FIGURATIVE PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH ТАҔЫС IN THE YAKUT LANGUAGE
Svetlana Mitrofanovna Prokopeva Doctor of Philology
Professor
Institute of Languages and Culture
Peoples of the North-East of the Russian Federation, NEFU im. M.K. Ammosova
Yakutsk, Russia Vladimir Monastyre Candidate of Philology
Department of the Yakut Language Institute for Humanities and Indigenous Studies Siberian Divisin, Russian Academy of Sciences
Yakutsk, Russia Iya Ammosova
Department of the Yakut Language Institute for Humanities and Indigenous Studies Siberian Divisin, Russian Academy of Sciences
Yakutsk, Russia ABSTRACT
Polysemy is a linguistic universal, an integral constituent of languages. Words and phraseological units of a language are a universal base to develop polysemy as practically any linguistic unit has potential enough to develop new meanings. In contrast to the lexical level, the phraseological level is the site of deeper semantic processes due to separate formation of phraseological units. The relevant PU characteristics are semantic reinterpretation of components, separate formation, fixed structure, and reproducibility. The dominant source of transfer for the PU under analysis is material world which is evidenced by quantitative predominance of transfer from the domain “physical action” into all concept spheres.
Keywords: polysemy, phraseological units, structural-semantic classification, semantic transfer, concept parameterization.
Introduction
The problem of polysemy is being actively studied in terms of cognitive approach (Boyarskaya, 2015; Popova, Sternin 2007; Kovaleva, 2014; Kubrjakova, 2001; Kurbakova, 2015;
Olkhovskaya, 2015; Belyavskaya, 2014; Boldyrev, 2016; Barabash, 2015; Lesheva, 2014; Pesina, 2015, etc.).
In contrast to the lexical level, the phraseological level is the site of deeper semantic processes due to separate formation of phraseological units. Scientists in Russia and worldwide have studied the problem of phraseological meaning (Stepanova, Chernyshova, 2003; Zhukov, 1986; Telia, 2001;
Baranov, Dobrovolskiy, 2016; Prokopieva , 2001, 2014, etc.). When analyzing the set of criteria to identify phraseological units (further, PU), the priority is given to the semantic criterion, i.e. a full or partial reinterpretation of components. The criteria for PU identification are: full or partial reinterpretation of components, separate structural formation, fixed lexical composition, reproducibility in fixed form (Prokopieva, 2001).
This research follows the general trend in modern linguistics to study systematic arrangement of vocabulary and phraseology, structural arrangement of lexical and phraseological meaning.
The object of research is a productive Yakut polysemantic verb таҕыс which has a wide range of systematic structural arrangement and a rich figurative potential to form linguistics units of indirect nomination.
Methods
We used the method of component analysis and phraseological identification. To reveal the semantic verb structure, the method of entry analysis was applied. The general research method is the inductive-deductive one.
Results and Discussion
At the phraseological level all analyzed PU with the component таҕыс of the modern Yakut language have figurative meaning. Linguistic units of indirect nomination are formed as a result of semantic transformation of the original prototypic free word combination. Phraseological units of the Yakut language are referred to here as “stable word complexes of various structural types with unique component cohesion, meaning of which results from full or partial reinterpretation of components (Stepanova, Chernyshova, 2003: 180).
The interest in figurative language naturally reflects advances in research of vocabulary. The phenomenon of linguistic figurativeness still needs to be looked at from the cognitive perspective as it is related to world view and world perception originating from ethnic-based knowledge of the world surrounding language speakers. Universal, global knowledge as a result of collective consciousness is recorded in language and is explicated in its lexical and phraseological composition.
All categories of stable word complexes are represented according to structural-semantic classification in PE with the component таҕыс of the modern Yakut language:
1. Phraseological units are word combinations with non-motivated or motivated semantics, e.g.: Ас тахсыа<суоҕа> ‘it’s no use’. Үлэ үлэлэннэҕинэ үлэлэнэр, үлэни хаһааммыттан астахсарын өйдөөбөтүм (A. Fedorov). ‘One must work the work, if you don’t work it – it’s no use’. Дууһата таҕыста (saying) ‘give up the ghost (lit. his soul left)’. Сибилигин дууһата тахсыбыт киһиэхэ луохтуурдар ыспыраапка биэрбэт үгэстээхтэр (M. Dogordjurap). ‘To a person just having given up the ghost medics didn’t usually issue a certificate’. Иһиттэн саҥата (саҥата иһиттэн) тахсыбат
‘unable to speak (lit. from inside the voice doesn’t come out)’ (of shame, fear, grief, etc.) [Сэмэн]
саҥата иһиттэн тахсыбат (N. Luginov). ‘[Semen] couldn’t say a word’. Сүөдэрдээх күһүҥҥү күн кылайа киириитэ, көхсүлэрин иһиттэн саҥалара тахсыбат буола өлө сылайан, аччыктаан Киллэм дэриэбинэтигэр тиийэллэр (N. Yakutskiy). ‘Fedor and company came to the village of Killem towards the sun dawn deadly tired and hungry so that they couldn’t say a word’ (lit. voice couldn’t come out from their backs).
2. Phraseological units are stable word complexes with structure of a sentence, e.g.: Күммүт тахсыа, күөрэгэйбит ыллыа ‘Our sun will come out, our lark will sing’. Күн арҕаттан таҕыстаҕына ‘if something impossible happens’ (lit. If the sun rises in the west).Күнэ тахсыа, күөрэгэйэ ыллыа, күөнэҕэ көбүө ‘live until better, wealthy, free life’ (lit. His sun will rise, his lark will sing, his minnow will surface’.
3. Phraseological units with just one component having figurative meaning, e.g.: Тыла тахсыбат ‘one has no courage to say something’ (lit. a word doesn’t come out). Кэтириистэн таайтаран көрдөспүтэ, аһаҕастык соруһуон өһүргэниэ диэн тыла тахсыбатаҕа (S. Nikiforov). ‘[She] asked Keteris indirectly, she didn’t have the courage to entrust her openly as she was afraid to make her angry’.
PU with the component таҕыс demonstrate all semantic categories: polysemy, homonymy, synonymy, and antonymy. Convergent development of semantic transfer direction is observed in polysemantic PU with the component таҕыс: Өйүттэн таҕыста ‘1) lose one’s mind 2) lose one’s temper, lose one’s head’ (lit. one left one’s mind). Кини ууга түһээт уолуйан, өйүттэн тахсан хаалбыта (D. Taas). ‘Having been frightened by falling into water, he was left with his mind lost’.
Divergent direction of semantic transfer is observed in homonymic PU with the component таҕыс: Өйүттэн таһаар (lit. take one out from one’s mind) 1) ‘confuse someone’ Араас варианнаах задачаны биэрэн ойбуттэн таhааран кэбистэ. ‘Having given me the task with multiple variants, he confused me’. 2) ‘charm, enchant, drive someone crazy’ Ырыаhытынан, ункууhутунэн сана кэлбит фельдшер кыыhы ойуннэн таhаарбыт. ‘By his singing, his dancing the newly arrived village doctor charmed the girl’.
PU with the common or same meaning but different components correlating with the same part of speech are synonymous, e.g.: Кэрээниттэн тахсыбыт (lit. one’s sense of shame left) ‘overstep the limits of propriety, extremely impertinent’; харсыттан тахсыбыт (lit. one’s good sense left) ‘be careless, take any risk’. Кыhырбыт-уордайбыт, кэрээннэриттэн тыхсыбыт дьону туох да тохтотуо соухха дылыта (N. Bosikov). ‘There seems to be nothing to stop propriety angry, highly strung, with no limits of propriety people’. Киргиэлэй, мин харсыбыттан тахсан баран сылдьар киhибин (S.
Efremov). ‘Kirgieley, I am a person who walks around having lost good sense’. Күнэ тахсар (кимтэн эмэ) (lit. one’s strength leaves) ‘worship, dote on someone, find comfort in someone’.
Төрөппүттэрбит уолаттарын оннугар ити уол төрөөн күннэрэ киниттэн тахсыбыт (R.
Bagatayskiy). ‘Our parents, having born this boy in place of [older] boys, doted on him’.Кутун туттурда ‘dote on someone’. Ордук Тыгырыана наhаа кутун туттарар [эhэ о5отугар], адьас тороппут о5отун курдук корор-харайар (B. Bootur). ‘It is especially Tygyryana who dotes on [the baby bear], she takes care of him as her own child’.
PU with opposite meanings are antonymous. In this case, the verb таҕыс is used in the antonymous grammatical form, as a result two antonymous PU are formed: өйүттэн таҕыста (lit.
came out of his mind) 1) lose one’s mind, 2) lose one’s temper, lose one’s head. Кини ууга түһээт уолуйан, өйүттэн тахсан хаалбыта (D. Taas). ‘Having been frightened by falling into water, he was left with his mind lost’. өйүттэн (санаатыттан) тахсыбат ‘doesn’t go out of one’s head’. Афоня туһунан санаа бу күннэргэ өйбүттэн олох тахсыбат. ‘These days the thoughts of Afonya don’t go out of my head’.
PU with the component таҕыс demonstrates variants of noun components, e.g.: Баһыттан (өйүттэн, санаатыттан) тахсыбат ‘something doesn’t go out of my head (mind, thoughts)’. Арамаан билиҥҥи кэпсэтиитэ баһыттан тахсыбата (Amma Achchygyja). ‘This talk didn’t go out of Roman’s head’. Төбөҕө (мэйиигэ) тахсар ‘go to someone’s head (of alcohol, tobacco). Испит арыгыта төбөтүгэр тахсан, мэйиитэ эргийэр (N. Yakutskiy). ‘The alcohol he’d drunk, having gone to his head, made him dizzy’.
Relevant directions of transfer are person-oriented by both source of metaphorization and it result. The dominant source of transfer for the PU under analysis is material world which is evidenced by quantitative predominance of transfer from the domain “physical action” into all concept spheres:
“physical action” – “physical action”
Дууһата таҕыста (saying) ‘give up the ghost (lit. his soul left)’:Сибилигин дууһата тахсыбыт киһиэхэ луохтуурдар ыспыраапка биэрбэт үгэстээхтэр (M. Dogordjurap). ‘To a person just having given up the ghost medics didn’t usually issue a certificate’.
Иһиттэн саҥата (саҥата иһиттэн) тахсыбат ‘unable to speak (lit. from inside the voice doesn’t come out)’ (of shame, fear, grief, etc.): [Сэмэн] саҥата иһиттэн тахсыбат (N. Luginov).
‘[Semen] couldn’t say a word’. Сүөдэрдээх күһүҥҥү күн кылайа киириитэ, көхсүлэрин иһиттэн саҥалара тахсыбат буола өлө сылайан, аччыктаан Киллэм дэриэбинэтигэр тиийэллэр (N.
Yakutskiy). ‘Fedor and company came to the village of Killem towards the sun dawn deadly tired and hungry so that they couldn’t say a word’ (lit. voice couldn’t come out from their backs).
Дьыл таҕыс (lit. come out the year/weather) ‘pass the winter well’: Арыычча дьылтахсан, күөх сирэмҥэ үктэнэн, үрүҥ ас дэлэйэн дьон-сэргэ сэргэхсийбит. ‘Having passed the winter well, stepped on green grass, tried white food [dairy], people cheered up’.
Сыл таҕыс (lit. come out the year) ‘be able to pass the winter, have enough subsistence’:
[Күөх Көппө:] Чэ кэбис, хайдах эмэ гынан, син сыл тахсыбытым баар буолуоҕа (Suorun Omolloon). ‘[Idler]: Oh, come on, how come, that I’d have hay, having passed the winter’.
Тыас тахсар (lit. noise comes out) ‘fuss having some effects (usually of something scandalous): [Вильямы] көрөн Сергей ытырыктата санаата – ити аата бу киэһэ туох эрэ тыас тахсар буолбут (V. Yakovlev). ‘Having seen [Viliam], Sergey thought inwardly – it means this evening some fuss would come out’.
In certain cases “physical action” involved negative connotation, e.g. Илиитэ-атаҕа тахсыбат (lit. one’s arms-legs don’t come out) ‘cannot get used to something (e.g., to a job): Света онуһу бүтэрэн кэлбитэ сылтан эрэ орпута. Үлэҕэ илиитэ-атаҕатахса илигэ (S. Fedotov). ‘It has just been over a year since Sveta, having finished the school [the tenth grade], came to work. She has not got used to it yet’.
“physical action” – “physical condition”
Дьахтартан тахсыбыт (lit. come out of women) ‘lose the ability to be with a woman (iron. of old men)’: Дьахтартан тахсыбыт, тылыгар киирбит (saying, lit. Came out of women, came into the tongue). ‘The one, who lost the ability to be with a woman, can only flirt verbally’.
“physical action” – “characteristic of a person’
Идэтэ тахсыбыт (lit. inclination came out) ‘possess a special aptitude, talent to something’;
‘especially lucky in something’: Көтөрүгэр буоллаҕына идэтэ тахсыбыт суола (V. Yakovlev). ‘So, he happened to be inclined to flying’.
Кэрээниттэн тахсыбыт (lit. one’s sense of shame left) ‘overstep the limits of propriety, extremely impertinent’; харсыттан тахсыбыт (lit. one’s good sense left) ‘be careless, take any risk’:Кыhырбыт-уордайбыт, кэрээннэриттэн тыхсыбыт дьону туох да тохтотуо соухха дылыта
(N. Bosikov). ‘There seems to be nothing to stop propriety angry, highly strung, with no limits of propriety people’.
“physical action” – “social action”
Архыыпка таҕыс (lit. go to the archives) saying, ‘retire’: Бойобуой саллаат хаһан да архыыпка тахсар бырааба суох (Sofron Danilov). ‘A soldier of war never has the right to retire’.
Сыт-сымар тахсар (lit. the smell comes out) ‘come by’):[Күлүк:] Хата онно туох эмэ сыт- сымар тахсаарай, хата барыахха (A. Sofronov). ‘[Kyulyuk:] There something comes by, let’s go’.
“physical action” – “mental action”
Баһыттан (өйүттэн, санаатыттан) тахсыбат ‘something doesn’t go out of my head (mind, thoughts)’:Арамаан билиҥҥи кэпсэтиитэ баһыттан тахсыбата (Amma Achchygyja). ‘This talk didn’t go out of Roman’s head’.
Өйүттэн таҕыста ‘1) lose one’s mind 2) lose one’s temper, lose one’s head’ (lit. one left one’s mind):Кини ууга түһээт уолуйан, өйүттэн тахсан хаалбыта (D. Taas). ‘Having been frightened by falling into water, he was left with his mind lost’.
Тыла тахсыбат ‘one has no courage to say something’ (lit. a word doesn’t come out):Кэтириистэн таайтаран көрдөспүтэ, аһаҕастык соруһуон өһүргэниэ диэн тыла тахсыбатаҕа (S. Nikiforov). ‘[She] asked Keteris indirectly, she didn’t have the courage to entrust her openly as she was afraid to make her angry’.
“physical action” – “physical condition”
Иһиттэн саҥата (саҥата иһиттэн) тахсыбат ‘unable to speak (lit. from inside the voice doesn’t come out)’ (of shame, fear, grief, etc.):[Сэмэн] саҥата иһиттэн тахсыбат (N. Luginov).
‘[Semen] couldn’t say a word’. Сүөдэрдээх күһүҥҥү күн кылайа киириитэ, көхсүлэрин иһиттэн саҥалара тахсыбат буола өлө сылайан, аччыктаан Киллэм дэриэбинэтигэр тиийэллэр (N.
Yakutskiy). ‘Fedor and company came to the village of Killem towards the sun dawn deadly tired and hungry so that they couldn’t say a word’ (lit. voice couldn’t come out from their backs).
“physical action” – “physiological condition”
Төбөҕө (мэйиигэ) тахсар ‘go to someone’s head (of alcohol, tobacco):Испит арыгыта төбөтүгэр тахсан, мэйиитэ эргийэр (N. Yakutskiy). ‘The alcohol he’d drank, having gone to his head, made him dizzy’.
“physical action” – “social action”
Кулаакка таҕыс (lit. come out of kulaks [wealthy peasant]), dated, ‘dispossess’: Кинитээҕэр буолуох кулаакка тахсыах дьон кулаакка тахса иликтэр (P. Oyunksiy). ‘Even those wealthier have not been dispossessed yet’.
“physical action” – “interpersonal relationships”
Күнэ тахсар (кимтэн эмэ) (lit. one’s strength leaves) ‘worship, dote on someone, find comfort in someone’:Төрөппүттэрбит уолаттарын оннугар ити уол төрөөн күннэрэ киниттэн тахсыбыт (R. Bagatayskiy). ‘Our parents, having born this boy in place of [older] boys, doted on him’.
(Ким эмэ) тылыттан тахсыбат (lit. doesn’t come out of someone’s tongue) ‘obey someone unquestioningly’: Аҕам миэхэ үчүгэйи эрэ баҕарар, мин кини тылыттан тахсыам суоҕа (S.
Efremov). ‘Father wishes me only good, I’ll obey him unquestioningly’.
Өйүттэн таһаар (lit. take one out from one’s mind) 1) ‘confuse someone’ Араас варианнаах задачаны биэрэн ойбуттэн таhааран кэбистэ. ‘Having given me the task with multiple variants, he confused me’. 2) ‘charm, enchant, drive someone crazy’:Ырыаhытынан, ункууhутунэн сана кэлбит фельдшер кыыhы ойуннэн таhаарбыт. ‘By his singing, his dancing the newly arrived village doctor charmed the girl’.
Тахсан киир (lit. after coming out come in) ‘go to toilet (outside); urinate or defecate’:
Сарсыарда Сипсиирэп - наҕылыччы тахсан киирдэ, онтон эмиэ тиэргэҥҥэ балай эмэ дьаарбайа сырытта (P. Avvakumov). ‘In the morning Sipsirov went to toilet, after that continued walking around the backyard’.
“physical action” – “emotional-psychological condition”
Тыына (уоҕа) тахсар (lit. the breath comes out) ‘calm down, relax’: Бу да сырыыга хайы- сах тыына тахсан, үөлээннээҕин тылын истэн, уоскуйан барда. ‘This time, having relaxed, having heard the words of his peer, he calmed down’.
The results of the concept parameterization of PU with the component таҕыс brought us to conclusion that the relevant direction of transfer are those oriented towards a person according to both the source of metaphorization and its result, which agrees with the principle of “double anthropocentrism’.
The dominant source of meaning transfer for the analyzed Yakut PU is the material reality which is evidenced by quantitative dominance of transfer to all domains from the domain “physical action”.
The prior recipient domains of phraseological meanings are anthropological one, first of all,
“physical action”, “interpersonal relationships”, “emotional-psychological condition”, “social action”,
“mental action”, “characteristic of a person”, “physiological action”, “physiological condition”,
“physical condition”, “general action’.
Conclusions
Phraseology reflects the ethnic originality of a language. PU are units of indirect nomination, with their relative feature being dominance of the connotative component in semantic structure of PU.
Although the process of phraseologization is a universal linguistic phenomenon, it has explicative specific features. The reason is that PU, being structurally separately formed and semantically reinterpreted formations, are units of secondary nomination in contrast to the linguistic units of direct nomination such as phoneme, morpheme, and word. As stable word complexes, PU have bot a nominative and axiological function as well as the function of keeping, recording, and passing on the body of knowledge of a language community about the world.
Studying the figurative layer of a language may be beneficial for further reconstruction of general and specific characteristics, ethnogenetic conclusions on mental worldview of a person.
Dictionaries play a great role in this process, serving as an inexhaustible source for research not only in Yakut philology, but in cognitive-typological studies of various families of languages.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The study was funded by the State project – 2016. Reference number 34.3377.2017/ПЧ.
References
1. BARABASH, O.V. 2015. Approach to Understanding of the Phenomenon of Polysemy. In:
Herald of Penza State University, vol. IX, n. 1, pp. 88–91. ISSN 2410-2083.
2. BARANOV, А.N. – DOBROVOLSKIJ, D.O. 2016.Fundamentals of Phraseology. Moscow:Flinta – Nauka. ISBN 9785976515673.
3. BELYAVSKAYA, E.G. 2014. Methods of the Analysis of Lexical Semantics in Cognitive Linguistics. In: Herald of Moscow State Linguistic University, DCCVI, vol. 20, pp. 9–21. ISSN 2500-3488.
4. BOLDYREV, N.N. 2016.Cognitive Schemas of Linguistic Interpretation. In: Cognitive Linguistic,IV, pp. 10–20. ISSN 1812-3228.
5. BOYARSKAYA, E. L. 2015. Research of Methods of Cognitive Analysis of a Polysemantic Word.In:Zabotkina, V. M. (ed.). Methods of Cognitive Analysis ofPolysemantic Word Semantics.
Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture, pp. 84–118. ISBN 9785944572097.
6. KOVALEVA, L.M. - Kulgavova, L.V. 2014. Cognitive Analysis of Word. Moscow: Lenand. ISBN 9785971007722.
7. KUBRYAKOVA, E.S. 2001.On Cognitive Linguistics and Semantics of the Term “Cognitive”. In:
Herald of Voronesh State University. Series: Linguistic and Cultural Communication, pp. 4-10.
ISSN 1680-5755.
8. KURBAKOVA, S. 2015. Cognitive Aspect of Intercultural Communication. In: Journal of Language and Education, vol. III, n. 1, pp. 52–62. ISSN 2411-7390.
9. LESHEVA, L.M. 2014.Lexical Polysemy in Cognitive Aspect. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture. ISBN: 9785955105567.
10. OLCHOVSKAYA, A.I. 2015. Polysemy as Problem of General and Dictionary Lexicology.
Moscow: Flinta. ISBN 9785976521810.
11. POPOVA, Z.D., Sternin, I.A. 2007. Cognitive Linguistics. Moscow: AST. East – West. ISBN 9785170451036.
12. PROKOPIEVA, S.M. 2012. Codification of Polysemantic Units in the New Explanatory Dictionary of the Yakut Language.In: Studia Uralo-Altaica, XLIX, pp. 437–445. ISSN 0133-4239.
13. PROKOPIEVA, S.M. 2001. Typologische Analyse der Phraseologie des Deutschen und des Jakutischen. Moscow: Sputnik+. ISBN 5934062026
14. PROKOPIEVA, S.M. 2014. Divergence of Direction of Semantic Transfer on The Phraseological Level. In: Life Sciences, vol. 11, n. 8, pp. 130-134. ISSN 1097-8135 (Print), 2372-613X (Online).
15. STEPANOVA, M.D. – CHERNYSHOVA, I.I. 2003. Lexikologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Moscow: Academy. ISBN 5769514000.
16. TELIYA, V.N. – BRAGINA, E. -SANDOMIRSKAYA, I. 2001. Phraseology as a Language of Culture: Its Role in the Representation ofCollective Mentality. In: COWIE, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology – Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press,pp. 55–75.
ISBN 9780198299646.
17. ZHUKOV, V.P. 1986. Russian Phraseology. Moscow: Higher School. ISBN 5060053997.
