Figures of Inequality

Their semantic function is highlighting differences.

Climax (or: Gradation). The Greek word climax means 'ladder'; the Latin gradatio means 'ascent, climbing up'. These two synonymous terms denote such an arrangement of correlative ideas (notions expressed by words, word combinations, or sentences) in which what precedes is less than what follows. Thus the second element surpasses the first and is, in its turn, surpassed by the third, and so on. To put it otherwise, the first element is the weakest (though not necessarily weak!); the subsequent elements gradually increase in strength, the last being the strongest.

"I am sorry, I am so very sorry, I am so extremely sorry." (Chesterton)

Anti-climax (or: Bathos). The device thus called is characterized by some authors as 'back gradation'. As its very name shows, it is the opposite to climax, but this assumption is not quite correct. It would serve no purpose whatever making the second element weaker than the first, the third still weaker, and so on. A real anti-climax is a sudden deception of the recipient: it consists in adding one weaker element to one or several strong ones, mentioned before. The recipient is disappointed in his expectations: he predicted a stronger element to follow; instead, some insignificant idea follows the significant one (ones). Needless to say, anticlimax is employed with a humorous aim. For example, in It's a bloody lie and not quite true, we see the absurdity of mixing up an offensive statement with a polite remark.

Pun. This term is synonymous with the current expression 'play upon words'. The semantic essence of the device is based on polysemy or homonymy. It is an elementary logical fallacy called 'quadruplication of the term'. The general formula for the pun is as follows: 'A equals В and C, which is the result of a fallacious transformation (shortening) of the two statements 'A equals B' and 'A equals С (three terms in all). It turns out, however, that the A of the first statement only appears to be identical with that of the second. Thus we obtain four terms (members of the two propositions), instead of three: A,A_V В and C; hence A *A_V

A few examples will illustrate the ambiguity of the words participating in the formation of the pun.

The Russian learner of English knows, it may be hoped, that the word spirits denotes both 'ghosts', 'apparitions', 'illusory visions' and 'strong drinks', 'alcohol' (depending on the context). Two characters of Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club by Dickens see a somewhat disconcerted-looking servant enter the room. "Have you been seeing spirits?" asks him one of the gentlemen; his more realistically-minded companion suggests another version: "Or taking any?"

Zeugma. As with the pun, this device consists in combining unequal, semantically heterogeneous, or even incompatible, words or phrases.

Zeugma is a kind of economy of syntactical units: one unit (word, phrase) makes a combination with two or several others without being repeated itself: "She was married to Mr. Johnson, her twin sister, to Mr. Ward; their half-sister, to Mr. Trench." The passive-forming phrase was married does not recur, yet is obviously connected with all three prepositional objects. This sentence has no stylistic colouring, it is practically neutral.

In stylistics, zeugma is co-occurrence and seeming analogy of syntactical connection of two or more units (words, phrases) with another unit. As a consequence, the very fact of proximity, of dose co-occurrence is unnatural, illogical since the resulting combinations are essentially different: they simply do not go together.

What is it that makes zeugmatic combinations look uncommon, strange, and often humorous? It may be disparity of grammatical types: one may be a free combination, the other an idiomatic set phrase (1); one is an adverbial prepositional phrase, the other a prepositional object or attribute (2); the grammatical connection is everywhere the same, but each unit pertains to a semantic sphere inconsistent with the other (3).

A Dickensian personage "... was alternately cudgeling his brains and his donkey." The set expression to cudgel one's brains means to break one's head over something' (i.e. to think desperately, looking for a solution'), while to cudgel a donkey is a free word combination, which implies real, not metaphorical beating of the animal with a cudgel (a big stick, a bludgeon). The Russian equivalent might be: сломал себе голову и ребра — своему ослу.* In the well-known Russian joke Он пил чай с женой, лимоном и удовольствием the first combination functions as a prepositional object, the second as an attribute to the word tea, the third is an adverbial modifier of manner.

Tautology pretended and tautology disguised. As a general rule, most isolated utterances contain the 'theme' ('topic') pointing out the subject to be discussed, and the 'rheme' ('comment') expressing what the speaker has to say concerning it. The rheme is presumed to bear information as yet unknown to the recipient (listener, reader). There are cases, however, when an utterance, quite acceptable grammatically, seems to convey no information, or at least very little of it.

Thus, a well-known type of sayings is formed by mere repetition of the same word or word combination: the theme and the rheme are lexically identical. Even those ignorant of French are familiar with the saying A la guerre, comme a la guerre («На войне, как на войне»); quite popular is also the German Befehl ist Befehl («Приказ есть приказ»), often used by war criminals who tried to justify their atrocities by shifting their own responsibility to their superiors. Every student of English ought to know Rudyard Kipling's famous words 'For East is East, and West is West../.

Sentences of this kind seem, at first glance, devoid of any informative force: the formula 'A is A' (A = A) appears to be a clear case of tautology, of mentioning the same thing twice. And yet they are current, so there must be some sense in it:

"'Well,' he said vaguely, 'that's that,' and relapsed into a thoughtful silence." (Christie)

On closer inspection it becomes clear that the pattern discussed is by no means devoid of information. The form 'A is A' implies something different from what it seems to say. Its second part (a Russian scholar said once) is presumed to make sense. Used as topic (theme) the word is a deictic element; occupying the position of the comment (rheme) it becomes informative and requires no further elucidation. One is expected to know what such notions as 'war', 'commahd', 'order', 'East' (as opposed to 'West') are, and what they imply. Hence, the tautology we observe in such cases is tautology pretended, or sham tautology.

Date: 2015-12-11; view: 2640