A SEMANTIC-STYLISTIC ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH PHRASEONYMS DENOTING HUMAN PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

ABSTRACT

This article is devoted to revealing the semantic and stylistic features of English phraseological units containing proper names. In the study, these linguistic units are characterized as a “phraseonym”, which was first used by the notable linguist A.P. Aldinger (2006). This research examines and analyzes phraseological units expressing human physical characteristics as a separate phraseosemantic group. Descriptive, classification, and componential analysis methods have been effectively employed to reveal the main objectives of the research. The results of the analysis indicate that English phraseonyms demonstrate a high degree of expressiveness and emotionality, as well as positive and negative evaluative shades. Furthermore, in accordance with the functional-stylistic principle, the usage patterns of English phraseological units containing proper names in different speech styles are illustrated with examples.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Данная статья посвящена выявлению семантических и стилистических особенностей английских фразеологических единиц с собственными именами. В исследовании эти языковые единицы охарактеризованы как «фразеоним», термин, впервые введённый известным лингвистом А.П. Альдингером (2006). В работе рассматриваются и анализируются фразеологизмы, обозначающие физические характеристики человека, как отдельная фразеосемантическая группа. Для раскрытия основных целей исследования эффективно использованы дескриптивный, классификационный и компонентный методы анализа. Результаты анализа показывают, что английские фразеонимы демонстрируют высокий уровень экспрессивности и эмоциональности, а также наличие положительных и отрицательных оценочных оттенков. Кроме того, в соответствии с функционально-стилистическим принципом, способы употребления английских фразеологических единиц с собственными именами в различных стилях речи проиллюстрированы примерами.

Keywords: phraseological meaning, phraseonym, phraseosemantic group, expressiveness, emotionality, evaluation, style.

Ключевые слова: фразеологическое значение, фразеоним, фразеосемантическая группа, экспрессивность, эмоциональность, оценка, стиль.

INTRODUCTION

Language, which serves as the primary communicative tool of humanity, has been intensively studied for centuries by scholars and linguists, leading to significant achievements in the field of linguistics. Phraseology, which was initially examined as a small branch of lexicology within general linguistics, has gradually developed into an independent discipline after numerous scholarly investigations and linguistic studies. Undoubtedly, the establishment of phraseology as a separate field opened broad prospects for further phraseological research. In simple words, “phraseology could be a complex and wealthiest segment of language” [9, p. 997].

In order to reveal the semantic and stylistic features of phraseological units, which constitute the object of study in phraseology, and to explore their essence in greater depth, this article aims to demonstrate the close interrelationship between phraseological semantics and phraseological stylistics (phraseological stylistics, or phraseostylistics). As the general theoretical and fundamental basis of our research, we rely on the scholarly views of linguists such as Arnold [1, p. 23], Seliverstova [14, p. 198], Sternin [16, p. 54], and Bashieva [3, p. 211], who support the theoretical assumption that semantics constitutes an integral component of stylistics, just as stylistics is inseparable from semantics. According to these scholars, the connotative macrocomponent of phraseological meaning (the lexical content attributed to reality by a phraseological unit) is closely connected with the stylistic attribute of phraseological units, just as in the case of words. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the stylistic coloring of a word (or, in the case of a phraseological unit, a component possessing affective meaning within its structure) as a part of its connotative meaning [12, p. 19].

In our view, the comprehensive study of the national-cultural, pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and cognitive characteristics of linguistic phenomena—frequently addressed in modern linguistics—cannot be carried out without explaining the meaning of the units under investigation. Likewise, separating semantics from stylistics would be methodologically unjustified. The evident semantic–stylistic relationship of phraseonyms is characterized by the semantic meaning reflected by these linguistic elements through their connotative features and stylistic interaction. Such an interaction necessitates the analysis of phraseonyms in the compared languages by means of semantic-stylistic and contextual methods. As B. Yuldoshev rightly notes, “the most important way of determining the emotional and expressive coloring of phraseological units is their careful investigation on the basis of semantic-stylistic and contextual methods, as well as the identification of semantic nuances within the context” [18, p. 51].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study analyzes the semantic and stylistic features of phraseonyms in the English language. The analysis is conducted according to several parameters, including the classification of these linguistic units into semantic groups, the identification of their connotative elements, and the determination of their functional-stylistic characteristics. The research material was collected from several authoritative phraseological dictionaries, including The Cobuild Dictionary of Idioms [15], Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms [4], Dictionary of American Idioms [13], and Proper Name Idioms and Their Origins [6]. From the collected phraseological units containing proper-name components, those expressing human physical characteristics were selected and analyzed as a separate phraseosemantic group. To achieve the objectives of the study, descriptive, classificatory, and componential analysis methods were effectively used.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

To date, it is well known that the semantic and stylistic features of phraseological units have not always been studied as an integrated phenomenon; rather, they have often been examined from separate perspectives such as semantic-structural, purely semantic, or stylistic approaches based on various principles and criteria. In the present study, several principles were employed in order to analyze phraseonyms as a unified semantic–stylistic phenomenon.

According to the first principle adopted in this research, phraseonyms are analyzed on the basis of their semantic features (semes). Within this framework, the phraseosemantic group of phraseonyms describing human physical characteristics is further subdivided into several thematic categories. In applying this principle, we relied on the classification criteria proposed by such linguists as Korzyukova [11], Ganiyeva [8], and Arsentyeva [2], whose works focus on revealing the semantic characteristics of phraseological units.

According to the second principle, phraseological units containing proper-name components are analyzed in accordance with the classification of phraseological units with anthroponymic components proposed by E. R. Ratushnaya, which is based on their connotative elements. As the scholar notes in her dissertation, “the connotative components of phraseological units with anthroponymic elements include expressiveness (intensity), emotionality (imagery), and evaluation (positive or negative)” [12, p. 20]. In language, the expressive colouring of phraseological units may be manifested through phonetic, grammatical, and lexical modifications within their structure, as well as through stylistic devices such as rhyme, hyperbole, litotes, wordplay, and intensifying meanings (e.g., very, extremely, highly). The emotive aspect, in turn, is reflected in phraseological units expressing human emotions, interjectional phraseological expressions, as well as units describing gestures and facial expressions. In terms of evaluative connotation, phraseological units may convey either positive or negative meanings [7, p. 26].

Furthermore, according to the stylistic principle, phraseonyms were also analyzed with respect to the functional styles in which they occur. As is known, numerous studies conducted within modern phraseostylistics, including the work of V. V. Guzikova, which serves as a theoretical foundation for our research, indicate that phraseological units can be classified into three functional-stylistic types: bookish, colloquial, and neutral phraseological units [9, p. 8]. In distinguishing phraseonyms stylistically, we rely on etymological, semantic, phonetic harmony, componential, and quantitative criteria.

It is well known that onymic phraseological units possess a broad anthropocentric character that manifests itself in two main ways. First, the proper names contained in such expressions function as integral components of specific phraseological units. Second, the majority of phraseological units with proper-name components are used to describe and evaluate human beings and human-related phenomena. As Joanna Szerszunowicz notes, “onymic expressions are among the most frequently used units functioning as carriers of stereotypical images and evaluations” [17, p. 296]. For this reason, the present article focuses on the in-depth analysis of phraseonyms expressing human physical characteristics.

According to their semantic features, the phraseosemantic group can be subdivided into phraseonyms describing facial expressions (smile/grin like a Cheshire cat), physical attractiveness (Beau Brummell), physical movement (slow as molasses in January), and age (as old as Methuselah).

The results of the analysis demonstrate that numerous phraseonyms belonging to this thematic group contain various connotative elements. For instance, phraseonyms such as slow as molasses in January and Frankenstein’s monster are characterized by a high degree of expressiveness. In the first example, expressiveness is achieved through comparison, while in the second it is realized through semantic intensification (i.e., extremely ugly or monstrous). For example:

“Come on, Becky, you’re slow as molasses in January back there! Pick up the pace and keep up with the group” [19].

The origin of the phraseonym slow as molasses in January can be explained as follows. January, whose name functions as a proper noun in English, is the coldest month in the Northern Hemisphere. During this period, pouring molasses – one of the common food products of the time – into containers took a considerable amount of time due to its thick consistency in cold weather. As a result, the expression became widely used among speakers of English. Notably, this phraseonym has undergone a process of deactualization: initially used as a free word combination, it later developed a figurative meaning referring to a person who moves extremely slowly. This phraseological unit is mainly characteristic of colloquial speech and serves to intensify meaning in discourse.

During the course of the analysis, another important connotative element –emotional colouring – was also identified in phraseonyms. For example, phraseonyms such as smile (grin) like a Cheshire cat, Homeric laughter, and mouth full of South demonstrate a high degree of emotional expressiveness.

“Please, would you tell me,” said Alice, a little timidly, “why your cat grins like that?”
“It’s a Cheshire cat,” said the Duchess, “and that’s why.”
“I didn’t know that Cheshire cats always grinned; in fact, I didn’t know that cats could grin” [5, p. 82].

This extract is taken from the famous work Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. Through this literary source, it is possible to trace the origin of the widely used English phraseonym smile (grin) like a Cheshire cat. The expression is used figuratively to describe a person’s facial expression, particularly a broad or mischievous smile.

In terms of evaluative connotation, phraseonyms may express either positive or negative evaluation. For instance, a Goliath of a man conveys a positive connotation, while look like Ichabod Crane expresses a negative one. It should be noted that evaluative connotation may sometimes occur simultaneously with emotionality or expressiveness. For example:

“And he clearly craves a return to the days of Billy Bunter, with Latin parsing, blazers, ties, prefects and, no doubt, shield-shaped lunch monitor badges” [20].

In this example, the expression Billy Bunter is used to describe a very fat boy wearing glasses. The phraseonym demonstrates expressiveness through alliteration and conveys a negative evaluative connotation associated with meanings such as “gluttonous” or “overweight”.

In English, most phraseonyms describing human physical characteristics belong to the colloquial stylistic layer. Examples include Tweedledum and Tweedledee, Johnny-come-lately, and Teddy Boy/Girl.

The sentence “Joan is so pretty; she must be a Monday’s child. Monday’s child is fair of face” [13, p. 458] contains the phraseonym Monday’s child, which means “pleasant-looking” or “charming”. Indeed, this expression is frequently used in literature and poetry to evoke a sense of tradition or nostalgia. In addition, it may figuratively refer to a person with a pure or innocent character. This conclusion can be supported by the etymological criterion, as the phraseonym originates from an English nursery rhyme describing children according to the day of the week on which they were born and helping children memorize the days of the week:

Monday’s child is fair of face,
Tuesday’s child is full of grace…

Thus, this phraseonym belongs to phraseological unit’s characteristic of both colloquial and literary stylistic usage.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, unlike many other phraseological units, phraseonyms cannot be regarded simply as expressions with a generalized semantic meaning, since the proper names contained in their structure function as culturally specific semantic elements. These onymic components often carry culturally marked meanings and contribute to the formation of the figurative and evaluative semantics of phraseological expressions.

Phraseological units expressing human physical characteristics also belong to this distinctive layer of the language system. The analysis conducted in this study demonstrates that in English such phraseonyms can be subdivided into several semantic subgroups according to their semes, including expressions describing a person’s physical attractiveness, age, body structure, facial expression, and physical movement.

From the perspective of connotative meaning, the analyzed phraseonyms reveal the presence of both positive and negative evaluative shades. This confirms that phraseological units containing proper names serve not only as descriptive linguistic means but also as evaluative tools reflecting speakers’ attitudes toward human appearance and behaviour.

In terms of their functional-stylistic distribution, the majority of phraseonyms expressing human physical characteristics belong to the colloquial layer of the language, while some of them also occur in bookish or literary usage. This stylistic diversity further demonstrates the expressive and communicative potential of such phraseological units in English discourse.

Overall, the results of the study confirm that phraseonyms constitute an important component of phraseological systems. Their semantic, connotative, and stylistic characteristics reveal the close interaction between linguistic structure, cultural meaning, and communicative function.

References:

1. Arnold I.V. Stilistika. Sovremennyy angliyskiy yazyk [Stylistics. Modern English Language]. – 4th ed. – Moscow: Venzi Publishing House, 2010. – 382 p. [in Russian].
2. Arsentyeva Ye.F. Sopostavitelnyy analiz frazeologicheskikh yedinis, vyrazhayushchikh kharakter cheloveka, v angliyskom i russkom yazykakh [Comparative Analysis of Phraseological Units Expressing Human Character in English and Russian]: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk. – Kazan, 1983. – 21 p. [in Russian].
3. Bashiyeva S.K. Stilisticheskiy komponent frazeologicheskogo znacheniya [The Stylistic Component of Phraseological Meaning]: dis. … d-ra filol. nauk. – Krasnodar, 1995. – 318 p. [in Russian].
4. Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. – 604 p. [in English].
5. Carroll L. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. – Illinois, 1998. – 192 p. [in English].
6. Chitova L.A. Proper Name Idioms and Their Origins. – Anthology. – 2013. – 192 p. [in English].
7. Galperin I.R. Stylistics. – Moscow: Higher School Publishing House, 1981. – 295 p. [in English].
8. Ganiyeva Sh. O‘zbek frazeologizmlari strukturasi [The Structure of Uzbek Phraseological Units]: PhD diss. – Ferghana, 2017. – 156 p. [in Uzbek].
9. Gaybullayeva D.F. Universal and National Peculiarities of Phraseological Description of Image in the English and Uzbek Languages // Academic research in educational sciences. –2021. №3. P. 290–298. [in English].
10. Guzikova V.V. Lingvokulturologicheskaya spetsifika frazeologicheskikh yedinis angliyskogo yazyka (na materiale prozy S. Moema i yeye perevodov na russkiy yazyk) [Linguocultural Specificity of English Phraseological Units (Based on the Prose of W. Somerset Maugham and Its Translations into Russian)]: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk. – Yekaterinburg, 2004. – 24 p. [in Russian].
11. Korzyukova Z.V. Osnovnye aspekty funktsionirovaniya frazeologicheskikh yedinis s imenami sobstvennymi v angliyskom yazyke: natsionalno-kulturnaya spetsifika [Main Aspects of the Functioning of Phraseological Units with Proper Names in English: National and Cultural Specificity]: dis. … kand. filol. nauk. – Moscow, 2003. – 234 p. [in Russian].
12. Ratushnaya Ye.R. Antroponominiruyushchaya paradigma russkoy frazeologii: semantika, formirovanie, funktsionirovanie [Anthroponymic Paradigm of Russian Phraseology: Semantics, Formation, Functioning]: avtoref. dis. … d-ra filol. nauk. – Kurgan, 2001. – 52 p. [in Russian].
13. Richard A.S. Dictionary of American Idioms. – The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2005. – 1098 p. [in English].
14. Seliverstova O.N. Trudy po semantike [Works on Semantics]. – Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture Publishing House, 2004. – 960 p. [in Russian].
15. Sinclair J. The Cobuild Dictionary of Idioms. – London: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., 1998. – 514 p. [in English].
16. Sternin I.A. Leksicheskoye znacheniye slova v rechi [Lexical Meaning of a Word in Speech]. – Voronezh: Voronezh University Publishing House, 1985. – 130 p. [in Russian].
17. Szerszunowicz J. On the Evaluative Connotations of Anthroponymic Idioms in a Contrastive Perspective (Based on English and Italian). – Białostockie Archiwum Językowe. – 2012. – P. 293–314. [in English].
18. Yo‘ldoshev B. Hozirgi o‘zbek adabiy tilida frazeologik birliklarning funksional-uslubiy xususiyatlari [Functional-Stylistic Features of Phraseological Units in the Modern Uzbek Literary Language]: diss. – Tashkent, 1993. – 297 p. [in Uzbek].
19. Electronic resource https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+(as)+slow+as+molasses+in+January
20. Electronic resource David Cameron welcomes Ed Miliband back with a baby gift and an insult