CC BY
92
Section 3. Philology
5. Hoarta Carausu L. Ipostaze publicistice ale “discursului repetat”, AUI, sectiunea III e, tomul LIV, 2008.//[El. resource]. - Available from: http://www.webtest.ovipedia.ro/fisiere %20pdf/2008/Carausu.pdf(acces at: 19.08.13).
6. Irimia D. Stilul publicistic actual intre libertatea de exprimare si libertatea de expresie. In: Stil si limbaj in mass-media din Romania. - Iasi: Polirom, 2007. - Р. 283-298.
7. Keeble Richard. Presa scrisa. O introducere critica. - Iasi: Polirom, 2009.
8. Magda M. Structuri colocviale in revista “Academia Catavencu”//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://ebooks.unibuc.ro/filologie/dindelegan/43.pdf (acces at: 04.04.13).
9. Marcusan C. Limbaj jurnalistic sau... “vadimizarea” limbajului? in Limbaje si comunicare, VI, Partea I, Colocvi-ul International de Stiinte ale Limbajului. - Suceava: Editura Universitatii Suceava, 2003.
10. Neamtu C. Stilul publicistic. - Bucuresti: Editura Mirador, 2004.
11. Pruteanu G. Presa, cultura, limbaj.//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://www.pruteanu.ro/9ultima/pres-cult.html (acces at: 03.02.14).
12. Pruteanu G. Violenta societatii si brutalitatea lingvistica in mass-media. In Stil si limbaj in mass-media din Romania. - Coordonator: Ilie Rad. - Iasi: Polirom, 2007. - Р. 341-351.
13. Rosca L. Mecanismele constructiei mediatice. In: Stil si limbaj in mass-media din Romania. - Iasi: Polirom, 2007. - Р. 299-319.
14. Rus M.-L. Familiaritatea exprimarii in presa.//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://www.upm. ro/cci/volCCI_II/Pages %20from %20Volum_texteCCI2-128.pdf (acces at: 09.08.13).
15. Slama-Cazacu, Slama-Cazacu T. Stratageme comunicationale §i manipularea. - Ia§i: Polirom, 2000.
16. Vladut D. Cuvinte si enunturi deficitare ca sens in limbajul mass-mediei de dupa 1989. In Stil si limbaj in mass-media din Romania. - Iasi: Polirom, 2007. - Р. 195-214.
17. Zafiu R. Diversitate stilistica in romana actuala. - Bucure§ti: Editura Universitatii din Bucure§ti, 2001.
18. Zafiu R. Marci ale oralitatii in limbajul jurnalistic actual, in Aspecte ale dinamicii limbii romane. - Bucure§ti: Editura Universitatii din Bucure§ti, 2002. - Р. 399-430.
19. Смирнова М. П. Фамильярная тональность в текстах современных российских таблоидных изданий.//Гумани-тарные науки. Филология. - № 1/2 (63). - 2009.//[Electronic resource]. - Available from: http://proceedings.usu. ru/?base=mag/0063 (01_$01_022009)&xsln=showArticle.xslt&id=a07&doc=../content.jsp (acces at: 18.06.13).
20. Ткачева Е. Эффект разговорной речи в публицистике Сергея Довлатова: случайное неслучайно.//Научно-культурологическйй журнал. - № 9 [247]. - 15.06.2012.//[El. resource]. - Available from: http://www.relga. ru/Environ/WebObj ects/tgu-www.woa/wa/Main?textid=3252&level1=main&level2=articles (acces at: 01.08.13).
Khamaganova Valentina Mikhailovna, Buryat State University, Professor of the Department of Russian Language and General language science E-mail: [email protected]
Functional, semantic and stylistic characteristics of the words designating the “description-portrait” in a lexical model of a text
This work was supported by the Russian Humanitarian Foundation (Project".Modeling of the text: lexical structure of a descriptive text" № 15-04-00305)
Abstact: Words which denote human beings and animals (as taken from the “Russian Semantic Dictionary”) have an a priori potential to be subjects of description-portrait. When searching for their functional, semantic and stylistic characteristics it is significant to use perspective of descriptive context and its logical-semantic, lexical-grammatical and communicative parameters: the context of a description specifies that not any hierarchical union of designational words of “a face, a person” subset can equally be the subject in the description of a portrait. Descriptive context as a function allows us to find functional-semantic-stylistic characteristics of words which denote human beings.
Keywords: descriptive text, description-portrait, semantic subject, designational words, lexical model.
88
Functional, semantic and stylistic characteristics of the words designating the “description-portrait” in a lexical model of a text
Manifestation of the space-time continuum of subsistence through the units of a verbal level, a sentence level, as well as through the descriptive text are historically developed ways of representing the perception of the outside world.
In the description of the extension appears a descriptive way of thinking as a syncronologema, which involves the structure of recitation of simultaneous signs in the form of judgments, expressed in the form of declarative sentences with enumerative intonation. The linguistic structure of a description is a grammatical simultaneity of predicative forms and direct modality — it is the essence of functional and semantic approach to the study of a descriptive text [1].
The components of the structural and semantic model of the «description» type text are identified on the basis of the principle of semiotic classification of text fragments (V. Ya. Propp), which connects the logic ofpercep-tion of reality and historically established in a language modes of representation of a perception. Properties of «variables» values in a descriptive text are referred to actants that make up the logical-semantic and structural core of a descriptive text; their structural and semantic significance and position in the text are different. Semantic and communicative structure of a descriptive text, properties of an actantial kernel, its typology and order of building are mandatory, regularly repeated for each descriptive text, so they explicate the properties ofa typed descriptive text, considered as its structural and semantic model [2].
Actantial kernel implements meaningful varieties of a descriptive text: landscape description, interior description, description of a portrait, a description of an object. Actants are combined by presumption of the existence and make a logical-semantic core of a text. On this basis the typology of actants is defined: categorial actants, relevant to the semantic subject of a descriptive text; actants of a space structure identified on the basis of the spatial representation of the extension; subject actants of a space expressing intensional attributes of the extension [2; 3].
The main actantial kernel of a description-portrait is a human or animal designation, performs the function of a subject in a description and is expressed by a name. The most nuanced way to designate a subject of the portrait image is a proper name that is located in the initial phrase of a descriptive text: “Irina was sitting at a small table and embroidered on the canvas ...” (Turgenev. Smoke). “In comparison with my aunt Marianna could seem just like a plain Jane...” (Turgenev. Virgin Soil). ". it was Alyokhin — a man in his forties in person standing at the door...” (Chekhov. Gooseberries).
The substantive nature of a description-portrait presupposes a high degree of application of pointing words for its verbalization: “I am completely healthy, my body is clean, both outside and inside...” (Yu. Nabokov. Despair). “His face was so young, with pink pimples on his chin, happy, bright eyes.” (Yu. Nabokov. Catastrophe).
Of course, the pronoun as the subject of the description (other than “I (me)") presupposes the use of an in-troductive name in the preceding context, because the pronoun only refers to the object without naming it.
It is productive to use personal pronouns in the possessive meaning for the nomination of a subject in a portrait: “Her pale lips quivered slightly, as if repeating all the slight, gentle movements ofa puppy." (V. Nabokov. Tale).
As we can see, possessive pronouns are used as clitics in the name with the value of partitiveness, although the names (lips, and then the hair, the look) express parts of the whole, which is represented by a possessive pronoun.
Pointing words serve as substituents not only for proper names, but also for common nouns. Obviously, for verbalization in a description-portrait there can be used a variety of LSGs of common nouns, naming a person or an animal.
The purpose of the article — to define LSGs of words, implementing a lexical model of a description-portrait — aims to identify those features of semantics of the lexical use, which highlights the context of the description.
The study showed that the lexical properties of a basic composition of the actantial kernel, except the actant as a semantic subject, were characterized by contextual relativity. It is only a word that possesses functional semantic autonomy in the function of a semantic subj ect of descriptive text: it serves as a subject of a descriptive text and “orders" the availability of compulsory “pieces”: it defines the groups of words that denominate the components of the extension, which is exposed to description. Therefore, we are interested in the semantic nature of the subject in each variety of descriptive text — description-portrait in the publication: semantic entity determines the whole composition of the actantial kernel, which is semantically arranged and can be represented by a lexical model.
A portrait a priori implies the perception of a living creature.
The most comprehensive listing of the names of people and animals as a private implementation of the list of Russian words, which denote the subject, can be found in the «Russian Semantic Dictionary» (hereinafter referred to as Dictionary 1998), representing the lexicon as “an organization created by the language
89
Section 3. Philology
itself" [4, XVII]. Guided by the thesis on the division of the vocabulary of a language as an initial division of the parts of speech, the authors of the dictionary represent each part of speech by “words, grouped in the proper lexical classes, appearing in a branching tree with branches diverging from the top to the bottom” [4, IX]. In the dictionary the class of designational words (also there are pointing words) covers lexical arrays with “semantic outcomes” who and what. It is clear, that the lexical class designating a human being or an animal is represented in the WHO semantic field, which is of interest for us in terms of the expression of the description-portrait subject. Inside this area lexical sets and subsets of multi-division lexical tree stand out. As the final unit of the lexical tree in a dictionary the lexical-semantic series is designated, that combines the words of “immediate semantic proximity or direct semantic opposition”. Such series of words reveals the “picture of life”, as the components of the lexical-semantic number “designate a specific, narrow portion; it is told about and vividly described” [4, X].
The minimum component existing as part of the lexical tree is a meaning. For the meaning of designational word stands the concept of a subject as the main one.
Words, which denote persons and animals, as part of “Russian Semantic Dictionary” a priori have a valence of a subject of a description-portrait. In the hierarchy of lexical class of “designating words” this function is performed according to the Dictionary 1998, by the subset “a person, a man” and “names of animals”. In identifying the components of the functional properties of these subsets (meanings of words) it is important to use of a descriptive context with its specific logical-semantic, lexical and grammatical and communication parameters. Descriptive text serves as though a clause: herein determines that not any hierarchical associations of designational words of the subset “a person, a man” and “the names of animals” can equally be the subject of the description-portrait. By inclusion of the studied value of a designational word into the sentence, withdrawn from the description-portrait, that retains the potency as a term of descriptive text — it logical-semantic, lexical and grammatical, semantic and communicative structure, — let’s consider the possibility of constructing a descriptive text, the subject of which is expressed by the studied meaning.
According to the Dictionary 1998 in the most challenging subset “a person, a man” having about twelve stages of division, the primary ones are represented by the three subsets: 1) generic terms, 2) names of persons by the characteristic features and 3) the names of the evaluation as such, addressing.
Logical and semantic perspective of the descriptive text does not allow the use ofwords of the third subset of “the name of the evaluation as such, addressing” acting as a subject in the description-portrait, as the importance of these lexical units is due to the attitude of a speaker to the referred person and to the speech objective (for example, atta boy, fine fellow, badass, dude, shrimp, whipper, a scoundrel, lazy-boots, brat, cartoon-cute, charmer, darling, cutie, chick etc.).
Let’s verify the offered hypothesis by placing the studied lexical unit, instead of the pointing word to the statement — a component of descriptive text: "His face was so young..." (So begins the description of a portrait in the story of Vladimir Nabokov “Catastrophe”) or "His eyes were blue.".
* The chick's (good sport's, dude's, brat's, etc.) face was so young...
It seems that this use of evaluative words is possible only in specific stylistic conditions when the complementary to the evaluative component becomes the main feature in the name of the person and becomes a proper name: darling — the Darling («The actors loved her and called "we together with Vanichka" and "the darling"...» A. Chekhov. The Darling).
Using the words of the subset “the name of the actual assessment” as a description of the description-portrait is possible, by the just remark of Yu. P. Solodub (orally), when using the pointing word “this”, “that”:
This dude's face was so young ...
In this case, in our opinion, appears the situation of introductive (in the preceding context) use of evaluative words for designation of a man, whose portrait is then described. Such use of the evaluative lexical unit in the descriptive text is a kind of citation.
Of interest is also the analysis of the functional possibilities of using as the subj ect of descriptive text of words of the subset “name of the person on the characteristic features”, consisting, in its turn, of the five subsets designating these features:
1) “in relation to race, nationality, as well as to the territory, to the place of residence at the location”;
2) “by the intellectual, emotional, intellectual-emotional, intellectual, emotional and physical states, property, quality, and their manifestations”;
3) “by the social structure, the focus in the face of social traits typical of the specific time, by the specific social state, action, function, personal and social relations, connections”;
4) “by profession, specialty, occupation, nature of activity and related activities, functions, relations”;
90
Functional, semantic and stylistic characteristics of the words designating the “description-portrait” in a lexical model of a text
5) “the physical, physiological, mental state, property, action”.
The listed subsets of “names of the person by specific features” contain dozens of rows of values consolidating about six thousand lexical units. The availability of such detailed classification of names of persons and its application in the study of lexical ways of the subject’s expression in the description-portrait gives the possibility to present lexical and stylistic realization of the subject in the descriptive text with a high degree of completeness.
The accomplished transformation of descriptive text-portraits with the inclusion of names of persons according to the listed five subsets cannot be represented in the work in its entirety. Obviously, the presence of all texts is not required, as the semantic model of the description-portrait implementing the trend of the language to the standard is used as a clause in determining the functional-semantic and stylistic properties of words designating various guises of men. In this case, the meanings of designating words, which used in the role of a subject in the description, and the meanings of designating words by some (mainly stylistic) reasons not used in this function, are differentiated.
Within the scope of the article we offer only some conclusions from the observations of the transformed texts of the description-portrait.
Having considered the subset of names of persons “by profession, speciality, occupation, nature of the activities ...” from the standpoint of the possibility of using the meanings of its constituent words in the function of the description subject. We come to the following conclusions: this subset includes the meanings of words that make up the group of lexical units, which can be used as the subject of the description. For example: employee, expert, innovator, cardinal, preacher, priest, author, satirist, landscape painter, jeweller, writer, newspaperman, actor, dancer, comedian, film director, agitator, assistant, professor, lawyer, local historian, linguist, psychologist, geologist, forecaster, designer, teacher, student, cadet, extramural student, repeater, doctor, therapist, herbalist, makeup artist, ruler, dictator, leader, assessor, adviser, court, administrator, district police inspector, mayor, senator, diplomat, agent, detective, notary, secretary, brigadier, superintendent, veteran, crusader, sailor, commandant, orderly, artillerist, miner, rifleman, basmach, draftee, army conscript, recruit, craftsman, lineman, car-manufacturer, climber, mechanic, locksmith, assembler, compositor, blacksmith, spinner, cook, painter, forester, cotton grower, beekeeper, navigator, marine pilot, tanker, barge hauler, traveller, businessman, and many others.
Each of the lexical units may be included in the description of the initial phrase of the description-portrait with the function of the subject description:
“The employee's (specialist's, innovator's, priest's, author’s, landscape painter’s, jeweller’s, writer's, actor's, cotton grower's, passenger's etc.) face was so young...”
Words that have the potential to be a subject of a description-portrait, make up a bigger part of the whole array of the names of persons on the basis of the characteristic, and to list them all is to bring almost the entire payroll of the dictionary, which records the names of persons.
Concerning a subset of names ofpersons “by profession, specialty ...” one can say the following: the analysis of the sequence of presentation of content in works of art has shown that the nomination of a man by his profession, activity as the subject of the description is often used as a method of transition from the narrative text, which dealt with the situation, related to production or other activities of the character, to his personality, his portrait. Another reason for the nomination of the protagonist by profession is “including” the reader into the sphere of social relations between the characters, into the historical events: "The former captain looked about thirty-
five; his face's skin was brown..” (A. Platonov. Return).
«There are two brigadiers in the "stockpile" — Kolesnikov and Chuma. ... Kolesnikov's face is some kind of extinct, colourless» (Yu. Trifonov. Disappearance).
The subject in the description-portrait can be named also by lexical units of other subsets of the “designations of a person by characteristic features”. One of the components of the named array is a subset of the designations of persons “by the physical, physiological, mental state, property, action”: “And in an instant some guy came up to Nikita and Ilyusha; he had a docked nape and temples, almost bald, white-hot, but his gold curly forelock stood on end ...” (Yu. Kazakov. Overnight). “ The old man was completely in fear and trembling, chewed his lips, the gray brush under his lower lip jumped ...” (Vladimir Nabokov. Mary).
“He sees that it is a woman, very tall, large woman in a coat down to her heels, someway resembling an overcoat ... And the woman’s face is round, full and purple-rosy ...” (Yu. Trifonov. Disappearance).
Another subset is the names of persons “by personal, public relations, connections”: "He didn’t like Nastya’s son ... First, his grey hair ... Secondly, this glance — attracting favour ...” (G. Scherbakova. The Wall). "... I saw my neighbour Zoya Sintsova. Zoe was all smiling — perfect teeth, white, dense ..." (G. Scherbakova. The evening was ...).
91
Section 3. Philology
Among the many units of the array of designations of persons “by the characteristic features" in its various constituent subsets there are lexical meanings of the designating words that can be the subject of only a stylistically reduced text. Thus, among the names of persons “by profession, specialty, occupation, nature of the activities ...” such units need to include the following: bloke (colloquial), The value accident-prone person (simple.), bungler, barnstormer (metaphoric, colloq.), flyboy (colloq.) muff (simple) fouler (colloquial) bungler (simple), craftster (metaphoric), shoemaker (simple), hack (colloquial), bolo (colloquial) dauber (colloquial) penster (ironically) scribbler (colloquial) borzopisets (colloquial), versifier, stuffer (colloquial) rhymer (colloquial) poetaster (colloquial) sonneteer (colloquial) quill-driver (colloquial), filmmaker (simple) kontrik (simple) parttetya (colloquial) state-monger (colloquial), philanthropist, empiricist, school-marm (simple), farrier (obsolete, coll.) Dr. Doolittle (colloquial), tooth-drawer (simple), bolus (ironically.), minion (disappr.) princeling (colloquial), kinglet (colloquial), autocrat (book) crowned head (high.) oppressor, political staffer (colloquial), bureaucrat, chief (colloquial), zam (colloquial) gaishnik (colloquial) kegebeshnik (colloquial), seksot (colloquial), tsereushik (colloquial) emvedeshnik (colloquial), ment (simple), mil’ton (simple) belobiletnik (colloquial), self-harm (colloquial), ded (colloquial), dembel’ (simple), devotee (metaphor.), classicalist, household name (high.) great (Honored in any field, high.), maestro (book.), patriarch (metaphor.) svyatilo (metaphor.), boots (metaphor.), minister (metaphor.), canary (colloquial) and many others.
Because of the stylistic markedness the listed lexical units of a subset open the descriptive text, emotionally and expressively coloured: it expresses irony, mockery of a speaker at the subject of the nomination and its activities, although some words have a stylistic label “high”. For example: “Scribbler's (filmmaker's, bolus', cop's, crowned head’s, great's, etc..) face was so young...".
It should be noted that some of the lexical units having in the Dictionary 1998 no stylistic labels, in the description-portrait perform the same function as the stylistically labelled ones: for example, great figure, bungler, versifier, a philanthropist, empiricist, despot, bureaucrat etc. The assessment brightly colouring the called word leads to the perception of description-portrait with their use as a text with a strong irony: “The eyes of the great figure (swindler, bungler, versifier, philanthropist, empiricist, despot, classicalist, bureaucrat, etc.) were blue ...”
This lexical units, as well as stylistically marked listed above, and the like, are not limited to a specific function of indicating the subject; rather, their purpose is to
express the concepts about specific subjects, their characterization. Therefore, these words are contained in the intensional part of the statement. Such lexical units are found as part of the characterization, that make up not a visual description, but the description-characterization. Within the framework of the description-characterization, the word does not contain the conspicuous emotionally expressed meaning, preserving the assessed ones. For example: “Paklin'sfather was a simple commoner, who by hook or by crook served until getting the rank of titular counsellor, a walker on contentious cases, a conman ." (Turgenev. Virgin Soil).
Among the stylistically marked lexical units of the array of names of persons “by the specific features” in relation to their possible performing a function of a subject in description-portrait a group of values that under no circumstances can be the subject of the portrait is out-stood. These meanings are either secondary and realized as figurative, which have a stable figurativeness, picturesqueness (blockhead, jackass, blockhead, simpleton, block, beast, filly, etc.), Or have a priori nature of abstract and generalized values used in a figurative sense to specify a particular person (incompetence, confusion, mediocrity, dullness, darkness, etc.).
* Blockhead's (jackass', blockhead's, beast's, filly's, etc.) face was so young ..
* Dullard's (muddle's, mediocrity's, dullness', etc.) face was so young ..
The characterizing semantics brings forward similar lexical units to the conceptual field. These nominations are associated with the expression of the properties of a nature, character traits, but the portrait details reflect the outward signs of a person. So we see that within a statement the words describing the words primitive, slowpoke, whale, skygazer, dock, artisan, nugget, phenomenon, wit and similar with external portrait signs do not match.
The listed group of lexical units may function as a subject in a description only if they are represented as “citations”. («- And the caves play an important role in the war. Is it clear to you, mugs? "Mugs" kept silent...» Yu. Trifonov. Disappearance).
Analysis of the collected text material of descrip-tions-portraits has shown that an array of names of persons “on the characteristic features” contains lexical units, which can be used as the subject of description-portrait only in the event that the preceding text fragment a person was designated and his actions, properties, purpose were commented. The subject nomination of the descriptions in this case — it is as if the result
92
Phraseological units with somatic tooth element in different structured languages
of understanding properties, actions, responsibilities of the portrayed — a generalization of them. Thus, the preceding context causes nomination of the subject of a description-portrait. Such lexical units include the following group of words: seeker, exile, liquidator, offender, discoverer, waiting, winner, wannabe, admirer, destroyer, devastator, switchman (metaphor.), founder, curator, and many others. Without the prior context the similar words are informatively insufficient, as their significance is situational: they have a meaning of the result of an action performed earlier (the intruder is the one, who violated; the winner is the one, who won, wannabe is the one, who can and has shown his ability to imitate, etc.) or caused by consituation (hero of the day, the bankrupt, the birthday boy, someone on the waiting list, etc.).
Awareness of the importance of such words, based on the previous introduction, and use of them as a subject of description-portrait defines the value of the descriptive
text itself. This description-portrait seems to be generalizing, concluding in a scene fragment.
Thus, the use of context to describe as a clause to identify the functional-semantic and stylistic properties of the designational words “a person, a man”, allows you to split the entire array of the designational words into several groups:
1) meanings of designational words used in a role of description subject;
2) meanings of designational words that can be the subject of a descriptive text only with stylistically reduced labelling;
3) meanings of words that cannot be the subject of description, even if it is stylistically labelled;
4) meanings of situationally dependent words that do not perform introductive function as subject descriptions and therefore involve premonitory text explaining the emergence of a subject with certain properties.
References:
1. Nechaeva O. A. Functional-semantic types of speech (description, narration, reasoning): diss. of Doctor of Philological Sciences. - Moscow, 1975. - 394 p.
2. Khamaganova V. M. Typology and alignment of actantial kernel of a descriptive text (as exemplified by interior-description, and landscape-description)//Siberian Journal of Philology. - Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Novosibirsk State University, 2006. - № 3. - Р. 87-94.
3. Khamaganova V. M. Structural and semantic properties of stating texts: the extension and intension of their semantics//Research on semantics. Interuniversity scientific collection. Edition 25. - Ufa: PPC BSU, 2013. -S. 305-311.
4. Russian Semantic Dictionary. Explanatory Dictionary, systematized on classes of words and meanings. V.1./ RAS. Inst. of Rus. Language; Edited by N. Yu. Shvedova. - M.: Azbukovnik, 1998. - XXIII p. - 800 p.
Khmara Victorya Vladimirovna, post graduate student, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv E-mail: [email protected]
Phraseological units with somatic tooth element in different structured languages
Abstract: This article offers comparative analysis of Phraseological Units with somatic element tooth based on Russian, Ukrainian, German and English. The purpose of this article is to show semantic features, isomorphic and allomorphic traits in four linguistic cultures.
Keywords: a comparative analysis, linguoculture, Phraseological Units.
The present paper focuses on comparative analysis of phraseological units with somatic element tooth in English, German, Ukrainian and Russian languages to identify semantic means of picture of the world manifestation and highlight isomorphic and allomorphic features in four linguistic cultures. 112 phraseological units with
somatic element tooth (12 — English, 32 — German, 44 — Ukrainian and 24 — Russian) have formed the empirical data of our research.
Cultural Studies is the science that shows close connection between culture and language. The study of the linguistic and cultural peculiarities of different languages
93
