Comparative analysis of phrases and phraseological units from Kyrgyz epic “Manas” and its English translation

CONTENT:

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I. GENERAL SURVEY ON THEORY OF PHRASEOLOGY

1.1 Phraseology as a subsystem of language

1.2 Classification and peculiarities of phraseological units

1.3 Phrases and their types

 

 

CHAPTER II. TRANSLATION APPROACHES OF PHRASES AND PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS IN CULTURAL ASPECT

2.1 Peculiarities of Kyrgyz phraseology in cultural aspect

2.2 Equivalent approach 

2.3 Non-equivalent approach

2.3.1 Calque

2.3.2 Description

2.3.3

 

CHAPTER III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PHRASES AND PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH CULTURAL IMPLICATION FROM KYRGYZ INTO ENGLISH

 3.1 Contrastive analysis of translation of phraseological units from novels by Ch. Aytmatov “Jamiyla” and Farewell Gulsary”.

3.2 Comparative analysis of phrases and phraseological units from Kyrgyz epic “Manas” and its English translation.

3.3

 

CONCLUSION

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter I GENERAL SURVEY ON THEORY OF PHRASES AND PHRASEOLOGISMS

 

1.1 Phraseology as a subsystem of language

Phraseology (derived from Greek “phrazls” – combination and “logos” - science) is a scholarly approach to language which developed in the twentieth century.[1] It is a young branch of linguistics, which closely borders with lexicology and stylistics. Lexicography and stylistics served as a basis of phraseology to be founded as independent discipline.

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[].

Phraseology took its start when Swiss scientist Charles Bally [1905] introduced this term by including a chapter called “Phraseology”  in his book on stylistics [Bally 1905]. His 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. Bally describes phraseology as “a branch of stylistics, which studies related word combinations”.

Investigations of English phraseology began not long ago. English and American linguists as a rule are busy collecting different words, word-groups and sentences which are interesting from the point of view of their origin, style, usage or some other features. All these units are habitually described as «idioms», but no attempt has been made to describe these idioms as a separate class of linguistic units or a specific class of word-groups.

Phraseology is a branch of linguistics, which main object of research – phraseological units (P.U.). This study aims many tasks to be researched. First of all, it’s necessary to provide a clear and standard classification of P.U. Secondly, we should investigate historical development of a P.U. because without it we cannot determine the real meaning of a P.U, consequently its use in the speech. Moreover researches on origin of phraseological units and causes of their disappearance in language use are needed.

Great work in the field of phraseology has been done by the outstanding Russian linguist A. Shakhmatov in his work «Syntax». This work was continued by academician V.V. Vinogradov. Great investigations of English phraseology were done by Professor A. Koonin, I. Arnold and others.

Shanskiy{Name} said that a clear definition of phraseological unit (another name phraseologism) cannot be provided without differentiating it with simple word and free word combination. As we know there are different combinations of words in language system, some of them are free, others are fixed, limited in their combinative power. A free word combination is a syntactical unit, which consists notional and form words, and in which notional words have the function of independent parts of the sentence. The combinations of words which are fixed (set-expressions) are called phraseological units.

According to Shanskiy, phraseological units have a fixed semantic meaning and structure. P.U. is built by the components which stay in a strict order, however some of them can change the order of their components. For example, Russian phraseologisms сгореть со стыда - со стыда сгореть, тянуть волынку - волынку тянуть, etc. Both of these variants can be used in the speech. Shanskiy differentiate P.U. from words and free word combination by its feature of having impermeable composition or structure. Words consist of morphemes and phraseologisms consist of components, carrying words character. Words grammatically are uniformed and phraseological units are separately formed.

In a phraseological unit words are not independent. They form set-expressions, in which neither words nor the order of words can be changed. Free combinations are created by the speaker. Phraseological units are used by the speaker in a ready form, without any changes. The whole phraseological unit has a meaning which may be quite different from the meaning of its components, and therefore the whole unit, and not separate words, has the function of a part of the sentence.

Difference in terminology («set-phrases»,  «idioms» and «word-equivalents») reflects certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish types of phraseological units and free word-groups. The habitual terms «set-phrases», «idioms»,  «word-equivalents» are sometimes treated differently by different linguists. However these terms reflect to certain extend the main debatable points of phraseology which centre in the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups.

The term «set phrase» (expression) implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups.

The term «word-equivalent» stresses not only semantic but also functional inseparability of certain word-groups, their aptness to function in speech as single words.

The term «idioms» generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack of motivation. Uriel Weinreich[] expresses his view that an idiom is a complex phrase, the meaning of which cannot be derived from the meanings of its elements. He developed a more truthful supposition, claiming that an idiom is “a subset of a phraseological unit”. Ray Jackendoff and Charles Fillmore offered a fairly broad definition of the idiom, which, in Fillmore’s words, reads as follows: «…an idiomatic expression or construction is something a language user could fail to know while knowing everything else in the language». Chafe also lists four features of idioms that make them anomalies in the traditional language unit paradigm:

• non-compositionality
• transformational defectiveness
• ungrammaticality
• frequency asymmetry

 

1.2 Linguistic peculiarities of phraseological units

Being the object of the research of phraseology, phraseological units, having been studied by different names as: “indissoluble combinations” [Shahmatov], “fixed combinations” [Abakumov] or “set expressions” [Arnold, 1986]. A. V. Koonin, Koonin defined phraseological units as “stable word-groups with partially or fully transferred meanings” [Koonin, 1972 160].

There is a certain divergence of opinion as to the essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from other word-groups and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed «phraseological units». Arnold regarded that the main peculiarities of phraseologisms are lexical and grammatical stability, semantic integrity and separability. Let’s speak about these peculiar features in details.

1. Integrity (or transference) of meaning means that none of the idiom components is separately associated with any referents of objective reality, and the meaning of the whole unit cannot be deduced from the meanings of its components;
2. Lexical and grammatical stability means that no lexical substitution is possible in an idiom in comparison with free or variable word-combinations (with an exception of some cases when such substitutions are made by the author intentionally). The experiments conducted in the 1990s showed that, the meaning of an idiom is not exactly identical to its literal paraphrase given in the dictionary entry. That is why we may speak about lexical flexibility of many units if they are used in a creative manner. Lexical stability is usually accompanied by grammatical stability which prohibits any grammatical changes. Stability of a phraseological unit implies that it exists as a ready-made linguistic unit which does not allow of any variability of its lexical components of grammatical structure.
3. Separability means that the structure of an phraseological unit is not something indivisible, certain modifications are possible within certain boundaries. Here we meet with the so-called lexical and grammatical variants. To illustrate this point I shall give some examples: "as hungry as a wolf (as a hunter)", "as safe as a house (houses)" in English, «как (будто, словно, точно) в воду опушенный», «оседлать своего (любимого) конька», «раскидывать умом (мозгами) Раскинуть (пораскинуть) умом (мозгами)» in Russian.

Except the peculiarities given by Arnold, there are some features of phraseologisms noticed by other scientists and linguists.

4. Expressivity and emotiveness means that phraseological units are also characterized by stylistic coloring. In other words, they evoke emotions or add expressiveness.
5. Figurativeness is a key factor that fixed phraseological units in language. [Shmelev, 1977: 293].  This feature allows them often be used in belles-lettres styled works.
6. Polysemanticity is a distinguishable feature of phraseological units from free word combinations.  Free word combinations can never be polysemantic, while there are polysemantic phraseological units, eg To be on the go means: a) to be busy and active,  b) to be leaving, c) to be tipsy, d) to be near one’s end, 2) have done with means: a) Make an end of,  b) give up,  c) reach the end of.
7. Synonymy - are typical of phraseological units. It may be in two types: synonymy of phraseological units that do not contain any synonymous words and are based on different images. In free word combinations synonymy is based on the synonymy of particular words (an old man = elderly man).
8. Equivalency- as well as synonymy was considered as an essential characteristic of phraseological units [V.L. Arhangelskiy, S.G. Gavrin, V.N. Teliya, V.V. Vinogradov]. 
9. Metaphoricy means indirect meaning of phraseologisms. N.M. Shanskiy considered that not only P.U, but also simple words can be metaphorical and not all phrases are equivalent.
10. Reproducibility is regular use of phraseological units in speech as single unchangeable collocations. Shanskiy supposed the main distinctive feature of phraseological unit is “its capability of being used as a formed indivisible unit of language system in the speech”. He implied that P.U. are not formed or changed as other units during being used in the speech. [Шанский Н.М. Фразеология современного русского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1985. – 160с.].
11. Idiomaticity is the quality of phraseological unit, when the meaning of the whole is not deducible from the sum of the meanings of the parts.
12. Ready-madeness. Phraseological unit is a non-motivated word-group that cannot be freely made up in speech but is reproduced as a ready made unit.

 

1.3 Classification of phraseological units

 

First classification of phraseological units was made by Ch. Bally in 1905. In the book “Stylistics of French” [1909] Bally classified two groups of word combinations:

1. Free word combinations  are not fixed and may vary after use;
2. Phraseological unities are stable word combinations consisting of fixed components to express one idea. They carry only one meaning because consisting components lost their initial meanings and independency.

Russian well-known academician V.V. Vinogradov also made essential contribution to the development of the theory of phraseologisms. His classification of phraseological units varied from Bally’s classification. Comparing Bally and Vinogradov, Larin points out Russian linguist for historical character of his research. Larin [1977] also stated that both classifications rejected historical method, delimiting synchronic and diachronic science of language.

Then his works on phraseology were continued by Soviet linguists as V.V. Vinogradov,  A.I. Smirnitsky, I.V. Arnold and A.V. Koonin. Phraseological units can be classified according to the ways they are formed, according to the degree of the motivation of their meaning, according to their structure and according to their part-of-speech meaning.

 

1.3.1 Semantic classification of phraseological units

Phraseological units can be classified according to the degree of motivation of their meaning. This classification was suggested by academician A. A. Vinogradov for Russian phraseological units.  He developed Bally’s classification and pointed out three types of phraseological units:

a) phraseological fusions (idioms) where the degree of motivation is very low, we cannot guess the meaning of the whole from the meanings of its components, they are highly idiomatic and cannot be translated word for word into other languages, e.g.  on Shank’s mare - (on foot), to ride the high horse (to put on airs) etc; Phraseological fusions are the most idiomatic of all the kinds of phraseological units. They are equivalents of words: fusions as well as unities form a syntactical whole in analysis. Phraseological units are created from free word-groups. But in the course of time some words – constituents of phraseological units may drop out of the language; the situation in which the phraseological unit was formed can be forgotten, motivation can be lost and these phrases become phraseological fusions.

b) phraseological unities where the meaning of the whole can be guessed from the meanings of its components, but it is transferred (metaphorical or metonymical), e.g. to play the first fiddle (to be a leader in something), old salt (experienced sailor) etc; The meaning of the whole word combination is not the sum of the meanings of its components, but it is based on them and the meaning of the whole can be inferred from the image that underlies the whole expression, eg to get on one’s nerves, to cut smb short, to show one’s teeth, to be at daggers drawn.  Phraseological unities are often synonyms of words, e.g. to make a clean breast of = to confess; to get on one’s nerves = to irritate. Phraseological unities are equivalents of words as 1) only one of components of a phraseological unity has structural forms, eg to play (played, is playing, etc.) the first fiddle (but not played the first fiddles) to turn (turned, will turn, etc.)a new leaf (but not to turn newer leaf or new leaves) 2) the whole unity and not its components are parts of the sentence in syntactical analysis, eg in the sentence He took the bull by the horns

(attacked a problem boldly) there are only two parts: he — the subject, and took the bull by the horns — the predicate.

c) phraseological combinations (collocations) are often called traditional because words are combined in their original meaning but their combinations are different in different languages, eg cash and carry — (self-service shop), in a big way (in great degree) etc. It is usually impossible to account logically for the combination of particular words. It can be explained only on the basis of tradition, eg to deliver a lection (but not to read a lecture). The structure V + N (object) is the largest group of phraseological collocations.

In phraseological combinations words retain their full semantic independence although they are limited in their combinative power, eg to wage war (but not to lead war), to render assistance, to render services (but not to render pleasure). Phraseological combinations are the least idiomatic of all the kinds of phraseological units. In other words, in phraseological combinations the meaning of the whole can be inferred from the meaning of the components, eg to draw a conclusion, lo lend assistance, to make money, to pay attention to.

In phraseological combinations one of the components (generally the component which is used figuratively) can be combined with different words, eg to talk sports, politics, business (but to speak about life), leading worker, leading article (but the main problem), deadly enemy, deadly shot (but a mortal wound), keen interest, keen curiosity, keen sense of humor (but the great surprise).

Sometimes traditional combinations are synonyms of words, eg to make inquiries = to inquire, to make haste = to hurry. Some traditional combinations are equivalents of prepositions, eg by means of, in connection with. Some phraseological combinations have nearly become compounds, eg brown bread. Traditional combinations often have synonymous expressions, e.g. to make a report = to deliver a report.

Phraseological combinations are not equivalents of words. Though the components of phraseological combinations are limited in their combinative power, that is, they can be combined only with certain words and cannot be combined with any other words, they preserve not only their meaning, but all their structural forms, e.g. nice distinction is a phraseological combinations and it is possible to say nice distinctions, nicer distinction, etc., or to clench one’s fist (clenched his fists, was clenching his fists, etc.).

In Prof. A. Smirnitsky’s opinion traditional combinations are not phraseological units, as he considers only those word combinations to be phraseological units which are equivalents of words.

where words are combined in their original meaning but their combinations are different in different languages, e.g.  cash and carry -  (self-service shop), in a big way (in great degree) etc.

N. M. Shanskiy added to this classification the fourth group of P.U. as phraseological expressions [Шанский Н.М. Фразеология современного русского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1985. – 160с.]. Phraseological expression consists of semantically independent words. They have a fixed, stable meaning and structure. 

 

1.2.2 Structural classification of phraseologisms

A.V. Koonin classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.

Professor A.I. Smirnitsky worked out structural classification of phraseological units in English, comparing them with words. He points out one-top units which he compares with derived words because derived words have only one root morpheme. He points out two-top units which he compares with compound words because in compound words we usually have two root morphemes.

Among one-top units he points out three structural types;

a) units of the type «to give up» (verb + postposition type), e.g.  to art up, to back up,  to drop out,  to nose out,  to buy into,  to sandwich in etc.;

b) units of the type «to be tired» Some of these units remind the Passive Voice in their structure but they have different prepositons with them, while in the Passive Voice we can have only prepositions «by» or «with», e.g. to be tired of, to be interested in, to be surprised at etc.  There are also units in this type which remind free word-groups of the type «to be young», e.g. to be akin to, to be aware of etc.  The difference between them is that the adjective «young» can be used as an attribute and as a predicative in a sentence, while the nominal component in such units can act only as a predicative. In these units the verb is the grammar centre and the second component is the semantic centre;

c) prepositional- nominal phraseological units are equivalents of unchangeable words: prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, that is why they have no grammar centre, their semantic centre is the nominal part, e.g.  on the doorstep (quite near), on the nose (exactly), in the course of, on the stroke of, in time, on the point of  etc. In the course of time such units can become words, e.g. tomorrow, instead etc.

Among two-top units A.I. Smirnitsky points out the following structural types:

a) attributive-nominal such as: a month of Sundays, grey matter, a millstone round one’s neck and many others.  Units of this type are noun equivalents and can be partly or perfectly idiomatic. In partly idiomatic units (phrasisms) sometimes the first component is idiomatic, e.g. high road, in other cases the second component is idiomatic, e.g. first night. In many cases both components are idiomatic, e.g. red tape, blind alley, bed of nail, shot in the arm and many others.

b) verb-nominal phraseological units, e.g. to read between the lines, to speak BBC, to sweep under the carpet etc.  The grammar centre of such units is the verb, the semantic centre in many cases is the nominal component, e.g. to fall in love. In some units the verb is both the grammar and the semantic centre, e.g. not to know the ropes.  These units can be perfectly idiomatic as well, e.g. to burn one’s boats, to vote with one’s feet, to take to the cleaners’ etc.

Very close to such units are word-groups of the type to have a glance, to have a smoke. These units are not idiomatic and are treated in grammar as a special syntactical combination, a kind of aspect.

c) phraseological repetitions, such as :  now or never, part and parcel, country and western etc. Such units can be built on antonyms, e.g. ups and downs, back and forth; often they are formed by means of alliteration, e.g cakes and ale, as busy as a bee. Components in repetitions are joined by means of conjunctions. These units are equivalents of adverbs or adjectives and have no grammar centre. They can also be partly or perfectly idiomatic, e.g. cool as a cucumber (partly), bread and butter (perfectly).