MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
GULISTAN STATE UNIVERSITY
The English and Literature Department
______________'s qualification work on speciality 5220100, English philology on the theme:
Supervisor: ___________
Gulistan 2008
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
The origin of the term “euphemism” discloses the aim of the device very clearly. I.e. speaking well--from Greek -eu=well+-pheme=speaking.
Euphemisms do not live for a long time. We trace periodic changes in terminology: the madhouse, lunatic asylum, and mental hospital; “qizamiq” “gul, oymoma, xaymoma”; “chayon” “oti yo`q, benom, besh bo`g`in”;
We distinguish the following groups of euphemisms; religious, moral, medical, poetical. The political euphemisms always delude public opinion, distort the political events. Instead of saying “a liar” in the political sphere we usually come across such expressions as; terminological inexactitudes; “ishsizlar” ijtimoiy-foydali mexnat soxasida band bo`magan kishilar.
In emotive prose euphemisms are usually expressed by metonymy, metaphors or periphrases.
One of the stylistic functions of euphemisms-is to produce a humorous effect or to distort the truth, to make the statement milder. Eg. Intoxication drunkenness; perspiration-sweat; tomog`ini moyladi-pora berdi, kesilib ketdi-qamaldi.
Hyperbole. Hyperbole as a SD must be distinguished from exaggeration as every exaggeration cannot be regarded as a SD. For example, the following expressions: Haven't seen you for ages; I`m dying to see it; Immensely obliged, Seni deb o`lib turibdi, osmonga ustun bo`1armiding; osmondan kelmoq, bir dunyo narsa oldik. Are common colloquial phrases used in every day speech. Usually individual hyperboles constitute a SD;I ought to be shot for not recognizing it. My mother was shocked to morrow of her bones by the thought. Toychoqqinam, kolxoz osnginatuzilmagan, qon to`kkanmiz.
A hyperbole is employed for direct quantitive exaggeration: “Do you think we have anything to say one another?”-She asked quickly-“miles”. I don't know any of my relations, are they many? -“Tons”
Hyperbole may be expressed in a periphrastic descriptive way: What I suffer in that way no tongue can tell. (K.Jerome). “No tongue can tell” means “it is very difficult to express by means of the language”. In this case hyperbole is based on metonymy (tongue) Hyperbole may be used in combination with other SD, hyperbolic similes: His mind began to move like lighting. She was as grace full as a meridian of longitude; hyperbolic metaphors; Gradually he was becoming acclimatized to the strange town, primitive and isolated entombed by the mountains. Hyperbole may be found in repetition. I'd have been out there days ago-days ago. Mendek dangalchiga xam shunaqa tuxmat qilasizlarmi oshnalar? Menman degan xo`kizning shoxini sindirishga xam kuchim etadi-ya.
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.
1. I.R. Galperin. Stylistics. M. “Higher school” 1977.
2. V.A. Kukharenko.A Book of Practice in Stylistics. M.”Âûñøàÿ øêîëà”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. Õ. ?. ?àðøèáîåâ Áèòèðóâ ìàëàêàâèé èøëàðíè áàæàðèø âà ?èìîÿ ?èëèøãà äîèð óñëóáèé ê¢ðñàòìàëàð. Ãóëèñòîí 2003.
10. Òóðñóíîâ, Ìóõòîðîâ Ø, Ðà?ìàòóëëàåâ. ?îçèðãè ¢çáåê àäàáèé òèëè. Ò. “¡çáåêèñòîí”. 1992. 216 á
11. E. Nida. Morphology University of Michigan. Press. 1976.
12. Ò.Ì. Áåëÿåâà «Âîïðîñû àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà â ñèíõðîíèè è äèàõðîíèè». Ë. 1967. ñòð. 89.
13. Ìþëëåð. Â.Ê. «Àíãëî - Ðóññêèé ñëîâàðü» Ì. 1962.
14. The World Book Encyclopedia. USA. 1994. ¹. G.G. Volume p/ 905/
15. Ì. Ýøíè¸çîâà ?¢øìà ñ¢ç Ìèêðîñèíòàãìàòèê ìóíîñàòàòèãà äîèð. 2004. ¹1 24-26 áá
16. Internet. Khan M.A. Liggt. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use. www.amjbot.org. 2003. ¹ 90 ð
17. Àäìîíè Â. Ã. Òèïîëîãíÿ òôåäëîæåííÿ.-- Â ñá.: Èññëåäîâàíÿÿ ïî îáøñé êþðíí ãðàììàòèêè. Ì., 1968.
18. Àçíàóðîâà Ý. Ñ. Î÷åðêè ïî ñòèëèñòèêå ñëîâà. Òàøêåíò, 3973. Àðíîëüä È. Â. Ñòèëèñòèêà ñîâðåìåííîãî àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçüøà. Ë., 1973.
19. Àðóòþíîåà Í. Ä. Î ñèíòàêñè÷åñêèõ òèïàõ õóäîæåñòâåííîé ïðîçüã.--  ñá-: Îáøåå è ðîìàíñêîå ÿçóêîçíàíèå. Ì., Èçä. ÌÃÓ, 1972.
20. Àðóòþíîâà Í. Ä. Íåêîòîðíå òèïí äíàëîãè÷åñêèõ ðåàêöèé í «ïî÷åìó»-ðåïëèêí â ðóññêîì ÿçüøå. «Ôèëîëîãè÷åñêèå íàóêè», 1970, ¹ 3.
21. Àðóòþíîâà Í. Ä. Ïðåäëîæåíèå è åãî ñìüþë. Ì., 1976-
Àõìàíîâà 0. Ñ. Î ñòèëèñòè÷åñêîé äèôôåðåíöèàöèè ñëîâ. «Ñáîðíìê ñòàòåé ïî ÿçèêîçíàíèþ». Ì., Èçä. ÌÃÓ, 1958.
22. Àõìàíîåà 0. Ñ. Ñëîâàðü ëèíãâíñòè÷åñêèõ òåðìèíîâ. Ì., 1966.
Àøóðîâà Ä. Ó. Ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêàÿ ïðèðîäà õóäîæåñòâåííîãî ñðàâíåííÿ. ÀÊÄ. Ì., 1970.
23. Áàëëè Ø. Ôðàíöóçñêàÿ ñòèëèñòèêà. Ì., .1961,
24. Áóäàåîâ Ð. À. Â çàøíòó ïîíÿòèÿ «ñòèëü õóäîæåñòâåííîé ëèòåðàòóðí». «Âåñòíèê ÌÃÓ», 1962, ¹4.
25. Áóäàãîâ Ð. À. Â. È. Ëåíèí î íàó÷íîì ñòèëå ÿçüøà. «Ôèëîëîãè÷åñêèå íàóêí», 1970, ¹ 1.