Comparison (likening) is one of the main ways of cognizing the objective reality. On different language levels comparison (likening) as an operation of thinking, acquires a broad variety of material forms the totality of which makes up the functional macrofield of likening. This macrofield is a system, which possesses several universal features inherent in system as such. The article deals with two functional fields: the field of comparativeness and the field of metaphor. The structure is regarded on paradigmatic and syntagmatic levels

Сасіна, В. П.

English

Zhytomyr State University Library

В.П. Сасіна. Functional macrofield of likening in modern  english. Structural types of its constituents УДК 811 111’38 В.П. Сасіна, кандидат філологічних наук, доцент (Житомирський державний університет) FUNCTIONAL MACROFIELD OF LIKENING IN MODERN  ENGLISH. STRUCTURAL TYPES OF ITS CONSTITUENTS Порівняння (уподібнення) як розумова операція одержує на різних рівнях мови найрізноманітніші форми вира-ження, сукупність яких утворює макрополе уподібнення. Це макрополе являє собою систему, що, як і будь-яка інша, володіє деякими універсальними ознаками. У статті розглянуто два функціональних поля: компаратив-ности та метафоричності. Структура цієї системи може бути розглянута як по вертикалі(парадигма тика)  так і по горизонталі (синтагматика)і. Comparison (likening) is one of the main logical ways of cognizing the objective reality. "Cognition of any object or phenomenon begins with our distinguishing it from all other objects and determining its resemblance to related objects. Cognition is the process in which discrimination and liking present an indissoluble unity"1.  On different language lev-els comparison (likening) as an operation of thinking acquires a broad variety of material forms whose totality makes up the functional macrofield of likening.  This microfield is a system, which possesses several universal features inherent in system as such. They are as fol-lows:  1. Integrity of the system notwithstanding its element composition (in the present instance in-tegrity of the system is ensured by the semantic invariant of the field constituents).  2. A certain sphere of application  (language in the present instance). 3. Presence of stable bonds forming the structure of the system (in the present instance this sta-bility is considered as possibility of mutual transformations of the constituents within the microfield limits). "The main principle ensuring the reliability of the system functioning under changeable condi-tions of the environment is the principle of  duplication."2 4. Possibility of characterizing the system structure both horizontally (syntagmatic relations) and vertically (paradigmatic relations). In the second case one can distinguish between different levels of the system and establish the hierarchy of these levels (morphological, lexical, word-formative and syntactical)3. In every mental operation of likening (comparison, confrontation, establishing of identity, etc.) two obligatory con-cepts are involved: the subject of comparison and the object of comparison which find their expression in the language as a denotative name N1 and a comparative name N2. However, the obligatory presence of the subject and the object in thinking does not mean the obligatory explicit expression of  N1 and  N2  in utterance. While analyzing and generalizing conceptions upheld by R.Jacobson4, T.Todorov5, D.Bouverot6 and Yu.I.Levin7, I.V.Shenko comes to the conclusion that the figures of speech traditionally termed as simile and metaphor can be di-vided into two large groups: 1) Expressive means with explicit N1 and N2; 2) Expressive means in which only one of the two names is explicit, whereas the other is not though it is implied in the context clearly enough8. We also share this opinion on condition that the first group should comprise comparative constructions (similes), and the second group should be represented by metaphors. However, each of the two groups in I.V.Shenko’s classification includes both similes and metaphors, their categorial features being defined as lexical explicitness vs implicitness of the idea of likeness. From our point of view simile as a trope is impossible without explicit N1 and N2. The vast variety of tropes of lik-ening with explicit N1 and N2 should be brought to the functional field of simile. The absence of one of the two names should be regarded as the main reason of bringing a certain trope to the func-tional field of metaphor. As to lexical explicitness/implicitness of the idea of likeness, we believe that while differentiat-ing simile and metaphor this feature should be regarded not as categorial  but as an optional one. The recognition of the so-called ‘binomial’ metaphors and ‘monomial’ similes seems incorrect to say the least of it. It would lead to the confusion of the tropes considered due to ignoring their main categorial  feature. The ‘binomial’ metaphors cited by I.V.Shenko are but transformational variants of usual comparative constructions:       N1                                                    N2                 N2                     N1 Чума была грозна, как /грозная/ царица → Царица грозная, чума.    N1                           N2                                                                N1                 N2                  Love was like a country he knew nothing about → Love was a country he knew nothing about.                 N1                                   N2                               N2               N1 /…/ the tracks resembling a great scar → /…/ the great scar of the tracks. The constructions regarded by I.V.Shenko as ‘monomial’ similes are, as a matter of fact, two-member structures as well. They should be regarded as similes with the ellipsis of the tautological N2:                         N1                                               N2                                                                 А поверху город как будто взорван/ный город/.                                 N2                           N1  /…/ but then, as if (she were) appoled, she didn’t. В.П. Сасіна. Functional macrofield of likening in modern  english. Structural types of its constituents Another drawback of the classification considered in the fact that it gives no room to epithet, and therefore it is not clear what place it takes in the functional macrofield of likening.  If we regard the explicitness of N1 and N2  as the obligatory (hence categorial) features of simile, the parameters of the functional field of simile will prove to be considerably wider than they were limited traditionally. The functional macrofield of likening can be presented as a diagram in which: S – simile, M – metaphor, E – epithet, MLS – modulus-lacking simile, CE – comparative epithet, ME – metaphorical epithet. The shaded section of the dia-gram shows the boundaries of the functional field of simile, the unshaded section represents the functional field of metaphor:                   Traditionally it is maintained that every functional field comprises a nucleus regarding which the other constituents are peripheral. In our diagram such a central zone (nucleus) is represented by S. The scholars investigating functional fields draw our attention to the possibility of a partial crossing of the field constituents and also of a partial overlapping of the fields within the boundaries of the macrofield (in our diagram: MLS, CE, ME)9. In our opinion, the functional field of simile (its main categorial feature being the explicit N1 and N2 ) should com-prise: I. Constructions with lexical explicitness of the idea of likeness (with a modulus m). 1. Simile (N1 and N2): His lips are sweet as honey (O.Wilde). His face fell, and he pouted his lips like a scolded child (W.S.Maugham). He lived in Paris more lonely than an anchorite in the deserts of Thebes (W.S.Maugham). /…/ still the solitary little figure, head bowed as though under the weight of the spectacles, haunted me (K.Mansfield). I would have liked to weep, but the ducts were as dry as the hot-water pipes (G.Greene). It came from the second mate, a small natty youngster not unlike a pale and well-brushed monkey (J.B.Priestley). 2. Simile with the ellipsis of the tautological N2(N1 m /N2/): Walter Nazing /…/ had a face /…/ that slightly resembled Shelley’s (J.Galsworthy). Except for the dull look in his eyes, the sick man lay as if dead (D.Lawrence). The stony look on his one-sided face made his mouth seem twisted (A.J.Cronin). She mounted the stairs behind the porter, her head bowed in the ascent, her frail shoulders curved as with a burden, her skirt girt tightly about her (J.Joyce). 3. Comparative epithet (N1 m N2): It always made her jump, that furious wasp-like buzzer (A.Huxley). /…/ he should have floated Antinous-like with the Emperor Hadrian to the music of flutes and viols /…/ (R.Aldington). Whispers sank to intimidated silence, dramati-cally prolonged by the hawk-faced man /…/ (R.Aldington). One should clearly distinguish between metaphorical and comparative epithets. Up to now, as far as we know, these two kinds of epithets have not been differentiated10  though the difference between them is quite obvious, if we take into account the above-mentioned categorial feature of simile (explicitness of N1 and N2 ). Comparative epithets can be divided into two subgroups which is proved by their different transformational abilities: He had an egg-like head, frog-like jaws (G.Chesterton). An egg-like head → the head is like an egg. Frog-like jaws →*  jaws are like frogs.    We term direct epithets of the first subgroup, epithets of the second subgroup being regarded as indirect. The com-mon feature of the two subgroups is the explicitness of  N1 and N2 categorial for comparison (simile). The difference between them is proved by the fact that in the first case N1 and N2 are explicitly expressed within the limits of the epi-thet configuration (egg-like head), whereas in the second case they are expressed within the limits of the whole com-parative utterance: N1          N2 He had frog-like jaws.  II. Constructions with lexical implicitness of the idea of likening (absence of the modulus m). 1. Modulus-lacking Simile (N1 m N2):                           M              Е В.П. Сасіна. Functional macrofield of likening in modern  english. Structural types of its constituents The shadows were theatrical. We might have been a company of barnstormers (G.Greene). It is very true, I’m dying, you are roses still in bud (J. Mansfield). An irregular musketry of applause escorted her also as far as the piano (J.Joyce). The white wisps of spray from the sea were pellets from a 20-gauge shotgun at ten yards range /…/ (J.Aldridge). 2. Modulus-lacking Comparative Epithets (N1 m N2): A very old, tottering, scarecrow man, he swayed off down the path (D.Lessing). From the little circular building, with its mushroom dome, the slopes plunge steeply downward /…/ (H.G.Wells). Beyond the boundaries of the functional field of simile we distinguish some constructions with the explicitness of only one of the two names. These constructions make up the functional field of metaphor: I. Constructions with lexical explicitness of the idea of likeness (with a modulus m). 1. Metaphor (N1 m N2): The world was tipsy with its own perfections (A.Huxley). After a while they hear the lorry growl, then rumble, then purr into silence along the road (D.Lessing). It seems that I.V.Shenko misinterprets the structure of such constructions. Firstly, without any sound reason, I.V.Shenko maintains that it is N1 but not N2 which is missing in this structure. Secondly, in this case I.V.Shenko does not find any modulus. To our mind the first of the examples considered above contains the modulus was tipsy with its own perfections which becomes clear on expanding metaphor into simile. For this purpose we have ‘to invent’ a poten-tial N2:            N1                                                                                 N2 The world was tipsy with its own perfections like a smart dandy (N1 + m + l + N2). 2. Metaphorical Epithet (N1 m N2) To metaphorical epithets one should bring only the cases where N2 is not expressed within the limits of the com-parative utterance, being only vaguely implicit: /…/ the long, tired, dirty-faced evening rolled down the narrow valley /…/ (J.Jones). II. Constructions with lexical implicitness of the idea of likeness (absence of modulus m). 1. Metaphor-periphrasis (N1 m N2): The simple heroism of mankind /…/ was so exploitable by the rhinoceri and tigers of high life (J.Galswarthy). /…/ the young poplar leaves twinkled and trembled in the last gusts, shaking down rapid chains of diamonds (R.Aldington). From our point of view, this classification describes language facts adequately enough. We believe that it has the following positive features: 1) it collects all the forms and varieties of linguistic expression of the mental operation of comparison (likening) within the limits of the functional microfield of likening; 2) it determines the structurial categorial features of simile and metaphor which enables one to distin-guish between the two corresponding fields within the functional field of likening; 3) it determines obligatory and optional components of the comparative constructions; 4) it establishes the nucleus of the field of simile, its periphery and overlapping zones; 5) it regards the so-called monomial similes as two-member comparative constructions with the ellipsis of the tautological N2; 6) it determines the difference between comparative and metaphorical epithets; 7) it states that metaphor can lack not only N2 but also N1 which allows subdividing this trope into meta-phor proper and metaphor periphrasis. LIST OF LITERATURE USED 1. Н.И.Кондаков. Логический словарь-справочник. – М., 1975. – 567 с. 2. П.М.Каращук, Б.И.Бортков, В.П.Кочетков. Системный подход при изложении некоторых вопросов словообразования. // В кн.: Материалы 3-й научно-методической конференции преподавателей иностранных языков ВУЗов Дальнего Востока. – Владивосток, 1974. - Вып. 2. –  С. 162. 3. И.В.Блауберг, В.Н.Садовский, Б.Г.Юдин. Философский принцип системности и системный подход. – Вопросы фило-софии. – № 81. –1978. – С. 47. 4. R. Jackobson, M.Halle. Fundamentals of language. – Gravenhage, 1956. – 750 p. 5. T.Todorov. Tropes et figures. To Honor Roman Jackobson. 2, 1967. 6. D.Bouverot. Comparison et metaphor. – Le Franзais Moderne, Nos. 2,3,4, 1969. 7. Ю.И.Левин. Структура русской метафоры. – Труды по знаковым системам. – Тарту, 1965, вып.2. 8. И.В.Шенько. К вопросу об отношениях между компаративными тропами /сравнением и метафорой/. – В кн.: Стилисти-ка романо-германских языков. – Л., 1972. 9. А.В.Бондарко. Грамматическая категория и контекст. – Л., 1971.-  с.17. 10. Л.Турсунова. К проблеме классификации эпитетов. – Сб.науч.трудов МГПИИЯ им. М.Тореза. – вып. 75. -  М., 1974.  Матеріал надійшов до редакції 5.04.2004 р.  Сасина В.П.Функциональное макрополе компаративности в современном английском языке. Структур-ные конструкции и построения. Сравнение (уподобление) как мыслительная операция получает на различных уровнях языка самые разнообраз-ные формы выражения, совокупность которых образует макрополе уподобления. Это макрополе представля-В.П. Сасіна. Functional macrofield of likening in modern  english. Structural types of its constituents ет собой систему, которая, как и всякая другая система, обладает некоторыми универсальными признака-ми.В статье рассматривается два функциональных поля: поле компаративности и поле метафоричності. Структура этой системы рассматривается как по вертикали (парадигматика) так и по горизонтали (син-тагматика). Sasina V.P. Functional Macrofield of Likening in Modern  English. Structural Types of its Constituents. Comparison (likening) is one of the main ways of cognizing the objective reality. On different language levels comparison (likening) as an operation of thinking, acquires a broad variety of material forms the totality of which makes up the functional macrofield of likening. This macrofield is a system, which possesses several universal features inherent in system as such. The article deals with two functional fields: the field of comparativeness and the field of metaphor. The structure is regarded on paradigmatic and syntagmatic levels. 

Functional Macrofield of Likening in Modern English. Structural Types of its Constituents

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Zhytomyr State University Library