological unit. It is important to explain that the metaphorical meaning is the meaning the word-group acquires as a result of a complete or partial change of meaning of an initial word-combination on the basis of likening of one object of reality to another [16, 133]. Phraseological unities are as a rule marked by a comparatively high degree of stability of the lexical components. The examples of phraseological unities are to show one’s teeth (to take a threatening tone, to show an intention to injure), to wash one’s dirty linen in public (to discuss or make public one’s quarrels) [12, 76], to show one’s cards (to make one’s intentions clear), to add oil to the fire (to make things worse), a dark horse (somebody who is secretive, or unusually reserved) [14, 108], to bend the knee (to submit to a stronger force, to obey submissively) [16, 134], to play the first fiddle (to be a leader in something), an old salt (experienced sailor) [11], et cetera.

Phraseological collocations are fully motivated word-groups, their meanings are easily deduced from meanings of their constituents [14, 108]. Phraseological collocations are not only motivated but contain one component used in its direct meaning, while the other is used metaphorically [16, 134]. The following phrases illustrate the examples of phraseological collocations: to come to power, to make it a rule, to take one’s seat [14, 108], to meet the requirements, to attain success. In this group of phraseological units substitution of certain components for their components for their synonyms which do not destroy the meaning of the metaphoric element is possible, for instance, to meet the requirements, to meet the needs, to meet the demand, to meet the necessity; to have success, to lose success [16, 134]. However, variability of member-words in phraseological collocations is strictly limited, for example, to bear a grudge may be changed into to bear malice, but not into to bear a fancy or to bear liking. Due to this, phraseological collocations are felt as possessing a certain degree of semantic inseparability [12, 76].

V. V. Vinogradov’s classification had a great influence on further investigations of phraseological units, though it was criticized. Firstly, his classification does not take into account the structural characteristics of phraseological units. Besides, the border line separating phraseological unities from phraseological fusions is indefinite and even subjective, because there are not given criteria for determining the degree of motivation of phraseological units. One and the same phraseological unit may appear motivated to one person (and therefore be labeled as a unity) and demotivated to another (and be regarded as a fusion). The more perfect one’s command of the language and one’s knowledge of its history, the fewer fusions one is likely to discover in it [9, 248].

2.3. Structural Classification of Phraseological Units

Professor A. I. Smirnitsky worked out structural classification of phraseological units, comparing them with words, that is his classification is based on the idea of word equivalence. He points out one-top units which he compares with derived words because derived words have only one root morpheme. He also points out two-top units which he compares with compound words because in compound words we usually have two root morphemes.

Among one-top units he points out three structural types:

1) Units of verb + preposition type equivalent to verbs in which the semantic and the grammatical centre coincide in the first constituent: to give up, to get up, to stand up, to come up, to speak up, to find out, to go out, to make out, to buy into, to sandwich in, to give in, to go on, to write down.

2) Units of the type to be tired equivalent to verbs which have their semantic centre in the second constituent and their grammatical centre in the first constituent: to be surprised, to be afraid, to be astonished, to be frightened. Some of these units remind the Passive Voice in their structure but they have different prepositions with them (to be surprised at, to be afraid of, to be astonished at, to be frightened of), while in the Passive Voice we can have only prepositions by or with. There are also units in this type which remind free word-groups of the type to be young: to be akin to, to be aware of, to be anxious for, et cetera. The difference between them is that, for instance, the adjective young can be used as an attribute and as a predicative in a sentence, while the nominal component in such units can act only as a predicative.

3) Prepositional-nominal phraseological units. These units are equivalents of unchangeable words: prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, that is why they have no grammar centre, their semantic centre is the nominal part: in order to, as soon as, on account of, in the course of, in time, on the point, on the issue, by means of, et cetera.

Among two-top units Smirnitsky points out the following structural types:

1) Attributive-nominal units such as: a month of Sundays, grey matter, black art, best man,  first night, blind alley, short sight, short mind, a millstone round one’s neck and many others. Units of this type are noun equivalents and can be partly or completely idiomatic [11].

2) Verb-nominal phraseological units: to read between the lines, to sweep under the carpet (to try to conceal something), to fall in love. The grammar centre of such units is the verb, the semantic centre in many cases is the nominal component. These units can be completely idiomatic as well [11]: to burn one’s boats (to do something which makes it impossible to return to an earlier state), to vote with one’s feet (to indicate an opinion by being present or absent) [18].

3) Phraseological repetitions built on antonyms of formed by means of alliteration such as: cakes and ale, as busy as a bee, cool as a cucumber, bread and butter and others. Components in repetitions are joined by means of conjunctions. These units are equivalents of adverbs or adjectives and have no grammar centre. They can also be partly or completely idiomatic [11].

A. I. Smirnitsky’s classification was criticized for being sketchy and unsystematic. The influence of his classification is smaller than that of Vinogradov’s. Nevertheless, a few points in his treatment of phraseological units are of interest and helpful. Thus, establishing the class of one top units, Smirnitsky finds a place for such units as by heart, to give up, et cetera that have been for a long time the object of many discussions [14, 109].

2.4. Structural-Semantic Classification of Phraseological Units

There is another approach to phraseological units worked out by Professor A. V. Kunin. His classification system is the latest outstanding achievement in the Russian theory of phraseology. The classification is based on the combined structural-semantic principle and it considers the functional principle as well.

So A. V. Kunin subdivided phraseological units into the following four classes according to their function in communication determined by their structural-semantic characteristics [9, 250]:

1) Nominative phraseological units which denote things, objects, phenomena, processes, qualities, et cetera. They are termed nominative because the main function they perform is that of nomination that is they give names to things. Further nominative phraseological units are subdivided into:

a) substantival: crocodile tears, a bull in a China shop (a clumsy person), a bee in one’s bonnet (a fancy, a fixed idea), a tall order (a hard task);

b) adjectival: long in the tooth (old), hungry as a wolf/hunter (very hungry), poor as a church mouse (very poor), red as a cherry;

c) adverbial and prepositional: in the long run (finally, in conclusion), from head to foot, by hook or crook (by honest and dishonest means), by leaps and bounds (very quickly).

2) Nominative-communicative phraseological units. To this very class belong verbal phraseological units which can be used both as word collocations and sentences thus performing a communicative function: to make two ends meet (to have money barely enough for living), to keep one’s head above water (to fight with hardships), to have a flee in one’s ear (to be rejected or humiliated). Here belong phraseological units which can transform into passive construction: to break the ice (to do or say something to remove or reduce social tension) – The ice is broken; to cook one’s goose (to ruin oneself) – My goose is cooked; to cast the light (to make clear) – The light is cast.

3) Interjectional phraseological units which are neither nominative nor communicative and include interjectional word-groups: By love! Bless my heart and soul! Hold your horses! (keep quite!), A fine kettle of fish! (a disagreeable state of affairs), et cetera.

4) Communicative phraseological units which are represented by proverbs and sayings because they are sentences in their structural aspect. Proverbs are short aphoristic didactic rhythmically organized utterances. They are didactic because they aim at teaching somebody or giving advice or warning, for example: the proof of the pudding is in the eating (everything is tested by practice), Can the leopard change his sports? (Can a man change his nature?) Sayings are communicative phraseological units of non proverbial character: the coast is clear (the way is open, there is no danger), that’s another pair of shoes (this is a different thing), the tail wags the dog (a part controls the whole), et cetera.

All these classes are subdivided into subclasses according to the degree of their motivation, depending on whether the phraseological units are open (changeable) or closed (unchangeable), comparative or non-comparative, et cetera.

The classification system suggested by A. V. Kunin includes a considerable number of subtypes and gradations and objectively reflects the wealth of types of phraseological units existing in the language. It is based on truly scientific and modern criteria and represents an earnest attempt to take into account all the relevant aspects of phraseological units and combine them within the borders of one classification system [14, 111-112; 9, 250-251].

Conclusion

Thus, the results of the work are the following:

1. The description of phraseology as a linguistic discipline based on the works of Russian and foreign scientists and the definition of the term phraseological unit have been given.

2. The problem of distinguishing phraseological units from free word-groups has been examined, the criteria of such a distinction have been revealed.

3. Different classifications of phraseological units based on the different criteria of classification have been considered.

In conclusion of the work we can make the following deductions:

1. Phraseology is a relatively new branch of linguistics which attracts the attention of an increasing number of scholars, the subject matter of which is study and systematic description of the vocabulary units called phraseological units.

2. Phraseological units are reproduced and idiomatic (non-motivated) or partially motivated units built up according to the model of free word-groups or sentences and semantically and syntactically brought into correlation with words.

3. There are also another terms which are used by linguists besides the term phraseological unit. The existing terms reflect different views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups. The term set-phrases implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally means that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is ideomaticity or lack of motivation. This term usually used by English and American linguists is very often treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit universally accepted in our country. The term word-equivalent stresses not only the semantic but also the functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their ability to function in speech as single words.

4. Phraseological units occupy an intermediate position between words and free word-groups. Being intermediate units, they have features of words, on the one hand, and features of free word-groups, on the other. So, it is necessary to point out the criteria distinguishing phraseological units. According to A. V. Kunin they are the following: structural separateness (or divisibility), stability of use, lexico-semantic stability, morphological stability, syntactic stability, idiomaticity (or lack of motivation), and criterion of function.

5. A phraseological unit is a complex phenomenon with a number of important features, which can be therefore approached from different points of view.  Hence, there is diversity of opinion concerning principles and criteria of classification of phraseological units. The classification systems considered in the present work reflect the wealth of types of phraseological units existing in the language. Among the large number of classifications of phraseological units the following classifications have the biggest value: classification of phraseological units according to their origin, classification of V. V. Vinogradov based on the semantic criterion, classifications of A. I. Smirnitsky based on the structural criterion, classification of A. V. Kunin based on the combined structural-semantic and functional principle.

Resources

1. Амосова Н.Н. Основы английской фразеологии. Л., 1963.
2. Виноградов В.В. Об основных типах фразеологических единиц в русском языке. Л., 1947.
3. Елисеева В.В. Лексикология английского языка: учебник. – СПб., 2003.
4. Кунин А.В. Курс фразеологии современного английского языка. – М., 1996.
5. Кунин А.В. Фразеология современного английского языка. – M., 1974.

6.       Поливанов Е.Д. За марксистское языкознание. Сб. популярных лингвистических статей. – М., 1931.

7. Смирницкий А.И. Лексикология английского языка. – М., 1956.
8. Шахматов А.А. Синтаксис русского языка. – Л., 1925.
9. Antrushina G.B., Afanaseva O.V., Morozova N.N. English Lexicology. – 7-th edition – M., 2007.

10.   Arnold I.V. Modern English Lexicology. – 3-rd edition – M., 1986.

11.   Dubenets E.M. English Lexicology: Rate of Lectures and Plans of Seminars – M., 1996.

12.   Ginzburg R.S., Khidekel S.S., Knyazeva G.Y., Sankin A.A. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. – 2-nd edition – M., 1979.

13.   Minaeva L. English Lexicology and Lexicography. – M., 2003.

14.   Sunzova N.L., Takumbetova L.M. English Lexicology. – Ufa, 2006.

15.   Tarasevisch Maria. Soviet Phraseology: Problems in the Analysis and Teaching of Idioms. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics – Washington, 1991.

16.   Zykova I.V. A Practical Course in English Lexicology. – 2-nd edition – M., 2007.

17.   http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com.

18.   http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.