Most people repeatedly encounter the use of metonymy when reading books, in writing and in conversation, believing that this is an ordinary general language; At the same time, few people think about what the word “metonymy” actually means. So what is it? The most understandable answer can be considered the following: this is a phrase in which one of the words can be replaced by another word.

In contact with

The ancient Roman thinker Marcus Fabius Quintilian discussed metonymy in this way: its essence is manifested in replacing the described object with its cause, and this means that it is capable of replacing a word or concept with one related to the first.

(emphasis on the last syllable; “metonymia” - translated from ancient Greek “renaming”; from the meaning of the words “meto” - “above” in translation and “onyma” - “name”) - a phrase, a type of trope in which one word can be replaced by another, denoting a phenomenon or object located in some (temporal, spatial, etc.) relationship with the object, which is denoted by the replacing word. In this case, the replacement word is used in a figurative meaning.

Metonymy is different from metaphor, but it is quite often confused with it. The difference is that it is based on replacement “by contiguity” (i.e., a part of a whole instead of the whole whole or, conversely, an entire class instead of a representative of a class or vice versa, content instead of a container or vice versa, etc.), and a metaphor is is based on replacement “by similarity”; It’s also easy to define a metaphor if you replace it with a word that answers the question: “what.” A special case of metonymy is.

Example:“All flags will visit us” (“flags” are “countries” (a part replaces the whole, from the Latin “pars pro toto » ). Metonymy in this case highlights a property in a phenomenon, while the property, by its characteristic quality, can replace other meanings. Thus, on the one hand, metaphor becomes different from metonymy in its essence, since it has a greater real interconnection of substitute members, and on the other hand, it becomes more limited and eliminates features that are invisible in a given phenomenon.

The only thing similarity to metaphor- this belongs to the language (for example, a word such as “wiring” in a metonymic meaning is extended from the action of a word to a result, and in the artistic and literary direction it has a special meaning).

In the early literature of the Soviet era, the maximum attempts to use this method of expression were consolidated by constructivists. They put forward a principle that they called the “principle of locality,” meaning the motivation of verbal means by any theme of the work, i.e., limiting their actual (real) dependence on the topic. But such an attempt turned out to be insufficiently justified for them, since it was considered illegal to put forward metonymy at the expense of metaphor, and these are two completely different ways in the connections between phenomena that do not exclude, but complement each other.

Types of metonymy

• spatial(transfer of the physical, spatial relative position of phenomena, objects or names to objects that are closely related to them; for example, “the audience applauded”; the meaning is that people applauded, therefore, the action is transferred to the audience);
• temporary(the name of the action is transferred to the result of this action; for example, “new edition of a book”; in this case, the meaning of the word “publication” is used as a result, not an action);
• logical(the name of the author, the name of the action or initial substance, etc. is transferred to the final result, i.e. the final work, action and product relative to the above; in this case there must be a clear connection, for example, “looked at Ozhegov” - available in I mean getting information from Ozhegov’s dictionary).

Types of metonymy

• general linguistic metonymy - quite often used in speech; for example, beautiful porcelain (talking about porcelain products);
• general poetic (distinguished by its popularity in poetry; for example, sky blue);
• Is it a general newspaper (for example, an author's page);
• individual author's (for example, chamomile Rus').

Synecdoche is a type of metonymy

Synecdoche (translated from Greek “sinekdohe” - “correlation”).

The peculiarity of this variety is that it is characterized replacing a plural word to a singular word (meaning), using some part of it instead of the whole, or vice versa. Synecdoche is also called “quantitative metonymy,” because it is based on the strong use of substituted meanings, which enhances the expressiveness of the syllable, giving speech the greatest generalizing meaning.

Let's take the following sentences as an example:

“A detachment of one hundred bayonets” or “I won’t let him on the threshold!” and so on.

Examples in Russian

Metonymic transfers are quite diverse in the Russian language both in the nature of their transformations and in the state of phrases and expressions. They can be based on attribute and action, replacing content with containing, etc.

Let's look at a few examples in Russian:

• the conference made a decision (replacing part of the general with the general, since the meaning of the word “conference” means people);
• apple jam (transferring the process to an object state, since it is clear that the jam was prepared from apples);
• I’ll eat another plate (the content appears instead of the content, since it is not specified what is in the plate);
• he is in blue (here there is a sign instead of an object, since it is not indicated exactly what clothes are, but the meaning of what is said is clear)

Examples of metonymy in literature

Metonymy in literature is called literary trope, which is based on adjacent, contiguous, close and understandable connections between phenomena and objects.

For example, words from I. A. Krylov’s fable “Demyanov’s ear”: “I ate three plates...” or the expression in the poem “There is in the primordial autumn...” by F. I. Tyutchev: “Where the cheerful sickle walked and the ear fell...”

Let us recall such literary phrases as “the hungry years”, “the Bronze Age”, “we met at the opera”, “the stands froze”, “the theater applauded” and much more.

Opinion of scientific researchers

Modern science is convinced that the way of expressing thoughts, built in the form of metonymy, enhances expressiveness not only works and the Russian language, but also reveals the richness of vocabulary, helping to perceive the connection of related concepts that are not always homogeneous.

Metonymy is widely used in vocabulary, poetics, semantics, rhetoric and stylistics and is the most effective means of speech influence. Researchers claim that it has speech and logical qualities that help to reason more diversely, as well as cognitive properties, thanks to which a person penetrates deeply into the process of cognition and thinking.

Russian language

What is metonymy? Types of figures of speech

no comments

Metonymy from Greek translates as “renaming something.” Metonymy is a type of phrase, a figure of speech in which the author replaces one word with another.

Another meaning denotes an object or phenomenon that is in spatial or temporal connection with the replaced or designated word. The replacement word has a figurative meaning.

People confuse metonymy with metaphor, but they are two different terms. The main difference between metonymy and metaphor is that when the former is used in the text, the similarity between objects is not provided. And nothing to do with .
In order for contraction of speech patterns or phrases to occur, metonymy is used, for example:

• tableware made of gilding - tableware gilding;
• students in the audience listen - the audience listens;
• drink chamomile infusion - drink chamomile.

What is metonymy in Russian? Modern writers regularly use this technique in their writing. The main goal of metonymy is to create a model of semantics in a polysemantic word.

Metonymy is the result of a combination of several words, united according to the principle of semantic-grammatical and phonetic compatibility.

The regularity of occurrence is the result of an elliptical contraction with a bunch of words.
This or that limitation is preserved, but a new word with an independent contextual character is not created. For example: There are two Aivazovskys in the exhibition hall(meaning two works by the artist), but one cannot say “One Aivazovsky depicts a golden autumn b".

A strong connection between the metonymic context occurs when a specific situation is designated. It must be based on a statement in the subject, for example: "What's wrong with you? - oh, head”(that is, the answerer meant a headache).

Where is metonymy used?

Metonymy is used as a technique for situational nominations with individualization of details of appearance, for example: What are you doing, Beard? In this case, the name is used in the form of a meaning of belonging - a noun and an adjective.

This form of metonymic turnover provokes the creation of nicknames and nicknames, for example: Little Red Riding Hood, White Bim Black Ear.

When metonymy indicates the typicality of an individual, it will remain in Russian speech as the meaning of social positions. Such metonymic phrases do not have semantic stability.
In many historical records, the word “beard” was used to describe wise men and peasants.

The advantages of metonymy are that they identify the subject of speech and connect it with a syntactic position (address, subjects, object).

When should you not use metonymy?

Situational metonymy cannot be used in the predicate position. It does not perform a characterizing function.

If metonymy is used in a predicate, it turns into a metaphor. The main goal is to aspect the subject, but the technique cannot be considered as metonymy.

You should not use metonymy in an existential sentence and its replacing forms. In this case, the described object is introduced into the narrative world. Don't start your story with words “Once upon a time there lived (one) old man. Thus, the reader perceives the object in personified form, and not as a designated person.

Another limitation in using metonymy is to use a noun "soul" with meaning "Human"; “head” - “unit of livestock”; “saber” - “cavalryman”.
Metonymization of names is not reflected in the norm of its grammatical and semantic consistency, for example: went black beard (male), the black boots became agitated (although the phrase indicates the action of one person).
Rarely is a metonymic phrase used by a definition that has a connection with ellipsis.

Metonymy and its types

There are three main types in Russian. They are defined depending on related concepts, objects and actions.
Let's figure out how each type is used in written presentation, what its meaning is with examples, in order to avoid mistakes.

Spatial metonymy

Its meaning is in the spatial arrangement of objects or phenomena.
A common example is that the name of various institutions is transferred to the people who work in it, for example: in the phrases spacious hospital and bright store, the words hospital and store are used in their literal meaning, but if they are used in this context: the entire store took part in the cleanup and the hospital took part in city competitions, then this is already a metonymic turnover. The reader perceives what is said in a figurative sense.

Spatial metonymy consists in transferring a vessel or utensil to its contents, for example, a saucepan is boiling, the process of boiling something occurs in it.

Temporal metonymy

This technique is used when comparing objects that are in the same time period. For example, when an action (in the form of a noun) is transferred to its subsequent result (what occurs during the action).

Metonymy of logical form

Not only does it have a vast meaning, but it is different from each other. Differences in specific transfer.

1. The author transfers the name of the vessel to what is in it. For example: broke a cup the phrase is used in its literal meaning, meaning the name of the vessel.
   Now let's use them differently: broke a cup of tea, in this case, the noun has a figurative meaning in order to denote the volume of the product that they contain.
2. The authors transfer the name of the materials to the final product, for example: the team won gold(the team won the gold medal), put on the arctic fox(that is, wear an arctic fox fur coat), sort out papers(work with documents).
3. When, when writing, the author's name is transferred to his work, for example: read Yesenin(read Yesenin’s book), admire Shishkin(admire his paintings) use Dahl(use the dictionary that was published under his editorship).
4. Transferring the name of a process or action to the person doing it, for example: suspension(jewelry), putty(a substance that eliminates defects), change(a group of people).
   Replacement of an ongoing process at the place where it occurs, for example: signs with the words “ transition”, “detour”, “stop”, “turn” and further.
5. Cases when we transfer characteristic features to the phenomenon or object to which they belong. For example, let's take the phrases: tactless words, banal assessment- they have abstract features. If we rearrange them, we get: commit a tactlessness, admit a banality. We used metonymic type transfer.

What is the difference between metonymy and metaphor?

These two concepts are perceived as something similar, but this statement is incorrect.
Unlike metaphors, a metonymic phrase replaces words not by similarity, but by the contiguity of the concept.
In metonymic usage there are connections:

• a substance involved in the process of making an object, the object itself, for example, drank two cups— the author meant that he drank the contents of two cups;
• relationship between content and contained, for example: boiling pot- in fact, what is meant is what is bubbling in the pan;
• any action and its final result, for example: a sign with the inscription exit- that is, a place to exit;
• using the author's name instead of his work, for example: the other day I read Yesenin - in fact I read his works;
• connection between people and the place they are in, for example: the capital fell asleep— the people who are in the capital actually fell asleep.

A type of metonymy

In the Russian language there are certain types of metonymy that are widely used. Metonymic turnover is one of the most common.

1. General linguistic menonymy

When speaking, people do not notice that they use metonymic expressions in their speech. This is especially true for general linguistic metonymy. What can be attributed to this species? For example, the word gold, gilding, ceramics, porcelain- this is a product, but gold plate collector- a person who collects collections of gilded items.
Words shop, hospital, factory- these are institutions, but if you use the phrase the hospital has confirmed its qualifications, implies that hospital workers have confirmed their qualifications.
Words turn, detour, and so on - this is the place of actions that imply that here you need to turn, go around.
Instead of talking about a new thing, people use the name of the material that was used in production, for example: instead of a fox fur coat, people prefer to just say: put on a fox.

2. General poetic metonymy

Refers to an expressive form; in other sources it can be found under the name artistic metonymy. It is called that because it is used in artistic expressions, for example: clear cold autumn - metonymy is the word transparent.
Russian poets in their works blue sky called glaze. In such cases glaze - metonymy. Since the use of general poetic metonymy is characteristic of artistic presentation, it has two names.

3. General newspaper metonymy

The list of similar metonyms includes the words: fast (quick minute), golden (golden flights). Statements and phrases that publicists use in their work.

4. Metonymies of individual type

The trails have a wide variety. This is justified by the fact that they have forms, types, and the use of metonymy is no exception. This is a technique in the Russian language when a phrase or phrase is used in the works of one author, that is, individual. They are not used everywhere.

5. Synecdoche

Among the authors there is a question about what is the relationship between metonymy and synecdoche. The authors believe that these are two different concepts; this opinion is erroneous. Synecdoche is one of the forms of metonymic phrase. Its goal is to identify a part of an object with its whole. It is used to highlight some part of an object. A detail is used that makes it stand out from the rest, syndecoha consists of a definition.

Synecdoche is a special version of metonymy

If we consider the structure of the sentence, then it will play the role of a nominal member, the person to whom you are addressing, for example: Beard, where did you go? In this case, the synecdoche is the word beard.
When, in oral speech or when writing artistic statements, authors resort to the use of metonymic phrases, they add expressiveness to the language. You can reveal the richness of your vocabulary.

METONYMY is a type of trope, the use of a word in a figurative meaning, a phrase in which one word is replaced by another, as in a metaphor, with the difference from the latter that this replacement can only be made by a word denoting an object (phenomenon) located in one or another ( spatial, temporal, etc.) connection with the object (phenomenon), which is denoted by the replaced word; for example: “All flags will visit us,” where flags replace ships (a part replaces the whole, pars pro toto). The meaning of metonymy is that it identifies a property in a phenomenon that, by its nature, can replace the others.

Thus, metonymy essentially differs from metaphor, on the one hand, by a greater real interconnection of the replacing members, and on the other, by greater restrictiveness, the elimination of those features that are not directly given in a given phenomenon. Like metaphor, metonymy is inherent in language in general, but it has a special meaning in artistic and literary creativity, receiving its own class saturation and use in each specific case.

Metonymy is based on replacing words “by contiguity” (part instead of the whole or vice versa, representative of a class instead of the whole class or vice versa, container instead of content or vice versa, etc.), and metaphor is based on “by similarity.” A special case of metonymy is synecdoche.

In early Soviet literature, an attempt to make maximum use of metonymy both theoretically and practically was made by the constructivists, who put forward the principle of so-called “locality” (the motivation of verbal means by the theme of the work, that is, limiting them to real dependence on the theme). However, this attempt was not sufficiently substantiated, since the promotion of metonymy to the detriment of metaphor is illegal: these are two different ways of establishing a connection between phenomena, not exclusive, but complementary.

If we accept that contiguity in metonymy is always somehow connected with internal dependence, then such a characteristic can be considered completely exhaustive of the essence of the object, since in synecdoche the relationship of the expression to the expressed cannot be limited to one external connection or contiguity of a part of the object and whole of him. The whole point is that the definition of metonymy must be based on some other principle, which would make it possible to isolate its very nature from the logical and psychological nature of both metaphor and synecdoche.

They are trying to find such a principle by focusing research on the very mental processes that cause this or that expression. It is rightly believed that, based on static results alone, it is difficult to avoid arbitrariness and contradictions in the definitions of the nature of a phenomenon.

From this point of view, attempts have been made to establish a different order of distinction between metonymy and its related synecdoche. The latter, as it were, starts from a part (or sign) of an object that catches the eye and obscures the whole: “Rhinoceros,” the name of a strange beast, “patched,” in Gogol about Plyushkin—characteristic synecdoche, where the part is highlighted, and the whole is only implied. Metonymy certainly comes from the whole; which is somehow already present in consciousness; it is, as it were, a phenomenon of condensation of thought about the whole into a separate word or expression; here the expressive does not so much replace expression as stand out as essential in the unified content of thought. “I read Apuleius willingly” (Pushkin) means only one thing: the works (novel) of Apuleius; for a certain content of thought, what is essential here is what is expressed by the highlighted word “Apulius” - this is the constitutive, formative element of a given thought. Artists say “paint in oils” instead of “oil paints,” in contrast to other non-oil paints, and by oil here we do not mean any special oil independent of oil paints.

That is why metonymy can be characterized, and in accordance with the etymology of this word, as a kind of naming, renaming an object of complex logical or material composition according to its essential, in general or for a given view of it, its constitutive element. And this is why, if metaphor is sometimes defined as a compressed comparison, then metonymy could be defined as a kind of compressed description. “The theater applauded” we say instead of “the audience gathered in the theater applauded”; here “theater” is a condensed description of a coherent concept, focused on a feature that is essential to a given view: a place that unites a heterogeneous crowd of people and therefore defines it as a whole. Likewise, the metonymy “graduate from university” compresses the expression “course of study at the university”; or - another example: “I ate three plates” (Krylov), where the image of the plate is not thought of separately from the fish soup that makes up its content, but only the single concept of “three plates of fish soup” is thought of here; so in the chronicle expression: “to inherit the sweat of one’s father,” we have a metonymy in one word that gives a concise description of the labors associated with inherited power.

Types of metonymy

• general language
• general poetic
• general newspaper
• individual author's
• individually creative

Synecdoche

Synecdoche(ancient Greek συνεκδοχ? - ratio, literally - “co-understanding”) - a trope, a type of metonymy based on the transfer of meaning from one phenomenon to another based on the quantitative relationship between them. Typically used in synecdoche:

1. Singular instead of plural: “Everything is asleep - and man, and beast, and bird" (Gogol);
2. Plural instead of singular: “We all look to Napoleons" (Pushkin);
3. Part instead of whole: “Do you need anything? — In the roof for my family." (Herzen);
4. The whole instead of the part: “Opened in different directions Japan" (Stock News); (instead of: shares on the Tokyo Stock Exchange); « Germany avoided defeat in the match with Australia.” (Sport); (instead of: Germany national football team);
5. Generic name instead of specific name: “Well, sit down, light" (Mayakovsky) (instead of: Sun);
6. Species name instead of generic name: “Take care above all a penny" (Gogol) (instead of: money).

Synecdoche is a type of trope based on the relationship of a part to the whole. Synecdoche is sometimes seen as a type of metonymy, and indeed there are many cases where it is difficult to differentiate between the two tropes.

For example, the expression: “so many heads of cattle” is usually defined as an indisputable synecdoche: a head instead of a whole animal, but a completely similar expression “so many bayonets”, in the sense of soldiers, used like the first when calculating, is often given as an example of metonymy on on the basis that there is a relation between a tool and an agent.

The same expression is often defined by the same theorist either as a synecdoche or as a metonymy, depending on the point of view on it. Thus, Pushkin’s “All flags will visit us” is interpreted in one article both as a synecdoche: flags instead of ships, and as a metonymy: flags instead of “merchants of different states.” Obviously, all this instability and confusion of terminology is due to the fact that they proceed from attempts to accurately establish the object that stands behind a given expression, which almost always presents great fundamental difficulties due to the very nature of verbal (in particular, poetic) allegory.

At its core, however, the synecdochic process of thought differs significantly from the metonymic. Metonymy is a kind of condensed description, consisting in the fact that from the content of a thought an element that is essential for a given case, for a given view, is isolated. Synecdoche, on the contrary, expresses one of the characteristics of an object, names a part of the object instead of its whole (pars pro toto), and the part is named, and the whole is only implied; thought focuses on that of the attributes of an object, on that part of the whole that either catches the eye, or for some reason is important, characteristic, or convenient for a given case. In other words, the thought is transferred from the whole to part of it, and therefore in synecdoche (as in metaphor) it is easier than in metonymy to talk about the figurative meaning of the image.

The separation of the expression and the expressed, direct and figurative meaning appears more clearly in it, because in metonymy the relation of an object to its given expression is, approximately, the relation of the content of a thought to its compressed description, in synecdoche - the relation of the whole to not only the isolated from it, but also the isolated , thereby, its parts. This part can stand in different relationships to the whole.

A simple quantitative relation gives the most indisputable synecdoches of the type of singular instead of plural, about which there is no disagreement among theorists. (For example, in Gogol: “everything sleeps - man, beast, and bird”). But in a different order, relationships can be revealed in synecdoche without making it a metonymy. Based on this distinction between both phenomena, it is easier to avoid fluctuations - since they are generally completely surmountable - in determining the tropical nature of one or another expression, such as those discussed above. “So many bayonets”, “All the flags”, etc. will then turn out to be a synecdoche, regardless of the point of view on the implied object, because no matter what is meant by flags - whether simple ships, merchant ships, etc. - this expression only indicates one of the signs, one of the parts of the fused content of thought, which is co-implied as a whole.

Other examples of synecdoche: “hearth”, “corner”, “shelter” in the sense of home (“at the native hearth”, “in the native corner”, “hospitable shelter”), “rhinoceros” (the name of the animal after one of its parts, rushing into eyes), “Hey, beard!”, “Patched” (by Gogol about Plyushkin); “live to see gray hair” vm. until old age, “until the grave”, “summer” in the sense of the year (“how many years”), “bread and salt”, “little red” (ten-ruble note) and others.

SOUTH. ALEXEEV

SOME STYLISTIC FEATURES OF I. A. GONCHAROV’S NOVEL “OBLOMOV” IN TRANSLATIONS INTO ENGLISH

Despite the significant interest in the work of I. A. Goncharov throughout the world, most foreign readers become acquainted with the writer’s works in translation.

Often the quality of such translations leaves much to be desired. For example, German pottery experts note that it is necessary not only to translate and publish the writer’s letters and essays into German, but also to correct errors in the existing translations of Goncharov’s novels or replace the translations with completely new ones.

The attitude of I. A. Goncharov himself towards the translation of his novels is well known. Firstly, by the will of the translators and without the knowledge of the author, the first part of the novel “Oblomov”, translated into French at the end of the 19th century, was passed off as the entire work. Secondly, in his letter to Goncharov, the “translator” Sh. Delen notes that even in the translation of this part there are “many places” that “will not satisfy” the writer. In addition, Sh. Delen “admits” that he “did not understand” why “the blacksmith Taras almost suffocated, exhausting himself with steam baths so that he then had to nurse him with water to bring him to his senses”, and asks for an “explanation” for the French reader. It is not surprising that in a reply letter to Sh. Delen, Goncharov writes: “I< >I never encouraged those who gave me the honor of being a consultant in translating my novels into foreign languages.”

In the same letter, the writer explains the reason: “...a more or less correct reproduction of some national types is, perhaps,

the only merit of my writings in this genre and< >these types, little known outside the country, cannot be of interest to a foreign reader.”

However, despite the understandable national and cultural differences in the perception of foreign language literary works by readers and translators, translators try to achieve the maximum possible adequacy taking into account the latest achievements in translation studies. The translation we examined into English by D. Magarshak of lexical units in the novel “Oblomov,” although not free from shortcomings, can be considered quite successful.

Naturally, the range of issues facing a translator of fiction is much wider. Only by correctly conveying vocabulary is it impossible to achieve the same degree of emotional impact on the reader of the translation that the author of the work achieves on the reader of the original. One of the problems he faces is the need to take into account the meaning of the stylistic features of the work and the adequacy of their translation into a foreign language.

Among the stylistic devices in I. A. Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov”, metonymy, metaphor and hyperbole stand out; cases of litotes, periphrasis and euphemism are more rare. Let's look at their translations into English by D. Magarshak and E. Dunnigen. Examples were selected using random sampling.

Translators translate cases of litotes and euphemisms almost identically, obviously due to the fact that the example of euphemism we encountered has an established equivalent: “fallen woman” (7, 22) - a fallen woman (8, 34; 9, 44), and fever has a specific semantic-syntactic structure: cf. “not without laziness” (7, 262) – none too easily (8, 321; 9, 373), i.e. “ not too willingly"; “not without guile” (7, 275) – not without guile (8, 338; 9, 391), i.e. “ not without cunning, cunning"; “accustomed not to consider them inconveniences” (7, 100) – even stopped regarding them [inconveniences] as such (8, 129) and even ceased regarding them

[inconveniences] as such (9, 149), i.e. “ they even stopped considering them [inconveniences] as such».

Similarly, translators had no difficulty translating metonymy when:

1) the name of the item was transferred from the material to products made from this material: “arranges the crystal and arranges the silver” (7, 60) – placing the glasses and the silver (8, 81), setting out the silverware and crystal (9, 96);

2) the name was transferred from a place to the totality of its inhabitants: “half the town goes there” (7, 16) – half of town is there (8, 27), half the town goes there (9, 36); “with the whole house” (7, 379) – all together (8, 466), i.e. “ together", the entire household went together (9, 537-538), i.e. " let's go with the whole house together»,

3) the name was transferred from the institution to the totality of employees: “our entire editorial staff is at St. Georges today” (7, 24) – the whole staff dine at St George's to - day (8, 37), our editors are all dining at St. George's today (9, 47), i.e. " the entire editorial team has lunch at Saint-Georges's»;

When translating metaphors, hyperboles and periphrases, D. Magarshak and E. Dunnigan reveal more noticeable discrepancies. If in some cases translators convey the meaning of a metaphor almost equally close to the original: cf. “to distinguish the painted lie from the pale truth” (7, 130) – to distinguish... between the painted lie and the pale truth (8, 162; 9, 190) or cf. “let a whole ocean of rubbish and evil surging around him...” (7, 373) – a regular ocean of evil and baseness may be surging around him (8, 459), a whole sea of ​​evil and depravity could be surging around him (9, 530), then in other cases D. Magarshak follows the path of clarifying the metaphor: he translates the phrase “they bathed in a crowd of people” (7, 33) as enjoying being among a crowd of people (8, 49), i.e. e. " themliked itbeVcrowdof people", while in E. Dunnigan - they swam with the crowd (9, 60), i.e. " swamWithcrowd" Similarly, the phrase “scolded him with an “old German wig” (7, 363) by D. Magarshak is translated as scolded him for being “an old German stick-in-the-mud” (8, 446), i.e. scolded, t .k.he was " old backward German”, and in E. Dunnigen - scolded him for being an “old German periwig” (9, 515), i.e. “an old German wig,” as in the original.

Consideration of the rendering of hyperbole also reveals similarities and differences. Some hyperboles are translated the same way: cf. “I would give half my life” (7.205) - I "d gladly give half my life (8, 253) and I would give half my life (9, 292), and some D. Magarshak or conveys more adequately to the original: “a hundred miles from that place" (7, 330) – a hundred miles away (8, 405), i.e. " for a hundred

miles"(cf. far away (9, 469), i.e. "far"), or translates more deeply and boldly: "I rubbed my back and sides, tossing and turning" (7, 134) - I "ve worn myself to a shadow worrying about it (8, 167), i.e. literally “ turned into a shadow, worrying about it"(cf. I"ve worn myself out over these troubles (9, 196), i.e. " exhausted from problems»).

When translating the periphrasis “Until gray hairs, until the gravestone” (7, 144), the translators could not, to some extent, avoid preserving the indirect designation of phenomena: cf. Yes, till old age till the grave (8, 180), i.e. “ until old age, until the grave“, in this translation the age is directly indicated, the periphrasis “until gray hair” is lost, and Till you grow gray – till you are laid in the grave (9, 209), i.e. “ until you turn grey, until they put you in the grave", which seems to be a somewhat straightforward reference to death.

Thus, in the translations of I. A. Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” by D. Magarshak and E. Dunnigen, the tendency to preserve the stylistic features of the author’s text is not fully visible, despite the fact that most of the stylistic means are conveyed quite adequately. The insignificant number of such errors in the considered translations allows us to hope that when working on new translations it will be possible to avoid such shortcomings and take into account not only the cultural distance between the author of the novel and the readers of the translation, but also take into account the stylistic features of the author's text.

Tiergen P. Notes on the reception of Goncharov in German-speaking countries // Materials of the International Conference dedicated to the 185th anniversary of the birth of I. A. Goncharov: Collection. Russian and foreign authors. Ulyanovsk, 1998. P. 53.

Metonymy (from the Greek metonymia - “renaming”) is the transfer of a name by contiguity, as well as the figurative meaning itself, which arose due to such a transfer. In contrast to metaphorical transfer, which necessarily presupposes the similarity of objects, actions, properties, metonymy is based on juxtaposition, contiguity of objects, concepts, actions, which are in no way similar to each other. For example, such different “subjects” as an industrial enterprise and the workers of this enterprise can be called by the same word factory(cf.: "a new one is being built factory" And " factory fulfilled the plan "); in one word we refer to the country, state and government of the country, state (cf.: "people France" And " France entered into an agreement"), etc.

Depending on the specific contiguity between objects (concepts) and actions, metonymy is distinguished between spatial, temporal and logical*.

* The term “logical metonymy” is largely conditional, since to a certain extent it applies to all types of metonymy.

1) Spatial metonymy is based on the spatial, physical juxtaposition of objects and phenomena. The most common case of spatial metonymy is the transfer of the name of a room (part of a room), institution, etc. on people living, working, etc. in this room, in this enterprise. Compare, for example, "multi-story house", "spacious hut", "huge shop", "tight editorial office", "student dormitory" etc., where the words house, hut, workshop, editorial office, dormitory used in the literal sense to name premises, enterprises, and “the whole house went out for cleanup day," " huts slept", " shop joined the competition", "all editorial office was in favor, " dormitory plunged into sleep ", where the same words, naming people, appear in a metonymic meaning. Spatial metonymy is also represented by examples of transferring the name of a vessel, container to its contents. Thus, saying " kettle is already boiling," " samovar bubbling", " pan hisses,” we mean, of course, not a kettle, samovar, frying pan, but what is poured into the kettle, samovar, what is fried (stewed) in a frying pan.

2) With temporal metonymy, objects and phenomena are adjacent, “in touch” in the time of their existence, “appearance”. Such metonymy is the transfer of the name of an action (expressed by a noun) to the result - to what arises in the process of action. For example: " edition books" (action) - "luxurious, gift edition"(result of action); "the artist was difficult image details" (action) - "carved on the rock Images animals" (i.e. drawings, and therefore the result of an action); similar metonymic figurative meanings, which appeared on the basis of temporal contiguity, also have words embroidery("dress with embroidery"), kit("have kit instruments"), slicing("slicing erased"), translation("pass translation during"), correspondence("include in publication correspondence writer"), polishing("polishing scratched"), editorial office("text of the last editorial staff stories"), thread("decorate carving"), minting("collect Georgian coinage"), sewing("Old Russian sewing") and many others.

3) Logical metonymy is also very common. Logical metonymy includes:

a) transferring the name of the vessel, container to the volume of what is contained in the vessel, container. Wed. "break cup, plate, glass, jug", "lose spoon", "smoke pan", "tie up bag" etc., where the words cup, plate, glass, jug, spoon, pan, bag used in the literal sense as names of containers, and “to try spoon jam", "drink two cups(tea)", "eat a whole plate porridge ( pan soup)", "use up bag potatoes”, etc., where the same words have a figurative metonymic meaning, naming the volume, amount of the corresponding substance, content;

b) transferring the name of a substance or material to a product made from it: “exhibition” porcelain", "won gold, bronze" (i.e. gold, bronze medals), "collect ceramics", "transfer the necessary paper" (i.e. documents), "break glass", "write watercolors", "canvas brushes by Levitan" (" canvas Surikov"), "to go to caprone, V furs" etc.;

d) transferring the name of the action to the substance (object) or to the people with the help of which this action is carried out. For example: putty, impregnation(a substance used to putty or impregnate something), pendant, clamp(device for hanging, clamping something), defense, attack, change(a group of people carrying out an action - defense, attack, change), etc.;

e) transferring the name of the action to the place where it occurs. For example: entrance, exit, detour, stop, transition, turn, passage, crossing(place of entry, exit, detour, stop, transition, turn, passage, crossing, i.e. the place where these actions are performed);

f) transferring the name of a property, quality to something or something that or who discovers has this property, quality. Wed: " tactlessness, rudeness words", " stupidity person", " mediocrity project", " tactlessness behavior", " barb replicas", " banality remarks" etc. (the highlighted words denote an abstract property, quality) and "commit tactlessness" (tactless act), "say rudeness, stupidity"(rude, stupid words, phrases), "he is surrounded mediocrity"(mediocre people), "allow tactlessness" (tactless act or tactless remark), "allow oneself barbs" (caustic words, remarks), "pronounce platitudes" (banal words, phrases), "all of them talents, they are all poets" (B.Ok.);

g) transferring the name of a geographical point or locality to what is produced in them, cf. tsinandali, saperavi, havana, gzhel etc.

The contiguity of objects and concepts can also cause a transfer of the name of a feature expressed by an adjective. Thus, many qualitative adjectives, in addition to the direct meaning “possessing some quality,” relate directly to a living being (cf. “ silly Human", " insidious enemy", " brave rider", " smart woman" etc.), also have figurative, metonymic meanings. An illustration of the use of an adjective in a metonymic meaning can be, for example, a combination such as " stupid physiognomy" (i.e. the physiognomy of a stupid person). The contiguity of the objects "person" and "physiognomy" served as the basis for the transfer of the attribute silly from a person to a physiognomy, as if as a result of the abbreviation of the combination: “the physiognomy of a stupid person” - “stupid physiognomy”. Examples of metonymic use can be given for other qualitative adjectives: " insidious smile" (the smile of a treacherous person), " brave response, deed" (response, deed of a brave person), " smart advice" (advice from an intelligent person), etc. In a similar way, i.e. due to the transfer of definition based on the contiguity of objects, metonymic meanings appeared for adjectives azure –"azure morning" (i.e. morning with a clear azure sky)*, crazy -"crazy house" (i.e. a house for crazy people)**, etc.

* Direct meaning of the adjective azure –"light blue" – appears in combinations " azure sea", " azure sky".

** Direct meaning of the adjective crazy - suffering from a mental disorder: " crazy sick".

The metonymic meaning of adjectives can appear in another way, not by transferring the definition.

Consider adjectives in combinations such as " spring vacation" (holidays that occur in the spring), " road suit" (suit intended for the road); " winter hibernation" (hibernation, which one goes into in winter), " sad meeting "* (meeting that causes sadness). It cannot be said about these adjectives that in the given combinations they are a definition transferred from one related subject to another, since it is quite obvious that such combinations are not an abbreviation of the combinations "vacation of spring days", " suit of travel time", "hibernation of winter", "meeting of sad people" or the like (such combinations clearly do not exist in reality). Therefore, about adjectives spring, road, winter, as well as many others (cf. acorn in combination " acorn coffee", gold V " gold glasses", " gold ring" etc.) we can say that these adjectives in the metonymic meaning arose as if anew, secondary (secondary in comparison with the same adjectives in their direct meanings) from that noun that names one of the adjacent objects, from which in its time has formed a direct meaning. Compare: " spring"vacations" - vacations that occur in the spring (related subjects and concepts are highlighted), " road suit" (suit intended for the road), " acorn coffee" (coffee made from acorns), etc.**

* The direct meanings of these adjectives appear in such combinations as “spring days”, “ road dust", " winter it's time" "to appear sad".

** Sometimes the authors of works directly show how such adjective meanings appear. Compare, for example, in B. Zakhoder’s children’s book “Visiting Winnie the Pooh”: “But she didn’t let me go for a walk, because I seemed to be coughing. But it was biscuit cough - I was eating a biscuit and coughed!" In the translation of the book by the English author A. Milne "Winnie-the-Pooh and Everything-All-Everything", made by Zakhoder, there is only the combination "biscuit cough", so in the above passage B. Zakhoder clearly demonstrated the process of the emergence of the metonymic meaning of an adjective, explained why this adjective is used in this way. In another, also a children's book ("The Wizard of the Emerald City" by A.M. Volkov) it is said that the family of the main character had " hurricane cellar,” and it is explained that the family holed up there during hurricanes.

Finally, there is another rather peculiar type of formation of the figurative, metonymic meaning of adjectives (qualitative). Let's look at the example again first. M. Zoshchenko has it. story "Weak container". Weak in this name - not “done by weak hands or a weak person”, weak here – “one that is loosely tightened, fastened, etc.” That is, an adjective weak turns out to be associated not with a noun, but with an adverb (“weakly”). And if we talk about contiguity, then it is found between concepts, one of which is expressed by a noun (in the given example it is “container”), the other by a verb or participle (in our example it is “tightened”, “fastened”).

In a similar way, such combinations characteristic of the language of a modern newspaper were formed as " fast water", " fast track", " fast route", " fast routes" (where fast -"one on which you can quickly swim, run, drive"), " fast seconds" ( fast here – “one that shows an athlete running, swimming, etc. quickly”). And in these cases, the contiguity of concepts expressed by a noun ("water", "path", "second", etc.), on the one hand, and a verb or participle, on the other ("swim", "run", " shows" etc.), and the adjective fast in the metonymic meaning, its formation is clearly related to the adverb*.

* All these different ways of forming metonymic meanings of adjectives are shown not so much to remember the types of these meanings, but to help understand the essence of contiguity in relation to such a complex phenomenon as the metonymy of adjectives.

Metonymic transfer of names is also characteristic of verbs. It can be based on the contiguity of objects (as in the two previous cases). Wed: " beat out carpet" (the carpet absorbs dust, which is knocked out), " pour out statue" (metal is poured from which the statue is made); other examples: " boil underwear", " forge sword (nails)", " string necklace" (made of beads, shells, etc.), " sweep snowdrift", etc. Metonymic meaning can also arise due to the contiguity of actions. For example: "shop opens(=trade begins) at 8 o'clock" (the opening of the doors serves as a signal for the store to begin operating).

Like metaphors, metonymies vary in their degree of prevalence and expressiveness. From this point of view, among metonymies one can distinguish general linguistic inexpressive, general poetic (general literary) expressive, general newspaper expressive (as a rule) and individual (author's) expressive.

Metonymies are common language casting, silver, porcelain, crystal(meaning “product”), Job(what is done) putty, impregnation(substance), defense, attack, plant, factory, shift(when people are called with these words), entrance, exit, crossing, crossing, turn and so on. (meaning place of action), fox, mink, hare, squirrel and so on. (as a sign, product) and much more*. Like general linguistic metaphors, metonymies themselves are absolutely inexpressive and are sometimes not perceived as figurative meanings.

* Such metonymies are listed in explanatory dictionaries under the numbers 2, 3, etc. or are given after the sign // in any meaning of the word without a mark trans.

General poetic (general literary) expressive metonymies are azure(about the cloudless blue sky): “The last cloud of a scattered storm! You alone rush across the clear azure" (P.); "Under peaceful azure, stands and grows alone on a bright hill" (Tutch.); transparent: “It was a sunny, clear and cold day” (Kupr.); "IN transparent the valleys turned blue in the cold" (Ec.); lead: “A slave of merciless honor, he saw his end close. In duels, firm, cold, / Meeting the disastrous lead" (P.); "From whose hand lead deadly / Torn the poet’s heart..?” (Tutch.); blue: "Let him sometimes whisper to me blue evening, that you were a song and a dream" (Es.); "Crowds of beggars - and they were melted in such blue day on the porch with the bells ringing" (A.N.T.); youth: "Let youth growing up cheerfully, carefree and happily, let her have one concern: to study and develop creative powers in herself" (A.N.T.); "In front of him sat youth, a little rude, straightforward, somewhat offensively simple” (I. and P.) * etc.

* Some metonymies of this group are noted in explanatory dictionaries, such as, youth(meaning “youth”), others are absent from them, like blue(its meaning can be formulated approximately as follows: “the kind when the sky or sea, etc. is blue”). For what blue in this meaning is not an individual use, as evidenced by the data of the pre-revolutionary (1913) dictionary “Epithets of Literary Russian Speech” by A. Zelenetsky, where the combinations “ blue morning" (Kupr.), " blue evening" (Bun.), etc. Compare also according to this model" blue calm" by K.G. Paustovsky in "Black Sea Sun".

General newspaper metonymies include words such as white(cf. " white suffering", " white Olympics"), fast("fast track", " fast water", " fast seconds", etc.), green("green patrol", "green harvest"), gold(cf. " gold jump", " gold flight", " gold blade" where golden –“the kind that is valued with a gold medal”, or “the kind with which a gold medal is won”), etc.

Examples of individual (author's) metonymies: “Only the troika rushes with a ringing sound snowy white oblivion" (Bl.); "I'll put you to sleep with a quiet fairy tale, Fairy tale sleepy I'll say" (Bl.); "And in diamond in his dreams, even his deceased mother-in-law seemed sweeter to him" (I. and P.); "Among green In the silence of the surging summer, not all issues have been resolved. Not all answers are given" (Ac.); "From the cool wooden cleanliness of the house, we reluctantly went out into the street" (V. Sol.); "After all, their menu You can’t put it in your mouth" (Ginryary); "And a strange stem that is embedded in a tubular blade of grass up to the shoulders... with a whistle silk extract" (Matv.); "Our neighbors keys angry" (B.Akhm.); "Leaves twenty fifth to battle. Stepped into the fire twenty-sixth. Frozen at the edge of mine - seventh" (N. Pozd.) (about conscripts born in 1925, 1926 and 1927); "It was a pleasure to dashingly and accurately compose a sophisticated document, answer, for example, some starry Excellency" (V. Savch.).