The scientific prose style, its substyles and their peculiarities

There is constant interaction between genuine and trite metaphors. Genuine metaphors, if they are good and can stand the test of time, may, through frequent repetition, become trite and consequently easily predictable. Trite metaphors, as has been shown, may-regain their freshness through the process of prolongation of the metaphor.

Metaphors may be sustained not only on the basis of a trite' metaphor. The initial metaphor may be genuine and may also be developed through a number of contributory images so that the whole of the utterance becomes one sustained metaphor. A skilfully written example of such a metaphor is to be found in Shakespeare's Sonnet No 24.

The central image -- "The eye -- the painter" is developed through a number of contributory images: to draw, to steel, table, frame, hanging (picture) and the like.

In conclusion it will be of interest to show the results of the interaction between the dictionary and contextual meanings.

The constant use of a metaphor, i. e. a word in which two meanings are blended, gradually leads to the breaking up of the primary meaning.) The metaphoric use of the word begins to affect the dictionary meaning, adding to it fresh connotations or shades of meaning. But

Metonymy

Metonymy is based on a different type of relation between the dictionary and contextual meanings, a relation based not on affinity, but on some kind of association connecting the two concepts which these meanings represent.

'Thus the word crown may stand for 'king or queen', cup or glass for 'the drink it contains', woolsack for 'the Chancellor of the Exchequer who sits on it, or the position and dignity of the Lord Chancellor', e. g., "Here the noble lord inclined his knee to the Woolsack." (from Hansard).

Here also the interrelation between the dictionary and contextual meanings should stand out clearly and conspicuously. Only then can we state that a stylistic device is used. Otherwise we must turn our mind to lexicological problems, i. e. to the ways and means by which new words and meanings are coined. The examples of metonymy given above are traditional. In fact they are derivative logical meanings and therefore fixed in dictionaries. However, when such meanings are included in dictionaries, there is usually a label fig ('figurative use'), this shows that the new meaning has not entirely replaced the primary one, but, as it were, co-exists with it.

Still the new meaning has become so common, that it is easily predictable and therefore does not bear any additional information, which is an indispensable condition for an SD.

Here are some more widely-used metonymical meanings, some of which are already fixed in dictionaries without the label fig: the press for '(the personnel connected with) a printing or publishing establishment', or for 'the newspaper and periodical literature which is printed by the printing press'. The bench is used as a generic term for 'magistrates and justices'. A hand is used for a worker; the cradle stands for lnfuncy, earliest stages, place of origin and the grave stands for death.

Here is another example of genuine metonymy:

"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. "Retreat to Innocence")

Again we have a feature of a man which catches the eye, in this case his facial appearance: the moustache stands for the man himself. The function of the metonymy here is to indicate that the speaker knows nothing of the man in question, moreover there is a definite implication that this is the first time the speaker has seen him. Here is another example of the same kind:

"There was something so 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." (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 stylistic device. In both cases it is necessary to understand the words in their proper meanings first.Only then is it possible to grasp the metonymy.

In the following example the metonymy grape also requires a broad context:

"And this is stronger than the strongest grape Could e'er express in its expanded shape."(Byron)

Metonymy and metaphor differ also in the way they are deciphered. In the process of disclosing the meaning implied in a metaphor, one image excludes the other, that is the metaphor lamp in the 'The sky lamp of the night' when deciphered, means the moon, and though there is a definite interplay of meanings, 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 example given above the moustache and the man himself are both perceived by the mind.

Many attempts have been made to pinpoint the types of relation which metonymy is based on. Among them the following are most common:

a concrete thing used instead of an abstract notion. In this case the thing becomes a symbol of the notion, as in

"The camp, the pulpit and the law For rich men's sons are free." (Shelley)

2. the container instead of the thing contained:

The hall applauded.

3.The relation of proximity, as in:

"The round game table was boisterous and happy." (Dickens)

4.The material instead of the thing made of it, as in:

"The marble spoke."

5.The instrument which the doer uses in performing the actioninstead of the action or the doer himself, as in:

"Well, Mr. Weller, says the gentl'mn, you're a very good whip, and can do what you like with your horses, we know." (Dickens)

"As the sword is the worst argument that can be used, so should it be the last." (Byron)

The list is in no way complete. There are many other types of relations which may serve as a basis for metonymy.

It must also be noted that metonymy, being a means of building up imagery, generally concerns concrete objects, which are generalized. The process of generalization is easily carried out with the help of the definite article. Therefore instances of metonymy are very often used with the definite article, or with no article at all as in "There was perfect sympathy between Pulpit and Pew," where 'Pulpit' stands for the clergyman and 'Pew' for the congregation.

This is probably due to the fact that any definition of a word may be taken for metonymy, inasmuch as it shows a property or an essential quality of the concept, thus disclosing a kind of relation between the thing as a whole and a feature of it which may be regarded as part of it.

Irony

Irony is a stylistic device also based on the simultaneous realization of two logical meanings -- dictionary and contextual, but the two meanings stand in opposition to each other. Thus in the sentence:

"It must be delightful to find oneself in a foreign country without a penny in one's pocket."

the italicized word acquires a meaning quite the opposite to its Primary dictionary meaning, that is 'unpleasant', 'not delightful'. The word containing the irony is strongly marked by intonation. It "as an emphatic stress and is generally supplied with a special melody design, unless the context itself renders this intonation pattern unnecessary, as in the following excerpt from Dickens' "Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club":

"Never mind," said the stranger, cutting the address very short, "said enough -- no more; smart chap that cabman -- handled his fives well; but if I'd been your friend in the green jemmy -- damn me -- punch his head --, Cod I would -- pig's whisper -- pieman too, -- no gammon."

"This coherent speech was interrupted by the entrance of the Rochester coachman, to announce that..."

The word 'coherent', which describes Mr. Jingle's speech, is inconsistent with the actual utterance, and therefore becomes self-contradictory. In no other device where we can observe the interplay of the dictionary and contextual meanings, is the latter so fluctuating, suggestive, and dependent on the environment as is irony. That is why there are practically no cases of irony in the language-as-a-system.

Irony must not be confused with humour, although they have very much in common. Humour always causes laughter. What is funny must come as a sudden clash of the positive and the negative. In this respect irony can be likened to humour. But the function of irony is not confined 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 signification, the irony does not cause a ludicrous effect. It rather expresses a feeling of irritation, displeasure, pity or regret. A word used ironically may sometimes express very subtle, almost imperceptible nuances of meaning, as the word "like" in the following lines from "Beppo" by Byron.

I like a parliamentary debate, Particularly when 'tis not too late.

f I like the taxes, when they're not too many;

I like a seacoal fire, when not too dear; I like a beef-steak, too, as well as any;

Have no objection to a pot of beer; I like the weather, when it is not rainy,

That is I like two months of every year. And so God save the Regent, Church and King! Which means that I like all and everything.

In the first line the word 'like' gives only a slight hint of irony. Parliamentary debates are usually long.

Interaction of primary & derivative logical meaning (Zeugma, Pun)

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 literal and the other transferred.

The pun is another stylistic device based on the interaction of two well-known meanings of a word or phrase. It is difficult to draw a hard and fast distinction between zeugma and the pun. The only reliable distinguishing feature is a structural one: zeugma is the realisation 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. This does not mean, however, that the pun entirely free. Like any other stylistic device, it must depend on a text. But the context may be of a more expanded character, as large as a whole work of emotive prose. Thus the title of ne of Oscar Wilde's plays, "The Importance of Being Earnest", inasmuch as the name of the hero and the adjective meaning

"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. 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 1 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.



Polysemy

Derivative logical meanings have a peculiar property, viz. they always retain some semantic ties with the primary meaning and are strongly associated with it. Most of the derivative logical meanings, when fixed in dictionaries, are usually shown with the words they are connected with and are therefore frequently referred to as b o u n d logical meanings. The primary and derivative meanings are sometimes called free and bound meanings respectively, though some of the derivative meanings are not bound in present-day English.

Polysemy is a generic term the use of which must be confined to lexicology as an aspect of the science of language. In actual 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 one definite meaning. That is why we state that polysemy vanishes in speech, or language -in -action.

Let us analyse the following examples where the key-words are intentionally made to reveal two or more meanings:

"Then hale me if thou wilt, if ever now." (Shakespeare)

The verb 'hate' here materializes several meanings. This becomes apparent when one reads sonnet 90 to the end and compares the meaning of this word with other verbs used synonymously. The principal meanings of this word arc: 'dislike', 'stop loving', 'become indifferent to', 'feel aversion for', etc. Another example:

"Massachusetts was hostile to the American flag, and she would not allow it to be hoisted on her State House."

The word 'flag' is used in its primary meaning when it appears in combination with the verb 'to hoist' and in its derivative (or contextual) meaning in the combination 'was hostile to.'

Zeugma and Pun

There are special stylistic devices which make a word materialize two distinct dictionary meanings. They are zeugma and the p u n.

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 one hand literal, and on the other, transferred.

"Dora, plunging at once into privileged intimacy and 1/2/0 the middle of the room". (B. Shaw)

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." style scientific prose newspaper

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, it also implies violent prayer 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.



Interaction of logical and emotive meanings

The emotive meaning or emotional colouring (contextual emotive meaning) of a word, as has already been pointed out elsewhere, plays a considerable role in stylistics. This is mainly due to the fact that no utterance can be understood clearly without its being evaluated from the point of view of the author's attitude towards the things described. In fact the term neutral came to be used in order to distinguish the unemotional communication from the emotional or otherwise distinguishable non-neutral forms of communication. Both words and constructions of an emotional character have a stylistic significance only when they are set against the non-emotional. Thus, for instance, interjections, which are erroneously referred to as parts of speech are, in fact, signals of emotional tension. They must be regarded as expressive means of the language and as such may be effectively used as stylistic devices in the proper context.

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. 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 an 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 it 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.

Interjections like other words in the English vocabulary bear features which mark them as bookish, neutral or colloqial. Thus oh, ah, Bah, and the like are neutral; alas, egad (euphemism for 'by God'), Lo, Hark are bookish l; gosh, why, well are colloquial. But as with other words in any stratum of vocabulary, the borderline between the three groups is broad and flexible. Sometimes therefore a given interjection may be considered as bookish by one and as neutral by another scholar 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 pinpoint 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 even 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 in an attributive word, phrase or even sentence, 'used to characterise an object and pointing out to the reader, and free. 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, pate 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, heartburning 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 the reader 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: s e m a n t i c and structural. Semantically, epithets may be divided into two groups: those associated with the noun following and those associated 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, '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 what 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 entity. 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 be 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 c o m p o s i t i o n a I structure epithets may be divided into simple, compound and phrase 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 ph rase 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 Prof. O. S. Akhmatova. "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'." l

This inner semantic quality of the attributive relations in lexical combinations, as they are called by Prof. 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." (iV. 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-1-wish-1-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-that's-the-story-what-are-we-going-to-do-about-if air that made him a focal point." (Leslie Ford, "Siren in the Night".)

An interesting structural detail of phrase 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.

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.

Oxymoron

0 x y m o r o n 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:

How skyscraper', 'sweet sorrow', 'nice rascal', 'pleasantly ugly face', 'horribly beautiful', 'adeafening silence from Whitehall' (The Morning Star).

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, as 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 intensifiers. 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, cnly 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.

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 (the measure of the non-organized, also the measure of probability) 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 consists of an intensifier and the concept intensified.

Oxymoron as a rule has one structural model: adjective -- noun. 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."

Thus 'peopled desert'; 'populous solitude'; 'proud humility' (Byron) are oxymoronic.

Sometimes, however, the tendency to combine the uncombinative is revealed in structurally different forms, not in adjective-noun models.

Not every combination of words which we have called non-combinative should be regarded as oxymoron, because new meanings developed in new combinations do not necessarily give rise to opposition. They are not infrequently just obscure. Let us take for example the following lines from T. S. Eliot's "The Love-song of Alfred Prufrock."

"And time for all the works and days of hands

That lift and drop a question on your plate;

Thru1 for you and time for me,

And time yet for a hundred indecisions,

And for a hundred visions and revisions,

Before the taking of a toast and tea.''

Perhaps some readers will find new meanings infused into these common words 'hands that lift and drop a question on your plate," but to express them in linguistic terms is so far impossible and probably unnecessary.

Interaction of logical and nominal meanings

Simile

The intensification of some feature of the concept in question is realized in a device called simile. Ordinary comparison and simile must not be misunderstood. Comparisons mean weighing; two objects belonging to one class of things with the purpose of establishing the degree of their sameness or differences. To use a simile is to characterize one object by bringing it into contact with another object belonging to an entirely different class. Comparison takes into consideration all the properties of the two objects (the one that is compared). Simile excludes all he- properties of two objects except one which is made common to them. For example, 'The boy seems to be as clever as his mother' comparison. 'Boy' and 'mother' belong to the same class. But in the sentence:

"Maidens, Lke moths, are ever caught by glare," (Byron), we have p simile. 'Maidens' and 'moths' belong to heterogeneous classes of objects; Of the two concepts brought together in the simile -- one characterized maidens), and the other characterizing {moths) .

Similes may be based on adjective-attributes, adverb-modifiers, verb-predicates, etc. Similes have formal elements in their structure: connective words such as like, as, such as, as if, seem. Here are some examples of similes taken from various sources and illustrating the variety of structural designs of this stylistic device.

"His mind was restless, but it worked perversely and thoughts jerked through his brain like the misfiring of a defective carburettor." (Maugham)

The structure of this simile is interesting, for it is sustained. Let us analyse it. The word 'jerked, i.e., in combination with 'thoughts' is a metaphor, which led to the simile like the misfiring of a defective carburettor' where the verb to jerk carries its direct logical meaning. So the linking notion is the movement jerking which brings 1o the author's mind a resemblance between the working of the man's brain and the badly working, i. e., misfiring carburettor. In other words, it is action that is described by means of a simile. Another example:

"It was that moment of the year when the countryside seems to faint frcm its own loveliness, from the intoxication of its scents and sounds.'1 (J. Galsworthy)

This is an example of a simile which is half a metaphor. If not for the structural word 'seems'., we would call it a metaphor. Indeed, if we drop the word 'seems' arid say, "The countryside faints from...," the clue-word 'faint' becomes a metaphor. But the word 'seems' keeps apart the notions of stillness and fainting. It is a simile where the second number -- the human being -- is only suggested by the word faint.

The semantic nature of the simile-forming elements seem and as if is such that they only remotely suggest resemblance. Quite different are the connectives like and as. These are more categorical and establish quite straightforwardly the analogy between the two objects in question.

Similes may suggest analogies in the character of actions performed. In this case the two members of the structural design of the simile.

In the English language there is a long list of hackneyed similes pointing out the analogy between the various qualities, states or actions of a human being and the animals supposed to be the bearers of the given quality, etc., for example:

treacherous as a snake, sly as a fox, busy as a bee, industrious as an ant, blind as a bat, faithful as a dog, to work like a horse, to be led like a sheep, to fly like a bird, to swim like a duck, stubborn as a mule, hungry as a bear, thirsty as a camel, to act like a puppy, playful as a kitten, and many others of the same type.

These combinations, however, have ceased to be genuine similes and have become cliches in which the second component has become merely an adverbial intensifies. Its logical meaning is only vaguely perceived.

Periphrasis

Periphrasis is the re-naming of an object by a phrase that brings out some particular feature of the object. The essence of the device is that it is decipherable only in context. If a periphrastic locution is understandable outside the context, it is not a stylistic device but merely a synonymous expression. Such easily decipherable Periphrases are also called traditional, dictionary or language periphrases. The others are speech periphrases.

Traditional, language or dictionary periphrases and the words they stand for are synonyms by nature, the periphrasis being expressed by a word combination. Periphrasis as a stylistic device is a new, genuine nomination of an object, a process which realises the power of language to coin new names for objects by disclosing some quality of the object, even though it may be transitory, and making it alone represent the object, but at the same time preserving in the mind the ordinary name of the concept. Here are some such stylistic periphrases'

"I understand you are poor, and wish to earn money by nursing the little boy, my son, who has been so prematurely deprived of what can never be replaced."(Dickens)

The object clause 'what can never be replaced' is a periphrasis for the word mother. The concept is easily understood by the reader within the given context, the latter being the only code, which makes the deciphering of the phrase possible. This is sufficiently proved by a simple transformational operation, viz. taking the phrase out of its context. The meaning of 'what can never be replaced' used independently will bear no reference to the concept mother and may be interpreted in many ways. The periphrasis here expresses a very individual idea of the concept.

Here is another stylistic periphrasis, which the last phrase in the sentence deciphers:

"And Harold stands upon the place of skulls,

The grave of France, the deadly Waterloo." (Byron)

In the following:

"The hoarse, dull drum would sleep, And Man be happy yet.'" (Byron)

the periphrasis can only be understood from a larger context, referring to the concept war. 'The hoarse, dull drum' is a metonymical periphrasis standing for war.

In some cases periphrasis is regarded as a demerit and should have no place in good, precise writing. This kind of periphrasis is generally called circumlocution. A round-about way of speaking about common things has an unnecessarily bombastic, pompous air and consequently is devoid of any aesthetic value. That is why periphrasis has gained the reputation of leading to redundancy of expression. Here is an example of the excessive use of periphrasis by such an outstanding classic English writer as Dickens:

"The lamp-lighter made his nightly failure in attempting to brighten up the street with gas (-- 'lit the street lamps').

Figurative periphrasis is based either on metaphor or on metonymy, the key-word of the collocation being the word used figuratively as in 'the punctual servant of all work' (Dickens) - the sun; 'in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes' (Shakespeare) = misfortune; 'to tie the knot' = to marry.

There is little difference between metaphor or metonymy on the one hand, and figurative periphrasis on the other. It is the structural aspect of the periphrasis, which always presupposes a word combination, that is the reason for the division.

Note this example of a string of figurative periphrases reinforced by the balanced constructions they are moulded into:

"Many of the hearts that throbbed so gaily then have ceased to beat; many of the looks that shone so brightly then have ceased to glow." (Dickens)

Euphemism

There is a variety of periphrasis which we shall call euphemistic.

Euphemism, as is known, is a word or phrase used to replace an unpleasant word or expression by a conventionally more acceptable one, for example, the word 'to die' has bred the following euphemisms: to pass away, to expire, to be no more, to depart, to join the majority, and the more facetious ones: to kick the bucket, to give up the ghost, to go west. So euphemisms are synonyms which aim at producing a deliberately mild effect.

The origin of the. term euphemism discloses the aim of the device very clearly, i. e. speaking well (from Greek -- eu = well , pheme = speaking). In the vocabulary of any language, synonyms can be found that soften an otherwise coarse or unpleasant idea. Euphemism is sometimes figuratively called "a whitewashing device". The linguistic peculiarity of euphemism lies in the fact that every euphemism must call up a definite synonym in the mind of the reader or listener. This synonym, or dominant in a group of synonyms, as it is often called, must follow the euphemism like a shadow, as to possess a vivid imagination, or to tell stories in the proper context will call up the unpleasant verb to lie. The euphemistic synonyms given above are part of the language-as-a-system. They have not been freshly invented. They are expressive means of the language and are to be found in all good dictionaries. They cannot be regarded as stylistic devices because they do not call to mind the key-word or dominant of the group; in other words, they refer the mind to the concept directly, not through the medium of another word. Compare these euphemisms with the following from Dickens's Pickwick Papers:

"They think we have come by this horse in some dishonest manner." The italicized parts call forth the word steal (have stolen it).

Euphemisms may be divided into several groups according to their spheres of application. The most recognized are the following: I) religious, 2) moral, 3) medical and 4) parliamentary.

The life of euphemisms is short. They very soon become closely associated with the referent (the object named) and give way to a newly-coined word or combination of words, which, being the sign of a sign, throws another veil over an unpleasant or indelicate concept. Here is an interesting excerpt from an article on this subject.

"The evolution over the years of a civilized mental health service has been marked by periodic changes in terminology. The madhouse became the lunatic asylum; the asylum made way for the mental hospital -- even if the building remained the same. Idiots, imbeciles and the feeble-minded became low, medium and high-grade mental defectives. All are now to be lumped together as patients of severely subnormal personality. The insane became persons of unsound mind, and are now to be mentally-ill patients. As each phrase develops the stigmata of popular prejudice, it is abandoned in favour of another, sometimes less precise than the old. Unimportant in themselves, these changes of name are the signposts of progress." x

Albert C. Baugh gives another instance of such changes:

"...the common word for a woman's undergarment down to the eighteenth century was 'smock'. It was then replaced by the more delicate word 'shift'. In the nineteenth century the same motive led to the substitution of the word 'chemise" and in the twentieth this has been replaced by 'combinations', 'step-ins', and other euphemisms." It is interesting to remark that shift has now become a name for 'a type of girl's or young woman's outer garment', and smock is 'a little girl's dress', or 'an overgarment worn by artists'.

Conventional euphemisms employed in conformity to social usages are best illustrated by the parliamentary codes of expression.

The problem of euphemism as a linguistic device is directly connected with a more general problem, that of semiotics. The changes in naming objects disclose the true nature of the relations between words and their referents.

This becomes particularly noticeable in connection with what are railed political euphemisms. These are really understatements, the aim of which is to mislead public opinion and to express what unpleasant in a more delicate manner. Sometimes disagreeable facts free even distorted with the help of a euphemistic expression.

Размещено на Allbest.ru