Headlines in newspapers amd magazines

1) Good Cooksand Old Books.

2) It’s no Ms‑tery. Call me Ms.

Scientific writing

1. A writer is limited to the vocabulary as it is in his period, except in so far as he himself adopts and adapts new derivatives or actually invents new words.

2. …these effects come about through a hightened awareness of the way language can be used to explore and express realities other than that which is communally accepted as the most socially convenient.

It is evident from the examples adduced above that the term ‘paronymic attraction’ is extended beyond its traditional application. Here it denotes various cases of play upon words whose sound forms are similar or partially identical. Sound similarity can be confined to one phoneme only:

Clifford had never been primarily out of money, though he made it where he could, for money is the seal and stamp of success;

a phonestheme:

Way off ahead of you, at the horizon where the cotton fields are blurred into the light, the slab willglitter and gleam like water, as though the road was flooded;

or a morpheme:

My dear evangelist, this confusing of person and personalities is in bad taste.

This brings us to the problem of the limit of paronymic attraction as a stylistic device. Here we are at once in deeper water: it is quite clear that accidental or pseudo paronymic attraction may suddenly appear in one’s speech without the speaker actually realizing what he has done inadvertently. One example illustrating this kind of situation will suffice:

Close to the window where he could get more than his fare share of fresh air …

So the question arises how to tell an accidental paronymic attraction from a deliberate one. To answer this question we should subject various cases of paronymic attraction to prosodic analysis. Then it becomes clear that deliberate paronymic attraction displays a complex interaction of segmental and suprasegmental phenomena. Here are a few examples borrowed from imaginative prose writing and scientific discourse:

1. || So he \scraped and \scratched and \scrabbed and \scrooged | and /then | he he 0 scrooged a\gain | and /scrabbed and /scratched and /scraped | 0 working \busily with his 4 little \paws… |

2. || 0 Little Becky’s /soul \swelled with 0 pride and de\ light at these \honours; | she 4 saw the \fortune, \fame and \fashion before her. ||

3. || I have 4 dwelt at such 4 length on the e 4 xistence and per\sistence

of overstatemnet in 4 English /writing,| because I think it is 4 too readily

as/sumed | that under 4 statement is the characte 4 ristic 4 English \mode. ||

4. || Our \purpose /here is |…to sug 4 gest the com 4 plexity and com\pleteness of the 4 theory…

slowly

Here we can observe how the phonetic similarity of the expression of words brought together contributes to their semantic rapprochement, which is further enhanced by the unifying emphatic prosody. Paronymic attraction is brought out in the flow of speech by various combinations of prosodic parameters.

In the following set of examples the unity of segmental and suprasegmental features serves to achieve much greater expressivity than could be done by some other linguistic means:

1. || 0 Styleis, 4 certainly, a fa\miliar 4 word to \many of us; | but

n n

un\/ fortunately | to 4 say that sty 4 listics 4 simply 4 studies \/style | does 0 not

4 clarify 4 matters \greatly. ||

h> <h

2. || She 0 seemed as if she would like to \say 4 something, | no doubt, to reaf 4 firm her \gratitude,| but his 4 stance of 4 brisk /waiting | made her, | after 4 one 4 last 4 lingering 4 look into his /eyes | 0 move \past him. ||

slowly

Paronymic attraction is reinforced by the use of a sequence of falling tones, variations of loudness, tempo and pitch‑range. It is not hard to see that prosodically marked paronymic attraction enables the writer to pass on some extra, purely aesthetic information.

Thus, we can conclude that no study of paronymic attraction cannot be complete without due attention to the prosodic arrangement of this linguistic device in the flow of speech.

Synonymy

In this chapter we are going to discuss the question of the existence (or, possibly, non‑existence) in a language of words which are commonly called ‘synonyms’. The problem arises when we begin to analyse the actual facts of language. When we study words of a language in terms of their meanings we come to the conclusion that it is very difficult (or even impossible) to find two words whose meanings would be exactly the same. Human language does not tolerate complete synonymy, that is overal semantic identity of two or more words. To illustrate this let us consider the following passage:

«He seemed particularly cheerio, you know,» said the Hon. Freddy.

«Particularly what?» inquired the Lord High Steward. «Cheerio, my Lord,» said Sir Wigmore with a deprecating bow.

«I do not know whether that is a dictionary word,» said his lordship entering it upon his notes with meticulous exactness, ‘but I take it to be synonymous with ‘cheerful’.»

The Hon. Freddy appealed to, said he thought he meant more merry and bright, you know.

«May we take it that he was in exceptionally lively spirits,» suggested Counsel.

«Take it in any spirit you like,» muttered the witness, adding more happily, «Take a peg of John Begg.»

«The deceased was particularly lively and merry when he went to bed,» said Sir Wigmore, frowning horribly, «and looking forward to his marriage in the near future. Would that be a fair statement of his conditions?»

The Hon. Freddy agreed to this.

This example shows very clearly how synonymy is apprehended by a natural user of the language. Synonymy simply does not figure in his ‘lexical world’! A young man fails in his attempt to find another word with the same meaning, because no two words are ever semantically identical. The Hon. Freddy is a good‑for‑nothing member of the ‘golden youth’ whose English is a caricature of the ‘society slang’ of the 1930 s. He does not take the trouble to ‘behave’ in court: when called upon to give evidence, he just goes on talking in his ordinary flippant manner. Sir Wigmore tries to ‘translate’ his evidence into proper official style. Although in the end poor Freddy had to give in, he was never quite happy about it, because cheerio does not mean quite what they finally decided upon. When discussed in this way and analysed into would‑be semantic components, each of which is expressed by a separate long word, the actual meaning and connotations of cheerio are entirely forgotten.

Attention has repeatedly been drawn to the fact that complete synonymy, the absolute semantic identity of words is not observed in natural human languages. We do not concern ourselves at the moment with meaning equivalence in terms of interlinguistics. The latter deals with the optimization of rational sign‑systems, automatic indexes, artificial semiotic systems for man‑machine intercourse and different mediator languages. It is unfortunate that in man‑made semiotic systems of this kind absolute synonymy is by no means infrequent. A case in point is terminology.

When working on dictionaries of terms the meaning equivalence of different metalinguistic expressions is discoverable by referring them to the same descriptor. Thus, for example, the term ‘word‑combination’ in the «Dictionary of Linguistic Terms» by Olga Akhmanova serves as descriptor for the following expression: dependent grammatical unity, sintagma, non‑predicative sintagma, word‑group, collocation.

The situation is quite different in natural human languages. As has been shown above, on closer inspection one begins to doubt whether meaning equivalence should at all be applied to natural languages. Nevertheless, we should not rashly exclude synonymy altogether. To clarify the point let us analyse the following passage from «David Copperfield»:

«My dear Copperfield,» said Mr. Micawber, «this is luxurious. This is a way of life which reminds me of the period when I was myself in a state of celibacy, and Mrs. Micawber had not yet been solicited to plight her faith at the Hymeneal altar.»

Micawber’s speech portrayal abounds in highfaluting words and expressions. Of particular interest, for example, is the sentence This is luxurious. We may begin by pointing out that, if it is not a question of speech portrayal of a special kind, when the author’s intention is to present a comical character, but a question of neutral, ordinary usage, then luxurious should be regarded as absolutely misplaced. We should always bear in mind that the neutral style of English never displays a tendency towards very elaborate meliorative or pejorative expressions. It is usually assumed that English people generally tend to ‘understate’. Thus, for example, when the Frenchman said ravissant or charmant the Englishman confined himself to fine or it is not half bad. The word luxurious from the point of view of the 19th century usage was so pompous that it could only be used in Micawber’s speech portrayal as a conspicuous feature of his way of talking.

If we were to abstract ourselves from these considerations and turned to the concrete confrontation of actual separate words, what words could be used instead of the adjective luxurious? It is possible to substitute wonderful or splendidfor luxurious but they are certainly less expressive.

The situation is far more involved in the case of the word celibacy. Is there anything, a momolexemic unit, a ‘synonym’ which could be substituted for celibacy in this context? Obviously if we did linguostylistic exercises and had to think of paraphrastic expressions, then we could say when I was unmarried, or when I was single, or when I was a bachelor.Of course, there are many ways of expressing this thought in English, because the idea implied is definitely within the confines of the cultural background of the language in question. But does this process have any bearing on the general problem of synonymy (or meaning equivalence) in natural human languages?

There is very much along these lines which as yet remains unexplained. It is evident, however, that unless the investigator has a clear idea of the main principles on which meaning equivalence in natural human languages is based, it will be impossible to understand what synonymy really is.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that at least three different strands must be unravelled in the rather tangled skein which makes up the concept of meaning equivalence: 1) which of several ‘synonymous’ words or word‑combinations (as far as information pure and simple is concerned) would be chosen by the ‘natural’ user of the language under the circumstances;

2) how does the imaginative writer in question use these words or word‑combinations for particular metasemiotic purposes;

3) how to discriminate between the pairs or triplets, etc. of monolexemic units which can be brought together emically, that is not within the same text. It is quite clear that the last aspect is in a class of its own because the discrimination of synonyms can be carried out only on the emic level.

But let us return to our text. In what came before, the situation could be briefly summed up in the following way. First, there was the monolexemic unit luxurious and we could easily think of its monolexemic synonyms and discriminate between them in terms of their semantics. Then, there was the word celibacy for which there were no synonymous monolexemic units in the language, and which could only be paraphrased with the help of circumlocutions. The matter is far more complicated in the case of to plight one’s faith at the Hymeneal altar, because here it is no longer a question of discriminating between separate words but discriminating between idiomatic phraseological units.

The phraseological unit to pledge one’s troth, the word‑combination to take a vow, or the word to promise may seem at first sight to be ‘synonymous’ to to plight one’s faith. But the moment we abstract ourselves from the general information, expressed by these units, we cannot fail to notice that to plight one’s faith and to pledge one’s troth are opposed to to take a vow in terms of stylistic colouring, while to promise has an altogether different meaning.

From what has been said above it becomes clear that the problem of synonymy is closely connected with ideography, on the one hand, and the stylistic choice and use of words, on the other. When we look at the extract under discussion from the point of view of ideography (that is from the point of view of the information expressed in the passage in question and possible ways of rendering it differently) our task is more or less simple. We can easily transpose this passage into neutral English: when I myself was not yet married and Mrs. Micawber had not yet been proposed to. But it will take far more time and effort to explain the general artistic effect achieved, the metasemiotic value of choice of different ways of saying basically the ‘same thing’.

Thus, from a linguistic point of view synonyms are those members of a thematic group which a) belong to the same part of speech and b) are so close to one another semantically that to be able to use them correctly in speech we require exact knowledge of the shades of meaning and stylistic connotations, which distinguish them from one another.

A commendable first step, as has already been mentioned, is the division of ‘synonyms’ into ‘ideographic’ and ‘stylistic’ ones. This division was based on ‘meaning equivalence across registers’. Unfortunately, we should admit that the definition of meaning equivalence in terms of ‘ideographic’ and ‘stylistic’ synonyms is fairly vague. Even to this day when explaining the nature of stylistic synonyms people almost invariably fall back on the same triads: kid – child – infant; dad – father – parent, etc. with usually very little fresh material and proper discrimination between synonyms and members of the same thematic group.

On the other hand, as far as ideographic synonymy is concerned, we cannot say that the situation is any better. The material collected in the so‑called ‘dictionaries of synonyms’ is enormous but the strings of ‘synonyms’ are as different as can be. They are adduced as a matter of course, without any attempt at justification. Thus, for example, no user of ‘dictionaries of synonyms’ would be surprised to find the following verbs ‘strung together’ within the same ‘synonymic line’, the ‘laughter’ verbs, as it were: to laugh, to chuckle, to giggle, to snigger, to titter and to guffaw.

We have given them the name of ‘laughter’ verbs, because in all monoligual dictionaries they are explained with laughas the unique beginner or ‘terme d’identification’, thus:

The meaning of to laughis defined in the «Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English» (OALD) as «make sounds and movements of the face and body, showing amusement, joy, contempt, etc.». In the «Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English» (LDCE) to laugh is «to express amusement, happiness, careless disrespect, etc. by making explosive sounds with the voice».

Immediately the question is bound to arise: if one chuckles does it mean that he makes sounds and movements of the face and body, showing amusement, etc. in a quiet way with closed mouth? or if he titters, then he makes sounds and movements of the face and body, showing amusement, joy, contempt, etc. very quietly from nervousness or badly controlled amusement? or if he giggles then he makes sounds and movements of the face and body, showing amusement, joy, contempt, etc. in a nervous and silly way?

If we assume that synonyms are those words which belong to the same thematic group and are so close semantically that keeping them apart requires subtle discrimination, these words are certainly not synonyms. The psychosomatic processes reflected in all these different ‘noises’ are not directly referrable to «making sounds and movements of the face and body, showing amusement, joy, contempt, etc.». Even to laugh and to guffaw which seem to be so close semantically are in reality very far apart. To begin with they are both onomatopoeic, with completely different etymologies: to laugh goes back to OE hlxhhan, hliehhan, while to guffawis of Scottish origin. In fact all the rest of the words are onomatopoeic in their own right. A closer look at their semantics shows that what we are really concerned with is a variety of different emotional states, not «sounds and movements of the face and body, showing amusement, joy, contempt, etc.». Their being conventionally brought together as ‘synonyms’ can be accounted for by the still firmly established logical approach to semantic analysis in general.

So far we have confined ourselves to the ‘dictionary’ level. But how is it possible to overcome the logical approach of our ‘lexicographic abstractions’? The only way is to turn to speech and try to sort out the facts as they present themselves tangibly, as they really are. But from what was expounded above it could be concluded that in actual speech ‘synonyms’ are mainly used for fun?

This, however, is most emphatically not the case. Synonymy does figure in speech in what can be described as ‘synonymic condensation’. The term is used to denote situations «when writers and/or speakers bring together several words from one and the same thematic group (or „words which bear on the same idea“) to enhance the purport, to make more detailed and more refined a certain underlying sense, to add conviction and force to their statements or, simply, to make for greater prosodic prominence of a ‘thing‑meant’.

The essential and unalterable reason why this phenomenon deserves our special attention is found in the fact that synonymic condensation is firmly rooted in the English language. As has been shown elsewhere, constructions of this kind were frequent in Early Middle English because «it was customary to explain a French word by adding to it a native synonym» (Ullmann, Stephen. Semantics. «An Introduction to the Science of Meaning». Oxford, 1977, p. 148). Later on these word‑combinations were used for a different purpose – to improve the style of the utterance. In Modern English there are many set‑expressions which follow this pattern, for example, safe and sound, lord and master, first and foremost, etc.

It would, however, be wrong to believe that this type of construction is the only instance of synonymic condensation. Owing to its rhythmical structure synonymic condensation has become a powerful stylistic device which very often comprises more than two words. In what follows we shall consider different kinds of synonymic condensation in terms of rhythm, prosody and semantic equivalence. (Морозова, А.Н. Лексикологическая равнозначность в речи. Куйбышев, 1985.) While doing this, we shall try to answer the following questions: 1) when do we stop stringing together words merely because they bear on the same idea? 2) how does synonymic condensation function in speech? 3) what are the relationships between its components and how are they manifested in speech?

Let us begin with the first question. Extensive studies of synonymic condensation have yielded interesting results concerning the number of components. It may vary from two to twelve, for example:

|| She re 0 turned to her /soup with the · most. perfect · calm and · quiet on her face. ||

|| «I know nothing of the kind,» retorted Perker firmly.

Let us begin with the first question. Extensive studies of synonymic condensation have yielded interesting results concerning the number of components. It may vary from two to twelve, for example:

|| She re 0 turned to her /soup with the · most. perfect · calm and · quiet on her face. ||

|| «I know nothing of the kind,» retorted Perker firmly.

«It does not rest with Dodson and Fogg, you know the men, my dear

w w

sir, as well as I do. || It · rests \ solely, \wholly and en 4 tirely 6 with you». ||

|| He had 0 often · suffered from in\gratitude, \insolence and 6 treachery. ||

w w

|| Do you 0 think, because I am \poor, ob 4 scure, 4 plain and 4 little,

I am also 4 soulless and 3 heartless? ||

|| Her 0 age is · that which is \suitable for my 7 wife, | but she is \bossy, im\perious, domi 4 neering, irritable and re 6 sentful. ||

–> quickly

|| But · since in \fact we \see | that · avarice, \anger, \envy, \pride,

4 sloth, 4 lust and stu 7 pidity | · commonly · profit. far be. yond hu 4 mility

–> quickly

w w

\chastity, \fortitude, \justice and 4 thought | and 0 have to · choose to be

· human at /all.|.. 4 why 7 then, «perhaps, we must 0 stand \fast a little | – 0 even at the · risk of · being 6 heroes. ||

|| To the>eye it is \fair en. ough, 7 here; | but · seen in its in>tegrity, | under the 7 sky, and by the>daylight, | it is a 0 crumbling · tower of \waste, mis\ manage‑ment, ex 6 tortion, debt, \mortgage, op 6 pression, \hunger, \nakedness,

–> very quickly

and 6 suffering. ||

The further we go as far as the number of homogeneous parts is concerned, the more obvious becomes the looseness of the semantic relationship between them. But this looseness of the semantic relationship, as will be shown below, is compensated for by the ‘tightness’ of the prosodic organization.

Synonymic condensation should be kept apart from attributive word‑combinations. The difference between the two types of constructions becomes particularly conspicuous in oral speech. Let us consider the following utterances:

1. || I con 0 sider you a \viper, | I 0 look upon you, /Sir, as a · man who has · placed himself be.yond the. pale of so 6 ciety, «by his most au\dacious, dis\graceful and a\bominable. public. conduct. ||

2. || 0 June · paused for a / moment \ to · look at her 7 self in the 0 little · old‑fashioned · silver 7 mirror above the · oaken 7 rug chest… |.

As is well known all the syntactic bonds depend on different junctures for their expression plane. Thus, for instance, the attributive bond is realized with the help of the plus juncture (potential or virtual pause). The different kinds of completive bond have three different types of pauses to serve as their expression plane, etc.

So far very little research has been done to gain an insight into the physical realization of the copulative bond which is of particular interest in the present context, because both in the case of synonymic condensation and the construction of homogeneous parts it is the copulative bond which is the syntactic device. Nevertheless, even at the present stage of this investigation we appear to be justified in claiming that attributive and copulative bonds (although in written speech they seem very much alike) are prosodically different.

In contrast with the other bonds, copulative bond expresses coordination, not subordination, its most important prosodic expression depending on pitch‑movement. Thus, the most general conclusion which may be made as far as the pitch characteristics are concerned is as follows: synonymic condensation is pronounced with a succession of falling tones (example 1 above), whereas attributive word‑combinations with several attributes are said with an ordinary descending scale (example 2 above).

One more point should be made in this connection. Prosody helps to keep apart two types of copulative bond underlying synonymic condensation and other constructions with homogeneous parts. Synonymic condensation is generally accompanied by emphatic prosody, for example:

|| >Mary, a \good, \faithful and ex\ceptional 7 wife, |. never · thought to re· proach her 6 husband. ||

|| He re. mained \ kindly, «sympa\thetic, „\pleasant, “

slowly

and 6 amiable. ||

slowly

|| 0 Am I a \nasty, 4 cruel, 4 selfish, bad 3 man? ||

These are convincing examples in so far as there is a certain ‘directionality’ in the prosodic arrangement of the synonymic group. This keeps it clearly apart from ordinary word‑combinations bearing neutral prosody.

Nothing is ‘condensed’ in the case of a construction with homo‑geneous parts: it is a mere enumeration of facts or objects and as a result prosody remains neutral, for example:

|| His 0 face was \swarthly, «0 almost Ori 6 ental «with /large, /dark,

· languorous 6 eyes..|.

|| We 0 found him \sure e 7 nough, | a 7 huge, 7 coarse, 0 red‑faced, scor– · batic 6 man…|

|| The in 0 terior of the · wayside 7 inn | – the 0 Fox and \ Goose, + \ not that it>matters | – was like the in 0 teriors of · all · wayside \inns, | 0 dark and 7 cool | and 0 smelling of 7 bear, «7 coffee, «7 cheese, «7 pickles and the 0 sturdy. English 6 peasantry. ||

Thus, it can be taken for granted that the study of synonymic condensation should not be divorced from its prosodic and rhythmical organization. To go a little more deeply into this, we shall confine our analysis only to two‑member constructions.

Morris Croll has shown that the cadences in English translations of divine texts often include two‑word rhythmical groups, the words being not infrequently synonyms connected by the conjunction and, for example: sundry and manifold, wills and affections, almighty and everlasting, defended and comforted, honour and glory, nature and property,etc. He states that two words «are used instead of a single one for the sake of vocal amplitude and beauty». The typical case is when the two words are exact synonyms, but even when they are not synony‑mous, the phrase is often evidently «a mere melodic unit». (Croll, M. «Style, Rhetoric and Rhythm.» New Jersy, 1966, p. 304–338). Phrases of this kind are mainly used in final positions or, at least, before pauses.

Synonymic condensation may follow different rhythmical patterns:

Planus: 5–2, 6–2 in which there are accents on the fifth and second or sixth and second syllables accordingly, counting from the end of the phrase, for example: wrong and misleading, convenient and helpful, unique and specific, elusive and mysterious, comparing and contrasting, skilled and experienced,etc.

Tardus:6–3, 7–3, for example, limits and boundaries, importance and significance, variety and diversity, nuances and subtleties,etc.

Velox:7– 4–2, 8 – 4–2, 8 – 5–3, 9–5–3, for example, elusive and undefinable, assessment and evaluation, global and monolithic, separate and individual, etc.

The use of synonymic condensation marks off the border line between the theme and the rheme, for example:

|| One of the reasons why linguistic meaning is still made to be something elusive and undefinable| is the now widely spread tendency to substitute for linguistic work different philosophical, psychological, and logical disquisitions, presented as the latest in ‘linguistic theory’. ||

Synonymic condensation makes the rheme more prominent, for example:

|| It should also be taken into account that the relationship between synchrony and diachrony| is very subtle and delicate. ||

or is used to emphasize the most important element of the utterance, for example:

But after all because the marks of punctuation are only conventional signs meaning different things to different readers and writers, and because in prose, as in verse, fashions in punctuation are, like other fashions, continually changing, it is easy to over‑estimate its importance and significance.

Synonymic condensation may be used to reinforce the opposition of some elements, for example:

While he was anxious to avoid pedantry and affectation in his writing, he was equally anxious to avoid what was mean and low.

Such parallelism is also often observed within paragraphs, for example:

It should be noted that the border‑line between the two types of word‑combination is very often blurred and unclear. Still we think that the above considerations are of great importance because they bring us a little closer to understanding an author’s purposes and intentions as expressed by ‘free’ word‑combinations.

In all the examples adduced above synonymic condensation adds greatly to the rhythmical effect of the sentence or the whole passage, on the one hand, and performs various syntactic functions, on the other.

The rhythmical structure of synonymic condensation demonstrates a close connection between rhythm and length of its components. Thus, for instance, the shorter monosyllabic word, as a rule, comes first, for example: all and everything, beg and implore, calm and quiet, close and intimate, dim and obscure, errors and shortcomings,etc. This rhythmical regularity can be also observed in the case of ‘paired’ monosyllabic words: the second component is longer because of the long vowel or the diphthong, for example:

dread and awe, dread and fear, good and kind, want and need, yearn and crave, etc.

This rule, however, is not without exceptions. It is possible to come across cases when the shorter word comes second, for example:

1. || 0 Well, | 0 ever since · dear. Uncle ‘ Jack. first con\fessed to us that he had a. younger 7 brother | | who was \very \ wicked and \bad, |

slowly

4 you, of 7 course, have · formed the 0 chief. topic of conver. sation between my. self and Miss 6 Prism. ||

2. || He \seems to be a. most consci 6 entious and po 6 lite young. man upon my 6 word…|.

n n

3. || Mr. 0 Bob 7 Sawyer, medical ’ student at. Guy’s 7 Hospital,

7 London, «had about him that. sort of. slovenly \smartness and \swaggering 6 gait, «which is peculiar to fa 0 cetious · young. gentlemen |

h n

who «. smoke in the · streets by 7 day, |. shout and. scream in the · same

(q) slowly

by /night, «and. call \waiters | by their. Christian 6 names. ||

In these examples we can observe an artificial lengthening of the second component by means of its prosodic arrangement. In the first utterance the word bad is said with a falling tone and slow tempo, in the second sentence the adjective polite is pronounced with a falling tone and increased loudness, in the third example the verb scream is enunciated within a high diapason and slowly.

Thus, we are justified in concluding that prosody is used to increase the ‘weight’ of shorter words in order not to impair the overall rhythmical law which was formulated above.

The rhythmical structure of synonymic condensation can be reinforced by alliteration, assonance, rhyme, etc. These peculiarities of synonymic condensation are easily observed in numerous idiomatic phrases, for example, hale and hearty, might and main, modes and manners, rack and ruin, stress and strain, etc. At the same time we should admit that there are many non‑idiomatic word‑combinations in which all the above segmental means are realized to the full, for example, weak and weary, stock and store, subtle and slight, secure and safe, turn and twist, simple and straightforward, etc.

Within the sounds which are regularly repeated in synonymic condensation sonants and sibilants occupy a privileged position. The reason is obvious: the volume of resonants contributes greatly to the general rhythmical and euphonic organization of speech, for example, the moaning and the groaning of the bells, the jingling and the twinkling of the bells, the jangling and the wrangling, sign and symbol, one and only ontology, etc. Particularly striking is the sonority of resonants in emotionally coloured speech, where their production sometimes verges on singing. The regular recurrence of resonants creates, especially in poetry, a peculiar rhythmical effect, which is enhanced by synonymic condensation, for example:

Here is a child who clambers and scrambles,

All by himself and gathering brambles…

The repetition of separate sounds is not the only sound phenomenon to be taken into account in the study of synonymic condensation. Other phenomena including the phonesteme and the morphemic structure of words can be observed. Let us analyse a few examples.

1. Banners yellow, glorious, golden,

On its roof did float and flow

(This – all this – was in the olden

Time long ago)…

2. They clacked and clashed o’Scotlan’s Bard,

They glibly talked of ‘Rabbie’.

3. Oh, the bells, bells, bells!

What a tale their terror tells of despair!

How they clang, and clash, and roar!

The evidence of the above examples suggests that the phonestemes fl‑ and cl‑ are used not only for enhancing the meaning, but mainly for creating a particular rhythmical and sound effect. Once this point is concealed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that synonymic condensation is, in principle, devoid of any semantic relevance. Nothing, however, can be further from the truth. By adding the second component the speaker clarifies and specifies the meaning expressed by the first one. The specific sound orga‑nization in its turn makes for a greater semantic affinity. Thus, the expression and content planes of synonymic condensation create one indivisible whole.

Now let us consider our material in terms of interaction of semantics and prosody. As usual we should present the material in the form of a chain‑like arrangement, because the object of our investigation is a living language.

If we take a broader look at two‑member synonymic condensation we shall see that there are two polar cases and a number of intermediate ones. The two extremes are: phraseological units which are formed after the pattern of synonymic condensation and word‑combinations whose members have the same connotation. Let us begin with phraseological units.

… || and at 0 three o’clock this after 7 noon | they. all /stood |. high and \dry, +. safe and \sound, «. hale and \hearty | upon the. steps of the

Blue 6 Lion. ||

In the cited example, we find all the appropriate prosodic means, employed to show that each combination in question has become a phraseological whole which is used in present‑day English as a word‑equivalent. The conjunction and is reduced to one of its weak forms, the stress‑pattern reminds one of very long words which have several stresses. It should be noted in passing that the author ‘condenses’ phraseological units in this utterance which results in a stylistic effect.

The opposite, polar case is illustrated by the following example:

|| /«Ma,» «. whispered the 7 other, | who was 0 much \older than her

7 sister, | and 0 very in\sipid + and artificial, «0 Lord · Mutanhed has been intro 6 duced to me. || I 0 said «I · thought «I \wasn’t engaged, 7 Ma.» ||

It does not require a close examination to see that in this case the author brings together words which are not synonyms in the proper sense of the word but just bear on the same very general idea. The two words placed side by side, however, serve to achieve much greater expressivity than could be done by each of them separately. But as they are not connected semantically and are brought together only because they have the same connotation, the link between them is reinforced by prosodic arrangement. The second component is brought out by means of a mid‑falling tone and increased loudness.

Between the two polar ones all the rest of the material can be ‘accommodated’:

1. || But the 0 village was very · peaceful and \quiet..|.

2..|.it was the · most in\vigorating 6 sight that can be / possibly be

i 6 magined | to be 0 hold him «0 gather up his /hat, /gloves and /handker –

chief, | with a. glowing · countenance, | and re 0 sume his · station in the. rank,| with an 0 ardour and en\thusiasm that · nothing could a 6 bate. ||

slowly

3…|. the 0 lonely and \desolate 7 widow · dried her tears…|.

The prosodic notation used here shows that the prosody of the different utterances becomes progressively more expressive.

We attach so much importance to synonymic condensation because this construction is used when the speaker wants to convey a certain meaning equivalence. This is accounted for by the fact that every time the speaker seeks to describe one concept but since a single word cannot ‘mould’ this concept he puts together a few words and makes the ‘plurality’ of words into the ‘singularity’ of concept by superimposing a specific prosodic and rhythmic organization on them. Besides, it should be always borne in mind that synonymy like homonymy, presupposes comparison, or juxtaposition of words. To establish the fact of synonymy we must have at least two lexical units. Hence the importance of synonymic condensation in which several words are brought together in the most natural way.

Chapter 4.

Phraseology

Phraseology in Speech

The vocabulary of any developed language consists of words and word equivalents which are not created by the speaker but used as ready‑made units. Such units are primarily characterized by the contradiction which exists between the semantic integrity of the whole and the formal independence of its parts. It is very difficult to establish a sharp boundary between free word‑combinations which are generated by the speaker in the process of speech and set expressions used as ready‑made. As a rule, it can be shown that there are different degrees of ‘setness’, or different degrees of restrictions. This is the object of investigation of phraseology – the branch of linguistics which studies the ways of bringing words together in the flow of speech.

In this section of the book we shall focus on some issues that have been on the periphery of phraseology in recent years. Their importance lies in their topicality rather than in the position they hold in phraseological studies. I refer to investigations aimed at discovering prosodic modulations which form part of the expression plane of ‘multi‑word units’ that display various degrees of semantic opaqueness, namely:

– idioms proper (e.g. to put the cart before the horse, a skeleton in the cupboard, to kill two birds with one stone, etc.);

– phraseological units, that is invariable word‑combinations (e.g. as a matter of course, to take for granted, etc.);

– restricted collocations, that is word‑combinations which allow some substitution, but where is still some arbitrary limitation on choice (e.g. to run a company, not *to conduct a company; to fix (or set) a price, but not *to stick a price, etc.);

– commonplace free collocations (green grass, heavy box, to run quickly, to speak loudly, etc.);

– innovative or nonce collocations, that is word‑combinations which demonstrate practically unlimited combinatorial possibilities of words (e.g. green ideas, to wear tea, etc.).

As every sentence of English has associated with it an appropriate prosodic structure, which is determined not only by the underlying syntactic bonds but also by semantic properties of its lexical components, we can say that recurrent multi‑word units as word equivalents cannot but account for some prosodic modulations accompanying an utterance.

It should be noted, however, that in view of the confused, and at times acrimonious discussion of the properties of word‑combinations that has been taking place among linguists, it is as well to emphasize that the point at issue is an essentially theoretical one that cannot even be formulated except within the framework of a categorial approach to units in question, which is discussed below. Unless we make the initial assumption that various properties of multi‑word units can be represented as realizations of more abstract entities – that is, categories – it hardly makes sense to enquire which of their features are associated with specific prosodic modulations.

It is reasonable to assume that instead of a set of prosodic parameters for every single unit under discussion, there are certain universal criteria of choosing contour to match semantic properties, and that the application of these criteria allows a wide range of variation, in the way in which the latter can be determined by the context.

In the study of multi‑word units, then, we can rely upon a system of categories reflecting their basic features. Each category is based on the opposition differentiating between the positive and negative realizations of certain properties. «There must always be some marked members of this or that category, those which realize the given category to the full, and some unmarked members – negative realizations.» (Alexandrova, O.V., Ter‑Minasova, S.G.English Syntax. (Collocation, Colligation and Discourse). M., 1987, p. 70.)

Five categories have been listed and discussed in detail by N.B.Gvishia‑ni (1979). They are:

– the category of connotativeness vs. non‑connotativeness which is constituted by the opposition between multi‑word units performing the emotive function (that of impact) – the marked member – versus the referential unit (the function of message) –the unmarked mem‑ber (C);

– the category of reproducibility or ‘ready‑madeness’ (cf.prefab‑rication), which is based on the opposition between (a) multi‑word units that are regularly reproduced in speech, those that are fixed and closely bound – the marked member; and (b) ‘occasional’ multi‑word units that are specially created to evoke some emotional or evaluative reaction on the part of the reader or listener, and to draw attention to something special – the unmarked member (R);

– the category of idiomaticity which is constituted by the opposition of opaque (marked member) and nonopaque (unmarked member) multi‑word units (I);

– the category of conceptual determination presupposes that there is a certain conceptual motivation underlying every multi‑word unit. The category is constituted by the opposition of multi‑word units whose linguistic expression is compatible with the normal conceptual relationship of things (marked member) versus multi‑word units which do not depend on the physical experience of the speaker (unmarked member) (CD);

– the category of sociolinguistic determination is based on the opposition of multi‑word units which are sociolinguistically conditioned; that is the interrelation between their components is determined not only by lexical‑phraseological and conceptual factors, but also by peculiarities of the social life, tradition and culture of the speech community (marked member) versus sociolinguistically neutral multi‑word units (unmarked member). It should be emphasized that «this category can be realized only in those cases where the sociolinguistic aspect looms large, when it rises above all the categories, when it adds some connotations to word‑combinations, when to understand a word‑combination one requires some background knowledge.» (Alexan‑drova, O.V., Ter‑Minasiva, S.G. 1987, p. 81). (SD)

The application of the categorial approach makes it possible to view a multi‑word unit from various angles at once, and at the same time to use the principle of gradience.The table presents the results of the categorial analysis of a few multi‑word units.

It follows from the above table that idiom proper (1‑5) are connotative, cliched, semantically global multi‑word units which are generally sociolinguistically determined. Phraseological units (6‑10) are similar to idioms proper as far as the marked realization of two categories are concerned – they are cliched and idiomatic. But phraseological units are devoid of connotation and many of them are not sociolinguistically determined.

Restricted collocations (11–15) are also characterized by ready‑madeness and idiomaticity but to a less degree than idioms proper and phraseological units (as is indicated by the crosses in bold print in the table). The idiomaticity of restricted collocations becomes evident when they are contrasted with their equivalents in a different language. Thus, «for the Russian speaker who wants to express the concept obrashchat’ vnimanije it seems odd that the corresponding English expression is to pay attention because the verb to pay is associated by him with giving money for goods, services, etc., i.e. with the Russian verb platit.» (Alexandrova, O.V., Ter‑Minasova, S.G.1987, p. 42).

Commonplace free collocations (16–20) demonstrate natural combinability of their referents and for this reason they are frequently used in speech. Hence their partial prefabrication: the more frequently the multi‑word unit is used, the more closely its components are bound together.

Innovative word‑combinations (21–25), on the contrary, are absolutely unpredictable. They are not conceptually integral and not idiomatic either. Their main feature is connotation, because in this case we can observe a deliberate violation of the conceptual basis of collocability which results in a range of expressive, emotional or evaluative overtones. Some of them may be sociolinguistically determined because the speaker or writer plays upon culturally embedded words.

In approaching the analysis of multi‑word units in the way demonstrated in this chapter, we have not been indulging in a pedantic taxonomic exercise. We began by viewing different multi‑word units in relation to the five categories because in terms of the distinction between connotative and non‑connotative multi‑word units we can account for the prosodic emphasis of innovative, occasional word‑combinations in the following sentences, for example:

1. (a) || 4 Why, 0 then, | 0 was he lunching the 0 girl in /

this 0 God‑forsaken ^eatery? ||

(b)… the 0 Drones is | what I would call| a

quickly

0 pretty·broad‑minded 4 club. ||

slowly

piece of 0 toast 4 fell from his 6 grasp. ||

(d) The 0 painter. led the way at. once to his

4 masterpiece; | and for 0 some. minutes they

stood before it in a | 0 suitable | pa 6 ralysis. ||

br> <br

slowly

It is enough to compare the prosody of the above sentences with the one of their modified versions.

2. (a) 4 Why, then, | 0 was he lunching the 0 girl in this

Chi 0 nese 6 restaurant? ||

(b)… the 0 Drones is | what I would call | a 0 very

quickly

interesting 6club. |

(d) The 0 painter. led the way to his 4 masterpiece;|

and for 0 some. minutes they. stood before it in. deep 6silence. ||

To see that God‑forsaken eatery, a pretty broad‑minded club, an astonished piece of toast, and a suitable paralysis in contrast with their non‑connotative counterparts are brought into prominence by means of variations of loudness, tempo, pitch‑movement and pausation.

It is not only connotative occasional word‑combinations that are prosodically marked in this way. So, too, are idioms proper, for example:

1. «… There isn’t a Forsyte now who appeals to me.» «Not young

Mr. Nicholas? He’s at the Bar. We’ve given ‘im briefs.» || «He’ll 0 never. set the. Thames on ^fire.» ||

>spr <spr

2. It will be my endeavour to give a reasonably up‑to‑date and representative account of a fast‑moving science without discarding the valuable results of earlier research | and \/ also| without 0 trying to put

0 new 6wine into 0 old ‘ bottles.||

slowly

3. 0 Great 4 Scott. || I believe I’ve been

0 barking up the ·wrong 6tree. ||

4) I 0 gather from Mrs. Bergfeld that you’re on the ^rocks. ||

The point is that idioms proper are heavily fraught with metaphor which calls for prosodic modulations that make them stand out in the flow of speech. In the examples given above various combinations of prosodic features perform the stylistic function, and they enhance the expressive, emotional, evaluative overtones which are part and parcel of the inner structure of idioms proper.

An idiom depends on the balance struck between two forces, that of semantic opaqueness and that of structural separateness. The interaction of the two forces makes the idiom a powerful rhetorical device and discourse organizer.

If we consider how idioms can be studied in relation to discourse we can identify two main areas: one is the use of idioms to focus the listener’s or reader’s attention on aspects of the message that are most important, the other is concerned with making the narration more colourful. Examples include:

1. Secondly, some personal pronoun subjects are inversible in English and in French: il dit – dit‑il – he says – says he.

Whereas inflexional endings in Latin can never be inverted. || It is thus a 0 bundantly \ clear | that 0 English and 0 French. form‑words are 0 not on. all 4 fours with 0 Latin in ‘ flexions | and have a 0 great deal

4 more inde 7 pendence than the 4 latter.||

2. || A0 merican fi. nancials have a 0 tiger by the 4 tail ||

slow

in con 0 sumer 4 credit. || Any attempt to curtail it seriously would lead to a drastic reduction in effective mass consumer‑power during the curtailment.

3. –… Here is a case in point, a way in which word can get across the Atlantic and get used. Now, I happen to like your triflesand your fools as deserts, as ‘sweets’. We prepare them in our household. Then when we have guests and we serve them, we use the English terms for them. This familiarizes a number of people, you see, with two English words. They may even serve them themselves and this is just the beginning of a long chain where a word gets a much wider range of use.

– || 0 Well, I 0 hope they. suffer your. fools 4 gladly,|7 Al.

spr> <spr

4. We all know the great danger in offering an interpretation of a work of art, and this is that it simply involves the critic reading into

a particular work his own preconception – | as we say in English | –

quickly

the par 0 ticular 0 bee in his \bonnet.|| There has been a good deal of this, as

slowly

far as «Hamlet» criticism is concerned.

Of course, in the first two passages the use of the idioms to be on all fours, and to have a tiger by the tail is not only instructive but also entertaining. In the other two examples, however, the speaker’s aim is simply to make the narration less dry, less academic, to give listeners a possibility to relax.

It should be pointed out that when idioms are aimed at giving clarity, force and beauty to the argument they are often deformed and help to frame the paragraph, for example:

Then 0 Jasper. Gibbons was ar. rested for being. drunk and dis

4 orderly in Picca 4 dilly | and (…) she 4dropped him, |but 0 not like a. hot

po4 tato. || quickly

quickly

She 0 dropped him with 0 infinite 4 gentleness,| as 3 softly | as the 4 tear that

slowly slowly

she doubtless 0 shed when she. made up her. mind to do something

re 4 pugnant to her / nature; | she 0 dropped him with 0 so much 4 tact,| with

slowly

0 such a sensi 4 bility| that 0 Jasper. Gibbon perhaps. hardly 4 knew he was |

4 dropped.||

In this case much of the coherence of the paragraph comes from the fact that the components of the deformed idiom are prosodically prominent, the resulting prosodic pattern making the paragraph one global whole.

It would be absurd to hope to describe, or even to determine all the different combinations of prosodic parameters we encounter when coming across idioms proper in the flow of speech. At the same time it must be admitted that there is regularly so high a degree of prosodic emphasis of idioms proper in the flow of speech that it can be generalized in the form of marked prosodic invariants which keep idioms proper and phraseological units clearly apart. The latter do not carry any expressive emotional overtones and for this reason are not accompanied by prosodic modulations which perform the stylistic function, for example:

1. Acqui 0 sition takes place as 0 part of under 4 standing, | 0 taking part in | com 0 municating a 7 bout | and 0 being com. municated with| about 0 daily. personal 4 life. ||

2. There is 0 no 7 doubt that 0 this ap 7 proach is in 0 keeping with the 0 anti‑authori. tarian, learner‑centred edu. cational 7 outlook which is 0 sweeping through. much of the 6 world. ||

In the above examples the prosodic realization of the phraseological units to take place and to be in keeping falls within the scope of the grammatical function of prosody.

It should be noted, however, that many phraseological units are gambits with fixed accentual structures which cannot be changed by the speaker. The same word may be part of several phraseological units with different accentual structures and be either stressed or not. Consider the word way in the following sentences:

1. At the 0 party he. looked the other 4 way | and 0 didn’t even come

4 up to me. ||

2. To 4 my way of 7 thinking this is an im 4 portant / point. ||

3. It was 4 Susan who 0 shouted at Mrs. 4 Simpson, | 0 not the. other way 4 round. ||

In the first example way as part of the phraseological unit to look the other way meaning ‘to pretend not to see smb/smth’ is stressed, whereas in the other two phraseological units which are gambits way is not stressed. In example (2) the stress is shifted to my, in example (3) other carries the secondary stress and round the primary one.

Here are some other examples of phraseological units with fixed accentual patterns, some of them functioning as gambits:

for 0 one thing – used for introducing a reason;

a case in 0 point– a clear or typical example;

on the 0 one hand… on the №other hand – used to indicate contrasting points of view;

0 all things con№sidered – used to introduce or comment on a

judgement that is made after taking all the facts into account;

by 0 all means– yes, of course;

by 0 no means, not by 0 any means– not at all;

(as) a matter of 0 course – as a regular habit or usual procedure.

So much for the prosody of multi‑word units.

Another aspect of phraseology which deserves our attention is its role and functions in the dictionary. The consideration of this issue makes it possible to gain a deeper insight into a correlation of the word and context, meaning and use, emic and etic properties of the word and its equivalents.

Дата добавления: 2018-05-09; просмотров: 706; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы!

Поделиться с друзьями:

⇐ Предыдущая 1 2 345 6 7 8 9 10 Следующая ⇒

Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!