Lexical and grammatical valency of words. Collocations. Free word combinations vs. Idioms. Idioms: their characteristic features. Classifications of idioms

 

The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability.

The range of the lexical valency of words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the English word-stock. This can be easily observed in the selection of synonyms found in different word-groups. Though the verbs lift and raise, e.g., are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is collocated with the noun question. The verb take may be synonymically interpreted as ‘grasp’, ’seize’, ‘catch’, ‘lay hold of, etc. but it is only take that is found in collocation with the nouns examination, measures, precautions, etc., only catch in catch smb. napping and grasp in grasp the truth.

There is a certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any departure from this norm is felt as a literary or rather a stylistic device. Such word-groups as for example a cigarette ago, shove a question -It is because we recognise that shove and question are not normally collocable that the junction of them can be effective.

Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliché. We observe, for example, that the verb put forward and the noun question are habitually collocated and whenever we hear the verb put forward or see it written on paper it is natural that we should anticipate the word question. So we may conclude that put forward a question constitutes a habitual word-group, a kind of cliché. This is also true of a number of other word-groups, e.g. to win (or gain) a victory, keen sight (or hearing). Some linguists hold that most of the English in ordinary use is thoroughly saturated with clichés.

The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. Both the English word flower and its Russian counterpart — цветок, for example, may be combined with a number of other words all of which denote the place where the flowers are grown, e.g. garden flowers, hot-house flowers, etc. (cf. the Russian садовые цветы, оранжерейные цветы, etc.). The English word, however, cannot enter into combination with the word room to denote flowers growing in the rooms (cf. pot flowers — комнатные цветы).

One more point of importance should be discussed in connection with the problem of lexical valency — the interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy as found in word-groups.

Firstly, the restrictions of lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word-groups. The adjective heavy, e.g., is combined with the words food, meals, supper, etc. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest’. But not all the words with more or less the same component of meaning can be combined with this adjective. One cannot say, for instance, heavy cheese or heavy sausage implying that the cheese or the sausage is difficult to digest. Secondly, it is observed that different meanings of a word may be described through the possible types of lexical contexts, i.e. through the lexical valency of the word, for example, the different meanings of the adjective heavy may be described through the word-groups heavy weight (book, table, etc.), heavy snow (storm, rain, etc.), heavy drinker (eater, etc.), heavy sleep (disappointment, sorrow, etc.), heavy industry (tanks, etc.), and so on.

From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as the characteristic minimal lexical sets that operate as distinguishing clues for each of the multiple meanings of the word.

Words are used also in grammatical contexts. The minimal grammatical context in which words are used when brought together to form word-groups is usually described as the pattern of the word-group. For instance, the adjective heavy discussed above can be followed by a noun (e.g. heavy storm or by the infinitive of a verb (e.g. heavy to lift), etc. The aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures is termed grammatical valency.

The grammatical valency of words may be different. To begin with, the range of grammatical valency is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. It follows that the grammatical valency of each individual word is dependent on the grammatical structure of the language.

This is not to imply that grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech is necessarily identical. This can be best illustrated by comparing the grammatical valency of any two words belonging to the same part of speech, e.g. of the two synonymous verbs suggest and propose. Both verbs can be followed by a noun (to propose or suggest a plan, a resolution). It is only propose, however, that can be followed by the infinitive of a verb (to propose to do smth.); The adjectives clever and intelligent are seen to possess different grammatical valency as clever can be used in word-groups having the pattern: Adjective-Preposition at+Noun (clever at mathematics), whereas intelligent can never be found in exactly the same word-group pattern.

Specific linguistic restrictions in the range of grammatical valency of individual words imposed on the lexical units by the inner structure of the language are also observed by comparing the grammatical valency of correlated words in different languages. The English verb influence, for example, can be followed only by a noun (to influence a person, a decision, choice, etc.). The grammatical valency of its Russian counterpart влиять is different. The Russian verb can be combined only with a prepositional group (cf. влиять на человека, на выбор,..., etc.).

The individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be described through its grammatical valency. Thus, different meanings of the adjective keen may be described in a general way through different structures of the word-groups keen+ N, — keen sight (hearing, etc.), keen + on + N — keen on sports (on tennis, etc.), keen+V(inf.) — keen to know (to find out, etc.).

From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as minimal syntactic (or syntagmatic) structures that operate as distinguishing clues for different meanings of a polysemantic word.

 

Lexical and grammatical valency are actualized in collocations (= when 2 words are used together).Collocations are not easily defined. They are often discussed in contrast with free word combinations at one extreme and idiomatic expressions at the other, collocations occurring somewhere in the middle of this spectrum.

A word combination fails to be classified as free and is termed a collocation when the number of words which can occur in a syntactic relation with a given headword decreases to the point where it is not possible to describe the set using semantic regularities.

A phrase such as explode a myth is a collocation. In its figurative sense, explode illustrates a much more restricted collocational range. Possible objects are limited to words such as belief, idea, theory.

Words, habitu­ally collocated, tend to constitute a cliche, e.g. bad mis­take, high hopes, heavy sea (rain, snow), etc. = грубая ошибка, большие надежды, бурное море, сильный дождь /снег/.

Properties of collocations Collocations are typically characterized as arbitrary, language- (and dialect-) specific, recurrent in context, and common in technical language. The notion of arbitrariness captures the fact that substituting a synonym for one of the words in a collocational word pair may result in an infelicitous lexical combination. Thus, for example, a phrase such as make an effort is acceptable, but make an exertion is not; similarly, a running commentary, commit treason, warm greetings are all true collocations, but a running discussion, commit treachery, and hot greetings are not acceptable lexical combinations

Types of collocations: Grammatical collocations often contain prepositions, including paired syntactic categories such as verb+preposition (e.g. come to, put on), adjective+preposition (e.g. afraid that, fond of), and noun+preposition (e.g. by accident, witness to). Semantic collocations are lexically restricted word pairs, where only a subset of the synonyms of the collocator can be used in the same lexical context.

Free word combinations vs. idioms

Semantically all word-groups may be classified into motivated and non-motivated. Non-motivated word-groups are usually described as phraseological units.

The border-line between free or variable word-groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined. The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words is fundamentally delimited by their lexical and grammatical valency which makes at least some of them very close to set-phrases.

Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable. Phraseological units, or idioms, represent the most picturesque, colorful and expressive part of the language vocabulary. Here are collected such things as amusing sketches of nation's customs, traditions and prejudices, recollections of its past history, scraps of folk songs and fairy-tales. Quotations of great poets also refer to this part. It draws its resources from mostly the very depth of popular speech. They are characterized by a double sense: the current meaning 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 meaning. So, actually a DARK HORSE is not a horse but a person about whom no one knows anything definite. The imagery of a BULL IN A CHINA SHOP lies very much in the surface: it describes a clumsy person. It is a source of creating comic situations, such as puns and characterizing people, esp. in literature.

Used with care is an important warning. Idioms are ready -made speech units and their repetition sometimes wears them out, overloaded speech loses its freshness and originality. But oral and written speech lacking idioms loses much in expressiveness and color force.

There is considerable confusion among scholars in terminology. VINOGRADOV suggested a term "phraseological unit". The term "idiom" is used by western scholars. There are some other terms such as: set-expressions, set-phrases, phrases, fixed word-groups, etc.

The confusion reflects the insufficiency of positive or reliable criteria by which the phr.unit can be distinguished from free word-groups. This freedom is also relative and arbitrary. Nothing is free in speech as its linear relations are governed and regulated by logic and common sense and, by the rules of grammar and combinabilitv. One can say "a black-eyed girl", but not "a black-eyed table". Free words are so called not because of any absolute freedom in using them, but simply because they are each time build up anew in the speech process whereas idioms are used as ready-made units with fixed and constant structures.

How to distinguish.

2 major criteria:

1. Vinogradov spoke of the semantic change in phr.units as "a meaning resulting from a peculiar chemical combination of words. " The semantic shift doesn't consist in a mere change of each separate constituent part. These meanings merge to produce an entirely new one.

E.g. to have a bee in one's bonnet has lost its meaning of being distracted by a bee, it is forgotten, and now we speak so in the sense of "obsessed and eccentric". So that is meant by characterizing by semantic unity. In the traditional approach, phr.units have been defined as word-groups conveying a single concept. As to Russian scholars, they accept the criterion relying on a definition offered by Professor Koonin "phr.units is a stable word-group, characterized by a completely or partially transferred meaning". It shows that the semantic change may vary, and may affect either the whole word-group or only one of its components:

To skate on thin ice, to wear one's heart on one's sleeve, to have one's heart in the right place...

2. Structural. The second type is represented by phr.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, fall ill, fall in love, stick to one' sword, etc.

But here we are in a dangerous position, as a borderline is confusing and vague.

Structural invariability finds restrictions in certain restriction.

Restriction in substitution. E.g. to earn," coal to Manchester (Newcastle in the original) makes as little sense as B Xapьков co своим самоваром (B Tулу).

Restriction of grammatical invariability. Typical mistake. E. g. to find fault with smb.-fault S, From head to foot- f EE t. Yet there are exceptions in the rule E.g. to build a castle (castles) in the air.

Classification - semantic. By Vinogradov – acc. to the degree of their motivation of meaning

a. Fusions, where the degree of motivation is very low: apple polishing, to hang up one’s axe

b. Unities, where the meaning can be guessed but is transferred: to play the first fiddle (to be a leader in smth), old salt (experienced sailor),

c. Collocations, where words are combined in their original meaning but their combination in different languages is different: cash and carry (self-service shop), in a big way (in great degree).

12. LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM OF SIGNS AND AS A STRUCTURE. DE SAUSSURE'S DICHOTOMIES.
THE THEORY OF SIGN

There are many definitions of language, one of them is:

“ Language is a system of interdependent signs in which the value of each sign results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others ” (F. Saussure)

(besides system of signs, lang. can be also treated as a constant activity of the mind, means of communication and everything mentioned simultaneously)

Such scholars, as Potebnya, Saussure, Benvennist, Stepanov, Pierce and others agreed that lang is a system of signs that has a certain structure. That’s why the whole trend is called structuralism.

Saussure was not the first to put forward the idea that language uses signs to express thoughts. Aristotle defined linguistic signs as means of manifesting the impressions a human being gets when perceiving objects of the outside world.

A. Potebnya wrote that the word as a sign substitutes for the corresponding images or concepts, it represents them in the flow of thoughts and can be called a representation. But it was de Saussure who came up with a well-grounded theory of lang as a system of signs.

Language is a system of mutually defining entities. It is a system of signs, expressing ideas, a result of the human faculty for speech that evolved in society. Language is contingent on social interaction. The individual cannot create the arbitrary system alone. It requires agreement.

According to Saussure’s 1^st dichotomy, language is composed of two aspects: langue (the language system) and parole (the act of speaking). Language is that faculty of human speech present in all normal human beings due to heredity, but which requires the correct environmental stimuli for proper development. It is our faculty to speak to each other. Langue is a storehouse “the sum of word-images stored in the minds of individuals”. But it is also something which the individual speaker can make use of, but cannot affect by himself: it is a corporate, social phenomenon. Langue = grammar + vocabulary + pronunciation.

Parole is the actual, concrete act of speaking on the part of an individual, the controlled psycho-physical activity which is what we hear. It exists at a particular time and place and is opposed to langue, which exists apart from any particular manifestation of speech. Parole is the only object available for direct observation by the linguist, but it is not of primary importance to the linguist. What is of primary importance, it is langue as a vast network of structures and systems.

A system can be regarded as an ordered set of elements or a group of interrelated parts. But the term “system” can be applied only to the state of language at a certain moment of its development, at a certain point in time. In his theory Saussure give emphasis to the synchronic perspective, and later this approach caused a lot of criticism. The dichotomy of the synchronic and the diachronic dimensions helps to avoid some confusion, but neither of them excludes the other completely, there must always be a point of intersection. Language is dynamic and should be explored both from the synchronic and diachronic perspectives.

The third dichotomy of Saussure is the dichotomy of two main types of relations between the units of language: syntagmatic relations (linear relationship between the signs in a sentence) and paradigmatic relationships (systemic relationships between linguistic units within the system of language, relations of substitution).

V. Zvegintsev, e.g., argues that language is not a static system, it exists in development. In his opinion, the term “structure” is more adequate for linguistic research.

E. Benvennist says the term “structure” can be understood at least in two ways. A structure is a whole, which consists of interconnected and interdependent parts. A structure is a certain arrangement of interconnected elements which can substitute for each other. Each element of a structure is defined by the whole, i.e. by all its connections with the other elements. Taken in isolation any element looses its essential characteristics. Change in any part of a structure triggers off a series of changes in other parts, and, as a result, changes the whole.

Yu. Stepanov, on the contrary, is a proponent of the term “system”, which he understands as a whole that consists of elements and relations among these elements. The whole determines each element. The structure of a system is the aggregate of all the relations among the elements.

Charles Pierce identified three types of signs:

ICON is a sign that has a direct link with the object it stands for and has a resemblance with the objects, e.g.: finger prints. Language signs that are icons are onomatopoeic words.

INDEX is a sign which would lose the character which makes it a sign if its object were removed, but would not lose its character if there were no interpretant (a bell in a school). Interjections are indexes in the system of language.

SYMBOL is a sign which would lose the character which renders it as a sign if there were no interpretant. Words are symbols.

Linguistic signs have some peculiarities which differentiate them from signs in other systems.

1. In most semiotic systems signs are not emotionally colored, they are neutral in terms of emotions or evaluation. The word as the central linguistic sign is usually loaded with some connotative meaning.

2. In most semiotic systems each sign can have only one meaning, the majority of words are polysemantic.

3. Being arbitrary by nature, the word can still become motivated as a result of some word formation process (derivatives, compound words, etc.).

4. Unlike signs in other semiotic systems, linguistic signs (words and morphemes) are productive elements because they can be used to create new signs (word formation).

All this leads us to the conclusion that language is a unique and very complex semiotic system.

The most important outcomes of exploring language as a system and as a structure were the theory of the phoneme and the theory of the morpheme (in more detail).

But this approach has its limitations.