3. Classifications of phraseological units

The properties of PhUs mentioned in the previous section which are also the criteria of PhUs do not allow to determine exactly the volume of phraseology which is important for understanding what word-groups belong to PhUs. The majority of linguists V.L.Arkhangelsky, V.V.Vinogradov, A.V.Kunin, A.I. Yefimov, V.N.Teliya include not only word combinations but also sentences – proverbs and sayings, clichés into phraseology. It is wide understanding of the volume of phraseology.

Linguists, who adhere to narrow understanding of phraseology, are against inclusion of proverbs and sayings into phraseology. According to N.N.Аmosova, to phraseology refer language units which have only the nominating function but proverbs and sayings perform the communicative function, hence they do not belong to PhUs.

There is diversity of opinion concerning principles of classification of PhUs. Of those classifications existing at present the most well-known on the basis of the Russian language is V.V.Vinogradov’s classification. The most well-known classifications of English phraseology were offered by A.I. Smirnitsky, N.N.Аmosova, A.V.Kunin.

Academician V.V.Vinogradov based his classification on a semantic principle, taking into account mainly the degree of idiomaticity. He classified PhUs into three big groups: phraseological fusions, phraseological unities, phraseological collocations. Phraseological fusions are completely non-motivated word-groups: blue stocking ‘a pedantic woman devoid of feminine qualities’, to kick the bucket ‘infml. to die’, to show the white feather ‘to get frightened’, be in the red ‘to have debts’, etc. The meaning of the whole in phraseological fusions cannot be deduced at least synchronically from the meanings of its constituents. Idiomaticity, as a rule, is combined with complete stability of the lexemes in the fusion.

Phraseological unities are partially motivated because their meanings as a whole can be deduced from meanings of constituent lexemes. The meanings of such PhUs in most cases can bе perceived through metaphoric transferences. The degree of stability of their lexical components is considerably high. Examples: show one's cards ‘make one’s intentions clear’, add oil to the fire ‘make things worse’, wash dirty linen in public ‘make public one’s quarrels’, a dark horse ‘sb. who is secretive, or unusually reserved’, etc.

Phraseological collocations are fully motivated, their meanings are easily deduced from meanings of their constituents. They possess specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability; in phraseological collocations substitution of certain components for their synonyms is possible, e.g. bear grudge/malice, take a liking/fancy. The main difference between phraseological collocations and phraseological unities is that in phraseological collocations the meaning of one of the constituent lexemes is phraseologically bound. Some more examples: come to power, make it a rule, take one's seat.

V.V.Vinogradov’s classification had a great influence on further investigations of PhUs, though it was criticized for being somewhat vague because, on the one hand, the boundaries between various classes of PhUs and the boundaries between PhUs and word-groups of non-phraseological character are not rigidly delineated. On the other hand, there are not given criteria for determining the degree of motivation of PhUs.

A.I.Smirnitsky’s classification is based on the idea of word equivalence. It is also considered to be a functional classification, though it contains elements of structural and semantic approaches. A.I.Smirnitsky’s considered that the difference between words and PhUs was structural, as PhUs are structurally separate (consist of separate lexemes). He introduced the term structural integrity for words and structural separateness for PhUs. PhUs like words possess semantic integrity and are introduced into speech ready-made.

Taking into account meaning and motivation, A.I.Smirnitsky distinguishes the following classes of stereotyped phrases: а) traditional phrases whose meaning can be derived from the meanings of the component parts: clench one’s teeth, shrug one’s shoulders, a rough sketch, take an examination, etc. They are common and habitual in speech but are devoid of idiomaticity; b) idioms which are imaginative, emotionally and stylistically coloured, most of them are metaphoric take the bull by its horns, ‘get right away to the point of the matter’ fish in troubled waters ‘take advantage of someone’s confusion, misfortune or bad luck’, a round peg in a square hole ‘a man who occupies a wrong place’; c) phraseological combinations according to A.I.Smirnitsky differ from the above-mentioned types of stereotyped phrases because they are word-equivalents though are characterized by structural separateness fall in love, take the chair ‘preside’, take a chance, cast a glance, etc.

Being word-equivalents PhUs are likened to affixal derivatives, they are one-summit units: to give up, to make out, give in, and also be tired, be surprised, by heart, in time, for good. In such PhUs there is one semantic centre.

Others are likened to compound words, they have two or more semantic centres and hence they are two-summit (multi-summit) units. They may be classified according to A.I.Smirnitsky into noun-equivalents: apple sauce, blue stocking, crocodile tears; verb-equivalents: break the news, give the sack; adverb-equivalents: in the long run, by hook or crook, every now and then.

A.I.Smirnitsky’s classification was criticized for being sketchy and unsystematic - with structural, stylistic and semantic criteria all mixed up. The influence of this classification is smaller than that of Vinogradov’s. Nevertheless a few points in his treatment of PhUs are of interest and helpful. Establishing the class of one-summit units, Smirnitsky finds a place for units by heart, give up, etc. that have been for a long time the object of many discussions.

PhUs were also approached from the contextual point of view. N.N. Amosova offers the procedure of contextual analysis as the most objective way of separating PhUs from free word-groups and traditional collocations (set-phrases). She defines PhUs as units of fixed context. Fixed context is considered to be an objective criterion for PhUs which differentiates them from other similar formations. Units of fixed context are subdivided into two types called phrasemes and idioms.

Phrasemes are, as a rule, two-member word-groups in which one of the members has phraseologically bound meaning, dependent on the second component. Here belong such PhUs as small talk ‘idle talk’, black frost ‘frosty weather but no snow’, grind one's teeth ‘grind one’s teeth as a reaction to pain, stress, frustration’, beat one's brains ‘think very hard’, etc. In phrasemes the second component serves as the determining context (the clue), it reveals the meaning of the first component which is phraseologically bound. The second component is used in its direct meaning. In examples small talk, small hours ‘early hours’ phraseologically bound meanings of the component small are revealed in combinations with talk or hours – their determining contexts.

The other type idioms differ from phrasemes as they cannot be separated into determining context and components with phraseologically bound meaning. They are distinguished from phrasemes by idiomaticity of the whole word-group and the impossibility of attaching meaning to the components of the PhU taken in isolation. Idioms are semantically and grammatically inseparable units. Examples: a white elephant ‘sth. costly but useless’, mare’s nest ‘illusion, mystification’, red tape ‘bureaucratic measures’. Some of idioms possess unusual collocability and logical incompatibility of member-words that indicates idiomaticity of the phrase.

Phrasemes and idioms are characterized by movable and immovable or constant context. Movable context allows of morphological, syntactic and lexical variations, e.g. the apple of his/her/mother's eye ‘one’s favourite’; they are pulling my leg ‘they are deceiving me’, I was having my leg pulled ‘I was being deceived’. Immovable context does not allow of such variations, e.g. blue blood ‘aristocracy’, brown study ‘gloomy thoughts’, catch at a straw ‘use the slightest opportunity’, call a spade a spade ‘call sth. by its own name’, etc.

Comparing the three approaches (semantic, functional, contextual) one may come to the conclusion that they have much in common as the main criteria are essentially the same, i.e. stability and idiomaticity (lack of motivation). All the three approaches are helpful to single out extreme cases – highly idiomatic (non-motivated) and free word-groups.

There is still another approach to PhUs worked out by A.V.Kunin who aimed at overcoming the shortcomings of other classifications combining structural, functional and semantic principles. A.V.Kunin defines PhU as a word collocation characterized by stability and fully or partially transferred meaning. A.V.Kunin subdivides all the PhUs into three classes according to their degree of motivation (idiomaticity):

а) idioms – word-groups with fully or partially transferred meaning (non-motivated and partially motivated): red tape, mare's nest, dark horse, to kick the bucket, etc.;

b) idiophraseomatic units – polysemantic PhUs in which the first components are fully motivated (non-idiomatic) and the second ones are idiomatic: a false alarm ‘an occasion of being unnecessarily alerted’, a change of face ‘a change of one’s attitude or behaviour’, etc. Idiophraseomatic units are an intermediate case between idioms and phraseomatic units.

c) phraseomatic units – word-groups possessing stability, motivated but characterized by slight modifications of meaning: a magnifying glass, short story, win a victory, launch a campaign, etc.

Thus, the first stage of Kunin’s classification is based on a semantic principle.

Further on PhUs are subdivided into 4 classes according to a functional principle, and within each class PhUs are subdivided into subclasses according to a structural principle:

Class A. Nоminаtive PhUs, which denote things, objects, phenomena, processes, qualities, etc. They are termed nominative because the main function they perform is that of nomination, i.e. giving names to things. Further they are subdivided into:

– substantival: crocodile tears, a bull in a china shop ‘a clumsy person’, a bee in one's bonnet ‘a whim, a fixed idea’, a tall order ‘a hard task’;

– adjectival: long in the tooth ‘old’, alive and kicking ‘infml. safe and sound’, (as) hungry as a hawk/hunter/wolf ‘very hungry’, (as) poor as a church mouse ‘very poor’;

– adverbial and prepositional: by hook or crook ‘by honest and dishonest means’, by leaps and bounds ‘very quickly’, in the long run ‘finally, in conclusion’.

Сlass B. Nominative and nominative-communicative PHUs

Verbal PhUs belong to this very class because some of them are word collocations and perform a nominating function, e.g. make two ends meet ‘to have money barely enough for living’, have a flee in one’s ear ‘be reprimanded, rejected or humiliated’, keep one's head above water ‘to fight with hardships, to avoid debts or bankruptcy’; others can be used both as word collocations and sentences thus performing a communicative function. Here belong PhUs which can transform into passive constructions: to break the ice ‘do or say sth to remove or reduce social awkwardness or tension’ – The ice is broken; to cook one's goose ‘to ruin oneself’ - My goose is cooked; to cast the light ‘to make clear’ – The light is cast.

Class C. Interjectional PhUs: By Jove! Good Lord! Goodness gracious! Bless my heart and soul! Hold your horses! ‘keep quiet!’, A fine/nice/pretty kettle of fish! ‘a disagreeable state of affairs’.

Class D. Communicative PhUs are represented by proverbs and sayings because they are sentences in their structural aspect. Proverbs are concise aphoristic didactic rhythmically organized utterances. Proverbs are didactic because they aim at teaching sb. or giving advice or warning: the proof of the pudding is in the eating ‘everything is tested by practice’, can the leopard change his spots? ‘can a man change his nature?’, sow the wind and reap the whirlwind ‘start sth. that seems harmless and have to suffer unforeseen consequences that are grave or disastrous’.

Sayings are communicative PhUs of non-proverbial character: the coast is clear ‘the way is open, there is no danger’, that’s another pair of shoes ‘this is a different thing’, the tail wags the dog ‘a part controls the whole, or a subsidiary associate dictates a course of action for a more important one’, the world is a small place, etc.

All these classes are subdivided into subclasses according to the degree of their motivation, depending on whether the PhUs are open (changeable) or closed (unchangeable), comparative or non-comparative, etc. which testifies to a great variability of PhUs.

Well-known are thematic classifications of PhUs, referring to various concepts or spheres of human activity, natural phenomena, etc. For example, L.P.Smith gives in his classifications groups of idioms used by sailors, fishermen, soldiers, hunters, idioms associated with domestic and wild animals and birds, agriculture, cooking, sports, arts, etc.

Another classification presented by the British linguists J.R.Nattinger and J.S.DeCarrico proceeds from structural and functional principles. PhUs in this classification are termed lexical phrases and are subdivided into four main types:

1) Polywords. Short phrases which function very much like individual lexemes. They cannot be varied, and their parts cannot be separated: in a nutshell ‘in short’, by the way, so to speak, so far so good, once and for all.

2) Institutionalized expressions. Units of sentence length, functioning as separate utterances. Like polywords, they are invariable, and their parts cannot be separated. They include proverbs, aphorisms, and other quotable utterances: How do you do? Have a nice day. Give me a break. You can fool some of the people some of the time.

3) Phrasal constraints. These are phrases which allow some degree of variation; they are usually quite short: as I was saying/mentioning, good morning/night, a day/long time ago, as far as I can see/know.

4) Sentence builders. Phrases which provide the framework for whole sentences; they allow considerable variation: not only...but also..., my point is that..., I’m a great believer in..., that reminds me of..., let me begin by...

Phrases from any of these categories may be used to perform the same social (or ‘pragmatic’) function. For example, the function of leave-taking can be expressed by a polyword (so long), an institutionalized expression (have a nice day) or a phrasal constraint (see you later).