Semantic representation of similes (based on the Ukrainian, English and Polish languages).

Open access

Abstract

Since simile in this paper is understood as a figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared and not only as a construction corresponding to the formula X is like Y, the borderline between the semasiological (from form to content) and onomasiological (from content to form) approaches in respect to the analysis of simile is considered to be crucial. The article is devoted to the analysis of the existing formulas for simile that enumerate the elements in the surface structures of most similes and to the elaboration of a formula that would reflect the essence of the relationship of simile elements regardless of their formal expression. Taking into account existing linguistic studies of similes as well as the author’s own understanding of the problem, simile components are described which also have a symbolic reflection in the aforementioned universal formula for similes. Employing the method of conceptual analysis as well as the methods of description and interpretation, modelling and coding, the author devises a new formula for simile, representing all four of its constituents (a tenor, a vehicle, a comparison marker and a commonly shared salient feature). The devised formula is further subjected to analysis for the possibility of being applied to all formal types of simile. The presented formula of a universal character is essential to identify and analyse different types of similes without limiting research to the formations of a certain model. The formula is labelled universal because it characterizes similes regardless of their forms and languages in which they are used.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aleksandrova S. 1981. Structural and semantic characteristics of comparative constructions in 16-17 century English. Moscow: Vyssha shkola.

  • Ashchurova D. 1970. The linguistic nature of simile in English. Moscow: Vyssha shkola.

  • Bach K. and Harnish R. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.

  • Beardsley M. 1981. Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism. Hackett Publishing.

  • Berkov V. 1996. Semantics of comparison and types of its expression. The theory of functional grammar: Quantity. Quality Spb pp. 106 – 154.

  • Bilodid K. 1980. Ukrainian dictionary. «UD – 11». vol. 10. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.

  • Bronner Y. 2007. This is no lotus it is a face: Poetics as grammar in Dandi’s investigation of the simile. The poetics of grammar and the metaphysics of sound and sign. Boston: Brill pp. 91-108.

  • Bronner Y. 2012. A question of priority: Revisiting the Bhāmaha-Dandin debate. Indian Philos 40 no. 1 pp. 67–118.

  • Burton-Roberts N. 2007 Varieties of semantics and encoding: Negation narrowing/loosening and numericals. Pragmatics. Palgrave-Macmillan pp. 90-114.

  • Burton-Roberts N. 2013 Grice and cancellation. Journal of Pragmatics vol. 48 no. 1 pp. 17-28.

  • Carston R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. Blackwell.

  • Cheremysina M. 1976. Russian comparative constructions. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo Novosibirskogo un-ta.

  • Chernysheva I. 1970. The phraseology of modern German. Moscow: Vyssh. shk.

  • Chiappe D. and Kennedy J. 2001. Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor and Symbol vol.16 pp. 249-276.

  • Cohen M. 2003. Three approaches to biblical metaphor: From Abraham Ibn Ezra and Maimonides to David Kimhi. Leiden: Brill.

  • Davidson D. 1978/1984. What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry vol.5 no. 1 pp. 31-47. Reprinted in: Davidson D. Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press pp. 245-264.

  • Devyatova N. 2010. Comparison in a dynamic system of the language. Moscow: URSS.

  • Fedorov A. 1985. Figurative speech. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

  • Fodor J. A. 1998. Concepts. Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Fogelin R. J. 2011. Figuratively speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Gak V. 2000. The theoretical grammar of the French language. Moscow: Dobrosvet.

  • Gargani A. 2014. Poetic comparisons. How similes are understood. Salford: University of Salford.

  • Gibbs R. W. 2002. A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics vol. 34 pp. 457 – 486.

  • Glucksberg S. and Keysar B. 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review vol 97 no. 1 pp. 3–18.

  • Grice H. P. 1961. The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supp vol. XXXV pp. 121-53.

  • Hulyha E. and Shendels E. 1969. Grammatical and lexical fields in modern German. Moscow: Prosveshchenye.

  • Iskanderova I. 1980. The role of the context in revealing the semantics of comparisons. Research of Sentences in German. RHU pp. 3 – 14.

  • Kopylenko M. 1989. General phraseology sketches (phraseological units in the system of the language). Voronezh: Voronezh University Press.

  • Kucherenko I. 2003. Syntactical functions of comparative constructions. Topical problems of grammar. Svit pp. 136 − 139.

  • Kunin A. 1996. The course on phraseology of modern English. Moscow: Feniks.

  • Lakoff G. 2008. The neural theory of metaphor. In: R.W. Gibbs Jr. ed. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 17 – 38.

  • Lapshyna O. 2010. Semantic category of similarity in modern Russian. Kharkiv: KhNU.

  • Leech G.; Short M. 2007. Style in fiction. Pearson Education Limited.

  • Levinson S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Myasnyankina L. 1999. Interrelation of metaphor and simile in Sholokhov’s ideostyle. Ukrainian Bulletin vol. 5 KhNU pp. 45–51.

  • Malykh L. 2012. The logical formula of a linguistic comparison. Bulletin of ISLU vol. 1 no. 17 ISLU pp. 184–191.

  • Margolis J. 1957. Notes on the logic of simile metaphor and analogy. American Speech Duke University Press vol. 32 no. 3 pp. 186 – 189.

  • Markus M. 2010. As drunk as muck. The role and logic of similes in English dialects on the basis of Joseph Wright’s English Dialect Dictionary. Studia Neophilologica vol. 82 pp. 203–216.

  • Mizin K. 2008. Psycholinguistic experiment or sociolinguistic monitoring? Epistemological search for axiological phraseology (based on comparative phraseology). Linguistics vol. 1 KNU pp. 67 – 79.

  • Nazarian A. 1998. Frozen similes in French. Moscow: Vyssh. shkola.

  • Nevanlinna S. 1993. The structure of Middle English similes of equality. Early English in the computer age. Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 139–170.

  • Nikolaeva A. 2002. Functional and semantic field of comparativity in modern English. Rostov-na-Donu.

  • O’Donoghue J. 2009. Is a metaphor (like) a simile? Differences in meaning effect and processing. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 21 pp. 125–149.

  • Ogoltsev V. 1978. Frozen similes in the system of Russian phraseology. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press.

  • Ortony A. 1998. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  • Pierini P. 2007. Simile in English: From description to translation. CÍRCULO de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación (clac) vol. 29 pp.21 – 43.

  • Prokopchuk L. 2000. The category of comparison and its expression in a simple sentence structure. Kyiv: In-t of Ukr. lang.

  • Richards I. 1937. The Philosophy of rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Searle J. R. 1993. Metaphor. In: A. Ortony ed. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 83 – 111.

  • Shapovalova N. 1998. Peculiarities of comparative semantics features in adverbial models. Functional and cognitive manifestations of grammatical structures. IZMN pp. 57 – 62.

  • Shchepka O. 2008. Functional and semantic field of comparativity. Simferopol: Tavriyskyi National University.

  • Shenko I. 1972. On relationship between figurative devices (simile and metaphor). The stylistics of Romance and Germanic languages. RTP LGPI pp. 151–165.

  • Shyrokova N. 1960. Types of syntactical constructions with comparative conjunctions in a simple sentence. Kazan: Yzd-vo Kazansk. Gos. Un-ta.

  • Sztencel M. 2018. Semantics pragmatics and meaning revisited: the case of conditionals. Springer.

  • Telia V. 1986. Connotational aspect of nominative unit semantics. Moscow: Nauka.

  • Tsutomu S. 1983. On linguistic classification of metaphorical expressions. Descriptive and applied linguistics vol. 16 pp. 197–208.

  • Tversky A. 1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review vol. 84 no. 4 pp. 327–352.

  • Wilson D. and Sperber D. 2006. Relevance theory. The handbook of pragmatics. Blackwel Publishing pp. 607 632.

  • Yudina I. 2010. Similes with an unexpressed module as a means of reader’s reflection actualization. Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Series 2 vol. 2 no. 12 pp. 31–35.

  • Zamai S. 2008. Functional and semantic category of comparativity and the means of its representation in Russian and English. Bulletin of Adygej State University vol. 6 pp. 93 – 96.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 560 175 9
PDF Downloads 533 203 33