This work discusses structural and semantic features that one form needs to have in order to be recognized as phraseme in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language and trying to point out the importance of defining the phraseme as a structure that has at least two autosemantic components (not less than two). That is why the constructions treated differently in the phraseological literature are the main topic of this paper.
Particular emphasis is placed on forms that do not meet this criterion but fully comply with the other requirements set by the definition of the phraseologism. Related to the indicated problem, the key question is whether a structural or semantic aspect of the considered constructions should be given an advantage, especially when the examples are compound words with its features.
Table of Contents
1. THEORETICAL ISSUES
1.1. Introduction
1.2. The development of phraseology as a linguistic discipline
2. PHRASEOLOGY IN SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES
2.1. Defining phrasemes and their characteristics (terminology and definitions)
3. ON SEMANTICS
3.1. The semantic aspect of phraseology
4. PHRASEMES/ LEXEMES/ SYNTAGMAS
4.1. The relation between phrasemes, lexemes and syntagmas
4.2. Autosemanticity and two component structure as complementary features
4.3. Two-component structure at the expense of the autosemanticity
5. COMPOUNDING AND PHRASEOLOGY
5.1. Introducing
5.2. Compounding in Bosnian (Croatian and Serbian) language
5.2.1. Hyphenated compound words
5.2.2. One word phrasemes?
6. CONCLUSION
Objectives and Research Themes
The primary objective of this research paper is to examine the structural and semantic criteria required for a linguistic form to be classified as a phraseme, specifically focusing on the necessity of at least two autosemantic components. The paper explores the definitions within the context of Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian linguistics, evaluating how various dictionaries and scholars categorize constructions that deviate from standard phraseological definitions.
- The debate between structural versus semantic aspects of phraseological units.
- The relationship between phrasemes, lexemes, and syntagmas.
- The influence of compounding processes on the creation and classification of phrasemes.
- The analysis of how different South Slavic dictionaries handle "peripheral" phraseological units like hyphenated compounds and one-word phrasemes.
Auszug aus dem Buch
4.1. The relation between phrasemes, lexemes and syntagmas
In order to define the phrasemes, it is necessary to compare them with some other linguistic units such as lexeme and syntagma. In contemporary lexicology, the lexeme is defined as the smallest independent unit of the lexical system and as such, they are integral parts of the phrasemes. Both, the lexeme and the phraseme, fit in different contexts in creating the sentences. Lexemes, same as phrasemes, are also units used as a readymade in creating sentences. Differences between them are related to their function and structure. While lexeme is used for the nomination, phraseme has expressive, mostly emotional, function. Structurally, phrasemes are multi-word constructions lexeme is one autosemantic word. As an integral part of the phraseme lexeme is not going to keep its lexical meaning. Merged with some other words it creates a new meaning, the global one.
It is obvious that somatism OKO (eye) is very powerful in creating phrasemes by describing some gestures. If we interpret literally, the first example is describing the act of throwing the eye on somebody and that was never intended by the phrase. The lexeme eye here rather stands for the view and complete phrase is interpreted as the act of getting interested in something. The phraseme držati (koga) na oku also has a meaning different from the meaning of its constituents. The literal meaning of keeping somebody on the eye is lost in favor of the watching what somebody is doing.
Summary of Chapters
1. THEORETICAL ISSUES: Discusses the necessity of at least two autosemantic components for a construction to be recognized as a phraseme and provides a brief overview of the development of phraseology as a discipline.
2. PHRASEOLOGY IN SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES: Examines terminology and definition disagreements within the literature regarding what constitutes a phraseme in South Slavic languages.
3. ON SEMANTICS: Details the semantic aspect of phraseology, focusing on the deactualization of individual constituents' meanings in favor of a global, idiomatic meaning.
4. PHRASEMES/ LEXEMES/ SYNTAGMAS: Explores the linguistic relationships between phrasemes, lexemes, and syntagmas, emphasizing their structural and functional differences.
5. COMPOUNDING AND PHRASEOLOGY: Analyzes the convergence of compounding and phraseologisation, specifically investigating hyphenated compounds and the status of one-word phrasemes.
6. CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the findings, confirming that while Bosnian-Herzegovinian linguists insist on the two-component rule, there are inconsistencies in practice regarding hyphenated and phonetic words.
Keywords
Phraseology, phraseme, linguistics, autosemanticity, semantic transposition, South Slavic languages, Bosnian language, compounding, idiomatic expression, syntagma, lexical unit, phonetic words, dictionary analysis, phraseological unit.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on identifying the structural and semantic criteria that define a phraseme, particularly debating the requirement of at least two autosemantic words versus other definitions found in regional dictionaries.
What are the central thematic fields discussed?
The paper covers the development of phraseology as a linguistic discipline, the relationship between words and phraseological units, the role of semantic transposition, and the impact of word formation/compounding on phraseology.
What is the core research question?
The key question is whether structural or semantic aspects should be prioritized when defining phrasemes, especially in the context of compound words and prepositional phrases that demonstrate semantic deflection.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The author uses a comparative analysis of existing phraseological literature, a review of historical definitions, and a detailed examination of various Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian dictionaries to see how they categorize specific phraseological examples.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body covers the theoretical foundations, the relationship between phrasemes and other lexical units, the process of semantic desemantization, and a comparative study of how South Slavic dictionaries treat specific "problematic" phraseological cases.
How is the paper characterized by its keywords?
The paper is characterized by terms reflecting both the structural analysis (autosemanticity, compounding) and the theoretical categorization (phraseology, idiomatic expression, semantic transposition) within a specific regional linguistic context.
How do South Slavic linguists view the role of prepositions in phrasemes?
There is a significant disagreement; some argue that since prepositions lack lexical meaning, the resulting constructions do not meet the "two autosemantic words" criterion, while others include them based on accentual unity.
What does the author conclude about the current state of phraseological research in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
The author concludes that while significant discussion has occurred, there is still a lack of a comprehensive phraseological dictionary, and current dictionaries show inconsistencies in treating specific structural types of phrasemes.
- Quote paper
- Edna Klimentić (Author), 2020, Phraseological structures in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/537205
