Гальперин И. Р. Стилистика английского языка

• Название: Гальперин И. Р. Стилистика английского языка
• Дата: 26.02.2018
• Размер: 1.85 Mb.
• Имя файла: Galperin I.R. Stylistics.doc
• Тип: Документы; #37306
• страница: 18 из 39

2. INTERACTION OF PRIMARY AND DERIVATIVE LOGICAL MEANINGS

Stylistic Devices Based on Polysemantic Effect, Zeugma and Pun

As is known, the word is, of all language units, the most sensitive to change; its meaning gradually develops and as a result of this development new meanings appear alongside the primary one. It is normal for almost every word to acquire derivative meanings; sometimes the primary meaning has to make way for quite a new meaning which ousts it completely.

In dealing with the problem of nonce-words and new meanings we have already stated the fact that in the development of language units we are constantly facing the opposing concepts of permanence and ephemerality. Some meanings are characterized by their permanence, others, like nonce-words and contextual meanings, are generally ephemeral, i.e. they appear in some contexts and vanish leaving no trace in the vocabulary of the language. Primary and the derivative meanings are characterized by their relative stability and therefore are fixed in dictionaries, thus constituting the semantic structure of the word.

The problem of polysemy is one of the vexed questions of lexicology. It is sometimes impossible to draw a line of demarcation between a derivative meaning of a polysemantic word and a separate word, i.e. a word that has broken its semantic ties with the head word and has become a homonym to the word it was derived from.

Polysemy is a category of lexicology and as such belongs to language-as-a-system. In actual everyday speech polysemy vanishes unless it is deliberately retained for certain stylistic purposes. A context that does not seek to produce any particular stylistic effect generally materializes but one definite meaning.

However, when a word begins to manifest an interplay between the primary and one of the derivative meanings we are again confronted with an SD.

Let us analyse the following example from Sonnet 90 by Shakespeare¹ where the key-words are intentionally made to reveal two or more meanings.

"Then hate me if thou wilt, if ever now.
Now while the world is bent my deeds to cross."

The word 'hate' materializes several meanings in this context. The primary meaning of the word, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, is 'to hold in very strong dislike'. This basic meaning has brought to life some derivative meanings which, though having very much in common, still show some nuances, special shades of meaning which enrich the semantic structure of the word. They are: 1) 'to detest'; 2) 'to bear malice to'; 3) the opposite of to love (which in itself is not so emotionally coloured as in the definition of the primary meaning: it almost amounts to being indifferent); 4) 'to feel a repulsive attitude'. Other dictionaries fix such senses as 5) 'to wish to shun' (Heritage Dictionary); 6) 'to feel aversion for' (Random House Dictionary); 7) 'to bear ill-will against'; 8) 'to desire evil to (persons)' (Wyld's Dictionary). There is a peculiar interplay among derivative meanings of the word 'hate' in Sonnet 90 where the lamentation of the poet about the calamities which had befallen him results in his pleading with his beloved not to leave him in despair. The whole of the context forcibly suggests that there is a certain interaction of the following meanings: 2) 'to bear malice' (suggested by the line 'join with the spite of fortune') – 4) 'to feel a repulsive attitude' – 5) 'to wish to shun' (suggested by the line 'if thou wilt leave me do not leave me last' and also 'compared with loss of thee') – 7) and 8) 'to desire evil and bear ill-will against' (suggested by the line 'join with the spite of fortune' and 'so shall I taste the very worst of fortune's might'). All these derivative meanings interweave with the primary one and this network of meanings constitutes a stylistic device which may be called the polysemantic effect.

This SD can be detected only when a rather large span of utterance, up to a whole text, is subjected to a scrupulous and minute analysis. It also requires some skill in evaluating the ratio of the primary and derivative meanings in the given environment, the ratio being dependent on the general content of the text.

The word 'bent' in the second line of the sonnet does not present any difficulty in decoding its meaning. The metaphorical meaning of the word is apparent. A contextual meaning is imposed on the word. The micro-context is the key to decode its meaning.

The past participle of the verb to bend together with the verb to cross builds a metaphor the meaning of which is 'to hinder', 'to block', 'to interfere'.

The polysemantic effect is a very subtle and sometimes hardly perceptible stylistic device. But it is impossible to underrate its significance in discovering the aesthetically pragmatic function of the utterance.

Unlike this device, the two SDs – Zeugma and Pun lie, as it were, on the surface of the text.

Zeugma is the use of a word in the same grammatical but different semantic relations to two adjacent words in the context, the semantic relations being, on the on hand, literal, and, on the other, tгаnsferred.

"Dora, plunging at once into privileged intimacy and into the middle of the room". (B. Shaw)

'To plunge' (into the middle of a room) materializes the meaning 'to rush into' or 'enter impetuously'. Here it is used in its concrete, primary, literal meaning; in 'to plunge into privileged intimacy' the word 'plunge' is used in its derivative meaning.

The same can be said of the use of the verbs 'stain' and 'lose' in the following lines from Pope's "The Rape of the Lock":

"...Whether the Nymph

Shall stain her Honour or her new Brocade

Or lose her Heart or necklace at a Ball."

This stylistic device is particularly favoured in English emotive prose and in poetry. The revival of the original meanings of words must be regarded as an essential quality of any work in the belles-lettres style. A good writer always keeps the chief meanings of words from fading away, provided the meanings are worth being kept fresh and vigorous.

Zeugma is a strong and effective device to maintain the purity of the primary meaning when the two meanings clash. By making the two meanings conspicuous in this particular way, each of them stands out clearly. The structure of zeugma may present variations from the patterns given above. Thus in the sentence:

"...And May's mother always stood on her gentility; and Dot's mother never stood on anything but her active little feet" (Dickens)

The word 'stood' is used twice. This structural variant of zeugma, though producing some slight difference in meaning, does not violate the principle of the stylistic device. It still makes the reader realize that the two meanings of the word 'stand' are simultaneously expressed, one primary and the other derivative.

The pиn is another stylistic device based on the interaction of two well-known meanings of a word or phrase. It is difficult do draw a hard and fast distinction between zeugma and the pun. The only reliable distinguishing feature is a structural one: zeugma is the realization of two meanings with the help of a verb which is made to refer to different subjects or objects (direct or indirect). The pun is more independent. There need not necessarily be a word in the sentence to which the pun-word refers. This does not mean, however, that the pun is entirely free. Like any other stylistic device, it must depend on a context. But the context may be of a more expanded character, sometimes even as large as a whole work of emotive prose. Thus the title of one of Oscar Wilde's plays, "The Importance of Being Earnest" has a pun in it, inasmuch as the name of the hero and the adjective meaning 'seriously-minded' are both present in our mind.

Here is another example of a pun where a larger context for its realization is used:

'"Bow to the board," said Bumble. Oliver brushed away two or three tears that were lingering in his eyes; and seeing no board but the table, fortunately bowed to that'. (Dickens)

In fact, the humorous effect is caused by the interplay not of two meanings of one word, but of two words. 'Board' as a group of officials with functions of administration and management and 'board' as a piece of furniture (a table) have become two distinct words.¹

Puns are often used in riddles and jokes, for example, in this riddle: What is the difference between a schoolmaster and an engine-driver? (One trains the mind and the other minds the train.)

Devices of simultaneously realizing the various meanings of words, which are of a more subtle character than those embodied in puns and zeugma, are to be found in poetry and poetical descriptions and in speculations in emotive prose. Men-of-letters are especially sensitive to the nuances of meaning embodied in almost every common word, and to make these words live with their multifarious semantic aspects is the task of a good writer. Those who can do it easily are said to have talent.

In this respect it is worth subjecting to stylistic analysis words ordinarily perceived in their primary meaning but which in poetic diction begin to acquire some additional, contextual meaning. This latter meaning sometimes overshadows the primary meaning and it may, in the course of time, cease to denote the primary meaning, the derived meaning establishing itself as the most recognizable one. But to deal with these cases means to leave the domain of stylistics and find ourselves in the domain of lexicology.

To illustrate the interplay of primary and contextual meanings, let us take a few examples from poetical works:

In Robert Frost's poem "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" the poet, taking delight in watching the snow fall on the woods, concludes his poem in the following words:

"The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep."

The word 'promises' here is made to signify two concepts, viz. 1) a previous engagement to be fulfilled and 2) moral or legal obligation.

The plural form of the word as well as the whole context of the poem are convincing proof that the second of the two meanings is the main one, in spite of the fact that in combination with the verb to keep (to keep a promise) the first meaning is more predictable.

Here is another example.

In Shakespearian Sonnet 29 there are the following lines:

“When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries
And think upon myself and curse my fate.”

Almost every word here may be interpreted in different senses: sometimes the differences are hardly perceptible, sometimes they are obviously antagonistic to the primary meaning.

But we shall confine our analysis only to the meaning of the word 'cries' which signifies both prayer and lamentation. These two meanings are suggested by the relation of the word 'cries' to 'trouble deaf heaven'. But the word 'cries' suggests not only prayer and lamentation, it also implies violent prayer and lamentation as if in deep despair, almost with tears (see the word 'beweep' in the second line of the part of the sonnet quoted).

It is very important to be able to follow the author's intention from his manner of expressing nuances of meaning which are potentially present in the semantic structure of existing words. Those who fail to define the suggested meanings of poetic words will never understand poetry because they are unable to decode the poetic language.

In various functional styles of language the capacity of a word to signify several meanings simultaneously manifests itself in different degrees. In scientific prose it almost equals zero. In poetic style this is an essential property.

To observe the fluctuations of meanings in the belles-lettres style is not only important for a better understanding of the purpose or intention of the writer, but also profitable to a linguistic scholar engaged in the study of semantic changes in words.

3. INTERACTION OF LOGICAL AND EMOTIVE MEANINGS

The general notions concerning emotiveness have been set out in Part I, § 6 – "Meaning from a Stylistic Point of View" (p. 57). However, some additional information is necessary for a better understanding of how logical and emotive meanings interact.

It must be clearly understood that the logical and the emotive are built into our minds and they are present there in different degrees when we think of various phenomena of objective reality. The ratio of the two elements is reflected in the composition of verbal chains, i.e. in expression.¹

Different emotional elements may appear in the utterance depending on its character and pragmatic aspect.

The emotional elements of the language have a tendency to wear out and are constantly replaced by new ones (see examples on p. 101 – the word dramatic and others). Almost any word may acquire a greater or a lesser degree of emotiveness. This is due to the fact that, as B. Tomashevskyhas it, "The word is not only understood, it is also experienced."²

There are words the function of which is to arouse emotion in the reader or listener. In such words emotiveness prevails over intellectuality. There are also words in which the logical meaning is almost entirely ousted. However, these words express feelings which have passed through our mind and therefore they have acquired an intellectual embodiment. In other words, emotiveness in language is a category of our minds and, consequently, our feelings are expressed not directly but indirectly, that is, by passing through our minds. It is therefore natural that some emotive words have become the recognized symbols of emotions; the emotions are, as it were, not expressed directly but referred to.

"The sensory stage of cognition of objective reality is not only the basis of abstract thinking, it also accompanies it, bringing the elements of sensory stimuli into the process of conceptual thinking, and thus defining the sensory grounds of the concepts as well as the combination of sensory images and logical concepts in a single act of thinking."¹

We shall try to distinguish between elements of language which have emotive meaning in their semantic structure and those which acquire this meaning in the context under the influence of a stylistic device or some other more expressive means in the utterance.

A greater or lesser volume of emotiveness may be distinguished in words which have emotive meaning in their semantic structure. The most highly emotive words are words charged with emotive meaning to the extent that the logical meaning can hardly be registered. These are interjections and all kinds of exclamations. Next come epithets, in which we can observe a kind of parity between emotive and logical meaning. Thirdly come epithets of the oxymoronic type, in which the logical meaning prevails over the emotive but where the emotive is the result of the clash between the logical and illogical.

Interjections and Exclamatory Words

Interjections are words we use when we express our feelings strongly and which may be said to exist in language as conventional symbols of human emotions. The role of interjections in creating emotive meanings has already been dealt with (see p. 67). It remains only to show how the logical and emotive meanings interact and to ascertain their general functions and spheres of application,

In traditional grammars the interjection is regarded as a part of speech, alongside other parts of speech, as the noun, adjective, verb, etc. But there is another view which regards the interjection not as a part of speech but as a sentence. There is much to uphold this view. Indeed, a word taken separately is deprived of any intonation which will suggest a complete idea, that is, a pronouncement; whereas a word-interjection will always manifest a definite attitude on the part of the speaker towards the problem and therefore have intonation. The pauses between words are very brief, sometimes hardly perceptible, whereas the pause between the interjection and the words that follow is so long, so significant that it may be equalled to the pauses between sentences.

However, a closer investigation into the nature and functions of the interjection proves beyond doubt that the interjection is not a sentence; it is a word with strong emotive meaning. The pauses that frame interjections can be accounted for by the sudden transfer from the emotional to the logical or vice versa. Further, the definite intonation with which interjections are pronounced depends on the sense of the preceding or following sentence. Interjections have no sentence meaning if taken independently.

Let us take some examples of the use of interjections:

Oh, where are you going to, all you Big Steamers? (Kipling)

The interjection oh by itself may express various feelings, such as regret, despair, disappointment, sorrow, woe, surprise, astonishment, lamentation, entreaty and many others. Here it precedes a definite sentence and must be regarded as a part of it. It denotes the ardent tone of the question. The Oh here may be regarded, to use the terminology of theory of information, as a signal indicating emotional tension in the following utterance.

The same may be observed in the use of the interjection oh in the following sentence from "A Christmas Carol" by Dickens:

"Oh! but he was a tight-fisted hand at the grind-stone, Scrooge."

The Oh here is a signal indicating the strength of the emotions of the author, which are further revealed in a number of devices, mostly syntactical, like elliptical sentences, tautological subjects, etc. The meaning of the interjection Oh in the sentence can again be pinned down only from the semantic analysis of the sentence following it and then it becomes clear that the emotion to be understood is one of disgust or scorn.

So interjections, as it were, radiate the emotional element over the whole of the utterance, provided, of course, that they precede it.

It is interesting to note in passing how often interjections are used by Shakespeare in his sonnets. Most of them serve as signals for the sestet which is the semantic or/and emotional counterpart to the octave,¹ or example:

"O, carve not with thy horns ..." (Sonnet 19)

"O, Let me, true in love, but..." (21)

"O, therefore, love be of thyself..." (22)

"O, let my books be, then, the..." (23)

"O, then vouchsafe me..." (32)

"O, absence, what a torment..." (39)

"O,no! thy love, though much.." (61)

"O, fearful meditation..." (65)

"O,if I say, you look..." (71)

"O, lest your true love..." (72)

"O, know, sweet love..." (76)

"Ah, do not, when my heart..." (96)²
Interjections can be divided into primarу and derivative. Primary interjections are generally devoid of any logical meaning. Derivative interjections may retain a modicum of logical meaning, though this is always suppressed by the volume of emotive meaning. Oh! Ah! Bah! Pooh! Gosh! Hush! Alas! are primary interjections, though some of them once had logical meaning. 'Heavens!', 'good gracious!', 'dear me!', 'God!', 'Come on!', 'Look here!', 'dear!', 'by the Lord!', 'God knows!', 'Bless me!', 'Humbug!' and many others of this kind are not interjections as such; a better name for them would be exclamatory words and word-combinations generally used as interjections, i.e. their function is that of the interjection.

It must be noted here that some adjectives, nouns and adverbs can also take on the function of interjections – for example, such words as terrible!, awful!, great!, wonderful!, splendid!, fine!, man!, boy! With proper intonation and with an adequate pause such as follows an interjection, these words may acquire a strong emotional colouring and are equal in force to interjections. In that case we may say that some adjectives and adverbs have acquired an additional grammatical meaning, that of the interjection.

Men-of-letters, most of whom possess an acute feeling for words, their meaning, sound, possibilities, potential energy, etc., are always aware of the emotional charge of words in a context. An instance of such acute awareness is the following excerpt from Somerset Maugham's "The Razor's Edge" where in a conversation the word God is used in two different senses: first in its logical meaning and then with the grammatical meaning of the interjection:

"Perhaps he won't. It's a long arduous road he's starting to travel, but it may be that at the end of it he'll find what he's seeking."

"What's that?"

"Hasn't it occurred to you? It seems to me that in what he said to you he indicated it pretty plainly. God."

"God!" she cried. But it was an exclamation of incredulous surprise. Our use of the same word, but in such a different sense, had a comic effect, so that we were obliged to laugh. But Isabel immediately grew serious again and I felt in her whole attitude something like fear.

The change in the sense of the word god is indicated by a mark of exclamation, by the use of the word 'cried' and the words 'exclamation of incredulous surprise' which are ways of conveying in writing the sense carried in the spoken language by the intonation.

Interjections always attach a definite modal nuance to the utterance. But it is impossible to define exactly the shade of meaning contained in a given interjection, though the context may suggest one. Here are some of the meanings that can be expressed by interjections: joy, delight, admiration, approval, disbelief, astonishment, fright, regret, woe, dissatisfaction, ennui (boredom), sadness, blame, reproach, protest, horror, irony, sarcasm, meanness, self-assurance, despair, disgust and many others.

Interesting attempts have been made to specify the emotions expressed by some of the interjections. Here are a few lines from Byron's "Don Juan" which may serve as an illustration:

"All present life is but an interjection.

An 'Oh' or 'Ah' of joy or misery,

Or a 'Ha! ha!' or 'Bah!' – a yawn or 'Pooh!'

Of which perhaps the latter is most true."

A strong impression is made by a poem by M. Tsvetayeva «Молвь» in which three Russian interjections «ox», «ax» and «эх» are subjected to a poetically exquisite subtle analysis from the point of view of the meanings these three interjections may express.

Interjections, like other words in the English vocabulary, bear features which mark them as bookish, neutral or colloquial. Thus oh, ah, Bah and the like are neutral; alas, egad (euphemism for 'by God'), Lo, Hark are bookish¹; gosh, why, well are colloquial. But as with other words in any stratum of vocabulary, the border-line between the three groups is broad and flexible. Sometimes therefore a given interjection may be considered as bookish by one scholar and as neutral by another, or colloquial by one and neutral by another. However, the difference between colloquial and bookish will always be clear enough. In evaluating the attitude of a writer to the things, ideas, events and phenomena he is dealing with, the ability of the reader to pin-point the emotional element becomes of paramount importance. It is sometimes hidden under seemingly impartial description or narrative, and only an insignificant lexical unit, or the syntactical design of an utterance, will reveal the author's mood. But interjections, as has been said, are direct signals that the utterance is emotionally charged, and insufficient attention on the part of the literary critic to the use of interjections will deprive him of a truer understanding of the writer's aims.

The Epithet

From the strongest means of displaying the writer's or speaker's emotional attitude to his communication, we now pass to a weaker but still forceful means – the epithet. The epithet is subtle and delicate in character. It is not so direct as the interjection. Some people liven consider that it can create an atmosphere of objective evaluation, whereas it actually conveys the subjective attitude of the writer, showing that he is partial in one way or another.

The epithet is a stylistic device based on the interplay of emotive and logical meaning m an attributive word, phrase or even sentence used to characterize an object and pointing out to the reader, and frequently imposing on him, some of the properties or features of the object with the aim of giving an individual perception and evaluation of these features or properties. The epithet is markedly subjective and evaluative. The logical attribute is purely objective, non-evaluating. It is descriptive and indicates an inherent or prominent feature of the thing or phenomenon in question.

Thus, in 'green meadows', 'white snow', 'round table', 'blue skies', 'pale complexion', 'lofty mountains' and the like, the adjectives are more logical attributes than epithets. They indicate those qualities of the objects which may be regarded as generally recognized. But in 'wild wind', 'loud ocean', 'remorseless dash of billows', 'formidable waves', 'heart-burning smile', the adjectives do not point to inherent qualities of the objects described. They are subjectively evaluative.

The epithet makes a strong impact on the reader, so much so, that he unwittingly begins to see and evaluate things as the writer wants him to. Indeed, in such word-combinations as 'destructive charms', 'glorious sight', 'encouraging smile', the interrelation between logical and emotive meanings may be said to manifest itself in different degrees. The word destructive has retained its logical meaning to a considerable extent, but at the same time an experienced reader cannot help perceiving the emotive meaning of the word which in this combination will signify 'conquering, irresistible, dangerous'. The logical meaning of the word glorious in combination with the word sight has almost entirely faded out. Glorious is already fixed in dictionaries as a word having an emotive meaning alongside its primary, logical meaning. As to the word encouraging (in the combination 'encouraging smile') it is half epithet and half logical attribute. In fact, it is sometimes difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation between epithet and logical attribute. In some passages the logical attribute becomes so strongly enveloped in the emotional aspect of the utterance that it begins to radiate emotiveness, though by nature it is logically descriptive. Take, for example, the adjectives green, white, blue, lofty (but somehow not round) in the combinations given above. In a suitable context they may all have a definite emotional impact on the reader. This is probably explained by the fact that the quality most characteristic of the given object is attached to it, thus strengthening the quality.

Epithets may be classified from different standpoints: semantic and structural. Semantically, epithets may be divided into two groups: those assосiated with the noun following and those unassосiated with it.

Associated epithets are those which point to a feature which is essential to the objects they describe: the idea expressed in the epithet is to a certain extent inherent in the concept of the object. The associated epithet immediately refers the mind to the concept in question due to some actual quality of the object it is attached to, for instance, 'dark forest', 'dreary midnight', 'careful attention', 'unwearying research', 'indefatigable assiduity', 'fantastic terrors', etc.

Unassociated epithets are attributes used to characterize the object by adding a feature not inherent in it, i.e. a feature which may be so unexpected as to strike the reader by its novelty, as, for instance, ‘heart-burning smile’, ‘bootless cries’, ‘sullen earth’, ‘voiceless sands’, etc. The adjectives here do not indicate any property inherent in the objects in question. They impose, as it were, a property on them which is fitting only in the given circumstances. It may seem strange, unusual, or even accidental.

In any combination of words it is very important to observe to want degree the components of the combination are linked. When they are so closely linked that the component parts become inseparable, we note that we are dealing with a set expression. When the link between the component parts is comparatively close, we say there is a stable word-combination, and when we can substitute any word of the same grammatical category for the one given, we note what is called a free combination of words.

With regard to epithets, this division becomes of paramount importance, inasmuch as the epithet is a powerful means for making the desired impact on the reader, and therefore its ties with the noun are generally contextual. However, there are combinations in which the ties between the attribute and the noun defined are very close, and the whole combination is viewed as a linguistic whole. Combinations of this type appear as a result of the frequent use of certain definite epithets with definite nouns. They become stable word-combinations. Examples are: ‘bright face’, ‘valuable connections’, ‘sweet smile’, ‘unearthly beauty’, ‘pitch darkness’, ‘thirsty deserts’, ‘deep feeling’, ‘classic example’, ‘powerful influence’, ‘sweet perfume’ and the like. The predictability of such epithets is very great.

The function of epithets of this kind remains basically the same: to show the evaluating, subjective attitude of the writer towards the thing described. But for this purpose the author does not create his own, new, unexpected epithets; he uses ones that have become traditional, and may bе termed "language epithets" as they belong to the language-as-a-system. Thus epithets may be divided into language epithets and speech epithets. Examples of speech epithets are: 'slavish knees', 'sleepless bay.'

The process of strengthening the connection between the epithet and the noun may sometimes go so far as to build a specific unit which does not lose its poetic flavour. Such epithets are called fixed and are mostly used in ballads and folk songs. Here are some examples of fixed epithets: 'true love', 'dark forest', 'sweet Sir', 'green wood', 'good ship', 'brave cavaliers'.

Structurally, epithets can be viewed from the angle of a) composition and b) distribution.

From the point of view of their compositional structure epithets may be divided into simple, compound, phrase and sentence epithets. Simple epithets are ordinary adjectives. Examples have been given above. Compound epithets are built like compound adjectives. Examples are:

'heart-burning sigh', 'sylph-like figures', 'cloud-shapen giant',

"...curly-headed good-for-nothing,

And mischief-making monkey from his birth." (Byron)

The tendency to cram into one language unit as much information as possible has led to new compositional models for epithets which we shall call phrase epithets. A phrase and even a whole sentence may become an epithet if the main formal requirement of the epithet is maintained, viz. its attributive use. But unlike simple and compound epithets, which may have pre- or post-position, phrase epithets are always placed before the nouns they refer to.

An interesting observation in this respect has been made by O. S. Akhmanova. "The syntactical combinations are, as it were, more explicit, descriptive, elaborate; the lexical are more of an indication, a hint or a clue to some previously communicated or generally known fact, as if one should say: 'You know what I mean and all I have to do now is to point it out to you in this concise and familiar way'."¹

This inner semantic quality of the attributive relations in lexical combinations, as they are called by O. S. Akhmanova, is, perhaps, most striking in the phrase and sentence epithets. Here the 'concise way' is most effectively used.

Here are some examples of phrase epithets:

"It is this do-it-yourself, go-it-alone attitude that has thus far held back real development of the Middle East's river resources" (N. Y. T. Magazine, 19 Oct., 1958.)

"Personally I detest her (Gioconda's) smug, mystery-making, come-hither-but-go-away-again-because-butter-wouldn't-melt-in-my-mouth expression." (New Statesman and Nation, Jan. 5, 1957)

"There is a sort of 'Oh-what-a-wicked-world-this-is-and-how-I-wish-I-could-do-something-to-make-it-better-and-nobler' expression about Montmorency that has been known to bring the tears into the eyes of pious old ladies and gentlemen." (Jerome K. Jerome "Three Men in a Boat")

"Freddie was standing in front of the fireplace with a 'well-thafs-the-story-what-are-we-going-to-do-aboul-if' air that made him a focal point." (Leslie Ford, "Siren in the Night")

An interesting structural detail of phrase and sentence epithets is that they are generally followed by the words expression, air, attitude and others which describe behaviour or facial expression. In other words, such epithets seem to transcribe into language symbols a communication usually conveyed by non-linguistic means.

Another structural feature of such phrase epithets is that after the nouns they refer to, there often comes a subordinate attributive clause beginning with that. This attributive clause, as it were, serves the purpose of decoding the effect of the communication. It must be noted that phrase epithets are always hyphenated, thus pointing to the temporary structure of the compound word.

These two structural features have predetermined the functioning of phrase epithets. Practically any phrase or sentence which deals with the psychological state of a person may serve as an epithet. The phrases and sentences transformed into epithets lose their independence and assume a new quality which is revealed both in the intonation pattern (that of an attribute) and graphically (by being hyphenated).

Another structural variety of the epithet is the one which we shall term reversed. The reversed epithet is composed of two nouns linked in an of phrase. The subjective, evaluating, emotional element is embodied not in the noun attribute but in the noun structurally described, for example: "the shadow of a smile"; "a devil of a job" (Maugham); "...he smiled brightly, neatly, efficiently, a military abbreviation of a smile" (Graham Green); "A devil of a sea rolls in that bay" (Byron); "A little Flying Dutchman of a cab" (Galsworthy); "a dog of a fellow" (Dickens); "her brute of a brother" (Galsworthy); "...a long nightshirt of a mackintosh..." (Cronin)

It will be observed that such epithets are metaphorical. The noun to be assessed is contained in the of-phrase and the noun it qualifies is a metaphor (shadow, devil, military abbreviation, Flying Dutchman, dog). The grammatical aspect, viz. attributive relation between the members of the combination shows that the SD here is an epithet.

It has been acknowledged that it is sometimes difficult to draw a line of demarcation between attributive and predicative relations. Some attributes carry so much information that they may justly be considered bearers of predicativeness. This is particularly true of the epithet, especially genuine or-speech epithets, which belong to language-in-action and not to language-as-a-system. These epithets are predicative in essence, though not in form.

On the other hand, some word-combinations where we have predicative relations convey so strongly the emotional assessment of the object spoken of, that in spite of their formal, structural design, the predicatives can be classed as epithets. Here are some examples:

'Fools that they are'; 'Wicked as he is.'

The inverted position of the predicatives 'fools' and 'wicked' as well as the intensifying 'that they are' and 'as he is' mark this border-line variety of epithet.

Some language epithets, in spite of opposition on the part of orthodox language purists, establish themselves in standard English as conventional symbols of assessment for a given period. To these belong words we have already spoken of like terrible, awful, massive, top, dramatic, mighty, crucial (see p. 66).

From the point of view of the distribиtiоп of the epithets in the sentence, the first model to be pointed out is the string of epithets. In his depiction of New York, O. Henry gives the following string of epithets:

"Such was the background of the wonderful, cruel, enchanting, bewildering, fatal, great city;"

Other examples are: a plump, rosy-cheeked, wholesome apple-faced young woman (Dickens); "a well-matched, fairly-balanced give-and-take couple." (Dickens)

As in any enumeration, the string of epithets gives a many-sided depiction of the object. But in this many-sidedness there is always a suggestion of an ascending order of emotive elements. This can easily be observed in the intonation pattern of a string of epithets. There is generally an ascending scale which culminates in the last epithet; if the last epithet is a language epithet (great), or not an epithet (young), the culminating point is the last genuine epithet. The culminating point in the above examples is at fatal, apple-faced, and give-and-take.

Another distributional model is the transferred epithet. Transferred epithets are ordinary logical attributes generally describing the state of a human being, but made to refer to an inanimate object, for example: sick chamber, sleepless pillow, restless pace, breathless eagerness, unbreakfasted morning, merry hours, a disapproving finger, Isabel shrugged an indifferent shoulder.

As may be seen, it is the force contributed to the attribute by its position, and not by its meaning, that hallows it into an epithet. The main feature of the epithet, that of emotional assessment, is greatly diminished in this model; but it never quite vanishes. The meaning of the logical attributes in such combinations acquires a definite emotional colouring.

Language epithets as part of the emotional word-stock of the language have a tendency to become obsolescent. That is the fate of many emotional elements in the language. They gradually lose their emotive charge and are replaced by new ones which, in their turn, will be replaced by neologisms. Such was the fate of the language epithet good-natured. In the works of Henry Fielding this epithet appears very often, as, for example, 'a good-natured hole', 'good-natured side', The words vast and vastly were also used as epithets in the works of men-of-letters of the 18th century, as in 'vast rains', 'vastly amused'.

The problem of the epithet is too large and too significant to be fully dealt with in a short chapter. Indeed, it may be regarded as the crucial problem in emotive language and epithets, correspondingly, among the stylistic devices of the language.

It remains only to say that the epithet is a direct and straightforward way of showing the author's attitude towards the things described, whereas other stylistic devices, even image-bearing ones, will reveal the author's evaluation of the object only indirectly. That is probably why those authors who wish to show a seeming impartiality and objectivity in depicting their heroes and describing events use few epithets. Realistic authors use epithets much more sparingly, as statistical data have shown. Roughly speaking, Romanticism, on the other hand, may to some extent be characterized by its abundant use of epithets. In illustration we have taken at random a few lines from a stanza in Byron's "Childe Harold's Pilgrimage":

The horrid crags, by toppling convent, crowned,

The cork-trees hoar that clothe the shaggy steep,

The mountain-moss by scorching skies imbrown'd,

The sunken glen, whose sunless shrubs must weep,

The orange tints that gild the greenest bough…

Oxymoron

Oxymoron is a combination of two words (mostly an adjective and a noun or an adverb with an adjective) in which the meanings of the two clash, being opposite in sense, for example:

'low skyscraper', 'sweet sorrow', 'nice rascal', 'pleasantly ugly face', 'horribly beautiful', 'a deafening silence',

If the primary meaning of the qualifying word changes or weakens, the stylistic effect of oxymoron is lost. This is the case with what were once oxymoronic combinations, for example, 'awfully nice', 'awfully glad', 'terribly sorry' and the like, where the words awfully and terribly have lost their primary logical meaning and are now used with emotive meaning only, as intensifies. The essence of oxymoron consists in the capacity of the primary meaning of the adjective or adverb to resist for some time the overwhelming power of semantic change which words undergo in combination. The forcible combination of non-combinative words seems to develop what may be called a kind of centrifugal force which keeps them apart, in contrast to ordinary word-combinations where centripetal force is in action.

We have already pointed out that there are different ratios of emotive-logical relations in epithets. In some of them the logical meaning is hardly perceived, in others the two meanings co-exist. In oxymoron the logical meaning holds fast because there is no true word-combination, only the juxtaposition of two non-combinative words.

But still we may notice a peculiar change in the meaning of the qualifying word. It assumes a new life in oxymoron, definitely indicative of the assessing tendency in the writer's mind.

Let us take the following example from O. Henry's story "The Duel" in which one of the heroes thus describes his attitude towards New York.

"I despise its very vastness and power. It has the poorest millionaires, the littlest great men, the haughtiest beggars, the plainest beauties, the lowest skyscrapers, the dolefulest pleasures of any town I ever saw."

Even the superlative degree of the adjectives fails to extinguish the primary meaning of the adjectives: poor, little, haughty, etc. But by some inner law of word-combinations they also show the attitude of the speaker, reinforced, of course, by the preceding sentence: "I despise its very vastness and power."

It will not come amiss to express this language phenomenon in terms of the theory of information, which states that though the general tendency of entropy is to enlarge, the encoding tendency in the language, which strives for an organized system of language symbols, reduces entropy. Perhaps, this is due to the organizing spirit of the language, i.e. the striving after a system (which in its very essence is an organized whole) that oxymoronic groups, if repeated frequently, lose their stylistic quality and gradually fall into the group of acknowledged word-combinations which consist of an intensifier and the concept intensified.

Oxymoron has one main structural model: adjeсtive + noиn. It is in this structural model that the resistance of the two component parts to fusion into one unit manifests itself most strongly. In the adverb + adjective model the change of meaning in the first element, the adverb, is more rapid, resistance to the unifying process not being so strong.

Sometimes the tendency to use oxymoron is the mark of certain literary trends and tastes. There are poets in search of new shades of meaning in existing words, who make a point of joining together words of contradictory meaning. "Two ordinary words may become almost new," writes V. V. Vinogradov, "if they are joined for the first time or used in an unexpected context."¹

Thus, 'peopled desert', 'populous solitude', 'proud humility' are oxymoronic.

Sometimes, however, the tendency to combine the uncombinative is revealed in structurally different forms, not in adjective-noun models. Gorki criticizes his own sentence: “I suffered then from the fanaticism of knowledge,” and called it “a blunder”. He points out that the acquiring of knowledge is not blind as fanaticism is. The syntactic relations here are not oxymoronic. But combinations of this kind can be likened to oxymoron. The same can be said of the following lines from Byron's "Childe Harold's Pilgrimage":

"Fair Greece! sad relic of departed Worth!

Immortal, though no more, though fallen, great!"

Oxymoronic relations in the italicized part can scarcely be felt, but still the contrary signification is clearly perceived. Such structures may be looked upon as intermediate between oxymoron and antithesis (see p. 222).

4. INTERACTION OF LOGICAL AND NOMINAL MEANINGS

Antonomasia

We have already pointed out the peculiarities of nominal meaning. The interplay between the logical and nominal meanings of a word is called antоnomasia. As in other stylistic devices based on the interaction of lexical meanings, the two kinds of meanings must be realized in the word simultaneously. If only one meaning is materialized in the context, there is no stylistic device, as in hooligan, boycott and other examples given earlier. Here are some examples of genuine antonomasia.

"Among the herd of journals which are published in the States, there are some, the reader scarcely need be told, of character and credit. From personal intercourse with accomplished gentlemen connected with publications of this class, I have derived both pleasure and profit. But the name of these is Few, and of the other Legion, and the influence of the good is powerless to counteract the mortal poison of the bad. (Dickens)

The use of the word name made the author write the words 'Few', and 'Legion' with capital letters. It is very important to note that this device is mainly realized in the written language, because generally capital letters are the only signals to denote the presence of the stylistic device. The same can also be observed in the following example from Byron's. "Don Juan":

"Society is now one polished horde,

Form'd of two mighty tribes, the Bores and Bored."

In these two examples of the use of antonomasia the nominal meaning is hardly perceived, the logical meaning of the words few, legion, bores, bored being too strong. But there is another point that should be mentioned. Most proper names are built on some law of analogy. Many of them end in -son (as Johnson) or -er (Fletcher). We easily recognize such words as Smith, White, Brown, Green, Fowler and others as proper names. But such names as Miss Blue-Eyes (Carter Brown) or Scrooge or Mr. Zero may be called token or telling names. They give information to the reader about the bearer of the name. In this connection it is interesting to recall the well-known remark by Karl Marx, who said that we do not know anything about a man if we only know that he is called Jacob. The nominal meaning is not intended to give any information about the person. It only serves the purpose of identification. Proper names, i.e. the words with nominal meaning, can etymologically, in the majority of cases, be traced to some quality, property or trait of a person, or to his occupation. But this etymological meaning may be forgotten and the word be understood as a proper name and nothing else. It is not so with antonomasia. Antonomasia is intended to point out the leading, most characteristic feature of a person or event, at the same time pinning this leading trait as я proper name to the person or event concerned. In fact, antonomasia is a revival of the initial stage in naming individuals.

Antonomasia may be likened to the epithet in essence if not in form. It categorizes the person and thus simultaneously indicates both the general and the particular.

Antonomasia is a much favoured device in the belles-lettres style. In an article "What's in a name?", Mr. R. Davis says: "In deciding on names for his characters, an author has an unfair advantage over other parents. He knows so much better how his child will turn out. When Saul Bellow named Augie March, he had already conceived a hero restlessly on the move, marching ahead with august ideas of himself. Henry James saw in Adam Verver of "The Golden Bowl" a self-made American, sprung from the soil, full of verve and zest for life. In choosing names like 'Murdstone', '.Scrooge', and 'Gradgrind;' Dickens was being even more obvious."¹

In Russian literature this device is employed by many of our classic writers. It will suffice to mention such names as Vralman, Molchalin, Korobochka and Sobakevich to illustrate this efficient device for characterizing literary heroes, a device which is now falling out of use. These Russian names are also coined on the analogy of generally acknowledged models for proper names, with endings in -man, -in, -vich.

An interesting literary device to emphasize token names is employed by Byron in his "Don Juan" where the name is followed or preceded by an explanatory remark, as in the following:

"Sir John Pottledeep, the mighty drinker."

"There was the sage Miss Reading."

"And the two fair co-heiresses Giltbedding."

"There was Dick Dubious, the metaphysician,

Who loved philosophy and a good dinner;

Angle, the soi-disant mathematician;

Sir Henry Silvercup, the great race-winner."

The explanatory words, as it were, revive the logical meaning of the proper names, thus making more apparent the interplay of logical and nominal meanings.

The use of antonomasia is now not confined to the belles-lettres style. It is often found in publicistic style, that is, in magazine and newspaper articles, in essays and also in military language. The following are examples:

"I say this to our American friends. Mr. Facing-Both-Ways does not get very far in this world." (The Times)

"I suspect that the Noes and Don't Knows would far outnumber the Yesses." (The Spectator)

So far we have dealt with a variety of antonomasia in which common words with obvious logical meaning are given nominal meaning without losing their primary, basic significance. But antonomasia can also make a word which now has a basic nominal meaning acquire a generic signification, thus supplying the word with an additional logical meaning. The latter can only be deciphered if the events connected with a certain place mentioned or with a conspicuous feature of a person are well known. Thus, the word Dunkirk now means 'the evacuation of troops under heavy bombardment before it is too late', Sedan means 'a complete defeat', Coventry – 'the destruction of a city by air raids', a quizling now means 'a traitor who aids occupying enemy forces'.

The spelling of these words demonstrates the stages by which proper nouns acquire new, logical meanings: some of them are still spelt with capital letters (geographical names), others are already spelt with small letters showing that a new word with a primary logical meaning has already come into existence.

This variety of antonomasia is not so widely used as a stylistic device, most probably due to the nature of words with nominal meaning: they tell very little or even nothing about the bearer of the name.