CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PART I
PHRASEOLOGICAL THEORY
PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS BY V.V.VINOGRADOV
CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS BY N.N.AMOSOVA
SYNTACTICAL CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WORKED OUT BY A.V.KUNIN
THE PHRASEOLOGICAL SYSTEM
THE PHRASEOLOGICAL STABILITY AND SYSTEMIC PECULIARITIES OF
PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF A PHRASEOLOGICAL UNIT
PART II
PROPER NAME
TOPONYMS
AMERICAN STATES NICKNAMES AS PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
THEORY OF NOMINATION
SYNTHETIC AND ANALITIC CHARACTER OF AMERICAN STATES NICKNAMES
SEMANTIC GROUPS OF AMERICAN STATES NICKNAMES
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PAGE
2
4
4
7
9
11
13
14
17
21
24
33
33
36
40
42
46
48
52
53
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
TABLE I Terms used for 'sentence-like' and 'word-like' combinations
TABLE II Subcategories of word-like units
FIGURE 1 The phraseology system of Modern English
SUMMARY TABLE III The characteristic features of a phraseological unit
TABLE IV
TABLE V
8
13
20
32
35
46
1
INTRODUCTION
The present paper studies the phraseological system of the English language and gives a
superficial analysis of the American States nicknames.
Phraseology as a language system includes the whole area of more or less “fixed”
combinations of words on up to formulaic sentences and texts. It is a vast field of studies and
that is why, it is almost impossible within this work to deal with the whole bulk of it. Besides,
broad-based international research on phraseology began to develop only in the 70’s of the
20th century, but all the more rapidly since. That is why, the main aim of the paper is not to
provide detailed information about the English phraseological system, but rather to give a kind
of reference information, concerning the most important and relevant aspects of this field.
Thereby, it should be stated that the paper has a limited aim: to adumbrate the phraseological
system of the English language and offer a systemic overview of the American toponyms as
phraseological units.
It also should be mentioned that in this work both the Russian phraseological tradition and
the latest scientific achievements of various Western linguists are taken into consideration. It
implies that the reader has an opportunity to draw a distinction between Russian and Western
approaches to the notion of phraseology.
The paper consists of two parts, which, in their turn, are subdivided into several topics.
The first part provides an introduction to the fundamentals of phraseology. This includes the
principles of classification of phraseological units by different linguists, mainly attending to
the classifications developed by V.V.Vinogradov and A.V.Kunin. In addition, the structure of
the English phraseological system, the systemic peculiarities and characteristic features of
phraseological units are analyzed in this part. For the sake of greater clarity and simplicity of
material presentation a diagram and several tables are introduced into the text.
The second part of the paper deals with a wide variety of topics, which will be clearly
exemplified. It treats the fundamentals of onomastics, theory of nomination, toponyms (one of
2
the areas of onomastics), and, finally, American States nicknames as phraseological units,
their most important features, characteristics and semantic groups.
The definitions and explanations given in the text are taken from numerous reference sources.
Apart from various directories, dictionaries and official Web sites, the main reference sources
are A.V.Kunin’s The course of phraseology of contemporary English (the 2nd edition);
A.P.Cowie’s Phraseology: theory, analysis, and applications; H.L. Mencken's The American
Language and M.P.Tarasevich’s thesis - The American phraseological toponymy.
3
PART I
PHRASEOLOGICAL THEORY
It is often stated that language is a living thing. Living things grow and change, so does
language. One can readily recognize differences between Shakespeare’s English and the
English of modern authors, but present-day English is also growing and changing, and these
tendencies are not easy to recognize.
Since the general tendencies of present-day English are towards more idiomatic usage, the
importance of studying idiomatic units becomes more and more evident. Idioms (in American
theory) or phraseological units (in Russian phraseological theory) are not a separate part of the
language which one can choose either to use or to omit, but they form an essential part of the
general vocabulary of the English language.
Some phrases and even sentences in a language, just as derived and compound words, may
mean more than their constituents suggest. This additional meaning is a part of their systemic
meaning rather than pragmatics; it does not derive from a new situation in which the words
are used. Thus, call names/call smb names implies ‘cursing, using bad language’; put on a
white sheet means ‘to publicly recant, to confess’ and paddle your own canoe stands for ‘one
should rely on oneself and not expect others to help’. The additional semantic component that
can hardly be deduced from the meanings of constituent words is called idiomatic meaning,
which turns word combinations and sentences into ready-made units that become a part of the
lexicon. An English native speaker is often not aware that he is using an idiom, while a nonnative learner makes the correct use of idiomatic English one of his main objectives. The fact
that some idiomatic units are illogical or grammatically incorrect causes serious difficulties
for the English learners. Only careful study and exact learning will allow people to understand
and use phraseological units correctly.
These complex ready-made idiomatic units, for which there is no unanimously accepted
term, are the objects of a special branch of lexicology – phraseology. Some scholars regard
4
phraseology even as a special branch of linguistics due to its very specific object of
investigation, implied complex methods of analysis and widespread research activity.
Terminology in this field has always been problematic, and extended discussions of the
problem include those by Gläser ( 1984), Čermák ( 1988), Nunberg ( 1994), Cowie and other
authors. There is no generally agreed common vocabulary. Different terms are sometimes
used to describe identical or very similar kinds of unit; at the same time, a single term may be
used to denote very different phenomena. A great ambiguity of the term ‘phraseology’ and
other differences in the terminology cause difficulties for most linguists.
There are no proper scientific investigations of English phraseology, conducted by British
and American linguists. Their studies are essentially descriptive, not theoretical. In English
and American linguistics researchers usually confine themselves to collecting various words,
word-groups, sentences and proverbs presenting some interest either from the point of view of
origin, style, usage, or some other features peculiar to them. The fundamental questions such
as laying down a reliable criterion to distinguish between variable word-groups and
phraseological units, the system-defined character of phraseology, methods of studying
phraseology, proportion of words and phraseological units are not raised in the most
significant works of Western linguists [Weinreich, 1964; Makkai, 1972; Smith, 1959]. The
word combinations, which are regularly reproduced and have specific restrictions, structure
and meaning are usually described as idioms in Western studies, and only recently an attempt
to investigate idioms as a separate class of linguistic units or a specific class of word-groups
has been made. In addition to the foregoing facts, it should be stated that English and
American scientists do not distinguish phraseology as an independent linguistic discipline.
This accounts for the absence of the term phraseology, concerning a branch of lexicology, in
the English language.1
Charles Bally was the first linguist, who introduced the term phraséologie into practice
[Bally, 1905]. In his theory Bally defined phraseology as a part of stylistics. According to his
1
Kunin A.V. The course of phraseology of contemporary English–Second Edition – Moscow,1996 P.9
5
theory, phraseology studies bound word-combination and set expressions. But in English and
American linguistics the situation is different. The term “phraseology” has another meaning.
According to Webster’s dictionary it denotes ‘mode of expression, peculiarities of diction’,
while the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as ‘arrangement or choice of words and
phrases in the expression of ideas, manner or style of expression’.
Opinions differ even in the ‘classical’ Russian theory, which has probably the most
pervasive influence on work in current phraseological studies and is unrivalled in its
application to the design and compilation of dictionaries. The term ‘phraseology’ has come to
be used for the whole ensemble of expressions where the meaning of one element is
dependent on the other, irrespective of the structure and properties of the unit (Vinogradov
V.V.); with other authors it denotes only such set expressions which, as distinguished from
idioms, do not possess expressiveness or emotional colouring (Smirnitsky A.I.), and vice
versa: only those that are imaginative, expressive and emotional (Arnold I.V.). Amosova N.N.
insists on the term being applicable only to what she calls fixed context units, i.e. units in
which it is impossible to substitute any of the components without changing the meaning not
only of the whole unit but also of the elements that remain intact. At last A.V. Kunin stresses
that phraseological units or idioms are structurally separable language units with completely
or partially transferred meaning.
With its great wealth and variety of form and meaning English phraseology presents an
intense interest both for scientists and language learners. The scope of questions raised and
discussed by phraseology is diverse. They range from classification of phraseological units to
investigating their specific aspects including stylistic value, grammatical, semantic and
etymological characteristics, pragmatics, contrastive analysis and problems of translation,
their role in a language and their representation in the mind.
Following a steady growth of scholarly interest and activity over the past twenty years,
chiefly in Western Europe, but also in the USA, phraseology has now become the major field
of pure and applied research for Western linguists that it had, much earlier, for scholars of
6
Eastern Europe. But it should be underlined that the achievements of Soviet phraseology led
by V.V. Vinogradov, A.V. Kunin, A.I. Smirnitsky, N.N. Amosova, A.S. Akhanova, which are
widely recognized in the scientific world, the continued intelligent devotion to the problems of
phraseology of Eastern scholars nowadays has turned phraseology into a full-fledged
linguistic discipline with its own objects and methods.
PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
There are diverse views on which conventionalized complex expressions should be the
subject matter of phraseology, and that is why there are variances in categorization and
classification of these units.
There are a considerable number of classifications based on different principles established
by different scholars. Classification of phraseological units may be based on their syntactical
characteristics. In this case most of the early schemes and subsequent refinements of Russian
phraseological theory are agreed in recognizing a primary division between 'word-like' units,
which function syntactically at or below the level of the simple sentence, and 'sentence-like'
units, which function pragmatically as sayings, catchphrases, and conversational formulae.
Examples of the former are in the nick of time (on time), a broken reed (unreliable), to get
one’s teeth into something(to put much effort into), and of the latter There's no fool like an old
fool, Life is not a bed of roses. One of the first Russian phraseologists to refer to this
distinction was Chernuisheva (1964), whose sentence-like units (called 'phraseological
expressions') included sayings and familiar quotations. As Table I shows the difference
between sentence-like and word-like combinations is still recognized by British specialists,
such as Cowie and Howarth, who are influenced by Russian models.
7
TABLE I 2
Terms used for 'sentence-like' and 'word-like' combinations
Author
General
category
Sentence-like
Word-like
(or pragmatic)
(or semantic)
unit
unit
--
Cheuisheva
Phraseological
Phraseological
(1964)
unit
expression
Mel'čuk
Phraseme, or Set
Pragimatic
Semantic
(1988)
phrase
phraseme, or
phraseme
Pragmateme
Cowie
Word-
Functional
Composite
(1988)
combination
expression
Howarth
Word-
Functional
Composite
(1996)
combination
expression
unit
The traditional and the oldest principle for classifying phraseological units is based on their
content and might be called thematic. This approach is widely used in numerous English and
American dictionaries of idioms. Nowadays English does not lack dictionaries of idioms
nowadays, but until the mid-1970s British works were in the main small in scale and lacking
in depth (e.g. McMordie and Goffin 1954). For larger scholarly treatments the user had to turn
to works published outside Britain, and compiled by non-native speakers, such as Kunin’s
English-Russian Phraseological Dictionary (1955, 4th ed. 1984) or Ichikawa’s Kenkyusha
2
A.P.Cowie Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications - Published in the United States by Oxford
University Press Inc., New York 1998 P.5
8
Dictionary of Current English Idioms (1964). This approach implies, for instance, idioms
referring to buying and selling (to buy a pig in a poke, to be in/out of pocket), to health, illness
and death (not to feel up to the mark, to feel run down, to kick the bucket), idioms which are
found in the subjects of politics and government (a back-bencher, to gain office), idioms of
complaining or commiserating (a stab in the back, pay lip service to), idioms containing
colours (to have green fingers, to show the white feather, grey matter). The thematic approach
has its merits but it does not take into consideration the linguistic features of phraseological
units.
The question of classification of phraseological units is mainly worked out in this country.
Eminent Russian linguists (V.V.Vinogradov, N.N.Amosova, A.V.Kunin etc) showed a great
interest in the theoretical aspects of the problem. Moreover Russian phraseological theory
unlike Western studies is based predominantly on linguistic parameters.
From the mid- 1970s, and increasingly throughout the 1980s, one of the strongest influences
on British phraseological theory was the work of a group of leading Russian scholars. These
included V.V.Vinogradov, widely regarded as the father of Russian phraseology, and
N.N.Amosova, deserving of special mention because of a formulation of 'phraseologically
bound' meaning which differed from that proposed by Vinogradov (1947) and which was later
widely used by Russian scholars. “Both devised a tripartite scheme of categories, and it is
probably true to say that the differences between the two, except in the crucial respect
mentioned above, were differences of emphasis and terminology, rather than of substance”3.
CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS BY V.V.VINOGRADOV
Vinogradov developed some points first advanced by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally (1909)
and gave a strong impetus to a purely lexicological treatment of the material. Thanks to him
3
A.P.Cowie Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications - Published in the United States by Oxford
University Press Inc., New York 1998 P.213
9
phraseological units were strictly defined as lexical complexes with specific semantic features
and classified accordingly. His classification is based on the semantic approach, i.e. the
different degree of semantic cohesion between the components of a phraseological unit,
semantic motivation. The degree of motivation is correlated with the rigidity, indivisibility
and semantic unity of the expression.
Vinogradov drew a distinction within the general category of 'phraseological unit' 4 between
'phraseological fusions' (also called 'idioms'), 'phraseological unities', and 'phraseological
combinations'.
Phraseological fusions (also called idioms) are word groups with a completely changed,
demotivated meaning. There is no relation between the meaning of the whole combination and
those of its components. The degree of semantic fusion is often correlated with the rigidity of
the expression, or, as I.V.Arnold 5 put it, 'with the possibility of changing the form or the order
of components, and of substituting the whole by a single word'. The metaphor has lost its
clarity and has become obscure and opaque (shoot the breeze ‘to chatter’, at sixes and sevens
‘in confusion or in disagreement’).
Beyond the fusion, Vinogradov recognized a partially non-motivated type, the
'phraseological unity', whose sense could be perceived as a metaphorical or metonymic
extension of the whole expression (Ginzburg et al. 1979, P. 75). Phraseological unities can
also be defined as word groups with a completely changed meaning when the meaning of the
word group does not correspond to the meanings of its constituent parts, yet the metaphor on
which the shift of meaning is based is transparent ( Arcadian life ‘simple and pleasant country
life’, to skate on thin ice ‘to do or say smth which requires great care or tact’, to burn one’s
boats/bridges ‘to commit oneself to a course of action which cannot be reversed or changed
4
5
Vinogradov's most inclusive category was the, perhaps the most widely used umbrella term in Russian
phraseology and defined by R. Ginzburg (in 1979) as follows: 'Phraseological units are non-motivated
word-groups that cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units' (Ginzburg
et al. 1979, P. 74)
I.V.Arnold The English Word – Third Edition, Moscow 1986, P.170
10
later’. The last example proves the possibility of synonymic substitution in this type of
classification, which is limited in character.
Vinogradov's third category, the 'phraseological combination', is a crucial type since it
introduces the notion of contextual determination of meaning. It is defined by I.Arnold 6 as
follows: 'Phraseological combinations are not only motivated but contain one component used
in its direct meaning while the other is used figuratively: meet the demand, meet the necessity,
meet the requirements, a bosom friend, fall in love. These combinations are clearly and fully
motivated, i.e. their meaning can be easily deduced from the meanings of its constituents and
common knowledge of the world.
The debatable points of this classification may be briefly outlined as follows:
1. It has often been noted that the borderline between the types of phraseological units,
especially the boundary between 'fusions' and 'unities', is not clear-cut, it is vague and
sometimes even called subjective.
2. Borderline cases between idiomatic and non-idiomatic word groups are so numerous and
confusing that the final decision seems to depend largely on one’s ‘feeling of the language’.
For some speakers, a given expression (burn one's boats) has a figurative sense which is not
yet completely fossilized; for others the same expression is entirely opaque.
3. Moreover, it does not take into account the structural characteristics of phraseological
units.
CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS BY N.N.AMOSOVA
The classification is based on contextual approach. Phraseological units are defined as
units of fixed context, where fixed context is ‘a context characterized by a specific and
unchanging sequence of definite lexical components, and a peculiar semantic relationship
6
I.V.Arnold The English Word – Third Edition, Moscow 1986, P.170
11
between them.’7 Amosova argued that free word groups make up variable contexts, and
substitution of one element in the word-group does not change the meaning of the other (a
small/large/huge/great town/room/audience). But phraseological units make up a non-variable
(the stability of the word-group), fixed context; they allow no substitution of the kind
(small/early hours, but not big/little hours; a white elephant, but not light or pink).
As it seen from the above-stated facts, there exist two criteria of phraseological units –
specialized meaning of the components and non-variability of context. Both of these criteria
display unilateral dependence. Specialized meaning presupposes complete stability of the
lexical components, as specialized meaning of the member-words or idiomatic meaning of the
whole word-group is never observed outside fixed contexts8.
Amosova's system modified Vinogradov's in one respect. She also recognized a division
between unmotivated and motivated idioms (on Shank’s mare – ‘on foot’ and cash and carry
– ‘self-service shop’). However, she identified a distinction within Vinogradov's category of
'phraseological combinations'. According to her theory, phraseological units are subdivided
mainly into phrasemes in which only one word has a specialized meaning and restricted
context (beef tea, knit one’s brows, small talk) and idioms where the whole word group
possesses a specialized meaning, none of the words are used literally, and all the words are
mutually contextually bound (red tape, play with fire).
In addition to foregoing facts, proverbs and sayings do not form part of phraseology
according to N.N.Amosova.
The main objection to the contextual approach is as follows:
- Non-variability of context does not necessarily imply specialized meaning of the
component or the components of the word-group. In some cases the stability of the lexical
components is found in word-groups including words of a narrow or specific range of lexical
valency (e.g. shrug one’s shoulders).
7
8
I.V.Arnold The English Word – Third Edition, Moscow 1986, P.171
R.S.Ginsburg, S.S.Khidekel, G.Y.Knyazeva, A.A..Sankin A Course in Modern English Lexicology –
Second Edition, Moscow 1979
12
Though Amosova’s phraseological theory contained some controversial points, as a whole it
was a major breakthrough in the general studies of English phraseology.
TABLE II9 Subcategories of word-like units
Author
General
category
Opaque,
Partially
invariable
motivated
unit
unit
Phraseologically
bound unit
Vinogradov Phraseological Phraseological Phraseological Phraseological
(1947)
unit
Amosova
Phraseological
(1963)
unit
fusion
Idiom
unity
combination
Idiom (not
Phraseme
differentiated)
SYNTACTICAL CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
Phraseological units can be also classified according to the parts of speech, they consist of.
This classification was suggested by I.V. Arnold. The following groups are stated:
a) noun phraseologisms denoting an object, a person, a living being, e.g. bullet train,
latchkey child, redbrick university, Green Berets;
b) verb phraseologisms denoting an action, a state, a feeling, e.g. to break the log-jam, to get
on somebody’s coattails, to be on the beam, to nose out, to make headlines;
c) adjective phraseologisms denoting a quality, e.g. loose as a goose, dull as lead;
d) adverb phraseologisms, such as: with a bump, in the soup, like a dream, like a dog with
two tails;
e) preposition phraseological units, e.g. in the course of, on the stroke of;
9
A.P.Cowie Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications - Published in the United States by Oxford
University Press Inc., New York 1998 P.217
13
f) interjection phraseological units, e.g. «Catch me!», «Well, I never!» etc.
In I.V.Arnold’s classification there are also sentence equivalents, proverbs, sayings and
quotations, e.g. «The sky is the limit», «What makes him tick», «I am easy». Proverbs are
usually metaphorical, e.g. «Too many cooks spoil the broth», while sayings are as a rule nonmetaphorical10, e.g. «Where there is a will there is a way».
CLASSIFICATION OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WORKED OUT BY A.V.KUNIN
Though British idiom dictionaries based on linguistic principles of analysis began to appear
in the 1970s (Cowie and Mackin 1975; Long and Summers 1979), works reflecting the greater
depth and precision of Russian phraseology did not emerge till the 1980s. What the advanced
learner needed at those times were dictionaries in which theoretical principles for the choice
and classification of phraseological units were rigorously worked out and applied.
A.V.Kunin's English-Russian Phraseological Dictionary, in its first edition of 1955, was the
earliest dictionary of English phraseology to be based on such principles, and in its second
(1967) and third (1984) editions it has grown in descriptive precision and authority.
Semantically, the set expressions included in his dictionary may be divided into three
categories, which may be called phraseological units, or idioms, semi-idioms and
phraseomatic
units.
This
classification
includes
Vinogradov’s
classification
of
phraseological units and supplements it, as the latter is considered to be developed for the
Russian phraseology and does not fit the specifically English features.11
According to Kunin, phraseological units are structurally separable language units with
completely or partially transferred meanings (can be motivated and non-motivated). Semiidioms have both literal and transferred meanings, the first meaning being usually
10
11
E.M.Dubenez Modern English Lexicology. Theory and Practice, Glossa-Press, Moscow 2002
I.V.Arnold The English Word – Third Edition, Moscow 1986, P.171
14
terminological or professional and the second transferred. Phraseomatic units have literal or
phraseomatically bound meanings.
A characteristic feature of all the set expressions is their stability (ready-made reproduction,
semantic complexity, permanence of lexical composition, morphological and syntactical
fixity, refusal to follow the patterns of free word combination).12
From the point of view of the function that phraseological units perform in speech,
A.V.Kunin subdivided them into the following four major classes:
1. Nominative that perform nominating function; they are utterances below the level of a
sentence (to breath one’s last – to die, see how the land lies, safe and sound).
2. Communicative that convey the thought; they include proverbs and sayings (fingers
were made before forks, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, beauty is only skin deep).
3. Nominative-communicative word-groups that normally perform a nominating function
but only slight transformations in grammar make them perform a communicative function (to
break the ice - the ice is broken, to square the circle – the circle is squared ‘to attempt
something impossible’).
4. Interjectional phraseological units that mainly express emotions (My word! ‘surprise’,
Words fail me! ‘shocked, angry’, By George!).
In addition to the latter classification, A.V.Kunin classified phraseological units according to
the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming
phraseological units.
Primary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a unit is formed on the
basis of a free word-group:
a) Most productive in Modern English is the formation of phraseological units by means of
transferring the meaning of terminological word-groups, e.g. in cosmic technique we can point
12
A.V.Kunin English-Russian Phraseological Dictionary – Fourth edition, Moscow 1984 P.14
15
out the following phrases: ‘to link up’ - in cosmonautics means ‘to rendezvous’, in its
transformed meaning it means – ‘to get acquainted’;
b) a large group of phraseological units was formed from free word groups by transforming
their meaning, e.g. ‘granny farm’ – ‘a pension for old people’, ‘Troyan horse’ – ‘a computer
virus’.
f) they can be formed by using archaisms, e.g. ‘in brown study’ means ‘in gloomy
meditation’ where both components preserve their archaic meanings,
g) they can be formed by using a sentence in a different sphere of life, e.g. ‘that cock won’t
fight’ can be used as a free word-group when it is used in sports (cock fighting), it becomes a
phraseological unit when it is used in everyday life, because it is used metaphorically,
Secondary ways of forming phraseological units are those when a phraseological unit is
formed on the basis of another phraseological unit; they are:
a) conversion, e.g. ‘to vote with one’s feet’ was converted into ‘vote with one’s feet’;
b) changing the grammar form, e.g. ‘Make hay while the sun shines’ is transferred into a
verbal phrase – ‘to make hay while the sun shines’;
c) analogy, e.g. ‘Curiosity killed the cat’ was transferred into ‘Care killed the cat’;
d) shortening of proverbs or sayings, ‘You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear’ - ‘to
make a sow’s ear’ = ‘to be mistaken’.
e) borrowing phraseological units from other languages, either as translation loans, e.g.
‘living space’ (German), ‘to take the bull by the horns’( Latin).
As it can be observed, A.V.Kunin worked out the most comprehensive classifications of
phraseological units, but mainly he is given the credit of assuming the combined structuralsemantic principles as a basis of his classifications, quotient of stability of phraseological
units and their functions in communication.
16
THE PHRASEOLOGICAL SYSTEM
Nowadays many linguists realize that phraseological units are not a peripheral phenomenon
in lexicon bordering on syntax. This type of word combinations makes up a large part of our
language knowledge. They tell us a lot about the core of a language. Phraseological units are
specific lexical units that are framed into syntax. They are also a place where phonetics,
semantics, morphology, syntax and pragmatics meet. As a consequence, phraseology is
turning into an important interdisciplinary research for scholars of different backgrounds and
even into a separate linguistic discipline. Prof. Kunin’s revolutionary approach to the problem
of phraseology, in which an attempt is made to overcome the shortcomings of the previously
worked out semantic, functional and contextual theories, asserts that phraseology should be
regarded as a self-contained branch of linguistics, which deals with a phraseological
subsystem of language and not with isolated phraseological units.
In view of the aforesaid, the question arises as to whether the phraseological system really
exists, and to what extent the system-defined character of the ‘phrasicon’ manifests itself.
According to S.S.Aleshkevich, the phraseological system is not merely the sum total of
phraseological units that constitute the 'phrasicon' of a language - that is, the whole inventory
of idioms and non-idiomatic set-phrases, both word-like and sentence-like, - but also all the
mechanisms of their formation and the inner properties and relationships between the
constituents of the phraseological units13. Prof. Kunin emphasized another important feature
of phraseology as a system: system does not exist in vacuum, it performs numerous functions.
That is why function is also one of the fundamental attributes of the phraseological system. 14
The main functions of phraseological units are communicative, nominative, cognitive and
pragmatic.
The phraseological system is an open system; the number of units is theoretically
unrestricted. It is an adaptive system constantly adjusting itself to the changing requirements
Английский лексикон в когнитивно-дискурсивной парадигме – МГЛУ, Сборник научных трудов,
выпуск 457, Москва 2001, С.88
14
Kunin A.V. The course of phraseology of contemporary English – Second Edition.–Moscow,1996 P.102
13
17
and conditions of human communications, but the formation of new and disappearances of
archaic units do not change fundamentally the relationships between phraseological units.15
The basis of each system is an organized substance, but not a chaotic set of facts. The
phraseological corpus of a language can be characterized as the organized substance. Within
the borders of phraseology as a system many linguists distinguish such elements as centre and
periphery – the all-important segments defining the dynamic character of the system.
The majority of phraseological units represent the centre of the system, as all the aspects of
the phraseological stability16 are incident to them. Having lost one of the aspects, a unit
immediately transfers to the periphery.17 All the phraseological combinations (Vinogradov’s
classification), which are usually made up of two open-class words and one of them is used
figuratively,
can
be
regarded
as
peripheral:
for
instance,
to
meet
the
demand/necessity/requirement.
Another interpretation of the structure of the phraseological system can be observed in the
theories of some Western linguists.
According to A.P.Cowie and R.Gläser, word-like phraseological units are 'nominations' and
designate a phenomenon, an object, an action, a process or state, a property or a relationship in
the outside world. They are manifested in nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. They
represent the centre of the phraseological system (in the model of centre and periphery applied
to the phrasicon) and embrace idioms and non-idioms (i.e. non-idiomatic restricted
collocations). Non-idioms have transparent meanings and include technical terms
(terminological word groups), onymic entities (i.e. phrases which are proper names), clichés,
paraphrasel verbs, and other set expressions.
Sentence-like phraseological units are 'propositions' and designate a whole state of affairs in
the outside world. Their logical structure consists of a nomination and a predication. The finite
Английский лексикон в когнитивно-дискурсивной парадигме–МГЛУ, Сборник научных трудов,
выпуск 457, Москва 2001, С.87
16
The question of phraseological stability will be discussed on pp.
17
This approach is suggested by Prof.A.V.Kunin - Kunin A.V. The course of phraseology of contemporary
English – Second Edition. – Moscow,1996 P.105
15
18
verb as part of the predicate may be absent in the case of reduction or ellipsis. Propositions
form the periphery of the phraseological system.
In this theory the transition area is also singled out. It is occupied by phraseological units
which have a dual character. These comprise: stereotyped comparisons, proverbial sayings,
fragments of proverbs, allusions and fragments of quotations.
The structure of the phraseological system and the composition of the phrasicon are
summarized in the following table: 18
18
A.P.Cowie Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications-Published in the United States by Oxford
University Press Inc., New York 1998 P.128
19
FIGURE 1
The phraseology system of Modern English
20
THE PHRASEOLOGICAL STABILITY
AND SYSTEMIC PECULIARITIES OF THE PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
The very notion of stability is directly connected with the notion of system and its dynamic
character. As it has been already proved that phraseology represents a particular system with
its own characteristic features, the factor of phraseological stability can be referred to one of
the most essential features of phraseological units.
W.R.Ashby wrote: “Through all the meanings of stability runs the basic idea of an
“invariant”: that although the system is passing through a series of changes, there is some
aspect that is unchanging; so some statement can be made that, in spite of the incessant
changing, is true unchangingly”19.
Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that cannot be
freely made up in speech but are produced as ready-made units. This definition proceeds from
the assumption that the essential features of phraseological units are stability of the lexical
components and lack of motivation. Thus, for example, the constituent ‘heart’ in the
phraseological unit ‘by heart’ (from memory) cannot be substituted for any other noun,
denoting parts of a human body, as a change of the second constituent would involve a
complete change in the meaning of the whole group. It follows that phraseological unit ‘by
heart’ is semantically non-motivated; it exists as a ready-made linguistic unit which does not
allow of any variability of its lexical components. Grammatical structure of phraseological
units is to a certain extent also stable, for instance ‘I am good friends with him’ is irregular or
illogical in its grammatical structure. I is singular, but the correspondent word ‘friends’ is in
the plural form, but still no substitution is possible.
The phraseological stability is the whole range of invariants - that are peculiar to different
aspects of phraseological units, act in speech as ready-made units and are identical within all
the occasional changes.
19
W.R.Ashby An Introduction to Cybernetics – London, Chapman&Hall LTD 1957 P.73
21
This definition worked out by A.V.Kunin is based on the understanding of the notion
‘phraseological stability’ as a dynamic phenomenon. By the definition phraseological units
may vary in their stability in that they encompass constituents which allow variations within
the constraints of the lexicological/phraseological system. In other words: they are 'systemic
variations' of phraseological units. The substitutes of particular constituents may count as
'contextual synonyms' as they have a common semantic marker:
- to tremble/quiver like an aspen leaf
- to be in accord/harmony/tune with smb/smth
- to have a flair/gift for
- to tear to pieces/to shreds
- as black as coal/ink/jet/midnight/pitch/soot
These systemic variations of phraseological units, however, must be distinguished from
'creative modifications' of phraseological units made by the individual speaker or writer who
intends a particular stylistic effect. These changes to the basic form of a phraseological unit
and the associated playing with its literal and transferred meaning are always bound to a
particular textual environment.
The maximum stability degree is typical of the phraseological units, which do not allow any
normative changes. The phraseological units (or idioms) of an adverbial type – after all, as the
crow flies, with flying colours, of a substantive type – enough and to spare, Jack and Jill,
proverbs – the rolling stone gathers no moss, one swallow doesn’t make a summer – are
characterized by the highest possible degree of stability. Those phraseological units, one or all
the components of which become archaic, are also considered to be highly stable (tit or tat,
spick and span).
The dynamic character of the phraseological stability can be also determined by the changes
in the number of invariants (it can expand or contract). The expansion of the number of
22
invariants is the traversed path of any phraseological unit, while the contraction - interpreted
as a way to dephraseologization.
In Kunin’s approach to the problems of phraseology phraseomatic and phraseological units
are characterized as set expressions, the phraseological stability of which distinguishes them
from free phrases and compound word. The units are made up of words of different degree of
wordness depending on the type of set expressions they are used in (red tape, small hours).
Their structural separateness, another important factor of their stability, distinguishes them
from compound words (blackbird - black market).
The types of the stability should be also taken into consideration (idiomatic,
idiophraseomatic and phraseomatic).20 Idioms (or the phraseological units) and semi-idioms
are much more complex in structure than phraseomatic units, have a broad stylistic range, and
admit of more complex occasional changes.21
Other aspects of the phraseological stability are: stability of use, lexical stability and
semantic stability.
1. Stability of use means that set expressions are reproduced ready-made and not created in
speech. They are not elements of individual style of speech but language units.
2. Lexical stability means that the components of set expressions are either irreplaceable or
partly replaceable within the bounds of phraseological or phraseomatic variance: lexical (as
dry as a bone/dust/a stick), grammatical (to be in deep water/waters), positional (dine and
wine smb – wine and dine), quantitative (to lead smb a dance/a pretty dance).
3. Semantic stability is based on the lexical stability of set expressions. Even when
occasional changes are introduced the meaning of set phrases is preserved. It may only be
specified, made more precise, weakened or strengthened. In other words in spite of all
occasional changes phraseological and phraseomatic units remain semantically invariant or
are destroyed. For example, the substitution of the verbal component in the set expression ‘to
20
21
See: A.V.Kunin’s classification P.7-9 of the report
A.V.Kunin English-Russian Phraseological Dictionary – Fourth edition, Moscow 1984 P.
23
raise a hornets’ nest about one’s ears’ by the verb to bring /to stir up does not change the
meaning of the phrase, but in the free phrase ‘to raise a question’, if the verbal component is
converted into ‘to settle a question’, the meaning is changed dramatically.
As a conclusion, the following additional information about the phraseological stability can
be given: the phraseological stability is not so much the invariability of the units, which
mainly concerns the ‘surface’ features of the system, as the peculiar characteristics of their
intrinsic structural features.22
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF A PHRASEOLOGICAL UNIT
There is a pressing need for criteria distinguishing phraseological units from free wordgroups and sentences, which will allow us to formulate the characteristic features of set
expressions.
The borderline between free and set word-groups is very vague. It is usually the degree of
reproducibility – the ability to be readily reproduced in speech – that matters. Some wordgroups are created spontaneously in speech and do not need memorizing because they are
organized according to regular language rules: a pretty girl, a clever dog. They may have
never been used before by anybody else, and probably will never be used in the future, the
cleverest hungry machine. Such word combinations make up an open class of free wordgroups, and are mainly studied in syntax. Free word-groups are not absolutely free in
combining with other words because all words in a language have limitations and preferences
in usage. Free word-groups are relatively free as the components in them have restricted
application determined by the language structure. For example English speaking people may
say hazelnut, peanut, coconut but what other words can be used with the component nut to
indicate their nature type.
22
V.N.Telia What is phraseology, Moscow 1966 P.64
24
Set expressions may not be necessarily absolutely set, or fixed, as it has been already stated,
they may allow certain variations – to shake/tremble like a leaf.
I. In its turn, phraseological unit is a stable, idiomatic word-group. This unit is a nonmotivated word-group that cannot be freely made up in speech, but is reproduced as a readymade unit. So the main criteria are stability and lack of motivation.
Though the term ‘phraseological unit’ is very inclusive, the problem of determining the
borderline between free word-groups and phraseological units remains. Such complexes
pronounced as compounds as ‘snowman, nightmare, fiddle-sticks, green belt’ are often
regarded as exocentric compounds and are not included in phraseological dictionaries. But
such complexes as ‘jailbird – a habitual criminal confined in jail, night-owl - a person who
keeps late hours at night’ are usually included into phraseological dictionaries though the
difference between them is very vague.
The closeness of phraseological units to compound words may be accounted as an additional
argument for regarding them as ready-made lexical units and including them into the lexicon.
II. The structural criterion brings forth pronounced distinctive features characterizing
phraseological units and contrasting them to free word-groups. Structural invariability is an
essential feature of phraseological units, though some of them possess it to a lesser degree
than others.
Structural invariability of phraseological units finds expression in a number of restrictions,
which can be imposed upon co-occurrence of words, upon the lexical filling of structural
patterns specific for every language. The restrictions may be independent of the ties existing
in extra-linguistic reality between the objects spoken of and be conditioned by purely
linguistic factors, or have extra-linguistic causes in the history of the people.
1)
The first restriction is in substitution. A free phrase such as to close the door permits
substitution of any of its elements without semantic change in the other element or
elements– the substitution does not present any dangers and does not lead to any serious
consequences. The verb to close in free phrase may be followed by any object. In the example
25
‘the cargo ship is carrying coal to Liverpool’ all the components can be changed –
the vessel/boat transports/takes/brings coal to (any port). As it can be viewed the number of
substitutional variants in free word-groups is almost unlimited.
But no word can be substituted for any meaningful component of a phraseological unit
without destroying its sense. In most cases the substitution is impossible – the elements of the
phrase are always the same and make a fixed context for each other. But sometimes a
pronominal substitution is allowed; or it can be restricted to a few synonyms for one of the
members only. ‘To carry coals to Manchester’ makes as little sense as ‘to be red as a
cucumber’. The idiom ‘to give somebody the cold shoulder’ means ‘to treat somebody coldly,
to ignore’, but a warm shoulder or a cold elbow make no sense at all. It would be considered
to be an error or an absurd slip that people are apt to make when speaking a foreign language.
2) 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. But in a phraseological unit no additional components can be introduced ‘to carry a
box of coal to Newcastle’. Nor can one speak about ‘having long green fingers’ (when using
the words in their phraseological sense) or about ‘a wolf in mother’s clothing’. In fiction such
variations of idioms created for stylistic purposes are regular. In oral speech phraseological
units mostly preserve their traditional structures and resist the introduction of additional
components.
3)
The third type of structural restrictions in phraseological units is grammatical
invariability. A typical mistake is to use the plural form of ‘fault’ in the phraseological unit
‘to find fault with somebody’. Though the plural form in this context is illogically wellfounded, it is a mistake in terms of the grammatical invariability of phraseological units.
III. Speaking about the idiomaticity as one of the most significant features of
phraseological units, it should be emphasized that there is no unified definition to describe
this universal linguistic phenomenon, but rather a complex of features that interact in
26
various ways and represent a broad continuum between non-compositional (or idiomatic) and
compositional groups of words. Compare the observations by Bolinger: 'There is no clear
boundary between an idiom and a collocation or between a collocation and a freely generated
phrase - only a continuum with greater density at one end and greater diffusion at the other, as
would be expected of a system where at least some of the parts are acquired by the later
analysis of earlier wholes.' (1977:168), and Fernando and Flavell: '… idiomaticity is a
phenomenon too complex to be defined in terms of a single property. Idiomaticity is best
defined by multiple criteria, each criterion representing a single property' (1981:19).
In order to understand this criterion the phraseological classification suggested by
V.V.Vinogradov should be taken into consideration.
Taking into account mainly the degree of idiomaticity, phraseological units may be
classified into three big groups: phraseological fusions (completely non-motivated wordgroups), phraseological unities (partially non-motivated – the metaphor on which the shift of
meaning is based s transparent), phraseological collocations (motivated, but the components
of a collocation possess specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of
stability).23
In sentence every word possesses its own lexical meaning, and a person gets the meaning of
the whole sentence by summing up the meanings of all constituents, while phraseological
units possess semantic unity, they cannot be divided, and the word-order cannot be changed.
Phraseological units convey a single concept, while in a sentence each meaningful component
stands for a separate concept.
Word-groups can be lexically motivated (if the combined lexical meaning of the groups is
deducible from the meaning of their components); some word-groups are non-motivated:
-
red flower – motivated
-
red tape – non-motivated
23
See: Classification of phraseological units by V.V.Vinogradov – P.4-5 of the report
27
Word-groups can be structurally motivated (if the meaning of the pattern is deducible from
the order and arrangement of the member-words of the group) and some not:
- red flower – quality
- red tape – cannot be interpreted in this way
According to this approach, word-groups can be classified into motivated and nonmotivated. Exactly non-motivated word-groups are habitually described as phraseological
units or idioms.
As it has been already claimed the concept of idiomaticity is not strictly defined. The
extreme cases of idiomaticity, i.e. phraseological fusions and collocations are easily
differentiated but the borderline units, as for example phraseological fusions and
phraseological unities or phraseological collocations and free word-groups, are very often
doubtful and rather vaguely outlined. As follows from the foregoing the term idiomaticity
should be interpreted as an intralingual notion (from the point of view of one’s mother tongue
and of native speakers) and also that the degree of idiomaticity should be taken into
consideration since between the extreme of complete motivation and lack of motivation there
are numerous intermediate groups (the phrase ‘show the white feather’ can be referred both to
a phraseological unity and a phraseological fusion – this depends largely on one’s ‘feeling of
the language’).
IV. The notion of the semantic unity was revealed in the topic of phraseological stability
(P.13) and can be also added to the basic features of phraseological units.
According to the chosen criteria, phraseological units are characterized by semantic unity,
grammatical invariability, structural integrity and reproducibility as ready-made units.
Set expressions also have their own specific features, which enhance their stability and
cohesion. These are euphonic, imaginative and connotative qualities.24
24
I.V.Arnold The English Word – Third Edition, Moscow 1986, P.177
A.P.Cowie Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. R.Gläser The Stylistic Potential of
Phraseological Units in the Light of Genre Analysis-Published in the United States by Oxford University
Press Inc., New York 1998 P.127
28
It is obvious that many set expressions are rhythmical, contain alliteration, rhyme,
imagery, contrast and are based on puns. These qualities also prevent substitution for
another purely linguistic, though not semantic, reason – any substitution would destroy the
special effects they produce. For instance, the set expression ‘put it in your pipe and smoke it’
can be easily changed into a less intricate phrase ‘remember it’, but in that case the lines from
Maugham’s ‘Of Human Bondage” – ‘He’s keeping you waiting isn’t he? Well, I’d rather wait
for him than have you wait for me. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!’ – will sound so dull
and trivial that the phrase may be considered destroyed.
Rhythmic qualities are characteristic of almost all set expressions. They are especially
marked in such pairs as all’s well that ends well, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. As
it is seen rhythm is usually combined with reiteration – like priest, like people; a long pull, a
strong pull, and pull all together. Alliteration occurs almost in every phrase: forbidden fruit is
sweetest, in two twos, cry uncle, dice with death, hem and haw. Rhyme is also characteristic of
phraseological units: the pros and cons, hit the skids, by hook or by crook.
Semantic stylistic features contracting set expressions into units of fixed context are simile,
contrast, metaphor and synonymy.
For instance, modern English uses many short comparisons in order to make language vivid
and clear: as steady as a rock, as cold as charity, as changeable as the moon. The use of
contrast can be also easily found: sooner or later, more or less, more dead than alive. A lot of
examples of metaphors, as stylistic features, can be cited: in a nutshell, bury one’s face, a
capful of wind, a lame duck, a pack of lies, fall in love. More rarely there are synonyms: by
leaps and bounds, proud and haughty.
Speaking about the connotative qualities of phraseological units, it can be one could
say that connotations are additional semantic markers which are associated with the value
judgments of a speech community (i.e. a class or social group) or of an individual speaker or
writer. Connotations are supplementary to the denotation of a word or phrase; in other words,
they enrich their cognitive content by means of emotive and/or attitudinal semantic markers.
29
With reference to phraseological units as word-group lexemes, connotations can be
subdivided according to the criteria used for describing simple and complex lexemes.25
Phraseological units may carry connotations which in lexicology and lexicography are
described as 'usage labels' or 'style markers'. A distinction is commonly drawn between
'expressive' and 'stylistic' connotations, and between both of these and 'register markers'.
Expressive connotations include the lexicological markers 'derogatory', 'taboo', 'euphemistic',
and 'jocular/humorous' or 'facetious'. Stylistic connotations cover the well-known indicators of
different stylistic levels. Thus, the markers 'colloquial' and 'slang' are characteristic of
stylistically lowered phrases, whereas the elevated stylistic level is represented by the markers
'formal', 'literary', 'archaic', and 'foreign' (i.e. of foreign origin). Register markers appear in the
dictionary (as, for example, in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995) and
the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (1995)) as references to a particular field or
province of discourse, e.g. 'med(ical)', 'phys(ics)', 'leg(al)'.These major types, with examples,
are set out below:
EXPRESSIVE CONNOTATIONS
- derogatory: mutton dressed as lamb; to breed like rabbits
- taboo: get stuffed; son of a bitch
- euphemistic: the great divide; to live in sin; of a certain age
- jocular/humorous: Darby and Joan; to have a bun in the oven
STYLISTIC CONNOTATIONS
- colloquial/informal: green fingers; every man Jack; full of beans; fine and dandy; before
you can say lack Robinson; clear off!
- slang: reach-me-downs; to kip down; on the never-never
25
A.P.Cowie Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. R.Gläser The Stylistic Potential of
Phraseological Units in the Light of Genre Analysis-Published in the United States by Oxford
University Press Inc., New York 1998 P.127
30
- formal: the compliments of the season; a bone of contention; gainfully employed; to be the
question; under the aegis
- literary: the alpha and omega; hermetically sealed; irretrievably lost;
- archaic: in days of yore; as it came to pass; thou shalt not kill
- foreign: in casu belli; sine qua non; carte blanche; comme il faut
REGISTER MARKERS
- astronomy: black hole; red giant
- economics: a high flier, idle funds; intermittent dumping
- judicial: burden of proof, minister without portfolio; persona non grata
- medical: corpus luteum; benign tumor, Caesarian section; pepper-and- salt fundus (=
fundus oculi)
Set expressions tend to ‘keep their history’. It remains in them as an intricate force, and the
awareness of their history can yield rewarding pleasure in using or hearing them.26 Most of
such phraseological units are highly expressive and therefore easily remembered (know all the
ropes, between Scylla and Charybdis, plough the sand, in the swim). Reasoning from the
above-stated features, phraseological units have expressive, emphatic, or intensifying
functions in a text.
The stylistic potential of phraseological units is very rich and versatile in literary and
everyday genres. On the whole, the use of these stylistic devices depends on the individual
author's intention and personal taste.
Since phraseological units may be relevant stylistic devices, they are strong evidence of a
level inside the stylistic system which has been termed 'phraseo-stylistics' (Gläser 1986b) and
which combines the systemic and communicative aspects of linguo-stylistic analysis.
26
I.V.Arnold The English Word – Third Edition, Moscow 1986, P.178
31
To sum up all the fundamental characteristics of a phraseological unit, a definition of this
kind can be suggested:
A 'phraseological unit' is a lexicalized, reproducible 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. As the dominant subtype within this
all-embracing category, a phraseological unit/an idiom is a lexicalized, reproducible word
group in common use, which has syntactic and semantic stability, and may carry connotations,
but whose meaning cannot be derived from the meanings of its constituents. Thus, an idiom is
characterized by a specific choice and combination of semantic components (or semantic
markers) carried by its constituents.
Summary table III The characteristic features of a phraseological unit
Common usage
Reproducibility
Structural invariability
Grammatical invariability
Semantic stability
Idiomaticity
Euphonic, imaginative and
connotative qualities
Expressive, emphatic,
intensifying functions
32
PART II
PROPER NAMES
Phraseology as a sub-discipline of the linguistic system is an expanding field of research and
has attracted interest from many sides. Scholarly attention has been focused on the semantic
and syntactic properties of phraseological units, on various approaches to their synchronic and
diachronic description, on their pragmatic function in discourse, and, quite recently, on
cultural peculiarities of idioms and phrases in the light of a cross-cultural and contrastive
approach. Moreover, the cultural-linguistic aspect of the language units attracts the growing
attention of various scientists. Phraseological units are also considered to be of a great
regional geographical value. They reflect history, culture, economy, the intellectual
development as well as morals and manners of the certain nation.
When considering the topic of geographical names, the concepts of proper names and
toponyms should be discussed.
Names exhibit some unusual linguistic properties, and their study is a sub-discipline within
linguistics. The study of proper names, and particularly of the origins and histories of names,
is onomastics or onomatology. Onomastics is a branch of philology, and its pursuit requires
the same painstaking scrutiny of historical documents as any other branch of philology,
especially since names have a habit of changing more dramatically and more irregularly than
ordinary words.
The name is an extremely complex phenomenon. It received the study of such prominent
scientists as John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), a British philosopher and political economist,
philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), Leonard Bloomfield (1887-1949), an American
structural linguist, Ernst Pulgram, a linguist, who in his classic monograph on the topic (1954)
dealt with many facets of the complex issue of names.
Traditional accounts of names state that they may be common or proper. Proper nouns (the
same as proper names) are nouns representing unique entities (such as London or Barbara),
33
as distinguished from common nouns which describe a class of entities (such as city or
woman).
Mill writes in his work “A system of Logic” (I.ii5): “Proper names are not connotative; they
denote the individuals who are called by them; but they do not indicate or imply attributes as
belonging to those individuals." More specifically, Mill observes that the distinguishing
quality of proper names is that they "connote nothing... and these have, strictly speaking, no
meaning." It is also stated that every proper name is a description of specific properties
(Linsky 1977:6). According to Bertrand Russell's definition of a proper name, proper names
are words for particulars.
Many of the Western theoretical treatises on names center on a theory of proper names.
Among them are those of Algeo (1973), Gardiner (1953), Pulgram (1954). These studies deal
with the fact that proper names (be they toponyms or personal names) have no meaning per se.
If the words connote - the names denote.
J.Algeo27, who has published numerous seminal studies on a wide variety of onomastic
topics, has discussed some of the basic issues inherent in an attempt to devise a workable
theory of names. Logically there are two fundamental scientific approaches. The first is
inductive, i.e., the researcher examines various manifestations of a phenomenon (in this case names), and then that individual seeks to extrapolate a set of general principles from that
information. The other alternative is the deductive procedure. In this case, the onomatologist
proposes a set of rules or principles that are then tested against the reality of names in
existence.
Much has been written about the peculiar grammatical properties of proper nouns. John
Algeo specified a set of criteria to determine what constitutes a proper name in English28. He
distinguished such features of a proper English name as:
27
Needed Research in American English (Publication of the American Dialect Society) by Thomas L.
Clark, Raven I., Jr. McDavid, Frederic G. Cassidy, John Algeo - University of Alabama Press, 1985
P.139-140
28
J.Algeo On Defining Proper Name. Humanities monograph no.41 - University of Florida, 1973 P.12-13
34
TABLE IV
ORTHOGRAPHIC
Proper names are capitalized
MORPHOSYNTACTIC
Proper names have no plural forms
Proper names are used without articles
Proper names do not accept restrictive modifiers
REFERENTIAL
Proper names refer to single unique individuals
SEMANTIC
Proper names do not add any qualities to the
objects designated and are therefore meaningless
Proper names have a distinctive form of
definition that includes a citation of their
expression
According to D.I.Ermolovich (1981) the meaning of proper names should be studied only in
connection with the process of nomination. With relation to the process of nomination proper
names are correlated with the individualizing signs, which, in their turn, belong to the
identifying objective vocabulary. The individualizing signs denote objects, which relate to
different classes. That is why these signs possess meanings and reflect all the stages of the
process of nomination29.
A. V. Superanskaya, the leading expert in the field of onomastics, has come to a conclusion
that the meaning of a proper name is nothing else than the data the proper name provides. In
contrast to common names, proper names are closely connected with the concrete objects they
denote. Superanskaya singles out 3 main distinctive features of proper names:
1) The proper name is given to an individual object, but not to the class of objects.
М.П. Тарасевич. Американская фразеологическая топонимика: Дисс. МГПИИЯ им. М.Тореза. –
М., 1985, С 48.
29
35
2) The object named by a proper noun is specified, well-defined and distinguishable from
other objects.
3) The name does not relate to the concept directly and does not carry a clear monosemantic
connotation at language level30.
Proper names are heterogeneous. There exist many types of them, such as acronyms (names
formed from initials), anthroponyms (personal names), toponyms (place names), eponyms
(proper names that have become common names through usage), zoonyms (names of pets),
astronyms (names of celestial bodies) and others. In addition to the aforementioned names,
there are many other linguistic usages that constitute significant naming phenomena. For
example, sobriquets (affectionate names for people or places), product, brand and trade
names, and the myriad names we give to objects and concepts.
TOPONYMS
Place names, or toponyms, are conferred everywhere upon every kind of significant location:
settlements, rivers, lakes, seas, valleys, forests, fields, mountains and hills, roads and streets,
bridges, city gates, houses, places of worship, office buildings, sports stadiums…. The list is
really endless.
Name-giving practices differ considerably from society to society, and anthropological
linguists are often interested in studying these practices. The reasons why a given
geographical territory receives a particular designation may be varied. First, it may be by
mutual agreement and accord of the inhabitants of the area. Likewise, such a name may be the
result of local tradition, a prominent feature, or another obvious feature of a region. These are
all voluntary naming events. It may also be the case that the name is imposed upon a given
territory by outsiders. Nineteenth-century European imperialism certainly contributed many of
30
Суперанская А.В., Общая теория имени собственного, М.: Наука, 1973 C.324
36
the toponyms of Asia and Africa. International conflict is another source of place names.
World War I and World War II indeed had an impact on the political geography of Europe.
The study of toponyms, it should be noted, is both an interdisciplinary and a multidisciplinary endeavor31. Scholars from many different disciplines are interested in this study.
Anthropologists use this linguistic evidence as a means of determining the fabric of a society.
Historians use this type of data as a means of tracking the ancestors, especially when other
sources of information are unavailable. Sociologists examine the same set of data to determine
social structures. Linguists try to make determinations about linguistic change and
intercultural contact that result in borrowing or even language shift.
George R. Stewart, a legendary American toponymist, was one of the first to classify place
names in a systematic fashion. Stewart wrote a seminal essay on the classification of place
names that would serve as the basis for all subsequent place name taxonomies 32. In that work,
Stewart proposed nine categories with various subdivisions. Stewart observes that "all placenames arise from a single motivation, that is, the desire to distinguish and to separate a
particular place from places in general." Below is a listing of Stewart's general divisions of
place name categories:
a) Descriptive names
b) Possessive names
c) Incident names
d) Commemorative names
e) Euphemistic names
f) Manufactured names
g) Shift-names
31
32
Nuessel F. The Study of Names: A Guide to the Principles and Topics - Greenwood Press, 1992 P.46
George R. Stewart Names on the Globe - Oxford University Press, 1975 P.86
37
h) Folk-etymologies
i) Mistake names
The term ‘descriptive names’ refers to those toponyms that describe a quality of a place that
is easily identifiable by any person. For example, Colorado is called Colorful Colorado
presumably because of its magnificent scenery of mountains, rivers and plains.
Possessive names often have a person's name associated with a geographic feature. Floyd
Knobs, for example, is a reference to the distinctive moraine formations so prominent in
southern Indiana.
Incident names usually refer to a particular occurrence in a given locale. Two facetious
nicknames were applied to the state of Alaska, Seward's Ice Box and Seward's Folly, after
William Henry Seward, who bought Alaska from the Russians in 1867 and the purchase at
that time was considered highly unprofitable.
Commemorative names involve the borrowing of a name from another geographical locale
for the purpose of retaining and continuing that name, as well as place names for famous
persons, e.g., Illinois is sometimes called Land of Lincoln, because Lincoln began his
political career in Illinois, and in 1955 its slogan became Land of Lincoln.
Commendatory names are scarce and it is a nebulous category according to Stewart. What a
State! is an informal nickname of Arkansas and it illustrates the possible example of this
phenomenon.
Manufactured names are toponyms constructed from other names, e.g., Virginia is known
as the Mother of Presidents, because Virginia supplied seven of the first twelve of the US
Presidents. But some also developed this name into Mother of Statesmen. Tennessee also
remembers the fact that it was the home of three US Presidents, in the nickname Mother of
Southwestern Statesmen (the name given on the analogy of Virginia’s nickname).
Shift-names are those place names that have a common denominator and appear in
geographical clusters as in the case of Mountain state for West Virginia, White Mountain
38
State for New Hampshire (because of the abundance of white-topped mountains), Green
Mountain State - a nickname for Vermont (the name was coined in 1761 by Rev Dr Peters,
who named the mountains "Verd Mont", meaning "green mountain", which itself probably
came from the "Green Mountains" which were named by Samuel de Champlain in 1647).
A folk-etymology is a process by which people convert a name, perhaps of foreign
provenience, into a phonetic format that is more anglicized and hence more recognizable.
Indiana's Weasel Creek (Wesaw - an American Indian name) is a classic example of a folketymological toponym.
Mistake names are often orthographic errors due to poor penmanship or poor translations. In
this domain, Stewart cites Tolo (Yolo, Oregon) and Staked Plains (Llano estacado.)
Although Stewart’s typology covers the basic categories of toponyms, other onomatologists
have felt the need to modify his list based on encounters with actual naming practices. In their
book on Indiana place names, Baker and Carmony (1975) enumerate thirteen distinctive
naming patterns (Baker and Carmony 1975: xii-xx), which are reproduced below33:
Names for a person
Names for other places
Locational names
Descriptive names
Inspirational names (such names are idealistic, classical, literary, and
commendatory)
Humorous names (these are names that are given with the explicit
amusing intention)
Indian and pseudo-Indian names
Names from languages other than English
33
Nuessel F. The Study of Names: A Guide to the Principles and Topics - Greenwood Press, 1992 P.49
39
Incident names
Folk-etymology
Coined names (combinations of two names, e.g., combinations of
state boundary names: Arkoma [Arkansas and Oklahoma],
Texarkana [Texas and Arkansas].
Mistake names (according to Baker and Carmony (1975:xix), this
category of name is often the result of errors by Post Office
personnel. They cite the Post Office's erroneous corrections of
Siberia for Sabaria and others).
Legends and anecdotes
AMERICAN STATES NICKNAMES AS PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
Many place names are also known by other designations, usually distinctive phrases that
identify some important quality or characteristic of a city, county, state, or other political unit.
These phrases are nicknames or sobriquets. The determination of their linguistic nature
remains one of the most undeveloped problems in the modern study of names. Western
linguists do not define them as separate objects of study. Toponymical nicknames are simply
registered in some specialized reference books and rarely in encyclopedias or encyclopedic
dictionaries. (e.g. Kane and Alexander (1979); Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary;
Random House Dictionary and others). In the Russian theory toponymical sobriquets
(therefore American States nicknames) are mainly considered to be a part of the
phraseological corpus of the English language. Relying on the peculiarities of a phraseological
unit, one can easily prove the phraseological character of toponymical nicknames in general.
According to A.V.Kunin toponyms can be defined as phraseological units if they meet the
following requirements:
40
- they represent not a separate word, but a phrase or a sentence; thus possess separability
- the meaning of the components of a unit is complicated semantically
- they are characterized by reproducibility and semantic stability
The first requirement is entirely fulfilled. The overwhelming majority of the American
States nicknames represent a combination of words, namely of-phrases or a combination of
determinative words and the common noun ‘state”, such as: Bread and Butter State, Bread
Basket of the Nation, Cream Pitcher of the Nation (Minnesota), Land of Cactus, Land of
the Delight Makers, Land of Opportunity, Land of Heart's Desires (New Mexico), the
Centennial State, the Silver State (Colorado).
Speaking about the reproducibility, it should be stated that all the registered American States
nicknames possess it, but the frequency of their use is different. For instance, the state of
Connecticut has 8 nicknames, but only two of them (the Constitution State and the Nutmeg
State) are common. The others (Land of Wooden Nutmegs, the Wooden Nutmeg State, the
Freestone State, the Land of Steady Habits, Provisions State and the Blue Law State) are
infrequent or just outdated.
Moreover, the concerned toponymical nicknames are characterized by semantic, structural
and lexical stability. The lexical composition is invariable, besides the meaning is identical in
all possible phraseological variants (For example, the Lake State or the Great Lakes State
(Michigan); Silverland or the Silver State (Nevada).
The meaning of a toponymical nickname is stable, but its degree of idiomaticity is different.
Some of the American States nicknames (24%) are phraseological units or idioms, which,
according to Kunin’s classification, are structurally separable language units with completely
or partially transferred meanings (can be motivated and non-motivated). It implies that the
meaning of the whole phrase does not coincide with the meaning of its components, for
instance: Uncle Sam's Pocket Handkerchief (Delaware) – because of its small size, the
Lion's Den (Tennessee) - the state was called so at the beginning of the 19th century, possibly
41
because border ruffians were then known as "lions of the West", the Heart of Dixie
(Alabama), Mother of Modern presidents (Ohio).
The other 71% of the existing American States nicknames can be considered to be
phraseomatic word combinations, which have both literal and complicated meanings; their
components possess both literal meanings and bound ones and there is complexity of the
general meaning. The first component of a phrase usually has a transferred meaning, while the
last component is used literally. This includes the nicknames, which contain such words as
“state”, “land”, “America”, “nation”, “city” and some others. These components are used
literally, that is why the phrases are not fully idiomatic. The majority of the American States
names belong to this group: the Great Lakes State (Michigan); the Cyclone State, the
Sunflower State and the Wheat State (Kansas); Switzerland of America (Colorado);
energetic supporters of the state of Minnesota have given it names like Cream Pitcher of the
Nation and Bread Basket of the Nation.
The last group of nicknames comprises so-called phraseomatic units, which have literal
meanings or possess the lowest grade of general semantic complexity. They amount to 5 % of
the whole number of the nicknames. The phrases of this kind can be regarded as invariable
collocations with non-idiomatic components. Their meanings are complicated, because units
themselves represent proper names and, consequently, their main function is nominative. Such
examples, as the Easternmost State of the Union (about the state of Maine, which is really
situated in the far east of the country), the First State (about Delaware, being the first state to
be admitted to the Union in 1787) or Old North State (about North Carolina because of its
north position and early formation), refer to this group.
THEORY OF NOMINATION
The study of means and ways of naming the elements of reality is called onomasiology. As
worked out in some recent publications it received the name of Theory of Nomination. The
42
main aim of these studies is to show how the objects receive their names and what features are
chosen to represent them. This field of research is closely connected with phraseology and
considered to be a challenge for many Eastern and Western linguists.
Originally the nucleus of the Theory of Nomination concerned names of objects, and first of
all concrete nouns. And only later on a discussion began, whether actions, properties,
emotions and proper names should be included as well. The question was answered
affirmatively as there is no substantial difference in the reflection of things in the mind of a
person and the properties of these things or different events. Everything that can be named or
expressed verbally is considered in the theory of nomination. Vocabulary constitutes the
central problem but syntax, morphology and phonology also have their share. The theory of
nomination takes into account that the same referent may receive various names according to
the information required at the moment by the process of communication.
According to the theory of nomination every name has its primary function for which it was
created (primary or direct nomination), and its indirect or secondary function corresponding
to all types of figurative, extended or special meanings (secondary or indirect nomination).
In the latter case the metaphorical use of words is meant.
The process of giving names to the elements of reality is closely related with the process of
perceiving the outward things and is based on the comparison of different objects and
phenomena for the purpose of establishing differences and similarities between them.
The process of perception, therefore a process of nomination, develops through several
stages:
1) The step before naming is SORTING OUT. If people misunderstood each other, it means
that the things were wrongly sorted out.
2) The DESCRIPTION of an object or a phenomenon.
3) The last and the most important stage is APPELATION, i.e. giving a name to an object or
a phenomenon on the grounds of its most exceptional feature, which in this case is recognized
to be the leading one.
43
D.I.Ermolovich (1981) distinguishes three stages of “nominative development”:
- identifying
- classifying
- individualizing
As it was already stated, there exist two types of nomination – primary and secondary
nomination. The secondary (indirect) nomination can be subsequently subdivided into nondirect and oblique. The main difference between these types of nomination lies in their
interrelationship with the reality. In non-direct nomination the given name is autonomously
turned to the reality, thus taking on its own independent nominative value. The product of the
oblique nomination is a bound word meaning. It acquires a dependent nominative value.
According to M.P.Tarasevich34 the phraseological nomination can be perceived as an
oblique secondary nomination, because the bound meaning of the constituents of
phraseological units is the main characteristic feature that distinguishes them from other wordgroups.
Besides primary and secondary nomination, A.V. Kunin singled out tertiary nomination35.
The tertiary nomination concerns the occasional use of a phraseological unit, in other words, it
is a phraseological unit produced on basis of already existing phraseological units, which in
their turn are products of the secondary nomination.
The majority of American States nicknames ensue from the process of secondary
nomination, and only 2 % of the whole number of the nicknames result from the process of
tertiary nomination. The latter can be proved by such examples as: Georgia’s nickname The
Empire State of the South - originates from the earlier created phraseological toponym the
Empire State, the nickname of New York (when George Washington referred to New York
state as "the seat of Empire" in 1784, he set the seed for the state's long-term nickname which
appeared in around 1820); the nickname of Delaware - Uncle Sam's Pocket Handkerchief
М.П.Тарасевич Социально-культурный компонент в семантике американских фразеологических
топонимов – Сборник научных трудов №311 Москва, 1988 С.46-47
35
Сборник научных трудов МГПИИЯ, вып.168, 1980 С. 158-185
34
44
(because of the small size of the state) contains the word-combination Uncle Sam, which in
itself is a phraseological toponym, denoting the USA.
As it was already mentioned, 98% of American States nicknames are the products of the
secondary (phraseological) nomination, which represents a three-stage nominative
development.
The first step of the nomination is the attachment of a classifying name to an object (it
connects the given object with analogous objects of reality). For instance, the common noun
“state” in the word-combination “Mississippi state” can be considered a classifying name.
The second step concerns the process of individualizing – the object stands out against a
background of analogous objects, it means that a proper name is given to it. The proper name
Mississippi exemplifies this process.
And, at last, the third step of the phraseological nomination is the conferment of a nickname
or several nicknames to a certain object. In this case the proper name is supplemented with a
new one. For instance, in 1872 the state of Mississippi was known as the Mudcat State, after a
large catfish that lived in the river mud. The abundance of the magnolia, and its adoption as
the official state flower and tree, has also led to the modern nickname of the Magnolia State.
In view of the aforesaid, the absolute majority of the American States nicknames (98%) can
be regarded as a product of the secondary nomination, namely of the three-stage
phraseological oblique nomination and only some of them (2%) refer to the tertiary
nomination (see above).
45
TABLE V36
OBJECT
COMMON NAME
GEOGRAPHICAL TERM
PROPER NAME
TOPONYM
TOPONYMICAL
NICKNAME
PHRASEOLOGICAL
UNIT
SYNTHETIC AND ANALITIC CHARACTER OF AMERICAN STATES NICKNAMES
N.D.Arutunova (1976) was the first Russian linguist who singled out synthetic and analytic
character of the process of nomination. Later on this problem was elaborated in the works of
L.B.Lebedeva and A.Z.Voronina, the latter applying it to the phraseological nomination
(1979, P.148).
The synthetic nomination refers to the process of naming an object, but for all that, relying
on its certain features (two or more), the analytic nomination also implies the process of
naming, but only on basis of one particular characteristic of an object.
93, 5% of American States nicknames follow the analytic model. They describe only one
side of a many-sided geographical object. For instance, the state of New Jersey has several
nicknames, and each of them distinguishes only one original feature of the economy, nature or
history of the state.
М.П. Тарасевич. Американская фразеологическая топонимика: Дисс. МГПИИЯ им. М.Тореза. –
М., 1985, С.74
36
46
In the 1880s, New York suffered plagues of insects which originated in the marshes of New
Jersey, which led the state to be known as the Mosquito State (history).The clam fisheries on
the coast led some people to call it the Clam State (natural resources) and others called it
Switzerland of America (the beauty of nature). The famous "Camden and Aboy Railroad" led
to the state sometimes being known as the Camden and Aboy State, and the blue uniforms of
the Civil war gave it the Jersey Blue State (history).
A quantity of the nicknames (about 6,5%) represents a synthetic type of nomination: e.g.
Colorado is known by seven nicknames: the Buffalo Plains State, the Centennial State, the
Lead State, the Mountain State, the Silver State, the Switzerland of America, and the
Treasure State of the Rockies. All of them, except for the last one, are built up analytically,
but the nickname the Treasure State of the Rockies37 emphasizes both the location of the state
(it is located in the Rocky Mountain Region) and its natural resources (it is rich in gold, silver,
and other mineral products) – that is why, it is an example of the synthetic (explicit)
nomination.
There also exists the so-called implicit synthetic nomination. As for the state of Hawaii, it is
sometimes nicknamed the Paradise of the Pacific, not only because of its beautiful nature, but
also of its delightful climate, luxuriant vegetation, facilities for pleasure and its abundant
fruits. Montana is nicknamed the State of Treasure and Opportunity38 because it is rich in
mineral wealth and is less densely populated than some other Western states. Other resources
are petroleum, timber, wool, sugar beets, grains, and grazing.
(The instances of the implicit synthetic nomination are rare).
37
38
The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia (The Century Company, New York, 1906) vol. 6, P. 5191.
Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia, F. E. Compton and Company, Chicago, 1947, vol. 9, P. 242.
47
SEMANTIC GROUPS OF AMERICAN STATES NICKNAMES
In this part of the paper, the matter will concern various characteristics of an object (in this
case – a state), which underlie the process of its nomination. In his book “The Language
Nomination. General questions” (Chapter 3, P.147-187) professor B.A.Serebrennikov, the
prominent Russian linguist, stated that only the most explicit attribute of an object underlies
the nomination. At the same time B.A.Serebrennikov stressed the possibility of a spontaneous
nomination, when less expressive or just insignificant features of an object account for its
nomination39. Consequently, different features of one and the same object can serve as a basis
for its nomination, thus providing the object with different names.
The main peculiarity of American phraseological toponyms consists mainly in their ability to
transmit extralinguistic information. Because of it, American States nicknames can be divided
into several semantic groups. It is noticeable that various specialists single out different
semantic groups of nicknames, but in this work only the generally recognized pattern will be
given.
The extralinguistic information, which is provided by the nicknames of the states, can be
subdivided into:
1. ECONOMIC
(36%)
2. GEOGRAGHICAL
(26%)
3. CULTURAL
(23%)
4. HISTORICAL
(15%)
1. Information about the economic health, key industries or agriculture of a state can be
found in such nicknames, as:
39
Социально-культурный компонент в семантике американских фразеологических топонимов – МГЛУ,
Сборник научных трудов, выпуск 311, Москва 1988, С.48
48
- The Tobacco State (Kentucky) - this state is called so because much tobacco is raised within
its borders. Kentucky produces about two thirds of the annual American tobacco crop.
- The Sugar State (Louisiana) - is nicknamed in this way because of its numerous sugar
plantations and refineries.
- The Lumber State40 was applied to Maine because it is still one of the twenty-two states in
the Union which produces the bulk of the lumber for the United States.
- Maryland is nicknamed the Terrapin State because of the extensive diamondback terrapin
farms on the Chesapeake Bay.
- The Auto State is a nickname recently given to Michigan because of its numerous
automobile manufacturing.
- Nevada is sometimes called the Mining State and the Silver State in recognition of its
important silver mines.
2. Facts about the geographical environment, size, location, climate, flora and fauna of a
state are given in the nicknames of:
- Texas (the Jumbo State) - the largest African elephant ever kept in captivity was called
Jumbo and all unusually large things have since taken his name. Texas is the largest state in
the Union; wherefrom comes its nickname.
- North Dakota, which is sometimes referred to as the Flickertail State. This name refers to the
Richardson ground squirrels which are abundant in North Dakota. The animal flicks or jerks
its tail in a characteristic manner while running or just before entering its burrow. In 1953 the
Legislative Assembly defeated Senate Bill No.134 that would have adopted the Flickertail
facsimile as the official emblem of the state.
- Idaho is called Little Ida41 because the state is small in comparison to many of the other
western states.
40
Americanisms; The English of the New World, M. Schele De Vere (Charles Scribner and Company,
New York, 1872) p. 660.
41
The American Language, Sup. 2, by H. L. Mencken ( A. A. Knopf, New York, 1948) P. 615.
49
3. Cultural information, which comprises not only interesting facts about traditions, customs
and morals of the habitants of a state, but also its political structure and social order, can be
viewed in such examples as:
- Connecticut is often nicknamed the Blue Law State42 in commemoration of the unenviable
fame acquired by the first government of New Haven Plantation, in framing the famous Blue
Laws of that colony.
- Arkansas was sometimes known as the Bowie State and the Toothpick State (both alluding to
the Bowie knife, the favorite weapon of the area, and which was sometimes called "a
toothpick knife").
- The state of Nebraska is sometimes referred to as the Bugeating State, after a nickname of
"Bug-eaters" given to Nebraskans, a derogatory term based on the poverty-stricken
appearance of the state.
4. Historical evidence, from the stages of colonization to the naming a state in honor of
various prominent figures, is also found in numerous examples of American States nicknames.
- The modern nickname of Missouri - the Show Me State (which also appears on license
plates) - was given national popularity at the end of the 19th century from a phrase included in
a speech by a Missouri congressman, William Vandiver: "I'm from Missouri, and you've got
to show me."
- The modern day nickname of North Carolina - the Tarheel State - goes back to the mid
19th century. North Carolinians were known as "tarboilers" as early as 1845, also as "Tar
Heels". Why they were so called is not really known - one suggestion is that a brigade of
North Carolinians failed to hold a position during the war in 1869, and Mississippians blamed
the fact that they had failed to tar their heels that morning.
- Tennessee is known officially (by some accounts) and on its license plates as the Volunteer
State, a name which goes back either to 1812, when the volunteer soldiers showed particular
42
The New International Encyclopaedia, Second Edition ( Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, 1930)
vol. 3, p. 425.
50
courage in the Battle of New Orleans, or to 1847 when the Governor called for three
regiments to serve in the Mexican War, and 30,000 men volunteered.
As evidenced by the foregoing, phraseological toponyms (American States nicknames), can
be considered to be a lode of extralinguistic information. They contain not only information
about peculiar features and characteristics of geographical objects, but also furnish the clue to
a better understanding of the American ideology and the nation’s psychology.
51
CONCLUSION
As recently as the early 1980s it was still possible to dismiss phraseology as a linguistic
activity of only minority interest and with poor prospects of recognition as a level of language
or of linguistic description. But since then phraseology has made measurable progress. Now it
is no longer marginalized, partly because the achievements of specialists working in that
region have gradually been revealed to a much wider audience, and because of the growing
recognition being given to phraseology not only in Eastern Europe and Russia in particular,
but also in Great Britain and the United States of America.
In this work an attempt was made to take account of modern phraseological theory as
developed in the last decade and also to familiarize the reader with both Western and Eastern
traditional and newly-developed approaches to the problems of phraseology.
This paper is based on various authoritative sources. The factual material is taken from
works of numerous leading specialists who examine the increasingly crucial role played by
ready-made word-combinations in language acquisition and adult language use.
At the same time, the second part of the present work (mainly devoted to the problems of
toponymy and the language status of American phraseological toponyms) proves that some
names of toponymical objects, namely American States nicknames, represent not only pure
names of different geographical objects, but also carry extra-linguistic information,
demonstrating a social orientation of the language.
A large number of colorful examples given in this paper make the research more cognitive
and interesting not only for those who know about phraseology and toponymy, but also for
students specializing in English or just taking a keen interest in these fields of linguistics.
52
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Английский лексикон в когнитивно-дискурсивной парадигме – МГЛУ,
Сборник научных трудов МГПИИЯ им. М.Тореза, вып. 457 - М., 2001
2. Баркова Л.А. Коммуникативные аспекты фразеологии. Английские
фразеологизмы
как
источник
страноведческой
информации
(кумулятивный и коммуникативный аспекты) – Сборник научных
трудов МГПИИЯ им. М.Тореза, вып. 287 – М., 1987
3. Баркова Л.А. Фразеологизмы как источники лингвострановедческой
информации и ее отражение в словарях. – Сборник научных трудов
МГПИИЯ им. М.Тореза, вып.253 – М., 1985
4. Дубенец Э.М. Modern English Lexicology. Theory and Practice. – М.:
Глосса-Пресс, 2002 (На англ. яз.)
5. Ермолович Д.И. Структура сигнификата топонимов – Сборник
научных трудов МГПИИЯ им. М.Тореза, вып.262 – М., 1986
6. Кунин А.В. Курс фразеологии современного английского языка. – Изд.
2-е, переработанное. – М.: Высшая школа, 1996
7. Социально-культурный
компонент
в
семантике
американских
фразеологических топонимов – Сборник научных трудов МГПИИЯ им.
М.Тореза, вып. 311 – М., 1988
8. Суперанская А.В., Общая теория имени собственного, М.: Наука, 1973
9. Тарасевич М.П. Американская фразеологическая топонимика: Дисс.
МГПИИЯ им. М.Тореза. – М., 1985
10.Тарасевич
М.П.
Семантические
особенности
американских
фразеологических топонимов в функциональном аспекте – Сборник
научных трудов МГПИИЯ им. М.Тореза, вып.336 – М.,1989
53
11.Тарасевич М.П. Социально-культурный компонент в семантике
американских фразеологических топонимов – Сборник научных трудов
МГПИИЯ им. М.Тореза, вып. 311 – М., 1988
12.Телия В.Н. Что такое фразеология. – М.: Наука, 1966
13.Algeo, J. On Defining Proper Name. Humanities monograph no.41 University of Florida, 1973
14.Arnold I.V. The English Word – 3rd edition, - М.: Высшая школа, 1986
15.Ashby W.R. An Introduction to Cybernetics – London, Chapman&Hall
LTD, 1957
16.Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia. Vol.9. Compton and Company, Chicago,
1947
17.Cowie A.P. Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications - Published in
the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 1998
18.George R. Stewart Names on the Globe - Oxford University Press, 1975
19.Ginsburg R.S., Khidekel S.S., Knyazeva G.Y., Sankin A.A. A Course in
Modern English Lexicology – 2nd edition, - М.: Высшая школа, 1979
20.Kunin A.V. English-Russian Phraseological Dictionary – 4th edition, - М.:
Русский язык, 1984
21.Mencken H. L. The American Language, Sup. 2, A.A.Knopf, New York,
1948
22.Nuessel F. The Study of Names: A Guide to the Principles and Topics Greenwood Press, 1992
23.Seidl J., McMordie W. English idioms and how to use them – М.: Высшая
школа, 1983
24.The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia. Vol.6. The Century Company, New
York, 1906
54
25.The New International Encyclopedia. 2nd edition. Vol.3. Dodd, Mead and
Company, New York, 1930
26.Thomas L. Clark, Raven I., Jr. McDavid, Frederic G. Cassidy, John Algeo
Needed Research in American English (Publication of the American Dialect
Society) - University of Alabama Press, 1985
27.Worrall A.J. English idioms for foreign students – Longmans, Green and Co
London – Mew York – Toronto, 1946
55