→ Phraseological adhesions, unity, combination and expression
Phraseological adhesions, unities, combinations and expressions
Phraseological phrases from the point of view of the merging of their constituent parts
Phraseological phrases existing in Russian literary language, are currently an extremely complex and diverse phenomenon. They differ from each other in their origin, stylistic and artistic-expressive qualities and in what they represent in terms of structure, lexical and grammatical composition and the fusion of their constituent parts into a single semantic whole.
From the point of view of merging the parts that make up phraseological units, they can be divided into four groups:
The first two groups make up semantically indivisible phrases. They are equivalent in terms of their meaning to one word. The third and fourth groups, i.e. phraseological combinations and phraseological expressions, are already semantically distinct phrases. Their meaning is equivalent to the semantics of their constituent components.
Phraseological adhesions
Phraseological fusions are those semantically indivisible phraseological units in which the integral meaning is completely incompatible with separate values their constituent words. The meaning of this kind of phraseological units is as unmotivated and completely conditional as the semantics of words with a non-derivative base.
For example, phraseological units “” (idle) and “headlong” (recklessly) are just as unmotivated and symbols phenomena of objective reality, such as compound words such as “imitate”, “peer”, “headlong”, etc., where derivativeness is not felt at all and the meaning of the word is absolutely inconsistent with the meanings of their constituent parts. Indeed, just as the meaning of the word “headlong” is not derived from the meaning of the parts strem- down (cf.: rapids, swift etc.) and chapters(cf.: chief, head etc.), and the meaning of the expression “headlong” is not derived from the meaning of the words roughly And head.
Thus, phraseological fusions are such designations of certain phenomena of reality that are similar to what we observe in words with a non-derivative base, in words in which the attribute underlying the name is no longer felt. The feature underlying the name, both in non-derivative words and in phraseological units, can only be revealed from a historical point of view.
In phraseological fusions, there are essentially no words with their independent meanings. The words they contain do not have any separate meanings. The meaning of the whole is not derived here and does not follow from the meaning of its constituent components.
The expression “the hour is uneven,” which is a phraseological fusion, has the same meaning as “what if” (for example, the hour is uneven, he will notice it). In its semantics, it is completely incompatible with the meanings inherent in the words “uneven” and “hour”.
Such a phrase as “and no nails”, in meaning equal to words“that’s enough”, “that’s enough”, “nothing more”. Its integral meaning as a phraseological unit is not made up of the meanings of words and no nails and does not follow from those individual meanings that are inherent in these words in their free use.
If the elements that make up a phraseological fusion have words that sound the same as them, then this relationship is purely homonymous.
So, for example, the combination of the words “wash the bones”, on the one hand, may appear to us as a phraseological fusion, the meaning of which does not follow from the actual meanings of the individual words “wash” and “bones” (gossip), and on the other hand, it may be free use of these words in their direct, nominative meaning.
Thus, phraseological adjuncts - these are equivalent words that fall under certain grammatical categories as single, absolutely indecomposable semantic units. As examples One can cite such phraseological combinations as “get into trouble”, “sharpen the balusters”, “beat the thumbs”, where there are outdated words that have fallen out of use: screw up(machine for twisting ropes), balusters(turned railing posts), thumbs up(chocks for making small chips).
Secondly, due to the presence of grammatical archaisms within the phraseological fusion.
As examples, we can point out the phraseological adjuncts “at the drop of a hat”, “at breakneck speed”, in which the archaic form will be the gerunds “after”, “breakdown” (in modern Russian, perfective participles are formed, therefore it should be “down”, “ having broken”, and not “later”, “breaking”; the phrase “now you let go” (cf. you let go), “dark is the water in the clouds” (cf. in the clouds) and etc.
Thirdly, due to the absence within its boundaries of a living syntactic connection between its constituent words, the presence of syntactic disorder and lack of differentiation. Compare, for example, phraseological combinations “than light”, “how to drink”, “a joke to tell”, was not”, “anywhere”, “on your mind”, in which there are clear and precise syntactic connections between words, motivated from the point of view of modern grammatical rules, does not exist.
Phraseological unities
The second group of phraseological units consists of phraseological unities. They are phraseological units that, like phraseological fusions, are semantically indivisible and integral, but in them, unlike phraseological fusions, their integral semantics is already motivated by the individual meanings of their constituent words. The indecomposable meaning of phraseological unities arises as a result of the merging of the meanings of their individual constituent parts into a single, generalized, figurative semantics of the whole.
The semantic indivisibility of this kind of phraseological units brings them closer to phraseological units, and their semantic derivativeness, the conditionality of their meaning by the meaning of individual words, distinguishes them from phraseological units.
If we take as examples phraseological unities: “”, “pull the strap”, “bury talent in the ground” “seven Fridays a week” “floats shallowly”, “suck it out of your finger”, “the first pancake is lumpy”, “put your teeth on shelf”, etc., then their meanings, unlike phraseological adjuncts, are derivative, motivated and resulting from the semantics of the words forming them. In this respect, they are similar to words with a derived stem, that is, a stem divisible into morphological parts. However, it should be noted that this motivation, the derivativeness of the phraseological units under consideration, is not direct, but indirect. All very numerous phraseological units in the Russian language are figurative expressions, composite units, the understanding of which is necessarily connected with the understanding of the internal figurative core on which they are built.
The property of really existing imagery is the main property of phraseological unities. This is what distinguishes them from homonymous free combinations of words.
Such combinations of words as: “soap your hair”, “take it into your own hands”, “tuck it into your belt”, “take it for a ride”, etc., are equally possible as phraseological units (then these will be figurative expressions) and as ordinary free combinations of words (then these words will be used in their direct, nominative meanings).
Unlike phraseological adhesions, phraseological unities do not represent a completely frozen mass: their constituent parts can be separated from each other by insertions of other words. This property of phraseological unities sharply separates them not only from phraseological fusions, but also from most phraseological combinations and phraseological expressions.
Phraseological adhesions and phraseological unities as equivalents of words are often combined into one group. In such cases they are usually called idioms or idiomatic expressions. Phraseological adhesions and phraseological unities (“ate the dog”; “in full Ivanovo”, “break into open door"; “neither to the village nor to the city”; “to grind into powder”; “Siamese twins”, etc.) are opposed by phraseological combinations and phraseological expressions that are not semantically indivisible equivalents of words, but are semantically distinct phrases, the meaning of which fully corresponds to the meaning of the words that form them (“furrow eyebrows”; “sworn enemy”; “verification of execution”; “struggle for peace”, etc.).
Phraseological combinations
Phraseological combinations are stable combinations of words in which there are words with both free use and bound ones.
Consider the phrase “bosom friend.” Before us is a phraseological combination made up of two words. Among them, the word “friend” is used freely. It can be combined not only with the word “bosom”, but also with a number of other words, very different in their lexical meaning, expressive-stylistic coloring, etc. As for the word “bosom”, it is, as it were, attached to the word “friend” and can only be used in speech with it.
Another example: phraseological combinations “delicate question”, “delicate situation” - combinations of the word “delicate” with the words “question” and “position”.
The word “ticklish” in the corresponding meaning appears only in combination with these two words, that is, it has a related use. As for the words “question” and “position”. then they have free use and can be combined with a wide variety of words.
Let us give some other examples of phraseological combinations: “break your nose”, “fragile boat”, “pitch hell”, “pitch darkness”, “sudden death”, “grind your teeth”, “bitter frost”, “furrow your eyebrows”, “hang your nose” " etc.
Consequently, phraseological combinations are those kinds of turns that are stable in their composition, which are formed from words with a free and phraseologically related meaning.
Phraseological combinations have almost no free phrases homonymous to them. their peculiarity is that the words included in their composition with phraseologically related meanings can be replaced by synonymous ones ( sudden death - sudden death, bloody nose - break your nose etc.). The wider the circle of words with which a member of a phraseological combination that has a non-free meaning can be linked, the closer this phraseological combination is to the category of phraseological expressions.
Phraseological expressions
Phraseological expressions we should name such phraseological units, stable in their composition and use, which are not only semantically distinct, but also consist entirely of words with free meanings (“all ages are submissive to love”, “wholesale and retail”, “seriously and for a long time”, “ If you are afraid of wolves, don’t go into the forest”, “socialist competition”, “all that glitters is not gold”, etc.).
They differ from phraseological combinations in that they do not contain a single word with a phraseologically related meaning. The words that make them up cannot have synonymous substitutions, which are possible for words with a non-free meaning in a group of phraseological combinations (For example, open your mouth - open your mouth).
By the nature of the connections between the words that make them up and the general meaning, they are no different from free phrases.
the main specific feature that distinguishes them from free combinations of words is that in the process of communication they are not formed by the speaker, like the latter, but are reproduced as ready-made units with a constant composition and meaning.
The use of the phraseological expression “All ages are submissive to love” differs from the use, for example, of the sentence “The poems captivated readers with their sincerity and freshness” in that they are extracted from memory in their entirety, just like a separate word or phraseological units equivalent to a word, while the sentence “The poems captivated the reader with their sincerity and freshness” is created by the speaker according to the laws of Russian grammar from individual words in the very process of communication.
Among phraseological expressions, there are both predicative phrases equal to a sentence and combinations that are part of a sentence: “and Vaska listens and eats; “we are destined for good impulses”, “man - this sounds proud”; “labor success”; “at this stage”; “catch up and overtake”; “without difficulty you can’t even pull a fish out of the pond”; “he looks at a book and sees nothing”; “horseradish is not sweeter than radish”, etc.
The classification of phraseological units, as a rule, is often limited to considering them only from the point of view of the degree of fusion of their constituent parts. However, phraseological units do not represent uniformity in their structure and lexical and grammatical composition.
In phraseological combinations there are words with both free and bound use.
Consider the phrase bosom friend. The word friend is used freely. It can be combined not only with the word bosom, but also with a number of very different words. As for the word bosom, it is, as it were, attached to the word friend and can only be used with it.
The same thing is observed in the phraseological combination sworn enemy, in which the adjective sworn is the “eternal companion” of the noun enemy.
Other examples of phraseological combinations: fragile boat, pitch darkness, bare teeth, bitter frost, frown, etc.
Phraseological combinations have almost no free phrases homonymous to them. Their peculiarity is that their constituent words with phraseologically related meanings can be replaced by synonymous ones (sudden death - sudden death, bloody nose - broken nose, etc.). The wider the circle of words with which a member of a phraseological combination that is not freely used can be combined, the closer this combination is to the category of phraseological expressions.
More on the topic § 38. Phraseological combinations:
- 1.32. Types of phraseological units: phraseological unions, phraseological unities, phraseological combinations
- § 41. Reasons for turning free combinations of words into phraseological units
- 269. Predicate expressed by adverb, participle, interjection and phraseological combination
Glossary of terms
Plan
Intercultural communication
Russian phraseology and problems
Lecture 8
1. Types of phraseological units.
1.1. Phraseological adhesions .
1.2. Phraseological unities.
1.3. Phraseological combinations.
1.4. Syntactic phraseological units.
2.Phraseology and national image of the world.
3. Precedential statements.
An aphorism is a phrase that is known to everyone and, therefore, is not created anew in speech, but is retrieved from memory.
Motto – a short saying, usually expressing the guiding idea of behavior or activity (Our motto is forward!).
Idiomatic – peculiar only to a given language, peculiar.
Canonical – accepted as a model, firmly established.
A cliché is a common figure of speech, a cliche.
A slogan is an appeal that succinctly expresses a political idea or demand (for example, the slogan of the socialist era: The Party is the mind, honor and conscience of our era).
Proverb is a linguistic cliche (phraseologism, proverb, saying, precedent statement).
An appeal is an appeal that in a laconic form expresses a guiding idea, a political demand, a slogan ( All for the elections!).
A prototype situation is a situation that corresponds to the literal meaning of a phraseological unit.
A syntactic phraseological unit is a non-standard, specific construction, the structural properties and semantics of which go beyond the framework of regular syntactic connections and patterns (for example: I wish I could come in the summer!); function and pronominal words, particles and interjections do not function according to the current syntactic rules. Unlike a lexical phraseological unit, a syntactic phraseological unit is not reproduced, but constructed.
Phraseologism - a phrase, general meaning which is not derived from the independent meanings of each word included in it ( roll down an inclined plane -‘decline morally’). The main features of a phraseological unit are stability and reproducibility.
The standard is a sample.
This lecture is devoted to the consideration of the problems of paremia, i.e., the features of semantics and the functioning of language clichés different types and taking these features into account when teaching MCC. We call a cliche any ready-made speech form, the criterion for identifying which is the regularity of its appearance in certain repeating situations. speech situations[Dridze, 1972, p. 43]. Let's focus our attention on phraseological units - units that are especially relevant when teaching ICC.
1. The concept of phraseology
In Russian, as in a number of other languages, words are combined with each other to form phrases. Some of them are free, others are not free. Free combinations of words are constantly formed during speech: the speaker selects words that are necessary in meaning based on knowledge of their meaning and grammatically constructs combinations from them in accordance with the intent and structure of the utterance: drink tea, write with a pen, take part in a play, organize a conference and so on.
Each word in such free combinations of words retains its independent meaning and fulfills a certain purpose. syntactic function. Such combinations are created in the process of speech to achieve a communicative goal (to inform, ask, etc.) in accordance with personal perception, impression in a certain situation. Such combinations are not stored in memory: circumstances change and new free combinations arise.
There are also related combinations in the language, for example, cross someone's path‘to prevent you from getting your way’: I know why he behaves this way. Once I crossed his path - I won a competition for the position for which he applied. Independent meaning of component words in a phrase cross the road weakened, since the nominative properties of words have disappeared, and therefore the meaning of the entire phrase is no longer connected with the semantics of each word separately. Lexically, such a combination is indivisible and is reproduced in speech as a ready-made speech unit. The role of the phrase as a whole is considered syntactically, and not each word separately. Such semantically indivisible phrases, which are characterized by constancy of integral meaning, are called phraseological units of language (or phraseological units, phraseological units).
The main semantic feature of a phraseological unit is semantic unity, cohesion, the essence of which is essentially that the general meaning of a phraseological unit is not derived from the independent meanings of each word included in it (cf., for example, phraseological units small fry– about an insignificant person from the point of view of social status, shot sparrow- about an experienced, experienced person, fool someone's head- not allowing you to concentrate on the main thing, the main thing, to confuse, to fool someone).
The meaning of phraseological units is specific. First of all, the meaning of a phraseological unit (PU) is always richer than the meaning of a synonymous word (or words). It is never equivalent to the volume of meaning of the synonym word. So, kick your ass- ϶ᴛᴏ not just ‘idle’, but busy with trifles; put a spoke in wheel- not only ‘to interfere or impede’, but to do it while someone is doing something, as if in the course of it; wash dirty linen in public- ϶ᴛᴏ when the one to whom they were confidentially told gossips or divulges other people’s secrets. This means that the meaning of phraseological units is always more detailed than the meaning of words.
Secondly, the meaning of most phraseological units is situational. This feature of phraseological units requires not only knowledge of their meaning, but also the situations in which they can be used. Yes, in FE turn up one's nose, in addition to the meaning of ‘to put on airs’, it contains information that previously the speaker and the one in question were on equal terms, and now the latter is boasting of his higher social or material position.
The next feature of phraseological units is the evaluative nature of the meaning. Most phraseological units, thanks to the image that underlies them, not only denote any fragment of reality, but also express the positive or negative opinion of the speaker about what is denoted. At the same time, the speaker evaluates whether it is good or bad, kind or evil, useful or harmful. For example, phraseology turn up one's nose, along with the above content, expresses the negative opinion of the person using this phrase: self-importance is a bad human trait.
The images on the basis of which phraseological units are formed can themselves provide an assessment of the signified. So, put a spoke in someone's wheels - bad, but give a green street - Fine.
Most phraseological units, in addition to the speaker’s evaluative attitude, also express an emotional attitude. It is also suggested by the image. When they say: We are forced to work until exhaustion, then they describe and evaluate only the designated situation. But if they say: They're squeezing all the juice out of us, then they also count on the sympathy and empathy of the listener, since in the meaning of a phraseological unit there is also co-signification - emotional disapproval of what is denoted (cf.
Posted on ref.rf
in a statement You're leading me by the nose the speaker accuses the interlocutor of disdainful attitude towards him).
From the above examples it is clear that phraseological units are a kind of microtexts in which, in addition to a figurative description of the actual fragment of reality being designated, there are also connotations (connotations) expressing the speaker’s evaluative or emotional attitude to the signified. The addition of these meanings creates the effect of expressiveness or expressiveness of phraseological units.
Phraseologism has a number of significant features:
1) stability,
2) reproducibility,
3) integrity of meaning,
4) separate design.
Stability (constancy, stability) and reproducibility - ϶ᴛᴏ regular repetition of phraseological units in finished form. Phrases are reproduced and not constructed in speech each time anew based on the communicative situation.
The integrity of the meaning of a phraseological unit is due to the fact that the meaning of a phraseological unit is difficult or impossible to derive from the meaning of its constituent parts. The integrity of the meaning of a phraseological unit is achieved by complete or partial rethinking of the components. As a result, they tend to differ in meaning from the corresponding freely used words. So, for example, it is impossible to phraseologically break into pieces‘try, exhaustingly, to do everything possible’ interpreted by interpreting the meanings of words break, cake(cf.
Posted on ref.rf
count crows, hold a stone in your bosom, seven spans in your forehead, two steps away).
Separate structure is an important feature characterizing appearance PU (plane of expression). All phraseological units have a separate structure, that is, they are constructed according to the model of various combinations of words.
Following V.V. Vinogradov, based on the criterion of syntactic and semantic indecomposability of a phrase, freedom/non-freedom of the words included in it, it is customary to distinguish several types of phraseological units - phraseological adhesions, phraseological unities and phraseological combinations.
1.1.F Raseological adhesions
Phraseological fusions are lexically indivisible phrases, the meanings of which are not determined by the meaning of the individual words included in them (for example, kick your ass'sit back', from the bay-floundering'rashly', Sodom and Gomorrah‘turmoil, noise’ carelessly'carelessly', how to give something to drink‘certainly’. The meaning of these phrases is not motivated by the meaning of the constituent elements. The main feature of phraseological fusions is its indivisibility, absolute semantic cohesion, in which the meaning of the whole phrase should not be deduced from the meaning of its constituent words. (Wed.
Posted on ref.rf
Also topsy-turvy, hand on heart, extremely bad, from young to old, without hesitation, in broad daylight, on one’s mind, to tell a joke, to be amazed).
1.2. F raseological unities
Phraseological units are lexical units, the general meaning of which is to some extent motivated figurative meaning words that make up this phrase. Eg, general meaning such unities as splurge, go with the flow, keep a stone in your bosom, go into your shell, suck blood and milk out of your finger and etc.
Posted on ref.rf
depends on the value individual elements, which make up the figurative “rod” of the entire revolution. Unlike adhesions, the imagery of which is extinct, already unmotivated and completely independent of the meaning of the constituent elements, phraseological unities “have the property of potential imagery” [Vinogradov, 1972, p. 26]. This allows some scientists to call phrases of this type metaphorical combinations. In contrast to fusions, parts of phraseological units are separated from each other by the insertion of some words: pour water into (your, my, your) mill;
Phraseological combinations − such stable phrases, the overall meaning of which completely depends on the meaning of the constituent words. Words as part of a phraseological combination retain relative semantic independence, but are not free and manifest their meaning only in combination with a certain, closed circle of words, for example: word tearfully can only be combined with words ask, beg. Consequently, one of the members of the phraseological combination turns out to be more stable and even constant, the other - variable. The meaning of constant words (components) is phraseologically related. For example: in combinations burn with shame And melancholy takes over will be permanent burn out And beret, since these words will turn out to be the main (core) elements in other phraseological combinations: burn out - from shame, from disgrace, from disgrace; burn out- from love; burn out– from impatience, envy; beret- frustration, anger; takes - fear, horror; beret- laughter. The use of other components is impossible (cf.: *burn with joy, *takes smile). The meanings of such words are phraseologically related in the system of these phrases, that is, they are realized only with a certain range of words. Despite the phraseological closedness of the turns of this type, even lexically non-free components can be (without prejudice to the general phraseological meaning) replaced by a synonym (cf.: lower your head - lower your head; sit in a puddle - sit in a galosh; frown - frown). This creates conditions for the emergence of phraseological unities, and often synonyms [Vinogradov, 1977]. Phraseological units have idiomatic semantics, reproducibility, syntactic articulation, which does not prevent them from performing functions in a phrase similar to the functions of individual word forms; by their nominative nature, phraseological units are almost equal to the word [Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 1990, p. 81–82].
2. Syntactic phraseological units
Today it is also customary to distinguish a special group of phraseological units called syntactic phraseological units. These are “non-standard, specific constructions, the structural properties and semantics of which go beyond the framework of regular syntactic connections and patterns. Eg: I wish I could come in the summer!; What a relaxing time there!; So that when he is late!ʼʼ[Velichko, 1996, p. 5]. “Russian grammar” calls syntactic phraseological units “such constructions in which the connections and relationships of components from the point of view of living grammatical rules turn out to be inexplicable” [Russian grammar, 1980, p. 217]. Syntactic phraseological units in Russian grammar include sentences in which “word forms are associated with each other idiomatically” and where “functional and pronominal words, particles and interjections do not function according to the current syntactic rules” [Ibid., p. 383]. A syntactic phraseological unit differs from a lexical one in that it is “not reproduced, but constructed” [Velichko, 1996, p. 10]. Syntactic and lexical phraseological units are distinguished, as a rule, by stylistic and emotional expressiveness.
Syntactic phraseological units, unlike lexical ones, are not among the nominative means of language; they play a somewhat lesser role in the storage and transmission of cultural information, but consideration of these units in the sociocultural aspect allows us to identify characteristics reflection in the language of the specifics of national perception and categorization of the surrounding reality. A.V. Velichko rightly points out: “When considering syntactic phraseological units (SPs) in the sociocultural aspect, their dual nature can be traced. On the one hand, SF reflect in their semantics the properties of the human personality, a person outside of him nationality. (...) On the other hand, SF are specific Russian constructs, since they reflect the peculiarities of the Russian national mentality, the nature of the awareness of the real world by the Russian person. (...) This explains, for example, the extreme detail of the assessment, represented by a large number of evaluative syntactic phraseological units (These are flowers! Roses are flowers/ Flowers for all flowers! Why not flowers! Flowers for me too!)ʼʼ[Cit. from: Gudkov, p. 82, p. 108].
3. Phraseology and national image of the world
Since the peculiarity of a phraseological unit is that its meaning is not reducible to the sum of the meanings of its constituent units, it is obvious that phraseological units present special difficulties for foreigners studying the Russian language. So, for example, in Korean there is a phraseological expression eat kuksu. Even knowing what it is kuksu, you can’t guess that we are talking about a wedding. The fact is that the etymology of this expression is associated with the ancient Korean custom of eating guksu at a wedding. For this reason, the question “When will we eat kuksu?” should be understood as “When will you get married?”
Phraseologisms arise on the basis of a prototype situation, that is, a situation corresponding to the literal meaning of the phraseological unit. Prototypes reflect national (in our case, Russian) culture, since “genetically free phrases describe certain customs, traditions, details of life and culture, historical events and much more” [Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 1990, p. 60]. (For example, prototypes of phraseological units can tell about typical Russian flora: from a forest and from a pine tree, some to the forest, some for firewood, as in dark forest). A certain content is assigned to a situation - the result of rethinking a given situation in a given specific cultural code. This situation is symbolic in nature, because it stands out and is fixed in the collective memory. Its rethinking is born on the basis of some stereotypes, standards, myths, which are the implementation of the cultural concepts of a given society. Due to the fact that the stereotypes and standards to which the images that form phraseological units are oriented have a certain value, any phraseological unit that fits into the system of the cultural code of a given community acquires an evaluative meaning. It automatically accepts a general assessment of the concept on the basis (or within the framework) of which a given phraseological unit is formed.
The patterns of rethinking the prototype situation arise within a certain area, formed on the basis of religious, mythological, ideological views. For this reason, for example, in languages common in the area of Christian civilization, common conceptual metaphors are found that have their origins in customs, traditions and cultural attitudes common to the Slavic peoples. However, each linguistic and cultural ethnic community has its own, nationally specific rethinking.
One of the significant oppositions for Slavic (including Russian) culture is the opposition between top and bottom. In mythological (and later religious) consciousness, the top was associated with the location of the divine principle, the bottom - the location of hell, the Underworld - the symbolic space of the Fall. In the 17th–early 19th centuries. There was a miniature depicting a sinner and a sinner being dragged downhill to hell by a demon. Based on these ideas, ascent, spiritual ascent was associated with approaching God, the divine principle, with moral improvement; moving an object down was associated with moral decline, immoral behavior. Thanks to these ideas, it is likely that the phrases roll down, roll down a slippery slope, decline in morals, fail out of shame, fall through the ground, fall in the eyes of someone, have gained stability and reproducibility in the Russian language.
PU stand/stand across someone’s road ‘to stand on life path for someone, to interfere with the achievement of a goal for someone, to create obstacles for someone in life' is associated with the superstitious prohibition to cross the road for someone walking - otherwise he will not have good luck (the same origin of phraseological units is to cross / cross the road, cross / cross the road of someone -or). In general, a whole series of phraseological units and metaphors are based on linguistic metaphors ʼʼlife - ϶ᴛᴏ movementʼʼ, ʼʼmovement - ϶ᴛᴏ developmentʼʼ, for example, to pave one's way with one's forehead 'persistently, stubbornly, at the cost of great effort, to achieve success in life', to pave one's way with one's chest 'to achieve success, overcoming all obstacles', climb the mountain 'achieve high position in society’, put someone on the road ‘help someone find their business and place in life, creating the necessary conditions', to turn to the path of truth 'under the influence of someone to change one's behavior in better side', go far ahead 'change significantly', not advance a single step 'not at all, not at all'; Wed
Posted on ref.rf
also a start in life, on the path to success, to stand at a crossroads. The image is highly productive due to the fact that the perception of life as a path is fixed in the everyday consciousness of Russians (cf.
Posted on ref.rf
He also walked the path to the end, and in Korean, He walked the circle of life; I met many good and kind people along the way; Wed
Posted on ref.rf
in the jargon advanced, to slow down). In Russian culture, the image of the path is one of the central ones due to the richness of the semantic structure of the concept underlying it, which provides unlimited possibilities for a variety of metaphorical constructions when creating images.
Many phraseological units are, according to V.N. Telia, figuratively motivated secondary names [Telia, 1996, p. 82], revealing associative connections, culturally significant frames and specific images abstract concepts. Thus, using the example of the quoted author, we can describe the image of “conscience” in the national consciousness of Russians: “Conscience is a kind and at the same time punishing messenger of God in the soul, a “channel” of God’s control over the soul of a person who has his own voice - the voice of conscience, speaks - conscience has spoken, cleanses - a clear conscience, a bad conscience - sick, it torments, torments the subject, to act according to conscience means in a divine, fair way, and when there is no conscience, then the soul is open to spiritual permissiveness, etc. All these connotations indicate that that conscience in the Russian consciousness is a regulator of behavior according to the laws highest moralityʼʼ [Ibid., p. 84].
Phraseologisms probably most clearly reflect the national image of the world, imprinted in the language, determined by it and fixed in it. They embody “objectification” general concepts, whose names, appearing in extra-free combinations, turn out to be metaphorically and metonymically associated with specific persons or things. These concepts are subject to “materialization” in the language; it is the irrational compatibility of a name, revealed in clichéd phrases, which include phraseological units, that makes it possible to identify the linguistic archetypes behind the name [Cherneyko, 1997], to recreate language picture peace. It is no coincidence that scientists involved in conceptual analysis pay attention in their research to Special attention to non-free combinations of a name, behind which stands the concept they are interested in. So, for example, hope appears to Russians as something fragile, a kind of shell, hollow inside - broken hopes, empty hope; authority is something massive, column-shaped and at the same time devoid of stability - crush with your authority, shaky authority, knowledge, wisdom are something liquid, because they can be drunk (cf.
Posted on ref.rf
thirst for knowledge) etc.
We agree that the study of such combinations, which most fully reveal the associative and connotative connections of names that denote key concepts of national culture, allows us to describe such concepts.
4. Precedent statements
Let us now turn to another type of clichéd combinations, which E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov call linguistic aphorisms and which, in their opinion, have the syntactic form of a phrase, while phraseological units have the syntactic form of a phrase [Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 1990 , pp.71-76]. Understanding a linguistic aphorism as a phrase that is known to everyone and, therefore, is not created anew in speech, but is retrieved from memory [Ibid., p. 71], these scientists highlight following types similar units:
1) proverbs and sayings - oral short sayings dating back to folklore: They count the chickens in the fall, Don't say hello until you jump over, It's time for business, it's time for fun;
2) winged words, i.e. short quotes, figurative expressions, sayings of historical figures included in our speech from literary sources: To be or not to be. That is the question; And nothing has changed; We wanted the best, but it turned out as always;
3) appeals, mottos, slogans and other catchphrases that express certain philosophical, social, political views (Study, study, and study again...; Freedom, equality, fraternity);
4) social scientific formulas ( Being determines consciousness) and natural scientific formulations [Ibid., p. 71–72].
The authors point out that “phraseologisms act as signs of concepts, and in this regard they are meaningfully equivalent to words; aphorisms are signs of situations or relationships between things, and semantically they are equivalent to sentencesʼʼ [Ibid., p. 92].
As is easy to see, the above classification is carried out on the basis of the origin of those units that Vereshchagin and Kostomarov call linguistic aphorisms. D.B. Gudkov uses the term precedent statement (PV), the definition of which has already been given above (see lecture 6).
The semantics and functioning of PVs is determined not so much by their origin as by other factors. As observations of the modern Russian language show (first of all - orally and the language of the media), it is very difficult to distinguish between the use of, for example, “folklore” precedent statements and precedent statements-quotations from classical works [see, for example, Zakharenko, 1997]. It seems justified to distinguish precedent statements: 1) strictly related to any precedent text (Tell me, uncle...; At the behest of the pike, at my will...);2) “autonomous” a) having lost contact with the PT that gave birth to them (How beautiful, how fresh the roses were) b) have never had one (Go slower- you will continue).
The generation and perception of PVs belonging to the first and second types will differ from each other. As already indicated, to form the meaning of the text in which the PV appears, highest value plays, as a rule, not the superficial, but the deep meaning of the latter. Thus, the surface value of PV Was there a boy?(doubt about the existence of a certain boy, expressed in the form of a question) turns out to be “transparent”, its deep meaning comes to the fore, and this statement is used to express doubt about the existence of something/someone in general. Precedential statements are almost always associated with a precedent text and/or with a precedent situation (Cf.
Posted on ref.rf
But that’s a completely different story). Accordingly, when using and perceiving PV, a certain precedent situation and/or some precedent text is updated in the minds of speakers.
When “autonomous” precedent utterances are generated in the speaker’s mind, the real speech situation reproduces a certain precedent situation, which acts as a standard for situations of this type in general. Accordingly, when perceiving such a precedent utterance, the recipient understands it as a signifier, the signified of which is a certain precedent situation, and this latter is compared by the recipient with the speech situation (cf.
Posted on ref.rf
using expressions such as Eureka!; Russia is great, but there is nowhere to retreat!).
A somewhat different picture is observed when communicants operate with PV that is strictly connected with the precedent text. In this case, with the general action of the mechanism described above, the picture is somewhat different, because in the linguistic consciousness of the speakers of a certain national cultural code, the precedent situation finds its standard expression in one or another PT and is updated through the actualization of the PT in which it is represented (I gave birth to you, I will kill you!– about a strict father punishing his son, and not necessarily as radically as in the corresponding PT; Manuscripts don't burn!– about the incorruptibility of the results of human creativity, and not necessarily literary ones).
In accordance with the three levels of meaning of a statement (surface, deep and systemic meaning), it is possible to distinguish PVs, the use of which actualizes various of these levels:
1) PVs that have only superficial meaning:
Frost and sun– wonderful day!
There are two troubles in Russia–roads and fools!
The functional meaning of the statement (i.e. “who, when and where” uses the precedent statement, what, why and why the author of the text containing this statement wants to say) must be understood without knowledge of the corresponding PF;
2) PVs with surface and deep values:
The people are silent...– the superficial meaning (general silence) is present, but turns out to be “transparent”, and this PV begins to be used to express “obedient disobedience”, acquiring an additional symbolic meaning of the relationship between the authorities and the people;
3) PV, the surface meaning of which is virtually absent, and through the deep one the systemic meaning is updated:
Monomakh's hat is heavy...– we are talking, naturally, not about the hat and not even only about the burden of power, but about the burden of worries that someone takes upon themselves.
The use of PVs of all three mentioned types turns out to be quite frequent in the speech of modern Russian speakers (especially in the language of the media of the most different directions), while understanding texts in which precedent statements of the last two types appear presents great difficulties for foreigners, even those who speak Russian well. (for more details, see Zakharenko, Krasnykh, 1997; Krasnykh, 2001].
When analyzing the use of PV, another classification of these units, which can be divided into two groups, seems extremely important:
1) “canonical” PV; they act as a strict quotation, not subject to changes: For what? - Just; Birds don't sing here...;
2) transformed PV; they undergo certain changes. Despite this, full text PV is easily recognized and restored:
When actors were big;
Our proud “Varyag” does not surrender to Kuchma.
What is eternity - bathhouse,
Eternity is a bathhouse with spiders.
In case this bathhouse
Manka will forget,
What will happen to the Motherland and to us?
(V. Pelevin. ʼʼGeneration ʼʼ Pʼʼ).
The difference in the functioning of these two types of statements is essentially that the transformed precedent statement is first compared with the “canonical” one, and then the mechanism discussed above begins to work. At the same time, the surface meaning of the transformed PV is never “transparent”; it is always actively involved in the formation of the meaning of the utterance. The main emphasis in in this case falls on exactly that word or phrase, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ replaces ʼʼclassicalʼʼ in ʼʼcanonicalʼʼ PV, i.e. a technique is actively used that should be called ʼʼdeceived expectationʼʼ Consider an example we borrowed from I.V. Zakharenko and V.V. Krasnykh.
"East– it's a dead thing"– subtitle of the section of the article on the collapse of the USSR, which deals with the Central Asian republics. The deep meaning of the statement is to emphasize that the situation is delicate, requiring knowledge and careful handling; this is emphasized by the precise PV: East is a delicate matter. Specified valueʼʼis removedʼʼ due to the use of a ʼʼlowʼ word in the transformed PV, and the main one falls to ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ semantic load. In this way, the author expresses his skepticism about the possibilities of any serious changes in the Central Asian republics.
Let us repeat the main points of the lecture. In ICC, it is extremely important to pay attention to the phenomena of paremia, namely, to the ways of storing and presenting cultural information by linguistic and speech clichés of various types.
Among the latter, we highlight, firstly, phraseological units, which can be divided into lexical and syntactic. The main feature of both is that their value is not reducible to the sum of the values of their constituent units. Lexical phraseological units clearly and clearly reflect the national “image of the world”, the specificity of the worldview and worldview of the surrounding reality inherent in a particular linguistic and cultural community. In these units, the key concepts of national culture and national consciousness are “materialized,” “reified.”
In addition to phraseological units, precedent statements are highlighted. Οʜᴎ are included in the KB of the linguocultural community, are in close relationship with other precedent phenomena, are actively used by native speakers and pose serious difficulties for foreign speakers.
PTs can be classified: a) on the basis of connection with the precedent text (related to PT/ʼʼautonomousʼʼ); b) based on connection with three levels of meaning of the statement (surface, deep, systemic meaning); c) based on the method of reproduction (transformed/non-transformed). Texts in which PVs are present, as a rule, are distinguished by their pronounced expressiveness.
Questions and tasks
1. What types of phraseological units are divided into?
2. How is the national-cultural specificity of phraseological units expressed?
3. Give examples of syntactic phraseological units. Do such phraseological units exist in other languages?
4. What is meant by a linguistic aphorism? How do linguistic aphorisms relate to phraseological units? Illustrate with examples.
5. What proverbs are used in the title, explain their meaning:
a) Economic reform in China. Is it possible to catch two birds with one stone?
b) With the world by a thread - deceived into a caftan?
c) Strip and conquer.
d) Is it worth taking SORM out of the hut? (SORM is a system of technical means of facilitating operational-search activities).
e) “A thin mayor” is better than a good quarrel.
e) Far East Now it will be in Khristenko’s bosom.
5. What is the mechanism for using precedent statements?
6. Select a newspaper text that would use PV. Classify it.
7. Outline the classification of PV based on the levels of representation of meaning.
8. What are “canonical” PVs and transformed PVs? Give examples. Identify the source and authorship (if possible) of the content used in the titles:
A) “Russia is cutting a new window to Europe”?
B) They sow the crazy, evil, instant...
C) And tomorrow your money will be there...
D) Different mice are important... (about computer mice).
D) Who can live well on the fragments of the empire?
E) The splendor and poverty of Russian governors.
G) Mullet, you always think about us.
H) Lenin's body lives and wins.
I) The President's mistake.
9. Read a fragment of a study of the national specifics of Russian phraseological units. Try to correlate Russian phraseological units with phraseological units (with the same meanings or with the same figurative bases) in another language. Prove that phraseological units and metaphors reflect the national image of the world.
In every language, stable, traditionally repeated combinations of words are widely used. They are opposed to variable phrases that are freely created in the process of speech.
Let's look at some examples first. variables combinations: new table, long table, move the table, put the pencil on the table-table by the window. Of course, these combinations are formed according to certain rules, according to syntactic models specified in advance, before the act of speech (cf. agreement, use of case forms, etc.). At the same time, in terms of specific lexical composition, i.e. from the point of view of the use of these data, and not any other words, all these combinations are composed completely freely, depending only on the thought expressed and the situation described, on the desire of the speaker to highlight, emphasize certain aspects of this situation. Variable phrases should be considered as speech combinations of linguistic signs - words.
Let us now give examples sustainable combinations with the same word table: - desk, dinner table, set the table, remove the tar, sit at the table, sit at the same table(i.e. "start negotiations"), (put on a table(in the sense of “present in finished form” - about manuscripts, books, etc.), Cards on the table!(i.e. "reveal your plans"). In stable combinations, not only the general grammatical model, but also the specific lexical composition of the entire combination is specified in advance, that is, before the act of speech. It is not created anew at the moment of speech, in relation to a given thought, it is not assembled “on the fly” from words, but already exists, is stored in a ready-made, “assembled” form in the memory of native speakers and, like words, is retrieved from memory when it a need arises. Stable combinations are sometimes called “linguistic clichés” (or “clichés”); they are inserted entirely into our speech. Stable combinations are not speech combinations of signs, but special complex signs. Above we called them “compound lexemes”.
The conditions that create stability and traditional reproducibility of a phrase may be different.
There are words that have a very narrow, selective compatibility with other words - up to single compatibility. So, bosom only goes well with Friend, A nemesis- only with enemy; nevermind absolutely guarantees predicts either not in sight or can not see. In these cases, the stability of the combination is created by the very fact of a single compatibility of one of the components.
More often, however, the reason for stability lies elsewhere - in the more or less distinct semantic isolation of the phrase, in one or another value shift. Stable combinations with a similar shift (it is clearly revealed when compared with the same words outside the framework of this combination) are called phraseological units, and the science that studies them is phraseology.
In phraseological units, the so-called idioms, there is a general shift in meaning affecting all components. Examples include the expressions sit at the same table" start negotiations" Cards on the table!, white coal"the energy of rivers converted (or capable of being converted) into electricity", how to give something to drink"surely". Here, all components are used in shifted, specific, figurative meanings, or even (in the last example) without any clear meaning at all, so that, despite their morphological “separateness,” they cannot even truly be considered words. The holistic meaning of an idiom is not reducible to the sum of the meanings of its components. This irreducibility of the integral meaning to the sum of the meanings of the parts is called idiomaticity.
Both phraseological units and idioms can be motivated or, on the contrary, have lost their motivation. All the above phraseological units are motivated from the point of view of the given state of the language; An example of unmotivated phraseological units is the expression case tobacco"things are bad." Motivated idioms:
sit at the same table, white coal, keep a stone in your bosom, wash dirty linen in public. The meaning of the idiom in these cases is still potentially deducible from the structure and composition of the idiom - the underlying image is more or less clear. Here are examples of idioms that lack motivation in modern language: headlong, damn it, no matter what, (shout) at the top of Ivanovo. Motivated idioms and phraseological units are sometimes called phraseological units , and unmotivated (from the point of view of a given state of language) - phraseological adjuncts .
To restore the lost motivation of phraseological units, a special etymological analysis, various kinds of historical information, etc. are needed. So, headlong associated with the superstitious idea that by “outlining” your head (that is, by drawing a line around it), you can insure yourself against the hostile influence of “evil spirits” and after that, no longer fearing anything, embark on any risky business; in all Ivanovo - originally meant the square in front of Ivan the Great in the Moscow Kremlin, where the royal decrees were loudly announced for all to hear. The motivation of many phraseological units remains unclear.
Of course, the boundaries between the types considered are not sharp. Everywhere there are intermediate, transitional cases. As a special group, we can distinguish those phraseological units in which there is both a single compatibility of one of the components (or the uniqueness of the grammatical form) and a clear semantic shift, for example beat the thumbs, sharpen the lasses, turuses on wheels, cornerstone, fold(instead of the usual folded) hands, a parable of the town"the subject of general conversation and gossip." And here, in some cases, the motivation is clear (for example, in arms folded) in others - darkened or completely lost.
From their point of view syntactic functions Among the stable combinations, the following stand out: 1) equivalent to words with possible further subdivisions - equivalent to verbs (wash dirty linen in public) noun (white coal), adverbs (headlong) etc. or, in other terms, “functioning as a predicate”, “functioning as an adverbial”, etc. and 2) used as whole sentences (Cards on the table! Damn it! It's a matter of tobacco). The second section includes folk proverbs and sayings, maxims and aphorisms from literary works, etc.
Phraseologisms are very diverse and from the point of view of their belonging to functional styles. Many of them are colloquial, vernacular, and some are even vulgar (hit the cap, the reins are under the tail, get into trouble, play the fool), others, on the contrary, are used in book styles (Procrustean bed, Sisyphean labor, sink into oblivion, sword of Damocles). Some stable combinations are completely devoid of emotional connotation (for example, complex terms like specific gravity, soft landing, labeled atoms, black box, folk etymology, parts of speech, differential feature), but others have more "emotional charge."
Speaking about phraseological units, their national originality is often noted. Undoubtedly, in every language there are many that are specific in form, motivation, and meaning. This originality is especially clearly manifested in those phraseological units that reflect the specific features of folk life and the specific history of the people. Wed. the above in full Ivanovo or: Bread and salt!; The hut is not red in its corners, but red in its pies; travel to Tula with your samovar; the language will take you to Kyiv; Monomakh's hat; Here's to you, grandma, St. George's Day/, Potemkin villages; many “catch phrases” from works of national literature, for example: Pass us by more than all sorrows and lordly anger and lordly love!(Griboyedov); There is life in the old dog yet!(Gogol).
At the same time, for phraseological units in which national specificity is clearly manifested, it is sometimes possible to find parallels that are close in meaning (albeit differently constructed and differently motivated) among phraseological units of another language. Yes, our travel to Tula with your samovar the meaning is quite consistent in English to carry coals to Newcastle - letters "to transport coal to Newcastle" (one of the coal mining centers in England).
Along with this, there are many “international” phraseological units that have entered many languages as a result of interaction between cultures. These are, in particular, numerous “winged words” that go back to the text of the Bible (so-called biblicalisms), for example pandemonium of Babylon, the prodigal son, wash your hands, dig a hole for another, vanity of vanities, the stumbling block, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, a colossus with feet of clay, regardless of faces, the book with seven seals; No(or There is no) prophet in his own country; Do not make yourself an idol; quotes from works of world literature, for example pour oil on the flame(Horace); Appetite comes with eating(Rabelais); The connection between times has broken(Shakespeare); “catch phrases” of prominent historical figures, e.g. I came, I saw, I conquered(Julius Caesar).
A common fact for all languages of the world is the creation idioms(Greek idioma – a peculiar expression), or phrases(gr. phrasis - expression, figure of speech) - stable, indecomposable combinations of words. The creation of such units occurs due to the frequent repetition of word combinations. Phraseology, or idiom, thus, 1. The science of stable figures of speech. 2. The stock of idioms or phrases in the language.
Stable figures of speech are contrasted with free combinations of words. Free combinations of words differ in that the words in them have their own eigenvalue and therefore can be combined with many other words of the language. For example, the word sharpen can be combined with different words: scissors, knife, saw, pencil and so on.; word eat also free in its combinations, for example, eat ice cream, bun, dinner, pancakes and so on.
In free phrases, the meanings of individual words are, as it were, added up, “summed up” by the speaker, and the general meaning of the phrase clearly follows from the meanings of the words included in the combination. Collocations sharpen scissors, eat ice cream have a meaning that is determined by the words included in the combination. In this case, there is also a correspondence between the articulation of form and the articulation of content, meaning, i.e. each of these free combinations consists of two units (from the point of view of form) and two units (from the point of view of meaning). A free combination of words, as a rule, is created in the process of speech, “manufactured” by the speaker in accordance with his needs in expressing thoughts, feelings and moods.
Stable combinations of words, or phraseological units, are characterized by the unity of components, integrity of meaning, constancy of composition and structure, as well as reproducibility, for example: lead by the nose, tuck in the belt, soap the neck, remove the shavings, eat the dog, grated roll. Phraseologism enters our speech as a ready-made element of language. It is not “made” by the speaker, but only used by him.
Phraseologisms in meaning they are equal to a word, but in structure they coincide with it very rarely, usually it is a phrase, part of a sentence and a whole sentence: carelessly(phrase), where Makar does not herd calves(subordinate clause of the sentence), do not count your chickens before they are hatched(indefinite personal sentence). In a sentence, phraseological units often play the role of one member of a sentence and, in general, can be decomposed into members of a sentence only formally, but not in meaning. Phraseologisms can be considered from the same points of view as vocabulary: take into account polysemy, group into synonymous and antonymic groups, characterize stylistically, etc.
Following Vinogradov V.V. It is customary to distinguish three groups of phraseological units from the point of view of their semantic unity: phraseological fusions, phraseological unities and phraseological combinations.
Phraseological conjunctions – such semantically indivisible phraseological units in which the holistic meaning is completely incompatible with the individual meanings of their constituent words. For example, kick your ass– to sit back. Experts note that phraseological fusions are such designations of certain phenomena of reality in which the attribute underlying the name is no longer felt. This motivational feature can only be revealed from an etymological point of view. As a rule, phraseological fusions are equivalents of words subsumed under certain grammatical categories as single, absolutely indecomposable semantic units. Can be called signs of adhesions:
1. The presence in the phraseological unit of outdated and therefore incomprehensible words: get into trouble, sharpen the balusters, hit the bullshit(screw up– machine for twisting threads; balusters– posts for railings; thumbs up- chocks for making small chips).
2. The presence of grammatical archaisms. For example, carelessly, headlong. In modern Russian, perfect participles are formed using suffixes - c, lice (lowering, breaking). Examples of grammatical archaisms include: now you let go(you let go) dark water in the clouds(in the clouds).
3. The absence of a living syntactic connection between its constituent words, the presence of syntactic disorder and lack of differentiation. Let's face it, it's a joke, it wasn't, it was on my mind- in these and similar fusions, clear and precise connections between words, motivated from the point of view of modern grammatical rules, do not exist.
Phraseological unities- such phraseological units, which are also semantically indivisible and integral, but in them their integral semantics is already motivated by the individual meanings of their constituent words. They are distinguished from phraseological fusions by their semantic derivativeness, the conditionality of their meaning by the meaning of individual words: cast a fishing rod, pull the strap, bury your talent in the ground, seven Fridays a week, swims shallowly, the first pancake is lumpy etc. However, this motivation, the production of meanings, is not direct, but indirect.
The property of really existing imagery is the main property of phraseological unities. This is what distinguishes them from homonymous free combinations of words.
To lather your head, to take it in your hands, to tuck it into your belt, to ride it on a black horse - these are equally possible both as phraseological units (then these will be figurative expressions) and as ordinary free combinations of words (then they will be used in their direct, nominative meanings).
Unlike phraseological adhesions, phraseological unities do not represent a completely frozen mass: their constituent parts can be separated from each other by insertions of other words.
Phraseological adhesions and unities are often combined into one group, in such cases they are usually called idioms or idiomatic expressions.
Phraseological combinations- these are phrases in which there are words with both free and bound use. For example, bosom friend. Word Friend has free use (it can be combined not only with the word bosom), and the word bosom has limited use. Examples of combinations: sworn enemy, sensitive question, bloody nose (lips), pitch hell (darkness), bare teeth, biting frost, furrowed eyebrows etc.
The peculiarity of phraseological combinations is that their constituent words with phraseologically related meanings can be replaced by synonymous ones: suddenly- suddenly, leaven- break. The wider the range of words with which a member of a phraseological combination that is not freely used can be combined, the closer this phraseological combination is to the category of phraseological expressions.
Phraseologisms have purely national character and are almost untranslatable from one language to another, but translations are still possible: The end of the matter is the crown- from lat. Finis coranat opus.
The dog is buried here- from it. Da ist der Hund begraben.
Many phraseological units exist in languages in their own national uniform:
lat. Aut Caesar, aut nigil (or Caesar, or nothing).
lat. Memento mori (remember death), etc.
Literature
Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language / Ed. A.I. Molotkov. – M., 1987.
Related information.