E-catalog        

Библиогр.: 92 назв.

Уточняется состав и систематизируются фигуры двусмысленной речи. Анализ показывал, что: 1) двусмысленность представляет собой подразумевание единицы А2 (А3, …) под единицей А1 адресантом при затрудненности выбора между А1 и А2 (А3, …) адресатом ввиду дефектности контекста; 2) условием речевой реализации категории двусмысленности является наличие ассоциативной связи между А1 и А2, возникающей при отношениях: а) семантической производности «А2 < А1»; б) тождества формы «А2 = А1»; в) близкозвучия «А2 ≈ А1». Отношению (а) отвечают таксономический пе-ренос, метонимия и незамкнутая метафора, отношению (б) – дилогия, отношению (в) – фонетическая аллюзия. The aim of this research is to clarify the concept of ambiguity and, accordingly, the set of ambiguous speech figures, interpretations of which in the literature demonstrate a signif-icant diversity of opinions. The research material is primarily literary, in particular, poetic, speech, which is characterized by an acute stylistic effect achieved by functionally relevant violations of communicative norms – the requirement of speech unambiguity in our case; the sample size was more than 300 units. The study showed that: 1) ambiguity should be considered as the implication of speech unit A2 (A3, ...) under unit A1 by the addresser when it is impossible for the addressee to make an unambiguous choice between A1 and A2 (A3, ...) due to the defective context; accordingly, in addition to descriptive and transforma-tional methods, the study used contextual and motivational analysis; 2) the condition for implementing ambiguity in speech is the presence of an associative relationship between A1 and A2 (A3, ...). According to the nature of this relationship, the figures of ambiguous speech can be divided into three rows. 1. Row 1 is based on the relations of semantic deri-vation: a) taxonomic transfers; b) metonymy, in particular metalepsis and synecdoche; c) open metaphor, including allegory and enigma. The closest generic concept for allegory appears to be the ex simili metaphor, the concretizers are the open nature of this metaphor, its expansion and focus on explanation. The typical (going back to the Antiquity) under-standing of allegory as an expanded metaphor does not make it possible to distinguish closed and open metaphors; therefore, it is inadvisable. A metaphor can be either closed (i.e., unambiguous) or open, tertium non datur; from this point of view, the use of the con-cept of “incomplete” allegory is unreasonable. 2. Row 2 is based on the relations of the complete identity of the form (dilogy; in particular, amphiboly). The language basis of these figures are: 1) homonyms; 2) polysemants whose lexical-semantic variants (LSVs) are not linked with semantic derivation relations, since: a) LSVs go back to one producing unit (thus being coderivatives); b) the connection through semantic derivation relations between LSVs is lost or weakened, and most speakers of the language do not longer feel it. If there is a tangible relation of semantic derivation between LSVs, the basis of ambiguity is not polysemy, but transfers (See point 1). 3. Row 3 is based on relations of incomplete identity of the form (phonetic allusion; in particular, paragram). Thus, the linguistic basis of figures of ambiguous speech are associations: 1) derivational (cases 1 and 2.2a); 2) by the same sounding (case 2.1); 3) by close-sounding or consonance of nominative units (case 3); case (2.2 b) is located on the scale between the poles represented by types (1) and (2.1).