Figūrų ir tropų pavadinimai 1918–1940 m. literatūros mokslo darbuose

176 Asta Mitkevičienė | Names of Figures and Tropes 1918–1940 | literatūros mokslo darbuose Names of figures and tropes 1918–1940 in literary studies ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas KEY WORDS: literary science terms, figures, tropes, hyperonyms, synonymous terms, synonym strings, consonant synonyms, constructive synonyms INTRODUCTION The names of figures and tropes are part of a larger semantic group of names of artistic means of expression. These terms are not only the property of literary science – they come from rhetoric, belong not only to literary but also to linguistic stylistics. Stylistics has taken over the whole science of figures from rhetoric (VLE XIX 791). The first half of the 20th century is an essential period in the history of Lithuanian literary science – it was then that the modern foundations of this branch of science were laid (Viliūnas 2003: 261). At that time, the current traditional terminology of Lithuanian literature science was being developed and matured. After the declaration of independence, literature was one of the most important humanistic subjects in Lithuanian schools. He studied at the University of California, Berkeley (1920–1922), where he earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1922. Since 1922, literature could be studied in two faculties of the University of Lithuania (since 1930 – Vytautas the Great University) founded in that year – the Faculty of Humanities and the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy. The teaching and learning of literature especially needed not only Lithuanian teaching (learning) tools, but also organized Lithuanian terminology of literary science. In the interwar period, the first special books on literary theory appeared, which are also the first teaching materials on Lithuanian stylistics and important sources of Lithuanian stylistic terms1. 1 Figure and trope names in Lithuanian literary texts have been used before (see Mitkevičienė 2007). 177Terminology | 2014 | 21 This article analyzes 77 single-word names of figures and tropes, collected from works on literary theory, Lithuanian literature, and the history of universal and foreign literature from 1918 to 1940 (see the list of sources). The sources of this article are: 1) all interwar textbooks on literary theory: two different editions of the first Lithuanian textbook on literary theory, written by Kazis Bizauskas, (1918, 1922), Stasio Češūno (1925), Motiejaus Gustaičio (1927), Jono Norand works on literary theory by Juozas Ambrazevičius (1938); 2) works on the history of Lithuanian literature: textbooks on the history of literature by Albinas and Marija Iešmantai (1923), Vincas Zajančkauskas (1928), Zigmantas Kuzmickas (5, 1931–1934), Motiejus Miškinis (1939); Works by lecturers of the University of Lithuania (VDU) – two editions of the history of literature by Mykolas Biržiška (1920, 1925), three lecture books on the history of literature by Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas (1924, 1925), a work on the history of Lithuanian literature by Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas (1936). Also a textbook of folklore – M. Biržiškos Song literature textbook (1923), which supplements the author’s studies of literary history (he himself mentions this); 3) textbooks on the history of universal literature: works by Gabrielė Petkevičaitė-Bitė (2nd edition, 1922, 1924), Vladas Dubas (two editions, 1923, 1927), J. Norkauskas (1931), J. Ambrazevičius and co-authors Juozas Grinius (1st and 2nd editions), Antanas Vaičiulaitis (2nd edition) (1938, 1939); 4) works on the history of literature of foreign countries: works on the history of literature of V. Dubo French (2, 1929, 1930), Juozas Eretas German (1931), Balis Sruoga Russian (2, 1931, 1933), Vladimiras Šilkarskis Greek (1938)2. The aim of the article is to discuss the origin and synonymy of mononymous figure and trope names, to show the change of terms, to identify established terms. Methods of work – descriptive analytical, comparative. Concepts of Figures and Tropes The concepts of figures and tropes, the first classifications of them date back to antiquity, to ancient rhetoric. But since antiquity, tropes and figures have not been understood equally. For some, tropes are one of the variants of figures, others distinguish between figures and tropes – the characteristic of tropes is visuality, and figures are considered a syntactic phenomenon (Zaborskaitė 1982: 97). In this article, the editions of the same book are treated as different sources, and the separately published parts of the same work are treated as one source. 178 Asta Mitkevičienė | Names of figures and tropes In the late 1918–1940s, | literatūros mokslo darbuose tropes were not considered as a kind of figures (which is why the title of this article is – names of figures and tropes), so there is no hierarchical relationship between these two concepts in the sources of terms. In his 1918 textbook, K. Bizauskas defined tropes as "words and expressions used in a figurative sense" BizR 39. Twenty years later, J. Ambrazevičius (1938) defines it more narrowly: “a word used in an indirect sense is called a trope” Am 43. In 1918, K. Bizauskas explained rather vaguely that “figures are such expressions in which the writer is caught up in feelings, distances himself from the simple ways of expression” BizR 47 (similarly formulated in the later 1922 edition). In 1938, J. Ambrazevičius gave a more terminological definition of figures: “the means of style that come from the formation of sentences and their connection are called figures.” In the Lithuanian encyclopedia (1940) the term "figure" is interpreted by Juozas Žiugžda similarly as in J. Ambrazevičius' textbook. S. Češūnas (1925) assigns tropes to poetry, and figures – to the means of language, M. Gustaitis (1927) describes tropes as genders of language, and figures – as rhetorical sayings. In the sources studied, trophies are considered metaphor, allegory, prosopoeia, metonymia, synecdoche, antonym, hyperbole, litothesis, irony, sarcasm, periphrase, symbol, and figures – apostrophe, repetition, parallelism, gradation, antithesis, silence, ellipse, rhetorical question and rhetorical exclamation, correction (S. Češūnas distinguishes hyperbole and litothesis among figures). Not all authors of the sources list them all, some indicate their interrelationship, others do not. Some authors consider the epithet (BiržD, Nor) and the comparison (BiržD, Birž2, Nor) as tropes. The latter concepts are now assigned to the tropes in literary science (see Zaborskaitė 1982: 105-106; LTA 96; LEM 391), although it is noted that they are “tended to be deleted from the sphere of the tropes” (LTA 96). In the textbook of J. Ambrazevičius and J. Grinius, parallelism and gradation are viewed more broadly – they are considered as compositional tools. In classical Lithuanian literature, tropes are usually classified as figures (see Zaborskaitė 1982: 104; LEM: 391). In Lithuanian linguistics, tropes are also regarded as a type of style (language) figures (see KTŽ; Župerka 2001: 57; Vaskelienė 2007: 19). Rhetoric is divided into tropes and rhetorical figures. Several rhetorical figures of thought (semantic figures), like tropes, are based on transference, but they are not tropes of word, but of thought. These are expanded metaphors – allegory and parabola, and figures such as hyperbole, irony, litothe, emphasis are named in the same terms as trophies (Koženiauskienė 1999: 206). Litera- 179Terminology | 2014 | 21 In turology, prosopoeia is classified as a trope, and in rhetoric – as a rhetorical figure of thought (see 179Terminology). Zaborskaitė 1982: 108; LŽ; LEM 247; Koženiauskienė 1999: 334). The works of literary history of the period also contain names of figures, but they usually do not give a classification of figures and tropes, so it is not always clear what is classified as figures and what is considered tropes. Therefore, it was decided to discuss figures and tropes together in this article. When selecting terms for this article, current encyclopedias and dictionaries, works of literary science, linguistics and rhetoric were not left out of sight. Thus, based on the current classification of figures and tropes, here are also analyzed the terms called allusion, euphemism, enumeration, calamity, paradox, parallelism, pleonasm, period, although the authors of the investigated sources who used these terms did not call them either figures or tropes. For example, the textbooks of literary theory of that time describe pleonasm as a defect in some texts and as a stylistic tool in others. In the early 20th-century Russian encyclopedic dictionary, which some authors may have used, euphemism, pleonasm, paradox are mentioned in the article on figures (see ЭС 1902: 649). DEBT There are fewer borrowed names of single-word figures and tropes than Lithuanian ones. They make up 40.3% (out of 77) of single-word terms. Hyperonyms figure and troops The term tropa BizR 39 / tropas BizR 44, BizL 59, BiržD 79, Birž2 38, Češ 25, Gus 79, Zaj 53, Nor 25, NorV 248, Kuz I 24, Put 257, Am 43, AG 14, Miš 633 are of Greek origin (but cf. TŽŽe gr., VTŽŽe lat. < gr., ЛЭТП gr.), while the figure BizR 47, BizL 70, BiržD 93, Birž2 136, Češ 26, Gus 31, Zaj 53, Nor 33, NorV 193, Kuz I 24, Put 253, Am 53, Miš 65 is Latin4. J. Norkus (1930) attributed the Lithuanian change to the trope, but used only the international term. It remains unclear whether this change is to be considered a term or merely a clarification. K. Bizauskas (1922) used sudė3 References to sources after the term are presented chronologically. A slash separates the term variants – different forms of the same term. Variations of the same term (phonetic and spelling, morphological) are considered as one term. 4 The concept of figure originated in ancient Greece (VLE XIX 791), but the international term figure itself is of Latin origin. 180 Asta Mitkevičienė | Names of Figures and Tropes 1918–1940 | literatūros mokslo darbuose the figurative expression BizL 173. There are more compound terms that compete with the term figure in textbooks, e.g.: synonyms rhetorical expression Gus 31 / rhetorical expression Gus 33 and rhetorical expression Gus 37, Zaj 89; synonyms rhetorical decoration BizL 174, rhetorical embellishment DubB 157, Sr II 182 and rhetorical ornament Put 500; synonyms rhetorical means Kuz V 111 and rhetorical means Šil 116, etc. Borrowings of names of figures and tropical species from other languages are international terms. Among them are mainly terms of Greek origin5, e.g.: antonym BizL 68, Gus 85, anthropomorphism AGV 52, autoirony Birž2 133, chiasm Er 16, epithet BizR 34, BizL 53, DubB 35, BiržD 80, Birž2 38, Češ 28, Gus 79, DubL 29, DubP I 313, Nor 27, NorV 14, Kuz I 24, Sr I 87, Put 35, Šil 183, Am 38, AG 14, Miš 6, euphemism Gus 11, irony6 BizR 46, BizL 69, DubB 98, BiržD 80, Pet II 60, VžgV 62, Birž2 38, Gus 86, DubL 102, DubP I 112, Nor 32, NorV 179, Er 81, Sr I 162, Kuz II 130, Put 19, Am 48, AGV 211, Miš 148, metonymia BizR 44, BizL 60, Birž2 38, BiržD 80, Češ 21, Gus 85, Nor 29, Kuz II 129, Put 257, Am 47, perphrase Gus 10, DubP II 99, Nor 31, Kuz II 145, Miš 269, pleonasm BizR 24, BizL 40, Gus 13, Nor 21, sarcasm BizR 46, BizL 69, Gus 86, DubP I 275, Nor 33, NorV 250, Sr II 37, symbol BizR 42, BizL 63, DubB 117, Ieš 133, Pet II 5, Češ 75, Gus 84, DubL 56, DubP I 73, NorV 25, Er 84, Sr I 151, Kuz II 143, Put 142, Am 46, AG 14, Miš 82. Instead of anthropomorphism now personification of literature. moksle įsigalėjo kita tarptautinio termino forma – antropomorfizacija (žr. Zaborskaitė 1982: 108; LEM 247), plg. lotyniškos kilmės terminą Other terms of Greek origin have varied in the period of study, e.g.: antithesis BizR 50, BizL 75, Češ 27, DubL 254, DubP II 80, Er 139, Sr I 98, Kuz II 127, Put 203, Šil 254, Am 54, AG 102 / antithesis Pet I 33 / antithesis BiržD 97 (see antithesis TŽZ 1936, now also antithesis LEM 353), hyperbole BizR 45, Češ 27, Gus 86, Kuz I 85, Put 346, Am 49, AG 144, Miš 46 / hyperbole Birž 80, Birž2 38 / hyperbole BizL 68, VžgA 4, Nor 31, Sr I 77, Kuz I 66 (see hyperbole TŽZ 1936), period BizR 20, BizL 34, Nor 37, Kuz I 138, Sr II 255 / period Gus 30, DubL 121, Put 50 (see period TŽZ 1936), lithos Češ 27 / lithos Gus 86 (see lithos TŽZ 1936), 5 International terms in this article are divided according to the original source. 6 Irony belongs not only to the sphere of stylistics, but also to that of worldview (LTA 102; LEM 155). 181Terminologija | 2014 | 21 Ieš 124, Birž2 38, Gus 81, Nor 30, Kuz V 177 (cf. prozopopeja BizR 42, Am 44, Miš 107 / prozopopėja BizL 64, BiržD 80, prosopoeia TŽZ 1936), sinekdocha BizR 44, BizL 67, Birž2 38, Češ 17, Nor 30, Sr I 152, Kuz II 129, added to the 1936 International Dictionary of Words. Put 257, Am 48 / sinekdokė BiržD 80 / sinėkdokė BiržD 87 / sinekdochė Gus 85 (plg. sinekdocha TŽŽ 1936). Dabar vartojamas tas variantas, kuris Some now obsolete variants of the terms were used only in one of the sources studied, for example: allegory BizR 41, BizL 62, BiržD 86, DubB 41, Češ 24, Gus 81, DubL 30, DubP I 73, Nor 28, NorV 65, Er 51, Kuz I 114, Sr II 371, Put 39, Am 45, AG 119, Miš 64 / allegory Šil 280, apostrophe BizR 47, BizL 70, Kuz I 24 / apostrophe BiržD 93 (see apostrophe TŽŽ 1936), metaphor BizR 39, BizL 60, DubB 41, Birž2 38, Češ 24, Gus 80, DubL 29, DubP I 182, Nor 28, Er 156, Sr I 99, Kuz I 149, Put 35, Am 44, AG 144, Miš 63 / metaphor BiržD 80. The varied name of the figure ellipse BizR 50, BizL 76, BiržD 93, Češ 28, Kuz I 155 / ellipse Gus 29, Am 55 / ellipse DubP II 189 (see ellipse TŽŽ 1936; TŽŽe gr. ; VTŽŽe lot. < gr. ; LEP gr. ). There are only a few names of figures of Latin origin. All of them have the formative -ija, e.g.: amplification Gus 11, gradation BizR 49, BizL 74, Zaj 110, AGV 190, personification Gus 81, DubP I 89, Er 123, Sr I 98, Kuz I 138, Put 348, Miš 65 (TŽŽe lat.; VTŽŽe fr. < lat.). The term allusion Er 155, Sr II 341, Put 414 / allusion Shil 206 (TŽŽe, VTŽŽe fr. < lat.; VLE I mid-a. lot.; ЛЭТП fr.) is also associated with Latin or French. The non-Lithuanianized inversion Gus 40 (see inversion TŽŽ 1936) was left by M. Gustaitis, the only person who used this term. From the French language came the varied term calambur DubB 63 / calambur Gus 10, DubL 99. The term parallelism is either related to French or to Greek BizR 24, BizL 40, BiržD 64, Gus 14, Nor 22, Sr I 87, Put 32, Am 41, AG 13, Miš 50 / parallelism Kuz I 23 (A.G., L.G., L.G.). Although these terms are mononyms, not all of them are of the same level, for example, in the classification of J. Ambrazevičius (1938) the term metaphor has three kinds of terms: prosopopeia, allegory, symbol. Thus, the two-word term metaphor prosopopeja Am 45 is the long form of the term prosopopeja and the species term of the metaphor. The hierarchical relationship links the terms irony and self-irony. 182 Asta Mitkevičienė | Names of Figures and Tropes 1918–1940 | literatūros mokslo darbuose Abstract terms consisting of terms naming tropes or their derivatives are used in sources from 1918–1940, e.g.: hyperbole Put 397, irony Put 232, synonyms metaphor Ieš 6 and metaphorism DubP I 182, metonymy Češ 21, etc. LITHUANIAN TERMS In the investigated sources from 1918-1940, 46 Lithuanian single-word names of figures and tropes were used. First of all, at that time these were the only designations of concepts that did not have any – even Lithuanian – synonyms for single words: duplicity Sr II 182 „anadiplozė?“ (cf. Latin anadiplosis „doubling, doubling“ (Koženiauskienė 1999: 266)), deduction Kuz I 74, Put 33 (now enumeration (cf. Župerka 2001: 73; Vaskelienė 2007: 28)), silence BizR 50, BizL 76, BiržD 93, Češ 28, Gus 37, Nor 35, Kuz III 269, exhortation Er 77 „the form of rhetorical address – adhortatio?“ (cf. Latin adhortatio „encouragement, exhortation“ (Koženiauskienė 1999: 332)), correction (correctio) Gus 37 (now correction (cf. Koženiauskienė 1999: 282; Župerka 2001: 74; Vaskelienė 2007: 29)). Other Lithuanian single-word terms have synonyms – Lithuanian (common-root and non-common-root) and international (non-common-root). Synonyms in English The trinomial sequence of monosyllabic synonyms consists of Lithuanian co-root synonyms repeticija BizR 47, BizL 71, DubB 82, Birž2 38, DubL 125, Er 35, Sr I 152, Put 37, Am 54, AG 144, Miš 51 (but cf. the repetition figure Am 76), kartojimas7 DubB 9, BiržD 93, Češ 26, Gus 33, Nor 33, Kuz I 24, Miš 48 and repeticija Kuz I 54. The prepositional term repetition (see Zaborskaitė 1982: 114; LTA 111; LEM 352), which was also the most popular in the investigated period, took hold. It should be noted that in language such prepositioned words are not synonyms of unprepositioned words, but when they are used to designate the same concept, their differences in meaning are neutralized. Keturnarė lietuviškų bendrašaknių sinonimų eilutė – palyginimas BizR 35, BizL 54, Pet I 25, DubB 41, VžgA 43, Češ 22, Gus 79, DubL 8, DubP I 182, Nor 17, NorV 14, Er 124, Sr I 87, Kuz II 145, Put 35, Šil 27, 7 The term repetition in NorV 189 was also used to name one of the shortcomings of the work. In this sense, it belongs to the semantic group of action names. 183Terminologija | 2014 | 21 Am 41, AG 14, Miš 61, comparison BiržD 80, Birž2 38, Nor 26, NorV 14, Kuz I 23, comparison Birž2 96, AGV 210 and comparison DubP I 242, Kuz II 140. The prepositional term comparison has become established in the majority of sources (see Zaborskaitė 1982: 106; LTA 96; LEM 391). The fourth row of synonymous terms of one word includes the terms inquiry BizR 51, question BizL 77, Kuz II 70, hearing BiržD 93 (see summons BiržD 99), question Birž2 38, Er 77, Kuz I 47, Put 253, Am 55. It is not uncommon to hear of new-born birds. The most commonly used term is "the most popular question" (see rhetorical question, cf. 1982: 114; LTA 114; LEM 353). The five-word row of synonymous terms consists of the co-root terms call BizR 51, Birž2 38, summon BizL 77, Gus 32, Kuz I 134, Put 253, Miš 175, summon BiržD 93, call BizL 71, Sr I 147, slogan Kuz III 2198. As in the case of other synonyms of common roots, the most popular term in the investigated period – exclamation (cf. (rhetorical) exclamation, cf. 1982: 114; LTA 114; LEM 353). The term “rhetorical question” is also referred to as the compound term rhetorical question Chesh 28, Gus 3 / rhetorical question Kuz III 107 / rhetorical question Kuz III 238, and “rhetorical exclamation” – rhetorical exclamation Kuz IV 39. The secondary focus of such compound terms is not specific to the context of the terms of this semantic group – rhetorical question and question, rhetorical exclamation and exclamation compete as long and short forms of terms. Thus, the book rhetorical address of the three-word term Put 19 is purely book. Almost all of the listed Lithuanian terms belong to the category of action names (abstracts of verbs). Only the non-systematic term “duality” used by B. Sruoga stands out – the name of a characteristic according to the work. Lithuanian and international synonyms As early as the 19th century, when literary studies began to be written in Lithuanian, Lithuanian terms were sought for some international concepts of figures and tropes. This continued in 1918–1940. Thus, in the sources examined, the slogan Sr I 160 B is used for 8 Termas. 184 Asta Mitkevičienė | Names of Figures and Tropes 1918–1940 | literatūros mokslo darbuose Lithuanian and international synonymous terms. The same term is also referred to by an international and more than one Lithuanian term, therefore, a row of synonyms is formed. Synonyms of different origin are the Lithuanian term išleidimas BizR 50, BizL 76, BiržD 93 and the varying international term ellipsė, forming a binary string of synonyms. These synonyms compete only at the beginning of the investigated period: in both editions of the textbook K. Bizauskas added the Lithuanian synonym after the international term, while M. Biržiška (1923) did the opposite. J. Ambrazevičius (1938) mixed the concepts of “ellipse” and “silence”, so he presented as a synonym of ellipse not the term release, but silence Am 55 (the ellipse now used in literary science, see Zaborskaitė 1982: 113; LEM 353). The verb synonyms9 antithesis BizR 50, BiržD 93, Birž2 38, Nor 35 and antithesis Gus 37 as well as the variable international term antithesis are included in the third row of synonyms. In the first edition of K. Bizauskas’ textbook (1918) and M. Biržiška’s textbook of songs (1923), in which these terms of different origin are used synonymously, the Lithuanian term is given preference, but later K. Bizauskas (1922) used only the international term, while M. Biržiška (1925) used only the Lithuanian term (cf. the compound specific term graded opposite BiržD 97). M. Gustaitis (1927) also preferred the Lithuanian term – the constructive synonym of antagonism – antagonizmas. In J. Norkaus textbook (1930) we find only a Lithuanian synonym. In the sources of the 1930s only the international term is used (now antithesis, see. 1982: 112; LTA 112; LEM 353). The trinar synonym string is composed of the Lithuanian co-root synonyms recourse BizR 47, BizL 70, BiržD 93, Birž2 38, Gus 33, Nor 35, Kuz II 90, Put 253, Am 55, recourse BiržD 99 and the variable international term apostrophe. The Lithuanian synonym „kreipimasis“ is even more popular than the international one – it is used in a larger part of the sources. K. Bizauskas (1918 and 1922), M. Gustaitis (1927) and Z. Kuzmickis (1931, 1932) gave preference to the Lithuanian term, using both synonyms of different origin. In M. Biržiškė’s textbook (1923) the designations of this concept form a triangular row of synonyms (adressing, addressing and apostrophe), which has a number of addressing variants (see Koženiauskienė 1999: 331). 9 Verb synonyms are distinguished from verb variants according to the criteria described by Jolanta Vaskelienė dominantė – kreipimasis. Dabar apostrofa retorikoje yra vienas iš retorinio (See Vaskelienė 2013: 207–210). 191Terminologija | 2014 | 21 These conclusions are drawn: 1) All borrowings were international terms. More than one third of them had variants. 2) 9 concepts were named only by Lithuanian-origin terms. 21 terms were used for that purpose (they made from three to five synonymic lines) and the most popular terms are still used today. 3) International terms had from one to three Lithuanian synonyms (14 synonymic lines in total). Most Lithuanian synonyms of international terms were names of action in respect of derivation and terms of different expression were not established. From those international and Lithuanian synonyms now just the international ones are used except the Lithuanian terms laipsniavimas “gradation” and įasmeninimas “personification”. 4) Although the number of Lithuanian terms was greater than of international names of figures and tropes, the former named fewer concepts than the latter (respectively 23 and 31). That was due to numerous synonymy of Lithuanian terms which reflects attempts to name some international concepts with Lithuanian-origin terms. Some cases of excessive Lithuanianization are noticed, but that tendency was not widely spread in the sources investigated. Retrieved 2014-09-01 Asta Mitkevičienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania Email: [email protected]