Филологические науки/ 3. Теоретические и

Методологические основы исследования языка

Ковалюк Ю.

Чернівецький Національний Університет

ON CORRELATION BETWEEN ANTHROPONYMIC PHRASEOLOGISMS AND LITERARY DISCOURSE

The proposition that there is a correlation between language and culture or culture-specific ways of thinking can be traced back to the views of Herder and von Humboldt in the late XVIII-th and early XIX-th centuries. Moreover, as P. Skandera (2007) points out, it is generally accepted today that a language, especially its lexicon, influences its speakers' cultural patterns of thought and perception in various ways, for example through a culture-specific segmentation of the extralinguistic reality, the frequency of occurrence of particular lexical items, or the existence of keywords or key word combinations revealing core cultural values [7, p.1].

V. Teliya considers that phraseological units “may be regarded as standards or stereotypes of a national worldview and due to their symbolic features and in this way they assume the role as the exponents of cultural symbols” [5, p.173].

The objective of the present article is to establish correlation between anthroponymic phraseological units and their literary discourse.

The object of the research is represented by 485 anthroponymic phraseological units retrieved from lexicographic sources (English-Ukrainian phraseological dictionary by K. Barantsev, English-Russian phraseological dictionary by A. Koonin and Oxford advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English) and 23 anthroponymic phraseologisms documented in literary discourse (“Walking on Glass” by Ian Banks, “The Reality Dysfunction” by Peter Hamilton, “Of Human Bondage” by William Somerset Maugham and “Phantoms” by Dean Koontz), the length of the texts under analysis constitutes 855480 word usage.

In the process of the data investigation, we found it significant to classify all the phraseological units obtained into the following 4 subclasses (we follow A. Koonin’s etymological theory (1967) for phraseological units as a basis for the classification given):

§         genuinely English phraseological units: according to Hoyle, Jack the Ripper, to rob Peter to pay Paul;

§         anthroponymic phraseological units borrowed from Greek mythology: sword of Damocles, Pyrrhic victory, Promethean fire;

§         byblical anthroponymic phraseological units: Man of Sorrows, fall among Phillistines, song of Solomon;

§         anthroponymic phraseological units borrowed from Ancient Rome culture: banquet of Lucullus, to cut the Gordian knot;

§         anthroponymic phraseological units borrowed from world literature: to give a Roland for an Oliver, Knight of the Rueful Countenance, Barmecide’s dinner.

It is worth pointing out that anthroponymic phraseologisms constitute 485 units according to the abovementioned lexicographic sources, which means that the relative frequency of their usage in oral and written discourse is estimated as high as 1,61 %. This value gives us a possibility to express a hypothesis that their correlation with the author’s discourse is going to be low. What it comes down to, in our opinion, is that their correlation with author’s discourse is going to be low. We will further analyze the quantitative characteristics of anthroponymic phraseological units used in the author’s discourse of modern English writers.

Genuinely English anthroponymic phraseological units are expected to show the highest correlation rate with the author’s discourse, given their total number constitutes 404 units (83,2% from the general number of the units retrieved from the lexicographic sources). They dominate the content of the dictionaries and this dominating position is likely to show up in the author’s discourse.

There is relatively a moderate amount of phraseological units borrowed from Greek mythology and the Bible (36 units (7,4%) and 33 (6,8%) units accordingly ). The results obtained prove our hypothesis on a relatively low correlation of these two types of phraseological units and the author’s discourse. 

 Anthroponymic phraseological units borrowed from the Ancient Rome culture and the world literature comprise 6 units apiece, which is 1,2%. This is the lowest correlation within the lexicographic sources and therefore we do consider that it is almost unlikely to come across these types of phraseological units in the author’s discourse.

While analyzing the illustrative sources under investigation, this is what we obtained: We came across 2 examples of anthroponymic phraseological units in “Walking on Glass” by Ian Banks (Father Christmas, for Christ’s sake) as well as in Dean Koontz’s discourse (Jack the Ripper, for Christ’s sake); 8 instances were retrieved from “The Reality Dysfunction” by Peter Hamilton (Adam’s apple, Jack the Ripper, by Christ, for Christ’s sake, Christ Allmighty, the Son of God, Dear Christ, Santa Claus) and it was 11 anthroponymic phraseological units recorded in “Of Human Bondage” by W. Somerset Maugham (The Admirable Crichton, before you can say Jack Robinson, to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, Big Ben, by Jove, by Saint George and Merry England, the Flying Dutchman, for Christ’s sake, by George, as pleased as Punch, Mr’s Grundy). All of the examples retrieved proved to be genuinely English idioms.

Here is another argument to stress that our hypothesis about the low correlation between anthroponymic phraseologisms and literary discourse is correct.

Conclusions:

1.           The analysis of modern lexicographic sources has brought about the assumption that the correlation rate between anthroponymic phraseological units and literary discourse is significantly low, given the statistics that the relative frequency of their usage in spoken and written discourse is as high as 1,61%.

2.           The number of anthroponymic phraseological units (11) registered in “Of Human Bondage” equals the total occurrence rate of anthroponymic phraseologisms in “Walking on Glass”, “The Reality Dysfunction” and “Phantoms”. Considering the fact that the latter three all belong to the postmodern science fiction prose, we may arrive at the conclusion that there is a certain deculturization of postmodern literature at present, especially in the domain of science fiction.

3.           With a prospect of a further research, postmodern science fiction works cannot be regarded sufficient sources for anthroponymic phraseological units’ analysis. Moreover, the scope of literary sources under investigation has to be preferably broadened and the length of the texts should be increased for more reliable results.

Bibliography:

1.                Абрамова Ю. В. Регулятивний потенціал британських прислів’їв як засобів мовного втілення концептів чоловік та жінка: Автореф. дис. …канд. філол. наук. – Харків, 2007. – 20 с.

2.                 Баранцев К.Т. (уклад ) Англо-український фразеологічний словник Близько 30 000 словосполучень. 2-ге вид., випр. К.:Знання, 2005. - 1056 с.

3.                 Кунин А.В. Английская фразеология: Теоретический курс. Москва: Высшая школа, 1970. – 488 c.

4.                 Кунин А.В. Англо-русский фразеологический сло­варь.— М.: Советская Энциклопе­дия, 1967. — 1264с.

5.                 Телия В.Н. Русская фразеология. Семантический, прагматический и лингвокультурологический аспекты / В.Н.Телия. – М.: Школа “Языки русской культуры”, 1996. – 288 с.

6.                Oxford advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. – 1539 p.

7.                Skandera, P. Phraseology and Culture in English. – Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007. – 511 p.