V Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2013

In this paper we follow the ideas suggested by the outstanding linguist of our country A.V. Kunin and treated in his doctoral habilitation dissertation [Кунин, 1964] and in his main papers on English phraseology [Кунин, 1969, с. 71; 1976, с. 103].

The role of connotation in the meaning of phraseological units (PU) is great. There are many notions of the term “connotation”.

Connotation is often defined as an additional content of the word and as its stylistic shades which are applied to its main content.

As A.V. Kunin puts it, connotation is not applied to the main content of the word, it is in the complex unity with the content of the word or PU as there is not only rational but also closely connected with it sensual knowledge of reality.

V.N. Telia determines the term “connotation” as a semantic matter that is included in the semantics of language units usually and occasionally and which expresses emotively-evaluative and stylistically marked relation of the subject of speech to the reality when it is named in the utterance [Телия, 1986, с. 5].

Thus, the connotative information is found in the language and speech units alongside with their subject-logical content [Fedulenkova, 2001, p. 21].

Connotation usually includes emotive, expressive and evaluative components. I.V. Arnold adds also a stylistic component to it [Арнольд, 1973, с. 105] (see also [Башиева, 1995, c. 9]). All the four components may be combined in different ways or just be missed. A.V. Kunin adds the fifth component – i.e. its figurativeness. Some phraseomatic units are characterized by lack of connotation, e.g. touch one’s cap (or hat) to smb – to greet smb.

In our paper we shall concentrate our attention on the two basic components of phraseological connotation, namely on the component of emotivity and on the component of expressivity.

1. The component of emotivity.

Emotions are one of the forms of reflection of reality and its understanding. They are expressed by language means only when they are reflected in the consciousness.

Interjections, which are highly emotive phraseological units, are not subject to a dictionary definition, the intellectual content is given instead, for example:

(God) bless me! (or my soul!) – an expression of surprise.

God bless his soul (heart)! – an expression of fondness, gratefulness, kind feelings etc.

Emotions as a form of the man's attitude to reality are always accompanied by evaluation.

Emotivity is emotionalism through the language refraction, i.e. it is a sensual evaluation of the object, the expression of the man's feelings, emotional experience, mood – by means of language or speech [Кунин, 1996, с. 178]. Emotivity is always expressive an evaluative but not vice versa.

As emotions are divided into two classes – positive and negative – their expression in the language may be negatively emotive and positively emotive. But unfortunately they do not have their necessary index in the dictionary. In English lexicography and phraseography there is no special note of positive evaluation and the notes of negative evaluation are not sufficiently worked out.

Nowadays there are such notes in the dictionaries as derog (= derogatory), sometimes impol (= impolite), taboo or vulg (= vulgar) for negative values.

The example expressing the positive evaluation may be a sight for sore eyes – smth pleasant to look at (especially about a welcome quest).

The example of the interjectional phraseological unit with the positive evaluation is (God) bless his soul (heart)!

There are a lot of phraseological units that contain negative emotive evaluation, e.g. a new broom, kick up against the pricks, Damn your eyes! Tell it to the marines!

A lot of interjectional phraseological units may be used either with positive or with negative evaluation in modern English.

2. The component of expressivity.

Expressivity is the graphic, potrayal quality of the word or the phraseological unit dependent on figurativeness, intensity or emotivity.

«It is necessary to differentiate intensity as onomasiological category naming the degree of a feature, and expressivity as the functional category of influence providing intensity of comprehension of information» [Шейгал, 1980, с. 40].

Figurativeness and emotivity are also onomasiological categories.

Figurativeness, intensity and emotivity can cause expressivity both separately, and in various combinations.

Emotivity without expressivity does not exist, and their differentiation is almost impossible. However another point is also important: expressivity is not necessarily combined with emotivity. Figurativeness and intensity also generate expressivity and closely interact with it. It is proved by a great number of phraseological units in modern English.

Figurative expressively non-evaluative phrases are: the ball is in someone's court – it is someone's turn to take action; follow suit – to do what another person, group, organization, etc. is already do­ing or has already done (LD).

Some verbal phraseological units, being expressively non-evaluative phrases, express intensity of the action. It is proved by their definitions: beatsomeone to a pulp – to beat and hit someone with hard blows; work like a horse or work one's fingers to the bone – to work very hard, etc.

Phraseological units of this type, which do not contain an evaluative element in their definitions and do not have evaluative notes can express this or that estimation in the context. So, in the example: work one's fingers to the bone it is used with obvious positive estimation:

I've always been a good wife to George, I worked my fingers to the bone in our early days. I helped him to get on. I've never looked at any other man (A. Christie).

All these phraseological units are phrases with the alive inner form.

Many adverbial phraseological units, including comparative intensifiers [Кунин, 1972, с. 161], transfer intensity to the syntactically connected with them verbs or strengthen the features which are components of syntactically connected with them adjectives. As examples of such phraseological units can serve the following intensifiers: as the day is long – exclusively, extremely; as they make them (or 'em) – it is extreme, awful; hell for leather – at full speed, very much; like a house on fire – quickly and easily, vigorously; like mad – as a mentally ill person; desperately, without restraint, etc., for example:

Away off in a big city there was a young girl. She was as pretty as the day is long (E. Caldwell).

You'll learn Italian like a house on fire (S. Lewis).

Thus, intensity is a property of a word or a PU to strengthen features of objects designated by them.

The given language material shows that expressivity is not always connected with estimation though in the English language there is a great number of phraseological uits which are expressively-estimated.

In that measure in what the estimation is determined by the properties of the object of extra-linguistic reality, reflected in the man's mind and fixed in the meaning of the language sign, it (the estimation) has an objective character, which finds its expression in functioning of the evaluative nomination, in the dictionary definition, in the dictionary comment or in dictionary evaluative notes.

One and the same phenomena of the objective reality can be estimated differently by different persons and by the same person at different periods of his life. But both objective, and subjective estimations are socially determined.

We give an example of different estimations of the same person by different people:

A snake in the grass – a viper, the secret enemy:

Lanny broke in: 'Oh, surely, Robbie, she isn't like that. She's so gentle and kind, she is like a saint.' Robbie turned upon the mother. 'You see! That snake in the grass, imposing upon the credulity of a child!' (U. Sinclair).

The objective estimation is of crucial importance for understanding the subjective one. Thus, in the estimation the social and the individual are dialectically combined.

The estimation, as defined by A.V. Kunin, is the objectively-subjective or the subjectively-objective relation of the person to the object, expressed by language means explicitly or implicitly [Кунин, 1986, с. 155].

In this definition the object is understood in the widest sense: as the person, an animal, a subject, an action, a condition, a situation, etc. The example of the objectively-subjective judgment can be the following:

(a) A clever dog – (coll.) the clear head, the dexterous small:

'He's a clever dog, isn't he?' 'Very clever,' admitted the other (U. Sinclair).

The estimation fixed in the language is divided in the given case by both characters.

(b) (As) bold as brass – impudent:

'Why, you're as bold as brass!' said Jonas in the utmost admiration (Ch. Dickens).

In the given example the phraseological unit, expressing the negative estimation, is used by one negative character concerning another whose dishonesty is estimated positively. The estimation has subjectively-objective character.

The estimation is expressed explicitly if at least one component of the phraseological unit is evaluative or its inner form has an evaluative character. If all the components of the phraseological unit are non-evaluative and its inner form is erased, then the estimation is implicit.

The following phraseological units have an explicit estimation: hate smb's guts – to hate smb to death; a labour of love – disinterested or unpaid work; make an ass of oneself – to behave as the fool, to put itself in an idiotic situation; (as) pretty as a picture – beautiful; worship the ground one walks on – to be ready to kiss the earth on which it (or he) goes; (as) ugly as sin – very terrible, etc. In all those phraseological units one component is evaluative.

In the examples below there is no evaluative component in the phraseological units, but their inner form, alive or erased, is evaluative, and the estimation is implicit, e.g.: a feather in one's cap – smb's pride; achievement, a merit; a bull in a china shop – an elephant in a crockery bench.

Any act of the estimation assumes the presence of the subject of an estimation, i.e. the person giving it, the object of the estimation, i.e. estimated fragment of the reality, and criteria of the estimation. In some cases, for example at a self-estimation, the subject and object of the estimation can coincide: A guiding light – a guiding star, e.g.:

I was the brains behind the job, the guiding light when it came to making up anybody's mind (A. Sillitoe).

The estimation can be positive or negative (see also: [Федуленкова, 2000, с. 99-102]), intellectual or connotative. We give the examples of the intellectual estimations expressed by imagery phraseological units.

Phraseological units with a positive estimation: a feather in one's cap – smth that one may justly be proud of; good Samaritan – a person who pities and gives practical help to persons in trouble; an old hand – an experienced and highly skilled person at some particular job.

Phraseological units with a negative estimation: an awkward customer – a person or an animal difficult or dangerous to deal with; a dog in the manger – person who prevents others from enjoying smth that is useless to himself; the last straw – an addition to a task, burden, etc. that makes it intolerable There are much more phraseological units with a negative estimation, than those with a positive estimation. This phenomenon is observed not only in phraseocon but also in lexicon [Алехина, 1979, с. 9].

«The obvious prevalence of words with negative estimation is connected, apparently, with that positivity is perceived and interpreted as something self-evident. The person should permanently face overcoming of drawbacks, lacks, errors, and many other bad and unpleasant things. That's why it is so considerable for him and so firmly reflected in the language» [Девкин, 1979, с. 160].

In one sphere of human activity, namely in advertisement, phraseological units are used only with a positive estimation.

In the semantic structure of phraseological units, especially verbal ones, the estimation is often combined with resultativeness.

Positive result: bring home the bacon – to get the success;carry the day – to win.

Negative result: come a cropper – to fail, to get into trouble;kill the goose that laid (или lays) the gold­en eggs – to spoil something that is good or something that you have, by being greedy, etc.

In a number of expressive phraseological units there exists a complex interlacing of figurativeness, intensity, emotivity and evaluativeness exists: (as) fierce as a tiger – furious as a tiger; swear like a trooper – to curse and swear with great facility; swim like a cork (or fish) – to swim very well, etc. The evaluative potential of these phraseological units is so significative that they are often used for expression of emotions in a corresponding context [Fedulenkova, 2001, p. 15], e.g.:

Throw that madman into the sea; then we can pick him up. He swims like a cork (Ch. Reade).

All the estimations given above are intellectual as they enter into the corresponding concepts. Intellectual estimations amplify and become more expressive in connotative 'environment' in figurative phraseological units. Phraseological units with connotative estimations are rare. As an example can serve the phraseological unit kick the bucket – to die.

To 'die' is an objectively-logical component of phraseological meaning, and its rudely-disrespectful character is a connotative component. In Oxford Dictionary after PU kick the bucket a sign 5/ stands, and in later phraseological dictionary of publishing house Longman – coll.

Summing up our analysis of the components of the connotative aspect of phraseological units we think it necessary to underline that unlike the significative aspect of phraseological units the connotative aspect often denote not real features of the denotatum but the features attributed to it by the man. Thanks to the connotation, phraseological units are able to serve as expressive means of the phraseological system of the language.

Библиографический список

Алехина А.И. Фразеологическая единица и слово: К исследованию фразеологической системы. Минск: Изд-во Белорус. ун-та им. В.И. Ленина, 1979.

Арнольд И.В. Стилистика современного английского языка. Л, 1973.

Башиева С.К. Стилистический компонент фразеологического значения: Автореф. дис. …д-ра филол. наук. Краснодар, 1995.

Девкин В.Д. Немецкая разговорная речь: Синтаксис и методика. М., 1979.

Кунин А.В. Курс фразеологии современного английского языка: Учеб. для ин-тов и фак-тов иностр. яз. 2-е изд., перераб. М.: Высш. шк., 1986.

Кунин А.В. Курс фразеологии современного английского языка: Учеб. для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. 2-е изд., перераб. М.: Высшая школа, Дубна: Изд. центр «Феникс», 1996.

Кунин A.B. О стилистическом контексте во фразеологическом ракурсе // Сб. науч. тр. / Моск. гос. пед. ин-т иностр. яз. им. М. Тореза. Вып. 103. М., 1976. С. 103-126.

Кунин А.В. Основные понятия английской фразеологии как лингвистической дисциплины и создание англо-русского фразеологического словаря: Дис. … д-ра филол наук. М., 1964.

Кунин A.B. Основные понятия фразеологической стилистики // Проблемы лингвистической стилистики: Тез. докл. науч. конф. М., 1969. С. 71-75.

Кунин А.В. Фразеология современного английского языка: Опыт систематизированного описания. Москва: Издательство «Международные отношения», 1972.

Телия В.Н. Коннотативный аспект семантики номинативных единиц. М., 1986.

Федуленкова Т.Н. Английская фразеология: Курс лекций. Архангельск: Мин. образ. Российской Федерации, Поморский гос. ун-т имени М.В. Ломоносова, 2000.

Шейгал Е.И. Интенсивность в структуре значения слова // Сб.науч. тр. / МГПИИЯ им. М. Тореза. Вып. 160. М., 1980. С. 39-47.

Fedulenkova T. Discourse value of biblical proverbial idioms in English // Textual Secrets: The Message of the Medium: Book of Abstracts of 21^st PALA Conference. Budapest: British Council, 2001. P. 15.

Fedulenkova T. Stylistic differentiation of biblical idioms // Textual Secrets: The Message of the Medium: Book of Abstracts of 21^st PALA Conference. Budapest: British Council, 2001. P. 21

Словари

Кунин А.В. Англо-русский фразеологический словарь / Лит. ред. М.Д.Литвинова. 5-е изд., перераб. и доп. М.: Русский язык, 1998.

Федоров А.И. Фразеологический словарь русского литературного языка: В двух томах. Новосибирск: ВО Наука, 1995.

Фразеологический словарь русского языка / Под ред. А.И. Молоткова. 4-е изд., стереотип. М.: Русский язык, 1987.

Ayto J. Twentieth Century Words: The Story of the New Words in English over the Last Hundred Years. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Cowie A.P., Mackin R., McCaig I.R. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Vol. 2: Phrase, Clause and Sentence Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Fergusson R. The Penguin Dictionary of Proverbs. London: Claremont Books; Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, 1995.

Gulland D.M., Hinds-Howell D.G. The Penguin Dictionary of English Idioms. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, 1994.

Hornby A.S. Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary of Current English / Ed. S. Wehmeier. 6th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Код для цитирования: Скопировать