Tropes: oxymoron and antonomasia

Oxymoron. (Gk. oxus ‘sharp’ + moros ‘foolish’) is a combination of words that express two diametrically opposite notions.

E.g. Her cheerfulness was the cheerfulness of despair. (Maugham)

Oxymoron ascribes some feature to an object or phenomenon incompatible with it, that is why one of its two components can be said to be used figuratively.

E.g. О loving hate! ( Shakespeare)

Moreover, in oxymoron the logical meaning prevails over the emotive but the emotive is the result of the clash between the logical and illogical.

Semantically an oxymoron can be of two types:

- evident (composed of dictionary antonyms), e.g. beautifully ugly; and

-non-evident (composed of words that render mutually exclusive notions and become contextual antonyms), e.g. jolly starvation.

Structurally oxymoron can be formed by an attributive combination (e.g. beautiful horror) or an adverbial word combination (e.g. to swear pleasingly, to be proudly weak).

To less frequent types belong combinations like ugly in a pleasant way, a sweet kind of torture, etc.

Function. In spite of the outward illogicality oxymoronic collocations are full of sober sense: they disclose seeming or genuine differences of objects and phenomena as well as the contradictions of life.

Sometimes they create an ironic or comical effect.

 E.g. the noble family of swine. (Golding)

Antonomasia is usu. the substitution of the proper name of a person for another name in order to characterize him/her.

 Casanova (for a ladies' man ), a Cicero (for an orator).

Function: characterization through name, creation of humorous atmosphere.

There exist 2 major types of antonomasia:

1) A proper name is used as a common noun. Here belong:

a) metaphoricalantonomasia (when the proper name of a famous personage is applied to a person whose characteristic features resemble).

E.g. ‘I’m not a Michael Angelo, no, but I have something ...

b) metonymic antonomasia (observed in cases when a personal name stands for something connected with the bearer of that name).

E.g.  I am fond of Dickens (= of Dickens' books).

The use of such antonomastic words demonstrates how proper nouns acquire new, logical meanings:

Some of them are still spelled with capital letters, others are already spelt with small letters.  

E.g. She was beginning to like … middle-aged men … but … really nice attractive ones … had hardly more than an occasional faint gleam of interest to spare for a Miss Matfield. (Priestley)

They can be used in the plural.

E.g. It was a pity that silly young men did not amuse her, for there were plenty of Ivors about, whereas there were very few real grown-up men about …. (Priestley)

2)A common noun acquires a nominal meaning and is used as a proper noun.

In such usages, which are also termed speaking or telling names, token or tell-tale names, the common noun origin is still clearly perceived. 

E.g. Shark Dodson, Mr. Cheeky.

Metonymy

M. is a trope based upon a real connection (inward or outward) – between the object of nomination and the object whose name by way of associations is used to replace it. (Cf. with metaphor where this connection is non-existent.)

Metonymy can also be defined as a nomination of the object through one of its inherent properties.

Function. Metonymy usually creates an ironic or even sarcastic effect, sometimes it serves intensification.

According to the relation between the tenor and the vehicle the following types of metonymy are differentiated:

1. the abstract stands for the concrete:

2.the container is mentioned instead of the contents:

E.g. He sipped one more bottle (of whisky).

3. the material instead of the thing made of it:

E.g. She was glancing through his water colours.

4. the maker stands for the thing made:

E.g. The Rembrandt turned out to be fake.

       He adores Mozart.

5. the instrument is put for the agent:

E.g. His brush can be easily recognized.

6. a part is put for the whole (synecdoche):

 E.g. There were long legs all around.

Synecdoche can as well be expressed grammatically.

An example of traditional (stereotyped) synecdoche is the use of the singular (the so-called generis singularis) when the plural (the whole class) is meant.

E.g. ‘A woman can forgive a man for the harm he does her’ he said, ‘but she can never forgive him for the sacrifices he makes on her account.’ (or: The woman ...). (Maugham)

 The opposite type of synecdoche (‘the whole for a part’) occurs

-when the name of the genus is used in place of the name of the species:

E.g. Stop torturing the poor animal (instead of the poor dog); or

-when the 'plural of disapprobation' is resorted to:

E.g. Reading books when I am talking to you! (while one book is meant).

The stylistic device of simile

(Latin similis ‘similar’) is an explicit statement of partial identity of two objects belonging to entirely different classes of things.

E.g. She felt like a shivering and bruised ant. (Priestley)

The word explicit distinguishes simile from metaphor where comparison is not stated clearly:

a) Metaphor is a renaming where a word, a phrase, a sentence, etc. is used instead of another; simile always employs two names of two separate objects.

b) Simile always contains at least one more component part – a word or a word-group signalizing the idea of juxtaposition and comparison.

The formal signals of simile are mostly:

 1) link words as, like – establishing the analogy categorically.

E.g. Her arms were like legs of mutton, her breasts like giant cabbages; her face, broad and fleshy, gave you an impression of almost indecent nakedness, and vast chin succeeded to vast chin. (Maugham)

2) link words as though, as if, than – establishing but a slight similarity.

E.g. It was as though he had become aware of the soul of the universe and were compelled to express it. (Maugham)

3) lexical and morphological means that establish resemblance, such as to resemble, to remind of, in a way or verbal phrases to bear a resemblance to, to have a look of; suffixes - ish, - like, - some, -y, etc.

E.g. He reminded you of those jolly, fat merchants that Rubens painted. (Maugham)

   ‘I believe you’re right, Sandycroft …’ said Mr. Smeeth, with the air of a dutiful cross-talk comedian. (Priestley)

… the place where Strickland lived had the beauty of the Garden of Eden. (Maugham)

   He had …a small, still babyish mouth (Priestley).

The function of simile is specifying and illustrating.

 There exist a lot of trite (hackneyed, familiar) similes in the English language.

E.g. as clear as a day, as black as a crow, to behave like a lamb.

Like metaphors similes can be sustained or extended.

E.g. Her tranquillity was like the sullen calm that broods over an island which has been swept by a hurricane. (Maugham)

Simile must be distinguished from logical comparison or comparison proper, which brings together two things belonging to one class, i.e. deals with what is logically comparable, while in simile there is usu. a bit of fantasy.

E.g. He is as clever as his father (the same class of objects – human beings).

Tropes: epithet

The epithet (Gk. epitheton ‘addition’) is an attributive (or adverbial) word or phrase used to characterise an object, i.e. to express an individual perception and evaluation of its features and properties. E.g. a giant moustache, a pessimistic rumble. (Priestley)

I.V. Arnold believes that it is a lexico-syntactical trope for it is usu. materialized in a sentence as an attribute, an adverbial modifier or a predicative.

The epithet can be expressed by an adjective, an adverb, a noun, a participle, etc. E.g. ‘What have I done now?’ she began indignantly (an adv., an adv. mod.). (Priestley)

The epithet differs from the logical (= descriptive) attribute, which shows the inherent property of a thing, thus being objective and non-evaluating. E.g. a middle-aged man, bluey-green walls. (Priestley)

Compositionally epithets fall into:

1) simple or word-epithets, e.g. Happiness for him had a feminine shape. (Priestley)

2) compound epithets (formed by compound adjectives), e.g. a crescent-shaped object; wild-looking young fellows (Priestley).

3) two-step epithets (supplied with intensifiers), e.g. … fatally second class … public school … (Priestley)

4) phrase epithets (also called hyphenated epithets when written through a hyphen), e.g. Now he was practically a four-hundred-a-year man instead of a three-hundred-a-year man. (Priestley) …

5) reversed epithets (composed of two nouns linked by an of-phrase where the attributive relation between the members of the combination shows that the SD is an epithet), e.g. a thick figure of a man (Priestley)

According to I.R. Galperin, semantically epithets may be divided into 2 groups:

a) associated underlining the essential feature of the object, e.g. tremendous moustache. (Priestley)

b) unassociated with the noun, unexpected and striking, e.g. the inhuman drawing-room. (Priestley)

V.A. Kukharenko splits epithets into:

1. fixed (trite, traditional, conventional, standing), e.g. a devoted friend, magic weather.

2. figurative (transferred) that can be metaphorical, metonymic, ironical, etc., e.g. bushy eyebrows. (Priestley)

From the point of view of the distribution of epithets in the sentence, there can be distinguished a string of epithets whose function is to give a multisided characterization. E.g. That she was not really a creature of that world only made her more fascinating, mysterious, romantic … (Priestley)