Term-Phraseological Units in Professionally Oriented Texts: Semantic and Structural Peculiarities (On the Material of LSP Insurance)

Author Information

Elena Monakhova,
Moscow City University, Russia
People’s Friendship University of Russia, Russia

Elena Yurieva,
Moscow City University, Russia

DOI: 10.47298/comela22.4-5
The GLOCAL Proceedings:  The GLOCAL Conference in the Mediterranean and Europe 2022

Abstract

Political and social transformations have led to changes in lexical systems of national languages, which respond vividly to the emergent needs of society. The loss by special lexical units (terms) of their terminological exclusiveness, and their transition into the sphere of general use, indicates human involvement in economic, political, social, and other spheres, and the human dependence on current processes.

Owing to a constant and continuous exchange between language for general purposes and language for specific purposes, and one which is bidirectional, the transition of word combinations and phraseological units into the sphere of special use has culminated in a process of determinism. Here, terminological units, for instance, LSP units, have begun to become widely used in language for general purposes. The active penetration of phraseology into the professional sphere of communication has encouraged linguists to conduct respective work in this field. One such aspect of phraseological unit study is their functioning in professional spheres, whereby scientists widely consider and discuss the problem of origin and use of term-phraseological units.

Considering the complex nature of phraseological phrases and the fact that, initially, these units belong to general literary language, these units have been labelled term-phraseological units, as they are used in a terminological context, and thus form a second, terminological meaning. Such a phenomenon emerges from the generality of laws, and the functioning of terminological and commonly used vocabulary, yet also by the desire to identify word-forming features of terminology.

Therefore, we see a need to discuss the theoretical underpinnings of semantic processes that underlie the formation of terminological meaning in phraseological units, the identification of semantic-nominative features of phraseological terms, and their differences to phraseological units of language for general purposes.

The paper focuses on the complexity of the mutual penetration and influence of terminological and phraseological systems of the English language. The paper reveals the current patterns in viewing language units across various fields of knowledge, and evidences the fact that insurance terms are gaining higher social significance, more so as a greater number of people are involving themselves in this field of activity.


Keywords: Language for general and specific purposes, phraseological units, linguistic anthropology


References

Akhmanova, O., S. (2004). Dictionary of Linguistic Terms (2nd Ed.). Moscow: Editorial.
Amosova N., N. (1963). Fundamentals of English Phraseology. LSU.
Arnold, I., V. (1986). Lexicology of the Modern English Language. Moscow: Higher School of Economics.
Cowie, A., P. (2001). Introduction. In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications (Ed.) (Pp. 1–20). Oxford: Oxfrd University Press.
Cowie, A., P. (1981). The Treatment of Collocations and Idioms in Learners’ Dictionaries. Applied Linguistics, 2(3): 223–235.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language Play. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kunin, A., V. (1986). Course of Phraseology of the Modern English Language. Dubna: Feniks.
Leychik, V., M. (2009). Terminovedenie. Subject, Methods, Structure. Moscow: Knizhnyy dom Liborkom.
Melnikov, G., P. (1991). Osnovy Terminovedeniya. Moscow: Lzd. un-ta Druzhby Narodov.
Monakhova, E. (2020). Linguopragmatic Issues of Figurative Language Use in Economic Texts, EpSBS, 97(TILTM): 414-423.
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Morgunova, M., N. (2006). Structural and Semantic Features of Phraseological Terminology of Business English /  /  Language. Text. Diskurs: Mezhvuz.nauch. Almanac. Issue 4. Stavropol: Publishing house of PGLU.
Naciscione, A. (2010). Stylistic Use of Phraseological Units in Discourse. Amterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Grange, S. and Meunier, F. (Eds.) (2008). Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Smirnitsky, A., I. (1998). Lexicology of the English Language. Moscow: Omen.
Svensson, M., H. (2008). A Very Complex Criterion of Fixedness: Non-compositionality. In S. Granger and F. Meunier (eds), Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 81–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verstraten, L. (1992). Fixed Phrases in Monolingual Learners’ Dictionaries. In P. J. L. Arnaud and H. Béjoint (eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics (pp. 28–40. London: Macmillan.
Vinogradov, V., V. (1977). On the Main Types of Phraseological Units in the Russian Language. Moscow: Science.
Yuryeva, E., A. (2011). Lexico-phraseological Variation of Units of the General Literary Language (lgp) and Languages for Special Purposes (LSP). Scientific Notes of the Russian State Social University, Moscow, RSSU. 6(94): 368-373.
Yurieva, E., A. (2012). Semantic Study of Terms-phraseological Units in the LSP ‘Insurance’ Human Capital, Scientific and Practical Journal,. 10-11(46-47): 115-119.
Zhukov, V., P. (2006). Russian Phraseology. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola.



Full COMELA 2022 Proceedings book