Жанр: Учеба
Лексикология английского языка
...eelings. For instance, a liar can be described as a
person who does not always strictly tell the truth and a stupid man
can be said to be not exactly brilliant.
All the euphemisms that have been described so far are used to
avoid the so-called social taboos. Their use, as has already been said,
is inspired by social convention.
Superstitious taboos gave rise to the use of other type of euphemisms.
The reluctance to call things by their proper names is also
typical of this type of euphemisms, but this time it is based on a
deeply-rooted subconscious fear.
Superstitious taboos have their roots in the distant past of mankind
when people believed that there was a supernatural link between
a name and the object or creature it represented. Therefore, all the
words denoting evil spirits, dangerous animals, or the powers of nature
were taboo. If uttered, it was believed that unspeakable disasters
would result not only for the speaker but also for those near him. That
is why all creatures, objects and phenomena threatening danger were
referred to in a round-about descriptive way. So, a dangerous animal
might be described as the one-lurking-in-the-wood and a mortal disease
as the black death. Euphemisms are probably the oldest type of
synonyms, for
213
it is reasonable to assume that superstitions which caused real fear
called for the creation of euphemisms long before the need to describe
things in their various aspects or subtle shades caused the appearance
of other synonyms.
The Christian religion also made certain words taboo. The proverb
Speak of the devil and he will appear must have been used and taken
quite literally when it was first used, and the fear of calling the devil
by name was certainly inherited from ancient superstitious beliefs. So,
the word devil became taboo, and a number of euphemisms were substitutes
for it: the Prince of Darkness, the black one, the evil one,
dickens (coll.), deuce (coll.), (Old) Nick (coll.).
The word God, due to other considerations, also had a great number
of substitutes which can still be traced in such phrases as Good
Lord!, By Heavens/, Good Heavens!, (My) goodness!, (My) goodness
gracious!, Gracious me!
Even in our modern emancipated times, old superstitious fears
still lurk behind words associated with death and fatal diseases. People
are not superstitious nowadays and yet they are surprisingly reluctant
to use the verb to die which has a long chain of both solemn
and humorous substitutes. E. g. to pass away, to be taken, to breathe
one's last, to depart this life, to close one's eyes, to yield (give) up the
ghost, to go the way of all flesh, to go West (sl.), to kick off (sl.), to
check out (sl.), to kick the bucket (sl.), to take a ride (sl.), to hop the
twig (sl.), to join the majority (sl.).
The slang substitutes seem to lack any proper respect, but the joke
is a sort of cover for the same old fear: speak of death and who knows
what may happen.
Mental diseases also cause the frequent use of euphemisms.
A mad person may be described as insane, mentally unstable, unbalanced,
unhinged, not (quite) right
(coll.), not all there (coll.), off one's head (coll.), off one's rocker
(coll.), wrong in the upper storey (coll.), having bats in one's belfry
(coll.), crazy as a bedbug (coll.), cuckoo (sl.), nutty (sl.), off one's nut
(sl.), loony (sl.), a mental case, a mental defective, etc.
A clinic for such patients can also be discreetly referred to as, for
instance, an asylum, sanitarium, sanatorium, (mental) institution,
and, less discreetly, as a nut house (sl.), booby hatch (sl.), loony bin
(sl.), etc.
In the story by Evelyn Waugh "Mr. Loveday's Little Outing" a
clinic of this kind, treating only very rich patients, is described as
large private grounds suitable for the charge of nervous or difficult
cases. This is certainly the peak of euphemistic "delicacy".
The great number of humorous substitutes found in such groups of
words prove particularly tempting for writers who use them for comical
purposes. The following extracts from a children's book by R.
Dahl are, probably, not in the best of taste, but they demonstrate the
range of colloquial and slang substitutes for the word mad.
"He's gone off his rocker!" shouted one of the fathers, aghast,
and the other parents joined in the chorus of frightened shouting.
"He's crazy!" they shouted.
"He's balmy!"
"He's nutty!"
"He's screwy!"
"He's batty!"
"He's dippy!"
"He's dotty!'*
"He's daffy!"
"He's goofy!"
"He's beany!"
"He's buggy!"
"He's wacky!"
"He's loony!"
"No, he is not!" said Grandpa Joe.
(From Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by R. Dahl)
... "What did I tell you!" - cried Grandma Georgina. "He's
round the twist! He's bogged as a beetle! He's dotty as a dingbat!
He's got rats in the roof!..."
(Ibid.)
All the above examples show that euphemisms are substitutes for
their synonyms. Their use and very existence are caused either by
social conventions or by certain psychological factors. Most of them
have stylistic connotations in their semantic structures. One can also
assume that there is a special euphemistic connotation that can be
singled out in the semantic structure of each such word. Let us point
out, too, that euphemistic connotations in formal euphemisms are
different in "flavour" from those in slang euphemistic substitutes. In
the first case they are solemn and delicately evasive, and in the second
rough and somewhat cynical, reflecting an attempt to laugh off an
unpleasant fact.
Antonyms
We use the term antonyms to indicate words of the same category
of parts of speech which have contrasting meanings, such as hot -
cold, light - dark, happiness - sorrow, to accept - to reject, up -
down.
If synonyms form whole, often numerous, groups, antonyms are
usually believed to appear in pairs. Yet, this is not quite true in reality.
For instance, the adjective cold may be said to have warm for its
second antonym, and sorrow may be very well contrasted with gaiety.
On the other hand, a polysemantic word may have an antonym (or
several antonyms) for each of its mean216
ings. So, the adjective dull has the antonyms interesting, amusing,
entertaining for its meaning of "deficient in interest", clever, bright,
capable for its meaning of "deficient in intellect", and active for the
meaning of "deficient in activity", etc.
Antonymy is not evenly distributed among the categories of parts
of speech. Most antonyms are adjectives which is only natural because
qualitative characteristics are easily compared and contrasted:
high - low, wide - narrow, strong - weak, old - young, friendly
- hostile.
Verbs take second place, so far as antonymy is concerned. Yet,
verbal pairs of antonyms are fewer in number. Here are some of
them: to lose - to find, to live - to die, to open - to close, to weep
- to laugh.
Nouns are not rich in antonyms, but even so some examples can
be given: friend - enemy, joy - grief, good - evil, heaven -
earth, love - hatred.
Antonymic adverbs can be subdivided into two groups: a) adverbs
derived from adjectives: warmly - coldly, merrily - sadly, loudly
- softly; b) adverbs proper: now - then, here - there, ever -
never, up - down, in - out.
Not so many years ago antonymy was not universally accepted as
a linguistic problem, and the opposition within antonymic pairs was
regarded as purely logical and finding no reflection in the semantic
structures of these words. The contrast between heat and cold or big
and small, said most scholars, is the contrast of things opposed by
their very nature.
In the previous chapter dealing with synonymy we saw that both
the identity and differentiations in words called synonyms can be said
to be encoded within their semantic structures. Can the same be said
about antonyms? Modern research in the field of antonymy gives a
positive answer to this question. Nowadays most scholars agree that
in the semantic structures of all words, which regularly occur in antonymic
pairs, a special antonymic connotation can be singled out.
We are so used to coming across hot and cold together, in the same
contexts, that even when we find hot alone, we cannot help subconsciously
registering it as not cold, that is, contrast it to its missing
antonym. The word possesses its full meaning for us not only due to
its direct associations but also because we subconsciously oppose it
to its antonym, with which it is regularly used, in this case to hot.
Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that the semantic structure of
hot can be said to include the antonymic connotation of "not cold",
and the semantic structure of enemy the connotation of "not a
friend".
It should be stressed once more that we are speaking only about
those antonyms which are characterised by common occurrences,
that is, which are regularly used in pairs. When two words frequently
occur side by side in numerous contexts, subtle and complex associations
between them are not at all unusual. These associations are
naturally reflected in the words' semantic structures. Antonymic connotations
are a special case of such "reflected associations".
Together with synonyms, antonyms represent the language's important
expressive means. The following quotations show how
authors use antonyms as a stylistic device of contrast.
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty1 world. (From Merchant of Venice by W. Shakespeare.
Act V, Sc. I)
... But then my soul's imaginary sight Presents thy
shadow to my sightless view,
1 naughty - wicked, evil (obs.)
Which like a jewel hung in ghastly night, Makes black night
beauteous and her old face new. (From Sonnet XXVII by W.
Shakespeare)
Welcome joy, and welcome sorrow,
Lethe's weed and Hermes' feather,
Come to-day, and come to-morrow,
I do love you both together!
I love to mark sad faces in fair weather;
And hear a merry laughter amid the thunder;
Fair and foul I love together.
(From A Song of Opposites by J. Keats)
... The writer should seek his reward in the pleasure of his
work and in release from the burden of his thought; and indifferent
to aught else, care nothing for praise or censure, failure or
success.
(From The Moon and Sixpence by W. S. Maugham)
They [the Victorians] were busy erecting, of course; and we
have been busy demolishing for so long that now erection seems
as ephemeral an activity as bubble-blowing.
(From The French Lieutenant's Woman by J. Fowles);
Exercises
I. Consider your answers to the following.
1. Which word in a synonymic group is considered to
be the dominant synonym? What are its characteristic
features?
2. Can the dominant synonym be substituted for cer
tain other members of a group of synonyms? Is the cri
terion of interchangeabitity applicable in this case?
1 For information on Hyponymy see Supplementary Material, p.
280.
V.: Do you want me to ride on the wrong side?
P.: You are driving on the wrong side.
V.: But you said that I was driving on the right side.
P.: That is right. You are on the right, and that's wrong.
V.: A strange country! If right is wrong, I'm right when I'm on
the wrong side. So why did you stop me?
P.: My dear sir, you must keep to the left. The right side is the
left.
V.: It's like a looking-glass! I'll try to remember. Well, I want
to go to Bellwood. Will you kindly tell me the way?
P.: Certainly. At the end of this road, turn left.
V.: Now let me think. Turn left! In England left is right, and
right is wrong. Am I right?
P.: You'll be right if you turn left. But if you turn right, you'll
be wrong.
V.: Thank you. It's as clear as daylight.
(After G. C. Thornley)1
2. Flying instructors say that pilot trainees are divided into optimists
and pessimists when reporting the amount of fuel during flights.
Optimists report that their fuel tank is half full while pessimists say
it's half empty. 3. The canvas homes, the caravans, the transportable
timber frames - each had its light. Some moving, some still. 4. His
words seemed to point out that sad, even, tragic things could never be
gay. 5. It was warm in the sun but cool under the shady trees. 6. He is
my best friend and he is my bitter enemy. 7. Every man has feminine
qualities and every woman has masculine ones. 8. He hated to be exposed
to strangers, to be accepted or rejected.
1 The text is borrowed from Look, Laugh and Learn to Speak by I.
B. Vasilyeva, I. A. Kitenko, D. V. Menyajlo. L., 1970.
CHAPTER 12
Phraseology: Word-Groups with Transferred Meanings
Phraseological units, or idioms, as they are called by most western
scholars, represent what can probably be described as the most
picturesque, colourful and expressive part of the language's vocabulary.
If synonyms can be figuratively referred to as the tints and colours
of the vocabulary, then phraseology is a kind of picture gallery
in which are collected vivid and amusing sketches of the nation's
customs, traditions and prejudices, recollections of its past history,
scraps of folk songs and fairy-tales. Quotations from great poets are
preserved here alongside the dubious pearls of philistine wisdom and
crude slang witticisms, for phraseology is not only the most colourful
but probably the most democratic area of vocabulary and draws its
resources mostly from the very depths of popular speech.
And what a variety of odd and grotesque images, figures and personalities
one finds in this amazing picture gallery: dark horses, white
elephants, bulls in china shops and green-eyed monsters, cats escaping
from bags or looking at kings, dogs barking up the wrong tree
and men either wearing their hearts on their sleeves or having them in
their mouths or even in their boots. Sometimes this parade of funny
animals and quaint human beings looks more like a hilarious fancydress
ball than a peaceful picture gallery and it is really a pity that the
only interest some scholars seem to take in it is whether the leading
component of the idiom is expressed by a verb or a noun.
8. "Лексикология"
The metaphor fancy-dress ball may seem far-fetched to skeptical
minds, and yet it aptly reflects a very important feature of the linguistic
phenomenon under discussion: most participants of the carnival, if
we accept the metaphor, wear masks, are disguised as something or
somebody else, or, dropping metaphors, word-groups known as phraseological
units or idioms are characterised by a double sense: the
current meanings of constituent words build up a certain picture, but
the actual meaning of the whole unit has little or nothing to do with
that picture, in itself creating an entirely new image.
So, a dark horse mentioned above is actually not a horse but a
person about whom no one knows anything definite, and so one is not
sure what can be expected from him. The imagery of a bull in a china
shop lies very much on the surface: the idiom describes a clumsy person
(cf. with the R. слон в посудной лавке). A white elephant, however,
is not even a person but a valuable object which involves great
expense or trouble for its owner, out of all proportion to its usefulness
or value, and which is also difficult to dispose of. The green-eyed
monster is jealousy, the image being drawn from Othello1 . To let the
cat out of the bag has actually nothing to do with cats, but means
simply "to let some secret become known". In to bark up the wrong
tree (Amer.), the current meanings of the constituents create a vivid
and amusing picture of a foolish dog sitting under a tree and barking
at it while the cat or the squirrel has long since escaped. But the actual
meaning of the idiom is "to follow a false scent; to look for
somebody or something in a wrong place; to expect from somebody
what he is unlikely to do". The idiom is not infrequently used
1 O, beware, my lord, of jealousy; It is the green-eyed
monster, which doth mock The meat it feeds on ...
(lago's words from Act III, Sc. 3)
in detective stories: The police are barking up the wrong tree as
usual (i.e. they suspect somebody who has nothing to do with the
crime).
The ambiguousness of these interesting word groups may lead to
an amusing misunderstanding, especially for children who are apt to
accept words at their face value.
Little Johnnie (crying): Mummy, mummy, my auntie Jane is
dead.
Mother: Nonsense, child! She phoned me exactly five minutes
ago.
Johnnie: But I heard Mrs. Brown say that her neighbours cut
her dead.
(To cut somebody dead means "to rudely ignore somebody; to
pretend not to know or recognise him".)
Puns are frequently based on the ambiguousness of idioms:
"Isn't our Kate a marvel! I wish you could have seen her at the
Harrisons' party yesterday. If I'd collected the bricks she dropped
all over the place, I could build a villa."
(To drop a brick means "to say unintentionally a quite indiscreet
or tactless thing that shocks and offends people".)
So, together with synonymy and antonymy, phraseology represents
expressive resources of vocabulary-
V. H. Collins writes in his Book of English Idioms: "In standard
spoken and written English today idiom is an established and essential
element that, used with care, ornaments and enriches the language."
[26]
Used with care is an important warning because speech overloaded
with idioms loses its freshness and originality. Idioms, after
all, are ready-made speech units, and their continual repetition sometimes
wears them out: they lose their colours and become trite cliches.
Such idioms can hardly be said to "ornament" or "enrich the
language".
On the other hand, oral or written speech lacking idioms loses
much in expressiveness, colour and emotional force.
In modern linguistics, there is considerable confusion about the
terminology associated with these word-groups. Most Russian scholars
use the term "phraseological unit" ("фразеологическая
единица") which was first introduced by Academician
V.V.Vinogradov whose contribution to the theory of Russian phraseology
cannot be overestimated. The term "idiom" widely used by
western scholars has comparatively recently found its way into Russian
phraseology but is applied mostly to only a certain type of phraseological
unit as it will be clear from further explanations.
There are some other terms denoting more or less the same linguistic
phenomenon: set-expressions, set-phrases, phrases, fixed
word-groups, collocations.
The confusion in the terminology reflects insufficiency of positive
or wholly reliable criteria by which phraseological units can be distinguished
from "free" word-groups.
It should be pointed out at once that the "freedom" of free wordgroups
is relative and arbitrary. Nothing is entirely "free" in speech as
its linear relationships are governed, restricted and regulated, on the
one hand, by requirements of logic and common sense and, on the
other, by the rules of grammar and combinability. One can speak of a
black-eyed girl but not of a black-eyed table (unless in a piece of
modernistic poetry where anything is possible). Also, to say the child
was glad is quite correct, but a glad child is wrong because in Modern
English glad is attributively used only with a very limited number
of nouns (e. g. glad news), and names of persons are not among them.
Free word-groups are so called not because of any absolute freedom
in using them but simply because they are each time built up
anew in the speech process where228
as idioms are used as ready-made units with fixed and constant
structures.
How to Distinguish Phraseological Units from Free Word-Groups
This is probably the most discussed - and the most controversial
- problem in the field of phraseology. The task of distinguishing
between free word-groups and phraseological units is further complicated
by the existence of a great number of marginal cases, the socalled
semi-fixed or semi-free word-groups, also called nonphraseological
word-groups which share with phraseological units
their structural stability but lack their semantic unity and figurativeness
(e. g. to go to school, to go by bus, to commit suicide).
There are two major criteria for distinguishing between phraseological
units and free word-groups: semantic and structural.
Compare the following examples:
A. Cambridge don: I'm told they're inviting
more American professors to this university. Isn't it
rather carrying coals to Newcastle?
(To carry coals to Newcastle means "to take something to a place
where it is already plentiful and not needed". Cf. with the R. В Тулу
со своим самоваром.)
B. This cargo ship is carrying coal to Liverpool.
The first thing that captures the eye is the semantic difference of
the two word-groups consisting of the same essential constituents. In
the second sentence the free word-group is carrying coal is used in
the direct sense, the word coal standing for real hard, black coal and
carry for the plain process of taking something from one place to
another. The first context quite obviously has nothing to do either
with coal or with transporting it, and the meaning of the whole wordgroup
is
something entirely new and far removed from the current meanings
of the constituents.
Academician V. V. Vinogradov spoke of the semantic change in
phraseological units as "a meaning resulting from a peculiar chemical
combination of words". This seems a very apt comparison because in
both cases between which the parallel is drawn an entirely new quality
comes into existence.
The semantic shift affecting phraseological units does not consist
in a mere change of meanings of each separate constituent part of the
unit. The meanings of the constituents merge to produce an entirely
new meaning: e. g. to have a bee in one's bonnet means "to have an
obsession about something; to be eccentric or even a little mad". The
humorous metaphoric comparison with a person who is distracted by
a bee continually buzzing under his cap has become erased and halfforgotten,
and the speakers using the expression hardly think of bees
or bonnets but accept it in its transferred sense: "obsessed, eccentric".
That is what is meant when phraseological units are said to be
characterised by semantic unity. In the traditional approach, phraseological
units have been defined as word-groups conveying a single
concept (whereas in free word-groups each meaningful component
stands for a separate concept).
It is this feature that makes phraseological units similar to words:
both words and phraseological units possess semantic unity (see Introduction).
Yet, words are also characterised by structural unity
which phraseological units very obviously lack being combinations
of words.
Most Russian scholars today accept the semantic criterion of distinguishing
phraseological units from free word-groups as the major
one and base their research work in the field of phraseology on the
defini230
tion of a phraseological unit offered by Professor A. V. Koonin, the
leading authority on problems of English phraseology in our country:
"A phraseological unit is a stable word-group characterised by a
completely or partially transferred meaning." [12]
The definition clearly suggests that the degree of semantic change
in a phraseological unit may vary ("completely or partially transferred
meaning"). In actual fact the semantic change may affect either the
whole word-group or only one of its components. The following
phraseological units represent the first case: to skate on thin ice (~ to
put oneself in a dangerous position; to take risks); to wear one's heart
on one's sleeve1 (~ to expose, so that everyone knows, one's most intimate
feelings); to have one's heart in one's boots (~ to be deeply
depressed, anxious about something); to have one's heart in one's
mouth (~ to be greatly alarmed by what is expected to happen); to
have one's heart in the right place (~ to be a good, honest and generous
fellow); a crow in borrowed plumes (? a person pretentiously and
unsuitably dressed; cf. with the R. ворона в павлиньих перьях); a
wolf in a sheep's clothing2 (~ a dangerous enemy who plausibly poses
as a friend).
The second type is represented by phraseological units in which
one of the components preserves its current meaning and the other is
used in a transferred meaning: to lose (keep) one's temper, to fly into a
temper, to fall ill, to fall in love (out of love), to stick to one's word
(promise), to arrive at a conclusion, bosom friends, shop talk (also: to
talk shop), small talk.
1 The origin of the phrase is in a passage in Othello where
Iago says:
... 'tis not long after
But I will wear my heart upon my sleeve For
daws to peck at.
(Act I, Sc. 1)
2 The allusion is to a fable of Aesop.
Here, though, we are on dangerous ground because the borderline
dividing phraseological units with partially changed meanings
from the so-called semi-fixed or non-phraseological word-groups
(marginal cases) is uncertain and confusing.
The term "idiom", both in this country and abroad, is mostly applied
to phraseological units with completely transferred meanings,
that is, to the ones in which the meaning of the whole unit does not
correspond to the current meanings of the components. There are
many scholars who regard idioms as the essence of phraseology and
the major focus of interest in phraseology research.
The structural criterion also brings forth pronounced distinctive
features characterising phraseological units and contrasting them to
free word-groups.
Structural invariability is an essential feature of phrase
...Закладка в соц.сетях
