V Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2013

One of the most debatable points in modern linguistics is the problem of phraseological meaning [Федуленкова 1994: 9; Хостай 2004: 177; Naciscione 2009: 114].

Many phaseological units (PUs) appeared in English by means of simple shift of meaning and the prototypes of those PUs are variable combinations of words or sentences. For example: to be in the same boat with smb – to be in the same position as smb else, do not halloo till you are out of the wood – do not be sure of the success before the end of the enterprise, the rotten apple injures its neighbours – evil communications corrupt good manners, etc.

Among the most frequent mechanisms of the simple shift of meaning of the PU prototype are metaphor, hyperbole and metonomy.

It is known that metaphoric shift of meaning is a transference of denomination from one denotate to another associated with it on the base of real and unreal similarity [Fedulenkova 2006: 39]. Metaphoric shift of meaning is the widest spread one. Different types of similarity can be the ground of metaphoric shift of meaning. For example, similarity of actions: to put all one's eggs in one basket – to risk everything.

Besides metaphor often has hyperbolic features [Федуленкова 1984: 163]. Hyperbole is the figure of speech which has intensifying expressiveness exaggeration, it adds emphatic character to the utterance.

Evidently, prototypical denotata of such phraseological units are hardly probable but possible situations such as: flog a dead horse, split hairs, put the cart in front of the horse.

A good deal of hyperbolic metaphors are based on unreal and absolutely fantastic situations. Images associated with such situations make the inner form of phraseological units: (as) innocent as a babe unborn, make a mountain out of a molehill, pull the devil by the tail, come down on smb like a ton of bricks, hitch one's wagon to a star.

On the other hand metaphors also can have euphemistic character. Such transfer expresses a wish of drawing a veil over unpleasant facts, making milder undesirable and too abrupt expressions. For example: do to one’s long rest, join the majority, etc.

After A.V. Kunin, we maintain that there are two basic types of substantial connections between meanings in the word: implicational and qualificatory ones [Кунин 1996: 144]. Implicational connections reflect actual interaction and dependences of objective-world essences (cause – consequence, initial – derivational, action – purpose, process – result, the part – the whole, contiguity in space and so on). Metonymy is a particular case of implication as it is.

In fact the base of classificatory connections is the generality of objective-world essences according to the features they reveal. Metaphor is considered as a particular case of classification. Metaphor can designate not only the generality of the signs which are inherited to objective-world essences but the signs which the person ascribes to them. That is why metaphor is less objective than metonymy. Metonymy excludes imagination as it is based on associative connections. Metaphor in comparison with metonymy has a higher degree of abstraction [Fedulenkova 2009: 48]; it is more removed from denotatum and has more independence of choosing the sign assumed as the basis of meaning shift.

Beside full shift of meaning phraseological units have partial shift of meaning. It is a feature of similes both adjectivial and verbal: (as) gaudy as a peacock, (as) bold (или brave) as a lion, (as) mute as a fish, (as) cool as a cucumber, swim like a fish, fight like cat and dog.

In those cases when the variable prototype is not used in the language the PU shift of meaning can be based on the set of literal meanings of its components.

There are some cases in which the totality of literal meanings of the PU components designate non-existent idealized objects and situations: hitch one's wagon to a star, like a bat out of hell, find a mare's nest, when pigs fly. The characteristic feature of such phraseological units, which have fantastical images as their base, is their (PUs') designation of quite real denotata. Thus the real is designated through the unreal.

The phraseological units, which totality of literal meanings of components designate imaginary objects, are often based on infringements of formal logic [Артемова 1976: 9] and semantic incompatibility of components:

a) logical contradiction which is connected with two incompatible concepts, for example: eat one's cake and have it (have one's cake and eat it), Hamlet with Hamlet left out or Hamlet without the Prince (of Denmark), cook one's hare before it is caught, to spin and reel at the same time;

b) immediate contradiction which consists in that the concept is understood with the feature, not characteristic of it, for example: (as) drunk as a boiled owl (colloq.), make darkness visible, somebody's pet aversion;

c) absurd contradiction which consists in unification of features from different areas that makes concepts absurd, for example: a hog in armour, a mare's nest.

The denotata of prototypes of phraseological units including fantastical ones, i.e. pseudodenotata, can be graphically represented as they are determined by the totality of literal meanings of the components of phraseological units and are characterized by extra expressiveness.

Naturally phraseological units are distinguished considerably from words by their graphic function. Metaphorical and metonymical images are easily transferred by visual means [Дубровин 1988: 17].

Simple shift of meaning is observed also when the second phraseo-semantic variant is derived from the first one which has a literal but complicated meaning. This type of shift of meaning is characteristic of idiophraseosemantic expressions, for example: trim one's sails to the wind – 1) to put a sail to a wind, 2) to put the nose to wind; to know where a wind blows from.

The majority of variable combinations of words which are prototypes of anthropocentric phraseological units, also have an anthropocentric character, i.e. refer to the person or to what is connected with him [Федуленкова 1989: 7]. It concerns actions, statements, etc.: grasp the nettle – to operate resolutely, courageously to overcome difficulties, put all one's eggs in one basket – to stake one's all, to risk.

Narrowing of meaning of the phraseological unit in comparison with its prototype is observed in all the similar cases. There are cases when the PU prototype names a subject or refers to an animal and the correspondent phraseological unit refers only to a person: a back number – the retrograde; a new broom – the new head; a big fish in a little (or small) pond – the boss, a local ace.

A lot of phraseological units, which refer to a person, go back not to the variable words combinations but to the potential phraseological units; they are associated with unreal images: have nine lives like a cat – to be hardy as a cat, be distinguished by amazing survivability; like a bat out of hell – very quickly; wrestle with an angel(bookish) – to struggle with the mighty opponent (bible expression), etc. In similar cases both phraseological units and their prototypes refer to a person.

Summing it up it is necessary to underline the idea that simple shift of meaning of the phraseological prototype may be considered as one of the most powerful means of enlarging the phraseological sub-system of modern English.

References

Артемова А.Ф. Механизм создания комического в английской фразеологии: Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. М., 1976.

Дубровин М.И. Русские фразеологизмы в картинках (для говорящих на датском, норвежском и шведском языках). М.: Рус. яз., 1988.

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.

Федуленкова Т.Н. Некоторые особенности фразеологи­ческих еди­ниц как знаков вторич­ной номинации // Тюменский гос. ун-т. Тю­мень, 1994. 28 с. Руко­пись деп. в ИНИОН РАН № 49518 от 27.07.94 г. См. Библиограф. указатель «Нов. лит. по соц. и гуманитарным наукам. Языкознание», 1995. № 5-6.

Федуленкова Т.Н. О семантической роли соматического компо­нента в фразеологиче­ских единицах совре­менного английско­го, немецкого и шведского языков // Пятигорский гос. пед. ин-т иностр. яз. Пятигорск, 1989. 53 с. Рукопись деп. в ИНИОН АН СССР № 40531 от 26.12.89г. См. Библиограф. указатель «Нов. сов. лит. по обществ. нау­кам. Языкознание», 1990. № 6.

Федуленкова Т.Н. Проблема общего и специфического в соматической фразеологии некоторых германских языков (на материале английского, немецкого и шведского языков): Дис. … канд. филол. наук. М., 1984.

Хостай И.С. Номинативные особенности фразеологических единиц библейского происхождения // Лингвистика и лингвистическое образование в современном мире: Материалы международ. конф., посвященной 100-летию со дня рождения профессора В.Д. Аракина. М., 2004. С. 177-179.

Fedulenkova T. Isomorphic and allomorphic features of Germanic phraseology based on metaphor (on the material of the English, German and Swedish languages) // Лингвистический вестник. СПб: Ленинградский гос. университет им. А.С. Пушкина, 2006. С. 39-43.

Fedulenkova T. Phraseological Abstraction // Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Approaches to Phraseology: ESSE-9, Aarhus, 22-26 April 2008 / T. Fedulenkova (ed.). Arkhangelsk; Aarhus, 2009. P. 42-54.

Naciscione A. The Representation of Phraseologiccall Metaaphor in VerbaL AND Visual Discourse // Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Approaches to Phraseology: ESSE-9, Aarhus, 22-26 April 2008 / T. Fedulenkova (ed.). Arkhangelsk; Aarhus, 2009. P. 114-126.

Код для цитирования: Скопировать