ЯЗЫКОВАЯ И РЕЧЕВАЯ КЛАССИФИКАЦИЯ ФРАЗЕОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ЕДИНИЦ И ИХ РОЛЬ В РЕПРЕЗЕНТАЦИИ ЯЗЫКОВОЙ КАРТИНЫ МИРА (НА ПРИМЕРЕ: ФРАЗЕОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ЕДИНИЦ С РЕЛИГИОЗНЫМ КОМПОНЕНТОМ)

The definition of phraseology as a subject of study provokes a lot of discussions. Scientists cannot agree on whether phraseology should be regarded as an autonomous field or whether it should be classified as a sub-study of other language arts.

In addition, a number of linguists claim that phraseology is an interdisciplinary branch:

• Ruiz Gurillo believes that phraseology is a “category of the boundary between lexicology and syntax” [Ruiz Gurillo, 1997].
• K.D. Pilz, in turn, also believes that “phraseology is a special field at the crossing of several linguistic subjects of study: etymology, historical linguistics, lexicology, grapheme, morphology or morphosyntax, semantics, stylistics, syntax” [Klaus Dieter Pilz, 1981].
• Solano Rodrígez considers phraseology to be an autonomous field closely related to other subjects of study such as morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics [Solano Rodrígez, 2004].

G. Corpas Pastor offers a summary of the terms used in works written in Castilian:

• Pluriverbal phrase (phrase pluriverbal), a term used by J. Casares [Julio Casares, 1992] or its variations, for example, lexical and familiar pluriverbal units used by G. Corpas Pastor [Gloria Corpas Pastor, 1996];
• Set phrase – a term used by A. Zuluaga [Alberto Zuluaga, 1980];
• Phraseological unit or fixed phrase – a term used by A. Zuluaga, Carneado Moré, Tristá Perez, Ruiz Gurillo, and many others.

The first characteristic of phraseological units is frequency. G. Corpas Pastor distinguishes between two types of frequency: the frequency of the co-occurrence of integrating elements of phraseological units and the frequency of their use.

The Linguistic Dictionary “Diccionario de lingüistica Cerdà Massó” explains the term frequency of occurrence as “the relative number of occurrences of a particular element in the representative sample of contexts.” Similarly, the frequency of co-occurrence means that the constituent elements of some phraseological units are combined into one expression with a frequency that exceeds the frequency of the individual occurrence of each word [Cerdà Massó, 1986]. Frequency of use in a particular language, on the other hand, is the frequency phraseological units are used with.

The second distinctive characteristic of phraseological units is semantic specialization as a process where “a free construction or syntactic combination becomes part of the lexical system of the language, becoming an expression more or less fixed in its own meaning” [el Diccionario panhispánico de dudas (DPD)]. Lexicalization has two aspects: lexicalization, which arises as “the result of adding meaning [...] with the transition from the particular, physical and concrete to the general, mental and abstract” [Gloria Corpas Pastor, 1996]; or lexicalization, which is the result of the suppression of meaning.

G. Corpas Pastor explains that lexicalization, or semantic change, occurs as the result of fixation. In other words, at first, the expression remains fixed in its form, and then it can undergo semantic change.

The third characteristic of phraseological units is their idiomatic nature regarded as “semantic specialization or lexicalization to its highest degree” [Gloria Corpas Pastor, 1996]. Interest in this characteristic has long been evident in North American phraseological studies. A phraseological unit is idiomatic if its global meaning is not inferred from the meaning of each individual element making up this phraseological unit. Not every phraseological unit, however, should be idiomatic, since there are units the meaning of which is completely deduced from the values of their individual constituent elements. Therefore, this is not an essential characteristic, but a potential one [Gloria Corpas Pastor, 1996].

A. Zuluaga explains that there are phraseological units with a literal meaning, units the meaning of which is the transition of the literal (como en más papista que el Papa - literally: to be a bigger papist / Catholic than the Pope himself), units that have no linguistic meaning (for example, greetings), and units with the idiomatic meaning (tomar las de Villadiego - hit the road, run as fast as you can). In addition to this, A. Zuluaga also highlights semi-idiomatic phraseological units and mixed phraseological units. The former shows a lower degree of idiomacity, although their meaning is literal, while the others consist of “a fixed part and another idiomatic part” [Alberto Zuluaga, 1992].

R. Gurillo offers several examples of processes that form expressions or phraseological units: metaphor in the expression sacar de quicio (drive around the bend) or in the expression poner los pelos de punta (the hairs on the back of my neck bristle), metonymy in the expression dar gato por liebre (sell a pig in a poke) or echar una mano (help, assist), and a hyperbole in the expression echar la casa por la ventana (to organize something on a massive scale) or atarle la lengua a alguien (pressure someone into silence) [Ruiz Gurillo, 200].

Regarding the connection between fixation and idiomacity, R. Gurillo concludes that “the whole utterance (or its hyperonym - phraseological unit) is a fixed phrase. In certain cases, fixation is accompanied by idiomatization, and both complement each other” [Ruiz Gurillo, 2001].

The fourth characteristic of phraseological units is variation (variability) and modification. There are many lexical variations, for example, importarle a uno algo un pepino / un pimiento / un rábano / un bledo (it’s all the same, don’t care a curse, don’t give a damn about anything). Given this feature, G. Corpas Pastor sets the difference between variations and modifications [Gloria Corpas Pastor, 1996].

A. Zuluaga considers variations in great detail. He emphasizes that “they should be studied within the same functional language,” (for example, the phraseological unit tomar las de Villadiego has another variation coger las de Villadiego (hit the road, run at full fling used only in Spain and Colombia), the meanings of such phraseological units cannot be different and the variations must be free and independent of the context. In addition, usually, only a part or element of expression is replaced so that it can be considered a variation (in the phraseological unit tomar las de Villadiego tomar is replaced by coger). This replacement also presents some fixation as the replaced component cannot be replaced by any other word, but only with a word, it can form another fixed expression preserving its meaning [Alberto Zuluaga, 1975].

Phraseological units can undergo creative modification in speech remaining recognizable at the same time. G. Corpas Pastor explains this reality based on the concept of the “potential word” coined by the Russian linguists - O.V. Alexandrova and S.G. Ter-Minasova, who believe that “the components of phraseological units do not constitute a word in the narrow sense, but rather begin to function as potential words, that is, they acquire a new meaning due to the general meaning of the unit. This potential meaning manifests itself in certain expressions, which are considered deformations of these lexical units.” [O. V. Alexandrova, S.G. Ter-Minasova, 1987].

Various classifications found in scientific works are usually based on internal characteristics of phraseological units, such as fixation or idiomacity, or on linguistic and functional categories. Many Spanish linguists classify phraseological units according to their internal characteristics. These classifications are usually based on the motivation or fixation and idiomatic units. The most prominent classifications of this type are those of Alberto Zuluaga and Leonor Ruiz Gurillo.

Another possible classification of phraseological units is categorical classification, which usually takes into account the nature of expressions and their syntactic behavior. Julio Casares, Alberto Zuluaga, and Gloria Corpas Pastor are the linguists who adopted this model.

Classification by Julio Casares. The typology of J. Casares presented in his work “Introducción a la lexicografía moderna” [Julio Casares, 1992] is one of the most important ones as it served an inspiration to other linguists such as A. Zuluaga and Tristá Pérez. The main division presented by J. Casares is between expressions and plural wordings that include sayings and proverbs. J. Casares admits that it is not always easy to decide which type is involved.

J. Casares defines the term expression as “a stable combination of two or more terms that function as an element of a sentence and the usual unitary meaning of which is not justified but is rather the sum of the natural meaning of the components” [Julio Casares, 1992: 33]. J. Casares also divides expressions into two classes: binding expressions and conceptual expressions. Binding expressions are formed from grammatical words, and the author subdivides them into conjunctive (for example, con tal que - provided that) and prepositional (for example, en pos de - behind, after).

Conceptual expressions, also called designating, are those the components of which are formed using words with lexical meaning that represent conceptual units. J. Casares distinguishes several types of designating expressions according to grammatical categories:

• nominative (e.g., botijotren - summer commuter train)
• adjective (e.g., de brocha gorda - rude, primitive)
• verbal (e.g., tomar el olivo)
• adverbial (for example, en un santiamén - to wash off, pull up stakes, hide behind the barrier)
• pronoun (for example, cada quisque - everyone, any)
• exclamation (for example, ¡Ancha es Castilla! - come hell or high water, overshoes, over boots)

The classification of multiple wordings by J. Casares covers well-known phrases, such as, for example, no se ganó Zamora en una hora (Rome was not built in a day), and proverbs such as a quién madruga, Dios (le) ayuda (the early bird catches the worm).

Classification by Alberto Zuluaga. In his work “Spanisch: Phraseologie/Fraseología” published in “Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik,” A. Zuluaga [Alberto Zuluaga, 1992] offers a triple classification based on criteria such as:

1. semantic structure

2. type of fixation

3. functions in speech

The works of G. Corpas Pastor and L. Ruiz Gurillo contain completely different interpretations of the concept of A. Zuluaga, we, however, prefer the model proposed by the author in work “Spanisch: Phraseologie/Fraseología,” because it does not only look more complete but is also the latest and the newest classification of A. Zuluaga.

Depending on the semantic structure. The classification is based on the semantic structure of idioms of the idiomacity degree of phraseological units. Based on the “relationship between the meaning of the components and the general meaning of the expression” [Alberto Zuluaga, 1992: 129] A. Zuluaga divides phraseological units into four classes:

• Phraseological units with a literal meaning that have not undergone any transition in the meaning, so they can be called fixed, for example, común y corriente (widespread, typical).
• Mixed phraseological units consisting of literal and idiomatic components, for example, quedarse para vestir santos (to remain an old maid).

Semi-idiomatic phraseological units representing figurative motivation, “the literal meaning of which is a sensitive, concrete image that supports the idiomatic meaning” [Alberto Zuluaga, 1992: 127]. For example, the phraseological unit “recibir con los brazos abiertos” (to meet with open arms) is considered semi-idiomatic, since in addition to the figurative meaning of “recibir con agrado y complacencia” (to accept, to welcome cordially) it has a direct literal meaning. In actual life, we can embrace a person, this way expressing love and cordiality. Idiomatic phraseological units are phraseological units with a peculiar meaning, which is not deduced from the meanings of the individual components of the expression, for example, tomar las de villadiego (hit the road, run hard, at a breakneck pace).

Depending on the type of fixation. Here we have the following classes of phraseological units: phraseological units with fixation of grammatical categories, with fixation of the order of components, with meta-linguistic fixation, with fixation of structural anomalies and with unique components.

Depending on the functions in speech. This classification is intended to divide phraseological units into three classes: phraseological utterances, set expressions, and tired tropes.

Phraseological utterances constitute complete utterances, therefore “they don’t need a direct verbal context in order to create an expression with the full meaning” [Alberto Zuluaga, 1992: 132]. A. Zuluaga also refers pragmatic formulas (for example, Feliz Navidad - Merry Christmas) and paroemia (sayings, quotes, and so on, for example, cada oveja con su pareja - every sheep knows its flock) to this class.

Set expressions usually need an immediate verbal context, as they must be combined with other elements within the phrase. Based on the initial assumption and the classification of J. Casares, A. Zuluaga sub-classifies set expressions into the following classes: conjunction, for example, siempre y cuando (only if); personalized, for example, Alma Mater; adnominal, for example, de rompe y rasga (no matter what, decisively), adverbial, for example, a pie juntillas (firmly, unconditionally); verbal, for example, dar calabazas y las elativas (send about one’s business); set expressions, which include comparisons, for example, dormir como un tronco (sleep like a log) [Alberto Zuluaga, 1992: 137].

Tired tropes are phraseological units that “represent the semantic-syntactic autonomy of the phrase itself that do not create textual meanings in its actual functionality,” for example, qué sé yo (how should I know, I have no idea) [Alberto Zuluaga, 1992: 129].

Classification by Gloria Corpas Pastor. In 1996, G. Corpas Pastor published her work on Spanish phraseology, in which, in addition to summarizing the previously proposed classifications created by various linguists, she proposes a new classification. The author insists that “none of the classifications described previously has so far used clear criteria to establish valid taxonomy of phraseological units of our language” [Glorias Corpas Pastor, 1996: 50].

G. Corpas Pastor offers a classification based on the expression criterion (i.e., whether the phraseological unit is a complete expression or not) with a fixation criterion (i.e., whether the unit is anchored in a system, standard, or speech). Corpas Pastor distinguishes three areas in her classification: collocations (colocaciones, foreign term), set expressions (locuciones, foreign term), phraseological utterances.

Collocations (colocaciones) are phraseological units that do not constitute speech acts or complete expressions and, therefore, must be combined with other linguistic elements. They are recorded in standardized language [Glorias Corpas Pastor, 1996: 53]. The term “colocaciones” is derived from English and was introduced by J. R. Firth in the 50s. In Spanish, the term was first used by M.Seco in 1978.

G. Corpas Pastor defines collocations (colocaciones) as “phraseological units that, from the point of view of the language system, are completely free syntagmas formed according to the rules, but which, at the same time, have a certain degree of documented combinatorial restriction regarding their use.” [Glorias Corpas Pastor, 1996: 54]. Collocations (colocaciones), divided into groups in accordance with their grammatical category and the syntactic relationship between the components:

• noun (subject) + verb, for example, declararse una guerra (to be at war);
• verb + noun (object), for example, zanjar una polémica (fix up the controversy).

Set expressions (locuciones). Locuciones do not form speech acts or complete expressions and, like colocaciones (collocations), must be combined with other language signs. But they differ from colocaciones (collocations) as they are fixed in the system [Gloria Corpas Pastor, 1992: 59].

Phraseological expressions are the only units that make up speech acts with complete statements and are fixed in speech. The author also insists that “they belong exclusively to the socio-cultural heritage of the linguistic society” [Glorias Corpas Pastor, 1996: 51].

Among the phraseological expressions, the author distinguishes paroemias and ordinary formulas. They are classified mainly as proverbs (for example, Agua que no has de beber, déjala correr - Cast no dirt into the well that gives you water), slogans and quotes (for example, La vida es sueño - Life is a dream); while everyday formulas are “pre-created wordings, ready to be used [...] in certain communicative situations” [Glorias Corpas Pastor, 1996: 174-175]. These are, for example, several formulas of politeness, such as Buenas noches (good night).

Classification by Leonor Ruiz Gurillo. In her work “Aspectos de fraseología teórica española” [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 1997] Leonor Ruiz Gurillo presents a new classification of phraseological units in Spanish, based on the formal criterion. The author distinguishes between three types of phraseological syntagmas: nominal, verbal and prepositive, and insists that each class takes the form of a continuum and the author tries to determine both its center, that is, the elements with the highest degree of fixation, and its periphery [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 1997: 105] in each class. On the periphery, as a rule, there are expressions that are excluded from the classifications of other linguists. In her work published in 2001, “Las locuciones en español actual,” the author adds a new class to the three existing classes – adjective syntagmas.

Phraseological nominal syntagmas. Ruiz Gurillo claims that nominal phraseological phrases have a certain degree of fixation, and in some cases – idiomacity [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 1997: 106]. The author also addresses the issue of composition and insists on the need for differentiation between nominal and complex set expressions (locuciones), since the connection between phraseology and composition is very narrow. The biggest difference, in her opinion, is that “the constituent elements of complex set expressions show a graphic unity, while the elements of nominal set expressions tend to appear separately in writing, thus preserving their formal independence” [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo 1997: 106].

L. Ruiz Gurillo distinguishes the following among nominal syntagmas:

• Fully fixed nominal and idiomatic set expressions (locuciones) with diacritical words and/or structural anomalies that make up the prototype of the phraseological nominal phrase. For example, agua de borrajas (doomed to failure) or Alma Mater - Nominal idiomatic set expressions (locuciones) in various degrees, for example, caballo de batalla (war horse).
• Mixed nominal set expressions (locuciones), which have only one fixed part whereas the other one is idiomatic, so they form an intermediate level between collocations (colocaciones) and set expressions (locuciones). For example, dinero negro (black cash), lista negra (black list) o punto negro (hazardous area).
• Nominal collocations (colocaciones), which are “frequent combinations of words that, as a result, offer a nominal syntagma” and are created as “syntagmatic chains based on the identical lexical unit.” For example, agua bendita (holy water), agua de coco (coconut juice), etc. [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 1997: 108].

Phraseological adjective syntagmas. The author pays the least attention to adjective syntagmas. However, she explains that this class primarily classifies adjective set expressions (locuciones) “formed by a core of an adjective or participial nature that receives changes with a fixed form,” for example, corto de medios (low flow), limpio de polvo y paja (received effortlessly; net (on income) [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 2001: 40].

Phraseological verbal syntagmas. L. Ruiz Gurillo believes that verbal phraseological syntagmas are phraseological units that occupy different positions in the aforementioned scale, moving from the center to the periphery. The author proposes to classify the following subcategories and their characteristics:

• Verbal locuciones with diacritical words and/or structural anomalies with a high degree of fixation and idiomacity, which are a prototype of phraseological verbal syntagmas and form the core of this category. For example, in the phraseological unit tomar las de villadiego (betake oneself to one’s heels, run headlong), the structural anomaly consists in the presence of the female plural as one of the forming elements for no apparent reason.
• Fully fixed and idiomatic verbal set expressions (locuciones), which are phraseological units that allow no changes due to fixation. For example, dorar la píldora (sugar the pill, soften) or hacerse el sueco (pretend to be deaf).
• Semi-idiomatic verbal set expressions (locuciones), characterized by a high level of fixation, a high degree of motivation, but weak idiomacity. Literary figures such as metaphor and hyperbole contribute to their motivation. For example, cortar el bacalao (to be in charge, have the upper hand) or echar raíces (to root).
• Verbal set expressions (locuciones) with a slight degree of idiomacity, for example, perder el tiempo (lose time) or perder la cabeza (lose one’s head).
• Mixed verbal set expressions (locuciones) with a fixed verbal part, for example, vivir del cuento (live on someone else’s account) or vivir como un rey (live like a king).
• Fixed verbal set expressions (locuciones), which are “units with a high degree of unity allowing some variations in their components,” for example, in genus: hacerse el loco/la loca [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 1997: 107].
• Verbal set expressions (locuciones) with variants that allow certain changes in their components, but their variability is limited by fixation. For example, there are options such as importar un pepino/un pimiento (it doesn’t matter, let things go hang), but we cannot say importar un tomate [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 1997: 109].
• Verbal syntagmatic units that “have a large degree of unity between the components” [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 1997: 111]. They usually consist of a verbal component that has lost its lexical values and has an only morphological function, and from a nominal component that is the bearer of the lexical values of the entire syntagma. The verbal component here functions as a supporting verb – for example, hacer uso (use) or tomar un baño (take a bath).
• Verbal collocations (colocaciones), consisting of components that “show a high degree of unity, which is sometimes associated with semantic reasons, such as lexical solidarity: guiñar un ojo” (wink) [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 1997: 114].

Phraseological prepositive syntagmas. The four most important features determine the fixation of the majority of prepositive syntagmas: non-commuting components, inseparable components, invariance of determinants, and invariance of numbers [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 1997: 116]. As in the two previous syntagmatic categories, Ruiz Gurillo also offers a scale with several types of prepositive syntagmas:

• Fully fixed and idiomatic prepositive set expressions (locuciones) with diacritical words and/or structural anomalies, which are a prototype of prepositive phraseological syntagmas, for example, a la virulé (in a slipshod manner), en un plis plas (in the twinkling of an eye), etc.
• Fully fixed and idiomatic prepositive set expressions (locuciones), which are very close to the core of prepositive syntagmas and perform all four functions mentioned above. For example, a menudo (rarely), a lo mejor (possibly), etc.
• Partially fixed and idiomatic to varying degrees prepositive set expressions (locuciones), for example, a mano (manually), al hombro (shoulder arms).
• Only fixed prepositive set expressions (locuciones), for example, en general (in general) or en público (to the public), as fixed locuciones, easily replaced by adverbs with the suffix -mente (generalmente - usually or públicamente - in public), but they do not represent another type of variability.
• Prepositive set expressions (locuciones) with variants “make up the connection between the peripheral and core zones, independent of the degree of fixation and idiomacity, which they represent, for example, de (muy) buen grado (of their own free will) [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 1997: 119].
• Prepositive set expressions (locuciones) that allow the possibility of changing one of its components. For example, in locución (set expression) a mi juicio (in my opinion) it is only allowed to replace the possessive pronoun mi (mine) with another possessive.
• The formation of similar prepositive set expressions (locuciones), which are “units that have arisen on the basis of an existing phraseological unit. Based on this phraseological unit, the new unit takes on its form, its syntactic limitations, as well as its semantic or pragmatic features.” For example, a gritos (to screams), a hombros (on the shoulders), etc. [Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, 1997: 118].
• Prepositive phraseological schemes, which are regular structures that allow certain changes, for example, switching their components, but always within the same syntactic scheme, for example, de uno en uno (individually, one at a time), de dos en dos (in pairs, pairwise).

Summarizing the classification of L. Ruiz Gurillo, we can note that her classifications have a lot in common with the classification of A. Zuluaga and G. Corpas Pastor (1996). As for A. Zuluaga, he, like L. Ruiz Gurillo, pays much attention to various degrees of fixation and idiomacity, and, therefore, distinguishes between classes such as mixed phraseological units or semi-idiomatic. The similarity to the classification of G. Corpas Pastor (1996) mainly consists in the use of the concepts of set expressions (locuciones) and collocations (colocaciones).

Having examined and compared various classifications, we concluded:

• Spanish phraseology is characterized by rather extensive research performed by many linguists (G.Corpas Pastor, A.Zuluaga, J.Casares, L.R. Gurillo), it has special characteristics and various classifications of phraseological units according to one or another author.
• At the heart of each language, there is a special view of the world that defines national consciousness and forms the ethnocultural behavior stereotype. The formation of the linguistic view of the world is significantly influenced not only by external factors: living conditions of the people (climate, geographical location, lay, the dominance of a particular production sector, etc.), but also internal ones: ethnocultural values, traditions, rites, social symbols, history of the civilization development, national consciousness, religion:
• Categorization of the world innate in the lexical and phraseological system of each language is subordinated to the principle of pragmatic relevance, the significance of the religious phenomenon for a given ethnic culture.
• Culturally significant religious image as part of phraseological units allows detecting conceptual differences between languages in terms of displaying objective reality.
• Acquisition of additional connotations by phraseological unit due to semantic re-estimation. The presence of not only positive but also negative connotations in the interpretation of phraseological units with religious components.
• Significance of precedent names in the consideration of the lexical and constituent components of biblical phraseological units in Spanish.
• Phraseological units with a religious component that reflect cognitive, linguistic, and cultural characteristics of ethnic communities are one of the most important components of the linguistic view of the world of the Spanish.

The results of the analysis of phraseological units with various religious components enable the identification of the persistent influence of traditional religious ideas on the language and knowledge of the main biblical subjects by the Spanish. Religious concepts that emerge in various linguistic structures carry fixed connotative and associative meanings that reflect the way Spaniards understand and view the world under the influence of religious and historical factors.