STYLISTIC SEMASIOLOGY

Stylistic semasiology is a part of stylistics which investigates stylistic

phenomena in the sphere of semantics, i. e. in the sphere of meanings,
regardless of the form of linguistic units. As distinct from stylistic lexicology or
stylistic syntax which deal with words and sentences, stylistic semasiology makes
meaning the object of its investigation.
But some limitations to the object are to be borne in mind. Non-stylistic
semasiology studies meanings. As concerns stylistic semasiology it is not so much
the meaning itself that is investigated but the rules and laws of shifts of meanings;
the patterns according to which meanings are shifted or either various
combinations thus producing a certain stylistic effect. Stylistic semasiology also
studies stylistic functions of shifts of meanings and of certain combinations of
meanings.
Stylistic phenomena effected by various shifts of meanings are usually termed
«figures of speech».

How shall we classify figures of speech?

Shifts of meanings can be divided into two large groups, namely:
1. there are cases when the disparity of the actual denomination of the referent
with the usual, traditional denomination of it can be understood as
quantitative, i. e. the referent is simply exaggerated or underestimated;
2. in some cases the disparity between the traditional and actual denominations
is qualitative.
Hence, the corresponding figures of speech may be subdivided accordingly into
figures of quantity (hyperbole, understatement, litotes) and figures of quality
(metonymy, metaphor, irony). Both figures of quantity and figures of quality may
be called figures of replacement since they are based on replacement of the
habitual name of a thing by its situational substitute.
We can give the name of figures of co-occurence to those stylistic phenomena
which are based on combination of meanings in speech. The difference between the
figures of replacement and those of co-occurence is as follows. In the former, it is one
meaning that produces stylistic effect; in the latter, it is a combination of at least two
meanings that produces stylistic effect.
Thus, figures of replacement break down to figures of quantity and figures of
quality.
Figures of quantity: hyperbole, understatement, litotes.
Figures of quality are subdivided into metonymical group (transfer by
contiguity) consisting of metonymy, synecdoche, periphrasis; metaphorical group
(transfer by similarity): metaphor, personification, epithet; and irony (transfer by
contrast).
Figures of co-occurence are subdivided into three groups:
 figures of identity (simile, synonymic repetition);
figures of inequality (gradation, anti-climax);
figures of contrast (antithesis, oxymoron).

FIGURES OF REPLACEMENT

Figures of Quantity
Hyperbole is the use of a word, a word-group or a sentence which exaggerates
the real degree of a quantity of the thing spoken about. It is a distortion of reality for the
purpose of visualization or strengthening the emotional effect. It is also an important
expressive literary device, often employed for humouristic purposes. E. g.:
«One after another those people lay down on the grass to laugh – and two of
them died» (Twain).
Understatement consists in lessening, reducing the real quantity of the object of
speech. The psychological essence of understatement is more complicated than that of
hyperbole. The hearer is expected to understand the intentional discrepancy between
what the speaker says about the object and what he really minks about it. E.g.:
«I was half afraid you had forgotten me».
Litotes is a specific variety of understatement consisting in expressing the
lessened degree of quantity of a thing by means of negation of the antonym. The
negation of the antonym expresses the positive idea but in a somewhat lessened
degree. E. g., «not bad» in the meaning of «good», or «little harm will be done by
that».

Figures of Quality
Figures of quality, called «tropes» in traditional stylistics, are based on transfer
of names.
We must distinguish three types of transfer:
1. transfer by contiguity;
2.transfer by similarity;
3.transfer by contrast.
Transfer by contiguity is based upon some real connection between the two
notions: that which is named and the one the name of which is taken for the
purpose.
Transfer by similarity is based on similarity, likeness of the two objects, real
connection lacking completely.
Transfer by contrast is the use of words and expressions with the opposite
meanings – opposite to those meant.
The transfer by contiguity forms the metonymic group of tropes; the
transfer by similarity forms the metaphorical group; the transfer by contrast is
irony.
 Metonymic group. Metonymy proper. Metonymy is applying the name of an
object to another object in some way connected with the first.
The metonymic connections between the two objects are manifold:
a) source of action instead of the action: «Give every man thine ear and few thy
voice»;
b) effect instead of the cause: «He (fish) desperately takes the death»;
c) characteristic feature instead of the object itself: «He was followed by a
pair of heavy boots»;
d) symbol instead of the object symbolized: «crown» for «king».
Synecdoche. Synecdoche is a variety of metonymy. It consists in using the
name of a part to denote the whole, or vice versa. E. g.: «To be a comrade with a
wolf and owl...». In this example «wolf» and «owl» stand for wild beasts and birds
in general.
Periphrasis. Periphrasis is in a way related to metonymy. It is a description of
an object instead of its name. E. g.:
«Delia was studying under Rosenstock – you know his repute as a disturber of
the piano keys» (instead of «a pianist»).
Metaphorical group. Metaphor. Metaphor is a transfer of the name of an
object to another object on the basis of similarity, likeness, affinity of the two
objects. At the same time there is no real connection between them, as in the
case with metonymy. The stylistic function of a metaphor is not a mere
nomination of the thing in question but rather its expressive characterization. E.
g.:
«The machine sitting at the desk was no longer a man; it was a busy New York
broker...» (O'Henry).
Metaphor has no formal limitations: it can be a word, a phrase, any part of a
sentence, or a sentence as a whole. Metaphors are either simple or complex
(prolonged). A simple, elementary metaphor is that which has no bearing on the
context: it is a word, a phrase, a sentence. A prolonged metaphor is elaborated in
a series of images logically connected with one another producing a general
description of a character, a scene, etc.
Personification is a particular case of metaphor. It consists in attributing life
and mind to inanimate things. Besides the actual objects of Nature abstractions of
the mind, such as life, death, truth, wisdom, love, evil, hope, etc. are frequently
personified. Thus, personification is ascribing human properties to lifeless objects.
In classical poetry of the 17th century personification was a tribute to
mythological tradition and to the laws of ancient rhetoric:
«How soon hath Time, the subtle thief of youth,
Stolen on his wing my three and twentieth year!»
(Milton)
In poetry and fiction of the last two centuries personification was used to
impart the dynamic force to the description or to reproduce the particular mood by
which the events described are coloured.
Personification is an important device used to depict the perception of the outer
world by the lyrical hero.
In most cases personification is indicated by some formal signals. First of all, it
is the use of personal pronouns «he» and «she» with reference to lifeless things:
«Then Night, like some great loving mother, gently lays her hand at our
fevered head... and, though she does not speak, "we know what she would say...»
(Jerome).
Personification is often achieved by the direct address:
«O stretch by reign, fair Peace, from shore to shore
Till conquest cease, and slavery be no more».
(A. Pope)
Another formal signal of personification is capitalized writing of the word
which expresses a personified notion:
«No sleep till morn, when Youth and Pleasure meet
To chase the glowing Hours with flying feet».
(Byron)
One should bear in mind that sometimes the capital letter has nothing in
common with personification, merely performing an emphasizing function.
Allusion. Allusion is a brief reference to some literary or historical event
commonly known. The speaker (writer) is not explicit about what he means: he
merely mentions some detail of what he thinks analogous in fiction or history to
the topic discussed. Consider the following example:
«If the International paid well, Aitken took good care he got his pound of
flesh..» (Chase).
Here the author alludes to Shakespeare's Shy lock, a usurer in «The Merchant
of Venice» who lends Antonio three thousand ducats for three months on condition
at on expiration of the term, if the money is not paid back, Shylock is entitled to
«an equal pound» of Antonio's «fair flesh».
Antonomasia. Metaphorical antonomasia is the use of the name of a historical,
literary, mythological or biblical personage applied to a person whose
characteristic features resemble those of the well-known original. Thus, a traitor
may be referred to as Brutus, a ladies' man deserves the name of Don Juan.
Irony. Irony is a transfer based upon the opposition of the two notions: the
notion named and the notion meant. Here we observe the greatest qualitative
shift, if compared with metonymy (transfer by contiguity) and metaphor (transfer
by similarity).
Irony is used with the aim of critical evaluation of the thing spoken about. E.
g.:
«What a noble illustrations of the tender laws of this favoured country! – they
let the paupers go to sleep!» (Dickens).
In oral speech irony is made prominent by emphatic intonation, mimic and
gesticulation. In writing, the most typical signs are inverted commas or italics.

FIGURES OF CO-OCCURENCE
 The figures of co-occurence are formed by the combination in speech of at least
two independent meanings. They are divided into figures of identity, figures of
inequality and figures of contrast.

Figures of Identity
This group of figures simile and synonymic repetition are referred.
Simile. It is an explicit statement concerning the similarity, the affinity of two
different notions. The purpose of this confrontation of the names of two different
objects is to characterize vividly one of the two. One of the two co-occurring
denominations is the name of the object really spoken about; the other
denomination is that of mi object not connected with the first in objective reality
but having certain features in common with the first object. E. g.:
«That fellow (first object) is LIKE an old fox. (second object)».
The existence of common features is always explicitly expressed in a simile,
mostly by means of the words «as», «like» and others.
There are two type of simile. In one of them the common feature of the two
objects is mentioned:
«He is as beautiful as a weathercock».
In the second type the common feature is not mentioned; the hearer is
supposed to guess what features the two objects have in common:
«My heart is like a singing bird».
Care should be taken not to confuse the simile and any sort of elementary
logical comparison. A simile presupposes confrontation of two objects belonging to
radically different semantic spheres; a comparison deals with two objects of the
same semantic sphere:
«She can sing like a professional actress» (logical comparison);
«She sings like a nightingale» (simile).
Synonymic repetition. To figures Of identity we may refer the use of synonyms
denoting the same object of reality and occurring in the given segment of text. We
should distinguish:
a)the use of synonyms of precision,
b)the use of synonymic variations.
Synonyms of precision. Two or more synonyms may follow one another to
characterize the object in a more precise way. The second synonym expresses some
additional feature of the notion; both synonyms permit a fuller expression of it. E. g.:
«Joe was a mild, good-natured, sweet-tempered, easy-going, foolish fellow»
(Dickens).
Synonymic variations. Frequently synonyms or synonymic expressions are used
instead of the repetition of the same word or the same expression to avoid the
monotonousness of speech, as excessive repetition of the same word makes the style
poor. E. g.:
«He brought home numberless prizes. He told his mother countless stories every
night about his school companions» (Thackeray).
 Figures of Inequality
A very effective stylistic device is created by special arrangement in the text of
words or phrases, or sentences which differ from one another by the degree of
property expressed or by the degree of emotional intensity. In accordance with the
order of strong and weak elements in the text two figures on inequality are
distinguished: climax, or gradation, and anti-climax, or bathos.
Climax (gradation) means such an arrangement of ideas (notions) in which what
precedes is inferior to what follows. The first element is the weakest; the subsequent
elements gradually rise in strength. E. g.:
«I am sorry. 1 am so very sorry. I am so extremely sorry» (Chesterton).
Anti-climax (bathos). By anti-climax, any deviation of the order of ideas found
in climax is usually meant. But it should be underlined that anti-climax consists in
weakening the emotional effect by adding unexpectedly weaker elements to the strong
ones which were mentioned above. Usually anti-climax is employed for humouristic
purposes. E. g.:
«The woman who could face the very devil himself – or a mouse – loses her
grip and goes all to pieces in front of a flash of lightning» (Twain).

Figures of Contrast
These figures are formed by intentional combination in speech of ideas,
incompatible with one another. The figures in question are antithesis and oxymoron.
Antithesis is a confrontation of two notions which underlines the radical
difference between them.
Two words or expressions of the opposite meanings may be used to
characterize the same object. E. g.:
«It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it
was the age of foolishness...» (Dickens).
Antithesis may be used to depict two objects with opposite characteristics. E.
g.:
«His fees were high; his lessons were light...» (O'Henry).
Two objects may be opposed as incompatible by themselves and each of
them obtain a characteristic opposite to that of the other. E. g.:
«For the old struggle – mere stagnation, and in place of danger and death, the
dull monotony of security and the horror of an unending decay!» (Leacock).
Oxymoron. Oxymoron consists in ascribing a property to an object
incompatible, inconsistent with that property. It is a logical collision of words
syntactically connected but incongruent in their meaning. E. g.:
«O brawling love! O loving hate!» (Shakespeare)