22. Thematic or etymological classification

is based on the traditional and oldest principle for classifying phraseological units - according to their original content.

Detailed groupings are given in the books on English idioms by L.P. Smith and W. Ball. The authors show interest in the origin and etymology of English phrases and arrange them accordingly into phrases from sea life, from agriculture, from hunting, from sports. The authors understand the term ‘etymology’ as the source of origin, ‘source’ referring to the particular sphere of human activity, of life of nature, of natural phenomena, etc.

L.P. Smith makes a special study of idioms borrowed from other languages, but that is only a relatively small part of his classification. The general principle of the classification is rather thematic. When we speak about the etymology of a word–group we mean whether it is native or borrowed, and if borrowed, what is the source of borrowing.

The richness of language material makes these practical manuals of everyday phrases very valuable for those interested in learning or teaching English.

L.P. Smith points out that word–groups associated with the sea and the life of seamen are especially numerous in English vocabulary. This can be explained, perhaps, by the fact that the profession of a seaman is one of the oldest in England and England is a naval power. Most of the so-called sea phraseological units have long since developed metaphorical meanings which have no longer any association with the sea or sailors, e.g. between the four seas ‘in Great Britain’; to go by long sea ‘to go by steamer’, half seas over ‘to be drunk’.

The thematic principle of classifying phraseological units does not take into consideration the linguistic characteristic features of the phraseological units.

23. Semantic classification by V.V. Vinogradov.

It was the first classification based on the semantic principle. V.V. Vinogradov founded his classification on the degree of semantic cohesion between the components of a phraseological units (according to the degree of motivation of phraseological units). The more distant the meaning of a phraseological unit from the current meaning of its constituent parts is, the greater is its degree of semantic cohesion. Accordingly, V.V. Vinogradov classified phraseological units into three big groups: phraseological combinations, unites and fusions.

1. phraseological combinations are word–groups with a partially changed meaning. They are clearly motivated, that is the meaning of the unit can be easily deduced from the meanings of its constituents, e.g. to make up one’s mind, to take no notice, to take care of somebody, to put an end, etc.

2. phraseological unities are word–groups with a completely changed meaning. They are motivated, that is the meaning of the whole unit can be deduced from the meanings of the constituent parts because the metaphor, on which the shift of meaning is based is mostly clear: e.g. to wash one’s dirty linen in public ‘to discuss or make public one’s quarrels’.

3. phraseological fusions are word–groups with a completely changed meaning but they are demotivated. Their meaning cannot be deduced from the meanings of the constituent parts because the metaphor, on which the shift of meaning was based, has lost its clarity and is obscure, e.g. red tape ‘bureaucratic methods’, to kiss the hare’s foot ‘to be late’.

This classification has several weak points: 1) it does not take into account the structural characteristics of phraseological units; 2) it is next to impossible to say whether a phraseological unit is demotivated for the speaker or not, as no rigorous criteria exist and no consistent procedures are offered; 3) being developed for the Russian phraseology, it does not fit the specifically English features.