Expressive means and stylistic devices
INTERACTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF LEXICAL MEANING
Words in context may acquire additional lexical meanings, which are not fixed in dictionaries, i.e. contextual meanings. The contextual meaning can deviate [‘di: vieit] (отклоняться, отступать) from the dictionary meaning to such a degree that the new meaning becomes the opposite of the primary meaning. This is especially the case when we deal with transferred (пересное) meanings.
A transferred meaning is a result of interaction between two types of lexical meaning: dictionary and contextual. The contextual meaning will always depend on the dictionary (logical) meaning to a lesser or greater extent. Only when the deviation [,di:vi’ei n] (отклонение) from the dictionary meaning causes an unexpected turn in the recognized logical, we register a stylistic device.
Thus, if both the logical (dictionary) and the contextual meanings are realized in an opposition simultaneously, within the same context, we can speak of a fresh (original, genuine) SD (оригинальный, подлинный, истинный).
When one of the meanings is suppressed by the other, we can speak of a trite (banal, hackneyed) SD (избитый, банальный, затасканный).
When the contextual meaning is completely blended with the initial one, we deal with the disappearance of a SD and its replacement by polysemy or phraseology.
CLASSIFICATION OF LEXICAL EMs and SDs (Professor Galperin)
Based on the interaction of:
1. primary dictionary and contextual meaning (metaphor, metonymy, irony)
2. primary and derivative lexical meaning (play on words)
3. logical and emotive meaning (epithet, oxymoron)
4. logical and nominal meaning (antonomasia)
5. based on the intensification of a certain feature of a thing or phenomenon (simile, hyperbole)
6. peculiar use of set expressions
LEXICAL STYLISTIC DEVICES
I. Interaction of Primary Dictionary and Contextual (Logical) Meaning: Metaphor. Metonymy. Irony
Interaction between the dictionary and contextual meaning can be based either on principles of similarity (affinity – cхожесть) or contiguity (proximity – близость).
When the author identifies two objects, which may have nothing in common, but in which he subjectively sees a function, a property, a feature that can make the reader see these objects as identical, we deal with a metaphor.
When the author finds it possible to substitute one object for another on grounds of some actual interdependence or interrelation between them, we deal with a metonymy.
When the word describing a certain property or quality of an object is used in the opposite or contradictory sense, we deal with irony.
METAPHOR
(from the Greek “metaphora” = transference – перенос of some quality from one object to another)
A metaphor becomes a stylistic device when two different phenomena (things, ideas, events, actions) are simultaneously brought to mind by the imposition of some or all of the properties of one object on the other. Based on the similarity (or identification) of two objects, it has the power of realizing two lexical meanings (the dictionary and the contextual) simultaneously. Due to this power metaphor is one of the most powerful means of creating images.
An IMAGE is a reflection of the world in and by the human mind. Imagery helps top transfer the vision of the world by an individual to the reader. Every image is based on similarity between two objects, which on the whole can bear no resemblance to each other. The more difference between the two objects compared, the more unexpected their comparison is. The unexpected character of the image is of great importance. Baffling (расстраивать, опрокидывать, ставить в тупик, сбивать с толку) the reader, defeating his expectations, the writer achieves a greater stylistic effect.
Metaphor can be expressed by all notional parts of speech and function in the sentence as any of its members. But the identification is most clearly seen when the metaphor is expressed either by an attributive word (e.g. pearly teeth) or in a predicative word combination (e.g. Dear Nature is the kindest Mother still - Byron)
A lot of metaphors can be found in poetry.
e.g. O, never say that I was false of heart,
Though absence seemed my flame to qualify – ослаблять, смягчать
(Shakespeare, Sonnet CIX)
The word “flame” is used metaphorically, in the meaning of ‘love’ and emphasizes its ardour (пыл) and passion. Such a metaphor expressed by a single word is called a simple (or word) metaphor. A simple metaphor does not necessarily consist of one word only: e.g. “the eye of heaven” meaning the sun is also a simple metaphor:
“Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines” (Shakespeare, Sonnet 18)
A developed (sustained or prolonged) metaphor consists of some sentences or clauses in which a group of simple metaphors is clustered around the same image to make it more vivid and complete.
e.g. From the dim woods on either bank, Night’s ghostly army, the grey shadows, creep out with noiseless tread to chase away the lingering rear-guard of the light, and pass, with noiseless unseen feet, above the waving river-grass. (Jerome K. Jerome)
Metaphors can also be classified according to their degree of originality. Metaphors that are absolutely unpredictable are called genuine. Whereas those that are commonly used in speech and therefore belong to the expressive means of the language are trite (dead, hackneyed, banal). Genuine metaphors are regarded as belonging language-in-action, i.e. they are speech metaphors. Trite metaphors belong to language-as-a-system, i.e. language proper, and are usually fixed in dictionaries as units of the language.
e.g. a ray of hope a flood of tears
a flight of fancy a shadow of a smile
Genuine metaphors are mostly found in poetry and emotive prose. Trite metaphors are generally used as EMs of the language in newspaper articles, oratorical style and even in scientific language. The use of trite metaphors should not be regarded as a drawback of style. They help the writer to enliven [in’laiv n] (оживить) his work and make the meaning more concrete.
When we identify inanimate objects or abstract notions and human qualities, we speak of a special type of metaphor –personification (from the Latin “persona” – лицо and “facere” – делать). It is used in high prose, poetry, tales.
Personified objects function in the language mostly as nouns – names of living beings. They can be substituted by the pronouns ‘he’ and ‘she’, they can be used in the form of the Possessive case and can be combined with verbs expressing actions and states typical of people (verbs of speaking, thinking, volition, intention).
The word used as personification is often capitalized.
E.g. this bloody tyrant Time (Shakespeare)
E.g. In November a cold, unseen stranger, whom the doctors called Pheumonia, stalked [o:] (подкрадываться) about the colony, touching one here and there with his icy fingers.
METONYMY
(from the Greek “metonymia” = re-naming – переименование).
Unlike metaphor, metonymy is based on a different type of relation between the dictionary and contextual meaning - on actual association connecting the two concepts which these two meanings represent.
E.g. the word ‘crown’ can stand for ‘king’ or ‘queen’
The words ‘cup’ or ‘glass’ can stand for the drink contained
The above-mentioned examples of metonymy are traditional and therefore fixed in dictionaries.
The association itself can be based on the relations between the material and the thing made of it; between the place and the people who are in it; between the process and its result; between the action and its instrument, etc.
E.g. in Shakespeare’s sonnets we can find a lot of examples of metonymical association between the name of feeling and the part of the human body which is thought responsible for it. The words ‘eye, ear, heart, brain’ are commonly used metonymically.
E.g. In faith, I do not love thee with mine eyes;
For they in thee a thousand errors note;
But ‘tis my heart that loves what they despise,
Who in despite of view is pleased to dote.
(Shakespeare. Sonnet CXLI)
The interrelation between the dictionary and the contextual meanings should stand out clearly and conspicuously (бросаться в глаза, быть заметным). Only in this case we can state that we deal with a stylistic device. Otherwise metonymy is simply a way of coining new words, a means of word-building.
Metonymy used in language-in-action, i.e. contextual metonymy is genuine. It is an unexpected substitution of one word or concept for another.
E.g. Then they came in. Two of them, a man with long fair moustaches and a silent dark man… Definitely, the moustache and I had nothing in common. (Doris Lessing)
Here we have a feature of a man, which catches the eye, in this case – his facial appearance: the moustache stands for the man himself.
E.g. (the same function) there was something very agreeable in being so intimate with such a waistcoat; in being on such off-hand terms so soon with such a pair of whiskers that Tom was uncommonly pleased with himself. (C. Dickens “Hard Times”)
In these two cases of genuine metonymy a broader context than that required by a metaphor is necessary in order to decipher the true meaning of the SD. In both examples it is necessary to understand the words in their proper meaning first. Only then it is possible to grasp metonymy.
In the process of disclosing a metaphor one image excludes the other.
E.g. the metaphor ‘lamp’ in ‘the sky lamp of the night’, when deciphered, means ‘the moon’, and though there is a definite interplay of meaning, we perceive only one object – the moon.
This is not the case with metonymy. Metonymy, while presenting one object to our mind, does not exclude the other. In the first example the moustache and the man himself are both present.
A special type of metonymy (based on the relations between part and its whole) is called synechdoche (Greek ‘synekdoche’), in which a part is made to stand for the whole, or the whole for a part. Plural is used instead of the singular and vice versa. A widely used case of synechdoche is the use of the nouns ‘ear’ and ’eye’ in the Sg.
E.g. Since I left you, mine eye is in my mind.
E.g. For there can be no hatred in thine eye.
Other types of relations may serve the basis for metonymy.
As a means of building imagery metonymy is generally concerned with concrete objects, which are generalized. The process of generalization is carried out with the help of the definite article.
IRONY.
(from the Greek ‘eironeia’ = скрытая насмешка)
Irony [‘ai r ni] is a SD based on the simultaneous realization of 2 logical meanings – dictionary and contextual, with the 2 meanings standing in opposition to each other.
E.g. It must be delightful to find oneself in a foreign country without a penny in one’s pocket.
The word ‘delightful’ here acquires a meaning quite opposite to its primary dictionary meaning, i.e. ‘unpleasant’, ‘not delightful at all’. The word containing irony is strongly marked by intonation. It has an emphatic stress and is generally supplied with a special melody design, unless the context itself renders this intonation pattern unnecessary.
It should be mentioned that there are practically no cases of irony in language-as-a-system.
Irony must not be confused with humour, although they have much in common. Humour causes laughter. What is funny must come as a sudden clash of the positive and the negative. In this respect irony can be compared to humour. But the function of irony is not confined (ограничивать) to producing a humorous effect. In a sentence like ‘How clever of you!’ where due to the intonation pattern, the word ‘clever’ conveys a sense opposite to its literal meaning, the irony does not cause a ludicrous [‘lu:dikr s] effect. It rather expresses a feeling of irritation, displeasure, pity or regret. A word used ironically may sometimes express very subtle, almost imperceptible (незаметный, незначительный) nuances [nj(:)’a:ns] of meaning.
The effect of irony lies in the striking contrast (disparity) between what is said and what is meant which is achieved through the intentional interplay of two meanings standing in opposition to each other.
It should be born in mind that irony is generally used to convey a negative meaning, i.e. the contextual meaning always conveys the negation of the positive concepts embodied in the dictionary meaning.
E.g. It’s nice to listen to a foreigner without understanding a word.
It was pleasant to drag along the forest in rainy weather, without any eatables and a shelter.
Bitter socially and politically aimed irony is called sarcasm [‘sa:k zm].
Humour is milder than irony or sarcasm. When we speak about a person ironically or sarcastically, our attitude to the person is negative.