slang word speech idiom winged

Marking by the source creates in the native speaker the perception of the intertext as a text in sich und an sich. Being a mini-text, the intertexteme in a maxi-text behaves very actively and multifunctionally: either as its structural element such as a phraseological unit, or as its completed fragment of a paremiological type, or as a fragment of its prototype, transformed almost beyond recognition. The functional status of intertextemes in general is extremely heterogeneous due to the heterogeneity of their purely linguistic status. The attempt to identify a catchword or expression (resp. intertexteme, precedent text, textual reminiscence) with a unit of a specific level of the language system is doomed to failure, since the very criterion for its isolation, as we have seen, is an extralinguistic criterion.

Attempts at such identification, however, are constantly made by linguists, as evidenced by the fierce debate about whether a catch phrase is a phraseological unit, which was conducted by phraseologists in the 60s. Time has shown that such a formulation of the question is incorrect and the answer to it depends only on the actual linguistic characteristics specific (but not all) intertextems to the category of stable phrases. That part of the lionfish that functionally and structurally corresponds to this characteristic can be classified as phraseology. In the same way, intertextemes with a complete paremiological structure can be classified as proverbs, and winged words-mythologems or proper names that have undergone metaphorization can be classified as connotative lexemes. In this sense, intertextems are the genetic source of linguistic units that are very different in structure and semantics, but what makes them such is only their “testing” in the language system, their reproducibility in finished form.

It should be emphasized that none of the three criteria mentioned above is self-sufficient for identifying CS and CV as specific linguistic units, since each of them can characterize other units - for example, lexemes (proper names and symbolic words), phrasemes, paremias, small forms of folklore, extended aphorisms, etc.). Only the combination of these three criteria makes it possible to outline the circle of “lionfish” as a linguistic phenomenon. At the same time, we must not forget that the main parameter for identifying them - belonging to a specific author - is extralinguistic and very relative due to the well-known difficulties of accurately verifying a specific source.

In this case, being marked by a source is not a linguistic, but an extralinguistic feature. That is why, linguistically, intertextems are characterized by exceptional heterogeneity and cannot be reduced to some kind of integral level system. “These are rather not strict units, such as words, morphemes, sentences, phraseological units, but rather elements that relate, perhaps, more to the psychological phenomena of memory than to language itself as a system,” aptly emphasizes the borderline and linguistically heterogeneous nature of intertextemes (TR) A.E. Suprun, adding: - but since this memory is about verbal phenomena, it is adjacent to the linguistic structure and TR can be considered as part of the language "" (Suprun 2001, 106). Suprun (ibid., 102), intertextems are a kind of “digests of texts.” Thus, the relationship of intertextems to language is determined by their reproducibility by the speaker’s memory, and not by their level homogeneity.

Statement of the borderline nature of intertextems is very important for their objective classification and correct description. There are two main directions possible here - extralinguistic and linguistic.

The actual linguistic hypostasis of intertexts forces us to differentiate and describe their functional and semantic parameters. Thus, with a common source, the functional status of biblical words is very different depending on which level group a specific unit belongs to. From the perspective of the problem of the functioning of intertextemes in the text that interests us, we can distinguish 3 of their main groups: 1) intertextemes-lexemes (Adam, Eve, Herod , Judas, Cain, Methuselah, etc.); 2) intertextual phraseological units (lamb of God, grapes of wrath, behind seven gloves, bury talent in the ground, thirty pieces of silver, vale of tears, etc.); 3) intertextemes-proverbs (Do not dig a hole for another, you will fall into it yourself; Do not make yourself an idol; The forbidden fruit is sweet; Many are called, [but] few are chosen; Those who take the sword will perish by the sword; Let there be light! etc. Each of these groups demonstrates in the text exactly those linguistic qualities that are characteristic of the corresponding language level. Let us illustrate this with examples of the functioning of these units in the text, limiting ourselves, due to space limitations, to only one winged unit from each group:

1. - Nanny, where is Zhuchka? - asks Tema. “And-and,” the nanny answers, “Some Herod threw the bug into the old well.” N. Garin-Mikhailovsky. Childhood Topics; “You Herod! Crane neck, yellow gray hair! Why are you attacking people past yourself? Why are you putting your life on hold?!” B. Shergin. Egor is having fun with the sea.

2. MASSACRE OF INFANTS, HEROD’S MASSACRE OF INFANTS. There are few sadder sights in the world than this huge, dirty, dim, spit-stained customs hall<...>I saw children being pulled out of carriages at four o'clock in the morning during pouring rain, despite the protests of their mothers. Really, it looked like some kind of Herod’s massacre of the infants. A. Kuprin. Cote d'Azur; The heads of the districts were hastily called, received prompt inspiration and rushed to their areas to create order or disorder. What was not done at this time... Thunder, lightning... Herod's massacre of infants and Mama's invasion. A. Kuprin. Dad: If Rusanov is deeply convinced that by carrying out this constant beating of babies in his department / bringing bribe-taking officials to trial /, he is really eradicating bribery, ... then Rusanov can safely remain in the service. D. Pisarev. Angry impotence; Young poets<...>The Thursday issues of Russian Post, in which Ilya Platonovich<...>carries out a weekly massacre of literary babies. A. Kuprin. By order.

3. DO NOT CREATE YOURSELF AN IDOLM. We will not create an idol for ourselves // Neither on earth nor in heaven: // For all the gifts and blessings of the world // We will not fall to dust before him. A. Pleshcheev. Forward; Pasternak, Akhmatova, Tsvetaeva stand firmly in their places in literature and do not at all need the support of poetry “fans” who attribute to them undeniable primacy, etc. and so on. Do not make yourself an idol! Book review, 1987, November 13. N 46, p.5; Wolzogen treated his lordship with a certain affected carelessness, the purpose of which was to show that he, as a highly educated military man, was leaving it to the Russians to make an idol out of this old, useless man, and he himself knew with whom he was dealing. L. Tolstoy. War and Peace; Nannies, wet nurses, even they create an idol for themselves out of the child they look after, but the wife! and mother! I. Goncharov. An ordinary story; Why do so many people so want to “create an idol” for themselves, to slavishly obey, to lick the boots of the tyrant, and even to perceive the whip and shackles as some kind of blessing... Book. review, 1989. N 45, p. 7; No other country makes idols of economists and enrolls them in oracles with such passion as we do. And they also overthrow them with ruthless passion. Izvestia, 1990, April 2.

In the first case, the winged word Herod in the text reveals all the signs of a connotatively charged word, reflecting the stages of metaphorization and transformation of a proper name into a common noun: in N. Garin-Mikhalkovsky it is used figuratively, and in B. Shergin it is used abusively, with a lexically weakened, diffuse meaning. These stages reflect the process of constant “separation” from the original source, the loss of the winged word of its main categorical attribute. Actually, its lexical status only increases from this, since in the end it flows into the boundless sea of ​​expressive and abusive vocabulary of the Russian language.

In the second case, despite the initially bookish nature of the chosen catchphrase, dominant signs of the functioning of the phraseological unit in the text are observed. So, like most phraseological units, the popular phrase beating up babies does not develop much polysemy. In fact, the meanings that can be found from contextual implementations are to some extent syncretic and covered by a generalized meaning - about excessive severity in relation to someone, severe reprisals against the defenseless, inexperienced." Secondly, with semantic compactness, this is a popular expression exhibits formal variability characteristic of many phraseological units: it acts as a comparison (similar to some kind of Herod’s massacre of infants) with an allusion to the original source; it allows for the insertion of an additional component (the beating of literary infants) or clarification of the phrase with an epithet (the constant beating of infants). Such explication, " the increment" of the component, as we see, allows for some disharmony with the book style of the original source.

In the third case, we are dealing with an ancient winged aphorism-proverb, known in different options in many languages. Its popularity is due to the fact that it is the second of God’s ten commandments (Exodus 20:4), which require believers not to create false gods: “You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness (in Russian translation: do not make for yourself an idol.” The tendency towards structural variation inherent in its origins, as we have seen in the above contexts, is also functionally realized as its textual specificity. Also important is such a purely paremiological parameter of this winged theme as its ability in the text to be transformed into the phraseological unit create/create, create/create, make/make an idol out of someone, something “to create a deity out of someone, something, blindly worship someone, something.”

The justification for assessing CS and CV as a relatively unified linguistic space is confirmed by their functioning in literary, artistic and journalistic texts. Marking by a familiar (or pseudo-familiar, but recognizable as “not own”) source determines the use of such units as intertextems - constructive elements that concentrate the symbolic and expressive semantics of the text. It is clear that, due to their linguistic heterogeneity, they manifest themselves linguistically differently. Thus, winged words accumulate lexical symbolism (Oblomov, Nozdryov, mankurt, Eureka!, etc.), winged phrasemes perform predominantly an expressive-evaluative, characterizing function (Demyanov’s ear, the great combinator, the light at the end of the tunnel), catchphrases with the structure of the sentence, they gravitate toward logical-didactic semantics, in many cases combined with expressive-evaluative semantics (After all, a smile is the flag of a ship; A spark will ignite a flame; Russia cannot be understood with the mind).

The attraction to a single linguistic space also stimulates their active interpenetration generated by variability. Preserving linguistic identity thanks to certification by a specific source, these units are intensively explicated and implied, change their component composition, and form word-formation and phonetic series. CS, for example, are not only overgrown with derivatives (Nozdrev - Nozdrevschina, Manilov - Manilovschina), but also unfold into PU (Manilov's dreams) or catchphrases with a complete syntactic structure. The latter, on the contrary, can “condense” into popular idioms and vocabulary. Of course, this interpenetration is not characteristic of every winged unit: the ability to vary and its scale depend on many factors, the decisive of which seem to be the activity of use (resp. popularity) of CS and CV and their own linguistic parameters - especially structure and semantics . Different functional-semantic results are also produced by different types of variation. Lexical variations, for example, can lead to an almost complete separation of these linguistic units from the prototype, turning it into a “generative model” for new and new units (caliph for an hour, Caesar to Caesar, etc.).

the functional specificity of the three groups of intertextemes found a detailed lexicographic description in two large dictionaries of Russian phraseology and catchwords (Melerovich, Mokienko 1997; BMSh 2000), where taking it into account helps to specifically characterize intertextems of different ranks. In the first dictionary, for example, some of the most relevant intertextems were described “on an equal footing” with the main body of unmarked Russian phraseology, undergoing individual authorial transformations - see such catchphrases as “bring it on a silver platter”, a storm in a teacup, a voice crying in desert, pique vests, the die is cast, the Rubicon has been crossed, separating the wheat from the chaff, the topic of the day, the cornerstone, the spreading cranberry, the scapegoat, getting from the ship to the ball, the naked king, carrying your cross, sinking into oblivion, Procrustean bed, fighting with windmills, there is still gunpowder in the flasks, wash your hands and much more. etc.

It turned out that almost the entire scale of phraseological configurations that ensure the full existence of the text is active for this group of intertextems (Melerovich, Mokienko 1990; Melerovich, Mokienko 1997, 17-32). We divided these configurations into 2 main types - I) semantic and II) structural-semantic. The first include, for example: 1) acquisition of an additional shade by the intertextema; 2) rethinking; change in connotative content; semantic transformations based on the imagery of the intertexteme (double actualization, literalization of meaning, folk etymological rethinking of the internal form, author's etymology, explication of the internal form). The second - 1) change in component composition: expansion, contraction, changes in the arrangement of components (distant arrangement, syntactic inversion), internal and external morphological transformations (changes in the grammatical form of intertextems), changes in the internal syntactic structure, the transition of affirmative forms to negative ones and vice versa, expansion and narrowing of lexical-syntactic compatibility, complete deformation, use of individual components of the intertextual system, etc.; 2) transformations, as a result of which occasional (individual author’s) intertextems arise (words formed on the basis of phraseological units, occasional phraseological units isolated from stable phrases, occasional phraseological units formed as a result of structural-semantic analogy, inversion transforms, etc.).

At the same time, intertextemes-proverbs are described in a differentiated manner - cf., for example, biblical words: God is God, and Caesar is Caesar’s (Melerovich, Mokienko 1997, 82-83), In someone else’s eye we see a speck, but in our own [and] we do not notice a log (p. 151-153), The forbidden fruit is sweet (521-522) or the ancient catchphrase The first swallow does not make spring (p. 361-363). Only when these two types of intertextemes enter into dynamic interaction does the paremiological intertexteme function within the framework of purely phraseological configurations: such, for example, are the combinations dig a hole, forbidden fruit, or the first swallow, which are implicant phraseological units of the intertextems of the paremiological group. And naturally, acting in the guise of an intertextual phraseological unit, they lose the ability to function in the text as independent “mini-texts”, “digests” of texts and turn into its building elements, verbal-compositional fragments.

Marking by the source causes a sharper polarization of the CS and CV along the “friend - alien” axis compared to other linguistic units. On the one hand, most of the lionfish goes back to the literary origins of the most different nations world, especially Europe. On the other hand, Russian, like other languages, accumulates many of its own, nationally specific CS and CV. Different in origin and area, international and actually Russian winged units behave differently and linguistically. Identifying the differential features of CS and CV according to this parameter is one of the urgent tasks of modern Russian studies. At the same time, we must not forget that any language adapts international lionfish according to its own laws, so national specificity can be identified in KS and KV that are not originally Russian in origin. Such, for example, is a large layer of biblical words, many of which are unique in the Russian language both in form and content. A comparative analysis of the “winged” fund with the corresponding material of other languages ​​is an effective procedure for differentiating “one’s own” and “another’s”. Such an analysis can give a lot to the theory and practice of translationology, since KS and CT are one of the powerful generators of “false friends of the translator.”

The linguistic diversity of CS and CV significantly complicates their lexicographic description. To one part of them, traditional methods of dictionary processing of vocabulary are applicable, to another - specialized methods of presenting phraseology in the dictionary (resp. idioms), to the third, the technique of lexicography of proverbs and aphorisms is applicable. Even purely formal lexicographic parameters - for example, the order of arrangement of CS and CV in the dictionary is ambiguous and requires taking into account their structural specificity. The creation of various matrices for the lexicography of such units also requires their definition, stylistic qualification, fixation of variants, etc. Marking by the source here also makes the diachronic parameter of the description of CS and CV mandatory, which is impossible without special developments, especially for new material that richly saturates modern literature and media. A particularly complex and almost undeveloped area of ​​lexicography is the compilation of bilingual dictionaries KS and KV. The practical solution to these problems in the report is illustrated by the experience of the published intelligent " Big Dictionary winged words of the Russian language" (BIS 2000) and prepared for publication" Russian-Polish dictionary winged words" (compiled by V.M. Mokienko, V. Khlebda, S.G. Shulezhkova).

An important practical aspect of the study of Russian lionfish is the complex of problems of teaching it to foreign students. Selection of such units in the dictionary educational type has already been implemented more than 20 years ago by Yu.E. Prokhorov and V.P. Felitsyna in the linguistic and cultural dictionary “Russian proverbs, sayings and popular expressions” (M, 1979, 1988), however, socio-political changes recent years in Russia require significant additions, reductions and general adjustments to Russian CS and CV, which can be recommended to multilingual audiences. Problems such as minimizing the relevant material, interpreting it in educational texts, and correlating it with the corresponding units should also be solved in a new way. native language students, demonstrating its national specificity and international basis.

All the identified problems can be successfully solved only by constantly taking into account the essential linguistic and extralinguistic characteristics of CS and CV - characteristics arising from such a common property as intertextuality.

From the explanations of catchwords and examples of their use, one can see that many expressions included in literary speech received a new meaning that was not inherent in their source. Expressions that arose from biblical myths have lost their church-cult connotation, acquired a different meaning, and are often used ironically.

Phraseologisms are popular expressions that do not have an author. Authorship doesn't matter. These “highlights” have become firmly established in our language, and are perceived as a natural element of speech, coming from the people, from the depths of centuries.

Phraseologisms are a decoration of speech. Imagery, which is easily perceived in native speech, becomes a stumbling block in foreign speech. foreign language. We absorb our language model with mother's milk.

For example, when you say “a storehouse of knowledge”, you don’t think about the fact that a storehouse is a well! Because when you say this, you don’t mean a well at all, but an intelligent person, from whom, like from a well, you can draw useful information.

Phraseologisms and their meanings Examples

The meaning of phraseological units is to give emotional coloring expression, to enhance its meaning.

Since water plays a big role in human life, it is not surprising that there are so many phraseological units associated with it:

  • Water doesn't cloud your mind.
  • Water doesn't cry for water.
  • The water is breaking the dam.
  • Water will find a way.

Below, as examples, are phraseological units that are somehow related to water:

Beat the key– about a stormy, eventful, fertile life: by analogy with a gushing spring in comparison with calmly flowing sources of water.

Fight like a fish on ice- persistent but vain efforts, fruitless activities

Storm in a teacup- great anxiety over a trivial matter.

Written on the water with a pitchfork– it is not yet known how it will be, the outcome is not clear, by analogy: “grandmother said in two”

You can't spill it with water- about strong friendship

Carry water in a sieve- waste time, do useless things Similar to: pounding water in a mortar

I put water in my mouth- is silent and doesn't want to answer

Carry water(on sb.) - burden him with hard work, taking advantage of his flexible nature

Still waters run deep- about someone who is quiet, humble only in appearance

Come out dry from water- without bad consequences, go unpunished

Output to clean water - to expose, to catch in a lie

Drive the wave- carry gossip, provoke scandals

Ninth wave- severe test (high wave)

Money is like water — meaning the ease with which they are spent

To stay afloat — be able to cope with circumstances and conduct business successfully

Blow on water after getting burned on milk- be overly cautious, remembering past mistakes

Wait by the sea for weather- wait for favorable conditions that are unlikely to happen

From empty to empty (pour)- engage in empty, meaningless reasoning

As two drops of water- similar, indistinguishable

Like looking into the water- foresaw, accurately predicted events, as if he knew in advance

How he sank into the water- disappeared without a trace, disappeared without a trace

Down in the mouth- sad, sad

It's raining like buckets- heavy rain

Like water through your fingers- one who easily escapes persecution

How do you not know the ford? , then don't go into the water- warning not to take hasty action

How to give something to drink- accurately, undoubtedly, easily, quickly; as easy as giving a traveler a drink

Like a fish in water- very well oriented, understand something well, feel confident

Like water off a duck's back- no one cares about anything

Out of the blue- unexpectedly, suddenly

A drop wears away a stone — 0b perseverance and perseverance

Sink into oblivion- To be consigned to oblivion, to disappear without a trace and forever

Crocodile tears- insincere compassion

Swim in gold- to be very rich

The ice has broken- the matter has begun

Fish in troubled waters- to benefit for oneself without advertising it

Much water has passed under the bridge(since) – a lot of time has passed

Reckless- about a decisive, gallant, courageous person

Sea of ​​tears- cry a lot

Darker than a cloud- very angry

Muddy the waters- deliberately confuse, confuse or cause confusion

On the wave of success- take advantage of the opportunity

On the crest of a wave- is in favorable conditions

At the bottom- low (including in a figurative sense)

Build up the atmosphere- exaggerate the seriousness of the situation

You cannot enter the same river (water) twice- you can enter the stream of water again, but it will no longer be the same, because in life you cannot repeat some moments, you cannot experience them twice

If we don't wash, we'll just ride- not in one way, but in another, by any means (to achieve something, to annoy someone). The expression comes from the speech of village washerwomen

Slurping not salty- return without profit

Live from bread to water- to be in poverty, to starve

To pour (water) from empty to empty- engage in monotonous, meaningless activities

Washing the bones- to slander, gossip, gossip about someone

Fill up the cup- make you nervous

To go with the flow- submit to the influence of circumstances, the course of events

After the rain on Thursday- never. The phraseological unit is associated with the veneration of the god Perun (the god of thunder and lightning) by the ancient Slavs. Thursday was dedicated to him. In Christian times the expression began to express complete distrust

Last straw- something after which a turning point occurs

Go through fire, water and copper pipes - survive life's trials, difficult situations

A dime a dozen- a large number of

Flog a dead horse- a useless matter Similarly:

Pound water in a mortar- engage in useless, empty work

Seventh water on jelly- distant relatives

Seven feet under the keel- have a good, unobstructed road

Don't drink water from your face- they persuade you to love a person not for external data, but for internal qualities or other less visible advantages.

Hide the ends in water- hide traces of the crime.

Quieter than water, below the grass- behave modestly, inconspicuously

Wash your hands- to distance yourself from something, to relieve oneself of responsibility for something. Among some ancient peoples, judges and prosecutors performed a symbolic ritual as a sign of their impartiality: they washed their hands. The expression became widespread thanks to the Gospel legend, according to which Pilate, forced to agree to the execution of Jesus, washed his hands in front of the crowd and said: “I am innocent of the blood of this Righteous One.”

2.5 Differences between proverbs and phraseological units catchphrases

According to V.A. Zhukov, from ancient times, sayings have been distinguished from proverbs. He believes that proverbs usually refer to widespread expressions - sayings that figuratively define any life phenomena. But there is also a similarity: sayings, like proverbs, have entered everyday speech, do not exist outside of it, and it is in speech that they reveal their real properties. A saying, even more than a proverb, conveys an emotional and expressive assessment of various life phenomena and exists in speech in order to express, first of all, the feelings of the speaker [Zhukov 1993: 11].

Linguists agree that from the very beginning of studying and collecting proverbs and sayings, their publications began to be accompanied by small explanations: how to understand the meaning of proverbs and sayings, what life phenomena to relate them to. This emphasizes their complex nature [Aleshkevich 2006: 64].

T.M. Akimova believes that proverbs in folk speech sayings are close. For example, she says that these two genres of folklore are similar in their brevity, power of judgment, poetic expressiveness, but, nevertheless, the researcher also points out the differences that exist between proverbs and sayings. According to T.M. Akimova, proverbs are complete judgments, sentences that have a subject and a predicate, and sayings are only an apt hint of a judgment. To prove this difference, she makes the following comparison: thus, the phrase “It’s easy to rake in heat with someone else’s hands” is a saying, there is no judgment or conclusion in it, but if you add it: “It’s easy to rake in heat with someone else’s hands,” then the saying will turn into a proverb [Akimova 1983 : 132].

V.P. Anikin writes that “the people expressed this difference in a proverb: a saying is a flower, and a proverb is a berry,” indicating that a proverb is something unfinished, with a hint of judgment [Anikin 1988: 45].

It should be noted that proverbs and sayings differ both from phraseological units and from popular words and expressions.

According to the fair remark of N.M. Shansky, proverbs differ from phraseological units logically (proverbs are adequate to judgment and motivation, while phraseological units are adequate to concepts); syntactically – they have the form of a sentence, not a phrase; pragmatically - can serve didactic purposes, which is not typical for phraseological units. Proverbs are a kind of autosemantic texts embedded in discourse.

The researcher notes that the edifying or didactic nature of proverbs is most transparent in sayings of an motivating nature. However, it can also be found in sayings of a narrative nature, i.e. it can be argued that for each proverb a context of a didactic nature is possible [Shansky 1985: 30].

N.F. Alefirenko says that proverbs and sayings differ from phraseological units in structural and semantic terms: they represent a complete sentence. Their holistic semantic content is based not on concepts, but on judgments. Therefore, proverbs and sayings cannot be carriers of the lexical meaning that is inherent in phraseological units; their meaning can only be conveyed by a sentence (often expanded), while the meaning of a phraseological unit is conveyed by a word or phrase [Alefirenko 2000: 33–36].

The difference between proverbs and phraseological units, according to the remarks of E.A. Korablevoy also lies in the fact that proverbs can be simultaneously used in a literal and figurative meaning.

Proverbs, due to their duality, as well as sayings used in the literal sense, consist of words with a well-defined independent lexical meaning, which cannot be said about phraseological units, the components of which are completely or partially deprived of semantic independence. Words that are part of proverbs and sayings and express the most essential aspects of thought are often highlighted, or at least can be highlighted with logical emphasis. Almost no logical emphasis can be placed on any of the components of the phraseological unit. Phraseologisms, thus, lack actual division [Korableva 2006: 59–65].

S.F. Baranov determined the difference between proverbs and sayings from popular expressions: the former have a folk, not book origin. However, as the researcher notes, it is not always possible to establish whether a particular expression belongs to a specific author or whether the writer borrowed it from folk speech.

Proverbs and sayings are quite widely represented in all modern languages, including in French. Their frequent use in oral and writing This is explained, first of all, by the fact that they give it a special flavor, making it more figurative and expressive. In addition, it is necessary to emphasize that proverbs and sayings have an emotional and stylistic overtones, due to which they improve the communicative function of language [Baranov 1902: 125–126].

So, being sentences, that is, units with a closed structure, proverbs and sayings have semantic and intonational completeness, categories of predicativity and modality, which distinguishes them from phraseological units, which are most often expressed in a word or phrase.


Phraseology is a branch of the science of language that studies stable combinations of words. Phraseologism is a stable combination of words, or a stable expression. Used to name objects, signs, actions. It is an expression that arose once, became popular and became entrenched in people's speech. The expression is endowed with figurativeness and may have figurative sense. Over time, an expression can take on a broad meaning in everyday life, partially including the original meaning or completely excluding it.

Lexical meaning has a phraseological unit as a whole. The words included in a phraseological unit individually do not convey the meaning of the entire expression. Phraseologisms can be synonymous (at the end of the world, where the raven did not bring bones) and antonymous (raise to heaven - trample into the dirt). A phraseological unit in a sentence is one member of the sentence. Phraseologisms reflect a person and his activities: work (golden hands, playing the fool), relationships in society (bosom friend, putting a spoke in the wheels), personal qualities (turning up his nose, sour face), etc. Phraseologisms make a statement expressive and create imagery. Set expressions used in works of art, in journalism, in everyday speech. Set expressions are also called idioms. There are many idioms in other languages ​​- English, Japanese, Chinese, French.

To clearly see the use of phraseological units, refer to their list or on the page below.