2. Figures of Qualification.

To this group we refer figures based on comparison of features and qualities of two different objects having a common feature. The basic figures of this group are metaphor, metonymy and irony. These notions are the most ancient in linguistics. They are described in the works of ancient grammarians. Metaphor and metonymy are universal means of reinterpretation and transfer of a name from one denotate to another, but in metaphor this transfer is realized on the basis of likeness (real or imaginary) of two objects (He is a brick, a log, a bear) and in case of metonymy on the basis of contiguity of the two objects [I like Goya (pictures); The cars were full of moustaches, i.e. men with moustaches].

Latest linguistic papers dealing with metaphor state that metaphoric and metonymic transfer is much determined by purely linguistic factors – syntactical and lexical.

Metonymy is more often found in subject and object groups, while metaphor – in the predicate group (The hat is still here; But she is a monkey, flower). When metaphor is used as a subject it takes certain actualizers, usually demonstrative pronouns (He is a bear; but that bear broke the glass).

Irony is also a transfer of the meaning but if metaphor is based on similarity, metonymy – on contiguity, irony is based on opposition of the two meanings of a speech unit.

To metonymic group we refer metonymy, synecdoche, periphrasis and euphemism.

Metonymy as secondary nomination unit is based on the real association of object named with the object whose name is transferred to the former. The simplest kind of metonymy is lexical metonymy when the name of one object (a proper name more often) is transferred to another object (ohm, amper, hooligan, Mackintosh). But the mentioned cases of metonymy have no stylistic value as they became common nouns. Stylistic metonymy suggests the realization of some new unexpected association between the two objects. In metonymy association between the object named and the object implied is various. We’ll mention but a few most frequent types of metonymic relations:

1. The association between some features of a person himself. E.g. The other voice shook his head and went away…

2. The association between the article of clothing and the person wearing it. E.g. A hat passed by.

3. The association between the instrument and the action it performs. E.g. As the sword is the worst argument that can be used, so should it be the last. (G. Byron).

4. The association between two objects whose functions coincide. E.g. Henry H. Fisher, with half the alphabet after his name, was something at the Foreign office. (C. Chesterton).

Apart from this group of metonymies there are many other trite types of metonymies:

5. Association between the creator and his creation: Your father would go crazy about Goya (J. Galsworthy); She is full of Schubert now. (Maugham).

6. Material and the thing made of it: dressed in silk; nylon, etc.

More examples: The hall applauded.

The school went to the Zoo.

The sword is the worst argument in a situation like that.

Linda gave her heart to the grocer’s young man.

The messenger was followed by a pair of heavy boots.

Metonymy can be seen as a specific kind of symbolism by which the most essential component of the subject is abstracted to represent it. This component acts as a single symbol for something larger and usually more complex. For instance, a crown is the most essential material component of the trapping of royalty, and so it serves well in representing the whole system of monarchy.

Metonymy can be realized in naming the whole object by mentioning part of it (Caroline lives with Jack under the same roof) and in using the same of the whole object to denote a constituent part of this object (The hall applauded).

Similarly, the stage is a material component of acting as a profession. This too serves to represent symbolically something abstract and dynamic.

In a statement such as “Shakespeare depicts monarchs as human” the name is actually symbolizing the total collection of his works.

This pragmatic explanation could also apply to the example of “Whitehall announced today …” Remember, “Whitehall” represents the civil service of the UK. Whitehall as a material location stands for something abstract, in this case an institution. This symbolic use depersonalizes the source of the statement and gives it more authority.

Synecdoche – is a variety of metonymy in which the transfer is on the basis of association between a part and the whole, the singular and the plural. This type of metonymic relationship may be considered quantitative one. E.g. Since I left you, mine eye is in my mind. (W. Shakespeare). A well-known type of synecdoche is the usage of the words “ear” and “eye” in the singular. E.g. For there can live no hatred in thine eye. (W. Shakespeare).

More examples: I wish you had Gary’s ears and Jack’s eyes.

Metonymy and synecdoche as stylistic means are used to achieve concreteness of description. By mentioning only one feature or detail connected with the phenomenon, the author draws the reader’s attention to it and makes him see the character he wants to present.

Periphrasis – is a stylistic figure which substitutes the word, designating the object, for a word-combination which describes the most essential and characteristic features of the given object. Periphrasis both names and describes. Every periphrasis indicates the feature of a notion which the writer wants to stress and conveys a purely individual perception of a given phenomenon.

As a result of frequent repetition periphrasis may become well established in the language as a synonymous expression for the word generally used to signify the object. It is called traditional, dictionary or language periphrasis: a gentleman of the long robe (lawyer); my better half (wife); the man in the street (ordinary person).

More examples: cotton – white gold – біле золото;

women – the better sex - краща стать;

medical men – people in white gowns - люди у білих халатах;

oil – black gold - чорне золото;

Київ - місто каштанів.

In contrast to periphrastic synonyms genuine periphrasis is created by the writer disclosing some quality of the object and is an element of the individual style: an instrument of destruction – pistol – gun (Ch. Dickens), Young blood of Cambridge.

Euphemism (Gr. eupheme – speaking well) – is a variety of periphrasis which is used to replace an unpleasant word or expression by a conventionally more acceptable one.

The origin of euphemism is in the past, when the religious taboo dictated the avoidance of certain terms. People were forbidden, for instance, to utter the name of a person who was no longer living, and to give it to a child. Euphemisms were widely spread in England in the XVI century and in the XVIII century. It was considered indecent to use the word “God”.

In present-day English euphemism is mostly based on some social and ethic standard of behaviour. The usage of Es is based on the desire not to hurt other people’s feelings, to soften painful news and only in the second place, on superstition.

Euphemisms may be divided into several groups according to their spheres of application:

1. Religious: the word “God” was replaced by Goodness, Lord, Jove, Heaven, etc. the word “Devil” was replaced by the deuce, the dickens, old Nick, old Harry.

2. There is a large group of euphemisms connected with the notion of “death”: to join the majority, to pass away; to go the way of all flesh; expire; breathe one’s last; to go west. “Dead” – the deceased, the departed, the late.

3. Political euphemisms (moral euphemisms) are widely spread in the press – statements, the aim of which is to mislead public opinion and to express what is unpleasant in a more delicate manner. Sometimes disagreeable facts are even distorted with the help of euphemistic expression: starvation – undernourishment; poor people – less fortunate elements; crisis – economic tunnel.

4. Moral euphemisms: брехати – говорити неправду, вигадувати, видумувати, заговорюватися; красти – забирати лишки; брати те, що погано лежить; старий – людина похилого віку; проститутки – працівники сфери сексуального обслуговування; горілка – зелений змій, грішна вода, скляний бог, веселуха.

5. Medical euphemism: lunatic asylim – mental hospital; cripple – invalid; insane – person of unsound mind; психіатрична лікарня – будинок для душевно хворих, жовтий дім; тяжко хворіти –дихати на ладан.

Function: Euphemisms make speech more polite, cultured, delicate, acceptable in a certain situation.

Euphemisms have their antipodes which might be called disphemisms

Disphemisms conspicuously rough, rude and impolite words and word-combinations. The speaker resorts to disphemisms to express his negative emotions, such as irritation, spite, hate, scorn, mockery, animosity.Here are some of them:

To die – to kick the bucket;

A German soldier( W.W.II ) – krauthead;

A Negro – kinky-head

To treat someone badly – to give someone the finger;

Обличчя - морда, рило, пика, будка

Померти – одубіти, дуба врізати, здохнути.

Грубіян - хамло.

More examples: Political euphemisms :

revolt, revolution – tension;

absence of wages and salaries – delay in payment;

Medical euphemisms: idiots – mentally abnormal people.

Euphemisms as well as periphrasis have no direct reference to the denotate or phenomenon which is known to both the author and the reader. Euphemistic transfer of the name is often based on metaphor or metonymy. In fiction euphemisms are used to give a new, more positive characteristic to the denotate. It is a means of allegory.

In colloquial speech they are typical for the cultured, educated people: E.g. Who the thunder put that thing here? (J.K. Jerome). How the deuce should I get him to take the money? (J. Galsworthy).

Metaphor is a secondary nomination unit based on the likeness or similarity of some feature(s) of the two objects. Metaphor is usually realized in the predicate-group, because it aims at individualization and characterization of the object.

Some linguists distinguish two communicative functions of metaphors:

1. The function of identification or nomination (theme) – subject, object, etc. and concrete words;

2. The function of predication (theme) – predicate.

N.D. Arutyunova distinguishes 4 types of metaphors, and the stylistic value of each type is different:

1. Nominative Metaphor (the transfer proper) – one name is substituted by the other. In this case identifying lexical units undergo metaphorization. Nominative Metaphor gives a new name to a class of objects. Such metaphors serve as a mere technical device of extracting a new name from the old word-stock: E.g. the apple of the eye; the leg of the table; the arm of the chair; the foot of the hill; носик чайника.

Such metaphor is a resource of nomination, it doesn’t differentiate the shades of meaning. It appeals to the eyesight rather than to intuition, it does not hint, it points out. Its stylistic effect is rather weak, practically none

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 that are being described acquire the features of quite different objects that is alien qualities. E.g. black night, water, heat, despair; deep knowledge; острый взгляд, критика.

More examples: One more day has died.

A witty idea has come to me.

The sight took John’s attention.

My heart bleeds for you.

He weighted the words carefully.

The shore began to empty itself of people.

She lost patience.

It may be based on comparison connected with simile: Time flies (as a bird).

3. Generalizing Metaphor is a type of metaphor which leads to logical polysemy. In this case predicative lexical units undergo the process of metaphorization and they are transformed into identifying units: восторгаться – восторг. This metaphor is of artificial character and indicates not the qualities of the object but the feelings it can evoke in the customer. Its stylistic effect is rather weak.

4. Figurative or image-bearing metaphor. In this case identifying lexical units are transferred into the predicate (group) and as a predicate refer to some other objects or a class of objects. Metaphor is a secondary nomination unit based on likeness or similarity of some features of the two objects. Here M. is a means of individualization and evaluation, discrimination of the shades of meaning. M. appeals to the intuition of the reader, giving him chance to interpret it creatively. Stylistic effect of M. is rather great. E.g. They were all fledglings… They were all flowers. (Durrel) His mates at the factory said Christie was only elevenpence – ha’penny in the shilling and had been ever since the war (S. Barstow).

More examples: He was the fate, the soul, the brain of the ship.

Life is a true wonderland.

Bart was the world for her.

Patricia’s eyes were pools of still water.

Women are funny things.

According to the structure metaphor may be:

1. Simple or elementary, which is based on the actualization of one or some features which are common for the two objects.

2. But in fiction and mainly in poetry very often metaphor is not confined to one feature. With the aim of developing the image the author actualizes some other features which are linked with the main central image. Such metaphors are called prolonged. E.g. He was surprised that the fire which flashed from his eyes did not melt the glasses of his spectacles. In this example the words “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). Y.M. Skrebnev considers that there is not much difference between the two since the mechanism of transfer is the same.

The stylistic function of metaphor is twofold: ● it makes the author’s thought more concrete, definite and clear; ● it reveals the author’s emotional attitude towards the phenomenon he describes. So its sphere of application is poetry and fiction. Its function is not communicative but esthetic. It does not give information, it evokes one’s imagination.

Antonomasia (Gr. antonomasia - renaming) – is a peculiar variety of metaphoric transfer of the name. There are two types of antonomasia.

1. the usage of a proper name for a common noun (Othello, Romeo, Hamlet, etc.)

2. the usage of common as proper nouns (Mr. Snake, Lady R. Sharp, etc.)

In both cases the secondary nomination is based on a similarity (real or imaginary) between the two objects.

A. of the first type is mainly used in colloquial speech as a stock phrase to characterize a person (He is a real Romeo; don’t be a Don Quixote!). the stylistic effect is weak as A. in this case is a trite metaphor (“The Theatre” – the producer finding the actress in tears asks: “Now what’s all this “Tosca” stuff about?”).

As well as metaphor, A. of this type is realized in the structure of the predicate, as a subject it requires the use of actualizer before the proper name: Othello is quarrelling with his wife (direct meaning of the proper name). This Othello is again quarrelling with his wife (Transferred meaning).

The second type of A. is typical for fiction only. In a literary work, where all components form a certain system, the name of a character is stylistically important and it is one of the components of this system. The names of this type are called “speaking names”.

“Speaking names” characterize directly or indirectly the personages of a literary work. (Sheridan: Mr. Backbite, Miss Careless, Mr. Snowman, Lady Sharp, Miss Waterfall, etc.)

In the literature of critical realism “speaking names” are rare but proper names still characterize personages this way or another (Ch. Bronte: Lucy Snow; Meredit: Sir Pattern).

In Ch. Dickens’ and Thackerey’s novels proper names imply the characteristic of personages: Mr. Grandgrind, Murdstone, Lady Sharp, etc.

In modern literature, especially in humorous and satirical works “speaking names” are also often used (Durrell’s stories).

The main stylistic function of A. is to characterize a person simultaneously with naming him.

Personification (Latin “persona”, “facere” - делать) is also a variety of metaphor. It is a transfer of features and characteristics of a person to a thing or to abstract notions (love, virtue, lie). E.g. “O sleep, o gently sleep, Nature’s soft nurse how have I frightened thee” (W. Shakespeare).

Peculiarity is in the fact that:

1. Personification is used only in fiction while metaphor can be found practically in every style;

2. P. can be realized only within a definite context no matter how short.

Allegory – is also a variety of metaphor. It differs from ordinary M. as it is used mainly in fiction and differs from personification as it is realized only in a text, no matter how short it may be (proverbs). Bigger texts are fairy tales.

Allegory is the expression of an abstract idea through some concrete image, some concrete object. The aim of allegory as a stylistic means is to stress the logical meaning of speech by adding to it some emotive colouring. Proverbs are most natural examples of allegory: Still waters run deep; all is not gold that glitters.

The domain of allegory is not a sentence but the whole text( a logically completed narration of facts or events).

There are allegoric tales and fables, stories and novels. Completely allegoric are such fables by I.Krylov as “Elephant and Mongrel”, “Donkey and Nightingale”, “Monkey and Spectacles”. Allegoric fables are not about elephants, dogs and monkeys. They are about people who behave like these animals.

Some genres of literature are exclusively based on allegory – medieval fables, didactical poems (Poema Morale), The Owl and Nightingale, fairy tales, Gulliver’s Travels.

Allegory though much transformed, still exists in modern literature. It’s no rare case when the plot of a novel is presented in two different manners: realistic and allegorical, the latter is an interpretation of the first one (Updike – The Centaur).

Irony (Gr. eironeia – concealed mockery). The question of the status of irony is one of the most complicated. The difficulty lies in the fact that it can be realized in very big speech units and, losing its purely linguistic character, it acquires a more general semiotic significance.

The difference between metaphor and metonymy on the one hand, and irony on the other can be described as follows. In case of metaphor and metonymy the transfer is realized on the basis of similarity of the two objects, in case of irony – on the relations of opposition.

The relations of opposition here are not of the objective but of the subjective character. Irony suggests evaluation which is always subjective. It is positive in its form and negative in the meaning.

Irony in the narrow sense of the word is the use of a word having a positive meaning to express a negative one. In the real situation, in the context the word acquires an opposite meaning. In a wider sense of the word irony is such a presentation of an utterance when it shows a positive or neutral attitude of the speaker to the phenomenon (in question) but in fact expresses a negative evaluation of it. Let’s consider such an example: E.g. They plonked you out there in the mind… and your job was to get killed if the enemy attacked. You were not allowed to retreat; you knew that nobody would be allowed to succour or reinforce you:… A very pleasant prospect. A most jolly look out (R. Aldington. “Death of a Hero”).

The author describes a desperate situation for the character. The last two sentences present the evaluation of this situation. The irony here lies in the striking disparity between what is said and what is meant. In contrast to metaphor and metonymy, irony has no definite syntactic structure neither any specific meaning of the lexical units. Irony is felt only if there are some formal markers in the context pointing out the opposite meaning of the utterance.

In oral speech the word containing irony is strongly marked by intonation. Other paralinguistic means are also used.

In written speech such markers are not easily defined.

EM of irony in the language are units which exist in the language (words and word-combinations and some utterances) and due to regular usage acquired connotative ironic meaning which is felt even out of context. (Russian: умник, вальяжный), (Eng.: orate, oratorize, speechmaker, mutual admiration society).

The above words and word-combinations possess the seme of irony. They are marked members of the opposition with neutral words and word-combinations.

e.g. too clever by half; a young hopeful; head cook and bottle washer; to lionize.

More often ironic meaning of the word or word-combination appears due to syntagmatic relations between the meanings of different speech units in the macrocontext (a fragment of the text) and megacontext (the whole text).

e.g. - I like the Duchess very much but I don’t love her.

- And the Duchess loves you very much but she likes you less, so you are excellently matched.(O.Wilde)

e.g. It’s rather fashionable to marry Amaricans just now, Uncle George.(O.Walde)

The ironic meaning appears when some lexical units having 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 (Jerome).

Ironic meaning of speech unit can be determined by the whole text (“An Ideal Husband”, “A Devoted Friend”, etc.).

More examples: Cutting off chickens’ heads! Such a fascinating process to watch.

It must be delightful to find oneself in a foreign country without a

penny in one’s pocket.