Figures of Inequality
Their semantic function is highlighting differences. The expression of differences can be, just as previously, either 'passive', i.e. nearly, though not quite unintentional (e.g. specifying synonyms), or 'active', i.e. used on purpose (e.g. climax, anti-climax), and, in some varieties, effecting humorous illogicality (pun, zeugma, pretended inequality).
Specifying, or clarifying synonyms. As suggested above, their use contributes to precision in characterizing the object of speech. Synonyms used for clarification mostly follow one another (in opposition to replacers), although not necessarily immediately. Clarifiers may either arise in the speaker's mind as an afterthought and be added to what has been said, or they occupy the same syntactical positions in two or more parallel sentences.
Thus, roughly, in a 'synonymic repetition', as this phenomenon is often called, the idea recurs, but it is not exactly the same idea: a subsequent synonym complements its predecessor, both are complemented by the third, and so on. Each imparts some additional features to the object, giving a fuller description of it. This is explained by the fact that no two synonyms can ever be absolutely identical in meaning or stylistic value. Hence the term 'synonymic repetition', though widely used and employed here as well, is not quite exact, since in many cases the clarifier is not a synonym of the clarified word (both being merely 'co-referential', i.e. characterizing the same referent): Uncle James looked old, fat, and sleepy. Neither the two nouns, nor the three adjectives are synonyms, but the former name the identical person each, the latter, the characteristic features of the person. Perhaps the term 'coreferential clarifiers' would serve our purpose better, yet this term, as well as the one entitling this section, are not current outside the present book.
In the example that follows, the three attributes have the idea of 'immorality' in common; the first and the third accuse the person spoken to of unreliability, slyness, and treason; the second points out violations of religious canons:
"You undevout, sinful, insidious hog," says I to Murkison. (O.Henry)
Here is another example, where four adjectives of nearly identical (or closely linked) meanings are followed by a fifth, quite different from them semantically, and essentially lowering the writer's estimation of his character.
"Joe was a mild, good-natured, sweet-tempered, easy-going, foolish dear fellow." (Dickens)
|
|
|
The next example with four adjectival attributes (the second and the fourth unquestionably epithets, since they are similes implied). Evidently the four words are not synonyms; they merely denote qualities that more often than not go together:
"Miss Tox escorted a plump, rosy-cheeked, wholesome, apple-faced young woman." (Dickens)
Sometimes, the narrator deliberately searches for the most fitting synonym, as in what follows:
"Just at daybreak, I was awakened by a series of awful screams from Bill. They weren't yells, or howls, or shouts, or whoops, or yawps, such as you'd expect from a manly set of vocal organs — they were simply indecent, terrifying, humiliating screams..." (O.Henry)
Climax (or: Gradation). The Greek word climax means 'ladder'; the Latin gradatio means 'ascent, climbing up'. These two synonymous terms denote such an arrangement of correlative ideas (notions expressed by words, word combinations, or sentences) in which what precedes is less than what follows. Thus the second element surpasses the first and is, in its turn, surpassed by the third, and so on. To put it otherwise, the first element is the weakest (though not necessarily weak!); the subsequent elements gradually increase in strength, the last being the strongest.
It is clear that the minimum number of elements (notions, meanings) is two; a greater expressive effect is achieved by participation of three or more units of meaning.
An essential point. Since climax (gradation) is formed, as mentioned, by correlative notions, the latter are supposed to belong to the same semantic plane: participating words, phrases, sentences that express 'ascendant' notions maybe what ia called 'ideographic synonyms': their meanings demonstrate different degrees of the property expressed, a different intensity of the quality implied, different quantitative parametres involved. A few examples:
"I am sorry, I am so very sorry, I am so extremely sorry." (Chesterton)
"What difference if it rained, hailed, blew, snowed, cycloned?" (O. Henry)
"The book has a power, so to speak, a very exceptional power; in fact, one may say without exaggeration it is the most powerful book of the month." (Leacock)
|
|
|
"... a very sweet story, singularly sweet; in fact, madam, the critics are saying it is the sweetest thing that Mr. Slush has done." (Leacock)
Let us also recall the following episode from Pygmalion by Bernard Shaw:
"DOOLITTLE. I'll teli you, Governor, if you'll only let me get a word in. I'm willing to tell you, I'm wanting to tell you. I'm waiting to tell you.
HIGGINS. Pickering: this chap has a certain natural gift of rhetoric. Observe the rhythm of his native woodnotes wild. "I'm willing to tell you; I'm wanting to tell you; I'm waiting to tell you." Sentimental rhetoric!" (Shaw)
One cannot be certain that the word waiting is stronger by itself than the words wanting and willing. It is only felt to be the strongest due to its final position. On the whole, the most categorical statement is prepared, in climax, by the preceding ones, which circumstance creates emotional tension.
Anti-climax (or: Bathos). The device thus called is characterized by some authors as 'back gradation'. As its very name shows, it is the opposite to climax, but this assumption is not quite correct. It would serve no purpose whatever making the second element weaker than the first, the third still weaker, and so on. A real anti-climax is a sudden deception of the recipient: it consists in adding one weaker element to one or several strong ones, mentioned before. The recipient is disappointed in his expectations: he predicted a stronger element to follow; instead, some insignificant idea follows the significant one (ones). Needless to say, anticlimax is employed with a humorous aim. For example, in It's a bloody lie and not quite true, we see the absurdity of mixing up an offensive statement with a polite remark.
John Galsworthy describes the indignation of the Forsytes disappointed by Old Jolyon's will as follows:
"... he had actually left 15,000 pounds to 'whomever do you think, my dear? To IreneV that runaway wife of his nephew Soames; Irene, a woman who had almost disgraced the family, and — still more amazing — was to him no blood relation."
|
|
|
Such utterances are certainly not meant as illogical back-gradations, not by those who produce them. The last argument is, from their own egoistic viewpoint, the strongest one. The unexpected weakening is the result of the illogical and ludicrous way of reasoning.
On the whole, regarding the problem from the point of view of the speaker/writer, we can assume that except in cases of intended jest, anticlimax is climax erroneously programmed, disclosing a system of values contradicting our common sense. See Alexander Pope's description of ladies of his epoch, of the hysterics they display:
Not louder shrieks to pitying heaven are cast, When husbands or when lap-dogs breathe their last. Mark Twain thus depicts contradictory weaknesses of the fair sex:
"A woman who could face the very devil himself or a mouse —
loses her grip and goes all to pieces in front of a flash of lightning."
In the above section on clarifying synonyms there was a description of
"inhuman piercing shrieks that could not have been produced by a manly
set of vocal organs — they were simply indecent, terrifying, humiliating
screams..." The quotation goes on as follows:"... such as women omit when
they see ghosts or caterpillars."
1.56
A kind of anti-climax is to be found in Francis Bacon's words:
"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested."
Intended illogicality — violating rules of text formation — underly the 'Pun' and 'Zeugma'.
Pun. This term is synonymous with the current expression 'play upon words'. The semantic essence of the device is based on polysemy or homonymy. It is an elementary logical fallacy called 'quadruplication of the term'. The general formula for the pun is as follows: 'A equals В and C, which is the result of a fallacious transformation (shortening) of the two statements 'A equals B' and 'A equals С (three terms in all). It turns out, however, that the A of the first statement only appears to be identical with that of the second. Thus we obtain four terms (members of the two propositions), instead of three: A, Av В and C; hence A *AV
|
|
|
A few examples will illustrate the ambiguity of the words participating in the formation of the pun.
The Russian learner of English knows, it may be hoped, that the word spirits denotes both 'ghosts', 'apparitions', 'illusory visions' and 'strong drinks', 'alcohol' (depending on the context). Two characters of Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club by Dickens see a somewhat disconcerted-looking servant enter the room. "Have you been seeing spirits?" asks him one of the gentlemen; his more realistically-minded companion suggests another version: "Or taking any?"
V. A. Kukharenko in her Book of Practice in Stylistics gives a jocular quotation from B. Evans: "There comes a period in every man's life, but she is just a semicolon in his." The witticism is clear to him who recalls that period is not only 'lapse of time', but punctuation mark as well. Thus a woman may be less than a period in a man's life: a mere semicolon!
More examples:
OFFICER. What steps [= measures] would you take if an enemy tank were coming toward you?
SOLDIER. Long ones.
Pun is either ambiguity (polysemy) actualized in one utterance which has at least two meanings, so that the recipient chooses one (1), or two contiguous utterances similar in form, their constituents having essentially different meanings (2).
1. One swallow does not make a summer.
The word swallow can be understood not only as a bird, but also as a gulp of strong drink.
Is life worth living? It depends on the liver.
Does the word liver mean 'large glandular organ secreting bile and purifying venous blood' or 'one who lives'? The case may be treated either way.
The child is father of the man.
The sentence seems nonsensical unless understood that the word father is used figuratively — as 'predecessor', 'the one that lives before growing into manhood'.
2. It is not my principle to pay the interest, and it is not my interest to pay the principal.
As the reader will have noticed, we observe here a chiasmus (parallelism reversed) in which the word interest preserves its form, though changing its meaning: 'money paid for use of money lent' and 'advantage, profit, or generally, thing in which one is concerned'; the word principle, however, is replaced by its homophone principal; the former means 'general rule of conduct', the latter, 'the original sum lent'.
Alongside the English term 'pun', the international (originally French) term calembour is current (cf. the Russian каламбур). According to N.L. Uvarova, the term calembour should be restricted to actualization of ambiguity of a linguistic unit that does not recur.6 In contrast to this, 'play on words' (or 'quibble') implies recurrence of the same unit in the next sentence (1) or — which is of special importance here — its intentional mistreatment either by the same speaker (2), or (more often) by his interlocutor; in the latter case, what we observe is pretended, jocular misunderstanding (3).
Examples of the first and the second types can be seen above. Of special interest is the third type. Here, it is mostly intentional treating idioms as if they were word combinations (or single words) used in their primary sense. Two instances taken from N.L. Uvarova's essay:
"Why, you cannot deny that he has good turns in him." "So has the corkscrew." (Behan) DICKIE: I suppose you are thinking of Ada Fergusson. PENELOPE: I confess she hadn't entirely slipped my mind. DICKIE: Hang Ada Fergusson. PENELOPE: I think it's rather drastic punishment. The gruesome jest quoted below shows the reverse process: the first speaker means actual cooks, the second motivates his decision by mentioning the proverbial cooks:
CANNIBAL COOK: Shall I stew both those cooks we captured from the steamer?
CANNIBAL KING: No, one is enough. Too many cooks spoil the broth.7
To conclude the section on puns one more example of pretended misunderstanding will suffice:
"Sam gave Toby a hug and said, 'Jesus, you really had us scared. * Toby grinned and said, 'You don't have to call me 'Jesus' when we're alone.'" (Sheldon)
Zeugma. As with the pun, this device consists in combining unequal, semantically heterogeneous, or even incompatible, words or phrases.
Zeugma is a kind of economy of syntactical units: one unit (word, phrase) makes a combination with two or several others without being repeated itself: "She was married to Mr. Johnson, her twin sister, to Mr. Ward; their half-sister, to Mr. Trench." The passive-forming phrase was married does not recur, yet is obviously connected with all three prepositional objects. This sentence has no stylistic colouring, it is practically neutral.
In stylistics, zeugma is co-occurrence and seeming analogy of syntactical connection of two or more units (words, phrases) with another unit. As a consequence, the very fact of proximity, of dose co-occurrence is unnatural, illogical since the resulting combinations are essentially different: they simply do not go together.
What is it that makes zeugmatic combinations look uncommon, strange, and often humorous? It may be disparity of grammatical types: one may be a free combination, the other an idiomatic set phrase (1); one is an adverbial prepositional phrase, the other a prepositional object or attribute (2); the grammatical connection is everywhere the same, but each unit pertains to a semantic sphere inconsistent with the other (3).
A Dickensian personage "... was alternately cudgeling his brains and his donkey." The set expression to cudgel one's brains means 'to break one's head over something' (i.e. 'to think desperately, looking for a solution'), while to cudgel a donkey is a free word combination, which implies real, not metaphorical beating of the animal with a cudgel (a big stick, a bludgeon). The Russian equivalent might be: * ломал себе голову и ребра — своему ослу.* In the well-known Russian joke Он пил чай с женой, лимоном и удовольствием the first combination functions as a prepositional object, the second as an attribute to the word tea, the third is an adverbial modifier of manner.
The two following examples demonstrate perhaps the most frequent type of zeugma (grammatical analogy and semantic incompatibility):
"She dropped a tear and her pocket handkerchief." (Dickens) "She possessed two false teeth and a sympathetic heart." (O. Henry)
An especially elaborate set of zeugmas is bestowed upon the reader in what follows:
"At noon Mrs. Turpin would get out of bed and humor, put on kimono, airs and the water to boil for coffee." (O. Henry) As a general rule, zeugma, with its tendency towards the absurd, or at least to illogicality, is employed in humorous texts. Exceptions can be found in some of Vysotsky's songs: "How much timber and faith have since fallen, How much grief fell in all our days!" "In the sawdust, in the sawdust He spilled his resentment and blood." «Меня в заблужденье он ввел и в пике Прямо из мертвой петли» (no English version of the lines published).
Tautology pretended and tautology disguised. As a general rule, most isolated utterances contain the 'theme' ('topic') pointing out the subject to be discussed, and the 'rheme' ('comment') expressing what the speaker has to say concerning it. The rheme is presumed to bear information as yet unknown to the recipient (listener, reader). There are cases, however, when an utterance, quite acceptable grammatically, seems to convey no information, or at least very little of it.
Thus, a well-known type of sayings is formed by mere repetition of the same word or word combination: the theme and the rheme are lexically identical. Even those ignorant of French are familiar with the saying A la guerre, comme a la guerre («На войне, как на войне»); quite popular is also the German Befehl ist Befehl(* Приказ есть приказ»), often used by war criminals who tried to justify their atrocities by shifting their own responsibility to their superiors. Every student of English ought to know Rudyard Kipling's famous words 'For East is East, and West is West...'.
Sentences of this kind seem, at first glance, devoid of any informative force: the formula 'A is A' (A=A) appears to be a clear case of tautology, of mentioning the same thing twice. And yet they are current, so there must be some sense in it:
"'Well,' he said vaguely, 'that's that,' and relapsed into a thoughtful silence." (Christie)
On closer inspection it becomes clear that the pattern discussed is by no means devoid of information. The form 'A is A' implies something different from what it seems to say. Its second part (a Russian scholar said once) is presumed to make sense. Used as topic (theme) the word is a deictic element; occupying the position of the comment (rheme) it becomes informative and requires no further elucidation. One is expected to know what such notions as 'war', 'command', 'order', 'East' (as opposed to 'West') are, and what they imply. Hence, the tautology we observe in such cases is tautology pretended, or sham tautology.
Directly opposed to these are utterances expressing practically the same statement twice, notwithstanding the completely new wording or even an attempt to look at the matter from a different angle. In the two
examples that follow the reader will see: a seemingly new turn of thought is a fake; it is only a paraphrase of the previous one. Compare:
"Make yourself an honest man and then you may be sure there is one rascal less in the world.'4 (Carlyle)
A no less obvious platitude can be seen in the following reasoning of one of O. Henry's cowboy characters:
"I rode over to see her once every week for a while; and then I figured it out that if I doubled the number of trips I would see her twice as often."
Examine also a jocular bet: "Heads, I win, tails, you lose" (which means: whether the coin falls face upward or the reverse side upward, I'll be the winner either way).
However different the two devices discussed maybe, there are certain grounds to class them as figures of inequality, while differentiating recurrence of identical forms with different meanings (sham tautology) from the intentional display of identical assertions in different forms (tautology disguised). Inequality is stylistically conspicuous in both.
Дата добавления: 2016-01-04; просмотров: 69; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!