Bendrieji lyginamųjų frazeologizmų bruožai ir kategoriniai požymiai

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS SPECIALIOJI LEKSIKA LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXII (1983) K. VOSYLYTĖ GENERAL FEATURES AND CATEGORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPARATIVE PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS § 1. Lithuanian, like other languages, uses a considerable number of traditional comparisons, e.g.: (devours) like a kite devours tow; (drunk) like smoke; (grumbles) like a cat being twisted by the tail; (clung) like tar to a cartwheel, and so on. They are especially abundant in folk colloquial speech. However, for a long time, fixed comparisons in Lithuanian and other languages received insufficient attention from phraseologists. For instance, the bibliography of phraseological research published in 19651 lists only about ten short articles on comparative phraseological units, most of which were written in 1964. Thus, it was only from around that time that comparative phraseological units began to attract broader interest in our country, and the importance of researching them was emphasized. Individual articles mentioning comparative phraseological units alongside other phraseological units or comparisons had appeared somewhat earlier as well2. To this day, there are almost no comprehensive studies of comparative phraseological units, but in individual articles and works of a more general nature, fixed comparisons are already unquestionably regarded as a separate type of phraseological combination3. Some theoretical questions concerning comparative phraseological units are also examined here. In the absence of theoretical generalizations, comparative phraseological units were also included inconsistently in dictionaries. They began to be presented more consistently in dictionaries only in recent years, for example, in S. Skorupka’s “Phraseological Dictionary of the Polish Language”4, the “Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language”5, the later volumes of the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” and elsewhere. Nevertheless, until comparative phraseological units are studied more comprehensively, practical lexicographic work continues to encounter difficulties in presenting and interpreting them. § 2. Comparative phraseological units are a particular kind of comparison. Comparison is a stylistic device used to juxtapose one object or phenomenon with another in order to empha- 1 Ройзенゾン Л. И., Пеклер М. А. Материалы к общей библиографии по вопросам фразеологии. — Вопросы фразеологии (Труды Самаркандского гос. у-та им. А. Навои). Ташкент, 1965, с. 176—177. 2 Малышкова Н. Т. Сравнительные обороты с союзом „как“. — Русский язык в школе, 1953, № 6, с. 16—18. Орлова Л. В. Особенности синтаксического употребления неразложимых словосочетаний, обладающих свойствами наречия. — Уч. зап. Московск. пед. ин-та им. Ленина, 1954, т. 75, вып. 4, с. 23—49 и kt. 3 Кунин А. В. Фразеология современного английского языка. — М., 1972, с. 142—166. Чернышева И. И. Фразеология современного немецкого языка. — М., 1970, с. 48—59. Шанский Н. М. Фразеология современного русского языка. — М., 1969, с. 115—116 и kt. 4 Skorupka S. Słownik frazeologiczny języka polskiego. — Warszawa, 1967—1968, t. I—II. 5 Фразеологический словарь русского языка. — М., 1967. 205 sizing or comparing it with another in order to emphasize, distinguish, highlight, or clarify some feature or characteristic. A well-chosen comparison lends vividness, expressiveness, and emotional force to language, helps express a thought aphoristically, and sometimes replaces an extended description. However, by no means all comparisons are phraseological units. It is therefore important to identify the essential differences between comparative phraseological units and other comparisons—that is, to establish the categorical characteristics of comparative phraseological units. There are a variety of views on the question of the most important characteristics of phraseological units. Some criteria for defining phraseological units are not differential or universal, for example, metaphoricality, the equivalence of a phraseological unit’s meaning to the meaning of a word, the impossibility of literal translation into other languages, and so on. Sometimes one categorical characteristic or another is absolutized and regarded as the sole defining feature. Recently, some phraseologists have considered stability and reproducibility in the process of speech to be the principal characteristics shared by all structural types of phraseological units and distinguishing them from free word combinations. The stability of phraseological units is generally understood comprehensively, that is, as the stability of lexical composition, grammatical structure, and generalized lexical meaning⁶. What concerns us is whether comparative phraseological units possess these characteristics and whether they suffice to distinguish comparative phraseological units from other comparisons. § 3. Comparative phraseological units consist of a comparative conjunction and one or more words that are always the same, most often arranged in a fixed order. For example: like (as) a legless man beside curds “very slowly, gradually (moves, walks)”: Why are you moving so slowly, like a legless man beside curds? Pjv⁷. He moves like a legless man beside curds Vrb. like a woman among turnips “awkwardly, puffed up (sits, stands)”: She sits like a woman among turnips Rm, Lš, PPr 414. Why do you sit like a woman among turnips? Škn. He stands like a woman among turnips Pn. like a scraping tool “very (thin, lean—of a person or animal)”: The girl is thin as a scraping tool Ds. The cows are as skinny as scraping tools Ds. The examples show that these comparisons have a fixed lexical composition. Free comparisons do not have a fixed lexical composition, since each time they are formed from different words with a particular lexical meaning. At first glance, it may seem that the lexical variation in some comparative phraseological units—for example, like a dove with its young || like a pigeon with its young “very (groans, moans)”; like Grigas’s bees || like Čiužas’s bees || like the godfather’s bees || like Samuolis’s bees || like the Jew’s bees “completely (disappeared, scattered, dispersed)”; like the ninth water from the kissel || like the third water from the kissel “distant (relative)”; and the like—undermines the stability of their lexical composition. Yet the lexical composition of these phraseological units with similar structures and varying lexical components is also established. As I. Chernysheva⁸ points out, varying lexical components are not created anew each time, but are retrieved from memory, ⁶ A similar interpretation of the stability of phraseological units is given, for example, by N. Shansky and A. Kunin. (See Шанский Н. М. Фразеология современного русского языка. — М., 1969, с. 24—45. Кунин А. В. Фразеология современного английского языка. — М., 1972, с. 6—8). ⁷ Abbreviations as in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”. ⁸ Чернышева И. И. Явление синонимии и полисемии в фразеологии немецкого языка. — В кн.: Иностранные языки в школе. М., 1960, № 6, с. 100—107. 206 which only confirms the stability of the composition of phraseological units. Such comparative phraseological units usually have at least minimal differences in meaning; therefore, they are independent of one another and coexist in parallel in the language, forming synonymic relations with one another in this case, for example: kaip (it) karvelis [balandis] vaikų: Nedejuok kaip karvelis vaikų B. Graudžias kai karvelis vaikų Ds. Neaimanok kaip karvelis vaikų Lnkv. Nevaivok kaip karvelis vaikų Užp. Dejuoja it balandis vaikų Sim. kaip devintas [trečias] vanduo nuo kisieliaus (nuo kisielio): Toks jis man giminė, kaip devintas vanduo nuo kisieliaus Rm. Toks gimine tau, kaip devintas vanduo nuo kisielio Vel. Kokios čia be giminės — kaip trečias vanduo nuo kisieliaus Ps. However, if we replace at least one lexical component of the above-mentioned or other comparative phraseological units at our discretion with a word of similar meaning (e.g., kaip devintas vanduo nuo sviesto), the comparison would lose the stability of its lexical composition and become a simple comparative expression. Thus, clearly defined variation in the lexical composition of comparative phraseological units does not undermine its stability. Conversely, undefined variation in lexical components runs counter to the permanence of the lexical composition of phraseological units. Comparative phraseological units sometimes vary in function words, e.g., in the comparative conjunction kaip (it) yla iš maišo, or through formal variations of a full lexical component, e.g., phonetic ones: kaip aketė (eketė); kaip bulvė (hulbė); kaip meleta (malata, maleta). However, formal variations of function words and full lexical components have no effect whatsoever on the semantics of comparative phraseological units, since, essentially, their lexical composition remains unchanged. The variations mentioned usually reflect only the sphere of use of comparative phraseological units and should be regarded as structural variants of phraseological units. § 4. Comparative phraseologisms are stable not only in lexical composition but also in grammatical structure; that is, a phraseologism usually retains a uniform composition of certain grammatical categories and, most often, morphological forms, e.g.: like without salt “nonsense, pointlessly (speaks, chatters, etc.)”: He speaks like without salt Lkš. He’s such a blabbermouth, he talks like without salt Sml. like a disease to a healthy person “patiently, very (offers, persuades)”: He talked it up like a disease to a healthy person Vdžg. He persuaded me too, like a disease to a healthy person Sdk. He talked him into it like a disease to a healthy person Ds. And he kept urging him like a disease to a healthy person K. Būg. like a bleater “very (fat—of a person)”: Having gorged himself, he is like a bleater; she can’t control herself Užp. This one is fat like a bleater Km. like without nails “difficult (to do without something); useless (someone without something important)”: Without a knife, it’s like without nails Rk. A housekeeper without a poker is like without nails Užp. I saw people and the world and understood that without learning it is like without nails A. Vien. As the examples show, these phraseologisms have a stable grammatical structure. Apart from the comparative conjunction, they have the following fixed grammatical composition: the phraseologism like without salt always consists of a noun with a certain lexical meaning in the singular genitive with a preposition, like a disease to a healthy person—an adjective in the singular dative and a noun in the singular accusative, like a bleater— 207 consists only of a noun in the singular nominative, while like without nails consists of a noun in the plural genitive with a preposition. Comparative phraseologisms almost always consist of words belonging to the same categories, but their morphological forms often vary, e.g.: like harrow’s (in the harrow) stubble; like two honey (honeys); strikes like into a bell (into the bell); like on mallets (with mallets). Variations in the formal structure of phraseologisms are also stable and limited, and therefore do not fundamentally undermine the stability of their grammatical structure. Moreover, they do not affect the semantics of a comparative phraseologism. Thus, such varying comparisons should be regarded as structural variants of the same phraseologism, not as independent phraseologisms. However, formal variations in the components of a comparative phraseologism’s basic form must be distinguished from the variety of inflected forms of the words contained in the phraseologism, which is determined by different syntactic relations with the words of the phraseologism itself or its surrounding context, e.g.: like carried by Death: Then he came back after him like one carried by Death, and the hired hand too Grg. He flew in like one carried by Death Mc. In the second sentence, carried is an inflected form of the phraseologism component carried, and is therefore not a variant. Or the component as if scorched in the phraseologism scorched has the inflected form scorched in the sentence, e.g.: They would do everything the same way, and he would have time to rest; he would not have to run around as if scorched LzP. § 5. Unlike free comparisons, comparative phraseologisms are characterized by generalized (abstracted) semantics, which is usually independent of the lexical meanings of the words that make them up. For instance, when using comparative phraseologisms such as (lives) like a kidney in fat; (screams) like someone being slaughtered; (“fast”) like the lower millstone; (stuck) like tar to a spinning wheel; (loose-jointed) like an old hub, one does not delve into the meaning of the individual words in the comparison; the meaning of the comparison is understood in a generalized way. These comparisons come to function like adverbs of manner. When the phraseologism (lives) like a kidney in fat is used, the meaning understood is “(lives) very well”; (screams) like someone being slaughtered means “(screams) very loudly”; (“fast”) like the lower millstone means “very (‘fast’), that is, slow, inept”; (stuck) like tar to a spinning wheel means “(stuck) very firmly”. For an ordinary comparison to acquire a generalized meaning, that is, to become a phraseologism, it must be used over a long period in a historically established way. As mentioned, the semantic basis and function of every comparison consist in juxtaposing or comparing one phenomenon or object with another in order to emphasize, distinguish, or clarify some feature or characteristic. The juxtaposition of two phenomena or objects is usually motivated. Comparisons having the closest and most salient semantic links with the context are often repeated and reproduced in similar or identical situations. As a result, over time not only do the lexical composition and grammatical structure of the comparison become established, but the nature of its meaning also changes. Because the lexical environment of the comparison is stable and its usage frequent, the speaker’s or listener’s attention is focused on the generalized, abstracted meaning of the comparison, while the concrete, motivated— 208 that meaning recedes into the background9. As the contact between the comparison and its surrounding context grows increasingly strong over time, the comparison seems to attach itself to that context, acquiring a generalized phraseological meaning. Although the lexical meaning of phraseological units is generalized, in many cases a certain motivation can nevertheless be discerned between the context and the comparison. The relations between the comparison and its context are generally semantically grounded, and much less frequently based on sound patterning or other motives. The semantic relations between the comparison and its context are most often as follows: a) The content of the context and that of the comparative phraseological unit are directly related; that is, the things or phenomena they denote are juxtaposed or compared with one another in their direct (lexical) meaning. E.g.: (silent) like a mute; (speaks, chatters) like a toothless old woman; (cold—usually of hands) like ice; (sees) as if through mist. b) The content of the context and that of the comparison relate as literal meaning to figurative meaning; that is, the context has a literal meaning, while the comparison has a figurative (metaphorical, ironic, etc.) meaning. E.g.: (sits, stands) as if on pins and needles; (full, filled to the brim—of a vessel or room) like an eye; (white, pale—of a person) like a fishbone; (goes wild) like a sheep without a liver; (clear) as clear as day; (drunk) like smoke; (stupid) like a sheep’s spirit; (vanished, disappeared) like camphor without pepper; (devours) like hell; (stands) as stiff as a stake. Comparative phraseological units motivated in this way are the most numerous. c) The content of the context and that of the comparison relate as figurative meaning to literal meaning; that is, the word in the context has a figurative meaning, while the comparison is formed with the literal meaning of the context in mind. In other words, the figurative meaning of the context is set against the literal meaning of the comparison. E.g.: (“will see, catch sight of”) like one’s own ears; (chatters, i.e. talks a lot) like a buza nedavirus; (“quick, nimble, lively”) like the underside of a millstone; (grinds, i.e. chatters) like empty millstones; (claps, i.e. eats a lot and greedily) like a crucian carp with a tail; (mumbles, i.e. chatters) like a marsh run over; (rattles, clatters, i.e. chatters a lot) like an old homespun coat; (barks, i.e. chatters) like a dog with its jaws unbound. A separate group consists of phraseological units in which the context and the comparison are linked by words sharing the same root, e.g.: (chatters, i.e. talks a lot) like aušymas; (babbling, i.e. talking a lot of nonsense) like bambynė; (rattles and clatters, i.e. chatters) like barškata; (runs) like bėgunėlis; (talks nonsense) like breižūnas; (grumbles) like a grumbler (burbler); (mumbles, i.e. talks a lot) like a burzguoliokas; (shovels food in, i.e. eats a lot) like kemša; (barks, i.e. talks a lot) like a yapper (barker); (splutters, i.e. talks a lot of nonsense) like paturška; (shouts, hollers) like šaukola; (švarnoja, i.e. foolishly, ⁹ Cf. in this regard A. Fiodorov’s view: “A familiar comparison, often used in speech in the same or similar situations, gradually becomes established in usage with one and the same lexical environment close in content. The constancy of the lexical environment of such a comparative phrase and the frequency of its use direct the attention of the speaker and listener mainly to the figurative (general) element of its content, i.e., to its referential relation. The figurative representation, however, ‘is present’ in the content of such phrases in the background” (See: Федоров А. М. Об образовании фразеологических единиц языка из сравнительных оборотов речи. — В кн.: Актуальные проблемы лексикологии (тезисы докладов и сообщений Всесоюзной научной конференции 17—20 июня 1970 г.). Минск, 1970, с. 204—205). 209 talks nonsense) like a švarna without lining [without sleeves]; (whines, i.e. grumbles or talks in an irritating, irritable way) like a whiner. The context and the comparison are sometimes linked by sound patterning and rhyme. The semantic relations between such comparisons and the context may be very weak. E.g.: (suited, was just right) like Barbie [Elzė] with Miko; (became sad) like from a potato-soup bowl; (went out of use) like fashion; (a promise) like a žągas. Thus, generalized (abstracted) lexical meaning and the fading of motivated relations with the context distinguish a comparative phraseological unit from other comparisons, whose meaning is linked to the context by a specific imaginative motivation. For example, in the sentence And then [Pranelis] slumps, lowering his head like his stable horse outside the window... (J. Balt), the comparison like his stable horse outside the window does not have a generalized, phraseological meaning and is linked to the context by a specific motivation: a person is compared to a horse on the basis of a particular action. § 6. Comparative phraseological units are not recreated anew in every act of communication but are recalled from memory as formulas of collective creativity. Thus they are traditional, and in this respect too they differ from free comparisons, which may be regarded as situational. Cf. two groups of comparisons used by the same author10: a) She did not at all resemble either the huge clock on the wall, swinging its pendulum like a horse’s tail, or her colleagues (p. 16). The thought—I’m leaving—struck me like a battering ram, stuck to me like a wet autumn leaf, and I could no longer escape it (p. 150). Across the back—which, to tell the truth, was all I could see—dry muscles writhed merrily like shackles (p. 107). Perhaps you’ll say I wanted nothing but good? For life to be like a garden, like a flowering meadow, eh? (p. 46). Two rows of lime trees, their branches intertwined like fingers of folded hands... (p. 60). b) You explained something rather angrily to the girl sitting next to you, whose hair was black as coal (p. 31). I sat on pins and needles, waiting for her finally to say: well, that’s enough for today (p. 17). Easy for you to talk, when your father... your whole life is an open book... and all your friends... (p. 362). I stopped as if rooted to the spot; as though I’d been struck on the back of the head with a stake (p. 168). She disappeared as if into the water, as if she were not in Kaunas at all (p. 139). The room was—as narrow and dark as a sleeve, with a single window opening onto the courtyard (p. 135). From tomorrow on, no one will call you by the word you feared like the devil fears the cross... (p. 419). I was red as a lobster; perhaps even redder, and so confused that I did not dare raise my eyes (p. 160). The comparisons in the first group, e.g., like a horse’s tail; like a battering ram; like a wet autumn leaf; like shackles, and so on, are situational, created by the author from individual words. The comparisons in the second group, e.g., (black) as coal; (sits) on pins and needles; (clear) as clear as day; (stopped) rooted to the spot, and so on, were not created by the author but creatively drawn from memory. These are fixed comparisons that continually exist as potential expressions in the language. This can be seen from the following examples: as coal ‘very (dark, coal-colored, black—of living beings and inanimate objects)’: His head is black as coal Lš. They are cutting clover, how black those clover plants are, like coal Slm. His coal-black eyes burned with courage and looked around proudly J. Bil. 10 Bieliauskas A. Kauno romanas. – V., 1966. 210 like (as if) on pins and needles “very restlessly (sits, stands, lies down)”: He is restless all the time, sitting as if on pins and needles Jns. He fidgets as if sitting on pins and needles Kt. We are all standing as if on pins and needles; there isn’t a word from that bishop’s carriage Žem. as if on the palm of one’s hand “very (clear), everything (is clear)”: It is as clear as the palm of your hand Ds. And everything is as clear as the palm of your hand J. Balt. From beginning to end, it was as clear as the palm of his hand to him—that the connection was impossible, Paukštaitis having lost her Vaižg. as if rooted to the spot “in one place, without moving (stands; stopped)”: Why are you standing there as if rooted to the spot? Come closer An. He neither moves nor stirs—as if rooted to the spot Pšl, Sim. As soon as I came out of the forest, I stopped as if rooted to the spot: two roofs were missing from our homestead rš. § 7. Stability and reproducibility in the language process, as we have mentioned, are generally considered the principal features of all phraseological units, distinguishing them from free word combinations. However, not all linguists treat the relationship between these features in the same way. For instance, N. Shansky11 argues that reproducibility explains all the other features of phraseological units, above all the stability of their lexical composition, grammatical structure, and generalized lexical meaning. V. Telia12 views the relationship between stability and reproducibility in two ways: diachronically and synchronically. From a diachronic perspective, the stability of phraseological units is said to result from the tradition of repeating and reproducing free word combinations; from a synchronic perspective, reproducibility is conditioned by the stability of the structure of phraseological units. V. Telia considers the most important criterion of phraseological stability to be not so much the invariability of combinations, i.e. their external features, as certain structural relations that condition their reproducibility. Thus, in discussing the relationship between stability and reproducibility in phraseological units, it is proposed to distinguish between diachronic and synchronic perspectives. § 8. Each element of a language system is defined by its relations to other elements of the same system. Consequently, only the external structural relations of phraseological units link them into the language system. It is important for us to determine which structural relations govern the stability and reproducibility of comparative phraseological units. Comparative phraseological units are always associated with words from a particular semantic group. For example: (speaks) as if possessed by a demon; (groans) as if suffering from a toothache; (lives) like a kidney in fat; (drunk) like a sack; (lives) like a mouse beneath a broom; (screams) as if being slaughtered; (“quick”—of a person) like the underside of a millstone; (smiles) as if he had found a little piece of iron; (clung to) like pitch to a spinning wheel; (drunk—of a person) like an old wheel hub; (interferes) like a wet, unburnable log; (grown old) like a birch fence; (is afraid) like the devil fears the cross; (boasts) like a hen that has laid an egg; (quick—of a person or animal) like lightning. These comparisons have a stable environment of words belonging to a defined lexical meaning and grammatical category. The defined environment together with the comparison forms a stable comparative construction (e.g., speaks as if possessed by a demon; yellow as gold; groans as if suffering from a toothache, etc.), which is a unit of the language system. Only a grammatically and semantically defined environment of comparative phraseological units links them into the language system. Stable relations between a comparative phraseological unit and its environment condition the stability of its lexical composition and grammatical structure, its generalized lexical meaning, and its reproducibility in the language process— 11 Шанский Н. М. Фразеология современного русского языка. — М., 1969, с. 29. 12 Телия В. Н. Что такое фразеология. — М., 1966, с. 61–64. 211 in the language process. Therefore, we shall take a grammatically and semantically defined environment as the criterion of stability and reproducibility for comparative phraseological units13. Let us compare the comparison as if on hot coals in two different contexts: a) (hops about) as if on hot coals: I used to walk, hopping about as if on hot coals A. Biel. b) (sits, stands) as if on hot coals: Stand there now as if on hot coals Ds. His place is very restless; he sits there all the time as if on hot coals Jnš. Old Grigienė sat as if on hot coals, looking first at the old man, then at Elena V. Krėv. Mother stood before the judges as if on hot coals A. Vien. Margienė could bear it no longer; she sits as if on hot coals: to know, to know! I. Simon. In these examples, the same comparison is associated with two groups of verbs having different semantics. In the first case, the context of the comparison is not established, and the relations between the comparison and its environment are not defined (determined). As a result, the meaning of the comparison is not generalized (abstracted), but is equal to the sum of the meanings of the individual words; that is, the meaning of the comparison is related to the meaning of its environment only on the basis of a motivation tailored to this particular instance. Thus, such a comparison lacks the stability required of a phraseological unit; it is situational and therefore cannot be considered a phraseological unit. The comparison of the second group, as if on hot coals, has a defined environment—the verbs sits, stands. For this reason, the comparison has acquired an abstracted meaning, “very restlessly, uneasily, impatiently (sits, stands),” while its motivated relations with the environment have faded. Consequently, the comparison in the second group should be considered a phraseological unit. The comparison as (as if) alive also functions in various contexts: a) (writhes, moves) as (as if) alive: The tripod, gripped in the tongs, writhed as if alive J. Balt. Those waves move as if alive, spreading in both directions and racing one after another J. Bil. b) (remembers someone or something, stands in one’s memory, before one’s eyes) as if alive: Everyone remembered her as if she were alive—a spirited worker, a cheerful singer, helpful and dear to everyone V. Myk-Put. In his memory, the whole gathering came alive again J. Balt. And not only the hill but many other places, too, have remained as if alive P. Cvir. I walk past the burial mound, and although I know and have heard nothing about it, its past stands before my eyes as if alive V. Krėv. Here, too, the environment distinguishes an ordinary situational comparison from a phraseological unit. The comparisons in the first group are linked to the verbs moves, writhes by clear semantic motivations; the lexical meaning of the comparisons is not generalized, i.e. it is not phraseological. The point here was simply to say that the tripod and the waves writhe or move as if they were alive. Since the environment is not strictly determined, the comparison cannot be considered a phraseological unit. The environment of the comparisons in the second group is grammatically and semantically defined, and the comparison has acquired the generalized meaning “very vividly, clearly (remembers someone or something, something stands in one’s memory, before one’s eyes).” 13 The analysis of linguistic elements according to their environment has a long tradition. Many lexicologists and lexicographers have also taken a greater or lesser interest in this question. In phraseology, questions of environment have been touched on sporadically by L. Roizenzon and J. Avaliani, V. Arkhangelsky, V. Zhukov, and others. M. Tagiev has provided a fairly comprehensive account of the history of environment-based research in lexicography and phraseology in his monograph “Глагольная фразеология современного русского языка” [Баку, 1966]. He regards the environment as the most important criterion for the structural analysis of phraseological units and, on this basis, presents a structural analysis of verbal phraseology in the Russian language. 212 We shall mention one more case in which the context helps distinguish a phraseological unit from a simple comparison. We find the comparison like a mouse’s tail in contexts such as these: a) When she smiles, the tip of her nose would immediately begin to twitch like a little mouse’s tail J. Balt. b) All the hair was rather sparse, like a mouse’s tail Švnč. In the first sentence, the comparison is linked to the verb twitches, which is defined neither grammatically nor semantically. The comparison and the verb are linked on the basis of a particular image-based motivation, and therefore the meaning of the comparison is not generalized. The same comparison can also be linked to other words that can have motivated connections with the comparison, such as the adjectives pointed, short, and so on. However, only those comparisons that have a defined context and a generalized lexical meaning are considered phraseological units, as is the case in the second sentence here. There, the comparison has a defined context rather sparse (of hair) and a generalized, phraseological meaning: “very sparse, broken-off — of hair, braids.” This phraseological unit also has synonyms that differ by only one component: like a rat’s [vole’s] tail “very sparse, broken-off — of hair, braids”: My hair used to be thick, but now it’s like a rat’s tail Jnš. Why on earth do they wear their hair in such braids — like vole tails Slm. § 9. Since the stability and reproducibility of comparative phraseological units depend on a grammatically and semantically defined context, we shall consider a defined context the principal criterion determining the distinction of a comparative phraseological unit from other comparisons. The stability and reproducibility of the lexical composition, grammatical structure, and generalized lexical meaning of comparative phraseological units in the process of language use are very important criteria, but they depend on the principal one. We consider comparisons with a stable lexical composition, grammatical structure, and generalized lexical meaning to be comparative phraseological units when they have a grammatically and semantically defined context and are not created in the process of communication, but are used from memory as formulas. § 10. It is not always easy to determine the lexical composition of a comparative phraseological unit, since it is closely connected with its context both in meaning and in grammatical structure. The question of the composition of comparative phraseological units is still actively debated. Does a comparative phraseological unit have a binary or a unary structure—that is, do words closely connected with the comparison form part of the phraseological unit, or should only the comparison itself be considered a phraseological unit? For example, should runs as if his eyes were burning be considered a phraseological unit, or as if his eyes were burning? There are differing views on this question. Some14 linguists argue, 14 Амособа Н. Н. Основы английской фразеологии. — Л., 1963, с. 148; Тихонов А. Н., Кунгуров Р. Об устойчивых сравнительных оборотах (в русском языке). — Труды Самаркандск. у-та. Новая серия. Краткие сообщения. Самарканд, 1964, № 139, с. 41—42; Сидякова Н. М. Анализ первых и вторых компонентов устойчивых сравнений типа + прилагательное + as + существительное в современном английском языке. — Уч. зап. Вологодск. гос. пед. ин-та. Вологда, 1964, т. 28, с. 194—221. Иванникова Е. А. К вопросу об эквивалентности фразеологических единиц словосочетанию. — В кн.: Проблемы фразеологии и задачи ее изучения в высшей и средней школе. Вологда, 1967, с. 112—123, Чернышева И. И. Фразеология современного немецкого языка. — М., 1970, с. 48—59 ir kt. 213 that comparative phraseologisms always consist of two elements and have a binary structure; others15 believe that most often only the comparison constitutes a phraseological unit, and less often the comparison together with other related words. There is no consistency on this issue in dictionaries either. For example, in D. Ushakov’s “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language”16, the following are considered phraseologisms: сидеть как на иголках; как зеницу ока; как две капли воды (похож); как рыба в воде; in the “Dictionary of the Russian Language” 17: быть (сидеть) как на иголках; беречь (хранить) как зеницу ока; как две капли воды; как рыба в воде; in the “Dictionary of Modern Russian Literary Language”18: как на иголках; как зеницу ока беречь, хранить и т.п.; быть, чувствовать, вести себя и т.п. как рыба в воде; in the “Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language”19: как на иголках; как зеницу ока; как две капли воды; как рыба в воде. As can be seen, there is no uniformity not only among different dictionaries, but even within one and the same dictionary. Of the dictionaries mentioned, only the “Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language” consistently adheres to a single principle. The examples show that, in most cases, the authors of this dictionary regard only the comparison itself as a comparative phraseologism. In some other dictionaries—for example, V. Doroszewski’s “Dictionary of the Polish Language”20 and S. Skorupka’s “Phraseological Dictionary of the Polish Language”21, bilingual English–Russian, French–Russian, and German–Russian phraseological dictionaries22, A. Nazarian’s dictionary of fixed figurative comparisons in French23, and others—comparative phraseologisms are presented together with their surrounding context. Thus, opinions differ both in theory and in practice concerning the lexical composition of comparative phraseologisms. To determine the boundary between comparative phraseologisms and their surroundings, the components of a comparative construction must be examined functionally and semantically, i.e., their grammatical function and lexical meaning must be established. For example, in comparative constructions— 15 Orlova A. V. Features of the syntactic use of indivisible word combinations possessing [the properties of an adverb. — Уч. зап. Московск. пед. ин-та им. Ленина, 1954, т. 75, вып. 4, с. 25, 41—45. Шугурова З. А., Ройзензон Л. И. Основные вопросы изучения сравнительных устойчивых оборотов русского языка. — В кн.: Материалы конференции „Актуальные вопросы современного языкознания и лингвистическое наследие Е. Д. Поливанова“. Самарканд, 1964, т. 1, с. 104—107. Сидоренко М. И. К вопросу о границах лексического состава фразеологических единиц. — В кн.: Проблемы фразеологии (исследования и материалы). М.—Л., 1964, с. 126—130. Жуков В. П. Фразеологизм и фразеологическое окружение. — Уч. зап. Московск. областн. пед. ин-та им. Н. К. Крупской, Русский язык (вопросы русской фразеологии). М., 1966, т. 160, с. 225—244 и далее. 16 Ушаков Д. Н. Толковый словарь русского языка. — М., 1935—1940, т. 1—4. 17 Словарь русского языка. — М., 1957—1961, т. 1—4. 18 Словарь современного русского литературного языка. — М.—Л., 1950—1965, т. 1—17. 19 Фразеологический словарь русского языка. — М., 1967. 20 Doroszewski W. Słownik języka polskiego. — Warszawa, 1958—1968, t. 1—10. 21 Skorupka S. Słownik frazeologiczny języka polskiego. — Warszawa, 1967—1968, t. 1—2. 22 Кунин А. В. Англо-русский фразеологический словарь. — М., 1956. Рецкер Я. И. Французско-русский фразеологический словарь. — М., 1963. Бинович Л. Э. Немецко-русский фразеологический словарь. — М., 1956. 23 Назарян А. Образные сравнения французского языка. — М., 1965. 214 In constructions chatters like an unopened barrel and babbles as if possessed by henbane, the verbs chatters, babbles are closely connected with the comparisons, but they retain independent lexical meaning and a verbal function; thus, they are not part of the phraseological unit, but are merely associated with it. The comparisons like an unopened barrel and as if possessed by henbane here, in turn, have the lexical meaning “a lot and pointlessly (chatters, babbles)” and function as adverbs. In the constructions drunk as a sack; unruly [mischievous, spoiled] as a beggar’s pig, the phraseological units are as a sack and as a beggar’s pig, since the adjectives or participles with adjectival meaning drunk, unruly, mischievous, spoiled have independent lexical meanings and function as adjectives, whereas the comparisons function as adverbs and mean “very (drunk)” and “very (unruly, mischievous, spoiled—of children).” Thus, here the verbs and adjectives or participles with adjectival meaning are not part of the lexical composition of the comparative phraseological unit, but form its environment. Let us now examine the following comparative constructions: beats like a drum “talks a lot”: The whole parish talks like a drum Slnt. The whole neighborhood talked about Vidmantas as if beating a drum... Vaižg. throws behind the ear “eats, devours, drinks something quickly”: Just give it to him—he throws it back as if behind the ear Kp. He throws down a pot of groats in the evening as if behind the ear KzR. My pig eats very quickly; it throws it back as if behind the ear Upt. In the evening Father threw down that porridge as if behind the ear BsV 264. What’s that to a man like him—he threw it back as if behind the ear, and that was that Skdt. In these comparative constructions, the verbs beats and throws have neither independent lexical meaning nor a grammatical function. Only together with the comparison do these verbs acquire the meaning they have in the comparative construction. Thus, here the verb is part of the lexical composition of the comparative phraseological unit, and the whole comparative phraseological unit functions as a verb. The environment of these comparative phraseological units is formed not by the verbs mentioned above, but by nouns or pronouns denoting the subject of the action (in the first case) or the subject and object of the action (in the second case). Thus, the principal criterion for determining the lexical composition of a comparative phraseological unit is as follows: words that are constantly associated with a phraseological unit are not part of its lexical composition if they have an independent lexical meaning and grammatical function. A comparative phraseological unit, for its part, also has a certain grammatical structure and content, but its meaning and grammatical function become apparent only in the environment of words belonging to a particular semantic group. We call a firmly established totality of lexical and grammatical elements with independent lexical meaning and grammatical function, which is constantly associated with a phraseological unit and without which it would not have its specific generalized meaning, the phraseological environment. § 11. Comparative phraseological units may have one or two environmental positions. For example, the phraseological units like the devil [fiend, nakabis] before lightning (before a lightning bolt); as strong; like mud; like a house (house) occur in language only with a particular one-position environment. For instance, the comparative phraseological unit like the devil [fiend, nakabis] before lightning (before a lightning bolt) is used in sentences with the following environment: And he was all like the devil before lightning LTR. Why are you grinning like the devil before lightning?! Vrd. He grins at the girl like the devil before a lightning bolt J. And he will grin like a fiend before lightning Vrd. Why are you grinning like nakabis before a lightning bolt?! Sd. 215 Here the comparative phraseologism is associated only with verbs of similar meaning: smiles, grimaces, makes fun, and so on. Thus, this phraseologism has only one position in its environment. The phraseologism like a strong one is found in sentences such as: He goes like a strong one Alk. They carry themselves away from him like strong ones Lp. Those two had to run like strong ones to the house BsV 105. In these sentences, too, the comparative phraseologism forms a fixed comparative construction with a one-position environment, consisting of verbs of similar meaning goes, carries oneself away, runs, and so on. The comparison like mud is recorded in sentences such as: There will be wheat like mud Sdk. Money like mud Ds. This year we reaped rye like mud Prng. Here the comparative phraseologism is consistently associated with the genitive of a noun denoting strictly inanimate things. It is not associated with the genitive case of a noun denoting living beings or something abstract. The phraseologism like a hut is found in sentences such as: The man is like an oak, the woman like a hut Jnš. The mare is like a hut Ml. I loaded the wagon like a hut Vrn. Waves like huts Pgg. I tended the fire and piled up a new bonfire like a hut, so there would be something to light again Vaižg. This comparative phraseologism, as we can see, has fixed associations with nominative nouns of quite varied meanings, that is, a one-position environment. Nevertheless, the meaning of the environmental noun in the phraseologism is restricted: it may denote living beings and some inanimate things, but it cannot have an abstract meaning. Here we have mentioned several comparative phraseologisms that have only one environmental position. Most comparative phraseologisms in Lithuanian have this kind of environment. Some comparative phraseologisms have a two-position environment. For example, the environment of the phraseologism like a barrel consists of nominative forms of a noun denoting people, animals, or their limbs, and an adjective such as fat, swollen. For example: He was all swollen up, fat like a barrel Kv. He was dry as a little twig, but now he has become fat like a barrel Dv. I found the mare dead: swollen like a barrel, as if she were about to burst Žem. It is true—when I saw those cows, I shuddered too: their heads were swollen like barrels, the places where their horns should be were red, and it was truly frightening to think about BsP III 78. The examples show that the phraseologism like a barrel is consistently associated with positive-degree adjectives or participles used adjectivally: fat, swollen, bloated, and so on. However, this phraseologism is used not of all fat or swollen things, but only of people, animals, or their limbs. Thus, the meanings of both the environmental adjective or its participial substitute and the noun—that is, the object of comparison—are restricted in this comparative phraseologism. As we can see, in a sentence the noun may be replaced by a pronoun; sometimes it is not expressed at all, but only understood, or becomes clear from the broader context. Thus, the environment of the phraseologism like a barrel has two positions. We will now try to determine the phraseological environment of the phraseologisms like a scarecrow and like a pole. These phraseologisms are used in sentences such as: 216 as a raven: Black as a raven Ds. He came all painted up, black as a raven Pg. as a leech: Your neck is black as a leech Tvr. First of all, it is striking that both phraseologisms are associated with the adjective black, meaning “sooty, blackened, smeared with soot, and so on.” However, the phraseologism as a raven is used when speaking about a person or a part of their body, whereas the phraseologism as a leech is used only when speaking about a person's neck. These phraseologisms describe the feature of objects belonging not to the same, but to different kinds. Thus, the meaning is determined not only by the adjective in the collocational environment, but also by the expressed or implied noun. Consequently, these phraseologisms, too, have a two-position collocational environment. Comparative phraseologisms often have a two-position collocational environment that is structurally identical or very similar to the phraseologism. For example, the collocational environment of the phraseologism like a dog barking consists of the dative of a noun denoting a person, or of a pronoun replacing it, and the infinitive of a verb such as to speak, to talk: For him to speak is like a dog barking Vrb. For him to talk is like a dog yapping VIkv. If any element of this phraseologism's collocational environment were eliminated, the comparative construction would be incomplete and incomprehensible. § 12. In Lithuanian, the most productive group of comparative phraseologisms with a two-position collocational environment consists of comparative phraseologisms functioning adverbially, associated with an adjective denoting a definite qualitative meaning in the positive degree, or a participle replacing it, and a noun with a definite meaning, e.g., the aforementioned phraseologism like a barrel ‘very (fat, bloated, swollen—said of people, animals, or their limbs)’. However, quality is often expressed by the comparison alone, without an adjective; that is, the phraseologism is used only with a one-position nominal collocational environment. E.g.: like a barrel: He has become all bloated, fat as a barrel Kv. || The old woman rolled along like a barrel Lp. like a cucumber: You'll be as full as a cucumber Lp. || The man is like a cucumber, the wife like a bean Dkk. Thus, these phraseologisms can have a one- or two-position collocational environment. Although without the adjective in the environment the function and meaning of the comparative phraseologism change—that is, in function and meaning the phraseologism corresponds to an adjective rather than an adverb—the comparative construction remains sufficiently comprehensible with a one-position nominal collocational environment. We shall call those elements of the collocational environment without which a comparative phraseologism can still be used, and without which the comparative construction remains sufficiently clear and comprehensible, a facultative phraseological environment. We shall call those elements of the environment that are consistently associated with a phraseologism and without which it could not be used, because the comparative construction would be incomplete and incomprehensible, an obligatory phraseological environment. § 13. Depending on their position in the comparative construction, the collocational environment of comparative phraseologisms may be prepositional or postpositional, adjacent or more distant. The collocational environment of many Lithuanian comparative phraseologisms is prepositional, e.g.: boasts like a nobleman with papers; suited [someone] like a Barbie doll to Miko; looks around like 217 cowardly as the sky; oats like kernels; a neck black as a threshing floor, etc. Postposed context is considerably less common. Postposed context is usually the object context of comparative phraseologisms functioning as verbs, e.g., as if placed on a nail (what — usually food): Here, look, and she put down a bowl of porridge as if on a nail Plt. With the greatest appetite, she put down her bun as if on a nail I. Simon. However, this context may also be preposed, e.g.: They put down that deep half-bowl of potato soup as if on a nail Vvr. In a sentence, it sometimes even occurs in the middle of the phraseologism, e.g.: As if placing a bowl on a nail Žeml. When a comparative phraseologism has a two-position context whose two elements are both preposed (no postposed two-element context has been observed), we shall call the contextual element adjacent to the comparative phraseologism the near phraseological context, and the one farther away the distant phraseological context. For example, in the comparative construction a neck black as a threshing floor, the near phraseological context would be black, while the distant context would be neck. § 14. We have discussed that the context of comparative phraseologisms consists only of words belonging to certain grammatical categories and semantic classes. The degree of specificity in the meanings of contextual words is usually not uniform. In some phraseologisms, the contextual words have very narrow, individual meanings. In other comparative phraseologisms, the context consists of words from certain categories whose meanings are broader and more general, though still specific. A narrow, individual-meaning context occurs, for instance, in phraseologisms such as: sighs like a horse before a journey; vanished, disappeared like camphor without pepper; words, laughter like colostrum; dark as a wolf’s jaws, and many others. The context of these phraseologisms usually consists of only one word or its synonyms. Both contextual words in a two-position context can also have narrow, individual meanings, e.g., a neck black as a threshing floor. Comparative phraseologisms whose contextual meaning relates to the content of the comparison as figurative meaning relates to literal meaning always have an individual context, e.g., chatters like a buza nedavirus ‘a lot, nonsense (chatters, i.e. babbles)’; grinds like an empty millstone ‘a lot, nonsense (grinds, i.e. talks)’; and so on. An individual context also occurs when the context and the comparison contain cognate words, e.g., rattles like a rattle; rumbles like a little rumble-maker; stuffs like a stuffer, as well as in phraseologisms whose context and comparison are linked by sound echo, e.g., fit like Barbė [Elzė] with Mikas; mumbles like a beggar feeling around his navel, and so on. Comparative phraseologisms with a broader, more general context include, for instance: like locusts ‘a great many (of living beings and inanimate things)’; like from a puddle ‘a great many (of living beings)’; like ice ‘a great many (of inanimate things)’. It would be difficult to list the contextual words of these phraseologisms, since the contextual meaning here is broad and can be described only by its most general semantic characteristics. Nevertheless, the contextual meaning of these phraseologisms is specific: the first cannot be associated with the genitive of an abstract noun; the second cannot be associated with the genitive of a noun denoting inanimate entities or having an abstract meaning; and the third cannot be associated with the genitive case of a noun denoting living beings or having an abstract meaning. 218 The contextual words of two-position comparative phraseologisms may differ in their degree of semantic specificity. For example, in the phraseologism like wax ‘very yellow (of living beings and inanimate things)’, the near context yellow has an individual meaning, whereas the distant context consists of a fairly broad group of words. § 15. The relationship between comparative phraseologisms and proverbs that contain comparisons is interpreted in various ways. Some scholars consider proverbs to be phraseologisms, others do not. For instance, A. Molotkov24, in the introduction to the “Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language,” argues that proverbs have no signs of idiomaticity and therefore does not consider them phraseologisms. The “Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language” treats proverbs as idiomatic expressions requiring separate explanation, and thus regards them as phraseologisms. V. Felicina25 holds a similar view, classifying proverbs as phraseologisms on the basis of their idiomaticity. Even the aforementioned “Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language,” whose authors do not consider proverbs to be phraseologisms, includes a considerable number of fixed comparisons that folklorists usually call proverbs, e.g.: как за каменной стеной (жить); как на каменную стену (надеяться); как на иголках (сидеть), and so on. Apparently, the authors of this dictionary regard comparisons of this type as phraseologisms rather than proverbs. Some scholars, for instance A. Taylor26, distinguish proverbial comparisons as a separate type of fixed expression alongside proverbs and sayings. In linguistic literature, comparative phraseologisms together with their phraseological context are sometimes called proverbial expressions. G. Permiakov27 approaches the fundamental differences between phraseologisms, sayings, and proverbs from a semiological perspective. He considers phraseologisms to be fixed expressions (clichés, set formulas) that signify one concept, that is, serve as a sign for some object or concept. G. Permiakov regards sayings and proverbs not as signs of objects or concepts, but as signs of situations or relations between objects. Thus, in his view, phraseologisms express concepts, while proverbs and sayings express situations. Since proverbs expressed through comparisons are abundant in Lithuanian and other languages28, we are concerned to determine whether a comparison occurring within a proverb should be considered a phraseologism. Proverbs are studied by folkloristics, and comparative phraseologisms by phraseology. Different disciplines have different objects of study. Folklorists study a proverb containing a comparison as a whole, without isolating the comparison alone. Phraseologists are concerned only with the comparison itself and its phraseological context. 24 Молотков А. И. Фразеологизмы русского языка и принципы их лексикографического описания. — В кн.: Фразеологический словарь русского языка. М., 1967, с. 16. 25 Фелицина В. П. О пословицах и поговорках как материале для фразеологического словаря. — В кн.: Проблемы фразеологии (исследования и материалы). М.—Л., 1964, с. 200—204. 26 Taylor A. The proverb. — Cambridge—Massachusetts, 1931, p. 220—223. 27 Пермяков Г. Л. От поговорки до сказки (заметки по общей теории клише). — М., 1970, с. 8—50. 28 Pvz., daug tokių priežodžių galima rasti „Lietuvių tautosakos“ V tome (V., 1968), lenkų smulkiosios tautosakos rinkinyje „Nowa księga przysłów i wyrażeń przysłowiowych polskich“ (Warszawa, 1969, t. 1) ir kt. 219 Just as a proverb may occur within sayings—larger linguistic units—a comparative phraseological unit may also occur within sayings. For example, in the saying A promise like a goose, but a gift like a nail (Skd), the comparative phraseological units are like a goose and like a nail, while “promise” and “gift” are their contextual words. In the saying He cries as if wearing new shoes (TŽV 627), the comparative phraseological unit is as if wearing new shoes, while cries is the contextual word. Finally, a comparative phraseological unit may occur not only in sayings, but also in riddles and other traditional expressions. For example, in the riddle Legs white as snow, and head black as coal (a boletus mushroom) (LTsV506/Ls), the comparisons like snow and like coal should likewise be considered phraseological units, since they have an established context and the other characteristic features of comparative phraseological units. Or, imitating the wagtail’s voice, one says: I am a wagtail, my legs are like pestles. I’ll peck up that snow and kick away the ice (LTsV722/Pn). Here, the comparison like pestles is a phraseological unit used with the meaning “very thick (of legs)” also in ordinary sentences, e.g.: That woman’s legs are like pestles Jrb. What a girl—legs like little pestles Kps. Thus, in our view, there is no point in raising the question of whether fixed expressions containing a comparison should be considered sayings or comparative phraseological units. Whether a comparison is free or phraseological does not depend on whether it occurs in a saying, a proverb, or a work of some other genre. Therefore, comparisons that occur in sayings or other traditional expressions and that possess all the categorical features of phraseological units should be considered comparative phraseological units²⁹. § 16. In Lithuanian, alongside comparative phraseological units that consist, apart from the comparative conjunction, of only one lexical part of speech (usually a noun in the nominative), there are many words with a parallel metaphorical meaning. For example, there is the following comparative phraseological unit: like a monkey “very (fussy, squirming, etc.)”: Fusses (acts coy) like a monkey Vdk. Struts like a monkey Všk. Squirms like some kind of monkey Vyr. In the great “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” in addition to the primary meaning, the word “monkey” is given a second, figurative meaning: “someone who imitates others, acts coy,” illustrated by the sentence: He’s a real monkey Gs. In Lithuanian, as in other languages³⁰, such words are most often names of animals and birds, e.g.: sheep (ewe), ram, pig, fox, bear, goat, billy goat, wolf, hen, etc. For example, the comparative phraseological unit like a sheep (ewe, ram) exists alongside the figurative-meaning words sheep, ewe, ram: like a sheep (ewe, ram) 1. “completely, very (stupid)”: Big as an ox, stupid as a ram Psl. Big as a mare, and dumb as a ewe Prng. Stupid as a sheep Dkš. He is stupid as a sheep Ldvn. A very learned gentleman had been as stupid as a ram A. Vien. 2. “very (slow, quiet, calm—of a person)”: Slow as a ewe Škn. He got a good wife, calm as a ewe Jnš. He was slow and quiet as a lamb, never even- 29 A. Babkin holds a similar view. He proposes including comparisons that occur in sayings in a phraseological dictionary, and thus considers them phraseological units (see: Бабкин А. М. Лексикографическая разработка русской фразеологии. — М.-Л., 1964, с. 31). 30 Чернышева И. И. Фразеология современного немецкого языка. — М., 1970, с. 51. 220 would fuss with no one… Žem. Clever as a hen, fierce as a sheep (ironic) PPr 345. The figurative meaning of the words avis, avėlė, avinas, “an unwise, rather foolish, meek person,” is used in sentences such as: What am I to do with such a sheep Gs. You’re a real little sheep Lp. Oh, you sheep—where’s your head! Gs. Think I’ll explain it to a sheep like that Gs. A hopeless ram—nothing more rš. We could cite many more parallel cases in which a comparative idiom and a word with a metaphorical meaning similarly characterize a person, e.g., the idiom like a pig and pig in the figurative sense, referring to a shameless, rude, dirty person; the idiom like a fox and fox figuratively, referring to a cunning, crafty, ingratiating person; like a goat and goat figuratively, referring to a stubborn person, etc. Undoubtedly, many of these words with metaphorical meanings derive from comparisons. Estonian philologist I. Sarv31 calls such words with metaphorical meanings indirect folk comparisons. They arise when, owing to hyperbole, the comparative word is dropped. Besides the cases mentioned, a considerable number of comparative idioms coexist in parallel in language with idioms of the same or similar meaning that lack a comparative conjunction. For example: like smoke || out of smoke “in unison, in agreement (do, did something)”: They sing like smoke Mtl. Everyone got up and left as one Srv. Let’s all pitch in together—we’ll lift it Srv. like a sack of chaff “motionless, slumped (lies, sprawls, stands, etc.)” || sack of chaff “an awkward, slumped, good-for-nothing person”: He lounges like a sack of chaff Vžns. He sprawls like a sack of chaff Vl. He stands like a sack of chaff Zp. He’s a real sack of chaff Skr. like a sack of idlers “doing nothing, loafing (lurks, lounges, etc.)” || sack of idlers “a lazy person”: He loafs all day like a sack of idlers Pšš. What a lazybones! Sku. like clay Matthew “completely (does not move, cannot get moving, etc.)” || clay Matthew “a lazybones, a weakling, a lout”: He sits there stuck like clay Matthew Žr. Don’t turn into clay Matthew! Ds. Clay Matthew is fit only to lie on the stove Šlk. like one the earth will not bear || one the earth will not bear “very sad, dejected (walks; came home)”: He walks as if the earth would not bear him Šts. He came back from court looking as though the earth would not bear him Krtn. like (as if) fashioned from clay (clay) || fashioned from clay “very stocky, bulky (of a person or their limbs)”: An ugly man: his nose looks as if fashioned from clay Slm. Big, stout, fat Vidmantas seemed to Šešiavikis as if fashioned from clay… Vaizg. He was not fashioned from clay, but was a strong man Lk. It is difficult to establish the etymological relationship between each such pair of idioms. Since their lexical composition and meaning are very similar, in our view they arose from one another: idioms without a comparative conjunction may have developed from compari- 31 Сарв И. О подвидах и функциях эстонских поговорок. Автореф. канд. дис. — Тарту, 1964. 221 on the basis of our phraseological units or, conversely, comparative phraseological units on the basis of phraseological units without a comparative conjunction. The accidental coincidence of lexical components of a phraseological unit is entirely possible; however, the identical or very similar lexical meanings of these phraseological units indicate that they are etymologically closely related. It should be assumed that, say, the comparative phraseological units like a sack of chaff and like a sack of lazy people are of secondary origin, since there are far more phraseological units of analogous formation without a comparative conjunction and with the component sack, e.g.: a sack of gold ‘a rich person’; a sack of quarrels ‘someone who likes to quarrel, a quarrelsome person’; a sack of rumors ‘a bearer of gossip’; a sack of boasts (praise) ‘a braggart’; a sack of jokes ‘someone who likes to laugh a lot’; a leaky sack ‘a glutton’; a sack of illnesses ‘a person who is constantly ill’; a leather sack ‘derog. belly’; a sack of knowledge ‘someone who knows a lot, a knowledgeable person’, and so on. The fact that metaphorical words and phraseological units without a comparative conjunction coexist in the language alongside comparative phraseological units merely confirms the latter’s stability and traditional character. On the other hand, this shows that comparative phraseological units are a source that continually enriches the lexical composition of the language with words of new semantic content, and that the structural types of phraseological units themselves may change over time. GENERAL FEATURES AND CATEGORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPARATIVE PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS Abstract There are various points of view on the question of the most important features of phraseological units. Comparative phraseological units are used only within the context of particular words. The constant linguistic context of these comparisons is determined by their lexical meaning and grammatical form. A specific context together with a comparison forms a fixed comparative construction, which is a unit of the language system. Comparative phraseological units enter the language system only through a context conditioned grammatically and semantically. The constant links between a comparative phraseological unit and its context determine the stability and reproducibility in language of its lexical composition, grammatical structure, and generalized lexical meaning. Therefore, the author of this article considers a grammatically and semantically conditioned context to be the criterion for the stability and reproducibility of comparative phraseological units. Since the stability and reproducibility of comparative phraseological units depend on a grammatically and semantically conditioned context, the author considers a specific context to be the main criterion for distinguishing comparative phraseological units from other comparisons. The stability of lexical composition, grammatical structure, and generalized lexical meaning, as well as reproducibility in speech as ready-made, complete units, are also very important criteria, but all of them depend on the primary criterion. Following an examination of the most important criteria for identifying phraseological units using Lithuanian-language material, the article formulates the following definition of comparative phraseological units. Comparative phraseological units are comparisons with a fixed lexical composition, grammatical structure, and generalized lexical meaning, which have a grammatically and semantically conditioned context and are not created in the process of communication, but are reproduced from memory as ready-made formulas. 222 A firmly established combination of lexical and grammatical elements with an independent lexical meaning and an independent grammatical function, which is constantly associated with a phraseological unit and without which it loses its specific generalized meaning, is called a phraseological environment. Comparative phraseological units in Lithuanian may have one or two positions for the environment, an optional or obligatory phraseological environment. According to their position in the comparative construction, environments are distinguished as prepositive and postpositive, near and distant. The relationship between comparative phraseological units and sayings that contain a comparison is interpreted in different ways. The author of the article believes that the free or phraseological nature of a comparison does not depend on whether it is used in a saying, a proverb, or a work of another genre. Those comparisons that occur in sayings and other traditional utterances and possess all the categorical features of phraseological units are comparative phraseological units. The article discusses the relationship between comparative phraseological units and individual words with metaphorical meaning, which in their usage are close to phraseological units.