DOI: 10.30842/alp2306573716222
This paper explores a case of constructional borrowing in the Modern Greek language — the Modern Greek constructional phraseme Πιο Χ πεθαίνεις (lit., “more X you die”), which is a phraseological calque of the respective French (Plus X que Y, tu meurs) and Italian constructions (Più X di Y si muore).
Constructional phrasemes (CPhs) constitute productive patterns consisting of an idiomatic fixed component and a non-idiomatic variable component. The fixed component is reproduced in speech as a prefabricated language unit and determines the typical meaning of the construction, while the variable component is not lexically specified and is inserted into the construction depending on the context or the speaker’s intention. Though the typical meaning of a CPh is only determined by its fixed component, a CPh can become a complete utterance to express a complete thought after its variable component position is filled. The fixed component imposes certain semantic constraints on the fillers of the open slot.
Based on the data of Modern Greek text corpora, internet texts, and social networks messages, we make an attempt to determine the time when the CPh Πιο Χ πεθαίνεις emerged in Modern Greek. In order to see if the construction has undergone any changes in the course of its migration to Greek from Italian and/or French, we separately analyze the structure, the open slot fillers, and the functioning of the construction in Modern Greek, French, and Italian.
It is demonstrated that the borrowed construction has retained its original typical meaning. In the three languages, it typically denotes a high degree of a quality or the maximum manifestation of a characteristic of an object/person/state. It has also retained the semantic restrictions set by its fixed component for open slot fillers. At the same time, in the course of its borrowing, the construction has been reduced formally while enhancing its productivity and ability to form combinations with other language units.
Constructional phrasemes (CPhs) constitute productive patterns consisting of an idiomatic fixed component and a non-idiomatic variable component. The fixed component is reproduced in speech as a prefabricated language unit and determines the typical meaning of the construction, while the variable component is not lexically specified and is inserted into the construction depending on the context or the speaker’s intention. Though the typical meaning of a CPh is only determined by its fixed component, a CPh can become a complete utterance to express a complete thought after its variable component position is filled. The fixed component imposes certain semantic constraints on the fillers of the open slot.
Based on the data of Modern Greek text corpora, internet texts, and social networks messages, we make an attempt to determine the time when the CPh Πιο Χ πεθαίνεις emerged in Modern Greek. In order to see if the construction has undergone any changes in the course of its migration to Greek from Italian and/or French, we separately analyze the structure, the open slot fillers, and the functioning of the construction in Modern Greek, French, and Italian.
It is demonstrated that the borrowed construction has retained its original typical meaning. In the three languages, it typically denotes a high degree of a quality or the maximum manifestation of a characteristic of an object/person/state. It has also retained the semantic restrictions set by its fixed component for open slot fillers. At the same time, in the course of its borrowing, the construction has been reduced formally while enhancing its productivity and ability to form combinations with other language units.
Authors:
Onufrieva E. S.
lisa.onufrieva@gmail.com
E. S. Onufrieva
References:
A. N. Baranov, D. O. Dobrovol’skij. Aspekty teorii frazeologii [Aspects of Theory of Phraseology]. Moscow: Znak, 2008.
Baranov, Dobrovol’skij 2016
Baranov, Dobrovol’skij 2016 A. N. Baranov, D. O. Dobrovol’skij. Osnovy frazeologii (kratkiy kurs) [Basics of Phraseology (a concise course)]. Moscow: Flinta, 2016.
S. Bokobza. Jewish identity in French cinema (1950—2010). Newcastle upon Tyne: CSP, 2016.
T. Colleman. A reflection on constructionalization and constructional borrowing, inspired by an emerging Dutch replica of the ‘time’-away construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics. 2016. Vol. 30. No. 1. P. 91–113.
A. Dimokidis. Mikropragmata. I leksi ke i frasi pu psifisate na min ksanakustun to 2015 [Little things. The word and the phrase that you have voted not to be heard again in 2015]. Available at: https://www.lifo.gr/team/bitsandpieces/54280 (accessed on 21.09.2019).
D. Dobrovol’skij. Phraseologie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. A. Lasch, A. Ziem (eds.). Konstruktionsgrammatik III: Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Linguistik, 2011. S. 110–130.
D. Dobrovol‘skij. Grammatika konstruktsiy i frazeologiya [Construction Grammar and Phraseology]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya. 2016. No. 3. P. 7–21.
A. S. Doğruöz, S. Th. Gries. Spread of on-going changes in an immigrant language. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. 2012. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 401–426.
W. Fleischer. Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut, 1982.
A. Goldberg. Constructional borrowing and the process of factorization. Available at: https://www.princeton.edu/~adele/papers/Papers/Finished/Yiddish.doc (accessed on 21.09.2019).
2010 — D. Minniti-Gonias. Italikes ke eptanisiakes leksis stin elliniki argo [Italian and Heptanese words in the Greek argot]. Epistimoniki Epetiris tis Filosofikis Skholis tu Panepistimiu Athinon. 2009–2010. No. 41. P. 85–127.
F. Mollica, E. Schafroth. Der Ausdruck der Intensivierung in komparativen Phrasem-Konstruktionen im Deutschen und im Italienischen: eine konstruktionsgrammatische Untersuchung. K. Steyer (ed.). Sprachliche Verfestigung. Wortverbindungen, Muster, Phrasem-Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Narr, 2018. S. 103–136.
U. Ojetti. Cose viste. Corriere della Sera. 28.03.1922.
N. Sarantakos. Ti ine o khionoklonos; [What is a snowclone?]. Available at: https://sarantakos.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/clone/ (accessed on 21.09.2019).
E. Sivan. Colonialism and popular culture in Algeria. Journal of Contemporary History. 1979. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 21–53.
G. Smirnis. Ti theli na pi o piitis; “Pio erotas pethenis” — Eleni Fureira [What does the poet want to say? “More love you die” — Eleni Fureira. Available at: https://www.monopoli.gr/2013/01/23/istories/117305/ti-thelei-na-pei-o-poihths-pio-erwtas-pethaineis-elenh-foyreira/ (accessed on 21.09.2019).
E. M. Solodukho. Problemy internatsionalnoy frazeologii (na materiale yazykov slavyanskoy, germanskoy i romanskoy grupp) [The problems of international phraseologie (as shown by Slavic, Germanic and Romance languages)]. Kazan: Kazan University Publishing House, 1982.
A. Stefanowitsch, S. Th. Gries. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 2003. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 209–243.
G. Theokharis. Christiko glossary_v. 4 [Practical glossary_v. 4]. Available at: https://dimartblog.com/2018/02/04/facebook-14y/ (accessed on 21.09.2019).
F. Van de Velde, E. Zenner. Pimp my Lexis: het nut van corpusonderzoek in normatief taaladvies. E. Hendrickx, K. Hendrickx, W. Martin, H. Smessaert, W. Van Belle, J. Van der Horst (eds.). Liever meer of juist minder? Over normen en variatie in taal. Gent: Academia press, 2010. P. 51–68.
A. V. Velichko. Predlozheniya frazeologizirovannoy struktury v russkom yazyke: strukturno-semanticheskoye i funktsionalno-kommunikativnoye issledovaniye [Sentences of phraseologized structure in Russian language: a structural semantic and functional-communicative study]. Moscow: MAKS Press, 2016.
S. Zafiri. Ta metafrastika dania tis neas ellinikis [Loan translations of Modern Greek]. Doctoral thesis. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, 2015. Available at: http://thesis.ekt.gr/thesisBookReader/id/37943#page/1/mode/2up (accessed on 21.09.2019).
Issue
XVI (2020) 2
Документ