Bendrieji lyginamųjų frazeologizmų bruožai ir kategoriniai požymiai

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGES SPECIAL LEXICON LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS, XXII (1983) K. VOSYLYTE BENDRIEH COMPARING Phraseology BRUOZAI IR CATEGORY POZIMIAI § 1. In Lithuanian, as in other ir languages, there are many traditional comparisons, e.g. : (swallowing) like a kite pile; (drunk) like smoke; (grunts) like a cat, breaking its tail; (prikibo) as a snail to the tekinio etc. ir However, for a jų long time, constant comparisons of Lithuanian with other languages did not receive sufficient attention from ir phraseologists. Let's say, presented inthe bibliography of phraseology studies! 1965 m. je about comparative phraseologisms only mentioned ra about ten articles, most of which were written 1964 m. Thus, only recently in our country a broader interest in to comparative phraseology has been shown, the importance of research is emphasized. Individual articles, in which comparative jų phraseologisms are mentioned among other phraseologisms or comparisons, have occurred a little earlier?, Extensive studies on comparative phraseologisms are almost not so far, but in individual articles in ir works of a more general nature, constant comparisons are already undoubtedly considered a separate type of phraseological combinations®. ar There are several ir theories about the origin of the term. In the absence of theoretical generalizations, inconsistent comparative phraseologies are excluded vo ir į dictionaries. More consistently they have been presented in dictionaries only in recent years, for S. example, Skorupkos “Phraseological Dictionary of Polish Language”*, “Phraseological sų Dictionary of Russian Language”*, the last volumes of “Dictionary of Lithuanian Language” etc. ir However, until comparative phraseologisms are examined in more detail, presentation and interpretation difficulties are constantly encountered in su jų practical dictionary work. | § 2. Comparative phraseologis- — ms are a kind of comparisons. Comparison is a stylistic tool used to compare a phenomenar on to one object. ar — * Poit3enm3on JI. H., Tlexaep M. A. Marepnansl x oGmeii GnOnaorpaduu no BONpocam Opa3eonoruu. — Bonpochr ¢paseonorum (Tpyjnsi CaMapKaHuckoro roc. y-Ta Ha. Mim. A. Hason). Tammenr, 1965, c. 176—177. *Mansmaxosa H. T. CpaBuurejibusie OGopoTsI C COI0O3OM Sister". — Pycckmit s351K B wxone, 1953, Ne 6, c. 16—18. Opnosa JI. B. OcoGennuocru CHHTAKCHYECKOTO YNnoTpeO/IeHHS Hepa3JIOXHMBIX CIOBOCOYCTaHmil, obnamaromwmx CBONCTBAaMH Hapeuns. — V4. 3 a.m. Mockosck. no. un-ta um. Jenna, 1954, T. 75, Bsm. 4, c. 23—49 ir kt * Kynun A. B. ®pa3eosiorns coBpeMennoro aHTARHCKOro s351Ka. — M., 1972, c. 142-166. Yepusimena M. MH. Opaseojnorus COBPEMEHHOTO HEMEUKOro s3bika. — M., 1970, c. 48-59. Mancxkuit H. M. ®pa3zeonorns COBPEMEHHOIO Nice s3bika. — M., 1969, c. 115-116 ir kt * Skorupka S. Dictionary of the English Language. — Warsaw, Poland 1967 — 1968, t. I— II. 1998-1999 * I've got a 35-year-old guy. — M., 1967. 205 defend with another, in order to emphasize, distinguish, highlight or clarify any feature or sign. Accurately used comparison gives language visuality, clarity and emotionality, helps to express aphoristic thought, sometimes replaces a broad description. But far from all comparisons are phraseologisms. Therefore, it is important to clarify the fundamental differences between comparative phraseologisms and other comparisons, i.e. to determine the categorical characteristics of comparative phraseologisms. There are various opinions on the most important characteristics of phraseologisms. Some criteria for defining phraseology are not differential, but universal, e.g.: metaphorism, equivalence of the meaning of phraseology to the meaning of the word, impossibility of literal translation into other languages, etc. Sometimes one or more categorical characteristics are absoluted, considered the only one. Recently, some phraseologists consider that the main characteristics of all types of structural phraseologisms, distinguishing them from free word combinations, are permanence and reproducibility in the language process. Phraseological stability is usually understood as a complex, i.e. stability of lexical composition, grammatical structure and generalized lexical meaning®. It is important to us whether comparative phraseologisms have these characteristics and whether they are sufficient to distinguish comparative phraseologisms from others by comparison. $ 3. Comparative phraseologisms consist of a comparative conjunction and one or more words that are always the same, usually arranged in a fixed order. For example, "I'm going to go to the beach," "I'm going to go to the beach," "I'm going to go to the beach," "I'm going to go to the beach," etc. Pjv". Sliding like a beast to the curd Willow. as boba in turnips „unsightly, expanded (sit, stand)“: Sēdi kā boba rāpēsēs Rm, Lš, PPr 414. Why do you sit when Bob is turning? Shkn. "Standing like a turtle" Pn. —as a brauktuvė "Jlabai (thin, lean —about a person or animal)": Laiba mergiotė kai brauktuvė Ds. Cow's trunks as a ride Ds. Examples show that these comparisons are of fixed lexical composition. Free comparisons do not have a fixed lexical composition, because they are created in each case from other words of a certain lexical meaning. At first glance, it may seem that some comparative phraseologisms, e.g., as pigeon children ||it pigeon children "very (dejuoja, kiauna)"; as Grigo bees || as Chuzo bees || as body bees | as Samuolio bees || as Jew bees "completely (disappeared, broke out, scattered)"; as the ninth water from the kisielius || as the third water from the kisielius "distant (relative- )" and so on, the variation of lexical components denies the constancy of the lexical composition. However, the lexical composition of these phraseologisms of similar composition with a variable lexical component is also established. As I. CernySeva® points out, the changing lexical components are not created every time anew, but are restored from memory, = * Similarly, the permanence of phraseologisms is treated, for example, by N. Sanskis and A. Kuninas. (See IIauckKHit H. M. OGOpaseojiorus COBPEMEHHOro pycckoro Ss35IKa. —M., 1969, c. 24-45, Kynau A. B. GOpaseojorus COBPEMEHHOro aurauickoro s3bikKa. —M., 1972, c. 6-8). * Abbreviations as in the Lithuanian language dictionary. * UepnsrureBa M. WU. Sisrnexue CHHOHHMHH H IIOJIHCEMHH B (pa3eOJIOTrHH HEMEUKOro A3bixa. —B kn.,: HuocrpaHnbie A35IKH B IKOJIe. M., 1960, Ne 6, c. 100-107. 206 which only confirms the stability of the composition of phraseologisms. Such comparative phraseologisms usually have at least minimal semantic differences, so they are independent in relation to each other in the language exist in parallel, in this case forming synonymous ir relationships with each other, e.g.: as (it) karvelis [April] children: Don't cry like a dove children B. Cruel when pigeon children Ds. Don't think like a dove of children Lnkv. Don't wander like a dove children Up. Moaning it pigeon children Yes, I do. as the ninth [third] water from the sisley (from silicium): He is my kindred, as the ninth water from the kissel Alif Lam Mim. Such kinship to you, as the ninth water from the kissel Well, well. What kind of be family is — this, like a third of the water from a kissel Ps. However, if we replace at least one ar lexical component of the other comparative phraseologisms mentioned by a word of a similar meaning at our discretion ir (e.g., as devin-* that water from butter), the comparison would lose the stability of the lexical composition and become a simple ir comparative sentence. Thus, the clearly defined diversity of the lexical composition of comparative phraseologisms does not undermine its stability. And, conversely, the undefined diversity of lexical components contradicts the constancy of the lexical composition of phraseologisms. Comparative phraseologisms are sometimes varied with service words, for example, a comparative conjunction as (it) yla in the form of a iš mixture, or of a full-meaning component in formal variations, e.g. phonetic: (eketé): like a potato (bulbed); as meleta (malata, maleta). However, the formal variations of the ir full-meaning components of service words do not affect the semantics of comparative phraseologisms at all, since the essential lexical iš composition jų remains unchanged. These variations usually reflect only the sphere of usage of comparative phraseologisms as structural variants of phraseologisir ms. $ 4. Comparative phraseologisms are constant only ne in lexical composition, but in grammatical ir structure, i.e. Phraseologism usually retains the same composition of the most often morphological forms of certain grammatical ir categories, e.g.: as salts "nothing, empty (talk, talk, etc.)": be ir Speech as salt be LK. That he's such a fool, talks like salt be Cf. how to cure a disease "patiently, very (suggests, persuades)- “: Speaking like healing a disease Yggdrasil. Offered ir me a disease as a healthy Sdk. He talked like a healthy ligą Ds. Ir enraged when we cure a disease K. Boogie. as mekena ‘very (bold — about man)’: When she's down, she's like a mecca, she can't control herself Up. This is gi like mekena fat Km. as a nail be ‘sunku (no one); not suitable (if be ko important)- Be “: knife as nail be Rk. Hostess be caterpillar it like nail be Up. I saw people, the world, realized,'that science as nails be — be A. Come on. As can be seen from the iš examples, these phraseologisms have a constant grammatical structure. Be They are of such a well-established grammatical composition: phraseology like salts always consists of a prefix of a singular noun with a certain be lexical meaning, like healing a disease of a iš singular noun, like makena only of a singular noun, and like without nails — of a plural noun with a prefix. Comparative su phraseologisms almost always consist of words of the — same categories, but their ir morphological forms often vary, e.g. as two honeys (honey); as to the penis — 207 (varpan) beats; as on clubs (with clubs). Formal variations in the structure of phraseologisms are also constant and limited, therefore, in principle, do not deny the stability of the grammatical structure of phraseologisms. In addition, they do not affect the semantics of comparative phraseology. Therefore, such varying comparisons are to be regarded as structural variants of the same phraseology, Oo not independent phraseologies. : However, the formal variations of the components of the basic form of comparative phraseology must be distinguished from the variety of variable forms of words in phraseology, which is determined by different syntactic relations with the words of the phraseology itself or its surroundings, e.g.: kaip giltinės nešamas: Paskui jo parspietė kaip giltinės nešamas ir gizelis Grg. They came in as a guild carrying Mc. In the second sentence, nešami is the variable form of the phraseological component, therefore it is not variant. * Or the phraseologism like prisviles component in prisviles sentence has the variable form of prisvilusis, e.g. : They would do everything the same, and he would have time to rest, not to run like a weary LzP. $ 5. Comparative phraseologisms, unlike free comparisons, are characterized by generalized (abstract) semantics, which usually does not depend on the lexical meaning of the words that make it up. Let's say, using comparative phraseologisms, for example, (lives) like a kidney in fat; (screaming) like being cut; (‘fast’) as the bottom side of the mills; (clutched) like a spike to the rope; (emerged) like an old star, the meaning of the individual words of the comparison is not studied, the meaning of the comparison is perceived in a general way. These comparisons are close in meaning to mode adverbs. Using the phraseology (lives) like a kidney in fat, one perceives that "very well (lives)", (screams) like being cut, —that "very hard (screams)", ("fast") like the lower side of the mills, —that "very ("fast")", i.e. not fast, clumsy), (clung) like a spike to the blade, —that "very (clung)". In order for a simple comparison to acquire a generalized meaning, i.e. to become a phraseology, it is necessary to have a long-term, historically established use. As we mentioned, the semantic basis and function of each comparison consists of comparing or comparing one phenomenon or object with another in order to emphasize, distinguish, clarify some feature or characteristic. The comparison of two phenomena or objects is usually motivated. Comparisons, which have the closest and most relevant meaningful contact with the context, are often repeated and recreated in similar or identical situations. As a result, not only the lexical composition and grammatical structure of the comparison becomes established over time, but also the nature of its meaning changes. Due to the permanence of the lexical environment of the comparison and the frequency of its use, the speaker’s or listener’s attention is focused on the generalized, abstracted meaning of the comparison. 208 ‘that value retreats to the second place®. As the contact between the comparison and the environment becomes stronger, the comparison becomes attached to the environment, acquiring a generalized phraseological meaning. Although the lexical meaning of phraseologisms is generalized, but in many cases it is possible to see a certain nddtivation between the environment and the comparison. Comparative and environmental connections are usually based on semantics, much less frequently on sound echoes or other motifs. The semantic connections of comparison and environment are usually as follows: a) The content of the environment and comparative phraseology relate directly, i.e. the objects or phenomena they denote are compared or compared with each other in the direct (lexical) meaning. E.g.: (silent) like a beggy (i.e. mute): (speaks, whines) like a toothless bob; (cold —e.g. about hands) as ice; (seeing) as through fog. b) The content of the environment and the comparison relates as a direct meaning to a figurative one, i.e. the environment has a direct meaning, and the comparison a figurative (metaphorical, ironic, etc.) meaning. E.g.: (sit, stand) like (like) on needles; (full, scattered — about a vessel, room) like an eye; (white, pale —about a person) like a shadow; (teases) like sheep without liver: (clear) like on the palm: (drunk) like smoke; (fool) as a sheep spirit; (disappeared, disappeared) like camphor without pepper: (swallowing) like hell; (standing) like swallowing a stick. Comparative phraseologisms of such motivation are the most. c) The content of the environment relates to the content of the comparison as a figurative meaning to the literal, i.e. the word environment has a figurative meaning, and the comparison is made with the literal meaning of the environment in mind. In other words, the figurative meaning of the contrasting environment and the direct meaning of comparison. E.g.: (,,see, will see“) as his ears (ear); (pleps, i.e. talks a lot) like a mouth not open; („fast, agile, fun“) as the lower mill side (mill side, mill); (mala, i.e. plepa) like empty mills; (claps, i.e. eats a lot greedy) like a cormorant with a tail; (marma, i.e. fat) as a swamp crossed; (tarška, barška, i.e. a lot of chatter, taškia) like an old stomach; (barking, i.e., pleading) as if he was tamed. A separate group is formed by phraseologisms, in which the environment and comparison are connected by common root Words, e.g.: (aušija, i.e. much plepa) as aušymas; (bamba, i.e. «a lot of nonsense talk») like bambyné; (tarška barška, i.e. tauškia) as barškata; (runs) like a treadmill; (breizoja, i.e. talks nonsense) like a breeze; (burboning) like a bubble (burboning); (buzzing, i.e. a lot of chatter) like a bubble; (eats, i.e. eats a lot) as a dumpling; (barking, i.e. a lot of blaring) kaig lojyné (barking); (turškia, i.e. a lot of nonsense) as paturška; (screams, shouts) like a shout; (Shvarnoy, i.e., foolishly, * For example, on this issue, the opinion of A. Fiodorov: "IIpxHBbriHo0e CpPaBHCHME, HACTO HCHOIb3YeMOE B pčuK MPH OJHHX HM TeX XC HIM CXOJIH5IX CHTYALIHAX, ONOCTENCHHO BAKDpeIUIACTCA B ynoTpeOjieHHH C OJKHAM H TeM Xe ČIM3KHM MO COACPKAHHIO JIEKCHYCCKHM OKpYXCHHeM. TTOCTOAHCTBO JiekCcH4eCKOTO OKDYXCHHS TaKOTO CpaBHHTejibHOrO OGOopoTa H 4acTOTA ero YynoTpeOJIEHHA HANPABANIOT BHHMAHHE rOBOPALICro H CilynIaTe/IX rIaBHsIM OOpa3oM Ha nepeHocHsi (OOLHMIt) INEMEHT ero COJCEpxXaHHSA, T.¢. Ha ero Npeimethyio CoothecehhoCtl, O6pa3Hoe ke MPEeACTabachhe,, IPHCytctbyst" B COJlCčpxaHHH TaKHX OGOpoTOB Ha sropom naane” (Zr. : ®exopos A. M. 06 06pazoBanun $pa3eojiori4eCKHX SAHHAL A36IKa M3 CpaBHHTC/- IbHbIX OGOpoTOB peun. —B KH. : AKTyaabHble npoOneMsl JIEKCHKOJIOTHH (Te3mchl noknanos H 06o6menuit Beecoo3nont HayuHoM konteperimu 17 —20 mons 1970). Munck, 1970, c. 204—205). 209 nobody speaks) as a clean lining be [without sleeves] (zirzia, i.e. obsessively, irritablely dumb, speaks) like a bird. Sometimes, ir the surroundings of the comparison are associated with a sonorous consonant, are rhymed. The semantic connections between ir the environments of these comparisons can be very weak. For example: : (liked, agreed) as Barbie [Else] at Miko; (laughed) like Mp potatoes laughed; (speech iš went out) as iš prayers; (hiccup) like a hiccup. Thus, the generalized (abstract) lexical meaning of motivated ir connections distinguishes su comparative ka phraseology from other comparisons, the meaning of which is me su context connects specific visual motivation. For example, O in a sentence after [ Pranelis) falls down, knocks his head as ir jo tin už window ... (J. Balt) comparison as ir jo staininis už langas has no generalized, phraseological meaning ir su context related to a specific motivation: a person is compared su to a horse as the basis for a certain action. $ 6. Comparative phraseologisms are not in every case re-created in iš the process of communication, They are used in memory as formulas of o collective iš creation. They are thus traditional in that they ir also differ from free comparisons, which can be considered situational. Plg. two by the to author"? used groups of comparisons: did not look at the huge clock a) Ji on the wall, waving a pendulum like a į ponytail, nor at his colleagues į (p. 16). Ši the — thought — of leaving hit my į head like a boom, stuck like a wet autumn leaf, ir aš I couldn't escape from her anywhere (p. 150). In the back, which, to tell the aš ir truth, I had, riding like bands of dry muscles (p. 107), Maybe I didn't aš mean it all right? To make life like a garden, like a flowering meadow, (p. a? 46). Two rows of linden trees intertwined with branches, as if fingers of the hands... (p. 60). b) Tu pretty angry you explained something to the girl sitting next to you with coal-black hair (p. 31). Aš I sat like on needles, waiting for him to finally say: well, ji enough for this day ką (p. 17). It's easy for you to talk when your father... all life as on the palm of your hand ... ir all your friends ... (p. 362). Aš I stopped like a stabbed; as if he got a stick in the back of his head (p. 168). Ji disappeared like į water, as if she wasn't there at all Kaune (p. 139). Room as a — sleeve narrow dark, with ir a single su window courtyard į (p. 135). From tomorrow no one will call you the name you feared like the devil on the cross... tu (p. 419). Aš I was red like cancer; maybe even more red, so confused that I didn't dare to lift ir my eyes (p. 160). Comparisons of the first group, e.g., like a horsetail; as a boom; like a wet autumn leaf; like the stanzas etc., are situational, created by the author ir himself of individual words. Comparisons of the second iš group, e.g. (black) as coal; (sitting) like on needles; (clear) as on the palm of your hand; (stopped) like beaten ir etc., not created by the author himself, only o creatively iš used memory. These are constant, potentially existing comparisons in language. You can see that ir iš of the following examples: as coal ‘very (dark, charcoal, black about — living beings inanimate ir objects)’: Head black kap charcoal LS. Cut the clovers, like coal clovers those black Slm. Jo black as coal eyes burned with bravery pride carried around ir su J. Bill. 10 Bieliauskas A. The Romance of Kaunas. — V., 1966. 210 as (like) on needles „very restlessly (sit, stand, lie)“: All the time is restless, sits like on needles Ins. It is like a needle in the head. We're all standing on needles, the bishop's carriage has no voice on Earth. „very, everything (clear)“: Aišku kaip ant palmo Ds. And clearly everything is as on the palm of your hand J. Balt. From the beginning to the end it was clear to him that this connection was impossible, Paukštaičia would lose Vaižg for him. as (like) stuck „in place, not moving (stands; stopped)“: Ko stovi kaip įbestas, traukis čia artyn An. Neither moves, nor crumbleth, as a pierced Psl, Sim. As soon as I left the forest, I stopped as if I had been struck: our farm was missing two roofs for $ 7. As mentioned above, permanence and reproducibility in the language process are generally considered to be the main characteristics of all phraseologisms, distinguishing them from free word combinations. However, the relationship of these signs is not treated equally by all linguists. Let's say, N. Sanskis!! claims that reproducibility explains all other characteristics of phraseologisms, in particular the consistency of lexical composition, grammatical structure and generalized lexical meaning. V. Telija'* looks at the relationship of permanence and reproducibility in two ways: diachronic and synchronic. From the point of view of diachronicity, the permanence of phraseologisms is the result of the tradition of repetition and reproducibility of free word combinations, and from the point of view of synchrony, reproducibility is conditioned by the permanence of the structure of phraseologisms. V. Telija considers that the most important criterion of phraseologisms’ permanence is not so much the invariance of compounds, i.e. external features, as certain structural connections that condition the reproducibility of phraseologisms. Thus, when it comes to the relationship of permanence and reproducibility of phraseologisms, it is proposed to distinguish diachronic and synchronic approaches. $ 8. Each element of the language system is defined by its relationship with other elements of the same system. Consequently, only external structural connections of phraseologisms turn them into the system of language. It is important for us to find out what structural connections determine the permanence and reproducibility of comparative phraseologisms. Comparative phraseologisms are always associated with words of a certain semantic group. E.g.: (speaks) as confused; (speaks) like a tooth; (living) like a kidney in fat; (drunk) like a bag; (living) like a mouse under a broom; (screaming) like being cut; (‘fast’ —about a man) like the bottom of a mill; (smiles) like having found an iron; (clutched) like a spike to the rope; (about a man) like an old hub; (interferes) as a wet non-combustible; as a birch fence; (afraid) as the devil of the cross; (bragging) like a hen laying an egg; (fast —about a person or animal) like lightning. These comparisons have a constant environment of words of a defined lexical meaning and grammatical category. The defined environment together with the comparison forms a constant comparative construction (e.g., speech as confused; yellow as gold; whines as tooth-grinding, etc.), which is a unit of the language system. Only the grammatically and semantically defined environment of comparative phraseologies enables them to be integrated into the system of language. Constant connections of comparative phraseology with the environment determine the stability of their lexical composition and grammatical structure, generalized lexical meaning and atI Maunckuit H. M. Opa3seonorus COBPEMEHHOro pycckoro s3bIKa. —M., 1969, c. 29. 12 Tenua B. H. Uro rakoe Opa3eojnoras. —M., 1966, c. 61—64. 211 creativity in the language process. Therefore, the comparative criterion of phraseologism stability and reproducibility will be the grammatically and semantically defined environment." Let’s compare the comparison as on a barbecue in two different contexts: a) (scratches) like on a barbecue: I used to walk scratching like on a barbecue A. Biel. b) (sitting, standing) as on a grill: Stand now as on a grill Ds. His place is very restless, he sits all the time like on a charcoal fire. Old Grigina sat like on a fire, looking here at the old man, here at Elena V. Krev. The mother stood before the judges like on a barbecue A. Vien. Margienė can't stand it, she's sitting like on a barbecue: know, know! ¥. Simon. In these examples, the same comparison is associated with two groups of verbs with different semantics. In the first case, the context of comparison is not established, the relationship between comparison and environment is not defined (determined). In addition, the meaning of the comparison is not generalized (abstracted), but is equal to the sum of the meaning of the individual words, i.e. the meaning of the comparison is related to the meaning of the environment only on the basis of the reasoning applied to this case. This is not a phraseology, but rather a phraseology without a phraseology. The comparison of the second group as on the grates has a definite environment —verbs sit, stand. For this reason, the comparison has acquired an abstract meaning “very restlessly, uncomfortably, impatiently (sitting, standing)- ”, and motivated relations with the environment are faded. The second group is called phraseological. The comparison as (as if) alive also functions in various contexts: a) (rolls, moves) like (as if) alive: Pliers clamped tripod rolled as if alive J. Balt. These waves move like they are alive, spreading to both sides, running after each other J. Bil. b) (remembers what, stands in the memory, in the eyes of what) as alive: Everyone remembered her as alive —a hard worker, a cheerful singer, helpful to everyone and a lovely person. In his memory, the whole meeting of J. Balt. And not only the mountain, but many other places have survived as alive P. Cvir. I am walking past a giant tomb, and although I do not know anything about it, I have not heard of it, but its past stands alive in my eyes. And in this case, the environment differentiates simple situational comparison and phraseology. Comparisons of the first group are linked to verbs move, roll with clear semantic motives, the lexical meaning of the comparisons is not generalized, i.e. not phraseological. This simply means that the tripod and the waves roll or move as if they were alive. Since the environment is not strictly determined, the comparison is not considered phraseological. The context of the second group of comparisons is defined grammatically and semantically, the comparison has acquired a generalized meaning “very vividly, clearly (remembers what, stands in memory, in the eyes of what)”. 1 The analysis of linguistic elements according to their environment has long traditions. Many leksikologists and lexicographers have been more or less interested in this issue. In phraseology, environmental issues have been touched on occasion by L. Roizenzonas and J. Avaliani, V. Archangelskis, V. Zhukov and others. The history of environmental research in lexicography and phraseology has been described in detail by M. Tagiev in his monograph “T rarojibuas: Opa3eo0jiorux COBpeMEHHOTO pycckoro s3bixa” [Bary, 1966]. He considers the environment to be the most important structural phraseologism. analysis criterion, on the basis of which it provides a structural analysis of Russian verbsVerbal phraseology. 212 We will mention another case when the environment helps to distinguish phraseology from simple comparison. Comparison as (equivalent to) mouse tail is found in the following contexts: a) When she ji smiled, the tip of her nose would immediately start to vibrate like a mouse's tail J. White. b) Apsuse all the hair when mouse tail Stnč. In the first sentence, the comparison is connected with the verb su virpa, which is neither grammatically nor semantically defined. The verb ir comparison is linked to the basis of specific visual motivation, so the meaning of ir comparison is not generalized. Tą the same comparison is quite possible to link ir su other Words, which only by comparison su can have motivated connections, e.g., adjectives pointed, su short what etc. ir However, phraseologisms are only those comparisons that have a lexical meaning generalized to a defined environment, as is the case in the second ir sentence. Here the comparison has a defined environment drying (about hair) generalized, ir phraseological meaning ‘very (dried, broken — on the hair, chest)’. This phraseology has synonyms ir that differ only in one component: as rats [scales)] tail "very numb, numb — about hair, chest": Mine was a tight hood, only dab when the rat's tail JNSH. Ką te benear such pancreas as scales — tails Smart. $ 9. Since the stability and reproducibility ir of comparative phraseologisms depends on the grammatically and semantically defined environment, we will consider the defined environment as the main criterion determining the separation of iš comparative phraseologisms from other comparisons. The consistency of the lexical composition of comparative phraseologisir ms, the generalized lexical meaning of the grammatical structure and the reproducibility in the language process are very important criteria, but they depend on the basic one. Comparative phraseologisms are comparisons of constant lexical composition, grammatical structure, generalized lexical meaning, which have a grammatically semantically defined environment, are not created ir in the process of communication, are used in memory as formulas. ir ir o iš $ 10. Ne It is always easy to determine the lexical composition of comparative phraseology, because it is closely related to the environment su in its meaning, ir grammatical structure. ir The question of the composition of comparative phraseologisms is still being discussed. Ar comparative phraseology is of binary structure, unilateral, ar i.e. ar su words closely related to the comparison are included in the į composition of ar phraseology, is only the comparison itself considered phraseology? Let's say, ar phraseology considered flies like an eye burned, like an eye burned? ar There are different views on this issue. Some linguists claim that '* ĄAMocosBa Ha. Ha. Occasionally you wear sunglasses. — JI., 1963, c. 148; Tuxonos A. H., Kynrypos ycroitunBsIix P. OG cpaBHHTeJI5HbIX 060pOTaX (B PYCCKOM S3bIKe). — Tpyast Camapxaunck. y-ra. Hoses stuck. Kparkue coobmenus. Camapxans, 1964, Ne 139, c. 41-42; Quasxosa H. M. Asanus nepsbix # BTOPhIX COMIOHEBTOB YCTOHYKBbIX cpas- „ HeHuil Turia as + NPHIATATENLHOE + as + CYNIECTBHTENLHOE B COBPEMEHHOM Ahtisaari's s3b3ke. — Y4.3an. Bonorozck. Rock. no. wž-Ta. Bonoraa, 1964, 1.28, ¢.194—221. UpaHHHKOBA E. A. K sonpocy 06 kBHBaJIeHTHOCTH (pa3eOJIOTHYeCKHX eQMHHL CJIOBOCOsetanmio, — B xn. TIpoOjieMebit Opa3eojiorun H 3ajiaun Ce H3YueHHA B I'm sorry. H I'm sorry. The buoys, 1967, c. 112—123, Yepusriuresa M. H. Opaseonorna cOBPEMEHHOro Hemeuxoro Ss3bIKA, — M., 1970, c. 48—59 ir kt, 213 As a preposition can enter into proverbs — more important linguistic units, so also gas, o dovis kaip nagas (Skd) in comparative phraseologisms is as žagas and as nagas, and žadas and dovis are words of their environment. In the phrase Wept like wearing new shoes (TŽV 627), the comparative phraseology is like wearing new shoes, and wept is a word of the environment. Finally, comparative phraseology can enter not only prepositions, but also riddles and other traditional sayings. For example, in the riddle Legs white as snow, and head black as coal (baravykas) (LTsV506/Lš) comparisons as snow and as coal are also considered phraseologisms, because they have a settled environment and other characteristics of comparative phraseologisms. Or, imitating the sound of a tongue, it says, I am a tongue, my feet are as trampled. I'll blow the snow, and I'll blow the ice (LTsV722/Pn). Here the comparison as piestas is a phraseology, which in the meaning of "very thick (about the legs)" is also used in simple sentences, e.g. : Those Bob's legs are like stamped Jrb. The feet are covered with a thick coat of skin. Thus, in our opinion, it is unnecessary to raise the question whether the constant phrases containing a comparison are to be considered as prepositions or comparative phraseologisms. The free or phraseological nature of the comparison does not depend on whether it goes in a preface, a proverb, or in a work of some other genre. Therefore, those comparisons that are part of prepositions or other traditional sayings and that have all the categorical characteristics of phraseologisms are to be considered comparative phraseologisms®. $ 16. In addition to comparative phraseologisms, which, in addition to the comparative conjunction, include only one meaningful part of the language (usually the noun of a noun), there are also a number of words of metaphorical meaning. For example, there is such a comparative phraseology: as a monkey "very (moved, moved, etc.)": Maigos (moved) as a monkey Vdk. The Monkey's Mouth. It's like a monkey. In the large Lithuanian language dictionary, the word monkey, in addition to the main meaning, has a second figurative meaning "who imitates others, maves" and is illustrated by the sentence: Iš jo tikras monkė Gs. In Lithuanian, as in other languages®, such words are usually the names of animals and birds, e.g.: avis (avelė), lamb, pig, fox, bear, goat, goat, wolf, hen, etc. Let's say, comparative phraseology as sheep (sheep, ram) exists in parallel with the figurative words sheep, sheep ram: as sheep (sheep, ram) 1. „completely, very (stupid)“: Big as a bull, stupid as a ram Psl. It's a big horse, but it's stupid when it's a sheep. The fool burns the sheep. He is a stupid (stupid) sheep Ldvn. The greatly educated gentleman was foolish as a ram A. Vien. 2. „very (slow, quiet, calm —about a person)“: Slow as a sheep Skn. He got a good wife, calm as a sheep Jnš. It was slow, quiet as a lamb, nowhere to go2** Similar opinions are A. Babkin. He proposes that comparisons that are part of prepositions should be included in the dictionary of phraseologisms, and thus considers them to be phraseologisms (see: Ba6Gxun A. M. Jlekcuxorpadmyeckas paspaGorka pycekoH Opaseojorax. —M.—JI., 1964, c. 31). 40 Yepuwmmena H. WU. I'm going to take you to the shelter. —M., 1970, c. 51. 220 he gave, he didn't get involved... The words arvis, avelė, avinas have the figurative meaning 345. of "clumsy, foolish, stupid man-" © gus is used in such sentences: What will I do with such a sheep Gs. You're a real (real) sheep Lp. And you, sheep, where is your head? Ms. You think you can explain to such a ram Gs. The eternal ram — no more rs. We could mention quite a number of parallel cases, where comparative phraseology and a word of metaphorical meaning describe a person in a similar way, for example, phraseology as a pig and in figurative meaning pig about a shameless, rude, unclean person; phraseology as a fox and figuratively fox about a cunning, cunning, complacent person; as a goat and figuratively goat about a stubborn man, etc. Of course, many of these metaphorical words are derived from comparisons. Estonian philologist I. Sarv® calls such words of metaphorical meaning indirect folk comparisons. It is used when the hyperbolic word is abandoned. In addition to the aforementioned cases, in the language there exists parallelly a number of comparative phraseologisms with phraseologisms of the same or similar meaning without a comparative conjunction. For example, the word "smoke" can be translated as "smoke-like" or "smoke-like-smoke" (see "smoke-like-smoke" below). All of them arose out of the smoke and left Srv. Let's all get out of the smoke - raise Srv. as (like) a bag of ashes “still, shattered (sleeps, dribble, stands, ir etc.)“ dust || bag „mevikrus, sudribęs, niekam tinęs žmogus“: It's like a bag of dust. Drybso like mouse bag VI. Standing like a dust bag Zp. He's a real mouse bag Skr. like a bag of sloth "without work, for free (tuna, smurgso ir pan.)“ || ringinių maišas „lainys“: Smurgso throughout the day when the lazy bag Shh. It's a bag of lazy people! Skr. like clay Matthew "completely (does not move, does ir not move || etc.)" clay Matthew „lazy, lazy, lazy“: the lazy sits like clay Matthew See. Don't be ti like clay Matthew! Ds. Molybdenum Matthew — only lying on the shoulder Slk. as earth-unbearable || earth-unbearable "very sad, upset (goes; parėjo)“: Goes like the earth not carried He is not allowed to leave the courtroom without a court order. as (equivaleiš nt to) clay (clay) clay-dra- || wn clay-drawn “very tall, thick (about man, jo limbs)“: Ugly man: nose like clay scratchiš ed Slm. Big, fat, fat Vidmantas Šešiavilkis seemed like clay carved... iš Oh, yeah. He was not a carved clay, but a strong man Luke. The etymological relationship of each pair of such phraseologisms is difficult to establish. Since their lexical composition and meaning are very close, we believe that they are derived from others: phraseologisms of the comparative conjunction could have been formed from comparativedę NM Caps MU. O iš noaemaax Ho (QyHXKUMSX be 3CTOHCKHX NOroBOPOK. AsBroped. Kang. AMC, m Tapry, 1964. 221 my phraseologisms on the basis of or, conversely, comparative phraseologisms —frazeoloyizmy without a comparative conjunction on the basis. Random coincidence of lexical and phraseological components is quite possible, but the same or very close lexical meanings of these phraseologisms indicate that they are etymologically very related. We must assume that, say, comparative phraseologisms like (like) pelų maiSas and kaip leniy maišas are of secondary origin, because there are much more analogous phraseologisms without the comparative conjunction with the component maišas, e.g.: gold bag “rich man”; “who likes to quarrel, the quarrelmaker”; rumor bag "carrier of slander"; bag of gyros (pagyros) "pagyrūnas"; laughs maif "who likes to laugh a lot"; Hollow bag "besotis- "; disease bag "Permanently Sick Man"; garbage bag "menk. the belly’; ir knowledge bag "who knows a lot, knower" etc. The fact that metaphorical words and phraseologies without a comparative conjunction exist in parallel with comparative phraseologies only confirms the permanence and traditionality of comparative phraseologies. On the other hand, this shows that comparative phraseologisms are a source that constantly enriches the lexical composition of the language with words of new semantics and that the structural types of phraseologisms themselves can change over time. OEIIIHE UEPTbI H KATEIOPHAJIBHBIE IIPH3HAKH CPABHHTEJIbHbIX GPA3EOJIOTH3MOB Pe3some I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to do it. TH3MOB. CpaBHHTejibH5LIč: ()pa3eOJIOTH3MBI ynoTpeGNAIOTCA TOJIbKO B OKDPYKCHHH ONpPEICICHHBIX cnos. IlocToOAHHOC AIBIKOBOC OKpYxXC6HHe DTHX CpaBHeHHif OČYCJIOBJIEHO HX JIEKCHYCECKHM 3HAau4€- HHEM H TpaMMATH4eCKHM O$DOpM/IeHHeM. OrrpejieJieHHOC OKPYXEHHE BMECTE CO CpaBHeHHeM OOpa3YIOT DOCTOAHHYIO CPABHHTENBHYIO KOHCTDYKIJHIO, KOTOp ABJISACTCH CIKMAHIeENĖ S3LIKOBOH CHCTeMbl. 4epe3 rpaMMaTHYEeCKH H CeMAHTHYECKH O0YC/IOBICHHOE OKDYXEHHE CPaBHHTE/IbHBIE (paseo oru3Mbl BKIIOYAIOTCH B CHCTEMY #3bika. [TOCTOSHHBIE CBA3H CPABHHTEILHOrO (paseonoTA3Ma C OKpyXcHHeM OOYCIOBIHBAIOT YCTOHYHBOCTH H BOCINDpOH3BOJIHMOCTb B A3BIKE MX JICKCHHeCKOro cocrasa, rpaMMaTH4YecKOH CTPYKTYpsl H OOOOmEeHHOTrO JIEKCH4CeCKOTO 3HAYUCHHA. 3aBHCAT YCTOHYH~ BOCTb H BOCHPOH3BOJMMOCTH CPABHHTE/IBHALIX (Pa3coNOrH3IMOB, ONPENIE/ICHHOS OKPYXKCHHE SBIIS= €TCH, NO MHECHHIO aBTOPa, OCHOBHBIM KPHTEPHEM, INO3BOJIAIONIHM BbUIEJIKTb CPABHATEIbHLIC (pa3€0JIOTH3MEI H3 psa APYrHX CPABHEHMH. VoCTOH4HBOCTb NEKCHYECKOTO cocrasa, rpaMMaTHYECKOH CTPYKTYphl, 0GOOMICHHOr0 JICKCHYECKOrO 3HAYCHWS H BOCINDOMH3BOJIHMOCTb B PEYCBOM MpOLECCe Kak roTOBbIX UEJOCTHBIX CIHHHI TAKKC ABIAIOTCA OYCHb BAXKHBIMH KDHTEDHAMH, HO BCE OHH 3aBHCAT OT OCHOBHOIO. Flocne mccnenosanua BaXHCHIUNX KPHTEPHEE BbUIC/ICHHS (pa3eOJIOTH4CCKHX CAMHHI HA MaTEpHase JIATOBCKOTO A3bIKa B CTaThe QOPMYJIMPYETCH ClCAyIOllee ONpeJIeJIEHHE CpaBHHTEJILHbIX tdpaseonornamoe. CpasHuTENbHBIE Opa3e0JIOTH3MbI —ITO CPABHCHHN C NOCTOAHHbIM JICKCHYECKHM COCTABOM, IPAMMATHYECKOH CTPYKTYPOH H OGOOIICHHBIM JIEKCHYECKHM 3HAYCHHEM, KOTOpbIE MMEIOT IDAMMATHYECKH HM CEMAHTHYCCKH OODYCIIOB/IEHHOC OKPYyXEHHE H KOTOpHie HE CO3JIAIOTCA B npouecce ODINEHHA, a BOCITpOH3BOJISTCA NO NAMATH Kak roToBbie (OOpMYJILI. 222 Tlpouno YCTAHOBHBINYIOCH COBOKYTIHOCTb JIEKCHYCECKHX H T pa MMATH4CCKHX 3JIEMEHTOB CaMOCIORTEJILHOTO JIEKCHHECKOTO 3HAYCHMA H CAMOCTOSTEJILHONH rpaMMATH4ecKO! H OYKKIUHMH, KOTOpas JOCTOSHHO CBA3aHa C Opa3eojnoruaMoM H Ge3 KOTODpoH OH NHIAETCA CBOero cCrienuOuueckKoro o6GoGmennoro 3Ha4ueHHA, HasbiBaeM (pa3eOJIOTH4eCKHM OKpyxeHHeM. CpaBHHTeJIbHbIC Opa3eoJIJOTA3MBI JIATOBCKOTO S3bIKa MOTYT HMETb OJIHY WJM JBC NO3HIUMH OKDYXEHHS, OaKYJILTATHBHOC u I'm a very good Norman oxpyxenne. Ilo rno3HuHH B CpaBHHTeJIbHOH KOHCTDpYKIHH pa3NMYACTCH NpENO3HTHBHOC H NOCTIO3HTHBHOC, OjIMxHEee H OTJIAJIEBHOC OKPYXCHHE. Ilo-pa3HuoMy HHTepnperHpyeTCA OTHOMICHHE CpaBHHTeJIbHbIX ()pa36OJIOTH3MOB K NOrosopKAM, B COCTAB KOTODEIX BXOJIMT CpaBHeHHe. ABTOp CTaTbH CHMTAET, 4TO ceobonubil wm Opa3e010rHYecKuil XapakTep CPaBHEHHS HE 3ABHCHT OT [TOro, ynorpebiisiercs JIM OHO B NORoBOpKE, WIH B IIOCJIOBHIJE, WINK B IIDpOH3BEJIEHHH APYroro xaspa. Te CpaBHCHESA, KOTOPBIC BXOJIAT B 0OroBOPKH H APYIHe TPAAHIMOHHbIC BbICKA3bIBAHHA H OOJIAJIAIOT ESMA Ka Ter OpHa TbHLIMH NPH3HAKAMH ÉŠpa3e0JIOTH3MOB, SBASIOTCH CPABHATEILHBIME ()pa3eOJIOTH3MAMH. B craThe Oc BemaeTCA OTHOWICHHE CPABHMTENBHBIX (pa3eOJIOTH3MOB K OTAC/IbHBIM ClOBaM MeTahOpHYECKOTO 3HAYCHHS, XOTOpbie NO CBOEMY ynoTpeOnenuio Oju3kH x ¢paseonoruimam