S. Amanzholov East-Kazakhstan State University, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan THE REPRODUCTION OF NATIONAL-CULTURAL FEATURES OF ENGLISH COMPARATIVE PHASEOLOGICAL UNITS INTO
KAZAKH LANGUAGE
This article deals with comparative study of languages of different systems, their nation- al-cultural features and methods of reproduction.
Keywords: phraseological units, compative phraseological units, internal form, the ba- sis of comparison, comparison standard, culture.
АҒЫЛШЫН ТІЛІНДЕГІ КОМПАРАТИВТІ ФРАЗЕОЛОГИЯЛЫҚ БІРЛІКТЕРДІҢ ҰЛТТЫҚ-МӘДЕНИ ЕРЕКШЕЛІКТЕРІНІҢ
ҚАЗАҚ ТІЛІНЕ БЕРІЛУ ЖОЛДАРЫ
Мақалада әртүрлі жүйелі тілдердің салыстырмалы зерттеу жұмысы, ұлттық-мәде- ни ерекшеліктері және оларды бір тілден екінші тілге жеткізу әдістері қарастырылады.
Түйін сөздер: фразеологиялық бірліктер, компаративті фразеологиялық бірлік- тер, ішкі құрылым, салыстыру сатысы, салыстыру стандарты, мәдениет.
ПЕРЕДАЧА НАЦИОНАЛЬНО-КУЛЬТУРНЫХ ОСОБЕННОСТЕЙ КОМПАРАТИВНЫХ ФРАЗЕОЛОГИЗМОВ АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА
НА КАЗАХСКИЙ ЯЗЫК
В статье рассматривается сопоставительное исследование разносистемных языков, их национально-культурные особенности и способы их передачи.
Ключевые слова: фразеологические единицы, компаративные фразеологические единицы, внутренняя форма, сравнительная степень, стандарты сравнения, культура.
The relatively recent emergence of phraseology as a linguistic discipline is one of the reasons of still insufficient development of many problems in this area. This branch of linguistics studies specific language component, namely the set expressions of different structure, semantics and functions. In linguistics they are called phraseo- logical units, set word-complexes. According their structure, phraseological units are specific phrases of a language, characterized by the fact that they exist in the language
G.K. KAPYSHEVA
as ready language formations and in the ready form are used in speech.
Phraseology - is a branch of linguistics, studying set expressions in the language, of a different structure, semantics and functions. As an independent linguistic dis- cipline phraseology appeared relatively recently. This is one of the reasons of still insufficient development of many problems in this area. Still among linguists there is no common understanding of phraseology object and as a result of this - disorder of phraseological terminology. Abundance of terms is explained by insufficient develop- ment of the basic concepts of phraseology, many of which are synonymous and most of them are distinguished by polysemy, and some cannot even be called terms, so they are not accurate.
Lack of consensus on the scope of phraseology does not allow getting a clear idea of what set word- complexes are characteristic for a particular language or for a particular set of languages.
The ideas of the French linguist Charles Bally influenced the development of phraseology, he is considered to be the ancestor of the theory of phraseology, because he was the first to systematize combination of words in his book «French stylistics», in which he included a chapter about phraseology.
As for the British and American linguistic literature, there is a large number of works specifically devoted to the theory of phraseology. Even in the most significant works of A. McKay, U. Weinreich, L.P. Smith, there are no such fundamental issues as the science-based criteria of phraseological units selection, correlation of phraseo- logical units and words, phraseology systemacy, phraseological variation, formation of phraseological units, method of studying phraseology and so on. Also, British and American scientists do not raise questions of phraseology as a linguistic science. This explains the lack of the term for this discipline in English.
Central issue for the phraseology was the attempt to answer the question, what is the specificity of idioms meaning unlike the meanings of words, what is the structure of the content of this meaning. In other words, phraseological units-idioms continued to be studied «in themselves and for themselves», apart from their ability to perform certain communicative settings and roles in the organization of an utterance.
During this period there was found the whole palette of phraseological units- idioms meanings - its objective content, as well as the whole range of evaluating- expressive «shades», setting the tone to the stylistic coloring of the meaning.
Expressive potential of phraseological units the most thoroughly described in the works of A.I. Fedorov, who connected it with their «connotative essence» and argued that phraseological units are not for the name of any new developments, but for the concretization and figurative-emotional evaluation of objects, phenomena , qualities, which were already mentioned in the language.
Considerable attention is paid to the study of synonymy of phraseological units-
SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
idioms by such linguists as A.D. Reichstein, Y.P. Solodub, M.V. Mokienko. They also engaged in comparing phraseological units of languages with different structures at the level of identity or similarity, lying on the base of images.
Since phraseology as linguistic phenomenon is a system of interconnected and correlative with the words and with each other, insofar phraseological units should be studied from different perspectives. This discipline helps to learn the literary norms of word usage, namely the use of set phrases, because mistakes in speech reduce its expressiveness and effectiveness.
Words are givens, already existing in the language and embodied in the hu- man mind during the development of language as means of communication, and word combinations and sentences are formed in the speech. Compatibility freedom is never absolute, it is always relative. However, in language there are many phrases that occur in the speech and are used in it as ready verbal units. They are so-called set expressions or, as they are often called, phraseological units, set phrases [1]. Thus, in the phraseol- ogy all set expressions are studied: the units, which are equivalent to the word and the units, which are proper to the sentence in the semantic and structural relation [2].
In the system of phraseological units of any language in this sense a special place is occupied by comparative phraseological units, because they reflect the central form of mental operations of people, and in this respect in every language there are their own stereotypes and national preferences in the comparative thinking, in building imaginative analogies and comparisons.
According the grammatical structure phraseological units can be phrases, pred- icative combinations and sentences. Leaning on the nature of the meaning, resulting from the structure interaction, compatibility and semantic transformation of compo- nent composition, M.D. Stepanova and I.I. Chernyshev deduce the structural-semantic classification of phraseological units [3]. It comprises three groups:
1) phraseological unities;
2) phraseological combinations;
3) phraseological expressions.
It should be noted that M.D. Stepanova and I.I. Chernysheva also include to the group of phraseological unities word pairs and comparative phraseological units, which are the subject of our study. They call them phraseological unities with ex- pressed structural properties.
The main structural feature of word pairs is that they are binary combinations, they consist of two tokens, belonging to the same part of speech. Word pairs are very productive group. Along with the old ones, we can observe a large number of word pairs, formed just recently. From the point of view of semantics, word pairs have re- sumptive character.
G.K. KAPYSHEVA
V.V. Eliseeva, considering structural types of phraseological units, argues that
«despite its unsemulatedness, phraseological units are quite well distributed according the types of forming structures» [4]. On this basis she marks:
1) Phraseological units, which are identical with the corresponding free phrases according their form (take silk, break the ice);
2) In this group coordinative structures are formed (pick and choose, rain or shine, light to darkness, for love or money, by hook or by crook);
3) Phraseological units with predicative structure (as the matter stands, before you could say Jack Robinson, as they crow flies). This group includes phraseological units in the form of imperative mood (Take it easy! Bless my soul! Take your time!), and also units of comparative character (as dead as door-nail, as mad as a hatter).
Unimodal structures stand separately, consisting of one full-meaning word and one or more auxiliary words (behind the scenes, in the blood, for good), and verbal-postpos- itive phraseological units, located on the border of idiomatic fund (to bear up, to give in). Comparative phraseological units are stable and reproducible combination of words, phraseological specificity of which is based on the traditional comparison.
Another important classification is the classification of V.S. Vinogradov, in his opinion, if we set pragmatic goals, it is advisable to subdivide set combinations into three large groups:
1. Lexical phraseological units. They are semantically correlated with the words, conceptually similar to them. For example: синий чулок, смывать удочки, a bull in a chine shop, tough nut to crack.
2. Predicative phraseological units. They are usually complete sentences, fixed in the language in the form of stable formulas. For example: шила в мешке не утаишь, седина в бороду, лучше синица в руках, чем журавль в небе, better late than never, in for a penny, in for a pound.
3. Comparative phraseological units. They were fixed in the language as a stable comparisons. For example: здоровый как бык, твердый как камень, as brave as a lion, as cool as cucumber [1].
As we can see from the above set of classifications, not all linguists add com- parative phraseological units to a group, it proves once again that there is no consensus about what phraseological unit is , hence there is no unity of views on the composi- tion of these units in language. Some researchers (L.P. Smith, V.P. Zhukov, V.N. Telia, N.M. Shansky, etc.) include set combinations to the phraseology, others (N.N. Amoso- va, A.M. Babkin, A.I. Smirinitsky, etc.) include only certain groups. So, some linguists (including academician V.V. Vinogradov) do not include proverbs, sayings and winged words to the phraseological units, believing that they on the semantics and syntax
SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
structure differ from phraseological units. Differences in opinion and attitudes says that the phraseology as a special branch of linguistics is not always on the same place and constantly evolving.
The paper deals with comparative phraseological units of impredicative type that relate to the specific method of comparison expression. They are a system of expres- sion means, in which significance of inner form, the wealth of fine language resources become apparent with special clearness and at the same time the originality of the national culture, national mentality of imaginative thinking are revealed.
Comparative phraseological units of impredicative type are stable and replicable combination of words, phraseological specifics of which is based on the traditional comparison, that is, those set phrases that consist of two or more components having the semantics of comparison and combined in one unit, for example: as like as two peas – похожи как две капли воды – аузынан түсіп қалғандай.
Comparison is one of the oldest ways of knowing reality. It expressively, clearly, vividly describes a person, natural phenomena, everyday situations. The analysis of comparative components gives the opportunity to address the fact of language, where the choice of the subject for comparison only committed, as well as to trace the forma- tion of the internal form of comparative component.
Traditionally, comparative phraseological units of impredicative type are sub- divided depending on the nature of the base of comparison into adjectival, verbal, substantive, partial and with implicit module.
Comparative phraseological units constitute the largest category of adjectival phraseological units. Adjectival phraseological units are those that functionally cor- related with adjectives, i.e., phraseological units, the core component of which is an adjective. The share of adjectival phraseological units in the total value of studied phraseological units is negligible.
Among adjectival phraseological units in English, Kazakh and Russian languag- es two main structural subclasses should be divided, they are common for phraseologi- cal units in these languages .
I. Adjectival comparative phraseological units. They are phraseological units, that have in their composition comparing component (as, как, сияқты). This subclass most fully represented in English: (as) open as the day, greedy as the wolf, soft as butter, as cool as cucumber; in the Russian language it is relatively small in num- ber: трусливый как заяц, гордый как павлин, свободный как птица; in Kazakh:
абжыландай арбады, судай сапырды.
In English as a dependent component proper name may be performed: patient as Job, (as) proud as Lucifer, pleased as Punch.
English phraseological units also allow interchangeability of both core and de-
G.K. KAPYSHEVA
pendent components: (as) changeable as the moon (Weathercock), close as an oyster, true as a flint, cheerful as a lark.
II. Phraseological units with the structure adj+prep+n: green with envy, full of beans, dead from the neck up, злой на язык, нечист на руку. The core and dependent components, which are in postposition, are connected to each other by adjoining. Be- tween the components of phraseological units attributive syntactic relations are identi- fied, hence for this phraseological units adjectival-nominal-prepositional subtype of attributive-prepositional type with postposition and adjoining are typical. Dedicated class is a very small and atypical in these languages.
The English language has another subclass with the structure adj+and+adj: high and mighty, fair and square, rough and ready, prim and proper. Between the compo- nents of phraseological unit of this subclass there is coordinative bond, uniting equal components of phraseological units [5].
According to M.D. Stepanova and I.I. Chernysheva, comparative phraseologi- cal units are stable and reproducible combination of words, phraseological specificity of which is based on the traditional comparison. Structural and semantic peculiarity of phraseological units of this group is that the characteristic of properties or action occurs through the comparative group or comparative subordinate clause. Character- istic conjunctions for such structures are equivalents in Russian language как (будто, точно), in English as (like). For example: as close as an oyster. Comparative group or subordinate clause describes the property or action, the condition through the concrete image, which shows a comparison. Within the semantics of comparative phraseology the meaning is characteristic, representing the intensity of the movement, the degree of manifestation of a property, assessment. For example: as daft as a brush – глупый как пробка – тауықтың миындай ми жоқ. Semantic transformation is that the compari- son group in combination with the component receives the new meaning. The second distinguishing feature of the comparative phraseological units is firmly fixed compat- ibility of stable comparison with strictly defined terms of adjectives, verbs. This allows to consider comparative phraseological units as binomial structures.
Researchers of the structure of comparative phraseological units in English, Ger- man and French hold the opinion that the comparative phraseological units have mainly two-component structure (I.I. Chernyshev, A.V. Kunin, A.G. Nazarian). Comparative phraseological units of impredicative type really mostly consist of two components, which are connected with the corresponding comparative conjunction:
1) The basis, the object of comparison, which, because of its variability, is not included to the comparative phraseological unit;
2 ) Comparison part, through which the characteristic properties or actions are made.
SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
The bases of comparison are the words that denote qualitative attributes (ad- jectives and adverbs) and words, expressing various processes (verbs). On the basis of permanently fixed relations of the two constant components phraseological units occurs the transformation of comparison element into the element of intention and generalized characteristics.
The viewpoint about ternary composition of comparative phraseological units caused by the logical construction of a «comparison operation», consisting of three things: a comparison object, the image of comparison and indication of similarity.
However, the comparison object is not constant, and its inclusion to the composition of comparative phraseological units would enter into conflict with one of the main features of phraseological unit - consistency of lexical structure.
Proponents of a single-component composition of comparative phraseological units come from the fact that rethought part of comparative phrase is the comparison group itself, and the word, that expresses a sign of similarity, is used in its basic nomi- native meaning. It does not take into account the special nature of this type of phra- seological units, which demonstrates itself a mix of both components of comparative phraseological units rather than their individual meanings , i.e. qualitative (imagery) and quantitative (intention) characteristics are achieved as a result of the act of com- parison.
Like all phraseological units, comparative phraseological units are furnished separately. A significant number of comparative phraseological units allows change of both the first and second components. Such usage does not mean only a greater de- gree of feature, as used to increase the expressiveness of comparative phrasema. The change of the first part of phraseological units has become increasingly common, for example, comparative phraseological unit as large as life had not had the compara- tive degree. However, in the twentieth century this comparative phraseological unit became widely used in the comparative degree in English, American and Australian culture. For example: All her emotions are quite sincere, but she cannot help being a little larger than life (J.B. Priestley).
It should be noted the wide development of variance in the comparative phraseo- logical units, forming their separately furnishing. Each adjective phraseological unit may be used both with primary conjunction as and without it. The second conjunction never drops. There is a tendency to omit the initial conjunction as in elliptical sentenc- es, that are not answers to the question, with omitted subject and link-verb. «You can not talk to him», said uncle Rodney. «Mad as a hatter». Conjunction as is often omitted where the comparative phraseological unit is moved to the beginning of the sentence or if before phraseological unit stands the conjunction but or yet. For example: ...nice fellow as ever lived, but soft as butter.
G.K. KAPYSHEVA
Comparative phraseological units with as and with omitted conjunction are a kind of quantitative variants, normative, rather than occasional. The availability of such options is indicative of separately furnishing of comparative phraseological units.
This kind of quantitative variance differs from all other types of variance that it is char- acteristic for all comparative phraseological units, having in its composition double conjunction as…as.
It should be noted that the deviation from the norm is the use of conjunction like instead of as. It’s safe to say that in such cases there is the emergence of a new form, as in spoken English there has been a tendency to use like as a conjunction. For example:
like a bear with a sore head – сильно рассерженный, злой как черт.
For adjective comparisons, as well as for other types of comparisons, double- planning of meaning is characteristic: one is compared with another. This structure of meaning allocates it as a phraseological meaning of special kind, namely compara- tive.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Виноградов В.С. Введение в переводоведение (общие и лексические вопросы) / В.С. Виноградов. – М., 2001.
2. Makkai A. Idiomaticy as a language universal. Universals of human language. Ed. by J.H. Greenberg. Standford, 1998.
3. Greenberg J.H. Language universals: a research frontier. In: Greenberg J. language, culture and communication. Essays by J.H. Greenberg. Selected and introduced by A.S. Dil.
Stanford, 1991.
4. Lakoff G. Linguistik gestalts. In: Papers from the ХIII Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society.13. Chicago 1997.
5. Аюпова Р.А. Проблемы сопоставительной фразеологии английского и русского языков / Р.А. Аюпова. – Казань: Казан. гос. ун-т, 2004.
REFERENCES
1. Vinogradov V.S., Vvedenie v perevodovedenie. Оbshhie i leksicheskie voprosy. V.S.
Vinogradov. 2001 (in Russ).
2. Makkai A., Idiomaticy as a language universal.Universals of human language. Ed.
by J.H. Greenberg. Standford, 1998 (in Eng).
3. Greenberg J.H., Language universals: a research frontier. In: Greenberg J. language, culture and communication. Essays by J.H. Greenberg. Selected and introduced by A.S. Dil.
Stanford, 1991 (in Eng).
4. Lakoff G., Linguistik gestalts. In: Papers from the ХIII Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society. 13. Chicago 1997 (in Eng).
5. Ayupova R.A., Problemy sopostavitel’noj frazeologii anglijskogo i russkogo jazykov / R.A. Ajupova. Kazan’: Kazan. gos. un-t, 2004 (in Russ).
SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES