Modern Life Of Biblical Phraseology And Its Variants In English

Lexical-substantive variants of English phraseological units of biblical origin

The text of the Bible runs as follows: “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Juda from the four corners of the earth ” ( King James Bible , 1769/2017, Isaiah 11:12).

In this regard, the basic version of the phraseological unit under study is considered to be the form from the four corners of the earth (a). Along with the use of the original, or basic, version of the biblical PU (a), over time, this phraseological unit acquires a lexical-substantive variant from the four corners of the world (b), in which the substantive component of the PU prototype earth is replaced by another substantive component world . See contextual illustrations:

(a) They got a nasty shock: real bush pilots had been attracted to the UK from the four corners of the earth to get these well-maintained examples, and the high prices they fetched reflected the great demand that still <…>. (BNC). (b) Craftsmen laboured for nearly a millennia on intricate carvings. Scholars gathered wisdom and knowledge from the four corners of the world. (BNC).

In modern English of a later period, another lexical-substantive variant of the PU in question appears, that with the component globe, accompanied by another lexical variant, i.e. replacement of the numeral component four with an adjectival component performing an identical function of the attribute in a given syntactic structure , and with a variation of the preposition. The contextual analysis makes it obvious that the variants of the phraseological units under study, while preserving the meaning and functional affiliation with the adverbial phraseological units, do not violate the identity (for the term see: Fedulenkova, 2019) of the language unit in question. Further, the development of the biblical phraseological unit goes in the direction of reducing the componential composition and converting the adverbial phraseological unit from the four corners of the earth to the nominative PU the four corners of the earth.

Lexical-prepositive-substantive variants of English phraseological units of biblical origin

In the same section of the Bible we read: “Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket , and <…>” ( King James Bible , 1769/2017, Isaiah 40:15). The context of biblical verse confirms the original version of the biblical PU a drop of a bucket as a two-component structure comprising two substantive components, tied by the preposition ‘of’, and performing a nominative function in speech. According to the British National Corpus (2020), the biblical version of that PU in pure form did not take hold in English and instead the rights of citizenship in the language were given to such variants as the lexical-prepositive variant a drop in the bucket (a) with a two-element variation of structure and the lexical-prepositive-substantive variant a drop in the ocean (b) with a three-element variation, for example:

(a) Sales in the product’s first year of deliveries amounted to only $1m, a drop in the bucket for a firm that’s been through two rounds of venture capital totalling $7.5m provided by Aspen Partners, <…>. (BNC). (b) The EBRD has 10 billion Ecus of capital, a drop in the ocean compared with the needs of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union <…>. (BNC).

The comparison of contexts (a) and (b) conveys the identity of two lexical-substantive variants of the biblical PU a drop in the bucket (a) and a drop in the ocean (b), each of them being used in the meaning of “a very small amount that will not have much effect” (Rundell, 2012, p. 428). The same statement is true for occasional variants with component composition expansion through an adjective component ( important, small, mere, etc.): an important drop in the ocean , a small drop in the ocean , and a mere drop in the ocean , etc., as evidenced by contextual usage. Cf.:

(a) <…> and we have to develop priorities. It’s important to put Oxfam’s work into perspective, we are a drop in the ocean but an important drop in the ocean . (BNC). (b) But we are a few guys, not interested in politics, who will play golf with anybody as 50 per cent individuals and <…>. Yet we cannot get visas and we are such a small drop in the ocean compared with the businessman. (BNC). (c) We munched our way through an average 18 pasta meals per head last year: a mere drop in the ocean compared to the Italians, who managed to swallow <…>. (BNC).

The comparative contextual analysis shows that occasional expansion of the component composition through the adjective components important, small, mere : an important drop in the ocean, a small drop in the ocean, and a mere drop in the ocean , etc. does not violate the identity of a given biblical phraseological unit, maintaining its integrity as a language unit.

Lexical-adjectival variants of English phraseological units of biblical origin

Adjectival variants are quite common among English phraseology of biblical origin. For example, in the Book of the New Testament we read: “He was a burning and a shining light: and <…>” ( King James Bible , 1769/2017, John 5:35). In modern English, according to dictionaries data confirmed by the contexts of the British National Corpus (2020), along with the true biblical version a shining light (a) a new variant with the component leading functions: a leading light (b). Cf.:

(a) The panel which selected Cllr Cooper described her as ‘ a shining light to others’ and ‘a woman who has done a lot for Liverpool.’ (BNC). (b) Peel Hunt, where a leading light is Charles Peel, Robert’s brother, will collect a 200,000 fee in connection with MCI’s 151m rights issue. (BNC).

The quantitative analysis of the contexts of the British National Corpus (2020) shows that a new variant of the given BPU a leading light is used five times more often than its biblical original.

Lexical-verbal variants of English phraseological units of biblical origin

In the Old Testament phraseological unit play the fool is encountered in the context of the book by Samuel 1: “Then said Saul, I have sinned: return, my son David: for I will no more do thee harm, because my soul was precious in thine eyes this day: behold, I have played the fool, and I have erred exceedingly” (King James Bible, 2017, 1 Samuel 26:21). Over time, the lexical-verbal variant act the pool (b) develops:

(a) The eunuch had made a cursory search and then had reported the matter to Prince Narouz. Narouz had been angry, first with the girl for playing the fool and then with the eunuch for not finding her. (BNC). (b) If only he would drop all this ridiculous pretense, stop acting the fool and raise his game one more time. (BNC).

The variant of the verbal component does not deprive the given PU of identity to itself, but, we note that the biblical variant is found in modern texts three times more often.

The analysis of contexts shows that the verb component of the PU studied can undergo a variable replacement in its participial form as well, as in the PU dead and buried and dead and gone .

The analysis of the contexts extracted from BNC makes it obvious that both phraseological units are identical regardless of the availability of the variant.

Morphological variants of English phraseological units of biblical origin

Within the scope of the language material studied, morphological variants are very rare and consist mainly in varying the form of the number of the substantive component. Thus, in the Bible the prototype of the phraseological unit in deep waters is met: “<…> I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me” ( King James Bible , 1769/2017, Psalms 69:2), where this phrase is used in its direct meaning.

In modern English, there are two morphological variants of the phraseological unit that arose from this prototype: in deep waters (a) and in deep water (b):

(a) What makes such a hypothesis meaningful? <…> We are here already in deep waters , for what needs to be decided is just what sort of existential claims can be significantly made. (BNC). (b) But the nuclear parts were designed by Combustion Engineering. # Britain in deep water over sea-dumping <…> Britain suffered a double setback at last. (BNC).

Both variants, as shown by their contextual employment, are used in the same meaning “in a difficult situation” (Rundell, 2012, p. 1616) and thus—having a structural-semantic invariant—retain the identity of the phraseological unit in question. On the other hand, variability of the adjective component deep/stormy leads to a lexical variant preserving the identity of the phraseological unit to itself, and furthermore to the emergence of a new phraseological unit, due to the murky component slightly violating the semantic identity of the PU and meaning “in a mysterious situation” (Rundell, 2012, p. 1616).

Syntactic variants of English phraseological units of biblical origin

The most represented kind of syntactic variability of phraseology of biblical origin are such syntactic variants, in which “the verbal-objective phrase with a possessive pronoun or noun in the genitive case is replaced by a verbal-objective phrase with a prepositional-nominal attribute standing in postposition to the noun” (Kunin, 1972, p. 183-184), as for example in the PU strengthen somebody’s hand/ strengthen the hand of somebody . The original version of this PU is found in the text of the Bible in the syntactic form of the first kind of (a) strengthen somebody’s hand : “And Jonathan Saul’s son arose <…> and strengthened his hand in God” ( King James Bible , 1769/2017, 1 Samuel 23:16).

In modern English, the second syntactic variant (b) strengthen the hand of somebody develops, which preserves the semantic invariant of the PU in question – “give more power to do sth or act against sb/sth” (Warren, 2019, p. 277) – and, as a consequence, holds the identity of a given language unit. Cf.:

(a) New military commanders <…> made new military appointments on June 15 in what was seen as a move to strengthen his hand in the fight against the Medellin drug cartel. (BNC). (b) <…> Clinton has already moved to strengthen the hand ofenvironmental bodies by upgrading the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), giving it the status of a fully fledged department. (BNC).

However, that phraseological unit retains its identity despite the appearance of grammatical-syntactic variants, because the latter completely keep the initial sense of the language unit in question.

Verbal-substantive variants of English phraseological units of biblical origin

Complex variants of English phraseological units of biblical origin can be represented by phraseological units in which both the verbal and substantive component varies: (a) separate the wheat from the chaff , (b) sort the wheat from the chaff , (c) sift the wheat from the chaff , (d) sift the grain from the chaff . Сf.:

(a) <…> the court’s leave at the outset. This gives the courts a useful power to separate the wheat from the chaff among the pending cases. (BNC). (b) When presented with ‘antiques’, an established knocker will have no difficulty sorting the wheat 20 or more years <…>. (BNC). (c)  The case was <….> and showed that sifting the wheat from the chaff was no strong point with her <…>. (BNC). (d) <…> Mary sees her task as sifting the grain from the chaff – the genuine cases from the cruel and careless. (BNC).

Comparative analysis of the identified contextual variants of that PU with the verbal component sift and with the substantive component grain —in comparison with the variants specified in the dictionary—shows that the global meaning of the PU does not change and remains identical to itself.

Quantitative variants of English phraseological units of biblical origin

An example of the development of a number of more complex variants is given by the biblical phraseological unit that is found in the Book of the New Testament: a thorn in the flesh ( King James Bible , 1769/2017, 2 Corinthians 12:7). The contextual analysis shows that over time, that biblical phraseological unit develops several variants.

First, it is a quantitative variant that appears by expanding the componential composition of the PU by means of a prepositional-substantive attribute standing in postposition to the defined noun: (a) a thorn in the flesh > (b) а thorn in the flesh of somebody , cf.:

(a) And in fact the coffee rooms not only were not profitable but <…> were even subsidized by the directors’ own pocket <…>. Indeed was er er I think a thorn in the flesh , to say the least. (BNC). (b) Their racialist Fascist policies and activities were a thorn the flesh of Sir Oswald Mosley’s movement throughout the 1930s, and their flag was the Union Jack <…>. (BNC).

Second, it is a syntactic variant that appears when the postpositional attribute to the noun flesh is changed for the prepositional attribute to the same noun and obtains two contextual realizations of the component somebody’s : (c) with a possessive pronoun or (d) with a noun in the genitive case: а thorn in the flesh of somebody > а thorn in somebody’s flesh/ side. Cf.:

(c) The driver wound down his window and cursed him, adding that for two pins he’d tell the police. ‘Blooming thorn in my flesh , you are,’ Wexford said to the dog as he clipped the lead on. (BNC). (d) Tommy Gemmell and Bertie Auld were a thorn in Jock Stein’s side . Soon after Celtic’s European Cup success he was forced to send them home from a pre-season American tour when their behaviour failed to meet his standards. (BNC).

On the whole, the complex variability of the biblical PU under consideration a thorn in somebody’s flesh / side(s) // a thorn in the flesh / side of somebody , including lexical-morphologic-syntactical variants with concomitant quantitative changes, does not violate the boundaries of its identity.