39. Free Wgroups as compaired to ph units. Classification of Wgroups according to their motivation.

Wgroups – self-contained lexical units – автономные (независимые) лексич. единицы (лексемы)

Types of Wgroups:

(according to the degree of structural & semantic cohesion) (слияние)

Ph Units are comparatively stable & semantically inseparable

1. Set-phrases=Word equivalents=Phraseological units – lexically & semantically inseparable (high structural & semantic cohesion of Wgroups)

 at least, p of view, by means of, take place

 red tape

 subject matter of phraseology

2. free=variable Wgroups/phrases – possess greater semantic & structural independence

 take lessons, kind to ppl, a week ago

 red dress

 subject matter of syntax

Free w grs 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. Components can be added without changing the mng

PhU are comparatively stable and semantically inseperable. Lexical, semantical unity

Classification of Wgroups according to their motivation.

Semantically all W-groups may be classified into

1. Motivated

2. Non-motivated – they are usu described as Ph units

The degree of motivation may be dif. Bestw the extremes of complete motivation & lack of motivation there are innumerable intermediate cases

Vinogradov’s classification of Ph units (based on the semantic principle – degree of idiomacity)

1. Ph units (сращения)

2. Ph unities (единства)

3. Ph combinations/collocations (сочетания)

Ph units/fusions – completely non-motivated W-groups, the M of the components has no connection (at least synchronically) with the M of the whole group.

Ph fusions – Wgroups with a completely changed, demotivated M – the metaphor has lost its clarity & then became obscure

Idiomacity + complete stability

 He acquired it on the bend – нечестным путем

in the red – гол как сокол \ у него долги

Ph unity – partially non-motivated as their M can usu be percieved through the metaphoric M of the whole Ph unit

 to wash one’s dirty linen in public

Ph collocations are clearly & fully motivated – their M can be deduced from the Ms of its constituences & from common knowledge of the world

Black death least motivated

Black market

Black dress most motivated

!!! structural M+arrangement of morphemes in Ws

 dog-house house-dog

 англ яз – правокомпонентный: прав компонент несет осн знач,

левый - уточняет

37. Valency (V)& (=) collocability. Extralinguistic & linguistic restrictions on collocability.

Valency – the conventional mutual expectancy of Ws in all types of Wgroups

irrespective of the degree of structural & semantic cohesion(слияние)k∂u’hi:Ʒ(∂)n of their components.

the power of a W to combine with other Ws in speech

Extralinguistic & linguistic restrictions on collocability.

Linguistic restrictions:

1. Inner structure of the Eng w-stock

All Ws in a L form Wgroups & sentences if Wcombinations don’t violate the syntax (+grammar) of the L

 A child smiles – a smiles child

 lift  x clever at mathematics

raise  a question mathematics at clever

The restrictions of Lex V may manifest itselves in the Lex-l M-ings of the polysemantic members of Wgroups

 heavy food, meals, supper but heavy cheese, sausage

– dif to digest

+ Ws make Wgroups in speech if their semantical structures are compatible (сочетаемы)

Extralinguistic restrictions

The correct syntax (W-order) isn’t enough for a Wgroup to be correct & accepted.

 Chomsky: Green ideas sleep furiously

the Ws in the S don’t make sense = don’t come together semantically

! Our general knowledge of the world helps – it installs certain selectional restrictions on W-usage

Lexical grammatical

Grammatical valency – the aptness of a W to appear in certain grammatical (syntactic) patterns/structures

The pattern of a Wgroup – the minimal gr-l context in which Ws are used when brouhgt together to form Wgroups.

The range of gr-l V is delimited by the p of speech the W belongs to.

The gr-l V of each individual W is dependent on the gr-l structure of the L

Though Gr V is predetermined to a large extent by grammar rules

it is still different for each particular W

 to offer/to suggest

! In dif L-ges correlative (соответствующие) Ws may differ greatly as to their V

 smile at улыбаться кому-л

enter a room войти в комнату

The differences in Gr-l variants of correlative Ws are usu accounted for by

1. their semantic differences

2. differences in the structure of the L

Lexical valency – the aptness of a W to appear in certain combinations with other lexical units

! Свободной сочетаемости (free collocability) не существует!

Even well & bad are restricted to some extent

There is a certain norm of Lex V for each W & any departure from it is felt as a literary or stylistic device

 a cigarette ago, to shove a question

Ws habitually used in speech tend to constitute a cliché

 win a victory, put forward a question

The lex-l V of correlated Ws in dif L-ges is not identical

 комнатные цветы – pot flowers

Smtimes the volume of semantics of the semantic structure in one L & its correlative in another L don’t coexist

?  bury the trash – похоронить прах

to accompany 1. аккомпанировать

3. сопровождать кого-л (– в рус нет этого значения)