Section VI lexical-phraseological combinability of words. Phraseological units

The unity of paradigmatics and syntagmatics in the study of words. The term “combinability” as applied to the realization of potential ability of words to combine with one another. Grammatical or morpho-syntactic combinability (colligation) vs lexical-phraseological combinability (collocation).

Lexical-phraseological combinability and its importance for the theory and practice of language learning. Conceptual, sociolinguistic and inner linguistic (determined by the inner structure of the vocabulary) aspects of combinability. Connotative vs non-connotative word-combinations. Reproduced word-combinations vs those created anew. Motivated vs non-motivated word-combinations.

Phraseological units as complex word-equivalents in which the globality of nomination reigns supreme over the formal separability of elements. The term and the concept of “idiom”. Criteria for distinguishing between phraseological units and free word-combinations.

Criteria used for classification of phraseological units. The classification based on the degree of semantic cohesion between the components of a phraseological unit. Phraseological combinations, phraseological unities, phraseological fusions.

The structural principle of classification. Verbal, substantive, nominative, interjectional phraseological units.

Professor A.I.Smirnitsky’s classification system for phraseological units. Classification according to the number and semantic significance of its parts (one-summit units, two-summit units, multi-summit units). Traditional phrases, phraseological combinations, idioms.

Professor A.V.Koonin’s system for classification of phraseological units. Nominative, nominative-communicative, interjectional, communicative phraseological units.

The thematic principle of classification.

Idiomatic phraseology as one of the expressive means of the language. Deformation of an idiom as a stylistic device. Alliteration, rhyme, metaphor, contrast as characteristic features of idioms.

Working Definitions of Principal Concepts

Paradigmatics	associative relationships of words in language as distinct from linear relationships of words in speech
Syntagmatics	linear relationships of words in speech as distinct from associative relationships of words in language
Combinability	the ability of linguistic units to combine in speech
Word-combination	a combination of two or more notional words serving to express one global concept
Connotation	supplementary meaning which is added to the word’s main meaning and which serves to express emotional, expressive, evaluative overtones
Phraseological unit	a word-combination in which semantic unity prevails over structural separability
Productivity	the ability of words to be brought together to form a word-combination after a certain syntactic pattern
Idiomatic	having the qualities of a phraseological unit (the meaning of the whole is not deducible from the sum of the meanings of the parts)
Idiom	a phraseological unit with pronounced stylistic characteristics

1 . Read the passage and explain what is meant by syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations.

The principles which determine the internal structure of the language system were derived by Saussure from two basic notions which have since become traditional in linguistics: s y n t a g- m a t i c and p a r a d i g m a t i c r e l a t i o n s. Syntagmatic relations specify the combination of elements into complex forms and sentences, paradigmatic relations are the relations between the elements of the language system. In the sentence John came the relation between the contents John and came is the syntagmatic relation ‘subject – predicate’, while the syntagmatic relation between the expressions of the two signs is the linear sequence. At the same time each of the words stands in paradigmatic relation to other elements in the system which do not occur in the sentence: John to he, somebody, my friend, a stranger, etc., and come to is coming, goes, went, escaped, etc. The value, or meaning, of the sentence John came is only determined by the total framework of relations and can only be understood against the background of these relations. Saussure thus replaced traditional division of linguistic description into syntax, morphology, phonology, and vocabulary by the two categories of syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations under which all aspects of the linguistic system can be described. The linguistic system is thus a system of paradigms within which the signs, from the point of view of meaning as well as of sounds, delimit and specify each other. The syntagmatic relations the item can enter into is determined by a paradigm, or class, it belongs to. The actual structure of complex forms, phrases and sentences was for Saussure still essentially a matter of language use.

The derivation of all linguistic structures from syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations which determine both the content and expression of the sign implies a certain hypothesis concerning not only the categorial and technical resources of a general theory of linguistic description but also the nature of the human linguistic faculty itself. The acquisition of language as a system of syntagmatically and paradigmatically organised signs presupposes the ability on the part of the speaker-hearer to perform two basic operations: firstly the ability to break down certain items, namely the utterances of the language, into the basic elements, on various levels, into sounds, syllables, words and word-groups, and secondly the ability to classify the segments according to the syntagmatic relations they can enter into and to differentiate the elements within the same syntagmatic class [14].

2. Provide lexicological explanation for the text below.

Sometimes you have to believe that all English speakers should be committed to the asylum for the verbally insane. In what other language do people drive on a parkway and park in a driveway? In what other language do people recite on a play and play at a recital? In what other language do privates eat in a general mess and generals eat in a private mess? In what other language do people ship by truck and send cargo by ship? In what other language can your nose run and your feet smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, a bad licking and a good licking be the same, and “what’s going on?” and “what’s coming off?” be the same – while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? How can sharp speech and blunt speech be the same, and quite a lot and quite a few the same, while overlook and oversee are opposites? How can the weather be hot as hell one day and cold as hell the next?

English is a crazy language.

Small wonder that we, English users, are constantly standing meaning on its head. Let’s look at a number of familiar English words and phrases that turn out to mean the opposite of – or something very different from – what they seem to mean:

A non-stop flight. Never get on one of these. You’ll never get down.

A hot-water heater. Who heats hot water?

A hot cup of coffee. Here again English language gets us into hot water. Who cares if the cup is hot?

Put on your shoes and socks. This is an exceedingly difficult manoeuvre. Most of us put on our socks first, then our shoes.

The bus goes back and forth between the terminal and the airport. No, you have to go forth before you can go back.

I got caught in one of the biggest traffic bottlenecks of the year. The bigger the bottleneck, the more freely the contents of the bottle flow through it. To be true to the metaphor, we should say, “I got caught in one of the smallest traffic bottlenecks of the year.”

Watch your head. I keep seeing this sign on low doorways, but I haven’t figured out how to follow the instructions. Trying to watch your head is like trying to bite your teeth.

They’re head over heels in love. That’s nice, but we do almost everything head over heels.

If truth be held, all languages are a little crazy. As Walt Whitman might proclaim, they contradict themselves. That's because language is invented, not discovered, by boys and girls and men and women, not computers. As such, language reflects the creative and fearful asymmetry of the human race (which, of course, isn't really a race at all) [15].