Seminar 7

1 The definition of word-groups and phraseological units

The word can be viewed not only in paradigmatic relations (such are the cases of synonymy,
antonymy, hyponymy, semantic fields, etc.), but also in syntagmatic relations with other
words in a stretch of speech, in context. From the lexicological point of view, of special
interest in this respect are word-groups as the largest lexical units having content/meaning
and form. The matter is that although the word is the most important unit of speech, in
utterances words do not occur as isolated items inasmuch as they are combined with one
another. In other words, along with ‘monolexemic’ units (words), there exist structurally
complex units consisting of formally separable elements, which are functionally equivalent
to separate words. These are word-groups (or word-combinations).

The degree of structural and semantic cohesion of word-groups may vary. Some word-
groups, e.g. at least, point of view, by means of, take place, seem to be functionally and
semantically inseparable. Such wordgroups are usually described as set-phrases, word-
equivalents or phraseological units and are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of
the branch of lexicological science that studies phraseology.

The component members in other word-groups, e.g. a week ago, man of wisdom, take
lessons, kind to people, seem to possess greater semantic and structural independence.
Word-groups of this type are defined as free or variable word-groups or phrases and are
habitually studied in syntax.

Phraseological units

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 p h r a s e o l o g i c a l u n i t s . The complexity of the problem may
be largely accounted for by the fact that the border-line between free or variable word-
groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined. The so-called free word-groups are
only relatively free as collocability of their member-words is fundamentally delimited 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 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 ca’ses.

However, the existing terms,1 e.g. set-phrases, idioms, wordequivalents, 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 cf 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 to function in speech as single words.

Prof. Kunin A.V. defined phraseological units as stable word-groups with partially or fully
transferred meanings (to kick the bucket, Greek gift, drink till all's blue, drunk as a fiddler
(drunk as a lord, as a boiled owl), as mad as a hatter (as a march hare)) (Кунин, 1967).
According to Rosemarie Gläser, a phraseological unit is a lexicalized, reproducible bilexemic
or polylexemic word group in common use, which has relative syntactic and semantic
stability, may be idiomatized, may carry connotations, and may have an emphatic or
intensifying function in a text.

2 lexical valency
It is an indisputable fact that words are used in certain lexical contexts, i.e. in combination
with other words.2 The noun question, e.g., is often combined with such adjectives as vital,
pressing, urgent, disputable, delicate, etc. This noun is a component of a number of other
wordgroups, e.g. to raise a question, a question of great importance, a question of the
agenda, of the day, and many others. The aptness of a word to appear in various
combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability.

The range of the lexical valency of words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of
the English word-stock. This can be easily observed in the selection of synonyms found in
different word-groups. Though the verbs lift and raise, e.g., are usually treated as synonyms,
it is only the latter that is collocated with the noun question. The verb take may be
synonymically interpreted as ‘grasp’, ’seize’, ‘catch’, ‘lay hold of, etc. but it is only take that
is found in collocation with the nouns examination, measures, precautions, etc., only catch
in catch smb. napping and grasp in grasp the truth.

There is a certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any departure from this norm is
felt as a literary or rather a stylistic device. Such word-groups as for example a cigarette ago,
shove a question and the like are illustrative of the point under discussion. It is because we
recognise that shove and question are not normally collocable that the junction of them can
be effective.

Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliché. We observe, for example,
that the verb put forward and the noun question are habitually collocated and whenever we
hear the verb put forward or see it written on paper it is natural that we should anticipate
the word question. So we may conclude that put forward a question constitutes a habitual
word-group, a kind of cliché. This is also true of a number of other word-groups, e.g. to win
(or gain) a victory, keen sight (or hearing). Some linguists hold that most of the English in
ordinary use is thoroughly saturated with cliches.

The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. Both the
English word flower and its Russian counterpart — цветок, for example, may be combined
with a number of other words all of which denote the place where the flowers are grown,
e.g. garden flowers, hot-house flowers, etc. (cf. the Russian садовые цветы,
оранжерейные цветы, etc.). The English word, however, cannot enter into combination
with the word room to denote flowers growing in the rooms (cf. pot flowers — комнатные
цветы).

One more point of importance should be discussed in connection with the problem of lexical
valency — the interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy as found in word-groups.

Firstly, the restrictions of lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical
meanings of the polysemantic members of wordgroups. The adjective heavy, e.g., is
combined with the words food, meals, supper, etc. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to
digest’. But not all the words with more or less the same component of meaning can be
combined with this adjective. One cannot say, for instance, heavy cheese or heavy sausage
implying that the cheese or the sausage is difficult to digest."

Secondly, it is observed that different meanings of a word may be described through the
possible types of lexical contexts, i.e. through the lexical valency of the word, for example,
the different meanings of the adjective heavy may be described through the word-groups
heavy weight (book, table, etc.), heavy snow (storm, rain, etc.), heavy drinker (eater, etc.),
heavy sleep (disappointment, sorrow, etc.), heavy industry (tanks, etc.), and so on.

From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as the characteristic minimal lexical
sets that operate as distinguishing clues for each of the multiple meanings of the word.

3 Grammatical valency
Words are used also in grammatical contexts.1 The minimal grammatical context in which
words are used when brought together to form word-groups is usually described as the
pattern of the word-group. For instance, the adjective heavy discussed above can be
followed by a noun (e.g. heavy storm or by the infinitive of a verb (e.g. heavy to lift), etc. The
aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures is
termed g r a m m a t i c a l v a l e n c y .

The grammatical valency of words may be different. To begin with, the range of grammatical
valency is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. It follows that the
grammatical valency of each individual word is dependent on the grammatical structure of
the language.

This is not to imply that grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech
is necessarily identical. This can be best illustrated by comparing the grammatical valency of
any two words belonging to the same part of speech, e.g. of the two synonymous verbs
suggest and propose. Both verbs can be followed by a noun (to propose or suggest a plan, a
resolution). It is only propose, however, that can be followed by the infinitive of a verb (to
propose to do smth.); The adjectives clever and intelligent are seen to possess different
grammatical valency as clever can be used in word-groups having the pattern: Adjective-
Preposition at+Noun (clever at mathematics), whereas intelligent can never be found in
exactly the same word-group pattern.

Specific linguistic restrictions in the range of grammatical valency of individual words

imposed on the lexical units by the inner structure of the language are also observed by
comparing the grammatical valency of correlated words in different languages. The English
verb influence, for example, can be followed only by a noun (to influence a person, a
decision, choice, etc.). The grammatical valency of its Russian counterpart влиять is
different. The Russian verb can be combined only with a prepositional group (cf. влиять на
человека, на выбор, . . ., etc.).

No departure from the norm of grammatical valency is possible as this can make the word-
group unintelligible to English speakers. Thus e.g. the word-group mathematics at clever is
likely to be felt as a meaningless string of words because the grammatical valency of English
nouns does not allow of the structure Noun+at+Adjective.

It should also be pointed out that the individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be
described through its grammatical valency. Thus, different meanings of the adjective keen
may be described in a general way through different structures of the word-groups keen+N,
— keen sight (hearing, etc.), keen + on + N — keen on sports (on tennis, etc.), keen+V(inf.)
— keen to know (to find out, etc.).

From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as minimal syntactic (or syntagmatic)
structures that operate as distinguishing clues for different meanings of a polysemantic
word.

4 Endocentric and exocentric phrases

According to the correlation between meaning and structure, compounds can be described
either like endocentric or like exocentric. An endocentric compound consists of a head, i.e.
the categorical part that contains the basic meaning of the whole compound, and a
modifier, which restricts this meaning. For example, the English compound doghouse,
where house is the head and dog is the modifier, is understood as a house intended for a
dog. Obviously, an endocentric compound tends to be of the same part of speech (word
class) as its head.

The English language is typically a left-branching language, which means that the modifying
components of the compound usually go before the head componentю

Exocentric compounds do not always have a head, and their meaning often cannot be
transparently guessed from their constituent parts. For example, the English compound
white-collar (meaning office-worker) is neither a kind of collar nor a white thing. In an
exocentric compound, the word class is determined lexically, disregarding the class of the
constituents. For example, a must-have is not a verb but a noun.

The type of exocentric compounds where the head component of the word denotes a
certain object, possessed by the object denoted by the whole compound, of a quality
denoted by the modifying component, is called bahuvrihe. In other words, the meaning of
this type of compound can be glossed as ‗(one) whose B is A‘, where B is the second
element of the compound and A the first.

Thus, a redhead is the person whose hair (head) is red. Similarly, a blockhead is also not a
head, but a person with a head that is as hard and unreceptive as a block (i.e. stupid). And
someone who is barefoot is not a foot – they're someone with a foot that is bare. And,
outside of veterinary surgery, a lion-heart is not a type of heart, but a person with a heart
like a lion (in its bravery, courage, fearlessness, etc.).

5 Classificartion of phraseological units

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 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 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.

In the Russian linguist Smirnitsky’s system of classification phraseological units are

presented as word combinations which function as ‘monolithic’ lexical units, which to a
greater or lesser degree are word equivalents. Such are: take care, court of justice, in order
(to), etc. According to Smirnitsky, they should be regarded as part of the lexical system – a
fact that allows us to describe their semantic relationships with other lexical units.

As for the central characteristic feature of phraseological units, Smirnitsky defines it as

idiomaticity, which in its turn endows such units with certain semantic integrity
(inseparability) – one of the features determining their functioning as single units. The next
functional feature along with semantic inseparability is grammatical inseparability. It should
be stressed that the two features are interrelated and mutually determine one another.

On the basis of the above, Smirnitsky explains the use of the term ‘word-equivalent’ in the
following way: the components of a phraseological unit are correlated like those of a
compound word, and in its integrity a phraseological unit is in a sense similar to a word
understood as a lexeme rather than to a word-form. This means that the restricted
grammatical changes that a phraseological unit undergoes as a word-equivalent (as a
whole), touch only one of its components despite the existence of two; e.g. take care, takes
care, took care, taking care, taken care, etc.

Relying on the criterion of functional inseparability (including both semantic and

grammatical inseparability + reproducibility), Smirnitsky differentiates the following groups
of stereotyped phrases: phraseological combinations, idioms proper and traditional phrases.

In this classification, phraseological units are kept apart from traditional phrases on the one
hand, and idioms proper, on the other.

Traditional phrases, which are characterized by reproducibility, are not regarded as word-
equivalents. They are usual collocations whose inner form is transparent, e.g. take an
examination, rough sketch, etc, i.e. they lack any idiomaticity.
On the other hand are idioms proper, whose global meanings cannot be deduced from
those of the component members: to fish in troubled waters, wash one’s dirty linen in
public, heavy father, take the bull by the horns, etc. As a rule, idioms are stylistically
significant, emotionally coloured.

As for phraseological combinations (get up, fall in love), their figurative character, the
metaphoric image underlying such units is not perceived as such by a modern speaker,
although if viewed diachronically, metaphoric transference is revealed here too, with the
only reservation that the underlying metaphor is dead.

The prominent Russian linguist Vinogradov, whose approach underlies many further
theoretical developments, discusses the category of ‘phraseological units’, proceeding from
two characteristics: semantic opacity (or if we look the other way – transparency) or
idiomaticity, and structural stability. By emphasizing these features of phraseological units
as distinct from free word-groups, Vinogradov actually considers stability and lack of
motivation as definitive. His umbrella term includes phraseological fusions, phraseological
unities and phraseological collocations. In the first group (phraseological fusions), the two
criteria of classification are expressed most distinctly. These are unmotivated, semantically
opaque (hence idiomaticity) and structurally fixed units, in which the global meaning
(combined lexical meaning) cannot be derived from the meaning of constituent elements,
and no variability of lexical components is allowed. Such examples are: red tape
(bureaucratic methods), spill the beans (reveal a secret), chew the rag (talk about events,
affairs, etc., esp. in a complaining way), melting pot (place or situation in which large
numbers of people, ideas, etc. are mixed together), etc.

The second group in Vinogradov’s classification is phraseological unities consisting of

partially motivated units, including cases of metaphorical extension, and allowing of some
understanding. Such are: blow off/ let off steam (give free expression to one’s feelings),
show one’s teeth (take a threatening tone), wash one’s dirty linen in public (make one’s
quarrels public), etc. As for the second factor, these units are characterized by a
comparatively high degree of stability. It is important to mention that the boundary
between the first and second groups is not clear-cut or distinct and often depends on the
linguistic and cultural experience of speakers, i.e. for some speakers a given expression has
a figurative sense which is not yet completely fossilized, for others it is entirely opaque,
lacks any motivation. The third group – phraseological collocations – is made up from units
which due to strictly limited variability are habitual collocations. One component member of
the wordgroup is used in a literal sense. The sense of the figuratively used component is
phraseologically bound: meet the demand (the sense of ‘meet’ is phraseologically bound).
Cf.: meet the demand/ need/ requirements/ request; take a liking/fancy, etc

Summarizing the recent investigations, the Russian linguist Minaeva singles out the
following groups of ‘multiword units’, proceeding from the criterion of degree of semantic
opacity: idioms proper (to put the cart before the horse, to kill two birds with one stone);
phraseological units – invariable word combinations (as a matter of course, to take for
granted); restricted collocations – word combinations which allow some substitution, but
where is still some arbitrary limitation on choice (to run a company, fix/ set a price);
commonplace free collocations (green grass, heavy box, to run quickly, to speak loudly);
innovative or nonce collocations – word combinations which demonstrate practically
unlimited combinatorial possibilities of words (an astonished piece of toast, green ideas,
suitable paralysis).

To reveal the basic features of multi-word groups, Minaeva applies five categories
(proposed by Alexandrova and Ter-Minasova). They are connotativeness, reproducibility
(ready-madedness), idiomaticity, conceptual determination (the conceptual motivation
underlying a multi-word unit, i.e. the compatibility with the normal conceptual relationship
of things, or dependence on the physical experience of the speaker), and sociolinguistic
determination (which means that the interrelation between the components of a multi-
word unit is determined by the social life, tradition and culture of the speech community).
Testing the types of multi-word units against the complex of features, the linguist arrives at
the following descriptions.

1 Idioms proper are connotative, clichéd, semantically global multi-word units which are
socio-linguistically determined (blue stocking, to meet one’s Waterloo, a skeleton in the
cupboard).

2. Phraseological units are similar to idioms in being clichéd and idiomatic, but are devoid of
connotations, are not socio-linguistically determined.

3. Restricted collocations are characterized by readymadedness and idiomaticity but to a

less degree. Their idiomaticity becomes evident through comparison with other languages
(heavy snow, to hold a meeting, to appreciate fully).

4. Commonplace free collocations demonstrate natural combinability of their referents,

therefore are frequent in speech. This results in partial prefabrication (blue sky, heavy
suitcase, to read books, sound of music).

5. Innovative word combinations are absolutely unpredictable. Their main feature is

connotation, deliberate violation of the conceptual basis of collocability, resulting in a range
of expressive, emotional and evaluative overtones. Innovative phrases may be socio-
linguistically determined.