Chapter 6. Stylistic onomasiology. Lexico-semantic stylistic devices

This branch of Stylistics, more aptly called Paradigmatic Onomasiology (science of naming) is not much interested in concrete notional meanings of linguistic units as in the forms and general types of naming objects. Of special interest for stylistic Onomasiology are cases of “renaming”, of changing names of things, processes and qualities. When treating questions of Semasiology (science of meanings) and Onomasiology (science of nomination) one should take into account the following considerations:

1. Linguistic units (words, phrases, sentences, etc.) do not have stable connections with objects or situations of reality – they only correlate in our minds with general ideas of objects and events. So by using a word, a phrase or a sentence we just put what we see or think in a certain class of phenomena.

2. Since there’s no constant connection, no stability between words, phrases, sentences, and the surrounding world, it’s quite natural that one and the same phenomenon can be given different names.

So the feature chosen by a speaker to name the thing depends first, on his attitude to the object and second, on his particular communicative intentions.

Ex. Man (chap, guy, fellow, person, individual) – young gentleman, our next-door neighbour, my darling, bloody blind bat (a clumsy pedestrian by a furious driver).

Words and expressions traditionally used with reference to a certain class of objects can be transferred and applied to a representative of quite a different class, yet this is always done in accordance with certain semantic laws. So PS and O establish a classification showing semantic types of transfer of names and logical laws underlying them. Being a complex unity in its lexico-semantic variant, every word includes the information which possesses two kinds of meanings: the basic – denotative m-g which represents the subjective and logical aspect of word m-g, and the additional one – connotative m-g – the objective but expressive and emotive aspect of word m-g. So the moment when the deviation from the acknowledges m-g is carried to a degree that it causes an unexpected turn in the recognized logical m-g of a word, we register a Stylistic Device.

All kinds of transfer of denominations (from a traditional object to a situational object) bear the name of tropes (from the Greek tropos “turning”). This is the basic term of PO which studies only tropes and nothing else. Every trope here demonstrates a coincidence of two semantic planes (actually, of two different meanings) in one unit of form (one word, one phrase, one sentence). A trope, then, is a linguistic unit 9word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, text) with two senses, both felt by l-ge users.

Ex. Oh, you pig! With reference to a person: 1. the traditional logical m-g: a domestic animal; 2. the additional sense: an untidy, greedy, or rude person. The word acquires a new m-g, but the old one still remains – otherwise it would be senseless to use the word!

Whenever we name an object or characterize a situation, we either follow the usual, collectively accepted, rules of naming, or deviate from them. If we are guided by the rules, there’s no transfer and there’s nothing for Stylistics to analyze in our speech act. But if we deviate from accepted standards, we can do it in two ways: quantitatively (saying too much or too little, overestimating or undervaluing some features of an object) or qualitatively (meaning a radical difference between the usual meaning of a linguistic unit and its actual reference (you, green coat).