3.1. SD BASED ON FORMAL AND SEMANTIC INTERACTION OF SYNTACTICAL
CONSTRUCTIONS.
Parallelism is a repetition in close succession of the constructions formed by a similar syntactical pattern. Like inversion, parallelism may be complete and partial. Complete parallelism is observed when the syntactical pattern of the sentence that follows is completely similar to the proceeding one, e.g. He door-bell didn't ring. His telephonebell didn't ring (D. Hammett).
Parallelism is considered to be partial when either the beginning or the end of several neighbouring sentences are structurally similar, e.g. / want to see the Gorgensens together at home, I want to see Macawlay, and I want to see Studsy Burke (D.Hammett).
Chiasmus (reversed parallelism) is a kind of parallelism where the word order of the sentence or clause that follows becomes inverted, e.g. He sat and watched me, I sat and watched him (D.Hammett).
The main stylistic function of chiasmus is to emphasise this or that part of the utterance, to break the rhythm and monotony of parallelism, e.g. Guild waited for me to say something, I waited for him (D. Hammett).
Anaphora is a repetition of words or phrases at the beginning of successive clauses or sentences, e.g. Ergo, she didn't. Ergo, there never was such a bet. Ergo, Beresford was lying. Ergo, Beresford wanted to get hold of those chocolates for some reason other than he stated (A.Berkley).
Anaphora contributes greatly to creating a certain rhythm of the narrative.
Epiphora is the repetition of the final words or word-groups in succeeding sentences or clauses, e.g. / come to you on the level. Studsy says you are on the level. Be on the level (D. Hammett).
3.2. SD BASED ON THE TRANSPOSITION OF SYNTACTICAL MEANING.
Rhetorical questions are negative or affirmative statements rather than questions, possible answers being implied by the question itself, e.g. Is the day of the supernatural over? (A.Christie).
Rhetorical questions can often be found in modern fiction in the descriptions of the character's inner state, his/her meditations and reflections, e.g. And then, like a douche of cold water, came the horrible thought, was she right? (A.Christie).
3.3. SD BASED ON THE TRANSFORMATION OF TYPES AND MEANS OF SYNTACTIC CONNECTION.
Parcellation is a deliberate break of the sentence structure into two or more isolated parts, separated by a pause and a period. Parcellation is typical of colloquial speech. The main stylistic functions of parcellation are as follows:
1) specification of some concepts or facts, e.g. His wife had told him only the night before that he was getting a habit of it. Curious things, habits (A. Christie);
2) characterisation of the personages' emotional state, e.g. It angered him finally. With a curious sort of anger. Detached, somehow, separate from himself (C.B.Gilford);
3) description of the events or giving the personages' portrayal, e.g. I'd say he was thirty-five or -six. Sallow, dark hair and eyes, with the eyes set pretty close together, big mouth, long limp nose, bat-wing ears - shifty-looking (D. Hammett); A touring car, large, black, powerfully engined and with lowered curtains, came from the rear... Possibly a scout (D. Hammett).
|
|
|
The usage of coordination instead of subordination helps the author to show different planes of narration, in this case the connection itself is more important stylistically than the contents of the sentence, e.g. He was more enthusiastic about America than ever, and he was not so simple, and he was not so nice (E. Hemingway).
STYLISTIC SEMASIOLOGY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
1. Semasiology is a branch of linguistics which studies semantics or meaning of linguistic units belonging to different language levels.
Lexical semasiology analyses the meaning of words and word combinations, relations between these meanings and the changes these meanings undergo.
Stylistic semasiology is concerned only with those semantic relations and changes which form the basis of EM and SD.
The subject-matter of stylistic semasiology is stylistic semantics,i.e. additional meanings of a language unit which may be given rise to by:
1) the unusual denotative reference of words, word-combinations, utterances and texts (EM); or
2) the unusual distrib uti on of the meanings of these units (SD). Semasiological EM are figures of substitution, i.e. different means of secondary
nomination. The latter is based on the usage of existing words and word-combinations to denote new notions or to give a new name to the already known objects.
Secondary nomination is not completely arbitrary, it is carried out according to certain principles or rules. Most commonly the transfer of a name occurs: 1) on the basis of similarity or likeness (real or imaginary) of two objects belonging to different areas of reality, which are regarded as such due to individual or collective perception (rat- spy, rabbit- coward);
2) on the basis of contiguity or some logical (usually objective) relations or associations between different objects (chicken -food, hat- man in a hat). Figures of substitution are secondary nomination units which either exist in the language as a system or are formed in speech on the basis of recurrent patterns. Secondary nomination units or tropes stand in paradigmatic (synonymic, or rather homofunctional) relations to corresponding primary nomination units. They are marked members of stylistic oppositions because they have connotations or additional stylistic meanings. Figures of substitution in English can be presented in the following table:
2. FIGURES OF QUANTITY.
Here we refer tropes and figures of speech based on the comparison of two different objects or phenomena having a common feature expressed with a certain degree of intensity. If this feature characterises the referent in a deliberately greater degree, it may be regarded as hyperbole, if this feature is ascribed to the referent in a deliberately less degree, it is considered to be meiosis or litotes, as a structural variety of the latter.
Hyperbole is a deliberate overstatement or exaggeration aimed at intensifying one of the features of the object in question. An overstatement may be considered hyperbole only when the exaggeration is deliberate and both the speaker and the listener are aware of it. Hyperbole is mainly used to intensify physical qualities of objects or people: size, colour, quantity, age etc., e.g. Her family is one aunt about a thousand years old (F.Sc. Fitzgerald).
|
|
|
The use of hyperbole may show the overflow of emotions, e.g.! loved Ophelia; forty thousand brothers could not, with all their quantity of love, make up my sum (W.Shakespeare).
Hyperbole in oral speech is often used to intensify a statement, e.g. She was a giant of a woman (Fl. O'Connor).
Hyperbole, as any other semasiological EM, may become trite through frequent repetition: e.g. forages, scared to death, I beg thousand pardons etc.
Meiosis is a figure of speech opposite to hyperbole. This is a deliberate understatement, or underestimation of some feature of an object or phenomena with the aim of intensifying the expressiveness of speech. The features stressed are usually size, volume, distance, time etc. Meiosis is mainly used in oral speech where it usually emphasises the insignificance of an object, e.g. She wore a pink hat, the size of a button (J. Reed), a pretty penny, Tom Thumb etc.
Litotes differs from meiosis by both its contents and structure. Litotes presents a statement in the form of negation. Like rhetorical questions, litotes can be regarded as the transposition of a syntactical construction. Litotes has a specific semantic and syntactic structure: the usage of not before a word with a negative prefix, e.g. Julia was not dissatisfied with herself (W.S.Maugham).
This EM is used in oral speech to weaken positive characteristics of a thing or person; to convey the speaker's doubts as to the exact value or significance of the object of speech, e.g. Her face was not unpretty (K.Kesey).
In scientific prose litotes underlines carefulness of judgement or stresses the writer's uncertainty.
FIGURES OF QUALIFICATION.
To this group we refer tropes and figures of speech based on comparison of features and qualities of two objects belonging to different areas or classes, which are perceived as having a common feature. The basic tropes in this group are metaphor, metonymy, and irony.
Metaphor and metonymy are universal means of reinterpretation and transfer of a name from one denotatum to another. The difference between them is that while in metaphor this transfer is realised on the basis of likeness (real or imaginary) of the two objects (e.g. He is a brick, a log, a bear), in case of metonymy it is realised on the basis of contiguity between the two objects (e.g. / like Beethoven).
The latest linguistic investigations prove that metaphorical and metonymical transfers differ not only semantically but syntactically and lexically as well.
Metonymy is more often found in the subject and object groups, while metaphor is commonly found in the predicate group (e.g. The hat is still here. She is a monkey.) When metaphor is used as a subject, it takes on an anaphoric pronoun, e.g. He is a bear. That bear broke the vase. Irony is also a transfer of meaning, but if metaphor is based on similarity and metonymy on contiguity, irony is based on opposition of the two meanings of a speech unit.
To the Metonymical Group we refer metonymy, synecdoche, periphrasis, and euphemism.
Metonymy as a secondary nomination unit is based on the real association of the object of nomination with the object whose name is transferred. The simplest kind of metonymy is lexical metonymy, when the name of an object (most often, a proper name) is transferred to another object (Lewis, Macintosh, volt, amper). Such metonymies have no stylistic value as they become common nouns. Stylistic metonymy suggests a new, unexpected association between the two objects. In metonymy, the associations between the object named and the object implied vary. They may bring together some features of a person and the person him/herself; an article of clothing and the person wearing it; an instrument and the action it performs; the two objects whose functions coincide, e.g. She was a sunny, happy sort of creature. Too fond of the bottle (A. Christie); He made his way through the perfume and conversation (I.Shaw).
|
|
|
Synecdoche isa variety of metonymy in which the transfer is based on the association between a part and the whole, the singular and the plural. This type of metonymical relationship may be considered a quantitative one, e.g. Since I left you, mine eye is in my mind (W. Shakespeare).
Metonymy and synecdoche as genuine EM are used to achieve concreteness of description. By mentioning only one seemingly insignificant feature or detail connected with the object, person, or phenomenon, the author draws the reader's attention to it and makes him/her visualise the object or the character he describes.
Periphrasis (Greek: peri- around; phraseo - speak) is a stylistic figure which substitutes a word designating an object for a word-combination which describes its most essential and characteristic features. Periphrasis both names and describes. Every periphrasis indicates a feature which the speaker or writer wants to stress and often conveys an individual perception of the object or phenomenon named, e.g. The hospital was crowded with the surgically interesting products {the wounded} of the fighting in Africa (I. Shaw).
As a result of frequent repetition, periphrasis can become well-established as a synonymous expression for the word generally used to designate the object. It is called traditional, dictionary or language periphrasis, e.g. gentlemen of the long robe (lawyers), the better (fair, gentle) sex, my better half (my spouse), the minions of the law (police).
Euphemism (G reek: eupheme - speaking well) is a variety of periphrasis which is used to replace an unpleasant word or expression by a conventionally more acceptable one.
Euphemisms may be divided into several groups according to the spheres of usage:
1) religious euphemisms: God may be replaced by Goodness, Lord, Jove, Heaven etc.; Devil -by the deuce, the dickens, old Nick, old Harry;
2) eu phem isms connected wi th death: to join the majority, to pass away, to go the way of all flesh, to go west, to breathe one's last, to expire, to depart etc;
3) political euphemisms, widely used in mass media: undernourishment for starvation, less fortunate elements for the poor, economic tunnel for the crisis etc.
Euphemisms as well as periphrases have no direct reference to the denotatum, which is known to both the author and the reader. The euphemistic transfer of a name is often based on metaphor or metonymy. In fiction, euphemisms are used to give more positive characteristics to the denotatum, e.g. Jean nodded without turning and slid between two vermilion-coloured buses so that two drivers simultaneously used the same qualitative word (J.Galsworthy).
In colloquial speech euphemisms are typical of more cultured and educated people.
Metaphor is a secondary nomination unit based on likeness, similarity or affinity (real or imaginary) of some features of two different objects. Metaphor is usually used in the predicate group, because it aims at individualisation and characterisation of the object.
Linguists distinguish four types of metaphor, the stylistic value of each type being different:
1) nominative metaphor, i.e. one name which is substituted for by another.!n this case, nominators or identifying lexical units undergo metaphorisation. The nominative metaphor gives a new name to a class of objects. Such metaphors are a mere technical device for extracting a new name from the old word-stock, e.g. the apple of the eye, a leg of the table, an arm of the clock the foot of the hill.
|
|
|
2) cognitive metaphor is created as a result of the shift in the combinability of qualifying lexical units, when their meaning becomes more abstract. In this case, objects named are ascribed the features of quite different objects, sometimes even alien qualities, e.g. black night (water, heat, despair etc). It may be based on implied simile, e.g. Time flies (as a bird).
3) generalising metaphor leads to polysemy as it destroys the borderline between different notions. In this case, predicative lexical units undergo metaphorisation and transform into identifying lexical units. This metaphor is somewhat artificial and it indicates the feelings some artefacts can evoke in the customers rather than the qualities of some goods. Its stylistic effect is weak, e.g. -> "".
4) figurative or image-bearing metaphor presupposes that identifying lexical units are transferred into the predicate-slot and, as a predicate, refer to other objects or a class of objects. Here, metaphor is a means of individualisation, evaluation, and discrimination of the shades of meaning. Such metaphor appeals to the reader's intuition, giving him/her a chance to interpret the text creatively. The stylistic effect of this metaphor is great, e.g. They walked along, two continents of experience and feeling, unable to communicate (W.S.Gilbert).
According to its structure, metaphor may be:
a) simple or elementary, which is based on the actualisation of one or several features common for two objects;
b) prolonged or sustained, which is not confined to one feature that forms the main, central image but also comprises other features linked with and developing this image in context, e.g. He was surprised that the fire which flashed from his eyes did not melt the glasses of the spectacles (A. Huxley). In this example, subsidiary images flashed and melted are connected with the main image expressed by the word fire.
According to the peculiarities of its semantics, metaphor may be trite (traditional, language) and genuine (speech). Stylistic functions of metaphor are twofold. By evoking images and suggesting analogies, it:
1) makes the author's thought more concrete, definite, and clear, and
2) reveals the author's emotional attitude towards what he/she describes.
The main function of figurative metaphor is not merely communicative but aesthetic. it appeals to imagination rather than gives information.
Antonomasia (Greek: antonomasia - renaming) is a peculiar variety of metaphor. There are two types of antonomasia:
1) the usage of a proper name for a common noun (Othello, Romeo, Hamlet);
2) the usage of common nouns or their parts as proper names (Mr.Snake, Mr.Backbite etc.), e.g. "Don't ask me," said Mr. Owl Eyes washing his hands off the whole matter (F.Sc. Fitzgerald).
The main stylistic function of antonomasia is to characterise a person simultaneously with naming him/her.
Personification (Latin: persona - person, facere - do) is also a variety of metaphor. It is based on ascribing some features and characteristics of a person to a thing, e.g. Autumn comes
And trees are shedding their leaves And Mother Nature blushes Before disrobing (N. West).
Unlike metaphor, personification:
1) is used only in fiction while metaphor can be found practically in every style; 2) can appear only within context, no matter how short.
Allegory is another variety of metaphor. It differs from metaphor as it is mainly used in fiction and it differs from personification as it appears only in a text, no matter how short it may be (e.g. proverbs, fables or fairy tales).
Irony (Greek: eironeia - concealed mockery). The difference between metaphor and metonymy, on the one hand, and irony, on the other, can be defined as follows: in metaphor and metonymy, the transfer is based on affinity of the objects, in irony, it is based on their opposition. The relations of opposition here are not objective but subjective because irony always suggests evaluation. It is positive in form but negative in meaning.
In a narrow sense, irony is the use of a word having a positive meaning to express a negative one. In a wider sense, irony is an utterance which formally shows a positive or neutral attitude of the speaker to the object of conversation but in fact expresses a negative evaluation of it, e.g. She was a gentle woman, and this, of course, is a very fine thing to be; she was proud of it (in quite a gentlewomanly way), and was in the habit of saying that gentlefolk were gentlefolk, which, if you come to think of it, is a profound remark (W.S.Maugham).
In contrast with metaphor and metonymy, irony does not employ any particular syntactical structure or lexical units. In context, there are usually some formal markers of irony pointing out to the meaning implied.
|
|
|
In oral speech, a word used ironically is strongly marked by intonation and other paralinguistic means. In written speech, such markers are not easily found.
Language irony comprises words, word-combinations and utterances which, due to regular usage, have acquired connotative ironical meaning which does not depend on context, e.g. to orate, a speechmaker, too clever by half, mutual admiration society.
More often, however, words or word-combinations acquire ironical meaning due to particular syntagmatic relations between the meanings of different speech units in macrocontext (a fragment of a text) or megacontext (the whole text), e.g. An Ideal Husband, A Devoted Friend, The Quiet American. The ironical meaning appears, when lexical units expressing positive evaluation in a certain context acquire a negative meaning, e.g. This naturally led to some pleasant chat about... fevers, chills, lung diseases... and bronchitis (J.K.Jerome).
