Words in the language are combined with each other and form phrases. Free combinations of words in a sentence are dealt with by syntax, a section of grammar. However, there are also such combinations of words that lexicology is interested in, these are not free combinations of words, but lexicalized ones, i.e. as if striving to become one word, one lexeme, although they have not yet lost the form of the phrase.

Let's compare two phrases where there is a definable noun and an adjective definition agreed with it : iron bench and railway; the first of them is free, this is a combination of two full-valued words, where it is clear that this is indeed a bench, and it is iron; that is, "made of iron." In this combination total value is the sum of the values individual words; we can replace them with synonyms without losing their meaning: metal bench, iron bench, metal bench; we can replace the adjective with a noun with a preposition: iron bench; we can replace the main word with a derivative: iron bench, iron bench; we can change the word order: iron bench (for example, in the list: wooden benches, iron benches, etc.). But, for example, we cannot say in any way a wooden iron bench, because it is made of iron, not wood. The railway is a completely different matter; We cannot perform any of the above operations, it will turn out to be nonsense, since a railway is not a road made of iron, but a single concept of a mode of transport. Therefore, one cannot say neither a metal road, nor a railroad, nor an iron road, nor a railroad, nor a railroad1. The railroad is not a free, lexicalized combination, where the road is not a "road" and the railroad is not a "railroad", therefore we are not at all embarrassed by the following proposal: “The pioneers built a wooden railroad”, Just as we are not confused by red ink, pink underwear, black squirrel, etc.

In the sentence, such lexicalized combinations are one member, for example: "You can go to Novogireevo by rail or tram", where by tram and by rail - the circumstances are the same; Wed See also: "He works slipshod", "The landlords lived in grand style", "They were able to talk face to face", etc., where all the selected combinations are circumstances.

Phraseology- the phraseological composition of the language, as well as the section of linguistics that studies it. The basic unit of phraseology is phraseological unit- a stable combination of words. In many respects, phraseological units are closer to a word than to a phrase, so they are studied in a lexicology course.

The degree of cohesion of words, the motivation of the meaning of the entire phraseological unit by the meanings of its constituent components can be different. This allowed Academician Vinogradov to create the following classification of phraseological units.

1. Phraseological adhesions- stable, lexically indivisible phrases, the meanings of which are in no way deduced from the meanings of the constituent words, are not motivated by them (to play the fool, ask a snatch). This group also includes phraseological units containing obsolete words or grammatical forms (the talk of the town, light in sight). Understanding the whole does not depend on incomprehensible words("Get into a mess", "near the devil on the kulichi", "sharpen fritters"), from incomprehensible grammatical forms ("nothing hesitates", "I can hardly think", "the talk of the town", "and all is short-lived") or where are the words and the forms are clear, but the meaning of individual words does not clarify the whole (to freeze the worm, sit on the beans, how to drink), finally, in those cases when this combination requires a special intonation that conveys a special expression (here you go! cranberries! remember the name!).

2. Phraseological unity- stable, lexically indivisible phrases, the meanings of which are motivated by the meanings of their constituent words, but are not derived directly from them, but arise on the basis of a figurative rethinking. In most cases, phraseological unity corresponds to a free phrase, which, being associatively rethought, served as the basis for metaphorical phraseologization (go with the flow, rolling up your sleeves, neither fish nor meat, go to a dead end). You never know; both cheap and cheerful; neither the bottom nor the tire; a pellet to an elephant; pour from empty to empty; to make mountains out of molehills; hold a stone in your bosom; wash dirty linen in public); in these cases, partial substitutions of individual words are also possible.

3. Phraseological combinations- stable combinations of words that include both a component with a free meaning (realized in different contexts) and a component with a non-free (phraseologically related) meaning. For example, in the phrase "sworn enemy" the noun "enemy" has a free combination, and the adjective sworn is used only with the word "enemy" and has a phraseologically related meaning. The meanings of phraseological combinations are motivated directly by the meanings of their constituent words. Lower your gaze (look, eyes, head), thought has found (doubt, inspiration), horror takes (fear, melancholy, annoyance, envy).

Sometimes they also allocate phraseological expressions... These are segmented, decomposable phrases and sentences, the meaning of which is the sum of the meanings of their constituent words. They are brought together with phraseological units by the constancy of composition and reproducibility in speech as ready-made units. These are proverbs, sayings, "winged words", quotes from famous works of art.

By structure, phraseological units can be represented by phrases or sentences. They can be classified depending on which part of speech the entire phraseological unit is related to by meaning: verbal, nominal, adjective, adverbial.

Because lexicalized combinations by their origin are closely related to the conditions of place and time, with any given case, then they are individual and unique in each language and literally not translatable. Therefore they are called idioms, and the set of idioms in the language are called idioms.

For example, a hare in its direct meaning is der Hase (not an idiom), but in the meaning of a stowaway passenger is an idiom (Blinder). in the direct meaning.

Semantic fusion

Types phraseological turns by the motivation of the value and

The criterion for distinguishing the types of indecomposable combinations is, first of all, the degree of merging of individual words in them. The stability and indivisibility of the elements of the phraseological expression is considered, as a rule, from two points of view. First, from the point of view of their semantic cohesion and, second, from the point of view of the possibility of morphological changes in the words that make up a given turnover.

At the same time, the merging of turns by meaning is also reflected in their grammatical properties. So, the more clearly the semantic indecomposability of the phrase as a whole is expressed, the weaker the grammatical connections become, and sometimes they are completely lost (cf. the hour is uneven, a joke to say headlong and mislead- mislead, rub in glasses- rub glasses- rubbed glasses etc.).

In terms of the degree of lexical indivisibility and grammatical fusion of the constituent parts, many researchers, following Acad. V.V. Vinogradov distinguish the following types of phraseological turns: phraseological adhesions, phraseological unity, phraseological combinations.

Some quotes, proverbs, sayings and a number of terminological phrases that acquire certain features of phraseological units proper, for example, reproducibility in the same composition and emerging metaphor, should be distinguished into a special group. Such turns are called phraseological units, they gradually pass into one or another group of phraseological units proper. (Note that N.M.Shansky calls them phraseological expressions and includes in general composition phraseology).

Phraseological adhesions such lexically indivisible phrases are called, the meaning of which is not determined by the meaning of the individual words included in them.

For example, the meaning of revolutions beat thumbs up- "mess around", off the beaten track- "thoughtlessly" sodom and gomorrah- "bustle, noise", slipshod- "carelessly", how to drink give- "certainly" and others is not motivated by the value of the constituent components, since, firstly, in lexical system modern language there are no independently existing words of full value thugs, bays, flounders, sodom, gomorrah; secondly, the meaning of words beat, pull down (later), sleeves, give, drink under the conditions of this phrase is lexically weakened, even devastated (cf .: the main meanings beat- "strike blows", pull down- "move from top to bottom", sleeves- "a piece of clothing that covers the hand"; to give- "hand over", drink- "absorb liquid").

Thus, the main feature of phraseological fusion is its lexical indivisibility, absolute semantic cohesion, in which the meaning of the whole turnover cannot be deduced from the meaning of its constituent words.

Semantically, fusion in most cases turns out to be the equivalent of a word (“a kind of syntactically compound word,” in the terminology of Academician VV Vinogradov). For example: inside out- "vice versa", in all honesty- "frankly, sincerely", out of hand- "poorly", coward(or coward) celebrate- "to be afraid, to be afraid", etc.

The grammatical forms of the words that make up the phraseological union can sometimes change. For example, in sentences Prokhor also invited Protasov: he was universally educated and ate a dog in mining. Or: - As for fabrics, I am not an expert in them, ask Queen Marya about them. The women ate the dog on- the relationship between the word is preserved ate and the subject of the action: he ate, they ate etc. However, such a change in grammatical forms does not affect the overall meaning of the splicing.

In some splices, grammatical forms of words and grammatical connections also cannot be explained, motivated from the point of view of the modern Russian language, i.e. they are perceived as a kind of grammatical archaisms. For example: from small to large, on bare feet, in broad daylight, so-so, wherever it went, on my mind, say a joke, wonder etc. Obsolete grammatical forms of words (and sometimes the word as a whole) and unmotivated syntactic connections only support the lexical indivisibility of the turnover, its semantic unity.

Syntactically, phraseological fusions act as a single member of the sentence. For example, in a sentence: He rebuked me all the way for the fact that we ... do nothing, work carelessly - the selected phraseological union performs the function of the circumstance of the mode of action. In the offer: His speech confuses you- fusion is predicate.

Phraseological combination of words

Phraseology(column phrasis- expression + logos- teaching) - the science of complex linguistic units that are stable in nature: upside down, get trapped, the cat cried, slipshod... Phraseology is also called the whole set of these complex stable combinations - phraseological units.

Phraseologisms, in contrast to lexical units, have a number of characteristic features.

1. Phraseologisms always complex in composition, they are formed by combining several components, which, as a rule, have a separate stress, but do not preserve the meaning of independent words: puzzle, blood and milk, ate the dog.(Do not belong to phraseological units of prepositional-case combinations such as off the hook, under the arm.)

2. Phraseologisms semantically indivisible, they usually have an undifferentiated meaning, which can be expressed in one word: spread the mind- "think", fifth wheel in a cart- "extra", upside down- "supine", the cat cried- "little", etc. True, this feature is not characteristic of all phraseological units. There are some that equate to a whole descriptive expression. run aground- "get into an extremely difficult situation", press all pedals- "make every effort to achieve or accomplish something." Such phraseological units arise as a result of a figurative rethinking of free phrases.

3. Phraseologisms, in contrast to free phrases, characterize consistency of composition... One or another component of a phraseological unit cannot be replaced by a word that is close in meaning, while free phrases can easily allow such a replacement. For example, instead of the cat cried can't say "the cat cried", "the kitten cried", "the puppy cried", instead of spread the mind- "to scatter with the mind", "to spread the head"; (cf. free phrases reading a book, looking through a book, studying a book, reading a novel, reading a novel, reading a script).

However, some phraseological units have options: from the bottom of my heart - from the bottom of my heart, to cast a shadow on the fence - to cast a shadow on a clear day. Nevertheless, the existence of options does not mean that in these phraseological units one can arbitrarily update the composition: one cannot say "from the whole spirit", "from the whole consciousness", and " to cast a shadow over the fence "(on a clear morning).

4. Phraseological units are distinguished reproducibility... Unlike free phrases, which we build directly in speech, phraseological units are used in finished form, such as they were fixed in the language, as they are kept by our memory. So saying bosom, we will definitely say friend(not: friend, acquaintance, young man, comrade),sworn maybe only enemy(not enemy, pest). This indicates predictability components of phraseological units.

5. Most phraseological units are characterized by impermeability of the structure: they cannot include any elements arbitrarily. So, knowing the phraseological unit look down we have no right to say "to lower the gaze low", "to lower the gaze even lower", "to lower the sad gaze" and so on. The exception is phraseological units that allow the insertion of some clarifying words kindle passions - kindle fatal passions.

The structural feature of individual phraseological units is the presence of truncated forms along with complete:go through fire and water (... and copper pipes); drink a cup - drink a bitter cup (to the bottom), measure seven times (... cut once)... The reduction in the composition of phraseological units in such cases is explained by the desire to save speech means.

6. Phraseologisms are inherent grammatical stability their components: each member of the phraseological combination is reproduced in a certain grammatical form, which cannot be arbitrarily changed. So, you can't say "to beat the thumbs up", "to grind out the lace" by replacing the forms plural thumbs up, fritters singular, do not use full adjective instead of short in phraseological units on bare feet etc. Only in special cases are variations of grammatical forms possible in the composition of individual phraseological units: warm up hand- warm hands; heard does it matter - heard does it matter.

7. For most phraseological units strictly fixed word order... For example, you cannot rearrange components in phraseological units everything flows, everything changes, not the dawn; blood with milk and others. At the same time, phraseological units of the verb type, that is, consisting of a verb and words depending on it, allow a permutation of components: dial into the mouth of water - into the mouth of water dial; not leave stone upon stone - not stone upon stone leave.

The heterogeneity of the structure of a number of phraseological units is explained by the fact that phraseology combines rather variegated linguistic material, and the boundaries of some phraseological units are not clearly outlined.

Phraseological adhesions are such lexically indivisible word combinations, the meaning of which is not determined by the meaning of the individual words included in them. For example, the meaning of revolutions beat thumbs up- "mess around", off the beaten track- "thoughtlessly" sodom and gomorrah- "bustle, noise", slipshod- "carelessly", how to drink give- “certainly” and others is not motivated by the meaning of the constituent components, since, firstly, in the lexical system of the modern language there are no independently existing words of full value in terms of meaning thumbs, bays, flounders, sodom, gomorrah; secondly, the meaning of words beat, pull down (later), sleeves, give, drink under the conditions of this phrase is lexically weakened, even devastated (cf .: the main meanings beat- "strike blows", pull down- "move from top to bottom", sleeves- "a piece of clothing that covers the hand"; to give- "hand over", drink- "absorb liquid").

Thus, the main feature of phraseological fusion is its lexical indivisibility, absolute semantic cohesion, in which the meaning of the whole turnover cannot be deduced from the meaning of its constituent words.

Semantically, fusion in most cases turns out to be the equivalent of a word (“a kind of syntactically compound word,” in the terminology of Academician VV Vinogradov). For example: inside out- "vice versa", in all honesty- "frankly, sincerely", out of hand- "poorly", a coward (or a coward) to celebrate- "to be afraid, to be afraid", etc.

The grammatical forms of the words that make up the phraseological union can sometimes change. For example, in sentences Prokhor also invited Protasov: he was universally educated and ate a dog in mining(Bump.) Or: - As for fabrics, I am not an expert in them, ask Queen Marya about them. The women ate the dog(A.K.T.) - the relationship between the word remains ate and the subject of the action: he ate, they ate etc. However, such a change in grammatical forms does not affect the overall meaning of the splicing.

In some splices, the grammatical forms of words and grammatical connections can no longer be explained, motivated from the point of view of the modern Russian language, i.e. they are perceived as a kind of grammatical archaisms. For example: from small to large, on bare feet, in broad daylight, hesitating nothing (or hesitating), so-so, wherever it went, on your mind, say a joke, wonder etc. Obsolete grammatical forms of words (and sometimes the word as a whole) and unmotivated syntactic connections only support the lexical indivisibility of the turnover, its semantic unity. phraseological unit motivation semantic communicative

Syntactically, phraseological adhesions act as a single member of the sentence. For example, in the sentence He rebuked me all the way for the fact that we ... do nothing, work slipshod(S. Antonov) the highlighted phraseological union performs the function of the circumstance of the mode of action. In a sentence His speech confuses you(Vyazemsky) fusion is predicate.

Phraseological adhesions such lexically indivisible phrases are called, the meaning of which is not determined by the meaning of the individual words included in them. For example, the meaning of turns to beat the thumbs up - "to mess around", from the bay-flounder - "thoughtlessly", sodom and gomorrah - "bustle, noise", carelessly - "carelessly", how to drink - "certainly" and others is not motivated by the meaning of the components components, since, firstly, in the lexical system of the modern language there are no independently existing words of full value in meaning thumbs, bays, flounders, sodom, gomorrah; secondly, the meaning of words beat, pull down (later), sleeves, give, drink under the conditions of this phrase is lexically weakened, even devastated (cf .: the main meanings are to beat - "strike", lower - "move from top to bottom", sleeves - "part of clothing that covers the hand"; give - "hand over", drink - " absorb liquid ").

Thus, the main feature of phraseological fusion is its lexical indivisibility, absolute semantic cohesion, in which the meaning of the whole turnover cannot be deduced from the meaning of its constituent words.

Semantically, fusion in most cases turns out to be the equivalent of a word (“a kind of syntactically compound word,” in the terminology of Academician VV Vinogradov). For example: inside out- "vice versa", in all honesty- "frankly, sincerely", out of hand - "bad", a coward (or a coward) to celebrate- "to be afraid, to be afraid", etc.

The grammatical forms of the words that make up the phraseological union can sometimes change. For example, in sentences Prokhor also invited Protasov: he was universally educated and ate a dog in mining(Bump.) Or: - As for fabrics, I am not an expert in them, ask Queen Marya about them. The women ate the dog(A.K.T.) - the relationship between the word ate and the subject of the action remains: he ate, they ate etc. However, such a change in grammatical forms does not affect the overall meaning of the splicing.

In some splices, the grammatical forms of words and grammatical connections can no longer be explained, motivated from the point of view of the modern Russian language, i.e. they are perceived as a kind of grammatical archaisms. For example: from small to large, on bare feet, in broad daylight, nothing hesitating(or hesitating), so-so, wherever it went, on my mind, say a joke, wonder etc. Obsolete grammatical forms of words (and sometimes the word as a whole) and unmotivated syntactic connections only support the lexical indivisibility of the turnover, its semantic unity.

Syntactically, phraseological adhesions act as a single member of the sentence. For example, in the sentence He rebuked me all the way for the fact that we ... do nothing, work slipshod(S. Antonov) the highlighted phraseological union performs the function of the circumstance of the mode of action. In a sentence In my speech confuses you(Vyazemsky) fusion is predicate.

Note... Phraseological adhesions are called idioms in another way (gr. Idiōma is an indecomposable phrase peculiar only to a given language, from Greek idios - a kind).

Phraseological combinations such stable phrases are called, the general meaning of which depends entirely on the meaning of the constituent words. Words in a phraseological combination retain relative semantic independence, however, they are not free and show their meaning only in conjunction with a certain, closed circle of words, for example: a word is tearfully combined only with words beg, beg... Consequently, one of the members of the phraseological combination turns out to be more stable and even constant, the other - variable. The presence of constant and variable members in a combination distinguishes them markedly from mergers and unities. The meaning of permanent members (components) is phraseologically related. For example, in combinations burn with shame and longing takes constant will burn out and takes, since it is these words that will turn out to be the main (pivotal) elements in other phraseological combinations: to burn out - from shame, from shame, from shame; to burn out - from love; to burn out - from impatience, envy; takes - longing, meditation; takes - annoyance, anger; takes - fear, horror; takes - envy; takes - hunting; takes - laugh... The use of other components is impossible (cf. "burn out with joy", "takes a smile"), this is due to the existing semantic relations inside language system... The meanings of such words are phraseologically related in the system of these turnovers (see § 2), i.e. are realized only with a certain circle of words.

The phraseological combinations differ from phraseological mergers and unities in that they are not absolutely lexically indivisible. Despite the phraseological closure of the phrases of this type, even lexically non-free components, without prejudice to the general phraseological meaning, can be replaced by a synonym (cf. lower your head - lower your head; sit in a puddle - sit in a galosh; frown - frown etc.). This creates favorable conditions for the emergence of options phraseological unity, and often synonyms.

The syntactic connections of words in such phrases correspond to the existing norms, according to which free phrases are also created. However, unlike the latter, these connections are stable, indecomposable and are always reproduced in the same form, semantically inherent in one or another phraseological unit.

Trishkin's caftan, a man in a case, from a ship to a ball, an idealist crucian carp, etc. The same can be said about proverbs that have lost their edifying part, for example: hunger is not an aunt (the continuation has already been forgotten - will not slip a pie), a dog in the manger (the second part is omitted: she does not eat herself and does not give to others) etc. Most sayings are included in different groups of phraseological phrases.

Of the complex terms, phraseological expressions include those that have acquired a new meaning, for example: absolute zero - about the small importance of a person, etc.