Курсова робота ” LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF SIMILES IN ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN “

Table of Contents

Introduction

RESEARCH OF COMPARISONS AND COMPARATIVE STRUCTURES IN MODERN LINGUISTICS

1.1 Definition of the term “comparison” in linguistics

1.2 Classification of features of comparisons in English

1.3 Types of comparative constructions in English

FUNCTIONAL AND STYLISTIC FEATURES OF COMPARISONS IN THE ENGLISH SYSTEM

2.1 Comparison in English

2.2 Stylistic functions of comparisons

2.3 Functional-genre specifics of comparisons in English

COMPARISONS IN ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN

3.1 Comparison is one of the stylistic devices in English

3.2 Comparison of the complexity of automatic processing of English and Ukrainian texts taking into account the semantics and syntax of natural languages

 

Conclusions

References

 

Introduction

 

The relevance of the study of the topic is due to the rich number of proposed classifications, various approaches and methods of studying comparative constructions in modern English. This indicates the interest they have aroused and continue to arouse in domestic and foreign researchers.

From the point of view of cognitive linguistics, comparison is an important material for studying the mechanisms of human cognition of the world. The view of comparative constructions as a cognitive model is natural and conditioned by the very nature of “expressions” of logical-semantic relations and their functioning. The comparisons vividly present the linguistic picture of the world, standards and stereotypes of national culture, the worldview of the entire language team, as well as individuals.

Along with the linguistic definition of the concept of comparison, we should also turn to the psycholinguistic aspect of comparison, because the process of comparison does not exist in itself, but is created as a result of the author’s work. Psychologists interpret comparison as a mental operation based on the comparison of objects and phenomena, finding similarities and differences between them.

Comparison is not just a way of naming objects, phenomena of the surrounding reality, but also a very bright means of evaluation, which expressively, visually, figuratively characterizes a person, his life, nature, everyday situations. The comparison is considered the most universal and obvious of all existing stylistic paths. However, despite its universality and obviousness, comparison is also the most hidden element, reflecting all the richness of the content of the text.

The object of study of this work are the linguistic features of comparisons in English and Ukrainian.

The subject of research is the linguistic means of expression of comparisons and their functioning in modern English.

The purpose of the study is to clarify speech comparisons in English and Ukrainian.

To achieve this goal you must perform the following tasks:

1) Definition of the term “comparison” in linguistics;

2) Classification of features of comparisons;

3) Identify the types of comparative structures;

4) Functional and genre specifics of comparisons;

5) Comparison of English and Ukrainian texts.

The following research methods are used in the work:

– method of text search (direct visual observation of the material) with subsequent generalization of the results in order to determine their functional specificity;

– analysis and synthesis, which includes methods of comparison, generalization, classification and linguistic interpretation of lexical and grammatical phenomena.

The structure of the work is determined by its purpose and objectives. The work consists of an introduction, three sections, conclusions and a list of sources used.

The first part of the work reveals the general concept of “comparison” and “comparative construction”, their lexical and grammatical features, features of classification, use and functioning in modern English.

The second part of the work investigates and analyzes the factual material, which contains examples of the use of comparative constructions in modern English-language fiction and clarifies their functions in the text.

The third part of the paper presents comparisons in English and Ukrainian.

The conclusions show the results of research.

The list of used sources includes 39 sources.

 

RESEARCH OF COMPARISONS AND COMPARATIVE STRUCTURES IN MODERN LINGUISTICS

1.1 Definition of the term “comparison” in linguistics

 

        In modern Ukrainian linguistics, the concept of comparison has a number of interpretations. Most often, in the analyzed works, comparison is primarily understood as a concept through which the process of understanding and interpretation of the world is realized [15, p. 4].

        In addition to the term comparison, the term comparative construction is also actively used [19, p. 4] [15, p. 6] [14, p. 7], because it outlines the construction in which all language units have a semantic load, so they should be considered as a whole. Instead, O. Gripas uses the synonyms comparative construction and comparative / comparative, noting that the comparative should be understood more broadly than its interpretation in morphology [9, p. 99].

        Due to the rapid development of computer technology, methods of formalization and modeling in the study of comparisons are relevant. Analyzing the comparison, determine the structural-logical model, consisting of:

        1) the subject (subject) of comparison – what is being compared;

        2) the object (image) of comparison – what is compared;

        3) bases of comparison – signs by means of which the act of comparison is carried out;

        4) conclusions (results) of comparisons [16, p. 132].

1. Ikalyuk, V. Simonova and V. Filinyuk add another component “indicator of comparative relations – a means of linguistic design of comparative semantics”, noting that it plays a crucial role in implementing the comparative content of the comparative structure, as it ensures its integrity [16, p. 132] [14, p. 142] [18, p. 120].

        That is, there is no real connection between the comparator and the comparator, it arises only in the mind of the speaker, who seeks to recreate a certain situation of reality “[14, p. 142].

        Attention is paid to the study of a set of formal and stylistic features inherent in the speech of an individual native speaker of a particular language. The works of Yu. Voronina, V. Filinyuk and others are devoted to such research. [2–5, 25]. Comparison as a poetic trope is “a means of meaning-making that affects the formation of the text and is based on the peculiarities of human thinking to compare the phenomena of the surrounding reality” [18, p. 120].

        The influence of gender on the creation of comparative constructions is the subject of research by Yu. Voronina [6–11], G. Zvyagina [13], O. Levchenko [19] [9], I. Likhniakevych [9], V. Tikhoshi [16] and others. . Linguists pay considerable attention to the study of gender features of comparisons, reflection of masculinity / femininity and ways of verbalization of the concepts ‘MAN’ and ‘WOMAN’ in Ukrainian prose on the material of works by V. Lysa, L. Dashvar, I. Rozdobudko, L. Denisenko, M. Matios, Y. Andrukhovych, S. Zhadan, L. Deresh, Y. Vynnychuk, V. Shklyar, Y. Izdryk, G. Tyutyunnyk, Lesya Ukrainka and others.

        The complexity of semantics and syntactic structure of comparisons determines a number of their classifications. Different types of systematizations (depending on the background) are considered by Yu. Makovetska-Hudz [10], T. Pavliuk [12], V. Filinyuk [18] and others.

        The most frequently used is the typology of comparisons of the semantic relationship between object and subject (figurative and logical) [10, p. 4] [12, p. 6]. “The purpose of a logical comparison is to succinctly explain the essence of one object by comparing it with another object or to show how good / bad the object being compared is in relation to an object that most speakers rate as positive or negative. In figurative comparisons, units of the same and different classes are compared ”[12, p. 6].

        Also in linguistics, comparisons are determined by a formal criterion and are divided into: simple (compared by features) and expanded (contain several comparisons that compare different features) [12, p. 7].

        According to the types of connection, comparisons are divided into conjunctions (formed using comparative conjunctions – languages, as, as if, as if, as if, as if, etc.) and unconnected (formed without the use of connectors) [12, p. 8].

        According to the logical and semantic features and the nature of the perception of the comparison is classified into two types:

        1) with a transparent logical and semantic basis (have a common folklore character, traditional form, moderate expressiveness and are perceived without much intellectual effort);

        2) with a complex logical-semantic basis (have an individual-author basis, require active associative activity from the recipient) [20, p. 47].

1. Pavlyuk in the dissertation research divides comparisons into the following structural types:
2. uncommon (comparative constructions, the components of which are expressed by one token);
3. common (consisting of several formal-grammatical components of the sentence structure, which only together exhaust the semantic potential of the corresponding component of the comparative construction);
4. complicated (units that contain invariant construction homogeneous, inhomogeneous members of the sentence, adjectives and adverbs inversions, appeals, interjections) and complex (complicated by different members of the sentence) [20, p. 9–12].

        Some researchers are trying to unify different classifications. Thus, in the order of the elements of comparative inversion T. Pavlyuk distinguishes three types:

        1) prepositional (direct order) – the subject of comparison occupies a preposition in relation to the basis and image of comparison;

        2) interpositional (inversion) – the subject of comparison occupies a position between the image and the basis of comparison;

        3) postpositional (inversion) – the object of comparison is in the second part of the structure, graphically occupying the place of the image of comparison [20, p. 12].

        Problems of the essence of the concepts of comparison and metaphor, their distinction and correlation were studied in the works of O. Bourdain [1], L. Ikalyuk [16] [15], A. Naida [11] and others. “The category of comparison in language is expressed both in simple comparative constructions and in the means of artistic imagery, such as metaphor, figurative comparison, personification and other types of tropes” [15, p. 6]. There are two approaches, one of which identifies the concepts of comparison and metaphor, and the other, which distinguishes these concepts.

        Differences in these views are due to the fact that there is no single approach to the nature of comparison metaphor. A. Naida notes that the main criteria for their delimitation are as follows:

        1) comparison, in contrast to metaphor, has a clear structure;

        2) the result of comparison is semantic complexes, the result of metaphor is semantic meaning [11, p. 4]. O. Bourdain [1], L. Ikalyuk [16] [15], A. Naida [11] believe that it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of comparison and metaphor, and such a distinction has a greater explanatory power in modern linguistics and is justified in numerous linguistic works. .

        Having analyzed the theoretical foundations of the study of comparisons in modern linguistics, we see that approaches to the interpretation of the concept of comparison has a number of features. In many works, comparisons are understood as a figurative language tool. However, a number of linguists within the cognitive paradigm consider comparison not only as a means of comparing processes or phenomena, but also as a process of speech activity of the speaker, which is carried out through comprehension and emotional transfer [13, p. 5].

        In general, comparisons are considered in functional, semantic and grammatical aspects. Since comparisons are also a way of expressing the idiosyncrasies of one or another linguistic personality, studies devoted to the study of the peculiarities of authorial comparisons have become relevant.

        Promising areas of future research are the development of formalized methods for identifying comparisons, which will contribute to the development of both corpus linguistics and machine translation systems.

 

1.2 Classification of features of comparisons in English

 

        Comparisons can be classified from different points of view.

        Consider a simple and detailed comparison. In a simple comparison, objects are compared on the basis of one feature, in the expanded – on the basis of a number of similar features. For example: He fought like a lion (simple comparison). She is as fresh and pretty as a daisy (expanded comparison). There are also direct and negative comparisons. The latter is a special form of figurative comparison, in which the subject is not compared with another, as in a direct comparison, but opposed to it, for example: It is not every couple that makes a pair / Not every marriage is successful [18, p. 9].

        M.V. Khlebnikov distinguishes between real and unreal or figurative comparison. In its interpretation, a real comparison is the result of a logical operation. It is based on real connections of objects, reflects the life experience of man, that is, is a manifestation of practical consciousness. The process of real comparison is connected with all mental operations. The semantic basis of real comparison is the comparison of real facts or phenomena of the surrounding reality, which act as both the subject and the object of comparison.

        A specific feature of the constructions of real comparison is that they indicate the correspondence or identity of the compared phenomena, without relying on figurative associations. Due to the process of real comparison, the reader or listener receives new information about the subject of comparison, and the information is the result of an objective assessment of the compared phenomena, in contrast to unreal comparison, where, above all, there is an emotional and figurative element of evaluation.

        In a real comparison, all words are used in their direct, nominative meaning, and the compared features are the same [36, p. 14-16]. Compare: His house is larger than mine. In this example, the basis of comparison is the size, object and standard of comparison – two real existing houses. In an unreal comparison, the compared concepts are heterogeneous, and it is this heterogeneity that leads to the creation of the image: He behaves as if he were a king.

        V.M. Ogoltsev identifies and distinguishes between logical comparison, more precisely, the logical structure of linguistic comparison, figurative (in the terminology of the author of comparison-assimilation) and stable comparison. By logical comparison, he understands the comparative construction, which serves as a means of knowing objects and phenomena of the world, for example: The train is quicker than the bus. Comparison-likeness, or figurative comparison, being also a comparative construction, is, according to the researcher, a fundamentally different phenomenon of language. It is not a means of knowing the world, it is only built on the basis of logical comparison. The peculiarity of figurative comparison is that its logical model is filled with other content, it has a special character of the logical elements of comparison and comparative relations between the elements [23, p. 27].

        There are comparisons-comparisons and comparisons-oppositions, which express the relationship of identity or difference [39, p. 69].

        Classification of comparison depending on the degree of development of its elements:

1. the subject and image of the comparison are short and concise;
2. the subject of comparison is expanded, the image of comparison is short;
3. the subject of comparison is short (ie only indicated in the text), the image of comparison is very developed [35, p. 115-116].

        F.V. Dautia divides the comparison into two groups. To the first group of comparisons FV Dautia, for example, makes comparisons neutral, accurate, indicating objectively existing features. In any text (any language style) they play the role of an objective informant. This compares the phenomena of nature, the events of the era, two specific objects, two people. As soon as the objective information includes an evaluative element, which is not necessarily expressed by comparison, but by the context, for example, or in a word, the comparison loses its neutrality and moves to the second group [10, p. 48].

        The second group of comparisons is comparisons that include an evaluative element or stylistically colored, which are traditional and individual comparisons [10, p. 38].

        In conventional comparisons, the measure of quality is usually transmitted, but the quality itself must be expressed separately [34, p. 87-89].

        You can analyze the comparison in terms of the structure of their structure. Yu. Stepanov says that individual comparisons often consist of two parts – an indication of the subject to be compared (topic), and a description of the subject with which they are compared.

        Common comparisons, as a rule, belong to the norm of language and usually consist of three parts: topics and comparisons, between which there is a separate indication that they have in common – this is the basis of comparison. Each base, expressed by an adjective, verb or noun, is fixed by one comparison, so that the whole phrase becomes stable [34, p. 87-89].

        L.V. Prokopchuk calls the basis the feature on which the theme and the image of comparison converge, ie the action in the verb comparison and quality in comparison with the adjective [35, p. 11].

1. Zaoborna in the structure of comparison also distinguishes three components: what is being compared (the subject of comparison); what is compared (object of comparison) and the basis of comparison [11, p. 9].

        N.V. Banina, MV Melnichuk and VM Osip comparison as a stylistic device (simile) is classified semantically and structurally as follows.

        Semantically simile is divided into two groups:

1. Real, sincere, fresh comparisons (for example: eyes like tennis balls).
2. Stable linguistic comparisons. For example: fresh as a rose, eyes like forgetme-nots, drunk as a lord. This also includes comparisons that compare the qualities of man and animal – the carrier of this quality. For example: busy as a bee, sly as a fox, faithful as a dog, industrious as an ant, hungry as a bear, to work like a horse, slow as a tortoise, playful as a kitten [2, p. 72].

 

Для отримання повного тексту придбайте роботу!