Metonymic epithet as a specific characteristic of a literary text

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Metonymic epithet as a specific characteristic of a literary text

(Mukhanova O.M., National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”)

Introduction

The renaissance period of the study of the epithet in philology fell on the end of the XIXth and the beginning of the XXth centuries. The expressive possibilities of the trope under study attracted the attention of O. Potebnia [16], O. Veselovsky [5], V. Zhirmunsky [6; 7] and many other scholars. The analysis of the peculiarities of the functioning of the epithet in literary works has become a mandatory component of the study of poetics. Based on the systemic approach to the study of tropes, the set of them and the place that the epithet occupies among them can be presented with the help of a scheme of three functional fields: similarity, contiguity, and opposites. We will consider them in more detail below.

As far as the field of similarity is concerned, the following tropes can be attributed to it: comparison; metaphor; epithet; litota; hyperbole. Metonymy and periphrasis belong to the field of contiguity, and irony and oxymoron to the field of opposites [14, p. 125]. Quite a lot of research focuses on the problem of the epithet, but there are still many aspects of this phenomenon which are worth studying. In particular, the emotional and evaluative meanings of adjectives forming epithets are of research interest in philology. Moreover, the connection between emotions, the expression of ideas and concepts really remains unresolved in our time. The question of how the emotional component is included in the lexical meaning of a word has been an issue of wide research in modern linguistics. The emotional life of a person originates in language and its semantics, in language almost any word can become emotional, neutral words, combined with each other, can form emotional word combinations and supraphrase unity [19, p. 6]. Despite the centuries-old history of studying the epithet, there is still no unity in defining it's essential characteristics. The majority of researchers consider the main characteristic of an epithet to be its semantic features and put them in the center of the definition, while the semantics of an epithet is defined very vaguely as the selection of some feature of the defined object or as a secondary word of a phrase that joins another word to strengthen and enrich its figurative and expressive meaning.

Presentation of the main material

An epithet (from Greek sniOsrov - appendix) is a word that indicates one of the features of the object that is called and aims to specify the idea about it. In turn, O. Veselovsky [5] gives the following interpretation of the epithet: “one of the most effective means of enhancing the picturesqueness and emotionality of speech is the epithet. This is the name of a word or several words that are added to the common name of an object in order to strengthen its expressiveness, to emphasize one of its features in the object - precisely the one that in this case is important to bring to the fore, in a way to draw the special attention of the reader to it” [5, p. 61]. metonymic epithet zhirmunsky veselovsky

According to the two interpretations provided by the “Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Modern Ukrainian Language”, an epithet is an artistic definition that emphasizes a characteristic feature, a defining quality of a phenomenon, object, concept, action, as well as this word or expression, which is called, characterizes anyone or anything, mostly from the negative side [4, p. 354]. In his work, J. Maruso [10] notes that an epithet is an adjective that is closely related to a noun and forms one group with it. The scholar argues, a natural epithet is usually distinguished, which is inseparable from the subject under any circumstances, and a situational epithet, which is related to the subject only in a certain case under consideration [10, p. 346-347].

At the same time, the epithet is viewed as a lexical-semantic trope and a means of conveying an individual, subjectively evaluative relationship to the described phenomenon. The use of adjectives in this function is determined by their substantive and functional characteristics, namely, predicativeness, their inherent stylistic meanings and the actualization of emotional and evaluative meanings [1, p. 104]. O. Potebnia emphasizes that the epithet is functionally close to synecdoche and metaphor, noting at the same time that being always a synecdoche, the epithet can at the same time connect two disparate sets of signs, compare two objects, signifying one by the properties of the other, that is, to be a metaphor [16, p. 5]. A number of researchers draw a clear line between an epithet and a logical definition (usually an epithet, unlike a logical one, is defined as an artistic identifier), not defining the difference between a logical definition and an epithet in the context of the emergence of this epithet under the influence of the context of a special stylistic function [6, p. 29].

Combining the semantic and syntactic criteria in the epithet's characteristics, O. Volkovynsky [6] believes that the epithet does not add anything to the content of the defined concept, keeping it in the same volume. However, at the same time, there is some reinterpretation of the features included in the concept: the epithet repeats the features on a tautological basis, which are already named in the defined, or regroups the features, names exactly those characteristics that cannot be at all [6, p. 29-30].

Another approach to determining the important characteristics of the epithet involves the way of morphological and syntactic expression of the epithet. The concept under study can be expressed by an adjective, so that the main requirement of poetic thought is achieved, which consists in the analysis and generalization of phenomena, their introduction into the circle of other images [1, p. 102].

The analysis of the principles listed above in the approach to the definition of the epithet shows that none of them, taken separately, allows us to give consistent characteristics of this stylistic technique. It is absolutely obvious that all three sides - features of semantics, syntactic function and methods of morphological and syntactic expression - are important characteristics of an epithet and only taking into account all these three sides a complete and consistent description can be given. It should be noted that there are good reasons to consider the epithet as the original trope. Since time immemorial, people have tried to learn about various objects of the surrounding world, first of all by learning the signs and properties of these objects, comparing them with the signs and properties of other objects, and later giving them verbal definitions. Primitive language conveys impressions of objects and phenomena of the external world either elementary, similar to the first words of a child, or more meaningfully, with the help of epithet words, each of which names a certain sense- perceived feature [15, p. 123].

The epithet is otherwise called a figurative or poetic meaning, emphasizing in this way its opposition to the logical meaning of the subject, the task of which is also to specify the idea of the subject in question. However, unlike the logical one, the poetic definition does not aim to indicate such features of the object that could separate it in our perception from other, similar objects. The poetic epithet is not needed for accuracy, it notes certain typical, characteristic properties of objects, does not eliminate from the thought of species that do not contain the characteristic it has highlighted, but replaces one of many uncertain ones in a specific way [7, p.357].

The epithet belongs to the most used poetic and artistic means. According to O. Veselovsky, the history of the epithet is the history of the poetic style in an abbreviated version, since the epithet highlights an “essential” feature in a certain concept, and the choice of an “essential” feature among the “non-essential” in turn characterizes the poetic representation of the era and the writer [12, p. 29].

In a broad sense, an epithet is used to characterize the subject of thought, to name a feature - either constant, habitual, often repeated and known to speakers, or special, original, noticed only by the author, which is related with a specific text, with an individual author's style. In addition, narrower understanding of the epithet includes only artistic, emotional and figurative meanings, which are characterized by originality, infrequent use, and individual content. The boundary between these two interpretations of epithets is quite conditional: often a common, widely used meaning acquires new associations, a new aesthetic meaning in the artistic context, turning into an original verbal image.

Therefore, the epithet can be considered not only as a primary trope, but also as a system-forming center of the trope, because other tropes can be transformed into it, e.g.:

The sea was smiling (metaphor) - the smiling sea.

His chest is like a barrel (comparasion) - his barrel chest.

His finger accused us (metonomy) - his accusing finger.

Her beauty seemed ugly (oxymoron) - her ugly beauty.

The expressiveness of the epithet increases due to the interaction with other stylistic means, due to the creation of a chain of epithets, its placement in postposition, displacement and resubordination, a special metaphorical attributive construction with re-subordination and other methods. There are reasons to believe that the epithet belongs to two axes, paradigmatic and syntagmatic, at the same time. In the above example with the smiling sea, the paradigmatic aspect consists in the choice of an expressive sign, and the syntagmatic aspect consists in changing the syntactic position of the sign expressed by another part of the language: The sea was smiling (v.) - The smiling sea (adj.) [1, p. 106].

Nowadays, there are many classifications of epithets, both semantic and structural, which differ significantly in their composition and the principles underlying them. Let us turn to the classification by V. Moskvin [12] according to which epithets are subdivided as follows: by the way of marking the corresponding sign (metaphorical, metonymic, shifted), by semantic parameters (coloristic, evaluative), by structure (simple, complex), by the level of language acquisition (universal, individual author's), according to the stability of connections with the signified word (free, permanent, and a separate variety is antonomasia), according to stylistic color (colloquial, newspaper, bookish, poetic, folk-poetic, folklore) and according to the combination with figures of repetition (tautologous, through). In the classification of V. Moskvin, one can feel the desire to outline as fully as possible the system of versatile parameters by which epithets can be distinguished not only in artistic speech, but also in other speech styles [12, p. 46].

From the point of view of semantics, epithets are divided into associated and non-associated. Associated are epithets that indicate such features of the subject, which are inherent in its nature, for example, dark forest, dreary midnight, careful attention. Using this or that associated epithet, the writer chooses from the many features characteristic of an object or phenomenon the one that appears to him to be the most essential, and brings it to the fore, drawing the reader's attention to it and reflecting in the very choice of this or that feature his sub objective relation to the subject. For example, unwearying research - persistent research, indefatigable assiduity - unceasing (tireless) perseverance [13, p. 30].

Unassociated epithets characterize the subject, adding to it a similarity that can be an attribute of it only in the given circumstances depicted in the text. This similarity may seem strange, unusual or even unexpected (e.g., sullen earth, voiceless sands).Analysis of the semantic content of unrelated epithets allows subdividing them into two large groups - figurative, that is, those based on some visual, sound, tactile images, and non- figurative. The classification proposed by T. Onoprienko [14] is based on taking into account th e place of the epithet in the system

of semantic fields of other tropes. In this classification, the tendency to divide epithets into two main categories is quite clearly observed. The first of this categories includes usual (usual, traditional) epithets, the other one - unusual, occasional epithets. The scholat designates these categories with such terms as associative and non-associative epithets. The latter term, however, fails because non-associative epithets do not exist at all. Any epithet arises on the basis of a certain association. Two types of associations of different natures should not be confused. Common (usual) associations are the basis of epithets belonging to the first category, and therefore these epithets are also perceived as usual. Unusual, often unique semantic associations form the basis for epithets of the second category, which have an occasional character. In this regard, it has been offered to utilize the terms usually associative (permanent epithets, descriptive and evaluative epithets) and occasionally associative epithets (comparative, metaphorical, lithotic/hyperbolic, metonymic, periphrastic, ironic and oxymoronic epithets) [14, p. 125].

Comparative epithets, in turn, belong to the field of similarity of occasionally associative epithets and are the result of crossing the field of the epithet with the field of comparison. It is important to distinguish between metaphorical and comparative epithets, as they are often mixed [14, p. 125-128]. And a well-known fact that metaphor is a comparative trope in which only one of the nouns being compared (usually the subject) is expressed explicitly, and the other (the object) is implicit. Based on this category of features, only epithet configurations with an implicit object of comparison should be classified as metaphorical epithets [15].

Wnen it comes to the structural types of epithets, they are diverse. They can be expressed by nouns, adjectives, whole phrases in a syntactic function, etc. The pragmatic possibilities of the epithet are used in different ways, depending on the style of the author of the work of art. In artistic prose, an important component of style is the author's analytical comment, which reveals to the reader the appearance and character of the character, his psychological state in this episode [14; 15].

Thus, we can draw a conclusion that the epithet is the main means by which imagery, expressiveness is created, and on the basis of this, the author's individual and evaluative relationship to the subject is revealed. This also determines its high informative value in literary works.

As far as metonymic epithets are concerned, first let us cover briefly the notion of metonymy. According to I. Bezpechny [3], metonymy (Greek psTovnpta - renaming) is a figurative expression in which an object or phenomenon is depicted by replacing the name of another object or phenomenon associated with the first external or internal connection (e.g., to eat three plates of soup, food is meant). A common type of metonymy is synecdoche - naming a part instead of a whole, or a singular instead of a plural (to save a penny, meaning money in general) [3, p.72]. It is worth mentioning L. Matsko's statement that metonymy is a metaphorical trope, the basis of which is the replacement of one name by another on the basis of association based on the contiguity of their meanings: gold in ears (instead of golden earrings or earrings made of gold) etc. [11, p. 147].

In metonymy, objects and phenomena are compared not by similarity, but by a real connection between them. Metonymy, as a means of pictorial reproduction of reality, is very common in literary works [1, p.94]. This fact is emphasized by a number of scholars, in particular V. Zhirmunsky [7], who notes that association by contiguity cannot be the basis for the transfer of meaning (e.g., a telegraph pole and a road are connected by adjacency, but there are no preconditions for transfer yet). If these things form a certain logical unity, part and whole, then transfer becomes possible. That is, metonymy can be defined as a trope based on real logical connections between objects [7, p. 325].

Metonymy is based on actual contiguity, that is, certain knowledge: e.g., knowledge about the content when the container is called instead (I'll have a glass; the hall applauded); knowledge about things that are made of a material called instead (a glass; an iron); knowledge about the field of activity, when the actor is used instead of products of activity (to buy a Ford); certain geographical knowledge, for example, that a certain city is the capital of a certain state (talks between Washington and London); knowledge of any event, if the place of its action is called instead (Watergate changed the politics), etc.

Metonymy gives the impression of speaking “directly” and is a stylistic feature of a living spoken language. As a compressed, collapsed nominative structure, metonymy is convenient for use in oral speech, accordingly, it is productive, stylistically expressive and does not go beyond stylistic norms. No one is surprised by expressions like Ministry agrees, city found needed money, etc. [11, p. 147].

With metonymic displacements of the meaning within attributive phrases, reduction, condensation of these syntactic structures often occurs with the omission of the noun that was denoted for a certain meaning before its displacement, for example: Orange revolution (because of the color used by demonstrators during this revolution).

Therefore, adjectives acting as such meanings are called not only transferred, but also condensed, and the word combinations themselves are called compressed [2, p. 358]. In turn, J. Maruso notes that metonymy can be spread with the help of an epithet, which indicates the subject of metonymic transfer [10, p. 155-156]. It creates and reinforces visually perceptible representations, being at the same time a means of not direct, but indirect characterization of the phenomenon. Unlike comparison, metonymy rejects all associated features, purifying and typifying the main feature for the given situation. Yu. Lotman defines the act of metonymy as the selection of the essential specific characteristics and the elimination of the non-essential ones [9, p. 36].

According to U. Eco [22], metaphorical replacement (substitution) is based on metonymic practice. Metonymic connections turn into metaphorical ones, which represent a special mechanism of heuristic functions of language, that is, functions aimed at finding solutions. This becomes possible due to the fact that metonymic substitutions rely on a certain more or less stable semantic model. Thus, metonymic shifts in many cases are associated with shortening of word combinations (glass products), i.e. outwardly similar to such facts of changes in meanings, which are caused by contextual connections of words [22, p. 78-79].

Modern research focuses on the fact that metonymy is a contextual expression. J. Lacan pointed out that metonymy is based on word-to-word connection, while metaphor is the substitution of one word for another [23, p.156]. That is why a metaphor is rephrased into a comparison with the help of auxiliary words, and this cannot be done with metonymy. Even earlier, R. Jacobson determined that metaphor is characterized by relations of similarity (and, accordingly, paradigmatic relations), and metonymy is characterized by relations of contiguity (and, accordingly, syntagmatic relations) [21, p. 126]. This issue is more relevant for the study of literary prose, where the differences between categorization by contiguity and by analogy are significant. In poetry, metonymy has a subordinate character and can be considered as a special case of metaphorical categorization.

From the point of view of semantics, a metaphor is a combination of referents, which leads to a semantic conceptual anomaly. Metonymy works differently, not connecting referents with opposite semantic markers. In terms of cognitive linguistics, a metaphor implies the superimposition of different cognitive models [19, p. 36].

Metonymy, on the other hand, implements superimposition within one model. One category within one model replaces another. Therefore, the main function of metonymic expression is to activate one cognitive category, correlating it with another within the framework of one model, and thus highlight it itself or the submodel to which it belongs [19, p. 42]. Synecdoche (from Greek ouw.Kdo/q) is a kind of metonymy, a tropeic inversion in which the whole is presented through the name of its part, the general through its partial expression: to save a penny, money in general is meant; to share a bread in the sense of cohabitation [11, p. 148].

Metonymy is often identified with metaphor, or considered as its variety. In metaphor, words are combined according to the principle of similarity, and in metonymy - according to the principle of logical dependence. Metaphor can be turned into a comparison, but metonymy cannot, it can only be supplemented [8, p. 444-445]. Since each work of literature is primarily considered as the realization of the author's linguistic consciousness, artistic tropes play an important functional role in the writer's idiostyle, among which metonymy occupies a special place. Taking into account the features of the individual author's worldview of one or another writer when analyzing functionally significant metonyms in artistic discourse contributes to a more subtle and deeper interpretation of the author's intention [1, p. 146]. Metonymy acquires artistic literary significance in strong positions of the text, in particular in the title, directly based on the nature of strong positions, as a rule, this distinction is reinforced by textual repetitions of relevant keywords [1, p. 147].

Analyzing the above, we can conclude that the parameters of metonymy classification are determined by the originality and variety of plans of content and expression depending on certain metonymic connections and the subject of metonymic substitution. The essence of the linguistic nature of the metonymic epithet, in turn, is that the adjective that logically defines a word takes the syntactic position of definition with another word related to it by a metonymic type of relationship. This change of position gave the phenomenon its name - a transferred or metonymic epithet. That is, we can clearly define that a metonymic epithet is a predicative and non-predicative combination of an adjective with an object, in which the object is attributed a feature that characterizes another object, but such a feature is in a certain relationship with the main object. metonymic connection [18, p. 72]. Unlike metaphor, which connects in our minds things that are extremely distant in reality, metonymy creates a semantic lexical connection even when using the word in its main nominative sense (e.g., florid dress; hungry teeth; sleepless bed; unbreakfasted morning) [1, с. 94].

As mentioned earlier, the main semantic types of metonymy include object metonymy (transfer of name from noun to noun) and feature metonymy, or metonymic epithet (metonymy among adjectives). If subject metonymy is well known, it is the object of most researches, then the metonymy of the feature has not been studied thoroughly. This can be explained by the fact that objective metonymy is widely used in newspaper texts, colloquial language and does not have a pronounced figurative character, unlike the metonymic epithet, which largely remains the property of fiction and is characterized by greater imagery and originality [19, p. 38-40].

The metonymic epithet is an ancient phenomenon, so the language is full of familiar transferred epithets, in which often the metonymic transfer has almost ceased to be felt. We can distinguish several types of metonymic transfer characteristic of common metonymic epithets:

• transfer of a person's sign (most often experienced feelings) to his body parts: He pointed an accusing finger at them;

• transfer of a person's sign, emotions experienced by him to an action or name of some external manifestation of these emotions: Aragorn drew an angry sigh. “If you give up ”, he said in an appalled whisper, “what 'ud happen to me? ”

• transfer of a person's sign to an inanimate object or a period of time: Gandalf tapped the table with an impatient pipe [18, с. 73].

When using adjectives and adverbs denoting signs of a person with words denoting inanimate objects, not only a mechanical change in the position of the definition occurs, but also a complex process of semantic interaction of the definition and the defined, as a result of which a collision of close contact may appear in the semantic structure of the defined with a living being, as a result of which some traits and properties of a living being are transferred to the most inanimate object. This process to some extent repeats the process that occurs in the personifying epithet, however, they cannot be completely identified: while the personifying epithet expresses a processual, active, dynamic feature and represents an inanimate object as a living being in action, the transferred epithet expresses a static feature, and the object is represented as inanimate, but one that has taken on some features of a living being as a result of close contact with it [19, p. 41].

Having analyzed all of the above, we can conclude that metonymic epithets play one of the most important role in literary texts due to their ability to transfer meanings between different, but closely related concepts of the metonymic type.

In recent decades, the interest of scholars in the functioning of tropes, in particular, metonymic epithets in literary texts does not fade away, but, on the contrary, grows. As Yu. Lotman points out, the importance of tropes is that they are mechanisms of creative thinking [9, p. 47]. V. Toporov notes that the modern approach to the analysis of tropes includes the understanding of these means of expression as a system, the elements of which (individual tropes) are organized hierarchically. This makes it possible to distinguish general tropes - metaphor, metonymy, irony, and periphrasis, synecdoche, antonomasia, personification can be qualified as varieties of more general tropes [19, p. 520].

A characteristic feature of the functioning of metonymic epithets in literary texts is the use of these means in the role of homogeneous meanings - two, even three attributes. Some of the epithets are a combination of direct and metonymic meaning. Other epithets are homogeneous metonymic meanings that are either semantically close or brought together by context.

The textual functions of artistic metonymy in English- language prose are determined by such internal features of the text as its structural and compositional construction, integrity and coherence, as well as the interrelationships of metonymy with other tropes, in particular metaphor, and the expressive potential of metonymy itself. Given the fact that metonymy, belonging to figurative means, is a source of expressive information, the expressive function of metonymy in the context of our study is conventionally divided into reinforcing and identifying. Following O. Riabtseva [17], by the reinforcing function we understand the strengthening of the qualities and properties of the described object that are important for a specific situation. The essence of the identification function is that, thanks to metonymy, attention is drawn to an individualizing feature, which allows the addressee or reader to isolate the subject of speech from the field of observation [17, p. 322]. The functioning of metonymy in the text is especially vivid when it interacts with other tropes or stylistic devices, since each stylistically marked unit is a source of expressive information [20, p. 15].

Identifying the peculiarities of the functioning of metonymy makes it necessary to differentiate the discursive and textual specifics of their use. The conducted analysis made it possible to distinguish the textual functions of metonymy, which include textcreating, expressive, metaphor-creating and characterizing functions, and discursive functions represented by thematizing and symbol-creating functions.

The text-organizing function is determined by the role of metonymy in the structural and compositional construction of such works. The specificity of the textual implementation of metonymy in literary texts is its determining role in structural and compositional construction [20, p. 51]. Metonymy as a source of imagery performs an expressive function, the varieties of which are reinforcing and identifying. The first function is related to the accentuation of the qualities and properties of the described object that are important for a specific situation. The essence of the second function is that, thanks to metonymy, attention is drawn to the individualizing feature, which allows the reader to isolate the subject of speech from the field of observation.

If the characterization function is determined by the identification of ideal metonymic models that are characteristic of a certain work, then the metaphor-creating function is related to the role of metonymic relations in the textual construction of metaphors. Metonymic relations, which serve as a basis for creating metaphors in literary texts, mainly represent such models as cause - effect, genus - species, part - whole (partitativity) [20, p. 51-52]. The discursive functions of metonymy include features of artistic communication external to the text, including vertical text and cognitive features of the idiostyle of one or another writer, etc., which determines the discursive potential of literatymetonymy. A characteristic feature of the functioning of metonymic epithets in literary texts is the use of these means in the role of homogeneous meanings - two or even three attributes. Some of the epithets are a combination of direct and metonymic meaning: wide, windy gallops. Other epithets are homogeneous metonymic meanings, which are either semantically close - the hammering, sawing darkness of the shop, or brought together by the context - the embracing, old smile.

Therefore, as a result of a detailed examination of the above functions, we can confidently say that metonymic epithets play one of the most important, if not the most important, role in literary texts due to their versatility and the large number of roles that a metonymic epithet can perform due to the functions it is endowed with.

Conclusions

As a conclusion, we can state that the epithet is the main means by which imagery, expressiveness is created, and on the basis of this, the author's individual and evaluative relationship to the subject is revealed. From this follows the fact that the metonymic epithet is the main and irreplaceable part of literary texts due to its ability to meaningfully convey a subjectively evaluative relationship to the described phenomenon and the ability to transfer meanings between different, but closely related concepts of the metonymic type.

The essence of the linguistic nature of the metonymic epithet, in turn, is that the adjective that logically defines a word takes the syntactic position of definition with another word related to it by a metonymic type of relationship. It is clearly defined that a metonymic epithet is a predicative and non-predicative combination of an adjective with an object, in which the object is attributed a feature that characterizes another object, but such a feature is in a certain relationship with the main object. metonymic connection. We can conclude that metonymic epithets play one of the most important role in literary texts due to their ability to transfer meanings between different, but closely related concepts of the metonymic type.

References:

1. Арнольд И. В. Стилистика. Современный английский язык: Учебник для вузов. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2002. 384 с.

2. Ахманова О. С. Словарь лингвистических терминов. М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1969. 608 с.

3. Безпечний І. П. Теорія літератури. Торонто: «Молода Україна»,1984. 304 с.

4. Великий тлумачний словник сучасної української мови (з дод. і допов.) / [уклад. голов. ред. В. Т. Бусел]. К.; Ірпінь: ВТФ «Перун», 2005. 658 с.

5. Веселовский А. Н. Историческая поэтика. М.: Высшая школа, 1989.404 с.

6. Волковинський О. С. Алітераційний епітет (із поетики символізму). Слово і час. 2006. № 12. С. 28-34.

7. Жирмунский В. М. Введение в литературоведение. СПб.: Издательство Санкт-Петербургского университета, 1996. 440 с.

8. Літературознавчий словник-довідник / За ред. Р. Т. Гром'яка, Ю. І. Коваліва, В. І. Теремка. К.: ВЦ Академія, 2007. 752 с.

9. Лотман Ю. М. Внутри мыслящих миров. Человек - текст - семиосфера - история. М.: Языки русской культуры, 1996. 464 с.

10. Марузо Ж. Словарь лингвистических терминов. М.: Едиториал УРСС, 1960. 439 с.

11. Мацько Л. І., Мацько О. М. Риторика. К.: Вища школа, 2006. 311 с.

12. Москвин В. П. Русская метафора: Очерк семиотической теории. М.: ЛЕНАНД, 2006. 184 с.

13. Москвин В. П. Эпитет в художественной речи. Русская речь. 2001. № 4. С. 28-32.

14. Онопрієнко Т. М. Епітет як первісний троп і системоутворюючий центр тропіки. Вісник Житомирського державного педагогічного університету. 2001. № 8. С. 125-130.

15. Онопрієнко Т. М. Епітет: семантика і структура (на матеріалі англійської тропіки). Вісник Житомирського державного педагогічного університету. 2001. №8. С. 121-125.

16. Потебня О. О., Веселовський О. С. Теоретичне та історичне тлумачення епітета. Бібліотечний вісник. 2006. № 73. С. 3-10.

17. Рябцева Н. К. Метонимия как средство экономии и выражения количества. Логический анализ языка. Квантификативный аспект языка. 2005. С. 319-334.

18. Сиротина В. А. Метонимия и метонимический эпитет в художественной речи. Русский язык в школе. 1980. № 6. С. 72-77.

19. Топоров В. Н. Тропы. Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. М.: Советская энциклопедия, 1990. С. 520-521.

20. Трубенко І. А. Художня метонімія та її дискурсивний потенціал у прозі англійського модернізму: дис. на здобуття наук. ступеня канд. філологічних наук: спец. 10.02.04 «Германські мови». К., 2010. 192 с.

21. Якобсон Р. О. Два аспекта языка и два типа афатических нарушений. Теория метафоры. М.: Прогресс, 1990. 512 с.

22. Eco U. The role of the reader. Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington, 1984. 273 p.

23. Lacan J. Ecrites. A selection. London, 1977. 338 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru