Phraseology Definition with History
Phraseology definition as Natural language is more used in textual production than free ones (GROSS, 1988), but were Saussure’s studies, published in 1916, the first to point to the existence of non-free combinations, which were called “clusters” (SAUSSURE, 1969). Read More
For him, these were phrases composed of more than one consecutive unit that established a chain of linear character and could correspond to words, groups from words, to complex lexias of any dimension or species.
Bally (1951), in turn, reports the peculiarities of these combinations, stating that for a more accurate analysis of the evolution of a language, it is essential observe their daily use and way of speaking. It also indicates that it is common, in colloquial, the presence of a large number of expressions formed by a combination stable, in which a semantic decomposition proves to be contrary to the logical thinking of the user. Therefore, Bally was the one who first noticed the existence of fixed expressions and stable combination, observation that allowed a better delimitation of the objects of study encompassed by Phraseology, a field he defined as a sub-macro area of Lexicology.
Regarding lexicological research, it is known that not only the vocabulary of a language is the object of study, but also all aspects that involve it, such as its meanings and the relationship with other areas of description, phonology, morphology and syntax.
Thus, it is up to Lexicology to approach ULs as generators and at the same time reflexes of cultural systems, or as instruments for the construction and detection of a “vision of world ”, an ideology, a value system.
In order to assign a domain within Lexicology, which specifically addressed of the object of study and analysis of our thesis, Bally instituted, then, the first steps of the Phraseology, subdivided into Popular Phraseology, to study idioms, placements, proverbs and the like, and in technical-scientific phraseology, which grouped the expressions terminological (XATARA, 1998).
Much more so than Western linguists (among those who stand out, as pioneers, the German Thun (1975) and the North American Weinrich (apud RWET, 1983), the main Bally’s followers, regarding the deepening of the theoretical aspects of this new area, are the Russians, such as Vinogradovite, who defines Phraseology as a study of the laws that restrict combination of words and their meanings (apud ETTINGER, 1982, and TRISTÁ PERZ, 1988).
Russians Define Phraseology in different ways
From the Russians’ research, then, the principles of disposition were studied and processing of lexicographic material and inclusion Phraseology definition of phraseological units (UFs); the selection, distribution and definition criteria of phraseologies; the analysis and classification of phraseological flow included in general dictionaries; the process of archaization and representation of synonymous UFs and their variants; and the stylistic characteristics of phrases (CARNEADO MORÉ, 1985).
In the case of Latin American reality, define Phraseology has developed initially in Colombia, with Zuluaga (1980) and in Cuba, with the works of Carneado Moré (1985) and Tristá Pérez (1988).
In Brazil, we also see great interest in this area ─ to mention only the pioneers: Cf. CAMARGO & STEINBERG (1986), TAGNIN (1987, 1989), XATARA (1994, 1998), RONCOLATTO (1996, 2001) ALVAREZ (2000) and VALE (2002).
Thus, we can count on significant advances in the studies of Portuguese UFs, be it in isolation, either in contrast to other foreign languages (LEs). Research, in national level, advance through several segments within Phraseology, since the elaboration from special dictionaries, monolingual or bilingual, to studies on different types of organization of these UFs in dictionaries, passing through the mapping of these UFs and the improvement of the technologies used to deal with them, in addition to studies on it concerns the frequency of complex lexias in the most diverse types of corpora and on the Web.
In fact, the study of this branch of linguistics has become increasingly important increasingly, both from a theoretical point of view, in the investigation of lexical, semantic and grammatical, as well as from a practical point of view, in the teaching / learning of mother tongues and foreign companies in the development of dictionaries.
Alvarez (2000) leads us to understand Phraseology definition as a branch of Linguistics whose object of study is the analysis of combinations of words that form new ULs or that have the character of fixed expressions.
However, it is pertinent to note that, according to Roda (1993), whose position theory is also shared by Alvarez, there is no consensus on the scope of Phraseology, since we found authors who consider that phraseological studies encompass proverbs (When alms are too much, the saint is suspicious or slow with the is made of clay), phrases (since or since that), slang (good or good) and aphorisms (It would be comical if it weren’t tragic), while others limit it to ISIs, without being no differentiation between these terms is clearly established. Therefore, Phraseology, has no clear limits due to the heterogeneity (manifested to a greater or lesser degree) of the ULs that it can cover and that hardly contain precise defining characteristics, depending on the researcher’s point of view on the linguistic phenomenon analyzed (COWIE, 1998; RUIZ, 1998).
It is further questioned whether phraseological studies cover only constructions with more than one UL or also simple lexias, such as nonverbal slang. For Câmara Jr. (1996), for example, the slang encompasses simple and complex ULs and its study is Phraseology. But for most authors, Phraseology would include, among the units studied, only the gyrical expressions, discarding the mono verbal slang, which escape the purposes of this area, focused on the analysis of lexical combinatorics. Since our work is not aims to analyze this phenomenon, but only the idioms, we will not try to end this theme, nor seek an exact definition of the field in which research about the slang, mainly because we consider these studies, within or not the knowledge of the Phraseology, a fertile field for linguistic analysis, yet to be explored with depth.
Lexico-Syntactic Pattern – LSP
In general, however, it is not questioned what idioms, placements and proverbs are common language UFs and we can outline an attempt to establish boundaries between these units. Thus, we consider that phrasing used as EI, essentially connotative, it is distinguished from the usual combinations or placements, because these, although they are also crystallized expressions, they correspond to linguistic units of denotative sense, characterized by the lexico-syntactic co-occurrence of its elements or lexical restriction between its elements (such as unconditional support, closely linked, swearing solemnly [TAGNIN, 1988]). However, one should not confuse a restricted lexical combination with only a frequent combination of two or more lexemes (IRIARTE SANROMÁN, 2000), since the placement it represents cannot be predictable or determined by certain rules, but it can only be discovered and explained a posteriori (BLANCO, 2008).
In this universe of placements, many scholars frame verbal periphrases with supporting verbs – whose arguments are not restricted -, of mere nominative function, and that correspond to the SV + SN model, without transforming the meanings of the components (one carries grammatical notions and the other, semantics, for example: hitting retreat, running risk, take a walk, make a decision [Cf. (GREIMAS, 1960; LIPSHITZ, 1981; TRISTÁ PERZ, 1988]).
This is what Wotjak (2008) calls placement in a broad sense. Over the past ten years, on the one hand, research on placements has brought important contribution to the teaching of LEs and, on the other hand, most projects lexicographic specifically about placements is guided by the Sense-Text Theory (which considers the use of placement within context) by Mel’čuk et al. (1995) and that evidences clearly the importance of pragmatic considerations (BLANCO, 2008).
The dictations, in turn, considered unrelated elements, or the proverbs, connoted elements, enunciate eternal truths, the so-called “wisdom of the ancients”, in form of simple findings, presented in a structure that is both clear and closed; so is the case with the saying The more you have, the more you want to exemplify a denotative statement, as opposed to the connotative statement In the land of the blind, who one eye is king (GREIMAS, 1960). In fact, for both structural specificities as semantics, stylistics and pragmatics of sayings, proverbs, aphorisms, annexins, refrains, precepts, maxims, Paremiology developed, which can be seen as a subdivision within phraseological studies.
We must also distinguish between clichés or buzzwords, defined here as creations literary ones that have become trivialized by use (the star of the day, in the spring of life); stereotypes or commonplaces that are phrases made or formulas of very frequent use, revealing a against the truth, as they constitute a simplistic belief (ETTINGER, 1982, DUFAYS, 1991) and are based on ignorance and prejudice, even though they represent predominant values in a given cultural community (Man is all the same; children they did not ask to be born; Woman’s place is in the kitchen); situational formulas or sentences used in specific communication situations (Don’t be childish! Are you kidding [TAGNIN, 1987; XATARA, 1994]).
For Mel’čuk (2007) it is surprising, moreover, as after so many years of study and discussions on the most diverse aspects of Phraseology, have not been elaborated formal definitions of the relevant concepts, established a formal fology of UFs and universally accepted terminology. But most studies should not even focusing more on questions relating to their classification than on issues regarding its use.
Although there is still no consensus on the limits of Phraseology regarding concerns the objects of study that it can encompass, in our work, we start from the assumption that all ISs are part of Phraseology because, as we have already said previously, EIs are complex lexias (formed by more than one UL – which characterizes the term “expression”), with expressive particularities, such as connotation and crystallization relative. Within this context, it is pertinent to state that an IS should not be confused with a terminological expression because EIs are connotative and are part of the general lexicon, the that does not occur with terminological expressions that, although fixed and with variability restricted, are not connotative and belong to specific fields of the language, that is, they are part specialty language.