Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 20 Ноября 2013 в 19:02, реферат
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.
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
Figurative periphrasis is often based on the use of a metaphor or metonymy; Five weeks of perfect liberty … would have prepared her for the day of bells (for the day of wedding). He jumped to his feet, rattled his throat, planted firmness on his brows and mouth … that his blood might be lively at the throne of understanding (his brains).
“Yoz bo`yi elpig`an elpig`ichini,
Erga yo`shab soldi qishga ko`rpacha”
“Oppoq mo`ylovini burab kelar qish”
One of the stylistic functions of periphrasis is to produce a satirical or humorous effect sarcastic description. In “Come on”, said Miss Hand forth, “has the cat got your tongue?” (Can you speak?).
Euphemism is a periphrasis, which is used to rename an unpleasant word or expression. Eg. Death: the journey's end; to die; to cross the bar; to join the majority, to hop off the twig, “aqli qisqa” instead of “axmoq” qulog`I og`ir instead of kap, qo`li egri instead of o`g`ri; olamdan o`tmoq, qurbon bo`moq, jon bermoq instead of o`lmoq. Usually euphemisms are defined as words or phrases which produce some mild effect. Instead of saying “to lie” people usually use such expressions as: to tell stories, to possess a vivid imagination.
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.
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.
I.R. Galperin. Stylistics. M. “Higher school” 1977.
V.A. Kukharenko.A Book of Practice in Stylistics. M.”Высшая школа”1987
V.A. Kukharenko. Seminar in style. M. 1971
I.V. Arnold. The English Word. M. 1973.
L.T. Boboxonova, Ingliz tili stilistikasi.
I.Mukarramov. Xozirgi o`zbek audacity tilining ilmiy stili. T.Fan. 1984.
I.Toshaliev. O`zbek tili stilistikasi. T. Tash.G.U. 1988.
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.
1Riffaterre, 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.