Structural-Semantic Modeling in Phraseology: Forty Years of Experience and the Prospects

Cover Page

Abstract


The purpose of this article is to analyze the experience gained in the field of structural-semantic modeling by domestic and foreign phraseologists working in the mainstream of the scientific school of V. M. Mokienko, the founder of this method, and to present prospects of the method applied to a dynamic system of modern phraseology. The relevance of addressing this issue is determined by the high linguo-cultural and linguo-didactic potential of phraseological modeling, the need to identify opportunities for its use in the study of phraseological layers that have not yet been fully developed. Using the descriptive method to process the data presented in the works on structural-semantic modeling, the author summarizes the results obtained by phraseologists for four decades of active use of the method in historical, etymological and linguoculturological research. The scope of the method’s application to the material of different languages, the breadth of the research spectrum in terms of synchrony/ diachrony is emphasized: from the reconstruction of phraseology at the level of the protolanguage to the modeling of phraseological units-neologisms. The research material was not only scientific sources, but also language material: phraseology of Russian folk dialects, modern urban speech and Internet communication. Using the method of structural-semantic modeling in relation to these phraseological layers, the author demonstrates the possibility of identifying generating models of formation and transformation of phraseological units, which until recently was considered impossible. For the first time, the method of structural-semantic modeling is also considered as one of the phraseographic techniques implemented by V. M. Mokienko and his followers in the field of academic and educational lexicography. Thus, the review of scientific sources presented in the article and the results of the author’s own research prove the productivity of the method of structural-semantic modeling, confirm its relevance and broad prospects in the study of Russian phraseology.


Full Text

Recognition of the fact that phraseology is modeled, resulting from active scientific discussions half a century ago and now described in the genre of «history of the issue» [1. P. 200-201; 2. P. 64-65], opened up new prospects for the study of phraseological units as modeled and modeling units in a variety of aspects, e.g. structuralgrammatical [3] to linguo-cognitive [4], axiological [5], communicative-syntactic, [6] and translational [7]. The syntactic models of phraseological units [8; 9; 10] are thoroughly studied, including transitional types of phraseological units that are varieties of clichés and phrases [11; 12; 13]. When declaring a study of semantic phraseological models, scientists, as a rule, imply phraseosemantic groups, synonymous rows and antonymic oppositions of phraseological units [14] or they are limited to a semantic analysis of a certain syntactic structure [15]. Motivational models that allow explicating an idea that sets the direction for the development of phraseological imagery, and substantiating the relationship between the literal meaning of the prototype and figurative meaning of phraseological units became the product of logical and psychological modeling [16]. Structural-syntactic, semantic and motivational aspects of phraseological modeling integrate the process of identifying structural-semantic models in phraseology. Not coincidentally, T.M. Filonenko calls structural-semantic modeling the final stage in the study of phraseological imagery, which is preceded by the stages of developing syntactic and motivational models [16. Р. 100]. The method of structural-semantic modeling, theoretically justified by V.M. Mokienko in 1980 in the monograph «Slavic Phraseology» [17], is currently actively used not only in Slavic, but also in other phraseological systems. The purpose of this article is to show the development of this productive direction of phraseological modeling, in the mainstream of which its founder V.M. Mokienko, his numerous students and followers of his scientific school continue their research. The relevance of addressing this issue is determined by the need to improve the methods of a comprehensive study of phraseology as a unit of language and a cultural fact. This article aims at the dissemination of valuable experience gained in the field of structural-semantic modeling and the representation of new possibilities for its application. Under the structural-semantic model V.M. Mokienko understands «structuralsemantic invariant of stable combinations, schematically reflecting the relative stability of their form and semantics». The combination of structural and semantic characteristics of phraseological units with this approach makes it possible to isolate phraseological models from a number of others, or, more precisely, determine their areal characteristics and historically comment on them [17. Р. 43]. Representing the method of structural-semantic modeling on the material of Russian and Czech phraseological units with the general meaning ‘beat, punish’, the author draws attention to their structural marking, high stability of semantics, and a variety of motivations with a metaphorical type of transfer. The result of the in-depth analysis of the internal form in its projection on modern structural-semantic characteristics of constructions is seen in phraseological schemes of the type: «дать ‘give’ + a noun or its periphrasis with the meaning ‘hit’»: дать порку, дать взбучку; «a verb with the meaning ‘hit ’+ a noun or a prepositional combination indicating the direction of the blow»: заехать в морду, наколотить загривок; «a verb with the meaning ‘hit’ + a noun or prepositional combination designating a weapon»: огреть дубинкой, хватить плетью, etc., or in an even more compact format of the models: «дать ‘give’ what = бить ‘beat’», «бить ‘beat’ where = избить ‘beat’»; «бить ‘beat’ with what = избить ‘beat’», etc. [17. Р. 45-55]. The direction of the study of phraseological units from a motivational model to a more particular one (structural-semantic) allows one to identify the range of motive productivity by its implementation in phraseological neologisms, including slang ones. So, we have distributed phraseological units combined in the monograph by V.M. Mokienko motivational model ‘be engaged in obviously futile activities’ → ‘be idle’ [17. Р. 65], according to 5 structural-semantic models, but only one of them (the last in our list), according to the slang dictionaries, is currently active in terms of phraseme-formation: 1/ «perform an action not needed by the addressee → be idle»: собакам сено косить; 2/ «perform an action that is not relevant for the place of its implementation → be idle»: из леса в лес дрова возить; 3/ «perform an action with the use of an inappropriate tool → be idle»: носить воду решетом; 4/ «perform an action using inappropriate material → be idle»: из песка веревки вить; 5/ «perform an action directed at an inappropriate object → be idle»: гонять ветер, and also fixed by slang dictionaries [KCYC]: изюм косить, тазики пинать, пустыню пылесосить [KCYC. Р. 402]. Certain conclusions about the productivity of motivational and structuralsemantic models can also be made in the interlanguage plan based on the results of structural-semantic modeling of foreign-language phraseology. I.E. Dyachkova does so based on the material of English phraseological units with an anthroponym component. In the framework of the motivational model «the idea of a long-standing event ß association with a certain long-standing event», we find here a structuralsemantic model, known to many languages, characterized by variability, but nonetheless not showing productivity: when/ since smb was alive/ young (when queen Anne was alive - literally: ‘когда была жива королева Анна’; since Adam was a boy - literally: ‘когда Адам был мальчиком’ [18. Р. 70-71], compare: при царе Горохе; при царе Косаре, при царе Копыле [17. Р. 16, 155]. On the other hand, the specific English derivation model out- + verb, which serves for the formation of verbs with the meaning of superiority, becomes a key component of the productive structural-semantic model of phraseological units, conveying the meaning ‘excel any person personifying a certain quality’: to out-Herod Herod - ‘excel Herod (in cruelty and perversity)’; to out-Zola Zola - ‘excel Zola (in naturalism)’ [18. З. 72]. Compare: the implementation of this motivational idea in a specific structural-semantic model of a phraseological unit actively functioning in the Russian slang occasional phraseme-formation: «who (a famous person, a bearer of a reference trait) does not try to compete (restlessly reacts to an opponent) → stating superiority with ameliorative connotation or irony»: Айвазовский нервно курит - high appreciation of the work of a young marine painter (Record 2019); Абрамович вжался в стенку - ironically: about acquiring a small old, damaged yacht (Record 2019), Костя Дзю отдыхает - praise to the winner of the fight (Record 2018), Жириновский курит бамбук - about the speaker’s original speech at the rally (Record 2016) / курить бамбук ‘smoke bamboo’ - in youth slang: ‘relax’ /, Джимми Хендрикс кочумает - ironically: about playing of a low-class guitarist (Record 2015) / кочумать - ‘relax’ in youth slang, ‘pause playing a musical instrument’ in musicians’ slang. Structural-semantic modeling opens up the possibility of observing the rethinking of previous motivational schemes and the activation of their new interpretations in modern structural-semantic models. Compare, for example, the use of the name of a nonexistent holiday, the day of a nonexistent saint to indicate an action, a person’s condition: труса (трусу) праздновать ‘be coward, be afraid of smth.’ [BDRS. Р. 673], лытусу праздновать ‘ be idle’ /лытус - an artificial formation from the dialect verb лытать ‘run away, evade from something.’ / [BDRS. Р. 375] and the modern series of structures built according to the model: «праздновать (отмечать) ‘celebrate’ + что ‘what’ (name of a nonexistent holiday) = drink without an occasion»: отмечать день граненого стакана; отмечать столетие лошади Буденного (русской балалайки); праздновать день рождения Кощея Бессмертного (Бабы-Яги); отмечать день смерти Анны Корениной [KCYC. Р. 45, 51-52]. We cannot fail to note the possibility of humorous literalization with professionally oriented filling of the model: отмечать сорокатилетие структурносемантической модели (Record 2020). Thus, the proposed by V.M. The Mokienko technique allows us to identify and study structural-semantic models not only as schemes for describing phraseological units, but also as generating models of phraseme-formation and phrasemetransformation, which is especially important in the context of the activation of linguistic and creative activities of native speakers and the strengthening of dynamic processes in the field of phraseology. Another dynamically developing field of application of the method and use of the results of structural-semantic phraseological modeling is linguoculturology, where one of the objects of research is an ethnoculturally determined phraseological image. Researchers of the national specifics of phraseology turn to the methodology of structuralsemantic modeling based on the vast subject groups and ideographic fields of phraseological units characterizing interpersonal relationships [19], labor activity [20], and human abilities [21]. Structural-semantic modeling in the field of sustainable comparisons also reaches the level of linguoculturology [22; 23]. For this type of phraseological units, as for no other, stand: the cross-lingual commonality of motivational ideas (similarity of the original and copy, similarity of paired objects, etc.), the parallelism of a specific imagery reflected by structural-semantic models (difference between day and night and contrasting heaven and land, etc.), and the presence of standards of comparison inequivalent in terms of the interlanguage plan that trigger the formation of ethnoculturally determined phraseological units according to the model. The diachronic component of the cultural background of phraseological units is revealed, as is known, in the course of historical and etymological searches. Here the method of structural-semantic modeling allows not only reveal the national-cultural specificity of the phraseological image, but also clarify the etymological version of phraseological units, as it performs V.M. Mokienko analyzing on the broad Slavic and the dialectic level phraseological unit бить баклуши ‘idle around’. The material of Pskov, Omsk, Don, Smolensk, Ryazan and other Russian dialects (бить беньки, бить бабки, бить балды, etc.), and also the Ukrainian, Belarusian, Polish languages ( бомки бити, бiбiкi бiць, bíć bąki, etc. ) proves the validity of assigning this phraseology to the «game» structural-semantic model «бить, сбивать ‘beat, knock down’ what (+ name of the attribute of the game like a ball, chunks) = be idle», realizing the motivational idea «play, have fun → be idle» [17. Р. 65-69]. Forty years after the representation of this etymological version [17. pp. 65-69] V.M. Mokienko in collaboration with H. Walther turns to the material of this model at a new, deeper level of structural-semantic modeling in connection with the problems of reconstruction of the Pre-Slavic phraseology [24. Р. 23], the status of which is currently undefined. The authors propose to solve this important diachronic problem of Slavic studies during the reconstruction of structural-semantic models, rather than the original etymons, as for vocabulary, the Proto-Slavic fund of which, unlike phraseology, is comprehensively presented in fundamental etymological sources [24. Р. 12]. As shown on the material of phraseological units ни кола ни двора, ни богу свечка ни черту кочерга, класть зубы на полку and their parallels in Slavic languages and dialects, the originality of the reconstructed structural-semantic model confirms its wide variation, while the rigid fixation of the form speaks more about the borrowed nature of the construction [24. Р. 17-24]. Moreover, as shown by the results of structural-semantic modeling, «a purely Slavic phraseology is almost not found in retrospect: its area usually extends beyond the borders of Slavia - into the Slavic-Baltic, Slavic-Germanic or Slavic-Turkic language space» [24. Р. 12]. In this regard, we cannot fail to note one more interlanguage sphere of the study of structural-semantic models - Russian-Hungarian phraseological parallels [25], the analysis of which allows V.M. Mokienko to clarify the areal characteristics of the original Slavic phraseology. Thus, the method of structural-semantic modeling has become widespread in modern linguistics as applied to different types of phraseological units, to the material of different languages. The diachronic aspect of modeling is realized when solving etymological problems and historical language reconstructions. Such modeling procedures are valuable in linguistic and cultural terms as a means of identifying the ethnocultural specifics of phraseology. In terms of synchronization, the productivity of phraseme-forming structural-semantic models is studied as a manifestation of the dynamics of the phraseological foundation, the concrete figurative embodiment of the models is analyzed from sociocultural positions. The discussion of vocabulary representation of structural-semantic models is initiated by V.M. Mokienko in the analysis of the lexicographic concept by P. Durćo [26]. Going beyond the traditional circle of problems associated with the display of variability in the framework of the model, V.M. Mokienko considers the principles of creating a collocation profile of a word by a Slovak lexicographer and highly appreciates modeling techniques and the development of collocation schemes used to determine the structure of vocabulary [26. Р. 367-369]. V.M. Mokienko presents his own concept of lexicographic structural-semantic modeling on the material of dialect phraseological units with the meaning ‘distant or fictitious relative’, developed for the «Complete phraseological dictionary of Russian folk dialects» - an innovative lexicographic project that involves the work of V.M. Mokienko’s team of his Phraseological seminar at St. Petersburg State University. The imaginative specificity of structural-semantic models, as the head of the project emphasizes, depends on the type of their core component - animalism, somatism, the name of a person or everyday reality, and the variety of models means the beauty and richness of folk speech and the breadth of material coverage in the new phraseological dictionary [27. Р. 305]. The implementation of the Larin’s principle of lexicographic completeness [28] made it possible to combine in the «Complete phraseological dictionary of Russian folk dialects» the phraseology of not only territorial, but also social dialects, primarily youth slang and colloquial speech. The material of all these phraseological strata is often united by one structural-semantic model with a very wide lexical variation, for example, the «move from to (+ designations of two places identical in certain parameters) = 1. Chat, tittle-tattle; 2. Idle around», where the phraseological image is based on a description of useless, absurd activities: переливать из пустого в порожнее. Let us imagine a model representation scheme in the «Complete phraseological dictionary of Russian folk dialects», where phraseological units are placed in accordance with the concept by V.M. Mokienko: under the first component-noun, if it is absent - under the first adjective, numeral, verb. In our case, it will be an adjective пустой ‘empty’. When making a heading unit, common linguistic variants of the verb component will traditionally be presented in parentheses. Variants of phraseological units with a verb component-dialectism that requires interpretation will be described under separate headings within the framework of the macro article. They are followed by a description of the structural variants of phraseological units. The optional components of phraseological units are placed in square brackets. Under the special sign of transformation (→) there are phraseological transformations recorded in live colloquial speech (LCS) and open Internet communication (OIC). The order of the transforms is determined by the degree of their structural and semantic removal from the original phraseological unit. Переливать (перекладывать, говорить Pskov; перегонять Smolensk; пересыпать Yaroslavl) [воду Omsk] из пустого в порожнее ‘to catch the wind in a net’. Coll. Disappr. 1. Conduct empty conversations, chat. 2. Engage in worthless business, waste time. BDRS, 92; PRD 7, 35; DRFD 3, 18; DRFD 30, 71. Балахрыстить из пустого в порознее. Arch. Disappr. Same as переливать из пустого в порожнее ‘to catch the wind in a net’. DRFD 2, 76. < Балахрыстить - spend time in idleness. Перешалтыкивать из пустого в порожнее. Don Disappr. (1976). Same as переливать из пустого в порожнее ‘to catch the wind in a net’. DRFD 26, 275. < Перешалтыкивать - chat, tittle-tattle. Переливать пустое в порожнее ‘to catch the wind in a net’. Pskov. Disappr. Same as переливать из пустого в порожнее. PRD 7, 35; PRD 2, 91. → Переливать из пустого в порожнее ‘to catch the wind in a net’. Coll. Joking. Drink alcohol without biting (LCS, 2019). Переливать из пустого в порожнее решетом. Coll. Joking. Same as переливать из пустого в порожнее ‘to catch the wind in a net’. (LCS, 2020). < Phraseological units blend переливать из пустого в порожнее ‘to catch the wind in a net’ and носить воду решетом ‘plough the water’ [Переливать] из пустого в дорожное. Media. Disappr. As headings. About useless discussions of the problems of road quality, traffic safety, parking lots, etc. (OIC, 2019-2020). Из пустого в пирожное. Media. Joking and ironically. As headings. About the low quality of confectionery; about empty talk on the topic of confectionery (OIC, 2020). See also НИЧЕГО ‘nothing’ (переливать из ничего в никуда ‘pour over from nowhere’); СИТО ‘sieve’ (переливать из сита в решето ‘pour from sieve into sieve’). References at the end of the lexical entry to variations of the alternate nominal component (НИЧЕГО ‘nothing’, СИТО ‘sieve’) ensure the unity of the structuralsemantic model representation preserving the stated alphabetical-core principle of material arrangement. The methodology of structural-semantic modeling also received a linguodidactic implementation in the educational phraseological dictionaries of the Experimental Laboratory of Educational Lexicography at the University of Pskov, which follows the concept of interactive etymological paraphrasing developed by E.I. Rogaleva [29; 30]. Thus, adapting the etymological version of the phraseological unit во всю ивановскую ‘with all one’s might’, taking into account the addressee - a preschool child, - the authors of the dictionary «We know a thing or two» (FPD) invite the reader to the detective and phraseological agency. The «employees» of the agency are a cat-researcher called Kokos, a dog-investigator Gafik and their driver, a parrot Kochan. The heroes are «investigating» the history of phraseological units using the structural-semantic modeling algorithm for phraseological units developed by V.M. Mokienko. The dog Gafik offers his «colleagues» three working etymological versions and a photograph of Ivanovo Square in the Moscow Kremlin: 1. The origin of the phraseological unit во всю ивановскую ‘with all one’s might’ is connected with the bell tower of Ivan the Great in the Moscow Kremlin. Look at the photo. Previously, the belfry housed 30 bells. Together, they were called the Ivanov bell set. Imagine what a rumble there was when all the bells of Ivan the Great rang! The meaning of the phraseological unit can be deduced as: (to call) ВО ВСЮ ИВАНОВСКУЮ ‘with all one’s might’ (the Ivanov bell set) = very loudly. 2. According to the second version, the origin of the phraseological unit is associated with Ivanovo Square. Look at the same photo. The bell tower just stands on Ivanovo Square. In ancient times, czar’s decrees were announced here. It is clear that there were no microphones then, and the heralds had to thoroughly strain the vocal cords. Here, whips and sticks punished thieves who also screamed with all their might. Hence the phraseological unit: (scream) ВО ВСЮ ИВАНОВСКУЮ ‘with all one’s might’ (square) = very loudly. 3. And the third version connects the origin of the phraseological unit with the hero of Russian folk tales Simpleton Ivanushka. Cat Kokos: I like the first, musical version. The one that is associated with the ringing of bells. I myself am very musical. I can play both the violin and the balalaika. I write songs at my leisure time. And I’ve taken up the symphony recently. Parrot Kochan: And I stand for justice! If one committed theft, he must be punished! I choose the second version. Dog Gafik: All this is good, friends. But you forgot that a phraseological unit is a unit of the language. Therefore, we must look for the evidence in the language. Listen to this. Initially, our phraseological unit had only one meaning - «very fast» and was used in combinations with бежать ‘run’, нестись ‘rush’ во всю Ивановскую, скакать (на лошади) ‘ride (a horse)’ во всю Ивановскую ‘with all one’s might’. But is it possible to run or ride across Ivanovo bell set? - Of course not. How about Ivanovo Square? It is clearly not enough for racing. And now remember the phraseological units with the meanings «very fast» and «very loud»: во весь дух, во все лопатки, во всю мощь, во весь голос, во всю глотку, во всю силу, во все горло ‘with all one’s might’. There are no squares, no bells. Only a man - voice, throat, shoulder blades, strength. So, our phraseological unit is connected with a person! And, of course, his name is Ivan. The strength is inherent to Ivan! He is the favorite hero of Russian folk tales (Ivan the Fool, Ivan Tsarevich, Ivan Bogatyr) - strong, agile, kind. He always defeats his enemies, acts quickly, energetically. His «Ivan’s» power was reflected in the phraseological unit во всю Ивановскую - «very fast, very loud, with all his might». Cat Kokos: Brilliant, Chef! How did you know that? Dog Gafik: From a colleague from St. Petersburg, a pretty fox terrier Sonya. This is the favorite dog of the famous phraseologist Valery Mikhailovich Mokienko. She is always aware of all phraseological events [FDP. P. 21-24]. In the dictionary «Interesting etymological stories for children» (IESC), addressed to a more «adult» audience - younger schoolchildren, all three etymological versions and the methodology of structural-semantic modeling are presented by Valery Mikhailovich himself, who «invited» the readers to visit him (in the photo they can see the scientist in his office). Having refuted the first two versions, he brings the readers to the main phraseological formula, in which one thing remains unknown: (run, scream) ВО ВСЮ ИВАНОВСКУЮ (………?) = very quickly; very loudly. Valery Mikhailovich offers the children to find it, and the authors of the dictionary are included in this dialogue in the role of assistants: - What phraseological units with the meanings «very fast» and «very loud» do you know? - asks Valery Mikhailovich. Our scheme will help you answer the scientist’s question: Quickly: во весь …, во все …, во всю … ‘in full ..., in all ...’ Loudly: во весь …, во всю …, все … ‘in full ..., in all ...’ If you are at a loss - choose words from our creeping line prompts: нос ‘nose’, глаз ‘eye’, голос ‘voice’, дух ‘spirit’, сила ‘strength’, мощь ‘power’ (we used мочь ‘might’ above), горло ‘throat’, лопатки ‘shoulder blades’, глотка ‘pharynx’, палец ‘finger’. This is what we should get: во весь дух, во все лопатки, во всю мощь, во весь голос, во всю глотку, во всю силу, во все горло. Have you noticed that all these words are connected with a person, and not with the name of the square? - Most likely, our phraseological unit is associated with a person, - says Valery Mikhailovich. - Looking at the phraseological unit, you can easily guess his name [IESC. P. 8-12]. After deriving the final phraseological formula (run, scream) ВО ВСЮ ИВАНОВСКУЮ (strength, power, might) = very quickly, very loudly, readers find out the identity of the mysterious Ivan, recalling Russian folk tales and «The Little Humpbacked Horse» by P.P. Ershov, this leads them to the correct conclusion about the motivation of the phraseological unit. Thus, the lexicographic representation of the structural-semantic method of modeling, built on the principles of accessibility and scientific certainty, makes the child feel like a researcher and forever fall in love with Russian phraseology. Structural-semantic modeling has been and remains an effective method of studying linguistic imagery and phraseme-formation mechanisms. Received more than 40 years ago, scientific justification and methodological algorithmization in the works on Slavic phraseology by V.M. Mokienko, the method of structural-semantic modeling is currently used in relation to various, including new types of phraseological units of different languages, it covers the material of different historical and social layers of the language. The method is actively used by its founder and new generations of researchers - followers and numerous students of V.M. Mokienko in line with his scientific school under his leadership and in original independent research. A promising direction in the application of the structural-semantic modeling method is modern phraseme-formation, where this method can be useful in determining the productivity of traditional structural-semantic models, revealing the facts of modeling in the field of phraseological transformations, and in the formation of new phraseological units. The expansion of the range of application of the method can be observed in the field of comparative historical linguistics, where structural and semantic modeling allows you to reconstruct phraseology on the proto-languages level. The educational representation of the structural-semantic modeling method is not limited to elective university courses in phraseology and etymology. Innovative educational phraseography has become an innovative direction that implements the linguodidactic potential of the method. Mastering the fundamentals of structuralsemantic modeling at an accessible level, readers of interactive entertaining dictionaries become participants in historical and etymological searches, learn the laws of phraseme-formation processes and the interaction of language and culture. The concept of lexicographic representation of structural-semantic models in the academic phraseological dictionary, developed by V.M. Mokienko and being currently implemented in large-scale dictionary projects, sets directions for optimizing the macrostructure of the dictionary and improving parameterization of the material on the level of the dictionary microstructure. A promising embodiment of the method of structural-semantic modeling in academic lexicography is the creation of the Big Phraseme-Forming Dictionary of the Russian Language.

About the authors

Tatiana G. Nikitina

Pskov state University

Author for correspondence.
Email: cambala2007@yandex.ru
2, Lenin square, Pskov, Russian Federation, 180000

Doctor of Philology, Professor of Department of theory and methods of primary and preschool education

References

  1. Tret’yakova, I.Yu. (2009). The aspects of modern phraseology modeling. Vestnik Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 15( 4), 200—203. (In Russ.).
  2. Molchkova, L.V. (2013). Modelled Nature and Idiomaticity of Phraseological Units, Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 10, 63—67. (In Russ.).
  3. Fedulenkova, T.N. & Glebova, D.A. (2019). Features of Phraseological Units of the Model V + (d) + N + Prep + θ with the Verb of Possession In: Vestnik NII gumanitarnykh nauk pri Pravitel’stve Respubliki Mordoviya, 2, 227—231. (In Russ.).
  4. Dobrovol’skij, D. & Piirainen, E. (2017). Construction patterns idiomatic and their cognitive foundations. Yearbook of Phraseology, 8( 1), 31—58. doi: 10.1515/phras-2017-0004.
  5. Lomakina, O.V., & Mokienko, V.M. (2018). Value constants of the Rusin paremiology (compared with the Ukrainian and Russian languages). Rusin, 4, 303—317. doi: 10.17223/18572685/54/18. (In Russ.).
  6. Dalmas, M., & Dobrovol’skij, D. (2016). Idiome und ihre kommunikative Leistung: Zur Theorie der informationstrukturellen Gestaltung von Äußerungen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 44(2), 257—285. doi: 10.1515/zgl-2016-0012. (In Germ.).
  7. Mitkov, R. (2016). Computational Phraseology light: automatic translation of multiword expressions without translation resources, Yearbook of Phraseology, 7(1), 149—166. doi: 10.1515/phras-2016-0008.
  8. Velichko, A.V. (2016). Phraseologized sentences: models and their variability. In: Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 7(2), 75—78. (In Russ.).
  9. Melikyan, V., Melikyan, A., & Dzyubenko, A. (2017). Syntactic phraseological units. Syntactic phraseology. Phraseological subsystem of language. Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 62(1), 23— 47. doi: 10.1515/slaw-2017-0002.
  10. Mellado Blanco, C. (2019). Phrasem-Konstruktionen kontrastiv Deutsch-Spanisch: ein korpusbasiertes Beschreibungsmodell anhand ironischer Vergleiche. Yearbook of Phraseology, 10(1), 65—88. doi: 10.1515/phras-2019-0005. (In Germ.).
  11. Hrisztova-Gotthardt, H. (2016). Kein Sprichwort ohne Strukturformel? Vorgeprägte syntaktische Schemata in aktuell gebräuchlischen bulgarischen Sprichwörter. Yearbook of Phraseology, 7(1), 81—98. doi: 10.1515/phras-2016-0005. (In Germ.).
  12. Iomdin, L.L. (2017). Between the Syntactic Idiom and Syntactic Construction. Complicated Cases of Microsyntactic Ambiguity. Slavia: Časopis pro slovanskou filologii, 86(2—3), 230—243. (In Russ.).
  13. Mel’čuk, I. (2015). Clichés, an Understudied Subclass of Phrasemes. Yearbook of Phraseology, 6, 55—86. doi: 10.1515/phras-2015-0005.
  14. Kulyushin, А.Yu., & Pawlik, P. (2016). Russian and Polish idioms included in the semantic model “Poverty-Wealth” conceptual scope of “Material relations”: linguistic experiment In: Aksiologiya slavyanskoi kul’tury. Nizhny Novgorod: NGPU. pp. 6—9. (In Russ.).
  15. Mehmet, Y. (2017). Semantic models and varieties of phraseological units in kyrgyz and turkish languages. Izvestiya VUZov Kyrgyzstana, 7, 220—221. (In Russ.).
  16. Filonenko, Т.М. (2016). Motivational models of phraseological units, figuratively expressing syncretic meaning in the Russian language. Sovremennye problemy sotsial’no-gumanitarnykh nauk, 2, 98—101. (In Russ.).
  17. Mokienko, V.M. (1980). Slavic phraseology. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola. (In Russ.).
  18. Dyachkova, I.Y. (2010). Motivational and structural-semantic models of phraseological units with anthroponymic component. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University Humanitarian Sciences, 600, 66—74. (In Russ.).
  19. Fokina, А.А. (2015). Structural-semantic models of phraseological units with a component head, characterizing interpersonal relations (based on the material of the Mari, Russian and English languages) In Problemy mariiskoi i sravnitel’noi filologii. Ioshkar-Ola: Publ. Mari state University. pp. 64—68. (In Russ.).
  20. Shvelidze, N.B. (2018). Phraseological models of verbal phraseological units with the meaning of “working”. Vestnik Pyatigorskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 1, 42—45. (In Russ.).
  21. Kozlova, R.M. (2012). Structural-semantic models of Russian phraseological units of the ideographic field «A person’s abilities». Sbornik nauchnykh trudov Instituta gumanitarnogo obrazovaniya i informatsionnykh tekhnologii, 15, 323—333. (In Russ.).
  22. Nikolaeva, E.K., & Seliverstova, E.I. (2016). The idea of sound sleep in Slavic languages (based on stable comparisons). Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 61(2), 325—343. doi: 10.1556/060.2016.61.2.6. (In Russ.).
  23. Kuznetsova, I. (2018). Stable comparisons about the similarity and difference of realities. Językoznawstwo, 1, 99—107. (In Russ.).
  24. Walter, H., & Mokienko, V.M. (2019). Proto-Slavic Phraseology: Myth or Reality? Jazykovedný časopis (Journal of Linguistics), 70(1), 5—32. doi: 10.2478/jazcas-2019-0038. (In Russ.).
  25. Mokienko, V.M., & Nikitina, T.G. (2017). Hungarian-Slavic phraseological Parallels (diachronic aspect). Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum, 2, 247—275. DO:I 10.1556/ 060.2017.62.2.1. (In Russ.).
  26. Mokienko, V.M. (2016). Collocations — theory and lexicographic practice (about the concept of P. Durćo). Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 2, 363—372. doi: 10.1556/060.2016.61.2.8. (In Russ.).
  27. Mokienko, V.M. (2018). Structural-semantic model in the «Complete phraseological dictionary of Russian folk dialects» In Leksicheskii atlas russkikh narodnykh govorov (Materialy i issledovaniya). Saint Petersburg: Publ. Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences. pp. 305—312. doi: 10.30842/265861502018725. (In Russ.).
  28. Mokienko, V.M. (2012). Principles of Larins lexicography in the three-volume Big Dictionary of Proverbs, Sayings and Similes of the Russian language. Russian Journal of Lexicography, 1, 70—84. (In Russ.).
  29. Rogaleva, E.I. (2016). Phraseographical projects of Pskov Experimental Laboratory of educational Lexicography as a means of social and cultural adaptation of foreign learners. Didactic philology, 3, 86—102. (In Russ.).
  30. Rogaleva, E.I. (2018). Etymological configurations in phraseological dictionaries for children In Life in phraseology-phraseology in life. Collection of scientific articles to the anniversary of Professor A.M. Melerovich. I.Yu. Tret'yakova (Ed.). Kostroma: Publ. Kostroma state University. pp. 268—276. (In Russ.).

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 114

PDF (Mlt) - 30

Cited-By


PlumX

Dimensions


Copyright (c) 2020 Nikitina T.G.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies