Phraseological Units with a Phytonymic Component in the English and Russian Languages

105 4. Espmarker J., Tedenby E. (2020). Effective Teaching Methods and Strategies in the EFL Classroom to Facilitate Students’ Vocabulary Development. Innovative Teaching Strategies in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. 5. Gerngross G., Puchta H., Thornbury S. (2006). Teaching Grammar Creatively, Helping Languages. www.helpinglanguages.com 6. Juneau S. et al. (2022). The Benefits of an Innovative Teaching Pedagogy Aimed at Combining Theory and Practice in Social Work. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 42(5), 469-488. 7. Parker K. C., Welch T. D. (2021). Innovative teaching strategies to escape the anxiety in simulation. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 16(4), 414-417. 8. Serdyukov P. (2017). Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it?. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning. 9. Patten V. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 10. Wong W. Input Enhancement: From Theory and Research to the Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. On Consciousness-Raising and Noticing Fotos, Sandra. “Integrating Grammar Instruction and Communicative Language Use through Grammar ConsciousnessRaising Tasks.” TESOL Quarterly 28 (1994): 323 – 351. CZU 811.111`373.74:811.161.1`373.74 PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH PHYTONYMIC COMPONENTS IN THE ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES Oxana CEH, Master of Arts, Lecturer, Alecu Russo Balti State University [email protected] Abstract: The article presents the etymological, semantic and culturological study of the most frequently employed English and Russian phraseological and paremiological units with a phytonymic component, identifying the most common phytonyms, either typical of both of these languages or characteristic of only one of them, in this way specifying similar as well as distinctive cultural connotations of the analyzed units. Several classification criteria, supported by the corresponding phraseological examples from the English and Russian languages, are applied in the article, thus highlighting the complexity and the uniqueness of the nations’ linguistic perception of the surrounding world. Keywords: phytonyms, phraseological units, paremias, linguistic comparison, phytonymic components. Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as a ready-made system. This definition proceeds from the assumption that the essential features of phraseological units are considered to be the stability of the lexical components. It is frequently assumed that unlike components of free word-groups, which may vary due to the needs of communication, words of phraseological units are reproduced as single unchangeable collocations (Кунин, 2005). In addition, intrinsically possessing certain cultural connotation, diverse phraseological units represent not only the national and linguistic perception of the world by a specific linguacultural community, but simultaneously create the world’s phraseological picture, which most vividly reflects the worldview of the speakers of a given language and, consequently, culture (Хайруллина, 2008). Thus, linguoculturally, phraseological units are viewed as stable keepers of cultural diversity and indicators of self-perception of the nation’s individuality. Phytonyms (Greek phytonim "plant", onyma "name, title"), denoting the names of plants and their parts, are defined as units of folk botanical nomenclature being opposed to scientific 106 designations of plants. Signifying natural species and reflecting actually existing features, phytonyms are close to anthroponyms and toponyms, which as well indicate existent phenomena (people and objects), yet differing from them by designating an entire class of plants sharing certain characteristics. In this regard, botany, i.e. the scientific study of plants, might serve as a veritable source to trace the etymology of a phytonym, as it provides multifaceted and detailed descriptions of the plant properties (Седых, 2015). Logically, being employed either as the objects of economic activity or serving as models of certain behavioral and appearance patterns, diverse plants have become an integral and indispensable part of the natural environment of any nation. Hence, a considerable proportion of phytonymic components in phraseological units reflect the historical, cultural and even linguistic interaction and fusion between man and flora. While pinpointing and analyzing the phytonymic components, prevalent in the phraselogical units of both the English and Russian languages, there has been identified the possibility of categorizing them according to overall semantics of the phraseological unit /phrase: 1. Appearance. This category includes the lexical units whose overall meaning is conditioned by the external similarity with their phytonymic component. Thus, “a strawberry mark” is a permanent dark red mark on a person's skin, which has existed since birth, a "reddish birthmark, mole". Evidently, this phraseological unit has appeared due to the color shade, similar to the well-known berry. Another representative of the flora, which is often used in phytonymic idioms, is a carrot. That is, red-haired people are frequently referred to as “carrot top” (the Russian equivalent “рыжий как огонь”) because of the bright color of their hair. The idiom "carrot top" originated in the early 19th century and was used to describe a person with red or orange hair, comparing the hair color to the top or leaves of a carrot. In modern usage, "carrot top" is usually used as a colloquial or slang term to refer to a person with red or orange hair (Ayto, 2020). One more English phytonymic idiom that characterizes appearance is “fresh as a daisy” (the Russian equivalent “свежий как огурчик”). The Cambridge Idioms Dictionary provides the following explanation for this idiom: someone who is (as) fresh as a daisy is lively and attractive, in a clean and fresh way. This evaluative poetic description of a person’s exterior aligns with the phytonymic simile “as fresh as a rose”: characterized by a positive evaluative connotation, both phraseological collocations conceptualize a person's appearance and excellent health (Speake, 2015). The next unit, “like two peas in a pod”, is defined by the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary as “to be very similar, look, behave or think exactly the same”, highlighting the external similarity or identity of the two objects. Evidently, the things that are like two peas in a pod are so similar to each other that you can hardly tell them apart. The Russian equivalent, “как две капли воды”, carries the additional connotation of a close and strong relationship between the two people or things (Даль, 2012). 2. Character traits. This group includes phraseological units emerged as a result of rethinking the properties of plants and endowing them with anthropomorphic character traits. For instance, the unit “a man of straw” (the Russian equivalent “соломенный тюфяк”) was formed as a result of rethinking the lexeme "straw", which means "unreliability", "fragility". The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines the word “straw” as the long, dried stems of plants that are easy to break. Hence, namely this property of straw served as the basis for the formation of the idiom, as “a man of straw” is someone who has a weak character and is easily criticized or attacked because they are perceived as highly vulnerable. The phrase can also be used to describe a person who is not taken seriously or respected by others because of the evident lack of will or determination (Ayto, 2020). One more idiom of the group, including the name of a flower as a component, is a “shrinking violet”, which means a modest, timid, 107 shy person. In English-speaking culture, as well as in the Russian-speaking one, a violet is a symbol of modesty and purity of thoughts. The semantically analogical unit, “a shy mimosa” (the Russian equivalent “стыдливая мимоза”), portraits a harmless, quiet person who does not know how to stand up for themselves. Overall, these units imply relatively neutral evaluative connotation with the phytonym used to conceptualize a character trait (Кунин, 2005). 3. Community/analogy of actions. This group includes phraseological units based on a metaphorical reconsideration of the actions involving particular plants. Therefore, the etymology of the idiom “to make two bites of a cherry” (literally “to bite off a cherry twice” – to put excessive effort into a very easy task) is associated with the notion of a cherry as a relatively minute berry. Thus, the phytonym is employed to denote meaninglessness and inappropriateness. The seemingly similar idiom “a second bite at/of the cherry”, means the possibility of trying something again, especially after failure, and is used when a person is given a chance to do something again in order to achieve a desired result (Ayto, 2020). Another phraseological unit, “nip in the bud” (the Russian equivalents “подавить в зародыше”, “пресечь в корне") implies “to destroy in the bud, to kill at the root”. The Oxford Dictionary of Idioms gives the following definition of the unit: “to check at the outset; prevent at the start; block or destroy in the beginning” The origin of the idiom is connected to the meaning of the phytonym “bud” – a sprout or plumule and comes from the idea of pruning or cutting off a bud or shoot of a plant or tree before it blooms, preventing it from growing and bearing fruit. Mirroring the uniqueness of the national linguistic perception of the surrounding world, a certain number of phytonymic components are typically employed either only in English or Russian phraseological units. Hence, the phytonyms used exclusively in the English phraseology include: the acorn (e.g. “like stealing acorns from a blind pig”, i.e. a very easy action to perform), the gooseberry (e.g. “as green as a gooseberry”, i.e. young, inexperienced), the walnut (e.g. “a dog and a walnut tree, the more you beat them the better they will be”), the banana (e.g. “to drive someone bananas”, i.e. to make someone very irritated, angry or annoyed) (Speake, 2015). The phytonyms, characteristic uniquely of Russian phraseological units, comprise the radish (редька, e.g. “надоел как горькая редька”), the red pine mushroom (груздь, e.g. “назвался груздем, так полезай в кузов”), the hops (хмель, e.g. “хмель шумит, ум молчит”), the henbane (белена, e.g. “белены объесться”), the horseradish (хрен, e.g. “хрен редьки не слаще”), the turnip (репа, e.g. “проще пареной репы”), etc. Presumably, the high frequency of the use of the names of the above-mentioned plants can be attributed to either their prevalence in the territory inhabited by these peoples or their mass cultivation and usage along with the specific mental connotation acquired over time. (Даль, 2012). Concurrently, phraseological units with phytonymic components might be subject to systematization according to the elements/organs of plants and/or their vegetation forms into the three subgroups, i.e. 1) trees, 2) blossoms and cereals, 3) fruits, berries, vegetables (Мишина, 2021). 1. A significant number of English and Russian paremias with the generic phytonym “tree/дерево” center on the comparison/contrast, describing a person's character, their external features as well as internal characteristics: “A bad tree does not yield good apples”/“У осины не родятся апельсины”; “As the tree falls, so shall it lie”, “A tree falls the way it leans”/“Куда дерево клонилось, туда и повалилось”; “The apple does not fall far from the tree”/“Каково дерево, таков и клин, каков батька, таков и сын”; “The tallest tree is rooted in the ground”/“Дерево держится корнями, а человек – друзьями”. 108 It is noteworthy that phraseological units/paroemias with the “tree” component are more inherent to the English language in comparison with that of Russian. The identified numerical superiority of the phytonyms of this subgroup in English might be ascribed to the sacred and pragmatic attitude to trees and forests in Great Britain due to the limited nature of these resources. (Speake, 2015). Notably, among the variety of tree/shrub species, the “oak” is the most frequently used one in both English and Russian languages, symbolizing strength, endurance and fortitude and being historically revered by both peoples. The English phrase “strong/sturdy as an oak” correlates with the number of the Russian ones: “могучий дуб”, “крепкий как дуб”, “как столетний дуб” (Даль, 2012). Yet, if in the English worldview “great oaks from little acorns grow”, the Russian conception of the world suggests that “не срубишь дуба, не отдув губы”, “старый дуб не скоро сломится” (Кунин, 2005). Likewise, while the English worship of the oak is embedded in the idiom “to have a heart of oak”, i.e. to be a very emotionally or mentally strong person, the Russian folk wisdom occasionally attributes to this mighty tree a quite derisive connotation, e.g. “дуб дубом”, “дубовая голова” which even borders on complete disrespect in “с дуба рухнуть” or “дуба дать/врезать дуба”. 2. Among the phytonymic components of the second subgroup – blossoms and cereals – the element “rose” tends to be the prevalent one in the English and Russian languages. Being the most popular and recognizable floral symbol, the rose traditionally personifies a flourishing youth and unapproachable beauty, the metaphorical transfer motivated by a positive evaluative connotation of the phytonymic component, conditioned by the objective features, that is, the beauty and pleasant smell of the plant. The English idiomatic expression “bring/put the roses back to/in one’s cheeks”, i.e. to make a person vigorous and healthy again corresponds to the Russian one “на щеках расцветают розы”. Simultaneously, the phytonym reminds that even seemingly perfect and the most desirable things imply hidden challenges and obstacles: “Life is not a bed of roses”/“Жизнь – это не ложе из роз”; “Every rose has its thorn”/“Не бывает розы без шипов”, “Чем красивее роза, тем длиннее у нее шипы”. (Кунин, 2005). One more phytonymic component, “wheat”, dominant in Russian paroemias as a sacred symbol of hard labour as well as material prosperity, e.g. “В поле пшеница годом родится, а добрый человек всегда пригодится”, “Удобришь землицу – снимешь пшеницу”, “Когда пшеничка тучная, тогда и уборка нескучная”, is rather scarce in the English language, e.g. “There is no wheat without chaff” / “Нет пшеницы без высевки”, despite the fact that in Great Britain wheat has been one of the main arable crops. (Даль, 2012). 3. The phytonymic element “apple” has proven to be the most recurrent one among the highly numerous “fruit, berries, vegetables” subgroup. Being associated in both English and Russian languages with the diverse symbols, images and ideas, e.g. space and the Universe; beauty, health and youth; mystery and wealth; enjoyment and pleasure, it has been primarily viewed as the fruit of the tree of life: “An apple a day keeps the doctor away”/“Кто яблоко в день съедает, у того врач не бывает”; “The apple never falls far from the tree”/“Яблоко от яблони недалеко падает”; “There is often the worm in the apple”, “Handsome apples are sometimes sour”/“Не всякое яблоко сладкое”, “Здоровое яблоко с ветки не падает”; “A stone from the hand of a friend is an apple”/“Камень из руки любимого - яблоком кажется”. The “nut” is another high frequency phytonymic component of this category, whose basic connotations, i.e. hardness, strength and toughness, coincide in the English (“a hard/tough nut to crack”) and Russian languages (“крепкий орешек”). However, the associative 109 meaning invoked by the English paremia “he that would eat the kernel must crack the nut”, used to urge a person to apply certain effort to obtain the desirable, strikingly dissonates with the semantic interpretation of the Russian idiomatic expressions, e.g. simplicity and unsophistication (“щелкать как орехи”), sarcasm and contempt (“давать на орехи”), imminent and impending punishment (“на орехи достанется/ будет/попадет”), merciless criticism or complete defeat (“разделывать под орех”) (Даль, 2012). Hence, phytonymic components of diverse phraseological units form certain images of various plants in the minds of entire nations, evoking specific associations and allowing the overall meaning of the entire unit to be conveyed more vividly. Therefore, the semantic study of phraseological units with a phytonymic component in the English and Russian languages has identified that: – they possess a completely unique nature and stand out for the connotative integrity from the general phraseological system of the studied languages, – the high frequency of the names of certain plants and fruits is explained by their widespread use on the territory inhabited by these peoples, – phytonymic components can in certain cases create similar imagery in Russian and English, sometimes even forming full or partial equivalents. Nevertheless, most frequently, phraseological units with phytonyms reflect, in a completely unique and multifaceted way, the differing aspects of the mentality of both peoples, their specific behavioral paradigms, character traits, daily habits, folk customs and traditional life patterns. Bibliography: 1. Ayto, J. (2020). Oxford Dictionary of Idioms (Fourth Edition). Oxford University Press. 2. Cambridge Idioms Dictionary. (2006). (2nd Edition). Cambridge University Press. 3. Francis, B., Lea, D., Turnbull, J., Ashby M. (2011). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (8th Edition). Oxford University Press. 4. Krischke, U. (2013). The Old English complex plant names: a linguistic survey and a catalogue. Publisher: Peter Lang. 5. Litvinov, P.P. (2000). An English-Russian phraseological dictionary with a thematic classification. Publisher: Yakhont. 6. Mokienko, V.M. (2005). Riddles of Russian phraseology. Publishing house: Azbukaklassika, Avalon. 7. Smirnitsky, A.I. (1998). Lexicology of the English language. Moscow State University Publishing House. 8. Speake, J. (2015). The Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs. Oxford University Press. 9. Баранов, А. Н., Добровольский, Д.О. (2008). Аспекты теории фразеологии. Publisher: Знак. 10. Даль, В. И. (2012). Пословицы русского народа. Publisher: Азбука-Аттикус. 11. Кунин, A. (1984). Англо-русский фразеологический словарь: более 20000 фразеологических единиц. Publisher: «Русский язык». 12. Кунин, А.В. (2005). Курс фразеологии современного английского языка. Publisher: Феникс+. 13. Мишина, Н.В. (2021). Этнокультурная специфика фразеологизмов с фитонимами. Вестник Донецкого национального университета. Серия Д: Филология и психология. Номер 1, с. 125-129. Retrieved November 10, 2024, from https://elibrary.ru/download/ elibrary_45634390_13979470.pdf 14. Седых, А.Р. (2018). Фитонимическая фразеология и национальный дискурс. Publisher: "Грамота". 110 15. Федоров, А. (2008). Фразеологический словарь русского литературного языка: около 13000 фразеологических единиц. Publisher: Астрель. 16. Хайруллина, Р.Х. (2008). Фразеологическая картина мира: от мировоззрения к миропониманию. Publisher: Уфа.