Подякувати Студентському архіву довільною сумою
Admin
26.02.2023 12:38
Дякуємо, що користуєтесь нашим архівом!
Contrastive analysis of phraseological units containing numbers, size, measurement
Інформація про навчальний заклад
ВУЗ:
Національний університет Львівська політехніка
Інститут:
Не вказано
Факультет:
Не вказано
Кафедра:
Не вказано
Інформація про роботу
Рік:
2024
Тип роботи:
Курсова робота
Предмет:
Contrastive Lexicology and Phraseology
Частина тексту файла (без зображень, графіків і формул):
INTRODUCTION
Phraseology could be portrayed as gallery, where representations of the nation’s cultural customs are collected. Under this perspective, this field of language is not only the most colorful, but also probably the most egalitarian area of vocabulary and it drowses its resources mostly from the very depths of popular speech. Moreover, together with the study of synonyms and antonyms, phraseology represents one of the most expressive disciplines within linguistics.
Following a steady growth of scholarly interest and activity over the last thirty years, phraseology has become a major field of pure and applied research. The analysis of phraseology can prove more fruitful when linked to other important phenomena. Thus, when carrying out a study of phraseological units, it is tempting to adopt a grand, overarching strategy so as to attain sweeping generalisations. On the contrary, the more fields considered, the greater the risk of increasing the number of variables unnecessarily. Bearing all this in mind, it was decided to circumscribe the present work to those aspects that help define and understand the persuasive features of phraseological units containing numbers, size, measurement.
The theoretical value of the research lies in revealing characteristic features of English and Ukrainian phraseological units in order to use the results of research for further studies.
The practical value of the research will allow to use the results of the research in practical classes, articles, further researches.
The work consists of: introduction, theoretical part, practical part, conclusions and references.
The research object of this course paper is phraseological units containing numbers, size, measurement in English and Ukrainian languages.
The research subject is is presented by explanation of idioms containing numbers, size, measurement and their translation, peculiar differences and similarities of the phraseological units in both languages.
The aim of the course paper is to research ways of translating idioms containing numbers, size, measurement in English and Ukrainian, taking into account different criteria, compare and contrast the results of investigation in order to discover differences and similarities in translating meanings.
The objectives are to define the most numerous groups of phraseological units containing numbers, size, measurement in English and Ukrainian,to classify them and to define equivalents of phraseological units.
To achieve the set aim we determine the following tasks:
1. to find and classify idioms;
2. to study the problem of the translation of idioms;
3. to understand the aim of the modern usage of idioms;
4. to distinguish different kinds of idioms;
5. to analyze the frequency of idioms' usage referring to English and Ukrainian.
For gaining the mentioned aim we used the following methods:
1. description;
2. observation;
3. comparison and contrast.
II. THEORETICAL PART
The subject matter of contrastive linguistics
Contrastive analysis is the systematic study of a pair of languages with a view to identifying their structural differences and similarities. Contrastive analysis can be carried out at three linguistic levels: phonology, grammar (morphology and syntax) and lexis.
Contrastive analysis is applied to reveal the features of sameness and difference in the lexical meaning and the semantic structure of correlated words in different languages. It is commonly assumed by non-linguists that all languages have vocabulary systems in which the words themselves differ in sound-form, but refer to reality in the same way . From this assumption it follows that for every word in the mother tongue there is an exact equivalent in the foreign language. It is a belief which is reinforced by the small bilingual dictionary where single-word translation is often used.
Language learning cannot be just a matter of substitution a new set of labels for the familiar ones of the mother tongue. It should be born in mind that though the objective reality exists outside human beings and irrespective of the language they speak, every language classifies reality in its own way by means of vocabulary units . e. g. In English , for example , the word “foot” is used to denote the extremity of the leg . In Ukrainian there is no exact equivalent for “foot”: “ступня” is a little bit smaller than foot , the word “нога” denotes the whole leg including the foot .
Differences in the lexical meaning of correlated words account for the differences of their collectability in different languages . e. g.
Thus, the English adjective “new” and the Ukrainian adjective ”новий” when taken individually are felt as correlated words : a new dress, New Year. In collocation with other nouns however the Ukrainian adjective cannot be used in the same meaning in which the English word“new” is currently used: new potatoes, new bread.
Contrastive analysis on the level of the grammatical meaning reveals that corelated words in different languages may differ in grammatical characteristics. e. g. Ukrainians are liable to say “news are good , the money are on the table, her hair are black” because the Ukrainian words “новини, гроші, волосся” have the grammatical meaning of plurality .
Contrastive analysis is a linguistic branch whose main aim is to help the analyst to ascertain in which aspects the two languages are alike and in which they differ. It includes two main processes - description and comparison set up in four basic steps:
a) assembling the data
b) formulating the description
c) supplementing the data as required
d) formulating the contrasts.
CA grew as the result of the practical demands of language teaching methodology where it was empirically shown that the errors which are made recurrently by foreign language students can be often traced back to the differences in structure between the target language and the language of the learner. This naturally implies the necessity of a detailed comparison of the structure of a native and a target language which has been named contrastive analysis.
1.1. Contrastive analysis
Study of two languages in contrast, called contrastive analysis, has been referred to by a variety of names, not all of which mean the same to all writers. One can find the following terms use: contrastive studies, contrastive language studies, contrastive linguistics, applied contrastive studies, contrastive description and others. The term contrastive is also used with studies of particular levels and functional areas of the linguistic system, such as contrastive generative grammar and contrastive lexicon, as well as the contrastive pragmalinguistics, contrastive discourse analysis, contrastive sociolinguistics, contrastive theoric and many more.
In contrastive analysis, the following problems are discussed: thesauri of entire vocabularies; classification of lexical hierarchies; taxonomic structure of specialized terminology; lexico-semantic relationships; practical implications.
Contrastive analysis is a relatively modern discipline, emerging as a major linguistic tool during and after World War Two, particularly in the United States in the context of second and foreign language teaching. In the late 1950s, Robert Lado proposed contrastive analysis as a means of identifying areas of difficulty for language learners, although already in 1945 Charles Fries had formulated the theory. The earlier contrastive analysis research was language-focused. During the pre-Chomskyan structuralist period, linguists examined features of the native language which contrasted with features of the foreign language, indicating that these would be areas most likely to cause difficulty for foreign language learners, contrastive analysis describes the structural differences and similarities of two or more languages. As an area of enquiry, contrastive analysis (CA) is concerned with the principles and uses of such descriptions. It implies a belief in language universals; as in any contrast, if there were no features in common, there would be no basis for comparison. Broadly defined, CA has been used as a tool in historical linguistics to establish language genealogies, in comparative linguistics to create language taxonomies and in translation theory to investigate problems of equivalence. In language teaching it has been influential through the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) which claims that difficulties in language learning derive from the differences between the new language and the learner's first language, that errors in these areas of difference derive from first language interference and that these errors can be predicted and remedied by the use of CA. The CAH was widely influential in the 1950s and 1960s, but from the 1970s its influence dramatically declined. In that time contrastive analysis theory had been to an extent supplanted by error analysis, which examined not only the impact of transfer errors but also those related to the target language, including overgeneralization was due in part to the supplanting of structural linguistics, with which it was closely associated. The CAH was also at odds with the views in SLA and inter-language theory that only a small proportion of errors derived from first language Krzeszowski (1985) [1] identified an approach to the teaching of Latin in England, going back nearly a thousand years, called sign theory, which involved reconciling the grammatical descriptions of English and Latin. Di Pietro (1971) focuses on a more recent relative, late nineteenth-century comparative philology which sought to link languages historically, developmentally and structurally within family relationships linguists attempt to find out similarities & differences in both related & non-related languages. [8] Contrastive analysis grew as the result of the practical demands of a language-teaching methodology, where it was empirically shown that the errors which are made by foreign language students can be often traced back to the differences in structure between the target language & the language of the learner. This naturally implies the necessity of a detailed comparison of the structure of a native & a target language. This procedure has been named contrastive analysis,proceed from the assumption that the categories, elements on the semantic as well as on the syntactic & other levels are valid for both languages.
1.2 Historical remarks
The programme of contrastive linguistics was instigated by Charles Carpenter Fries from the University of Michigan in the 1940s. Fries contended that “the most effective materials [in foreign language teaching] are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner”. Some years later, this project was put into practice by Fries’ colleague Robert Lado (1957), who provided a comparative description of English and Spanish.
The assumption that foreign language teaching can be improved by comparing the learner’s native language with the language to be learned came to be known as the König & Gast :
• First language acquisition and foreign language learning differ fundamentally, especially in those cases where the foreign language is learnt later than a mother tongue and on the basis of the full mastery of that mother tongue.
• Every language has its own specific structure. Similarities between the two languages will cause no difficulties (‘positive transfer’), but differences will, due to ‘negative transfer’ (or ‘interference’). The student’s learning task can therefore roughly be defined as the sum of the differences between the two languages.
• A systematic comparison between mother tongue and foreign language to be learnt will reveal both similarities and contrasts.
• On the basis of such a comparison it will be possible to predict or even rank learning difficulties and to develop strategies (teaching materials, teaching techniques, etc.) for making foreign language teaching more efficient.
The contrastive hypothesis in the form summarized above soon turned out to be too optimistic. It was too undifferentiated in many respects and neglected important parameters of second language acquisition. Moreover, the contrastive programme lacked a solid foundation in learning psychology and was never even put on a reasonable empirical basis, insofar as the intention of producing comprehensive comparisons of language pairs was never convincingly realized. The enterprise of improving foreign language teaching on the basis of pairwise language comparison was therefore abandoned before long, even though a certain plausibility of at least some of the basic assumptions made by early contrastive linguistics can hardly be denied.
New impetus was given to pairwise language comparison in a number of publications from the 1970s and 1980s that did not primarily pursue didactic purposes. These authors regarded contrastive linguistics as a “limiting case of typological comparison” which was characterized by a small sample size and a high degree of granularity. This typologically oriented approach culminated in John Hawkins’ (1986) monograph A comparative typology of English and German – Unifying the contrasts. It was one of Hawkins’ primary objectives to reveal correlations between properties of specific grammatical subsystems (esp. syntax and morphology), with the ultimate goal of ‘unifying the contrasts’.
Moreover, Hawkins aimed at providing explanations for the correlations he observed and related his contrastive analyses to theories of language processing. Even though Hawkins’ hypotheses and generalizations met with criticism, they provided important insights and helped establish contrastive linguistics as a type of language comparison that was interesting and worthwhile in itself, without pursuing any specific objectives related to second language acquisition or other linguistic applications.
Phraseology: general overview
Phraseology is an intermediary field of linguistics, it can be considered as being close both to vocabulary studies, (because it studies fixed word combinations characterized by a unitary meaning), and to syntax. Moreover, given the expressive nature of phraseological phenomena, these have also been associated to stylistics. But beyond its closeness to different linguistic disciplines, today phraseology tends to be regarded as an autonomous discipline, with its own object and methods of investigation.
As an independent discipline, the object of research of phraseology consists in phraseologic units from a given language (or a group of languages). The notion of phraseologic unit has been first used by C.Bally (1909) wherefrom it was taken by V. V. Vinogradov (1946, 1947); and other Soviet linguists took it. The difference between PhUs and free word combinations is derived precisely from the syntactic stability of the former which, having been established through usage, are felt as distinct units due to the very fusion (to a larger or smaller extent) of the constitutive elements. Anyway, the borders between free word combinations and PhUs, as well as those between a PhU and a compound word are volatile: due to frequent use, a free word combination may turn into a PhU and, in its turn, this may become, in time and also through frequent and long use, a compound word. The term phraseology might designate the discipline as well as its object, the set or totality of PhUs in a given language.
Another essential fact to be taken into account is the connection between phraseologisms and metaphor. Stelian Dumistrăcel claimed that “the connection between metaphors and idiomatic phrases” asserts itself on its own by the fact that they have the same stylistic function, expressivity and, logically speaking, by the fact that both carry a certain (figurative) meaning” (Dumistrăcel, 1980:124). Preconditions to situate phraseology as an independent linguistic discipline and to define PhUs as its object of study had already been created at the beginning of the 20th century. In this process researches by renowned linguists such as F.de Saussure, C. Bally, O. Jespersen, J. Seidl & W. Mc Mordie (1978), R.Moon (1998), R. Gläser (1988) and P. Cowie (1998), have played an important role. Within phraseology it is possible to recognize three major currents:
1. the Western-European structuralism
2. Linguistics of the ex – Soviet Union
3. North-American linguistics
Generally speaking, the independence of phraseology is rather recent, after C. Bally (1909) and V. Vinogradov (1947), the real interest in this subject started to increase in the 60’s when Coseriu (1967), established the difference between repeated discourse and free discourse. At the same time, there was a growing interest also in the USA among linguists of the generative transformational paradigm.
Later on, over the past fifteen years, phraseology has undergone a rapid development. Despite the fact that in the early 80’s this topic was still marginal and the core of its theoretical and descriptive researches was represented by Eastern Europe, (with the exception of Britain where the main activity related to phraseology was dictionary-making), nowadays, phraseology is no longer a marginalized discipline. This is partly due to the end of the political and intellectual isolation of Eastern Europe and Russia, partly due to the increasing credit that has been given to phraseology in the USA, and partly due to the development of corpus linguistics. Theories derived from corpus linguistics have changed the view of language – including grammar and phraseology - and corpus methodologies underpin much current work in applied linguistics, discourse studies, text analysis. In fact, the advent of linguistic corpora has allowed scholars to test their theoretical considerations. Scholars from cognitive grammar Taylor 2002), discourse analysis and corpus linguistics (J. Sinclair 1991, R. Moon) have recognized the importance of phraseological elements for the development of the communicative competence among the speakers of a certain language. Corpus linguistic has changed the perspective from which communication was seen before, investigators have in fact realized that whenever the communication process takes place, speakers of a language combine different words in order to express their ideas, anyway, sometimes they create free word combinations determined by rules. However, in other cases they use prefabricated structures, and these are the structures which have attracted the interest of many linguists and where phraseology focuses its interest. Furthermore, phraseology is making reckonable progress at two levels: on the one hand, major research has been devoted to show the crucial role played by phraseology in first-language and second-language acquisition (Peters 1983; Alonso Ramos 1993). On the other hand, generative linguistics received a new endorsement from Fillmore’s investigations (Fillmore et al 1988) arguing that, instead of a generative grammar, we need a whole continuum of mini-grammars to account for the variable speech formulae. As has been briefly summarized, a growth in research has preceded the recent acquisition of a considered status for phraseology. This is also proved by the rising number of international conferences that are being held on this topic2. Moreover, thanks to major projects of investigation (Heid & Freibott 1991, Heid 1992) phraseology has now become one of the major fields of research in pure and applied linguistics. In addition to this, the importance of phraseology as an academic independent discipline is proved not only from the investigation activity, but also from the publication of specialized dictionaries (Cowie et al. 1983; Sinclair & Moon 1995). Furthermore, the independency of phraseology is demonstrated also by the existence of research projects devoted to the phraseology of specific languages (H. Burger et al. 2007:615-779; Corpas Pastor 1996; Savin 2010), and by the creation of a “Europäische Gesellschaft für Phraseologie”, on the 29 of January of 1999 in Bielefeld (Germany). Current concerns about phraseology are not only descriptive, the interest placed in the analysis of what are usually called PhUs (Vinogradov 1947) or “word-combinations” (Cowie 1994), is accompanied by an increasing awareness of the importance of ready-made memorized combinations, both in written and spoken language, and a wider assumption of the main role they play in first and second language acquisition (Pawley and Syder 1983).
In linguistics, phraseology is the study of set or fixed expressions, such as idioms, phrasal verbs, and other types of multi-word lexical units (often collectively referred to as phrasemes), in which the component parts of the expression take on a meaning more specific than or otherwise not predictable from the sum of their meanings when used independently. For example, ‘Dutch auction’ is composed of the words Dutch ‘of or pertaining to the Netherlands’ and auction ‘a public sale in which goods are sold to the highest bidder’, but its meaning is not ‘a sale in the Netherlands where goods are sold to the highest bidder’. Instead, the phrase has a conventionalized meaning referring to any auction where, instead of rising, the prices fall.
2.1 The Phraseological Unit
In the classification proposed by acad. Vinogradov phraseological units are
classified according to the semantic principle, and namely to the degree of
motivation of meaning, i.e. the relationship between the meaning of the whole unit
and the meaning of its components. Three groups are distinguished: phraseological
fusions (сращения), phraseological unities (единства), phraseological
combinations (сочетания).
1. Phraseological fusions are non-motivated. The meaning of the whole is not
deduced from the meanings of the components: to kiss the hare’s foot
(запізнюватись), the king’s picture (фальшива монета).
2. Phraseological unities are motivated through the image expressed in the
whole construction, the metaphores on which they are based are transparent: to
turn over a new leaf, to dance on a tight rope.
3. Phraseological combinations are motivated; one of their components is used
in its direct meaning while the other can be used figuratively: bosom friend, to get
in touch with.
Prof. Smirnitsky classifies phraseological units according to the functional
principle. Two groups are distinguished: phraseological units and idioms.
Phraseological units are neutral, non-metaphorical when compared to idioms:
get up, fall asleep, to take to drinking. Idioms are metaphoric, stylistically
coloured: to take the bull by the horns, to beat about the bush, to bark up the
wrong tree.
Structurally prof. Smirnitsky distinguishes one-summit (one-member) and
many-summit (two-member, three-member, etc.) phraseological units, depending
on the number of notional words: against the grain (не по душі), to carry the day
(вийти переможцем), to have all one’s eggs in one basket.
Prof. Amosova classifies phraseological units according to the type of
context. Phraseological units are marked by fixed (permanent) context, which can’t
be changed: French leave (but not Spanish or Russian). Two groups are singled
out: phrasemes and idioms.
1. Prasemes consist of two components one of which is praseologically bound,
the second serves as the determining context: green eye (ревнивий погляд), green
hand (працівник без досвіду роботи), green years (юні роки), etc.
2. Idioms are characterized by idiomaticity: their meaning is created by the
whole group and is not a mere combination of the meanings of its components:
red tape (бюрократична тяганина), mare’s nest (нонсенс), to pin one’s heart on one’s sleeve (не приховувати своїх почуттів).
Prof. Koonin’s classification is based on the function of the phraseological
unit in communication. Phraseological units are classified into: nominative,
nominative-communicative, interjectional, communicative.
1. Nominative phraseological units are units denoting objects, phenomena,
actions, states, qualities. They can be:
a) substantive – a snake in the grass, a bitter pill to
swallow;
b) adjectival – long in the tooth ;
c) adverbial – out of a blue sky, as quick as a flash;
d) prepositional – with an eye to, at the head of.
2. Nominative-communicative units contain a verb: to dance on a volcano, to
set the Thames on fire, to know which side one's
bread is buttered, to make (someone) turn (over) in his grave, to put the hat on
smb’s misery .
3. Interjectional phraseological units express the speaker’s emotions and
attitude to things: A pretty kettle of fish! (хороша справа), Good God! God
damn it! Like hell!
4. Communicative phraseological units are represented by provebs (An hour
in the morning is worth two in the evening; Never say “never”) and sayings.
Sayings, unlike provebs, are not evaluative and didactic: That’s another pair of
shoes! It’s a small world.
Some linguists (N.N. Amosova, J. Casares) don’t include proverbs and
sayings into their classifications. Others (I.V. Arnold, A.V. Koonin, V.V.
Vinogradov) do, on the grounds that 1) like in phraseological units their
components are never changed 2) phraseological units are often formed on the
basis of proverbs and sayings (A drowning man will clutch at a straw → to clutch
at a straw). In dictionaries of idioms the traditional and oldest principle for classifying
phraseological units – the thematic principle – is used.
2.2. Classifications of Phraseological Units
A major stimulus to intensive studies of phraseology was prof. Vinogradov’s research. The classification suggested by him has been widely adopted by linguists working on other languages. The classification of phraseological units suggested by V.V. Vinogradov:
Synchronic Classification of Phraseological Units
1. Standardised word combinations, i.e. phrases characterised by the limited combinative power of their components, which retain their semantic independence: to meet the request/requirement, подавати надію, страх бере, зачепити гордість, покласти край;
2. Phraseological unities, i.e. phrases in which the meaning of the whole is not the sum of meanings of the components but it is based on them and the motivation is apparent: to stand to one’s guns, передати куті меду, прикусити язика, вивести на чисту воду, тримати камінь за пазухою;
3.Fusions, i.e. phrases in which the meaning cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meanings of its components: tit for tat, теревені правити, піймати облизня, викинути коника, у Сірка очі позичити.
Phraseological unities are very often metaphoric. The components of such unities are not semantically independent, the meaning of every component is subordinated to the figurative meaning of the phraseological unity as a whole. The latter may have a homonymous expression - a free syntactical word combination.
e.g.: Nick is a musician. He plays the first fiddle.
It is his wife who plays the first fiddle in the house.
Phraseological unities may vary in their semantic and grammatical structure. Not all of them are figurative. Here we can find professionalisms, coupled synonyms.
A.V. Koonin finds it necessary to divide English phraseological unities into figurative and non-figurative.
Figurative unities are often related to analogous expressions with direct meaning in the very same way in which a word used in its transferred sense is related to the same word used in its direct meaning.
Scientific English, technical vocabulary, the vocabulary of arts and sports have given many expressions of this kind: in full blast; to hit below the belt; to spike smb’s guns.
Among phraseological unities we find many verb-adverb combinations: to look for; to look after; to put down; to give in.
Phraseological fusions are the most synthetical of all the phraseological groups. They seem to be completely unmotivated though their motivation can be unearthed by means of historic analysis.
They fall under the following groups:
Idiomatic expressions which are associated with some obsolete customs: the grey mare, to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Idiomatic expressions which go back to some long forgotten historical facts they were based on: to bell the cat, Damocles’ sword.
Idiomatic expressions expressively individual in their character: My God! My eye!
Idiomatic expressions containing archaic elements: by dint of (dint – blow); in fine (fine – end).
Semantic Classification of Phraseological Units
1. Phraseological units referring to the same notion.
e.g.: Hard work - to burn the midnight oil; to do back-breaking work; to hit the books; to keep one’s nose to the grindstone; to work like a dog; to work one’s fingers to the bone.
Compromise – to find middle ground; to go halfway.
Independence – to be on one’s own; to have a mind of one’s own; to stand on one’s own two feet.
Experience – to be an old hand at something; to know something like the back of one’s palm to know the rope.Ледарювати – байдики бити, ханьки м’яти, ганяти вітер по вулицях, тинятися з кутка в куток, і за холодну воду не братися.
2. Professionalisms
e.g.: on the rocks; to stick to one’s guns; breakers ahead.
3. Phraseological units having similar components
e.g.: a dog in the manger; dog days; to agree like cat and dog; to rain cats and dogs. To fall on deaf ears; to talk somebody’s ear off; to have a good ear for; to be all ears. To see red; a red herring; a red carpet treatment; to be in the red; з перших рук; як без рук; горить у руках; не давати волі рукам.
4. Phraseological units referring to the same lexico-semantic field.
e.g.: Body parts – to cost an arm and leg; to pick somebody’s brain; to get one’s feet wet; to get off the chest; to rub elbows with; not to have a leg to stand on; to stick one’s neck out; to be nosey; to make a headway; to knuckle down; to shake a leg; to pay through the noser; to tip toe around; to mouth off; без клепки в голові; серце з перцем; легка рука.
Fruits and vegetables – red as a beet; a couch potato; a hot potato; a real peach; as cool as a cucumber; a top banana;гриби після дощу; як горох при дорозі; як виросте гарбуз на вербі.
Numbers and size - on all fours; half an eye; on cloud nine; one too many; on second thoughts; two-faced; в один голос;іти на всі чотири вітри між двох вогнів.
Structural Classification of Phraseological Units
Еnglish phraseological units can function like:
1) verbs (to drop a brick; to drop a line; to go halves; to go shares; to travel bodkin),
2)nouns (brains trust, ladies’ man),
3)adjectives (high and dry, high and low,ill at ease),
4)adverbs (tooth and nail, on guard; by heart),
5)prepositions (in order to; by virtue of),
6)interjections (Good heavens! Gracious me! Great Scot!).
Ukrainian phraseological units can function like:
nouns (наріжний камінь, біла ворона, лебедина пісня),
adjectives ( не з полохливого десятка, не остання спиця в колесі, білими нитками шитий),
verbs ( мотати на вус, товкти воду в ступі, ускочити в халепу),
adverbs ( не чуючи землі під ногами, кров холоне в жилах, ні в зуб ногою),
interjections (цур тобі, ні пуху ні пера, хай йому грець).
Another structural classification was initiated by A.V. Koonin. He singles out Nominative and Nominative-Communicative, Interjective, Communicative phraseological units.
Nominative phraseological units are of several types. It depends on the type of dependence. The first one is phraseological units with constant dependence of the elements.
e.g.: the Black Maria; the ace of trumps; a spark in the powder magazine.
The second type is represented by the phraseological units with the constant variant dependence of the elements.
e.g.: dead marines/men; a blind pig/tiger; a good/great deal.
There also exist phraseological units with grammar variants.
e.g.: Procrustes’ bed = the Procrustean bed = the bed of Procrustes.
Another type of the Nominative phraseological units is units with quantitative variants. They are
10.10.2015 00:10-
Ділись своїми роботами та отримуй миттєві бонуси!
0%
Оголошення від адміністратора