Syntactic types of Proverbs and Sayings

Accordingly, we distinguish two syntactic types of proverbs and proverbial phrases. To the first type belong cliches yielding all possible kinds of simple sentences, e.g.;

(ST) “A bird in the hand is worth than two in the bush”

(TT) «Ортақ өгізден оңаша бұзау артық»

(TT) «Лучше синица в руках, чем журавль в небе»

The second type includes cliches yielding various kinds of composite sentences, e.g.:

(ST) “The wound heals, but the scar remains”

(TT) «Жара жазылса да тыртық қалады»

As to the purpose of communication, the proverbs and proverbial phrases fall into two classes: the first class comprising all sentences that are affirmative in form e.g.:

(ST) “To a frog sitting at the bottom of a well the sky seems the size of a puddle”

(TT) «Құдық түбінде отырған бақаға аспан шалшықтай көрінеді»

And the second class comprising all negative ones, e.g.:

(ST) “The grass does not sway without a wind”

(TT) «Жел тұрмаса, шөптің басы қимылдамайды»

(ST) “Not every pine-tree is fit for a mast”

(TT) «Әрбір қарағай жеміс азығына лайықты емес»

Each type is in turn divided into three modal subtypes: declarative, imperative and interrogative.

The first type comprises sentences containing a neutral statement of some fact or phenomenon. The second, sentences expressing shades of volition e.g.:

(ST) “Don’t offer to teach fish to swim”

(TT) «Балықты жүзуге үйретпе»

(TT) «Никогда не предлагай рыбе научить ее плавать»

And the third sentences putting a question to the interlocutor. Finally, proverbs and proverbial phrases differ in the number of structural elements which are juxtaposed (or rather counterpoised) in them. Thus, in the proverbial phrase:

(ST) “Mary is haste, repent at leisure”

(TT) «Үйлену оңай, үй болу қиын»

Two pairs of predicative group parts are opposed. A similar kind of opposition is present in the proverb:

(ST) “It is easy to spill water, but difficult to collect it”

(TT) «Қасықтап жинағанды шөміштеп төкпе»

(TT) «Собранное по ложке, не выплескивай поварешками»

On the other hand, there exist proverbs and proverbial phrases with only one oppositional pair or without overt opposition in their structure:

(ST) “As meek as a mouse”

(TT) «Бетегеден биік, жусаннан аласа»

(TT) «Тише воды, ниже травы»

In other words, proverbs and proverbial phrases, in terms of the number of oppositional pairs, fall into two major groups: those with two oppositional pairs and those without two oppositional pairs.

The relationship among syntactic and communicative types, modal subtypes and opposition groups is shown on Table 3

Such are the more essential features of grammatical form which provide sufficiently full linguistic description of proverbs and proverbial phrases. All these features are brought together in Table 4

Unfortunately, for purely technical reasons modal subtypes and opposition groups had to be placed in the same line with affirmative and negative communication types. Meanwhile, as follows from Table 4, their inter-relations call for a hierarchic arrangement. Table 5, then, should be read in conjunction with Table 4.

As seen from Table 5 (modified by Table 4), there are 192 grammatical types of proverbs and proverbial phrases: 2∙2∙2∙2∙2∙3∙2. But this takes account only of the main types. The actual stock of proverbs and proverbial phrases many times more different types, with each of the types indicated here comprising several verities. Thus, for example, the clichés of the second syntactic type (composite sentences) can be divided into compound, complex and asyndetic sentences. Proverbs and proverbial phrases may differ in the character of the predicative group (verbal or nominal), lexical fullness and a number of other features.

Table 3

Syntactic type	Difference in purpose of communication		Opposition group
	Communicative type	Modal subtype
I Simple sentences	+ Affirmative sentences	…declarative	a) without two opp. pairs b) with two opp. pairs
		! imperative	a) without two opp. pairs b) with two opp. pairs
		? interrogative	a) without two opp. pairs b) with two opp. pairs
	- Negative sentences	…declarative	a) without two opp. pairs b) with two opp. pairs
		! imperative	a) without two opp. pairs b) with two opp. pairs
		? interrogative	a) without two opp. pairs b) with two opp. pairs

However, we do not see how all these could be taken into account without overloading the classification with too much detail.

In practice proverbs and proverbial phrases are represented by all possible types of sentences.

In approaching proverbs and proverbial phrases from a logical angle, the investigator becomes immediately aware of the vast importance of this aspect foe the said folklore expressions. Consider the following five proverbs:

You can’t wash blackness off coal

You can’t wash a black dog white

A crow will not become white however hard you rub it

A dark thing cannot be made white by washing

No matter how hard you beat an ass, it will not turn into a mule.

On the face of it, the first proverb deals with coal, the second – with a black dog, the third – with a crow, the fourth – with dark-colored clothes and the fifth – with an ass. In actual fact, they all speak of one and the same thing: “A bad thing will not become a good thing no matter what you do with it”. It is this underlying logical frame, rather than the concrete images (realia), that determines the main message of each of these proverbs. To use a metaphor, it is the logical structure that makes the proverb, while the realia provide “building material”. The same symbols, e.g. “forest” and “animals” (which, incidentally, do not in themselves represent any saying), can produce different proverbs, depending on the type of logical connection between them:

(ST) “Like forest, like the animals”

(TT) «Орман қандай болса, аңдары да сондай»

(TT) «Каков лес, таковы животные»

(ST) “If there is a forest, there will be animals”

(TT) «Орман бар жерде аңдар бар»

(TT) «Где лес, там и животные»

By the same token, the logical frame of the proverbs and proverbial phrases is determined by the nature of the relationships between objects. This can readily be seen in the way use proverbs.

Table 4

Type of clichés	Structural sentences type	Motivation of general meaning	Syntactic type of sentence	Differences as to “purpose of communication”				I Image motivation (proverbs proper)
				Communicative type
Proverbial phrases	A Open particular sentenced with ellipsis or pronoun-replaced subject	I Image motivation (proverbial phrases proper)	1 simple	+ affirm. - neg.	II Direct motivation	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
			2 composite	+ affirm. - neg.		! !	? ?	a or b a or b
		II Direct motivation (by-words)	1 simple	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
			2 composite	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
	B Open particular sentences with ellipsis or pronoun-replaced secondary member	I Image motivation (proverbial phrases proper)	1 simple	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
			2 composite	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
		II Direct motivation (by-words)	1 simple	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
			2 composite	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
Proverbs	C Closed particular sentences	I Image motivation (proverbs proper)	1 simple	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
			2 composite	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
		II Direct motivation (aphorisms)	1 simple	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
			2 composite	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
	D Closed generalized sentences	I Image motivation (proverbs proper)	1 simple	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
			2 composite	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
		I I Direct motivation (aphorisms)	1 simple	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b
			2 composite	+ affirm. - neg.	… …	! !	? ?	a or b a or b

Suppose we are told that a much-publicized undertaking, which raised great expectations, ended with minimum results. Faced with this (or a similar) situation, we shall immediately be led to recall (or utter) the proverb A

(ST) “Mountain has brought forth a mouse”

(TT) «Айдағаны бес ешкі, ысқырғаны жер жарады»

(TT) «Мучилась гора родами, да родила мышь»

Similarly, someone who pays too much attention to minor matters and fails to notice the main things, will more likely than not, provoke a comment to the effect that

(ST) “He can not see the wood for the trees”

(TT) «Ағаш артынан орманды көрмеу»; «Көрмес түйені де көрмес»

(TT) «За деревьями не видеть леса»

In other words, we want to get across, i.e. to what situation we are referring.

Thus, proverbs and proverbial phrases are signs of situations or of a certain type of relationship between objects. Being signs, they must possess (and do indeed possess) special semiotic properties characteristic of all signs. This means that the logical aspect of proverbs and proverbial phrases must be approached as a logical-semiotic one.