Материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления пользователям Интернета и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав.
© 2018 - 2024
Contents
I. Introduction
1.1. About style
1.2. Expressive means and stylistic Devices
II. Main part
2.1. Lexical Expressive Means and Stylistic Devices
2.2. International mixing of the stylistic aspect of words
2.3. Interaction of different types of lexical meaning
2.4. Interaction of primary dictionary and contextually imposed meaning
2.5. Stylistic Devices Based on the Interaction of Logical and Emotive Meaning
2.6. Stylistic Devices Based on the Interaction of Logical and Nominal Meanings
III. Conclusion
IV. Bibliography
I. Introduction
Theme actuality. In order to improve the training and provide better knowledge of foreign languages we have to accelerate the realization of the National Programmer of Personnel Training in the country. As in many other aspects of life the situation changed in a language policy. That requires creation of new textbooks, dictionaries, manuals. In order to fulfill this goals one must know every field of linguistics. In my opinion the theme of the work is very actual because there is not any manual which compare the lexical stylistic devices of the Uzbek and the English language.
The aims and purposes of the work. Main goal of the work is to compare, analyze and find examples which belong to lexical stylistic device.
The scientific novelty of the work. The analyses of the lexical stylistic device of both languages have done in comparing the works done by Galperin I.R, Kukharenko.V.A, and Bobohonova L.T.
The practical value. The practical value of the research is that the material and the results of the given qualification work can serve the material for theoretical courses of lexicology , stylistics, typology as well as can be used for practical lessons in translations, home reading ,conversational practice and current events.
Literature overview. The methodic base on the work became the works of Galperin I.R., Kucharenko V.A., Bobohonova L.T, materials from Internet, different types of dictionaries,World Book Encyclopedia .
The structure of the work . The qualifications work consists of Introduction, Main Part an conclusion , which are followed by the list of the literature used in the course of research.
About style
The word s t y l e is derived from the Latin word `s t y l o s` which meant a short stick sharp at one end and flat at the other used by the Romans for writing on wax tablets. Now the word `style` is used in so many senses that it has become a breeding ground for ambiguity. The word is applied to the teaching of how to write a composition; it is also used to reveal the correspondence between thought and expression; it frequently denotes an individual manner of making use of language; it sometimes refers to more general, abstract notions thus inevitably becoming vague and obscure, as, for example, “Style is the man himself” (Buffon), “Style is depth” (Derbyshire); “Style is deviations” (Enkvist); “Style is choice” and the like.
All these ideas directly or indirectly bear on issues in stylistics. Some of them become very useful by revealing the springs which make our utterance emphatic, effective and goal-directed. It will therefore not come amiss to quote certain interesting observations regarding style made by different writers from different angles. Some of these observations are dressed up as epigrams or sententious maxims like the ones quoted above. Here some more of them.
Style is a quality of language which communicates precisely emotions or thoughts, or a system of emotions or thoughts, peculiar to the author”. (J Middleton Murry) “… a true idiosyncrasy of style is the result of an author’s success in compelling language to conform to his mode of experience”. (J. Middleton Murry).
“Style is a contextually restricted linguistic variation”. (Enkvist).
“Style is a selection of non-distinctive features of language”. (L. Bloomfield).
“Style is simple synonymous with form or expression and hence a superfluous term”. (Benedetto Croce)[1].
“Style is essentially a citational process, a body of formulae, a memory (almost in the cybernetic sense of the word). A cultural and not an expressive inheritance”. (Roland Barthes)[2].
Some linguists consider that the word `style` and the subject of linguistic stylistics is confined to the study of the effects of the message, i.e. its impact on the reader. Thus Michael Riffaterre writes that “Stylistics will be linguistics of the effects of the message, of the output of the act of communication, of its attention –compelling function”. This point of view has clearly been reached under the influence of recent developments in the general theory of information. Language being one of the means of communication or, to be exact, the most important mans of communication, is regarded in the above quotation from a pragmatic point of view. Stylistics in that case is regarded as a language science which deals with the results of the act of communication.
To a very considerable degree this is true. Stylistic must take into consideration the “output of the act of communication”. But stylistics must also investigate the ontological, i.e. natural, inherent, and functional peculiarities of the means of communication. Which may ensure the effect sought?
Archibald A. Hill states that “A current definition of style and stylistics is that structures, sequences, and patterns which extend, or may extend, beyond the boundaries of individual sentences define style, and that the study of them is stylistics”
The truth of this approach to style and stylistics lies in the fact that the author concentrates on such phenomena in language as present a system, in other words, on facts which are not confined to individual choices and patterns of choices (emphasis added) among linguistic possibilities.”[3]
This definition indirectly deals with the idiosyncrasies peculiar to a given writer. Somehow it fails to embrace such phenomena in text structure where the `individual` is reduced to the minimum or even done away with entirely (giving preferences to non-individualistic forms in using language means). However, this definition is acceptable when applied to the ways men-of-letters use language when they seek to make it conform to their immediate aims and support. A somewhat broader view of style is expressed by Werner winter who maintains that “A style may be said to be characterized by a pattern of recurrent selections from the inventory of optional features of a language. Various types of selection can be found; complete exclusion of an optional element, obligatory inclusion of a feature optional else where, varying degrees of inclusion of a specific variant without complete elimination of competing features.”[4]
The idea of taking various types of selection as criteria for distinguishing styles seems to be a sound one. It places the whole problem on a solid foundation
Of objective criteria, namely, the interdependence of optional and obligatory features..
There is no point in quoting other definitions of style. They are too many and heterogeneous to fall under one more or less satisfactory unified notion. Undoubtedly all these diversities in the understanding of the word `style` stem from its ambiguity. But still all these various definitions leave an impression that by and large they all have something in common. All of them point to some integral significance, namely that style is a set of characteristics by which we distinguish one author from another or members of one subclass from members of the same general class.4 *What are these sets of characteristics typical of a writer or of a subclass of the literary language will be seen in the analysis of the language means of a given writer and of the subclasses of the general literary standard.
II. Main part
III. Conclusion
In the conclusion section I’d like to write brief in formations about lexical stylistic devices of the Uzbek and English languages with examples.
The stylistic device based on the principle of identification of two objects is called a metaphor. The SD based on the principle of substitution of one object for another is called metonymy and the SD based on contrary concepts is called irony.
There is an opinion that a metaphor is a productive way of building up new meanings and new words. Language can be called the “dictionary of faded metaphors”.
Examples of trite metaphors: The salt of life; a flight of imagination: the ladder of fame; to burn with passion (anger). The following metaphors enriched English phraseology; foot of a bed, leg of a chair, head of a nail, to be in the same boat, blind window, to fish for complements. Here Uzbek examples o`q yomg`iri, o`lim do`li buloq ko`zi.
Examples of genuine metaphors: The lips were tight little traps the whole space was a bowl of heat; this virus carried a gun; the dark swallowed him;
Mrs. Small`s eyes boiled with excitement; the words seemed to dance …. Xademay, ularning safari qoridi. Daryo oqar, vaqt oqar, umr oqar paydar-pay. Boshimdan kaptarlardekuchdi ming-minglab xauol. Gullar go`yo eshitar ta`zim.
SD based of the interaction of dictionary and contextual Logical Meanings.
a) The epithet is a stylistic device which is built on the interplay of two meanings of a word: emotive and logical. Eg. Eng. green old age.
Uzb. Pokiza yoshlik.
b) Oxymoron joins two antonymous words into one syntagm, most frequently attribute or adverbial, less frequently of other patterns.
Ex: Eng. Shouted silently
Uzb. Ishbilarmon dangasa.
SD. Based on the interaction of lexical and emotive meaning. The interplay between the logical and nominal meanings of a word is called antonomasia
Ex: Eng. Lord Nobody; Miss Careless
Uzb. Tolmas, qo`rqmas.
Eng. The Iror Lady (M.Tcatcher, the former Prime Minister of G.B)
Uzb. Atala Maxsum Qovoq Devona.
SD of descriptive character. Sometimes for a specialreason one of the features of the thing is made the most essential, describes some detail and intensifies it.
Periphrasis is the nomination of an object or action through exhibiting certain features of this object or action. Such periphrasis is based on one of the original features of the object.
Ex: Eng. He showed satisfaction as he took possession of his well-earned reward; instead of “He grinned as he” pocketed the coin.
Uzb. Onasini chizgan chizig`idan chiqmaydi. “Onasini aytganini bajaradi”o`rniga
In conclusion I’d like to say that in many cases lexical E.M. and SD of both languages are similar in many cases.
IV. Bibliography
1. I.R. Galperin. Stylistics. M. “Higher school” 1977.
2. V.A. Kukharenko.A Book of Practice in Stylistics. M.”Высшая школа”1987
3. V.A. Kukharenko. Seminar in style. M. 1971
4. I.V. Arnold. The English Word. M. 1973.
5. L.T. Boboxonova, Ingliz tili stilistikasi.
6. I.Mukarramov. Xozirgi o`zbek audacity tilining ilmiy stili. T.Fan. 1984.
7. I.Toshaliev. O`zbek tili stilistikasi. T. Tash.G.U. 1988.
8. U.E. Qilichev. O`zbek tilining praktik stilistikasi T.O`qituvchi. 1985.
9. Х. Қ. Қаршибоев Битирув малакавий ишларни бажариш ва ҳимоя қилишга доир услубий кўрсатмалар. Гулистон 2003.
10. Турсунов, Мухторов Ш, Раҳматуллаев. Ҳозирги ўзбек адабий тили. Т. “Ўзбекистон”. 1992. 216 б
11. E. Nida. Morphology University of Michigan. Press. 1976.
12. Т.М. Беляева «Вопросы английского языка в синхронии и диахронии». Л. 1967. стр. 89.
13. Мюллер. В.К. «Англо – Русский словарь» М. 1962.
14. The World Book Encyclopedia. USA. 1994. №. G.G. Volume p/ 905/
15. М. Эшниёзова Қўшма сўз Микросинтагматик муносататига доир. 2004. №1 24-26 бб
16. Internet. Khan M.A. Liggt. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use. www.amjbot.org. 2003. № 90 р
17. Адмони В. Г. Типологня тфедложення.— В сб.: Исследованяя по обшсй кюрнн грамматики. М., 1968.
18. Азнаурова Э. С. Очерки по стилистике слова. Ташкент, 3973. Арнольд И. В. Стилистика современного английского язьша. Л., 1973.
19. Арутюноеа Н. Д. О синтаксических типах художественной прозьг.— В сб-: Обшее и романское язукознание. М., Изд. МГУ, 1972.
20. Арутюнова Н. Д. Некоторне типн дналогических реакций н «почему»-репликн в русском язьше. «Филологические науки», 1970, № 3.
21. Арутюнова Н. Д. Предложение и его смьюл. М., 1976-
Ахманова 0. С. О стилистической дифференциации слов. «Сборнмк статей по язикознанию». М., Изд. МГУ, 1958.
22. Ахманоеа 0. С. Словарь лингвнстических терминов. М., 1966.
Ашурова Д. У. Лингвистическая природа художественного сравнення. АКД. М., 1970.
23. Балли Ш. Французская стилистика. М., .1961,
24. Будаеов Р. А. В зашнту понятия «стиль художественной литературн». «Вестник МГУ», 1962, №4.
25. Будагов Р. А. В. И. Ленин о научном стиле язьша. «Филологические наукн», 1970, № 1.
[1]Riffaterre, M. The Stylistic Function. Proceedings of the 9-th International Congress of Linguists, The Hague, 1964, p.p. 316-317.
[2] Chatman, Seymour. Stylistics; Quantitative and Qualitative, 1967, V. 1, p.30
[3] Hill, Archibald A. Poetry and Stylistics.—in; “Essays in Literary Linguistics”, p.54
[4] Winter, Werner. Styles as Dialects. Proceeding of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, p.324.
[5] See “Style in Language”, ed. By T. Sebeok. N. Y., 1960, p.427.
Contents
I. Introduction
1.1. About style
1.2. Expressive means and stylistic Devices
II. Main part
2.1. Lexical Expressive Means and Stylistic Devices
2.2. International mixing of the stylistic aspect of words
2.3. Interaction of different types of lexical meaning
2.4. Interaction of primary dictionary and contextually imposed meaning
2.5. Stylistic Devices Based on the Interaction of Logical and Emotive Meaning
2.6. Stylistic Devices Based on the Interaction of Logical and Nominal Meanings
III. Conclusion
IV. Bibliography
I. Introduction
Theme actuality. In order to improve the training and provide better knowledge of foreign languages we have to accelerate the realization of the National Programmer of Personnel Training in the country. As in many other aspects of life the situation changed in a language policy. That requires creation of new textbooks, dictionaries, manuals. In order to fulfill this goals one must know every field of linguistics. In my opinion the theme of the work is very actual because there is not any manual which compare the lexical stylistic devices of the Uzbek and the English language.
The aims and purposes of the work. Main goal of the work is to compare, analyze and find examples which belong to lexical stylistic device.
The scientific novelty of the work. The analyses of the lexical stylistic device of both languages have done in comparing the works done by Galperin I.R, Kukharenko.V.A, and Bobohonova L.T.
The practical value. The practical value of the research is that the material and the results of the given qualification work can serve the material for theoretical courses of lexicology , stylistics, typology as well as can be used for practical lessons in translations, home reading ,conversational practice and current events.
Literature overview. The methodic base on the work became the works of Galperin I.R., Kucharenko V.A., Bobohonova L.T, materials from Internet, different types of dictionaries,World Book Encyclopedia .
The structure of the work . The qualifications work consists of Introduction, Main Part an conclusion , which are followed by the list of the literature used in the course of research.
About style
The word s t y l e is derived from the Latin word `s t y l o s` which meant a short stick sharp at one end and flat at the other used by the Romans for writing on wax tablets. Now the word `style` is used in so many senses that it has become a breeding ground for ambiguity. The word is applied to the teaching of how to write a composition; it is also used to reveal the correspondence between thought and expression; it frequently denotes an individual manner of making use of language; it sometimes refers to more general, abstract notions thus inevitably becoming vague and obscure, as, for example, “Style is the man himself” (Buffon), “Style is depth” (Derbyshire); “Style is deviations” (Enkvist); “Style is choice” and the like.
All these ideas directly or indirectly bear on issues in stylistics. Some of them become very useful by revealing the springs which make our utterance emphatic, effective and goal-directed. It will therefore not come amiss to quote certain interesting observations regarding style made by different writers from different angles. Some of these observations are dressed up as epigrams or sententious maxims like the ones quoted above. Here some more of them.
Style is a quality of language which communicates precisely emotions or thoughts, or a system of emotions or thoughts, peculiar to the author”. (J Middleton Murry) “… a true idiosyncrasy of style is the result of an author’s success in compelling language to conform to his mode of experience”. (J. Middleton Murry).
“Style is a contextually restricted linguistic variation”. (Enkvist).
“Style is a selection of non-distinctive features of language”. (L. Bloomfield).
“Style is simple synonymous with form or expression and hence a superfluous term”. (Benedetto Croce)[1].
“Style is essentially a citational process, a body of formulae, a memory (almost in the cybernetic sense of the word). A cultural and not an expressive inheritance”. (Roland Barthes)[2].
Some linguists consider that the word `style` and the subject of linguistic stylistics is confined to the study of the effects of the message, i.e. its impact on the reader. Thus Michael Riffaterre writes that “Stylistics will be linguistics of the effects of the message, of the output of the act of communication, of its attention –compelling function”. This point of view has clearly been reached under the influence of recent developments in the general theory of information. Language being one of the means of communication or, to be exact, the most important mans of communication, is regarded in the above quotation from a pragmatic point of view. Stylistics in that case is regarded as a language science which deals with the results of the act of communication.
To a very considerable degree this is true. Stylistic must take into consideration the “output of the act of communication”. But stylistics must also investigate the ontological, i.e. natural, inherent, and functional peculiarities of the means of communication. Which may ensure the effect sought?
Archibald A. Hill states that “A current definition of style and stylistics is that structures, sequences, and patterns which extend, or may extend, beyond the boundaries of individual sentences define style, and that the study of them is stylistics”
The truth of this approach to style and stylistics lies in the fact that the author concentrates on such phenomena in language as present a system, in other words, on facts which are not confined to individual choices and patterns of choices (emphasis added) among linguistic possibilities.”[3]
This definition indirectly deals with the idiosyncrasies peculiar to a given writer. Somehow it fails to embrace such phenomena in text structure where the `individual` is reduced to the minimum or even done away with entirely (giving preferences to non-individualistic forms in using language means). However, this definition is acceptable when applied to the ways men-of-letters use language when they seek to make it conform to their immediate aims and support. A somewhat broader view of style is expressed by Werner winter who maintains that “A style may be said to be characterized by a pattern of recurrent selections from the inventory of optional features of a language. Various types of selection can be found; complete exclusion of an optional element, obligatory inclusion of a feature optional else where, varying degrees of inclusion of a specific variant without complete elimination of competing features.”[4]
The idea of taking various types of selection as criteria for distinguishing styles seems to be a sound one. It places the whole problem on a solid foundation
Of objective criteria, namely, the interdependence of optional and obligatory features..
There is no point in quoting other definitions of style. They are too many and heterogeneous to fall under one more or less satisfactory unified notion. Undoubtedly all these diversities in the understanding of the word `style` stem from its ambiguity. But still all these various definitions leave an impression that by and large they all have something in common. All of them point to some integral significance, namely that style is a set of characteristics by which we distinguish one author from another or members of one subclass from members of the same general class.4 *What are these sets of characteristics typical of a writer or of a subclass of the literary language will be seen in the analysis of the language means of a given writer and of the subclasses of the general literary standard.
Expressive means and stylistic Devices
All stylistic means of the English and Uzbek languages can be divided into expressive means (EM) and stylistic devices (SD). “The expressive means of a language are those phonetic, morphological, word building, lexical, preseological or syntactical forms which exist in language as-a-system for the purpose of logical and various dictionaries.
Among lexical EM we must mention words with emotive meanings, interjections, polysemantic words, vulgar words, slang etc. The fact that polysemantic words retain their primary and secondary meanings is of great importance for stylistics. It is quite easy to understand the meaning of the following phrases; He grasped the main idea; a burning question; pity melted her heart. The italicized words are used in their secondary transferred dictionary meanings. But the primary and secondary meanings are realized simultaneously. The expressiveness of these words becomes obvious when compared with neutral equivalents; He understood the main idea; an important question; pity softened her heart. This expressiveness exists in the vocabulary of the Uzbek and any language. For example: Suv yuz gradus issiqlikda qaynaydi; gap qaynaydi. Ustaraniqayramoq. Ikki yoshni bir-biriga qayramoq. Dalalarda ish qaynaydi kimlar teradi, kimlar beda o`radi, kimlar shudgar qiladi.
In this short survey it is impossible to give a complete analysis of all E.M. of the both language. My task was to show some lexical EM of the English and Uzbek languages.
According to Prof I.R. Galperin`s definition Stylistic Devise is a conscious and intentional intensification of some type structural or semantic property of a language unit promoted to a generalized status and thus becoming a generative model.
SD must always have some function in the text, besides they bring some additional information. The conception that words possess several meanings gives rise to such SDS as metaphor, metonymy, irony, epithet and others. Thus, a metaphor is a conscious and intentional intensification of typical semantic properties of a word: “Oh, Rain”-said Mor. He enveloped her in a great embrace. (I. Murdoch). The dictionary meaning of the verb “envelope” is “to wrap up, coer on all sides”. The contextual meaning is “to embrace” Here we can give example of the Uzbek: Imtixonda u sayrab ketdi. The dictionary meaning of the verb “sayramoq” is “qushlarning sayrashi, yoqimli yoki yoqimsiz ovoz chiqarishi” The contextual meaning is” tinmasdan so`zladi, yaxshi javob berdi”.
The typical features of proverbs and sayings serve as the foundation for an SD which is called epigram, i.e. brevity, rhythm and other properties of proverbs constitute a generative mo0del into which new content is poured
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever. (J. Keats)
Sweet is pleasure after pain (J. Dryden)
If youth knew, if age could (Tl. Estienne)
What the eye does not see, the stomach doesn’t get upset (J.K. Jerome).
O`zing tashna bo`lsang, obi juy etar
Ko`zing tashna bo`lsa, obro`y ketar (X.Dexlaviy)
Aytur so`zni ayt, aytmas so`zdan qayt. (A.Navoiy)
These phrases are not proverbs; they are the creations of individual writers and poets. When such phrases are used in the text they accumulate great emotive force and function. They acquire a generalized status and thus easily become an SD while proverbs remain EM of the language.
The some may be said about syntax. The typical structural features of oral speech (violation of word order, omission of some parts of the sentence, repetition of certain words etc) may be intensified and promoted to a generalized status. Such SDs as inversion, parallel constructions, chiasmus is the result of these stylistic transformations.
It is important to know that the stylistic use of EM must not necessarily lead to the formation of an SD. For example, repetition is widely used in folk song and poetry and in oral speech to make our speech emotional and expressive, but we can’t say that in such cases we use a SD.
When the weather is wet
We must not fret,-
When the weather is cold
We must not scold
When the weather is warm
We must not storm.
“Oltin edim, chuyan bo`ldim
Dono edim, somon bo`ldim
Qimmat edim, arzon bo`ldim
G`amga qolgan, ravshan bo`ldim.
Thus we may draw the conclusion that EM are the facts of the language, while SDs are the property of the speech. They are the creation of individuals (writers and poets) and are based on the peculiarities of existing EM of the language. This is in short the difference between EM and SD.
While speaking about SD we must always remember: the force of one and the same SD may be different. In some cases the emotive charge may be very strong, in others it may be weak. It depends on the use of a SD in one and the same function. Due to the overuse of the SD it may become hackneyed, trite and looses its freshness and brightness;
1. The best pens of the world
A sweet smile
Stly as a fox
Buloqning ko`zi
Tog`ning yon bag`ri
Oq oltin, zangori ekran
2. with his mousing walk
Buttoned strictness of his coat
O`ychan oqshomlar
Erning oppoq ko`rpasi
Solsovuldek yuzlar
In the first case we have trite SDs, in the second-fresh, genuine SD.
Speaking about SDs we must mention the cases when two or more EM or SD meet at one point, it one utterance. Such clusters of SDs are called convergence. “Together each SD adds its expressivity to that of the others. In general, the effects of these SDs converge into one especially striking emphasis” (M. Riffaterre) For example: When everyone had recovered George said; “She put in her thumb and pulled out a plum”. Then away we were into our merciless hacking-hecking laughter again. (S.M.Maugham).
Mushtipar opalarimiz, fidoyi yanga va singillarymiz tiriklikningtuganmas yumushlary deb o`n besh-yigirma yoshlaridayoq “Qush uyqu”, o`ttiz yoshlarida esa o`tin bo`lib qolmoqdalar…(Saodat jurnalidan)
In this Uzbek examples mushtipar, fidoyi, yumush, qush uyqu, o`tin is convergence.
In English examples we find the convergence of several SDs: decomposition of a proverb (to put one’s thumb into smth), a bring case of an onomatopoeia in the function of an epithet (Hacking-hecking), inversion (adverbial modifier stand before the subject).
“ … and heaved and heaved still unrestingly heaved the black sea as if its vast tides were a conscience. Here the convergence comprises repetition, inversion and simile”.[5]
II. Main part
Дата: 2019-05-28, просмотров: 226.