The following may be perceived as the main causes accounting for the less' 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 may be accounted for by the fact that the member-word kith dropped out of the language altogether except as the component of the phraseological unit under discussion. This is also observed in the phraseological unit under discussion.
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 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 also be observed in the' phraseological unit to stick to one's guns, which can be traced back to military English, etc.
Sometimes extra-linguistic factors may account for the loss of motivation, toshow 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 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.[2]
d) When a word-group making up part of a proverb or saying begins to be used 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-motivatedbecause the meaning of the whole is not deducible from the meaning of the components. Moreover, it seems grammatically and functionally self-contained and inseparable too. In the saying quoted above the noun broom is always used im the plural; as a member-word of the phraseological unit it mostly used in the singular. The phraseological unit a new broom is characterized 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!) the whole word-group is functionally inseparable.
e) When part of a quotation from literary sources, mythology or theBible begin 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.
1. The final criterion in the semantic approach is idiomaticity whereas in the functional approach syntactic inseparability is viewed as the final test, and in the contextual approach it is stability of context combined with idiomaticity of word-groups.
2. The concept of idiomaticity is not strictly defined. The judgement as to idiomaticity is passed sometimes within the framework of the English language and sometimes from the outside - from the point of view of the mother tongue of the investigator.
It is suggested here that the term idiomaticity should be interpreted as an intralingual notion and also that the degree of idiomaticity should be taken into consideration since between the extreme of complete motivation and lack of motivation there are numerous intermediate group.
3. Each of the three approaches has its merits and demerits. The traditional semantic approach points out the essential features of all kinds of idiomatic phrases as opposed to completely motivated free word-groups. The functional approach puts forward an objective criterion for singling out a small group of word-equivalents possessing all the basic features of words as lexical items. The contextual approach makes the criterion of stability more exact.
4. All the three approaches are sufficient to single out the extreme cases: highly idiomatic phraseological units and free word-groups. The status of the bulk of word-groups possessing different degrees of idiomaticity cannot be decided with certainty by applying the criteria available in linguistic science.
5. The distinguishing feature of the new approach is that phraseology is regarded as a self-contained branch of linguistics and not as a part of lexicology. According to this approach phraseology deals with all types of set expressions which are divided into three classes: phraseological units, phraseomatic units and border-line cases.
1.2 PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS AND THEIR TYPES
It has been repeatedly pointed out that word-groups viewed as functionally and semantically inseparable units are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of phraseology. It should be noted, however, that no proper scientific investigation of English phraseology has been attempted until quite recently. English and American linguists as a rule confine themselves to collecting various words, word- groups and sentences presenting some interest either from the point of view of origin, style, usage, or some other feature peculiar to them. These units are habitually described as idioms but no attempt has been made to investigate these idioms as a separate class of linguistic units or a specific class of word-groups.
The vocabulary of a language is enriched not only by words but also by phraseological units. Phraseological units are word-groups that cannot be' made in the process of speech, they exist in the language as ready-made units. They are compiled in special dictionaries. The same as words phraseological units express a single notion and are used in a sentence as one part of it. American and British lexicographers call such units «idioms». We can mention such dictionaries as: L.Smith «Words and Idioms»[3], V.Collins «АBook of English Idioms»[4] etc. In these dictionaries we can find words, peculiar in their semantics (idiomatic), side by side with word-groups and sentences. In these dictionaries they are arranged, as a rule, into different semantic groups. Phraseological units can be classified according to the ways they are formed, according to the degree of the motivation of their meaning, according to their structure and according to their part-of-speech meaning.
A.V. Koonin classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.
Primary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on the basis of a free word-group:
a) The most productive in Modem English is the formation of phraseological units by means of transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups, e.g. in cosmic technique we ran point out the following phrases: «launching pad» in its terminological meaning is «стартоваплощадка», in its transferred meaning - «вiдправнийпункт», «to link up» - «стикуватися, стикуватикосмiчнi човни» in its tranformed meaning it means - «знайомитися»;
b) a large group of phraseological units was formed from free word groups by transforming their meaning, e.g. «granny farm» - «пансионатдлястарыхлюдей», «Troyan horse» - «компьютернаяпрограма, яканавмиснестворенадляприведениязладукомпьютера»;
c) phraseological units can be formed by means of alliteration , e.g. «a sad sack» - «нещаснийвипадок», «culture vulture» - «людина, якацiкавитьсямистецтвом», «fudge and nudge» - «ухильнiсть».
d) they can be formed by means of expressiveness, especially it is characteristic for forming interjections, e.g. «My aunt!», « Hear, hear !» etc
e) they can be formed by means of distorting a word group, e.g. «odds and ends» was formed from «odd ends»,
f) they can be formed by using archaisms, e.g. «in brown study» means «in gloomy meditation» where both components preserve their archaic meanings,
g) they can be formed by using a sentence in a different sphere of life, e.g. «that cock won't fight» can be used as a free word-group when it is used in sports (cock fighting), it becomes a phraseological unit when it is used in everyday life, because it is used metaphorically,
h) they can be formed when we use some unreal image, e.g. «to have butterflies in the stomach» - «вiчуватихвилювання», «to have greenfingers» - «досягатиycnixiвяксадовод-любитель» etc.
i) they can be formed by using expressions of writers or polititions in everyday life, e.g. «corridors of power» (Snow), «American dream» (Alby) «locust years» (Churchil), «the winds of change» (Mc Millan).
Secondary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a phraseological unit is formed on the basis of another phraseological unit; they are:
a) conversion, e.g. «to vote with one's feet» was converted into «vote with one'sfeet»;
b) changing the grammar form, e.g. «Make hay while the sun shines» is transferred into a verbal phrase - «to make hay while the sun shines»;
c) analogy, e.g. «Curiosity killed the cat» was transferred into «Care killed the cat»;
d) contrast, e.g. «cold surgery» - «a planned before operation» was formed by contrasting it with «acute surgery», «.thin cat» - «a poor person» was formed by contrasting it with «fat cat»;
e) shortening of proverbs or sayings e.g. from the proverb «You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear» by means of clipping the middle of it the phraseological unit «to make a sow's ear» was formed with the meaning «помилятись».
f) borrowing phraseological units from other languages, either as translation loans, e.g. « living space» (German), « to take the bull by the horns» (Latin) or by means of phonetic borrowings «meche blanche» (French), «corpse d'elite» (French), «sotto voce» (Italian) etc.
Phonetic borrowings among phraseological units refer to the bookish style and are not used very often.
There are different combinations of words. Some of them are free, e.g. to read books (news papers, a letter, etc.) others are fixed, limited in their combinative power, e.g. to go to bed,, to make a report. The combinations of words which are fixed (set-expressions) are called phraseological units.
A free combination is a syntactical unit, which consists notional and form words, and in which notional words have the function of, independent parts of the sentence. In a phraseological unit words are not independent. They form set-expressions, in which neither words nor the order of words can be changed. Free combinations are created by the speaker. Phraseological units are used by the speaker in a ready form, without any changes. The whole phraseological unit has a meaning which may be quite different from the meaning of its components, and therefore the whole unit, and not separate words, has the function of a part of the sentence.
Phraseological units consist of separate words and therefore they are different words, even from compounds. Word have several structural forms, but in phraseological units only one of the components has all the forms of the paradigm of the part of speech it belongs to e.g. to go to bed, goes to bed, went to bed, gone to bed, going to bed, etc., the rest of the components do not change their form.
By the classification of Academician V.Vinogradov phraseological units are devided into three groups: phraseological combinations, phraseological unities and phraseological fusions.
Phraseological combinations are often called traditional because words are combined in their original meaning but their combinations are different in different languages, e.g. cash and carry - (self-service shop), in a bigway (in great degree) etc. It is usually impossible to account logically for the combination of particular words. It can be explained only on the basis of tradition, e.g. to deliver a lection (but not to read a lecture).
In phraseological combinations words retain their full semantic independence although they are limited in their combinative power, e.g. to wage wax (but not to lead war), to render assistance, to render services (but not to render pleasure).
Phraseological combinations are the least idiomatic of all the kinds of phraseological units. In other words, in phraseological combinations the meaning of the whole can be inferred from the meaning of the components, e.g. to draw a conclusion, lo lend assistance, to make money, to pay attention to.
In phraseological combinations one of the components (generally the component which is used fugiratively) can be combined with different words, e.g. to talk sports, politics, business (but to speak about life), leadingworker, leading article (but the main problem), deadly enemy, deadly shot (but a mortal wound), keen interest, keen curiosity, keen sence of humour ( but the great surprise).
Words of wide meaning, as to make, to take, to do, to give, etc. Form many phraseological units, e.g. to take an examination, to take a trip, to take a chance, to take interest, to make fun of, to make inquiries, to make a statement, to make friends, to make haste.
Sometimes traditional combinations are synonyms of words, e.g. to make inquiries = to inquire, to make haste=to hurry.
Some traditional combinations are equivalents of prapositions, e.g. fry means of, in connection with.
Some phraseological combinations have nearly become compounds, e.g. brown bread.
Traditional combinations often have synonymous expressions, e.g. to make a report=to deliver a report.
Phraseological combinations are not equivalents of words. Though the components of phraseological combinations are limited in their combinative power, that is, they can be combined only with certain words and cannot be combined with any other words, they preserve not only their meaning, but all their structural forms, e.g. nice distinction is a phraseological combinations and it is possible to say nice distinctions, nicer distinction, etc., or to clench one's fist. (clenched his fists, was clenching his fists, etc.).
In Prof. A. Smirnitskv's[5] opinion traditional combinations are not phraseological units, as he considers only those word combinations to be phraseological units which are equivalents of words.
In phraseological unities the meaning of the whole can be guessed from the meanings of its components, but it is transferred (metaphorical or metonymical), e.g. to play the first fiddle (to be a leader in something), old salt(experienced sailor) etc. The meaning of the whole word combination is not the sum of the meanings of its components, but it is based on them and the meaning of the whole can be inferred from the image that underlies the 1 whole expression, e.g. to get on one's nerves, to cut smb short, to show one's teeth, to be at daggers drawn.
Phraseological unities are often synonyms of words, e.g. to make a clean breast of=to confess; to get on one's nerves=to irritate.
Phraseological unities are equivalents of words as 1) only one of components of a phraseological unity has structural forms' e.g. to play (played, is playing, etc.) the first fiddle (but not played the first fiddles); to turn ( turned, will turn, etc.) a new leaf ( but not to turn newer leaf or new leaves); 2) the whole unity and not its components are parts of the sentence in syntactical analysis, e.g. in the sentence He took the bull by the horns (attacked a problem boldly) there are only two parts: he - the subject, and took the bull by the horns - the predicate.
In phraseological fusions the degree of motivation is very low, we cannot guess the meaning of the whole from the meanings of its components, they are highly idiomatic and cannot be translated word for word into other languages, e.g.. to pull one's leg (to deceive); at sixes and sevens (in comfusion); a mare's nest (a discovery which turns out to be false or worthless); to show the white feather (to show cowardice); to ride the high horse (to put on airs).
Phraseological fusions are the most idiomatic of all the kinds of phraseological units.
Phraseological fusions are equivalents of words: fusions as well as unities form a syntactical whole in analysis.