Structural Peculiarities of Phraseological Political Euphemisms (Структурные особенности фразеологических политических эвфемизмов)

• Номер работы:
  138044
• Раздел:
  Все работы   →   Курсовые проекты - сложные   →   Английский язык
• Год подготовки:
  14.12.2009
• Куда сдавалась:
  МГЛУ
• Объем работы:
  39 стр.
• Содержание:
  Contents
  
  Introduction 3
  1. Theoretical aspects of usage of idioms in language 5
  1.1. The definition of phraseology 5
  2. The Russian perspective on idioms 22
  2.1. The classification system of phraseological units made by Academician V. V. Vinogradov 23
  2.2. Structural classification of phraseological units worked out by Professor A. I. Smirnitsky 25
  3. Structural Peculiarities of Political Euphemisms 28
  3.1. Euphemisms 28
  3.2. Usage of political euphemisms 31
  Conclusion 35
  Bibliography 38
  
  
• Выдержка из работы:
  Introduction
  
  Phraseology is pervasive in all language fields and yet despite this fact – or perhaps precisely because of it – it has only relatively recently become established as a discipline in its own right. The phraseology literature represents it as a subfield of lexicology dealing with the study of word combinations rather than single words. These multi-word units are classified into a range of subtypes in accordance with their degree of semantic non-compositionality, syntactic fixedness, lexical restrictions and institutionalization.
  The actuality of the theme is that, phraseology has become a major area of interest in corpus linguistics. A large amount of research has focused on multi-word units as units of meaning in language. Stylistics has not taken much notice of the notion that literary meaning is frequently expressed by phrases and not single words. Naciscione (2001) is one of the few linguists who has worked on a phraseological analysis of literary works. In her analysis of works by Chauceran D.H. Lawrence, she looks for recurrent phraseological units with partly or completely figurative meaning.
  2. The Russian perspective on idioms
  
  The historical perspective on the formation of idioms highlights the point that their semantically unitary status is the culmination of a process that applies to a much broaden spectrum of composite units. By focusing so narrowly on those items that fulfil certain criteria, a very large area of the phraseological spectrum has been relatively neglected. In contrast, linguists in the Russian tradition have been interested in determining the degree of rigidity of a range of 'set expressions', of which idioms are just one category. The model preferred by Amosova, Vinogradov and others for describing the relationship between these items is a continuum. At one extreme are idioms (“phraseological fusions” (in Vinogradov's terminology)), the most rigid, and at the other are 'free phrases', outside the scope of 'set expressions' altogether. The criteria for establishing where a particular expression lies on the continuum include the substitutability of a component and the possibility of translation, and the description therefore does not rely solely on the semantic motivation of the whole ( whether the meaning of the whole can be derived from the meanings of the parts).