Проект " Фразеология в современном английском языке"

INTRODUCTION

   By no means, that getting acquaintance with foreign languages, studying it, people simultaneously penetrate into a new national structure, get a huge spiritual value, kept by studying language.

   In particular a Russian pupil, student, studying a foreign language in our case English, gets a great chance to become familiar with national structure and history of the British people. Phraseology as an integral part and peculiar treasury of any language in the world can be greatly conductive to this familiarizing.

  We learnt that phraseologisms and phraseological units reflect ancient history of the English, particularity of their culture, customs and traditions. That why phraseologisms are highly informative units of the English Language. What is phraseologism.

   We’ll try to clear up it and the kinds and courses of arising and transformation of phraseologisms.   

    Regional value of phraseologisms consists of three parts.

    Firstly, they reflect national culture divided by their units. Some of them have no equivalents.

   Secondly, they reflect national culture by their elements, taken together, that is by their phraseological meanings.

   Thirdly, phraseologisms reflect national culture by their prototypes, because originally free phrases described definite customs, traditions, peculiarities of customs and culture, historical events and others.

   A great deal of idiomatic expressions were created by people that’s why they are closely connected with interests and casual activity of simple people. Many phraseologisms connected with superstitions and legends. However most of English phrases were originated in professional speech.

   Sport always played an important role in the life of people of Albion. The English are proud that many kinds of sports were originated in their country and later spread around the world.

   National British kinds of sports are football, cricket, horse riding, and billiards.  Many phrases are connected with horse riding, boxing. Humour, wisdom characterize them, our world, environment are their contents, permeable without romantic common sense is luck and money. Satisfaction giving by richness and success marked in many phrases.

   That is why English phrases can give a key to national character of English people to their culture, history and political life [1, 34].

 The theme of the project: «Phraseology in the modern English language».

The aim of this work: to review phraseological units in the English language.

The tasks are:

1.                 To analyze the literature of the subject;

2.                 To clear out the typical traits of  the phraseological units;

3.                 To classify phraseological units;

4.                 To make analysis of  the phraseological units;

5.                 To describe the origin and functions of phraseological units;

6.                 To create quizzes and a glossary wits different types of the phraseological units.

  The object is: phraseology as an integral part and peculiar treasury of the English language.

   The subject is: phraseological units connected with sport and culture.

   Hypothesis is: if people use more phraseological units in their speech it will be rich, colorful, original and specific. 

We used the following methods:

   1.  Analysis;

   2. Comparing analysis;

   3. Description;

   4. Creating quizzes and a glossary with different types of phraseological units.

I. THE CONCEPTION OF PHRASEOLOGY

   Phraseology is a phraseological unit, idiom, which is characterized by a constant lexical compound, grammatical structure, known carrier of the language meaning (in most cases carrying over) which is not bringing but of meaning compounding phraseological compounds. It reproduces in speech in correspondence to historical norms of using [3, 12].

  We consider that phraseology appeared in the domain of lexicology and is undergoing the process of segregating as a separate branch of linguistics. The reason is clear – lexicology deals with words and their meanings, whereas phraseology studies such collocations of words (phraseologisms, phraseological units, idioms), where the meaning of the whole collocation is different from the simple sum of literal meanings of the words, comprising a phraseological unit. F.e. ‘Dutch auction’ is not an auction taking place in Netherlands. The meaning of this phraseological unit refers to any auction, where instead of rising, the prices fall (compare “Dutch comfort”, “Dutch courage”, “Dutch treat” reflecting complicated historical factors). Phraseological units are (according to Prof. Kunin A.V.) stable word-groups with partially or fully transferred meanings ("to kick the bucket", “Greek gift”, “drink till all's blue”, “drunk as a fiddler (drunk as a lord, as a boiled owl)”, “as mad as a hatter (as a march hare)”).According to Rosemarie Glaser, a phraseological unit is a lexicalized, reproducible bilexemic or polylexemic word group in common use, which has relative syntactic and semantic stability, may be idiomatized, may carry connotations, and may have an emphatic or intensifying function in a text [4, 115].

I.1. History of the development of phraseology

Gabriele Knappe gives a quick look at the history of phraseology. Phraseology is a scholarly approach to language which developed in the twentieth century. It took its start when Charles Bally's notion of locutions phraseologiques entered Russian lexicology and lexicography in the 1930s and 1940s and was subsequently developed in the former Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. From the late 1960s on it established itself in (East) German linguistics but was also sporadically approached in English linguistics, too. The earliest English adaptations of phraseology are by Weinreich (1969; within the approach of transformational grammar), Arnold (1973), and Lipka (1974). In Great Britain as well as other Western European countries, phraseology has steadily been developed over the last twenty years. The activities of the European Society of Phraseology (EUROPHRAS) and the European Association for Lexicography (EURALEX) with their regular conventions and publications attest to the prolific European interest in phraseology. With regard to bibliographical publications, the voluminous bibliography by Joachim Lengert (1998-1999) is an inventory of studies on phraseology (in a wide sense) in Romance philology “from the beginning until 1997". It comprises 17,433 titles. Bibliographies of recent studies on English and general phraseology are included in Welte (1990) and specially collected in Cowie/Howarth (1996) whose bibliography is reproduced and continued on the internet and provides a rich source of the most recent publications in the field [14, 93]. 

I.2 Word-groups with transferred meanings

Phraseological units, or idioms, as they are called by most western scholars, represent what can probably be described as the most picturesque, colourful and expressive part of the language's vocabulary.

   We think if synonyms can be figuratively referred to as the tints and colours of the vocabulary, then phraseology is a kind of picture gallery in which are collected vivid and amusing sketches of the nation's customs, traditions and prejudices, recollections of its past history, scraps of folk songs and fairy-tales. Quotations from great poets are preserved here alongside the dubious pearls of philistine wisdom and crude slang witticisms, for phraseology is not only the most colourful but probably the most democratic area of vocabulary and draws its resources mostly from the very depths of popular speech.

   And what a variety of odd and grotesque images, figures and personalities one finds in this amazing picture gallery: dark horses, white elephants, bulls in china shops and green-eyed monsters, cats escaping from bags or looking at kings, dogs barking up the wrong tree and men either wearing their hearts on their sleeves or having them in their mouths or even in their boots. Sometimes this parade of funny animals and quaint human beings looks more like a hilarious fancy-dress ball than a peaceful picture gallery and it is really a pity that the only interest some scholars seem to take in it is whether the leading component of the idiom is expressed by a verb or a noun [4, 48].

   The metaphor fancy-dress ball may seem far-fetched to sceptical minds, and yet it aptly reflects a very important feature of the linguistic phenomenon under discussion: most participants of the carnival, if we accept the metaphor, wear masks, are disguised as something or somebody else, or, dropping metaphors, word-groups known as phraseological units or idioms are characterised by a double sense: the current meanings of constituent words build up a certain picture, but the actual meaning of the whole unit has little or nothing to do with that picture, in itself creating an entirely new image.

    We found out that a dark horse mentioned above is actually not a horse but a person about whom no one knows anything definite, and so one is not sure what can be expected from him. The imagery of a bull in a china shop lies very much on the surface: the idiom describes a clumsy person (cf. with the R. слон в посудной лавке). A white elephant, however, is not even a person but a valuable object which involves great expense or trouble for its owner, out of all proportion to its usefulness or value, and which is also difficult to dispose of. The green-eyed monster is jealousy, the image being drawn from Othello. To let the cat out of the bag has actually nothing to do with cats, but means simply "to let some secret become known". In to bark up the wrong tree (Amer.), the current meanings of the constituents create a vivid and amusing picture of a foolish dog sitting under a tree and barking at it while the cat or the squirrel has long since escaped. But the actual meaning of the idiom is "to follow a false scent; to look for somebody or something in a wrong place; to expect from somebody what he is unlikely to do". The idiom is not infrequently used in detective stories: The police are barking up the wrong tree as usual (i.e. they suspect somebody who has nothing to do with the crime) [9, 156].

   The ambiguousness of these interesting word groups may lead to an amusing misunderstanding, especially for children who are apt to accept words at their face value. Little Johnnie (crying): Mummy, mummy, my auntie Jane is dead. Mother: Nonsense, child! She phoned me exactly five minutes ago. Johnnie: But I heard Mrs. Brown say that her neighbors cut her dead.

(To cut somebody dead means "to rudely ignore somebody; to pretend not to know or recognize him".) Puns are frequently based on the ambiguousness of idioms:

"Isn't our Kate a marvel! I wish you could have seen her at the Harrisons' party yesterday. If I'd collected the bricks she dropped all over the place, I could build a villa."

(To drop a brick means "to say unintentionally a quite indiscreet or tactless thing that shocks and offends people".)

   We understood that so, together with synonymy and antonymy, phraseology represents expressive resources of vocabulary- V. H. Collins writes in his Book of English Idioms: "In standard spoken and written English today idiom is an established and essential element that, used with care, ornaments and enriches the language."

   Used with care is an important warning because speech overloaded with idioms loses its freshness and originality. Idioms, after all, are ready-made speech units, and their continual repetition sometimes wears them out: they lose their colours and become trite clichés. Such idioms can hardly be said to "ornament" or "enrich the language" [11, 211].

   On the other hand, oral or written speech lacking idioms loses much in expressiveness, colour and emotional force.

We came across that in modern linguistics, there is considerable confusion about the terminology associated with these word-groups. Most Russian scholars use the term "phraseological unit" ("фразеологическая единица") which was first introduced by Academician V.V.Vinogradov whose contribution to the theory of Russian phraseology cannot be overestimated. The term "idiom" widely used by western scholars has comparatively recently found its way into Russian phraseology but is applied mostly to only a certain type of phraseological unit as it will be clear from further explanations [15, 30].

We learnt that there are some other terms denoting more or less the same linguistic phenomenon: set-expressions, set-phrases, phrases, fixed word-groups, collocations.

The confusion in the terminology reflects insufficiency of positive or wholly reliable criteria by which phraseological units can be distinguished from "free" word-groups.

It should be pointed out at once that the "freedom" of free word-groups is relative and arbitrary. Nothing is entirely "free" in speech as its linear relationships are governed, restricted and regulated, on the one hand, by requirements of logic and common sense and, on the other, by the rules of grammar and combinability. One can speak of a black-eyed girl but not of a black-eyed table (unless in a piece of modernistic poetry where anything is possible). Also, to say the child was glad is quite correct, but a glad child is wrong because in Modern English glad is attributively used only with a very limited number of nouns (e. g. glad news), and names of persons are not among them [11, 32].

 We studied that  free word-groups are so called not because of any absolute freedom in using them but simply because they are each time built up a new in the speech process where- as idioms are used as ready-made units with fixed and constant structures.

I.3  How to distinguish phraseological units from free word-groups

   We learnt that this is probably the most discussed — and the most controversial — problem in the field of phraseology. The task of distinguishing between free word-groups and phraseological units is further complicated by the existence of a great number of marginal cases, the so-called semi-fixed or semi-free word-groups, also called non-phraseological word-groups which share with phraseological units their structural stability but lack their semantic unity and figurativeness (e. g. to go to school, to go by bus, to commit suicide).

There are two major criteria for distinguishing between phraseological units and free word-groups: semantic and structural [10, 56].

Compare the following examples:

A. Cambridge don: I'm told they're inviting more American professors to this university. Isn't it rather carrying coals to Newcastle?

(To carry coals to Newcastle means "to take something to a place where it is already plentiful and not needed". Cf. with the R. В Тулу со своим самоваром.)

B. This cargo ship is carrying coal to Liverpool.

   The first thing that captures the eye is the semantic difference of the two word-groups consisting of the same essential constituents. In the second sentence the free word-group is carrying coal is used in the direct sense, the word coal standing for real hard, black coal and carry for the plain process of taking something from one place to another. The first context quite obviously has nothing to do either with coal or with transporting it, and the meaning of the whole word-group is something entirely new and far removed from the current meanings of the constituents.

Academician V. V. Vinogradov spoke of the semantic change in phraseological units as "a meaning resulting from a peculiar chemical combination of words". This seems a very apt comparison because in both cases between which the parallel is drawn an entirely new quality comes into existence [2, 85].

We understood that the semantic shift affecting phraseological units does not consist in a mere change of meanings of each separate constituent part of the unit. The meanings of the constituents merge to produce an entirely new meaning: e. g. to have a bee in one's bonnet means "to have an obsession about something; to be eccentric or even a little mad". The humorous metaphoric comparison with a person who is distracted by a bee continually buzzing under his cap has become erased and half-forgotten, and the speakers using the expression hardly think of bees or bonnets but accept it in its transferred sense: "obsessed, eccentric" [8, 14].

That is what is meant when phraseological units are said to be characterised by semantic unity. In the traditional approach, phraseological units have been defined as word-groups conveying a single concept (whereas in free word-groups each meaningful component stands for a separate concept).

We think that this feature that makes phraseological units similar to words: both words and phraseological units possess semantic unity (see Introduction). Yet, words are also characterised by structural unity which phraseological units very obviously lack being combinations of words.

Most Russian scholars today accept the semantic criterion of distinguishing phraseological units from free word-groups as the major one and base their research work in the field of phraseology on the definition of a phraseological unit offered by Professor A. V. Koonin, the leading authority on problems of English phraseology in our country:

"A phraseological unit is a stable word-group characterised by a completely or partially transferred meaning" [12, 38].

The definition clearly suggests that the degree of semantic change in a phraseological unit may vary ("completely or partially transferred meaning"). In actual fact the semantic change may affect either the whole word-group or only one of its components. The following phraseological units represent the first case: to skate on thin ice (~ to put oneself in a dangerous position; to take risks); to wear one's heart on one's sleeve (~ to expose, so that everyone knows, one's most intimate feelings); to have one's heart in one's boots (~ to be deeply depressed, anxious about something); to have one's heart in one's mouth (~ to be greatly alarmed by what is expected to happen); to have one's heart in the right place (~ to be a good, honest and generous fellow); a crow in borrowed plumes (£ a person pretentiously and unsuitably dressed; ворона в павлиньих перьях); a wolf in a sheep's clothing (~ a dangerous enemy who plausibly poses as a friend).

The second type is represented by phraseological units in which one of the components preserves its current meaning and the other is used in a transferred meaning: to lose (keep) one's temper, to fly into a temper, to fall ill, to fall in love (out of love), to stick to one's word (promise), to arrive at a conclusion, bosom friends, shop talk (also: to talk shop), small talk.

Here, though, we are on dangerous ground because the border-line dividing phraseological units with partially changed meanings from the so-called semi-fixed or non-phraseological word-groups (marginal cases) is uncertain and confusing.

The term "idiom", both in this country and abroad, is mostly applied to phraseological units with completely transferred meanings, that is, to the ones in which the meaning of the whole unit does not correspond to the current meanings of the components. There are many scholars who regard idioms as the essence of phraseology and the major focus of interest in phraseology research.

The structural criterion also brings forth pronounced distinctive features characterising phraseological units and contrasting them to free word-groups.

We found that structural invariability is an essential feature of phraseological units, though, as we shall see, some of them possess it to a lesser degree than others. Structural invariability of phraseological units finds expression in a number of restrictions.

First of all, restriction in substitution. As a rule, no word can be substituted for any meaningful component of a phraseological unit without destroying its sense. To carry coals to Manchester makes as little sense as - В Харьков со своим самоваром.

The idiom to give somebody the cold shoulder means "to treat somebody coldly, to ignore or cut him", but a warm shoulder or a cold elbow make no sense at all. The meaning of a bee in smb's bonnet was explained above, but a bee in his hat or cap would sound a silly error in choice of words, one of those absurd slips that people are apt to make when speaking a foreign language [4, 78].

At the same time, in free word-groups substitution does not present any dangers and does not lead to any serious consequences. In The cargo ship is carrying coal to Liverpool all the components can be changed:

The ship/vessel/boat carries/transports/takes/brings coal to (any port).

The second type of restriction is the restriction in introducing any additional components into the structure of a phraseological unit.

In a free word-group such changes can be made without affecting the general meaning of the utterance: This big ship is carrying a large cargo of coal to the port of Liverpool.

In the phraseological unit to carry coals to Newcastle no additional components can be introduced. Nor can one speak about the big white elephant (when using the white elephant in its phraseological sense) or about somebody having his heart in his brown boots.

Yet, such restrictions are less regular. In Vanity Fair by W. M. Thackeray the idiom to build a castle in the air is used in this way:

"While dressing for dinner, she built for herself a most magnificent castle in the air of which she was the mistress ..."

In fiction such variations of idioms created for stylistic purposes are not a rare thing. In oral speech phraseological units mostly preserve their traditional structures and resist the introduction of additional components.

   The third type of structural restrictions in phraseological units is grammatical invariability. We found out that a typical mistake with students of English is to use the plural form of fault in the phraseological unit to find fault with somebody (e. g. The teacher always found faults with the boy). Though the plural form in this context is logically well-founded, it is a mistake in terms of the grammatical invariability of phraseological units. A similar typical mistake often occurs in the unit from head to foot (e. g. From head to foot he was immaculately dressed). Students are apt to use the plural form of foot in this phrase thus erring once more against the rigidity of structure which is so characteristic of phraseological units.

Yet again, as in the case of restriction in introducing additional components, there are exceptions to the rule, and these are probably even more numerous.

One can build a castle in the air, but also castles. A shameful or dangerous family secret is picturesquely described as a skeleton in the cupboard, the first substantive component being frequently and easily used in the plural form, as in: I'm sure they have skeletons in every cupboard! A black sheep is a disreputable member of a family who, in especially serious cases, may be described as the blackest sheep of the family [5, 29].

II. PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION

II.1 Semantic classification

It would be interesting now to look at phraseological units from a different angle, namely: how are all these treasures of the language approached by the linguistic science? The very miscellaneous nature of these units suggests the first course of action: they must be sorted out and arranged in certain classes which possess identical characteristics.

But which characteristics should be chosen as the main criteria for such a classification system? The structural? The semantic? Those of degree of stability? Of origin?

We cleared out from the previous description that a phraseological unit is a complex phenomenon with a number of important features, which can therefore be approached from different points of view. Hence, there exist a considerable number of different classification systems devised by different scholars and based on different principles.

   The traditional and oldest principle for classifying phraseological units is based on their original content and might be alluded to as "thematic" (although the term is not universally accepted). The approach is widely used in numerous English and American guides to idiom, phrase books, etc. On this principle, idioms are classified according to their sources of origin, "source" referring to the particular sphere of human activity, of life of nature, of natural phenomena, etc. So, L. P. Smith gives in his classification groups of idioms used by sailors, fishermen, soldiers, hunters and associated with the realia, phenomena and conditions of their occupations. In Smith's classification we also find groups of idioms associated with domestic and wild animals and birds, agriculture and cooking. There are also numerous idioms drawn from sports, arts, etc [14, 12].

This principle of classification is sometimes called "etymological". The term does not seem appropriate since we usually mean something different when we speak of the etymology of a word or word-group: whether the word (or word-group) is native or borrowed, and, if the latter, what is the source of borrowing. It is true that Smith makes a special study of idioms borrowed from other languages, but that is only a relatively small part of his classification system. The general principle is not etymological.

Smith points out that word-groups associated with the sea and the life of seamen are especially numerous in English vocabulary. Most of them have long since developed metaphorical meanings which have no longer any association with the sea or sailors. Here are some examples.

To be all at sea — to be unable to understand; to be in a state of ignorance or bewilderment about something (e. g. How can I be a judge in a situation in which I am all at sea? I'm afraid I'm all at sea in this problem). V. H. Collins remarks that the metaphor is that of a boat tossed about, out of control, with its occupants not knowing where they are. [10, 26]

To sink or swim — to fail or succeed (e. g. It is a case of sink or swim. All depends on his own effort.)

In deep water — in trouble or danger.

In low water, on the rocks — in strained financial circumstances.

To be in the same boat with somebody — to be in a situation in which people share the same difficulties and dangers (e. g. I don't like you much, but seeing that we're in the same boat I'll back you all I can). The metaphor is that of passengers in the life-boat of a sunken ship.

To sail under false colours — to pretend to be what one is not; sometimes, to pose as a friend and, at the same time, have hostile intentions. The metaphor is that of an enemy ship that approaches its intended prey showing at the mast the flag ("colours") of a pretended friendly nation.

To show one's colours — to betray one's real character or intentions. The allusion is, once more, to a ship showing the flag of its country at the mast.

To strike one's colours — to surrender, give in, admit one is beaten. The metaphor refers to a ship's hauling down its flag (sign of surrender).

To weather (to ride out) the storm — to overcome difficulties; to have courageously stood against misfortunes.

To bow to the storm — to give in, to acknowledge one's defeat.

Three sheets in(to) the wind (sl.) — very drunk.

Half seas over (sl.) — drunk.

Though, as has been said, direct associations with seafaring in all these idioms have been severed, distant memories of the sea romance and adventure still linger in some of them. The faint sound of the surf can still be heard in such phrases as to ride out the storm or breakers ahead! (= Take care! Danger!). Such idioms as to sail under false colours, to nail one's colours to the mast (~ to be true to one's convictions, to fight for them openly) bring to mind the distant past of pirate brigs, sea battles and great discoveries of new lands [12, 76].

   It is true, though, that a foreigner is more apt to be struck by the colourfulness of the direct meaning of an idiom where a native speaker sees only its transferred meaning, the original associations being almost fully forgotten. And yet, when we Russians use or hear the idiom первая ласточка, doesn't a dim image of the little bird flash before our mind, though, of course, we really mean something quite different? When we say на воре и шапка горит, are we entirely free from the picture built up by the direct meanings of the words? If it were really so and all the direct associations of the idioms had been entirely erased, phraseology would not constitute one of the language's main expressive resources. Its expressiveness and wealth of colour largely — if not solely — depend on the ability of an idiom to create two images at once: that of a ship safely coming out of the storm — and that of a man overcoming his troubles and difficulties (to weather/ride out the storm); that of a ship's crew desperately fighting against a pirate brig — and that of a man courageously standing for his views and convictions (to nail one's colours to the mast),

We found out that the thematic principle of classifying phraseological units has real merit but it does not take into consideration the linguistic characteristic features of the phraseological units.

The considerable contribution made by Russian scholars in phraseological research cannot be exaggerated. We have already mentioned the great contribution made by Academician V. V. Vinogradov to this branch of linguistic science [2, 35].

The classification system of phraseological units devised by this prominent scholar is considered by some linguists of today to be outdated, and yet its value is beyond doubt because it was the first classification system which was based on the semantic principle. It goes without saying that semantic characteristics are of immense importance in phraseological units. It is also well known that in modern research they are often sadly ignored. That is why any attempt at studying the semantic aspect of phraseological units should be appreciated.

   Vinogradov's classification system is founded on the degree of semantic cohesion between the components of a phraseological unit. Units with a partially transferred meaning show the weakest cohesion between their components. The more distant the meaning of a phraseological unit from the current meaning of its constituent parts, the greater is its degree of semantic cohesion. Accordingly, Vinogradov classifies phraseological units into three classes: phraseological combinations, unities and fusions (R. фразеологические сочетания, единства и сращения) [2, 55].

II.2 Phraseological combinations

Phraseological combinations are word-groups with a partially changed meaning. They may be said to be clearly motivated, that is, the meaning of the unit can be easily deduced from the meanings of its constituents.

E. g. to be at one's wits' end, to be good at something, to be a good hand at something, to have a bite, to come off a poor second, to come to a sticky end (coll.), to look a sight (coll.), to take something for granted, to stick to one's word, to stick at nothing, gospel truth, bosom friends.

Phraseological unities are word-groups with a completely changed meaning, that is, the meaning of the unit does not correspond to the meanings of its constituent parts. They are motivated units or, putting it another way, the meaning of the whole unit can be deduced from the meanings of the constituent parts; the metaphor, on which the shift of meaning is based, is clear and transparent.

   E. g. to stick to one's guns (~ to be true to one's views or convictions. The image is that of a gunner or gun crew who do not desert their guns even if a battle seems lost); to sit on the fence (~ in discussion, politics, etc. refrain from committing oneself to either side); to catch/clutch at a straw/straws (~ when in extreme danger, avail oneself of even the slightest chance of rescue); to lose one's head (~ to be at a loss what to do; to be out of one's mind); to lose one's heart to smb. (~ to fall in love); to lock the stable door after the horse is stolen (~ to take precautions too late, when the mischief is done); to look a gift horse in the mouth (= to examine a present too critically; to find fault with something one gained without effort); to ride the high horse (~ to behave in a superior, haughty, overbearing way. The image is that of a person mounted on a horse so high that he looks down on others); the last drop/straw (the final culminating circumstance that makes a situation unendurable); a big bug/pot, sl. (a person of importance); a fish out of water (a person situated uncomfortably outside his usual or proper environment).

Phraseological fusions are word-groups with a completely changed meaning but, in contrast to the unities, they are demotivated, that is, their meaning cannot be deduced from the meanings of the constituent parts; the metaphor, on which the shift of meaning was based, has lost its clarity and is obscure.

E. g. to come a cropper (to come to disaster); neck and crop (entirely, altogether, thoroughly, as in: He was thrown out neck and crop. She severed all relations with them neck and crop.); at sixes and sevens (in confusion or in disagreement); to set one's cap at smb. (to try and attract a man; spoken about girls and women. The image, which is now obscure, may have been either that of a child trying to catch a butterfly with his cap or of a girl putting on a pretty cap so as to attract a certain person. In Vanity Fair: "Be careful, Joe, that girl is setting her cap at you."); to leave smb. in the lurch (to abandon a friend when he is in trouble); to show the white feather (to betray one's cowardice. The allusion was originally to cock fighting. A white feather in a cock's plumage denoted a bad fighter); to dance attendance on smb. (to try and please or attract smb.; to show exaggerated attention to smb.).

   It is obvious that this classification system does not take into account the structural characteristics of phraseological units. On the other hand, the border-line separating unities from fusions is vague and even subjective. One and the same phraseological unit may appear motivated to one person (and therefore be labelled as a unity) and demotivated to another (and be regarded as a fusion). The more profound one's command of the language and one's knowledge of its history, the fewer fusions one is likely to discover in it [11, 48].

II.3 The structural principle

The structural principle of classifying phraseological units is based on their ability to perform the same syntactical functions as words. In the traditional structural approach, the following principal groups of phraseological units are distinguishable.

A.      Verbal. E. g. to run for one's (dear) life, to get (win) the upper hand, to talk through one's hat, to make a song and dance about something, to sit pretty (Amer. sl.).

B.      Substantive. E. g. dog's life, cat-and-dog life, calf love, white lie, tall order, birds of a feather, birds of passage, red tape, brown study.

C.      Adjectival. E. g. high and mighty, spick and span, brand new, safe and sound. In this group the so-called comparative word-groups are particularly expressive and sometimes amusing in their unanticipated and capricious associations: (as) cool as a cucumber, (as) nervous as a cat, (as) weak as a kitten, (as) good as gold (usu. spoken about children), (as) pretty as a picture, as large as life, (as) slippery as an eel, (as) thick as thieves, (as) drunk as an owl (sl.), (as) mad as a hatter/a hare in March.

D. Adverbial. E. g. high and low (as in They searched for him high and low), by hook or by crook (as in She decided that, by hook or by crook, she must marry him), for love or money (as in He came to the conclusion that a really good job couldn't be found for love or money), in cold blood (as in The crime was said to have been committed in cold blood), in the dead of night, between the devil and the deep sea (in a situation in which danger threatens whatever course of action one takes), to the bitter end (as in to fight to the bitter end), by a long chalk (as in It is not the same thing, by a long chalk).

E. Interjectional. E. g. my God/ by Jove! by George! Goodness gracious! Good Heavens! Sakes alive! (Amer.)

Professor Smirnitsky offered a classification system for English phraseological units which is interesting as an attempt to combine the structural and the semantic principles [12, 87]. Phraseological units in this classification system are grouped according to the number and semantic significance of their constituent parts. Accordingly two large groups are established:

A.     one-summit units, which have one meaningful constituent (e. g. to give up, to make out, to pull out, to be tired, to be surprised¹);

B.      two-summit and multi-summit units which have two or more meaningful constituents (e. g. black art, first night, common sense, to fish in troubled waters).

We understood that within each of these large groups the phraseological units are classified according to the category of parts of speech of the summit constituent. So, one-summit units are subdivided into: a) verbal-adverbial units equivalent to verbs in which the semantic and the grammatical centres coincide in the first constituent (e. g. to give up); b) units equivalent to verbs which have their semantic centre in the second constituent and their grammatical centre in the first (e. g. to be tired); c) prepositional-substantive units equivalent either to adverbs or to copulas and having their semantic centre in the substantive constituent and no grammatical centre (e. g. by heart, by means of).

II.4 Two-summit and multi-summit phraseological units

Two-summit and multi-summit phraseological units are classified into: a) attributive-substantive two-summit units equivalent to nouns (e. g. black art),

 It should be pointed out that most Russian scholars do not regard these as phraseological units; so this is a controversial point.

b) verbal-substantive two-summit units equivalent to verbs (e. g. to take the floor), c) phraseological repetitions equivalent to adverbs (e. g. now or never); d) adverbial multi-summit units (e. g. every other day).

Professor Smirnitsky also distinguishes proper phraseological units which, in his classification system, are units with non-figurative meanings, and idioms, that is, units with transferred meanings based on a metaphor.

Professor Koonin, the leading Russian authority on English phraseology, pointed out certain inconsistencies in this classification system. First of all, the subdivision into phraseological units (as non-idiomatic units) and idioms contradicts the leading criterion of a phraseological unit suggested by Professor Smirnitsky: it should be idiomatic [13, 92].

Professor Koonin also objects to the inclusion of such word-groups as black art, best man, first night in phraseology (in Professor Smirnitsky's classification system, the two-summit phraseological units) as all these word-groups are not characterised by a transferred meaning. It is also pointed out that verbs with post-positions (e. g. give up) are included in the classification but their status as phraseological units is not supported by any convincing argument.

The classification system of phraseological units suggested by Professor A. V. Koonin is the latest out-standing achievement in the Russian theory of phraseology. The classification is based on the combined structural-semantic principle and it also considers the quotient of stability of phraseological units.

II.5 structural-semantic characteristics

Phraseological units are subdivided into the following four classes according to their function in communication determined by their structural-semantic characteristics[10, 34].

1.    Nominative phraseological units are represented by word-groups, including the ones with one meaningful word, and coordinative phrases of the type wear and tear, well and good.

The first class also includes word-groups with a predicative structure, such as as the crow flies, and, also, predicative phrases of the type see how the land lies, ships that pass in the night.

2.                Nominative-communicative phraseological units include word-groups of the type to break the ice — the ice is broken, that is, verbal word-groups which are transformed into a sentence when the verb is used in the Passive Voice.

3.                Phraseological units which are neither nominative nor communicative include interjectional word-groups.

4.                Communicative phraseological units are represented by proverbs and sayings.

These four classes are divided into sub-groups according to the type of structure of the phraseological unit. The sub-groups include further rubrics representing types of structural-semantic meanings according to the kind of relations between the constituents and to either full or partial transference of meaning.

The classification system includes a considerable number of subtypes and gradations and objectively reflects the wealth of types of phraseological units existing in the language. It is based on truly scientific and modern criteria and represents an earnest attempt to take into account all the relevant aspects of phraseological units and combine them within the borders of one classification system [10, 213].

III. Phraseology and culture in English

  We cleared out that the past decade has seen a steady growth of interest in the phenomenon of formulaic language, preconstructed or semi-preconstructed word combinations which have particular meanings or functions in discourse. The study of these word combinations or formulaic sequences is termed phraseology and it usually examines the semantic and syntactic qualities or the discourse functions of expressions such as idioms, collocations, and other types of more or less fixed phrases such as proverbs or metaphors. Phraseology has its roots in Russian lexicography from the 1930s and has been a developing field since the 1960s in European countries. In the English-speaking world, phraseology has seen a particular grouth in interest in the past twenty years, sparked by the work of Coulmas (1979), Pawley and Syder (1983), Cowie (1988, 1992), Sinclair (1991), and Wray (2002), among others. Published research on formulaic language from quantitative perspectives or in the traditions of ethnography, genre studies, and empirical discourse analyses, regularly appear in applied linguistics journals, often based on corpus analysis. International conferences devoted to phraseology have been organized by the European Society of Phraseology and the European Association for Lexicography, and a Symposium on Formulaic Language was held in 2007 at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Various anthologies of collected papers on formulaic language have appeared in the past decade, including Cowie (1998) and Schmitt (2004) dealing with theoretical and practical aspects, Nuccorini (2002) on descriptions and analyses in various European languages, and Allerton (2004) focusing on typologies and applications [10, 54].  In this volume, Scandera leads the field beyond the theoretical and applied linguistic analysis of formulaic language into an examination of its role in the interface between language and culture, resulting in a fascinating and wide-ranging collection of papers. The cultural role played by the formulaic aspect of the lexicon is described and discussed here from four perspectives: the cultural connotations of word combinations centered around a particular lexeme, for example formulaic sequences centered around enjoy; types of word combinations and their cultural contexts, such as proverbs and similes; use-related varieties of formulaic sequences, including the phraseology of tourism or environmental discourse; user-related varieties of formulaic sequences, such as in Australian Aboriginal English or in Tristan de Cunha English. The result is a well-organized set of novel explorations which illuminate how formulaic language works in the realization of cultural behavior. The anthology is bookended by historical and summative papers by Andrew Pawley and Penny Lee.  The first section of the book deals with sequences centered around particular lexemes. It contains four papers [12, 36].

III.1. Phraseology and culture

   That's Cool with me. She's a real Hotty. He's a Bad Dude. While all three of these sentences are example of a slang use of idioms, I would wager that a majority of Americans (particulary those under 40) would have no trouble understanding what is being said. The effect of popular culture on the language is beyond questioning. You can argue about the legitimacy of its use, but you can't deny its penetration in our culture. You can dig with a shovel, but for a majority of Americans of the post-World War II generation, dig communicates an appreciation or understanding. Music and the culture of African Americans have been the major contributors to this part of the language. My "Pad" is the place I live; a girl is a "chick", and being "hip" as in the know, all were derived originally from the culture of African Americans, particularly from their artist and musicians. Smooth, cool, in the groove, are musical and black in their origins. As jazz, rhythm and blues, bee-bop, and rock & roll moved from the ghettos and country side to the great cities, they brought along with them their language. Now it's good to be bad; everyone wants to be cool; and taking a chill is what you do on your day off.

   We think that the thing about this idiom thing is that while our language gets more and more saturated with accepted slang, there is a cross over of meanings that can lead to real confusion for the uninitiated. For example, a girl can be the coolest because she is really hot. Then there's the cross overs that occur as idioms are built on top of idioms. The place where this is most apparent is in the language of sports [16].

III.2. Phraseology connected with sports

   So much of America's love of sport can be seen in the way its terms are incorporated into our language. If a businessman has a major success in a presentation, he hit a home run. Going for the whole nine yards is common for the ambitious. And it’s been over 30 years since I got past first base with a honey (sweet young thing). I think you get the picture. I thought this part of this article would be a slam-dunk, but I'm sure by now some of you readers are about to cry foul. Enough, I know some of you are saying, but just let me slide by a little longer and I promise you won't strike out when it comes to understanding this. You may even want to high five me before I'm through. I'm getting to the juicy parts where it really gets deep, and I know you can dig the fact that I won't leave you hanging. We believe that idioms are words or phrases which cannot be understood literally.      Webster's dictionary defines an idiom as, "a peculiar way of saying something which has become established after long use". Because sports and games have been a part of the American way of life from the time the first settlers arrived on its shores, there are many American English idioms derived from these sources. 

   We understood that idioms are difficult for the non-native speaker to learn in isolation from their original source. Grouping of idioms into categories according to a particular sport or game, such as baseball, facilitates the process of learning. The student or reader uses his or her analytical ability to learn an idiom in the framework of the game from which it originated. Within each category the sport or game is described and a schematic drawing of the field on which it is played is included to enhance understanding. Sports and games are further grouped into categories such as "Team Sports Idioms", or "Hunting, Shooting and Western", which include idioms basic to activities and sports associated with the settling and expansion of the United States, and finally, Games Idioms, those phrases associated with cards and gambling. Phrases and idioms including words such as "ball", "game" and "play" which are general to many sports and games are found in the section, Idioms inherent to American English Sports and Games. (link here)  After the introduction to each sport or game, each idiom associated with that game or sport category is presented with its original or literal meaning and at least one sentences illustrating this meaning ( MEANING 1 and SENTENCE 1) and then presented using the idiomatic meaning (MEANING 2 and SENTENCE 2). Two strikes against him, an statement from the sport of baseball, denotes that one strike is left before the batter is declared out and "He hit a home run into left field with two strikes against him" is the sentence given for the student to practice using this phrase in its literal sense. The idiomatic meaning, to have only one more chance, is then given followed by a sentence, such as "He had two strikes against him when he interviewed for the job, because he had no experience." A DERIVATION for each idiom is given if there is interesting background information [14, 12]. Some phrases, such as play hardball are much more common in the derived or idiomatic sense. The sentence, "Let's play hardball on this contract", used in business or negotiations is more typical of this phrase than, "We play hardball when we play baseball". If the idiom is infrequently or never used in its original sense, no first sentence is given. Students or readers will find an alphabetized list of idioms with page numbers in the appendix for easy access to individual idioms. However, the learning process will be facilitated if the student tries to learn groups of idioms within the context of groups of sports and games with which they are associated [7, 57].

CONCLUSION

Phraseological fund of the English language is so great that the whole investigation of it can’t be put in the work. Nevertheless we can clearly imagine how different is the variety and expressiveness of phraseological units in the modern English language. Thanks to literature works of poets, writers, Great Britain itself English language can count a great deal of phraseological units. But we must not forget that a lot of phraseological units came to the language from the history and culture of different countries. Unfortunately we can see only a small part of phraseological units that came from Asia.  They were borrowed from countries located not far from Great Britain.

Phraseology is a very complicated phenomenon and studying it takes a special method of investigation, using such sciences as lexicology, grammar, logic, phonetic, history of the language, philosophy. We often use the phrase: “to enrich the language” using phraseological units. We should say it isn’t a simple saying as Koonin A.V. said “phraseology is a treasury of the language”. Phraseological units are the richness of it. They not only reflect the culture and the way of life of people but help to make the language colorful, emotional and expressive.  

       We’d like to say that we fulfilled our tasks:

1.                 We analyzed the literature of the theme;

2.                 We cleared out the typical traits of phraseological units;

3.                 We classified phraseological units;

4.                 We made analysis of phraseological units;

5.                 We described the origin and functions of phraseological units;

6.                 We created quizzes and a glossary with different types of the phraseological units.

   We proved our hypothesis that if people use more phraseological units in their speech it will be rich, colorful, original and specific.

Bibliography

1.                 N.N. Amosova Fundamentals of English phraseology.

2.                 VV Vinogradov The main types of phraseological units in the Russian language.

3.                 Zakharova MA The strategy of using figurative speech phraseological English.

4.                 Koonin AV Phraseology of modern English

5.                 Koonin AV English-Russian phrasebook

6.                 Sawicki VM English phraseology: Problems of modeling

7.                 AJ Worrall English idioms

8.                 Fedulenkova TN English phraseology: Lectures

9.                 Weinreich, U. Problems in the Analysis of Idioms: Substance and Structure of Language. – University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, 1999, 208 с.

10.            Koonin AV English phraseology. theoretical course

11.            Koonin AV Phraseology of modern English language.

12.            Longman Dictionary of  English Idioms. L., 1981.

13.             Richard A. Spears American Idioms Dictionary, Lincolnwood, Illinois, USA, 1991.

14.             Makkai,A. Idiom Structure in English, - The Hague, 1987.

15.             Weinreich, U. Problems in the Analysis of Idioms: Substance and Structure of Language. – University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, 1984.

16.             Internet site: http://vernadsky.dnttm.ru/h4/w01358.htm `Phraseology of modern English`

PRACTICAL PART

Test 1.

1.     I often dream of being a millionaire.

a) about; b) of; c) of or about; d) on; e) none of the above.

2. You should do something about this problem.

a) about;  b) for; c) to; d) on; e) none of the above.

3.  The child needs somebody to look after him.

a) for; b) about; c) after; d) to; e) none of the above.

4. It depends on how much it costs.

a) on; b) about; c) for; d) of; e) none of the above.

5. What happened to/with that vase that I’d given you years ago.

a) to/with; b)with; c) to; d) for; e) none of the above.

6. The bus was full and we were unable to get on.

a) in; b) on; c) into; d) at; e) none of the above.

7. The man drove off so fast that I did not see his face.

a) on; b) down; c) up; d) off; e)none of the above.

8. It’s high time you cut down on eating out.

a) on; b) in; c)on; d) for; e) none of the above. 

9. This man was the first to make his way to the Pole.

a) take; b) make; c) have; d) proceed; e) none of the above.

10. She never attends exhibitions simply out of curiosity.

 a) for; b) because; c) of; d)out of; e) none of the above.

Test 2.

1.     Unfortunately, the plans fell through and did not come off.

a) down; b) up; c) through; d) off; e) none of the above.

2. Why did you go back on your word?

a) on; b) with; c) about; d) for; e) none of the above.

3. Did you let him in your secret?

a)on; b) for; c) to; d) about; e) none of the above.

4. I did not have enough money to pay on the bill.

a)for; b) on; c) into; d) to; e) none of the above.

5. The accident was blamed on the driver.

a) for; b) to; c) on; d) of; e) none of the above.

6. This oil can protect the skin against sun very well.

a) off; b) against; c) for; d) to; e) none of the above.

7. There was no way I could come earlier. My car broke down.

a) up; b) off; c) over; d) down; e) none of the above.

8. Your foreign accent is giving you away.

a) away; b) out; c) off; d) in; e) none of the above.

9. Please put the cigarette out. This is a no-smoking area.

 a) off; b) out; c) away; d) on; e) none of the above.

    10. You are doing very well. Do not relax, and keep up.

      a) to; b) on; c) up; d) for; e) none of above.

Test 3.

1.     Whether you like it or not, you will have to put up with it.

a) put down; b) put off; c) put up; d) put in; e) none of the above.

2. I’d love to go out but I am not feeling up to it. 

a) as; b) like; c) up; d) up to; e) none of the above.

3. You have put on some weight. It’s time to take it off. 

a)  put it off; b) take it off; с) put it down; d) take it down; e) none of the above.

4. The test can be difficult but do not give it.

a) away; b)down ; с)off ; d) out; e) none of the above.

5.This electric fence was built to keep out intruders.

a) out; b) of; с) down; d) through; e) none of the above.

6. We could hardly make out the car in front of us because of the dog. 

a) up; b) in; с) out; d)of ; e) none of the above.

7. This theatre company has just put on a very spectacular show.

a) out; b) on; с) in; d) for; e) none of the above.

8. How did you get on at the examination?

 a) out; b) on; с) off; d) in; e) none of the above.

9. The time is lost but you can make up for it.

a) off; b) out; с) down; d) up; e) none of the above.

10. At the end of the day the decision was finally made.

a) taken; b) made; c) done; d) acted; e) none of the above. 

Test 4.

1.     I saw how a stranger took my bike and made off with it.

a) off; b)away; c)out; d)over; e) none of the above.

2. I always lose my glasses and they turn up in the most unusual places.

a) out; b) up; с) in; d) out; e) none of the above.

3. I am feeling sleepy. Time to turn in.

a) up; b) out ; с) off; d) in; e) none of the above.

4. Hello! Can I speak to Den? – Den isn’t in. Please call back later.

a) in; b) forward; с) back; d) over; e) none of the above.

5. Could you clear up this puzzle for me?

 a) up; b) out; c) off; d) in; e) none of the above.

6. The poor man fell for her at once and could speak of nothing else.

a) on; b)  for; c)to; d)off; e) none of the above.

7. Please stop this argument. I do not want to fall out with you.

a) down; b)away; c)out; d)in; e) none of the above.

8. I am trying to figure what you really mean.

a) in; b)up; c)off; d)down; e) none of the above.

9. Without a fridge the milk will go off.

a) off; b)down; c)up; d) out; e) none of the above.

10. Here’s the second line calling. Hold on a minute!

a) off; b) out; с) in; d) on; e) none of the above.

Test 5.

1.     Private premises! Keep out.

a) away; b) out; c)in; d)into; e) none of the above.

2. I think a very important idea has been left out in this document.

a) out; b) over; c)up; d) off; e) none of the above.

3. I rely on you. Do not let me down.

a) in; b)out; c)down ;d)up; e) none of the above.

4. After you have logged, you can then access any Internet site you need.

a) in; b)forward; c)back; d)over; e) none of the above.

5. The professor is very famous and the students look up to him.

a) on;  b) in;  c)up; d)down; e) none of the above.

6. He said goodbye and made for the door.  

a) for; b) to; c)towards; d)on; e) none of the above.

7. The shock was so strong that the boy passed out and recovered only a minute later. 

a) away; b)off; c)down; d)out; e) none of the above.

8. The teacher does not like this student and is always picking on him.

a) on; b)for; c)to; d)over; e) none of the above.

9. This politician unmistakably stands out in the history of the USA.

a) out; b)over; c)for; d) down; e) none of the above.

Glossary