The article is devoted to the problem of creating the metalanguage of investigation of the verbal means realizing the hyperbolic semantics in non-related languages.
Keywords: verbal means, verbalizers, hyperbolic semantics, metanotions, metaterms, metatheory, unified theory, metalanguage
Cтатья посвящена проблеме создания метаязыка исследования вербальных средств, объективирующих гиперболическую семантику в языках разных систем.
Ключевые слова: вербальные средства, вербализаторы, гиперболическая семантика, метапонятия, метатермины, метатеория, общая теория, метаязык
There are a range of scientific researches on hyperbole devoted to the study of hyperbolic means both in monolingual and polylingual respect, however, the problem about its terminological appliance and metalanguage was not set (Poltoratskiy 1956: Bally 1961; Screbnev 1965; Sergeeva 1967; Semyonova 1967; Ahmanova 1969; Raskaley 1971; Kukharenko 1971; Kurakhtanova 1972; 1978; Ubin 1974; Suvorina 1976; Kungurov 1976; Galperin 1981; Syrovatkin 1977; Polyanskiy 1978; Tursunova 1979; Arnold 1973; Shomaksudov and others.1983; Rozental, Telenkova 1985; Lekova 1987; Krysin 1988; Nazarov 1998; Kunin 1989; Kilichev 1992; Jackendoff 1993; Crystal 2001; Sagatova 2001; Yusupov 2013 and others).
Metalanguage of the research, as known, is a complex of metanotions, metaterms and metatheories, by means of which structural, deductive, semantic or other peculiarities of a language phenomena which is the subject matter of a special study of varying metatheories, are investigated
From this point of view for a systematic research of verbalizers, manifesting universal “conceptual semantics”, in particular conceptual semantics of “hyperbole” both in a private and contrastive-typological, and general linguistic respect, and the development of their metalanguage is presented to be absolutely essential, without which the undertaken research cannot claim to the completeness of thorough analysis and the right description of the latter. (Jackendoff 1993, 120)
It is sometimes observed that there is not such semantics in language speaker’s conseptoshpere, which confirms the conceptual lacune, over time, with enhanced contact with another language or culture it may and must be replenished. Conceptual semantics or “concepts”, as they are precisely called in linguocognitive researches are embodied in a language speaker`s complex of knowledge of concept, which may be called “conceptuality”, and the latter creates the basis for a conscious, adequate and competent usage by a native speaker in a communicative- pragmatic intercourse, which is the ability and competence of using the knowledge of concepts-i.e. its “conceptability”. (Khoshimov 2010,128). (Khoshimov 2015,215).
To verbalize their communicative-pragmatic intention, there are a whole system of verbal (nonverbal as well) means at native speaker`s disposal, which may contingently be called hyperboles which are emic units, and concrete realization of the latter is called a “hyperbole”, which are considered to be ethical units. (Karabaev 2015, 74).
In order to verbalize their communicative-pragmatic intention hyperbolically, i.e. to hyperbolize the characteristics of sign measures of certain phenomena,a native speaker has hypersphere too(sphere or complex of knowledge of hyperbolemes), inherited by their parents and the members of language community to which their family belong, as well as hyperbolity(complex of knowledge of hyperboles) that thy accumulate their entire life and hyperability (the ability or competence of using knowledge of hyperboles) which they can competently use in the communication with the other members of the language community when needed.
When verbalizing linguoconceptual semantics “hyperbole”, which directly comes out of their communicative-pragmatic intention, a native speaker uses such language means that guarantees the hyperbolization of sign measure characteristics of phenomena and respectively give this semantics hyperbolized shade and are rightly called «hyperbolyzers» (such as ўта, жуда, роса, бенихоя, бағоят, нихоятда, итдек санқимоқ, девдек бақувват, қушдек енгил, ортиқча қилиқ, супер шоу, шердек баққувват, тулкидек айёр,, deadly scared, extremely happy, a thousand times,the happiest man on the trapeze, in the seventh sky, … not a single soul и т. п.).
Being universal, the investigated conceptual semantics “hyperbole”,is verbalized in all languages by the following invariant types of units of various levels of language hierarchy, which we call “hyperboles”.(Корабоев 2015, 75):
1) phoneme (morphophoneme);
2) morpheme;
3) lexeme;
4) phraseme;
5) sentenceme;
6) phraseoeme;
7) Texteme (discourseme).
As hyperboles belong to various levels of language hierarchy, they may be expressed with the following unified terms:
1) phono-hyperboleme, that is, morpho-phonohyperboleme, verbalized phonohyperboleme, that is, morphophoneme;
morpho-hyperboleme, verbalized morpheme;
2) lexo-heyperboleme), verbalized lexeme;
3) phrase-hyperboleme, verbalized phraseme;
4) sentence-hyperboleme, verbalized sentenceme;
5) phraseo-hyperboleme, verbalized phraseoeme- phrasal unit;
6) texto-hyperboleme /discourso-hyperboleme, verbalized texteme/discourseme.
As seen, hyprboleme is objectified(realized) with a whole system of
special language means, forming linguocognitive field ”hyperbole”, which have constituents representing nucleus, dominant and periphery of the current field.
In this plan, lexo-hyperbolemes are the nucleus, syntax-hyperbolemes are dominant(phrase-hyperbolemes, sentence-hyperbolemes), and the other constituents of this field (phono-hyperbolemes, morpho-phonohyperbolemes, morpho-hyperbolemes, phraseo-hyperbolemes, texto-hyperbolemes, discurso-hyperbolemes)are the periphery of of the field.
Among the constituents of this field there are lexico-semantic, syntactic-semantic, semantic-syntactic synonymous relations, which are equal to homonymous, antonymous, hyponymous, hyperonymous relations and a separate article will be devoted to their study.
References:
- Arnold I.V «Stilistika sovremennogo angliykogo yazika». Moskov, 1973.
- Karabaev J. B. Lingvokulturologicheskiye osobennosti verbalizatorov konseptualnoy semanticki «giperbola» v yazikax raznoy tipologicheskoy prinadlejnosti//Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2015. № 10 (365).Filologiya. Iskusstvovedeniye. Vip. 95. С. 74–80.
- Kunin A. V. Giperbola v sfere angliykoy frazeologii (О frazeologicheskoy giperbole) // Angliyskaya frazeologiya v funksionalnom aspekte.- М.: VASXNIL, 1989- VIP. 336.- С. 85–93
- O. S. Akhmanova. Slovar lingvisticheskix terminov pod red. О. S. Axmanovoy. М., 1966.
- Khoshimov G.M К lingvokognitivnoy kompetensii nositelya yazika i perevodchika// Tarjimaning lingvokognitiv, kommunikativ-pragmatik va lingvokognitiv aspektlari. Ilmiy amaliy konferensiya materiallari, Andijan, 2015, 214- 218 pages
- Yusupov U. Comparative Linguistics of the English and Uzbek Languages. Т., Аkademnashr, 2013, 101–103 pages
