МЕТОНИМИЧЕСКИЕ ПЕРЕНОСЫ В АНГЛИЙСКОМ, РУССКОМ И ТУРЕЦКОМ ЯЗЫКАХ

Удинская А.Г.

Кандидат филологических наук, доцент, Донецкий национальный университет

МЕТОНИМИЧЕСКИЕ ПЕРЕНОСЫ В АНГЛИЙСКОМ, РУССКОМ И ТУРЕЦКОМ ЯЗЫКАХ

Аннотация

Исследование посвящено контрастивному изучению узуальных метонимов в английском, русском и турецком языках. Семантическая классификация метонимов включает в себя пять основных и некоторые комбинированные типы метонимического переноса. Выделены общие и дифференциальные черты в семантике исследуемых единиц.

Ключевые слова: метоним, типы метонимического переноса, существительное.

Udinskaya A.G.

Candidate of Philology, associate professor, Donetsk National University

METONYMIC TRANSFERS IN THE ENGLISH, RUSSIAN AND TURKISH LANGUAGES

Abstract

The research focuses on the contrastive analysis of English, Russian and Turkish usual metonyms. The metonyms in the three languages have been stratified into five main types and some mixed ones. Common and distinctive features in the semantics of the units under consideration have been distinguished.

Keywords: metonym, types of metonymic transfers, noun.

Metonymy is considered to be a universal phenomenon for many languages. In this article the languages of the Germanic, Slavonic and Turkic groups are taken for an analysis. Thus, the research deals with the usual metonyms, i.e. nouns whose meanings result from the metonymic transference based on the logical association of contiguity of different semantic types, in the English, Russian and Turkish languages, e.g.: Eng. dish ‘a shallow, flat-bottomed container for cooking or serving food’ → dish ‘the food contained or served in a dish’; Rus. безотцовщина ‘life and bringing up a child without a father in a family’ → безотцовщина ‘a child being brought up without a father’; Tur. değnek ‘a stick’ → değnek ‘punishment, beating with a stick’.

The transferred meaning of a word has attracted much attention by scholars who studied polysemy, derivative meanings of a word, word-formation, semantic and stylistic potential of the language. However, few works deal with the comparative study of the transferred meaning in different languages, in particular metonymy [1, 2].

The analysis of metonymy in the languages which are not closely related makes it possible to establish general common and distinctive features in the organization of the metonymic system.

Metonyms in the three languages have been stratified into causal, attributive, local, temporal and synecdochical types on the basis of the analysis of explanatory and bilingual dictionary entries. The nouns with the transferred metonymic meanings refer to this or that type if there are common semantic markers in their primary meanings.

The causal type of metonymic transferences comprises metonyms whose dictionary definitions have the semes “action”, “state”, “process”, “event”, “doer of the action”, “object of the action”, “instrument of the action”, e.g.: Eng. disappointment ‘sadness or displeasure caused by the non-fulfilment of one's hopes or expectations’ → disappointment ‘a person or thing that causes disappointment’; Rus. публикация ‘the act of publishing a printed work’ → публикация ‘any printed work’; Tur. gargara ‘gargling one’s throat’ → gargara ‘medicine for throat’.

The metonymic transfers of attributive type have in their meaning the semantic signs “quality”, “ability”, “feature”, “property”, e.g.: Eng. brown ‘brown colour or pigment’ → brown ‘brown clothes or material’; Rus. бездарность ‘lack of talent’ → бездарность ‘a person without talent’; Tur.  gelinlik ‘wedding clothes’ → gelinlik ‘a girl of marriageable age’.

The nouns whose semantic structure contains the semes “territory”, “place”, “premises” are referred to local metonymy, e.g.: Eng. country ‘a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory’ → country ‘the people of a nation’; Rus. город ‘a large town, a city’ → город ‘the people of the city’; Tur. harem ‘the separate part of a Muslim household reserved for wives, concubines, and female servants’ → harem ‘the wives (or concubines) of a polygamous man’.

Temporal metonymy is represented in the languages under consideration by the nouns which have the primary meanings “time”, “period”, e.g.: Eng. age ‘the period of time that a person, animal, or plant has lived or is expected to live’ → age ‘generation’; Tur. ikindi ‘afternoon’ → ikindi ‘(the third) prayer (which takes place in the afternoon)’; Rus. срок ‘a definite period of time’ → срок ‘imprisonment of a definite duration’.

Synecdoche (quantitative metonymy) is based on the interaction of the names of a part and the whole and represented by a number of examples in all the three languages, e.g.: Eng. blood ‘the red liquid that circulates in the arteries and veins’ → blood ‘a person of specified descent’; Rus. крыша ‘the structure forming the upper covering of a building or vehicle’→ крыша ‘a house or other building’; Tur. tatlı ‘baked goods made of flour and sugar (baklava)’ → tatlı ‘sweet course, dessert’.

In some cases the dictionary definition of the primary and the transferred meanings does not make it possible to refer a metonym to a definite type. Such metonyms can be grouped in the mixed type which contains the metonyms combining a few semantic markers. The cases of the mixed type are found in all the three languages under analysis. For example, the English noun college combines in its dictionary definitions the semantic markers of the attributive and local types, e.g.: Eng. college ‘an educational institution or establishment’ → college ‘the building or buildings in which a college is housed’ → college ‘the staff and students of a college’. Nouns which in their primary meaning denote an action or a process can also be used for denoting time and a human being combining in their semantic structure the features of the causal and temporal types of the metonymic transfers, e.g.: Rus. смена ‘an act of changing or replacement’ → смена ‘a period of time in which different groups of workers do the same jobs in relay’ → смена ‘the group of people who work during a particular shift’. Synecdoche can be combined with the causal metonymic transfers, e.g.: Tur. dil ‘a tongue’ → dil ‘a language’ → dil ‘an enemy soldier for interrogation’.

The analysis of the metonyms in all the three languages clearly shows that all the metonymic types can be stratified into smaller subtypes and subgroups such as different semantic models and thematic groups, which may or may not coincide in the languages under discussion.

On the basis of the conducted research there can be made the following conclusions:

1. In the English, Russian and Turkish languages the metonymic meanings are performed according to 5 basic types of metonymic transfers and some mixed types which coincide in the three languages.
2. Distinctive features between the languages in question are observed on the level of the concrete meanings which can be explained by the different semantic volume of some words, extralinguistic factors and the differences in the lexicographic traditions.

References

1. Bich M. J. Metonimicheskoje ispol’zovanije imjon sobstvennyh v sovremennom russkom, ispanskom i anglijskom jazykah (na materiale gazetnyh tekstov): Avtoref. dis. kand. fil. nauk. – Spt., 1995. – 18 s.
2. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast / ed. by René Dirven; Ralf Pörings. – Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. – 608 p.