A field of study, or generally of interest, does by no means simply consist of one or two basic components and then form a large, complex construction; on the contrary: many varieties, shapes and forms are needed for any such system to function and to be fully appreciated. A very wide variety of specific requirements, ideas, theories, views etc. have always assisted and also guided the human race in its seemingly never ending thirst for power, wisdom, and above all knowledge. The simple fact of being able to read these lines is an example of such progressive steps, as is being able to interpret a painting or a creative form of architecture. One thing most people probably would not question further, since everyone is capable of it at the age of three or four, is the concept of speech. One learns at home and in school, and that is that, to put it rather bluntly. However, in time one will notice that not every person in fact uses the same capacity of speech as another person might do. This of course must not be misunderstood on a global scale, since of course there are so many different languages throughout the world. This is only meant for a certain language, in this case English. Not every English speaking person will know what it means when someone “kicked the bucket” or “bought the farm”. Did he or she really kick a bucket, or buy a farm? Of course not. But that is precisely the point. There are certain elements within the structure of a language that cannot be easily determined, certain phrases, words and especially the meanings behind such phrases or words. This particular field of study, or as Rosemarie Gläser refers to it, “a sub discipline of the linguistic system” as “an expanding field of research” (Cowie 1998: 125), contains many interesting single topics. Only defining a phraseological unit as “a lexicalized reproducible bilexemic or polylexemic word group in common use” (1998: 125) does in fact make one have a certain feeling of confusion. This definition is not exactly helpful or overall understandable. Yet when dealing with English phraseology from a functional, stylistic or a cognitive approach, many more interesting and exciting aspects appear.
This paper however will deal with a different point of view on the subject. It is rather unique and can be used for practically any subject or topic one chooses.
Table of Contents
A. Dealing with language: progress, understanding and exploration of the spoken and written word
B. Stereotyped comparisons in perspective: the concept, past and present form
I. Theoretical details and functions
II. Origins, meanings and comparing various sources
III. Comparing in the 21st century: survey on the use of stereotyped comparisons
C. Keeping it alive: the development and future of linguistic studies
Objectives and Research Themes
This paper explores the historical development, linguistic structure, and modern usage of stereotyped comparisons in the English language. By examining theoretical frameworks provided by scholars like Harald Burger and Rosemarie Gläser, and contrasting them with historical data from dictionaries and contemporary surveys, the work investigates how these fixed expressions have evolved, persisted, or faded over time.
- Theoretical categorization of "comparative phraseological units."
- Historical analysis of specific idioms using the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).
- Empirical survey on the familiarity and usage of stereotyped comparisons among native speakers.
- The role of alliteration and cultural context in the survival of idioms.
- The future of phraseological research in the age of corpus-based digital data.
Excerpts from the Book
Origins, meanings and comparing various sources
Even though the first used example seems logical and understandable, the phrase as weak as a baby is nowhere to be found, neither in the OED online version nor is it described by Whiting or by Apperson. The word ‘weak’ however can be found in the OED used in form of a first comparison in the following form: 1768 STERNE Sent. Journ., Snuff-Box, But I am as weak as a woman; and I beg the world not to smile, but pity me.
The same result occurs with the use of ‘cat’ and ‘kitten’ in connection with ‘weak’. There is no such phrase to be found despite the fact that the logical assumption of a cat or a kitten being weak or at least fragile did not seem to catch on. Both words date back quite far according to the OED (‘cat’: a800 Corpus Gloss. 863 Fellus (felis), catte ; ‘kitten’: 1377 LANGL. P. Pl. B. Prol. 190 ere e catte is a kitoun e courte is ful elyng) , but no kind of comparison is listed. The only successful finding is the last and obviously most common form of comparison when involving the adjective ‘weak’ together with ‘water’. As weak as water can first be found as far back as 1320 as quoted by Apperson (1929: 670). The OED also presents the same phrase not much later: 1544 R. ASCHAM Toxoph. I. (Arb.) 28, I found my good bowe..as weake as water.
Chapter Summaries
A. Dealing with language: progress, understanding and exploration of the spoken and written word: This chapter introduces the field of English phraseology and outlines the specific historical approach taken to examine stereotyped comparisons.
B. Stereotyped comparisons in perspective: the concept, past and present form: This section provides the theoretical foundation for comparative phraseological units and presents a deep historical investigation of specific idioms through various source materials.
I. Theoretical details and functions: This sub-chapter defines the structural elements of comparisons, such as the object, the measurement, and the 'tertium comparationis', utilizing theories from Burger and Gläser.
II. Origins, meanings and comparing various sources: This sub-chapter performs a detailed analysis of specific comparisons by cross-referencing historical occurrences and variations against dictionary entries.
III. Comparing in the 21st century: survey on the use of stereotyped comparisons: This sub-chapter details an empirical study conducted among native speakers to determine the modern-day familiarity and usage of the selected idioms.
C. Keeping it alive: the development and future of linguistic studies: The concluding chapter reflects on the importance of phraseology and the potential for future research using digital, corpus-based methodologies.
Keywords
Phraseology, stereotyped comparisons, English linguistics, historical approach, idiomatic expressions, comparative units, lexicography, OED, alliteration, language change, linguistic research, corpus-based studies, functional approach, semantic analysis, native speaker survey.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper focuses on the historical exploration of stereotyped comparisons—fixed idiomatic phrases that use comparative structures—within the English language.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The work covers the structural theory of comparisons, the etymological origins of specific idioms, their historical persistence, and the contemporary usage of these phrases among native speakers.
What is the main research goal?
The goal is to determine how stereotyped comparisons have developed over time, why some survive while others fade, and how they are perceived by modern English speakers.
What scientific methods are utilized?
The methodology combines a literature-based historical analysis using dictionaries like the OED and Apperson, with an empirical survey conducted among native speakers to collect modern usage data.
What does the main body analyze?
The main body breaks down specific idioms (e.g., "as weak as water," "as proud as Lucifer") by checking their first known occurrences, historical variations, and contemporary relevance.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Phraseology, Stereotyped comparisons, Historical linguistics, Idioms, Etymology, and Corpus-based research.
How do specific linguistic theories define these comparisons?
Scholars like Harald Burger classify them as "Comparative phraseological units," focusing on the "tertium comparationis"—the shared characteristic between the object and the measurement of the comparison.
Why is "as weak as water" considered a significant idiom in this study?
It serves as a prime example of a successful, persistent comparison that can be traced back to the 14th century, unlike "as weak as a baby," which lacks historical documentation.
What did the survey reveal about modern usage?
The survey indicated that alliterative comparisons, such as "as blind as a bat," are significantly more familiar to modern speakers than older, archaic expressions.
- Quote paper
- Jerry Paramo (Author), 2008, A historical approach to English Phraseology, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/271153
