In the creative biography of Shaw, the play occupies a special place. It opens the period of the playwright's activity, which is usually called the second era of his work.

Shaw found a special form of dramatic expression of his theme with the help of Chekhov's dramas. The work of the great Russian writer became one of the most important literary factors that pushed the playwright onto the path of a well-known transformation of his own artistic system. In the years preceding the First World War, Chekhov's dramas were just beginning their stage life on the stage of English theaters. In England, they were known only to a small circle of fans of "serious drama" - a genre that was by no means popular with a wide audience. The pre-war and war years in the history of the English theater were dominated by commercial theatrical enterprises, which flooded the stage with the production of all sorts of literary mediocrity. The works of great playwrights, primarily Bernard Shaw, could not compete with sentimental melodramas.

His own play gave this motif an extraordinarily broad expression. Its main theme, as the playwright explains, was to be the tragedy of "the cultural idleness of Europe before the war." The crime of the English intelligentsia, according to Shaw, consisted in the fact that, having become isolated in its narrow isolated world, it left the entire field of life practice at the disposal of unprincipled predators and ignorant businessmen. As a result, there was a gap between culture and life. "Strength and culture found themselves in different premises." Another symbolic building, the Riding Hall, the so-called Manege, was located next to the house of broken hearts, and the fullness of state power was concentrated in the hands of its zoologically rude inhabitants. “The barbarians,” writes Shaw, “not only literally sat in the saddle, but they also sat on the ministerial bench in the House of Commons, and there was no one to correct their incredible ignorance in the field of modern thought and political science.”

This state of affairs, according to Shaw, prepared a military catastrophe, the responsibility for which the playwright lays on the intellectuals who have lost touch with life. With her assistance, England became a country whose coat of arms with the image of St. George slaying the dragon "should be replaced by the image of a soldier piercing Archimedes with a spear." "Cultural, idle England" is to blame for rampant barbarism and desecration of culture, and Shaw, in his play, judges her. The main theme of the play is the theme of historical retribution that befell the bourgeois intelligentsia. But the content of the drama goes beyond this concept.

B. Shaw was delighted with the innovation of the Russian playwright. The play "The House Where Hearts Break" is a play that was greatly influenced by Chekhov's work. Shaw was the first English writer to evaluate a Russian author. In 1911, The Cherry Orchard was first performed on the London stage. The performance was not a success. According to eyewitnesses, of all the writers present, only Bernard Shaw was delighted. During the intermission, he told his Russian acquaintances that he would almost stop writing - so strongly did he feel the exhaustive superiority of Chekhov as a psychologist of our time. “... Everything that we write in England seems to be rubbish after Chekhov and other Russians. … When Sasha Kropotkina tells me that Russia will give the world a soul, I completely understand her. …”, - this is how B. Shaw wrote to G. J. Wells, his friend, about Russian authors.

The main idea of ​​the playwright - "Plays create the theater, not the theater creates plays", believed that the basis of the new theater is, first of all, Ibsen, Maeterlinck and Chekhov.

Great importance in the new drama, according to B. Shaw, should be occupied by remarks containing information about the time of day, the situation, the political and social situation, the manners, appearance and intonation of the actors.

This is how a special genre of "drama-discussion" appears, dedicated to "the description and study of its (society) romantic illusions and the struggle of individuals with these illusions." Thus, in the drama The Heartbreaking House (1913-1917), the inhabitants of this “House” are depicted, whose social activity would have been helpless and fruitless due to their habit of living in emptiness. After all, in their personal lives, they, like the heroes of Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, only senselessly squander their inheritance. And if one of them lives within his means, it is only because he is under the tutelage of his attorneys and managers, since he does not know how to manage his own skills, nor to conduct his own affairs without the constant prompting of those people who should have either learned all this, or die of hunger.

The play embodied the tragedy of bourgeois civilization, which came into conflict with the logic of historical development. The breadth of this conflict determined the forms of its artistic embodiment. The dramatic scheme of Chekhov's plays in Shaw's drama, in accordance with the principle of paradox, turned out to be inverted. If in Chekhov the second, symbolically - philosophical dimension of the play forms its subtext, then in Shaw it acquires a dramatic and visible appearance and not only exists on an equal footing with the realistic plan of the drama, but also reveals a desire for complete mastery of the stage.

The emphasized duality of the figurative structure of the play is connected with this. Each of her images, starting with the dramatic characters and ending with the details of the stage setting, seems to be doubled and turns to the viewer either by an everyday, everyday, or conditionally symbolic side. This duality of the dramatic design is characteristic, first of all, of the central image of the play, the image of the house-ship, "the house where hearts break." Built on the model of a ship by the old eccentric Captain Shotover, this strange and bizarre building is associated with both the English song about Britain as the mistress of the seas ("Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule over the waves"), and with the legend of the ghost ship ("Flying Dutchman") , and, finally, with Noah's ark, inhabited by a variety of specimens of the drowning world. This "strange heartbreaking house", "a house without any foundations" is a symbolic image of bourgeois England, standing on the verge of a great historical catastrophe. Under the roof of this symbolic building are gathered people of different ages, different professions, different property and social status. But in addition to these visible characters, there is, as it were, another invisible one, whose invisible presence is felt thanks to the many figurative details and the painfully tense atmosphere of the play. This character can be conditionally designated by the word "fate". For Shaw, this concept is devoid of mystical content. Fate for him is the power of historical retribution. Meeting with "rock", the characters of the play, in fact, meet with a hostile history, to the judgment of which they bring their dilapidated spiritual, cultural and moral values. Demonstration of the hopeless deadness of this property accumulated over the centuries is the most important aspect of the author's intention. The show shows how the possessive world, living out the last moments of its life, is trying in vain to find a foothold among the arsenal of familiar ideas and feelings. Turned into empty shells, the traditional forms of the spiritual life of the bourgeois world serve only as masks to hide the spiritual nakedness of its representatives. In the face of history, these masks fall away and the spiritual poverty of the bankrupt sons and daughters of bourgeois England appears in all its depressing ugliness. This process of spiritual "uncovering" is the dramatic basis of the play. Summing up activities » several generations of English intellectuals. The show brings to trial the stories of its characters, each of which, having a pronounced individual character, embodies a certain trend in the cultural and spiritual development of England. Thus, the graceful gentleman Hector Hashebay appears in the play not only as a romantic, but also as the personification of romanticism (under which Shaw, as always, understands not a literary movement, but a certain type of perception of reality). This ardent visionary, as Shaw shows, was a consistent and inspired "knight of lies" all his life. All his life he deceived himself and others with his inventions. His own real life did not satisfy him (and this neglect of reality for Shaw is the main "crime" of romanticism), and he invented another one for himself, full of heroic deeds and wonderful adventures. Years passed, and his fiery imagination, wasted on lies, was exhausted. He stopped believing in himself, and others don't believe him either. "Romanticism" has turned into an elderly gentleman, tired of lies, a former handsome man who has lost faith in his irresistibility. But the philosophy of sober practicality has outlived itself no less. Its bearer - an elderly businessman Mengen - also consists of lies and fakes. His energy, his wealth, his efficiency are counterfeit. He has no money, no practical ingenuity, no business ability, nothing for his soul, except for the false reputation of a successful businessman, with the help of which he somehow manages to stay on the surface of life. Of all the inhabitants of the house - the ship, he inspires Shaw with the greatest hatred, because it is "because of people like him that the world has turned into a feeder for pigs." A guest from the Manezh, who accidentally found himself on board the ship, Mengen turned out to be the most defenseless before the court of history. This businessman - a puppet, like the whole system he represents, is rotten from the inside and can only hold on thanks to artificial props. Finding that they no longer save him, he becomes weak and lost. Filled with deathly anguish, he rushes around the twilight house of Captain Shotover and, together with his fellow professional thief Dan, perishes in the flames of the beginning fire. Exposing the predatory essence of capitalism, this symbolic situation at the same time predicts its quick and inevitable death. But the rest of the inhabitants of the house-ship are doomed. The process of disintegration of bourgeois England also touched the sphere of the most intimate human emotions, turning them into an instrument of death and destruction. Neither the tenderness of Hesiona, nor the sensual charm of her sister, Lady Utterword, can save a dying world and breathe a living soul into it. Love here has turned into a cruel game, and not only Ariadne indulges in it, this is the embodiment of the colonial slave-owning mores of imperialist England, but also the meek feminine Hesiona. These middle-aged charmers are already behind, and for them there is no tomorrow. But there is no future for "young England" - young Ellie Dan, standing on the very threshold of life. Her illusions perish when they come into contact with the cruel truth of life.

The decrepit owner of the doomed "ship" - this "dungeon of souls, which is called England" - is no longer able to swim against the current. And he concentrates the remnants of his life energy in order to create deadly weapons that can wipe out a degenerate, dying society from the face of the earth. This symbolic detail of Shotover's activity generalizes the direction of development of bourgeois civilization. She has exhausted herself, and she has only one thing left - self-destruction. Her creative thought in the face of Captain Shotover serves not life, but death. The subconscious and conscious desire for death lives in the broken hearts of the characters in the drama. Tired of life, they want to die. It is this spiritual state of bourgeois society that prepares for that orgy of general destruction, to which the finale of the play alludes. A German bomber drops a bomb on a dynamite warehouse located near the house - the ship. The flame of the outbreak of fire will undoubtedly spread to the whole old world, it is not for nothing that the inhabitants of the house, tired of life, dream of the return of the bombers. On this ominous note, reinforced by the tune of the sentimental song "Burn, fires of the hearths", Shaw's play ends - this kind of "waste" for bourgeois society.

Shaw's cruel irony also has a certain personal touch. With the play "Heartbreaking House" he sums up not only the centuries-old development of bourgeois civilization, but also his own long-term activity aimed at improving the dominant social system. His dreams of her recovery and the creation of "new people" in the conditions of the deepest collapse of the existing way of life turned into a naive and helpless utopia. Hence the feeling of lyrical sadness that permeates his drama, giving it, in combination with his usual poisonous irony, a uniquely original sound.

Shaw called the story about Captain Shotover's strange house "a Russian-style fantasy with English themes".

It would be difficult to understand what "Russian style" is for Shaw, if he himself did not explain it in an incredibly long preface to the play. “Heartbreak House” (in English it sounds much shorter and more expressive: Heartbreak House!) The show calls the entire cultural Europe of the early twentieth century, the Europe of well-bred, idle, doomed to extinction people. He believes that the Russians, Tolstoy and Chekhov, were the first to speak about the inevitable death of this world and these people. The first "looked at them as if they were poisoned by opium, when it was necessary to grab patients by the collar and roughly shake them until they came to their senses." The second "was more of a fatalist and didn't believe that these charming people could pull through... so he didn't hesitate to emphasize their attractiveness and even flatter them."

Loving and promoting Chekhov's plays in his homeland in every possible way, Shaw did not understand one simple thing in them: Chekhov treats Russia and his heroes as if they were sick, and they do not shout at the sick. Shaw himself yelled at England with all his might, loudly and tirelessly. During the First World War, he honestly took a break. “You cannot make war on war and on your neighbor at the same time. War does not tolerate the furious scourge of comedy. ...Telling the truth is incompatible with the defense of the state,” he writes in the same preface. The first two acts of "House" were written in 1913; the third, the shortest, - in 1917; the play was published in 1919. This is indeed similar to the "Russian style", but there is also a connection of another kind: natural, direct and very important. Irony and fervor of thought, love for paradoxical generalizations, the ability to build a plot like a labyrinth with a dozen false exits and impose on the reader a graphically clear, but completely wrong idea about the character, crumple it, replace it with another, third, and only by the end show who was who and what cost.

In the play "House where hearts break" we are talking about people hovering over the abyss. The First World War is getting closer and closer to the house of the old sailor Captain Shotover, but the inhabitants of the building built in the form of a ship live as if nothing had happened: they have meaningless conversations, drink tea, sort things out, languish from idleness, quarrel or flirt. The same attitude to life is in Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard: the estate will soon be sold, the landowner (Ranevskaya) has no money, and yet the inhabitants of this estate are throwing a ball, although they do not know how to pay the orchestra, and have fun, no matter how in whatever happened.

In the play by B. Shaw, just like in Chekhov, the conflict is muted, there is no clear division into positive and negative characters.

Society

Bernard Shaw in his play showed the English society during the First World War. The main character traits of this society are the indifference and ignorance of the upper and middle classes. A formally prosperous society is simply decomposing from within, decomposing morally. There is not a single positive character in the play - each hero is either a hypocrite, or a liar, or just an evil person. In the play, Shaw showed English society from the inside. The house "where hearts break" is also the house "where everything secret becomes clear." And if in all the houses of British society all the vices, all the ins and outs are carefully hidden, then in the house of Shatover the opposite is true - everyone tries to bring the other hero to clean water, while often betraying himself. The society shown in the play is simply doomed to destruction, moreover, to self-destruction. People will destroy themselves - morally.

Characters[edit | edit wiki text]

Each hero of the work personifies a certain type of person, a certain character, which we can meet always and everywhere.

Hesiona personifies a beautiful woman, a representative of the high society, who no longer knows how to entertain herself - either to interfere with the marriage of Ellie and Mengen, or to wait for planes with bombs.

Hesiona's husband is Hector, a representative of high society. He is handsome, but he is bored with life - he is looking for new love adventures, however, his love for Hesione is stronger than all hobbies. From a proud handsome man, he turned into his wife's "pet dog".

Ellie is a representative of the lower classes of English society, who, by hook or by crook, is trying to break into people. However, she continues to love her father. However, most likely, soon she will completely forget all the concepts of honor, love, goodness. She is ready to marry without love, the main thing would be - for a millionaire.

Mazzini Dan is Ellie's father, a representative of the lower classes of English society, who, thanks to his abilities in economics and industry, could break out into the high society, but this was prevented by his friend Mengen. Throughout the play, the intrigue remains: who outwitted whom - Mazzini Mengen or Mengen Mazzini. Each time in this situation, new details are revealed. Ultimately, it turns out that Mazzini outwitted Mengen, and Mengen does not have a penny to his name - he is not a millionaire.

Bourgeois audiences, who had noticeably cooled towards Shaw a few years before the start of the war, were imbued with an even sharper dislike for him in connection with his anti-militarist position. The doors of the London theaters were closed to his anti-war plays, and the premiere of Heartbreak House took place not in England, but at the American Guild Theatre.

In his play Heartbreak House, Shaw brought together people from various generations of the intelligentsia. The representative of the oldest generation is the old Captain Shotover, the owner of the house, through whose mouth B. Shaw most often judges the rotten world, which is destined to disappear from the face of the earth. As noted above, by and large, all three generations represented in the house are endowed with similar, complex characters, and in this case there could be no conflict, there could not be drama. That is why dissidents also penetrate into this house - the ship: Boss Mangan (Mangan), thief William Dan (The Burglar), partly this is the youngest daughter of the captain - Lady Utterword (lady Utterword

The semantic basis of the metaphors of the original is very often conveyed using the method of holistic comprehension, where the connection between the internal form of the basis of the metaphor of the original and the translation is based on secondary intersecting semes. In this case, the transformation of the main metaphor takes place within the framework of the crossing. At the same time, the conceptual content of the basis of the metaphor of the original, its nominative function is conveyed by applying the method of integral transformation in the outside. In this case, the connection between the internal form of metaphorical words and phrases of the original and translation is not traced. Thematically, the metaphorical image of the translation is synonymous with the image of the original, equal in aesthetic function, emotional-evaluative function, the expression can be of the same strength, but the specificity of the image is different. Its semantic basis has no semantic connections with the basis of the metaphor in translation.

Antonomic translation in the transfer of imagery is an infrequently used technique. It consists in replacing the concept of the original with the opposite concept in translation, with a corresponding restructuring of the entire statement. In this case, the affirmative structure can be replaced by a negative one.

Chapter II. Analysis of the play by B. Shaw "House where hearts break"

1. Problems of B. Shaw's drama "Heartbreaking House", its historical context

Based on the fact that the object of our study is the play Heartbreak House by B. Shaw, we consider it appropriate to determine the place of this work in the work of B. Shaw, to say a few words about the historical context of the time when the play was written, to highlight the ideological drama issues.

Huge, almost like a century, Shaw's life and his work are more described than studied, notes A.G. Obraztsova (28, p.3). We, in turn, cannot but agree with this opinion. B. The show was made a classic during his lifetime and written off, declaring it old-fashioned. However, many critics who study his work notice that the completely new method of B. Shaw, different from all previous ones, has been little studied and, in general, is not fully understood.

"The inexhaustible gift of Bernard Shaw to turn everything generally accepted inside out, to look for their new, unexpected meaning in words and phenomena, seems to envy some of his critics" (28, p.4).

In the plays of the early period of B. Shaw's work, problems are highlighted that do not cast doubt on the expediency of the foundations of the social system in England. But saturated with satire, they have earned the name "unpleasant plays"; and then this causticity of well-chosen witticisms passed into the tragicomedies of the 20s and 30s, where the playwright depicts the political state structure of Europe in a grotesque description. The show himself calls these comedies "political extravagances."

B. Shaw entered the 20th century as an already well-known author of drama discussions, a satirist with the positions of an incorrigible subverter of traditional false idols, and a critic of capitalist foundations. The play "The House Where Hearts Break" by A.G. Obraztsova (28) calls one of the most remarkable works of the playwright.

Researcher of creativity B. Shaw, Doctor of Philology P.S. Balashov (6) writes about the play Heartbreak House as a tragicomedy of epochal significance. This work is the pinnacle of a whole cycle of plays that reveal the fragility of family and moral foundations in an English respectable family. All previous dramas were, as it were, sketches, foreshadowing, according to the tendencies laid down in them, a comprehensive socio-philosophical canvas "The House Where Hearts Break".

If we turn to world history, then the beginning of the twentieth century is a time of growing general crisis and confusion that gripped the bourgeois intelligentsia of Europe on the eve of the war. During this period, B. Shaw writes one of his most original philosophical dramas, Heartbreak House. The play was started in 1913 and was written for quite a long time - until 1917, which is completely unnatural for B. Shaw's work. I.B. Kantorovich (20), like many other researchers of the playwright's work, notes that "this is one of Shaw's best, most poetic plays, testifying to the deepening of critical realism in his work, to the perception and original interpretation of the traditions of Russian critical realism, in particular L. N. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov "(20, p. 26) about which Shaw himself writes in the preface to the play, calling it in the subtitle "Fantasy in the Russian style on English themes."

The creative path of B. Shaw began in 1885 with the play "The House of the Widower", therefore, the play "The House Where Hearts Break" falls on the years of the writer's creative maturity, it seems to connect all the main motives of the playwright's work into one knot. "The wrathfully satirical beginning in the play is organically intertwined with the lyrical, poetic beginning - an expression of the artist's passionate search for true humanity" (6, p. 17). It should also be noted that many critics consider the play "House where hearts break" the beginning of the emergence of a new genre - a kind of social and philosophical tragicomedy "genre, especially indicative of the 2nd stage of B. Shaw's work.

Now we should turn to the ideological content of the play, because it is obvious that the theme of Shaw's philosophical drama is wider than it was defined by the playwright himself, saying in the preface that he wanted to show "the worthlessness of cultural idlers who are not engaged in creative work" (38, p. 303) actually the theme of Shaw's philosophical drama, as I.B. Kantorovich is "the crisis of the entire bourgeois way of life, exposed by the war" (20, p. 29). The show creates a kind of "ark" from his artificially isolated home - the ship, which is described in a detailed, as always, side note. But the main thing, of course, is not the appearance of the house, but the customs that reign there. One of its inhabitants says: “We have such a game at home: to find out what kind of person is hiding under this or that pose” (38, p. 329). This is the main feature of this house, here they expose everything ostentatious, visible and try to get to the bottom of the essence of man and phenomena. The author settles in this unusual house tenants who are not accustomed to reckon with decency and, contrary to them, call a spade a spade. Another characteristic common line of similarity between the characters is that each of them is endowed with some catchy individual features (age, appearance, etc.) that single him out only for stage action, but which do not make him a truly original character.

In his play Heartbreak House, Shaw brought together people from various generations of the intelligentsia. The representative of the oldest generation is the old Captain Shotover, the owner of the house, through whose mouth B. Shaw most often judges the rotten world, which is destined to disappear from the face of the earth. As noted above, by and large, all three generations represented in the house are endowed with similar, complex characters, and in this case there could be no conflict, there could not be drama. That is why dissidents also penetrate into this house - the ship: Boss Mangan (Mangan), thief William Dan (The Burglar), partly this is the youngest daughter of the captain - Lady Utterword (lady Utterword)

"In the abstract - moral sense, notes I.B. Kantorovich, the conflict in Shaw's philosophical drama is dramatically maintained in the clash of people who do not try to seem better than they really are, with people who put on a mask of virtue and respectability" (20 , p.31). The main residents of the house - the ship belong to the first, they do not have much respect for themselves, or for others, or for the whole world. But they weren't like that before, were they?

The author gives us a definite answer to the question posed: they have become so since life broke their heart. The show brings everything to the judgment of readers, viewers, demonstrates the process of contrition of hearts, and some movement is associated with these images, the development of the action, which is almost imperceptible in the drama. If we talk about the plot design of the drama, then it is also negligible. Compared with the philosophical theme, the plot only serves the author's goal to transfer the semantic content of the drama to the philosophical and social plane, where Shaw makes an attempt to solve the problem of the crisis of bourgeois-capitalist society and the fate of its further development.

However, guided by the point of view of P.S. Balashov, we can say that in this drama, Shaw the artist is much more insightful than Shaw the thinker. "For the first time in the play, a pointed formulation of the main philosophical theme of the drama is given, which speaks of an understanding of a number of reasons why the catastrophe broke out. The world is so bad that Captain Shotover, this "wise man" already falling into infancy, is ready to blow it up, and he is bad because pigs rule it, "because of their belly they have turned the universe into a feeding trough" (6, p.13). play-fable were underestimated rather than overestimated.What should be the power of the playwright’s word in order to be able to identify the main philosophical theme of the work from the very first remark of the first act - the theme of the extraordinary atmosphere of an unusual house-ship and consistently draw it with internal subtext through the entire play, psychologically inflating the atmosphere of the house from phenomenon to phenomenon, from act to act.

I would like to note that the conversation about the individual transformation of the playwright's linguistic means on a particular example of the play Heartbreak House should begin with the title, since it is clearly metaphorical in nature.

It can be argued that in the drama "Heartbreaking House" the storyline serves only as a background for the main philosophical theme of the play, helping to translate the semantic content into a socio-philosophical plane. It was also possible to establish that when writing this work, B. Shaw enters first as an artist of the word, and then as a philosopher-thinker.

The system of characters in the plays "Pygmalion" and "Heartbreak House"

Under the arches of a strange building of bizarre architecture, a motley and diverse society gathered. Here are people of different ages, professions, social and property status. The permanent residents are the owner of the house, Captain Shotover, his daughter Hesiona, along with her husband Hector Hesheby. But guests also arrive here: the girl Ellie Dan, along with her father Mazzini Dan and businessman Mengen. After a long absence, Shotover's youngest daughter, Ariadne, also returns to her home. And in the second act, the reader is introduced to another thief character, who turns out to be an old acquaintance of old Shotover's, Billy Dan.

These people, exhausted by their idleness, are actually quite cultured and educated. As Mazzini Dan notes, all these people are the best examples of everything that exists in English culture. But, unfortunately, all these talented, charming and intelligent inhabitants of the House do not want to use the full range of their capabilities. In this place, people “are suffocated by false, fictitious ideas and illusions.”62

The image of Captain Shotover is necessary for Shaw in order to show the representative of the generation that was formed even before the moment when the house gained power over these people. From the very beginning to the end, the captain is fighting both with the representatives of the Manege and with the inhabitants of the House.

The image of Shotover is very important for the overall ideological content of the play. The characters of the work characterize him as a very intelligent and fair person. The fantastic and in some ways paradoxical old Captain Shotover is really incredibly smart. We can hear an unusual and accurate description of the captain from the lips of a thief and

Shotover's old friend Billy Dan: "He sold himself to the devil in Zanzibar, he can get water out of the ground, he knows where gold lies, he can blow up a cartridge in your pocket with one glance and sees the truth hidden in a person's heart." 63Indeed, the old captain is one of the realists who are able to see the truth and distinguish between truth and falsehood, who have such perspicacity that makes it impossible to be deceived in anything. He has a truly lively soul, he appreciates work and is the most energetic person in the house. In his youth, he looked for danger, adventure, horror, to make sure that the fear of death could not control his life. And then he went ashore, built a house for his loved ones and, in fact, marked the beginning of their meaningless life. It is characteristic of him to realize the catastrophe and he drowns his despair in wine.

An ardent hatred for political figures, for businessmen is concentrated in his image. He has a fierce hatred for Mengen and his ilk. He wants to destroy "those like Mengen" and is categorically opposed to "forever wallowing in the mud because of these pigs, for whom the universe is a kind of feeder", which serves them in order to fill their belly (488) . “There is eternal enmity between their seed and our seed. They know this and therefore do everything to crush our souls. They believe in themselves in themselves. When we believe in ourselves, we will overcome them,” says Shotover (489). He perfectly understands and realizes what can happen, and will certainly happen, in the near future. His visions often take on a nightmarish coloring.

This extraordinary house-ship, symbolizing modern England, rushes to its death, while "the captain is lying in his bunk" and drinking sewage from a bottle, and "the crew pouts in the cockpit at cards" (520). That's it, in one moment, they will fly into the rocks, break and drown. But before that, no one cares.

He is disgusted by the state of society in which he is at the moment and he is ready to confront him alone. Shotover wants to open a beam that will be much more powerful and stronger than all other beams. According to the captain, this is a special, spiritual beam, "which will explode a grenade on the enemy's belt before he has time to throw it" at him (463). As Shotover so aptly points out, all the inhabitants of the house kill their very best just to appease the horsemen. Even the mere realization that these people are dangerously close makes it useless to want to change something or intervene in the course of events. Moreover, it does not allow this desire to even arise inside.

Realizing the future death of England, Shotover turns his solemn words not to the inhabitants of the House, now it's too late, but to the future generation in the person of Ellie.

It is worth noting that after writing the work, Shaw began to assign roles for the first productions of the play and paid special attention to the selection of an actress for the role of Ellie Dan. It was she who stood on the same level with Captain Shotover, linking herself with him with strong spiritual bonds. According to Shaw, the image of the heroine Ellie is very unusual and complex. She must appear completely different from Hesion and Ariadne. If these girls are simply young and irresistible, then Ellie represents perfect purity and this is what emphasizes her dissimilarity from the rest of the characters in the play. She dominates and surpasses all the inhabitants of the house, passes by them to stand next to the main person on whom the whole structure of the work rests - Captain Shotover.

The reader can observe the formation of the character of the heroine. If at the beginning we see a young and naive girl in love with Othello's speeches and trusting Hector's incredible stories, idolizing her father and his false patrons, for whose sake she is ready to step over her feelings, then later a completely new heroine appears before the reader. A heroine who has experienced many upheavals, whose dreams have collapsed in an instant, and who, having learned a lot of the truth, decided to bind herself spiritually with old Shotover.

The heroine of Shaw's play becomes a kind of spring that shapes the action. Young Ellie opens the work with her appearance in the Old Captain's House. The author ends his play with the same phrase. The girl is the first of all the characters to break her heart, she lulls Mengen, which provokes confusion and commotion in the house and declares that she has become the captain's white wife, which also shocks and amazes all the characters.

It is amazing that all the troubles and disappointments that befell the girl, as well as her shattered heart, did not break her, but on the contrary gave her new strength. It's not that trusting and sensitive anymore. Now, throwing off the shackles of romantic delusions, the girl is learning to think and reason soberly, and she succeeds in doing this.

Throughout all the actions, Ellie enters into three fights, passes three strength tests, which the girl passes with honor and dignity. They reflect the will, sobriety of reasoning and logic in explaining their thoughts. During a conversation with Ellie, Mengen notes that she laid him on the shoulder blades. “No, my brain can't take it. My head is breaking. Help!” shouts the dumbfounded Mengen (510).

Mrs. Hashebye, also forced to state Ellie's unconditional victory, concludes: "No, I have never seen such an impudent imp in my life" (475). Only in the case of a conversation with Shotover, it cannot be said that the girl comes out the winner. Rather, it is a battle of equal opponents. Despite the fact that Ellie tries to contradict the captain, saying that the human soul is expensive and it is not cheap to maintain it, and without money it cannot exist. Her soul is so hungry that it is ready to absorb everything: music, paintings, and nature. But Shotover warns her that if she sells out, she will deal such a blow to her soul that no blessings will replace her in the future. And Ellie not only stops arguing with the captain, but even hopes that he will convince her. Ultimately, the girl was never able to sell her soul, just as the old man himself could not do it. “Live in blessing! Here's what I need. Now I understand why I really can't marry Mr. Mangen. There could be no blessing in our marriage,” concludes Ellie (521).

And in the end, the girl makes a bizarre and even paradoxical confession, saying that she became the captain's white wife: “Yes, I, Ellie Dan, gave my broken heart, my strong, healthy soul, to her natural captain, my spiritual spouse and father" (528).

Thus, both Captain Shotover and Ellie stand above the rest of the characters in the play, because, unlike them, they have not lost the ability to act and dream.

Speaking about the captain's daughters Hesione Heshebay and Ariadne, Shaw repeatedly notes the picturesqueness in their beauty and the ability to charm and drive any man crazy. As Hector notes, these two devils were the fruit of Shotover's alliance with a black witch. They have witchcraft charms, which is mentioned more than once in the course of the work. Sometimes the sisters seem unbelievably beautiful, so this beauty raises doubts and mistrust. So, Hector says: “No photograph can convey the charm that the daughters of this supernatural old man possess. They have some kind of diabolical trait that destroys the moral strength of a man and takes him beyond the limits of honor and dishonor" (543). Ariadne is a very beautiful, attractive blonde with great taste. And as Shaw notes, the girl only at first glance "makes the mistaken impression of being funny and stupid" (504). In fact, she is not as stupid as she seems. Also, she can not be called happy. All her life she suffered and dreamed of leaving her home, and then, after long travels with her husband, she overcame an acute desire to return to her father in order to receive his forgiveness.

Hesiona is "perhaps even more beautiful" than her younger sister, she has

"beautiful black hair, eyes like enchanted lakes, and a noble neck line", and her sumptuous dressing gown "sets off her white skin and sculpted forms" (515). But for all her, at first glance, unnatural, theatrical beauty, Hesion is a living person who is well versed in people, who opposes injustice and dishonor. She is trying to save Ellie from a fatal mistake, from her engagement to Mengen, because she literally cannot stand it when they trade in love. When talking with a girl, in which she admits that she is literally forced to connect her life with the businessman Mengen, Hesiona exclaims menacingly: “Well, my child, this engagement will quickly turn into a quarrel, if I only take it up properly.” She also tells Ellie that “it is not at all fair and noble to marry a man without loving him” (495). It is not for nothing that the girl calls Hesiona the most sensitive woman in the world. Many feelings are close to her: pity, sympathy, care, love.

But, unfortunately, neither the maternal tenderness of Mrs. Heshebye, nor the magical charm of her younger sister Ariadne are no longer able to breathe life into this dying world.

Hesiona's husband, Hector, is a very handsome man in his fifties. His first appearance is very effective and theatrical. A romantic and heartthrob, he seemed to have descended from the pages of famous literary works. He is not averse to looking like a noble knight, ready to enchant any lady with his ridiculous stories about three revolutions, saving a tiger and much more. His own life did not suit him and he had to deceive others with ridiculous inventions. But as soon as Ellie calls Hector a braggart and a coward, Hesiona abruptly interrupts her: “If you express even the slightest doubt about Hector’s courage, he will go and do the devil knows what, just to convince himself that he is not a coward” (519).

But as time went on, Hector's imagination became more and more exhausted. His stories became more and more ridiculous and more and more like the plots of cheap novels. If earlier he could tremble his listeners with them, now no one believes him.

“There is not the slightest sense in us. We are useless, dangerous. And we should be destroyed." (584)

The fate of another character in the play by Ellie Mazzini's father, Dan, is very indicative and interesting. The real Mazzini was a celebrity and close acquaintance of his family. And when Dan was born, that Mazzini announced that another soldier of freedom was born. We can say that from that moment the baby was doomed to fight for freedom. But for him the revolution was something else. When asked by Hector why he did nothing to fight Mengen and his ilk, Mazzini replied: “I was in various circles, societies, made speeches, wrote articles. Every year I waited for a revolution or some terrible explosion. But nothing happened" (597). The revolution remained on the shelf, which is more typical for the inhabitants of the Houses. The situation developed in such a way that Mazzini ended up in the Manege, but crashed and went bankrupt. And in this he was helped by his "benefactor" Mengen. And as a result, Mazzini, tired of fighting for freedom, tired of poverty, returns to his monastery, to the very House where all hearts are shattered.

The representative of the Manege in the play is the businessman Mengen. His whole image is imbued with deceit, fictitiousness, forgery. There is nothing in it that could cause even a drop of respect. His wealth and capital also turn out to be fake: he has neither money, nor factories, nor entrepreneurial abilities. All his wealth turns out to be another fiction. It is only with the help of an imaginary reputation as a businessman that Mengen somehow manages to stay on the surface. The only thing he knows how to do is deceive people and ruin them. “Of course, I make a condition that I get paid a decent allowance, but it's a dog's life,” concludes Mengen. So, the masks fall off the once successful businessman in the eyes of those around him. From the very beginning, he killed everything human in himself and in others, and that is why such a miserable but fair fate awaited him. Once on the threshold of this strange house, he suddenly feels all his pity and worthlessness: “So, then I'm a scarecrow! I am nothing! I'm a fool!" (483). He turns out to be the most confused, hopeless and weak person in the House. He becomes uncomfortable in a place where no one believes him anymore and mocks him and his wealth. “My head is bursting. Help! My skull! Hurry! Hold it, squeeze it! Help me!" - cries out the distraught businessman (484). It seems as if some insidious genius is performing his operation on him. He turns out to be the most helpless and miserable. This imaginary businessman, like the entire social system he represents, is kept afloat only thanks to false props. But realizing that they can no longer serve as support and support for him, he is instantly lost.

Another figure that is near Mengen is a professional thief, a former boatswain and an old acquaintance of Captain Shotover Billy Dan. He also, like Mengen, is going through his deep "professional crisis". An amazing house exposes everyone who crosses its threshold. Feeling dumbfounded, the thief throws himself at the captain's feet and begs for his forgiveness, saying that he is not a thief at all: “I just find out in the neighborhood about the houses where good people live, so I do it the way I did here . I climb into the house, put a few spoons or diamonds in my pocket, then I make a fuss, let myself be caught, and then I collect” (495). He is ready to give up, moreover, he even asks for it in order to get out of the sinful abyss into which he has fallen.

“I must remove the sin from my conscience. It was as if a voice from heaven spoke to me. Let me spend the rest of my life in prison, in repentance. I will receive my reward in heaven,” says Billy Dan (498).

Thus, the oldest professions, theft and robbery in the person of Mengen and Billy Dan, have exhausted themselves and have shown their weakness and impotence. And their representatives in one turn into lost, helpless people, ready to give up their beliefs. That is why Shaw deals with the representatives of the Manege quite easily. Feverishly clinging to life and hiding in a pit, both regulars of the Manezh are still overtaken by death and they die in the flames of a fire.

In his play, Shaw draws images of charming, well-read, smart, intelligent people who do not use and do not want to use their opportunities and, as a result, are doomed to vegetate.

With deep hostility, the playwright gives images of representatives of the Manege. In the work, they act as some ghosts. They are talked about, argued, discussed, but in fact their presence is very small in the work.

Initially, the role of Pygmalion in the play was prepared for the professor of phonetics Henry Higgins. This hero is able to easily determine his origin and even social status by the pronunciation of a person. From the very beginning of the action, the professor does not part with his notebook, in which he records the dialects of people. From the very beginning, he appears before us as a person completely absorbed in his work - science. In the order of some scientific experiment, he undertakes to make an ordinary street flower girl and a little slut, he wants to make a duchess and a lady who can show herself worthy at any important reception. A wealthy scientist is incredibly fascinated by the task that confronts him. For him, this is by no means fun or entertainment, but serious and difficult work. In a general sense, the reputation of the scientist and his pedagogical abilities were at stake. In the course of his experience and experiment, Higgins showed a rude attitude and indifference to Eliza and she was nothing more than an object for him to study. The personality of the girl, her feelings, experiences had no meaning for the scientist, and they simply did not even exist for him. He did not think about what would happen to her in the future and how her fate would turn out. From the very beginning of the action, he was very rude, unfriendly, harsh in his expressions towards the young lady: “A woman who makes such ugly and miserable sounds has no right to sit anywhere ... has no right to live at all!”.64 And also, when she first appears on Higgins' doorstep, he does not greet her or even invite her to sit down, saying, "Pickering, what shall we do with this effigy? Should I ask her to sit down or just take her down the stairs? (235). The housekeeper, Mrs. Pierce, and Pickering notice the rudeness on the part of the professor, often pointing it out to him and making remarks. “It is still unknown which of you is more spoiled - the girl or you,” concludes the housekeeper (241). From the very beginning, Higgins made a fatal mistake: he did not think that Eliza was a living person and she also had a soul.

But Higgins is not a figure as ignorant and rude as the reader may at first appear. In his image, inner freedom is clearly emphasized and the spirit of contempt and hatred for conventions sits in him. He treats with disdain the imposed norms and codes of conduct, as he is aware of all their conventionality and falsity. That is why for him there is no difference between an ordinary flower girl and a secular lady. With a lady, he behaves in exactly the same arrogant and rude way as with Eliza. Also, his mother often talks about his incorrect behavior in society and does not even want him to appear at her reception days. But the professor offends others without any malicious intent, they simply do not interest him. “Understand once and for all: I go my own way and do my job. And what can happen to any of us, I absolutely do not care, ”Higgins says to Eliza. (287) He does not have any clear and definite ideas about the significance of his social role.

He does not go according to the planned scenario and his work is spontaneous. And therefore, when Eliza insistently demands from the professor to justify the reason for his rude attitude towards her, he answers: “The world would not have been created if its creator was afraid to disturb someone. To create life means to create anxiety” (286). These words once again confirm that Higgins acts unconsciously, he is a creator who is passionately dedicated to his work. As noted by A.S. Romm, Higgins - "a kind of variation on the theme of the artist."65 Even in the opening remark, Shaw makes an ulterior motive that the hero looks like a small restless child, he is such a sincere person and his consciousness is far from evil intentions that he knows how to call sympathy even in cases where it turns out to be wrong. "Somehow I still can't feel really grown up and imposing," Higgins admits to Pickering. And perhaps this childishness allows him, without any sense of responsibility, to intervene in the fate of another person, not realizing what the outcome might be.

Higgins is a confirmed bachelor, but when Eliza appears in his life, she becomes necessary for him too. After the disappearance of the girl, the professor suddenly discovers that he cannot find his things without her and does not remember important events. But then it turns out that along with Eliza, the sphere of communication, which was nevertheless significant for the scientist, also disappeared. So, he confesses to the girl: “But I will miss you, Eliza. Your idiotic ideas about life taught me a lot - I confess with humility and gratitude ”(285).

Overstepping his usual rude and sometimes ignorant attitude towards other people, Higgins concludes: “But I am interested in human nature and life, and you are a particle of this life that I met along the way and into which I put my soul” (286). Now, the professor is outraged at the mere thought that he can be considered an insensitive and heartless person and an egoist.

But, unfortunately, when Higgins is confronted with the problem of the girl's future fate, he is unable to resolve it. And this is explained not by his frivolous attitude towards her, but by the very essence of the world around him.

The role of Galatea in Shaw is assigned to a simple flower girl - Eliza Doolittle. The charm of a young girl can be felt already at the beginning of the first act, when she is still expressed in street language, in which “a living feeling breaks through like grass through asphalt.”66 We feel this in her energy, openness, inner dignity, which are rightfully inherent in the heroine . Being literally at the bottom of her life, she tries to preserve her honor and dignity and avoid many vices that are characteristic of the environment in which she lives. As Balashov accurately noted, Eliza faced

“with depressing poverty, with the vices of the street, but this did not morally break her.”67 It is not in vain that the girl several times points out that she is different from her surroundings. “I could be a bad girl if I wanted to. I have seen such things in my life that you never dreamed of, despite all your learning, ”says Eliza to Higgins (288). Thus, from the very beginning, the young lady had the makings of a lady, and the experiment only awakened all those spiritual forces that were inherent in her from the very beginning, and his creation turned out to be even better than himself. “You can’t take my knowledge from me anymore. And my hearing is thinner than yours - you said it yourself. Besides, I know how to speak politely and kindly to people, but you can’t,” Eliza concludes furiously (290).

Only the pronunciation distinguished the flower girl from the secular lady. Her desire for a better life at first is expressed in a rather ridiculous form: taxi rides, an offer of pennies to an eminent professor. But behind all this lies faith in one's own strengths and capabilities, readiness for sacrifices and dramatic changes. The girl's abilities, her sober outlook on life help her quickly get used to the new environment. Her consciousness was under the burden of poverty and Higgins, tearing it off her, awakened her rich inner and vital forces.

It was very curious that even at the very beginning of the "experiment" Eliza was able to compete with the lady. When the girl first appeared at the reception of Higgins' mother, she had already mastered secular manners, but did not fully possess the appropriate vocabulary. And with all the sophistication of her gestures, she says that some person “killed” her aunt, and at the same time “shorn” her hat. Of course, those present were surprised by this manner of expression, but still they were far from being able to "expose" it. Her beauty, elegance and charm have some kind of mystical and magnetic effect on those around her. And this poor girl turns out to have more intellectual capabilities and vitality than the representatives of high society subjected to conventions and clichés. Thus, it turns out that the people is a very valuable material, which contains the possibilities of turning it into a real work of art. It is in people from the people that a large reserve of forces is concentrated. Their consciousness, which was shackled by poverty, is not corrupted by the lies and hypocrisy inherent in modern high society. Therefore, the simple street flower girl Eliza is much easier to teach correct speech without vulgarism than those duchesses with their spoiled thoughts. This idea is confirmed by Shaw in his afterword to the play, saying that this story is not a fantastic and incredible event. Such a story is, in fact, "quite common" and similar transformations "are happening to hundreds of driven, ambitious young women" (292). The show asserts with conviction “not only the possibility, but also the regularity of the transformation of the personality.”68

Once in this new society for her, the heroine not only meets new people and polishes her speech, but also realizes herself as a person, notices all the injustice and cruelty of her former existence and the endless inequality between people. “What am I good for? What have you prepared me for? Where will I go? What will happen next? What will happen to me? - desperately says the girl (267). Eliza sincerely does not understand why the professor treats her like an inanimate object, a thing and a lump of dirt under his feet. And at the end of the play, the revived Galatea acquires a language. The first thing we hear from her lips is condemnation of her creator. Grabbing the shoes and throwing them in the face of the professor, the girl exclaims:

“Because I wanted to splatter your face. I'm ready to kill you, thick-skinned beast!" (266).

Higgins, on the other hand, is trying to calm the girl down, saying that she can get married successfully, to which she replies: “I was selling flowers there, but not myself. Now that you have made me a lady, I have no choice but to sell myself. It would be better if you left me on the street.”(268) With these words, she seems to sum up her current position. Higgins, having removed the flower girl's mask from the girl, could not turn her into a secular lady, the duchess. But there was that unusual and rare case when a person really came to life and turned into a person full of vitality and energy. Eliza, in her quest for independence and work, has presented a new ideal of a lady that has nothing to do with the current ideals of duchesses from high society. And, unfortunately, none of the modern forms of life “is able to accommodate a fully liberated, harmoniously developed human personality”, which was Eliza.69 And the girl herself could not preserve her uncorrupted soul, adapting to environmental conditions that were unnatural for her. The real vocation of a young girl is to be a free and independent person, in another world that does not yet exist.

Colonel Pickering, with whom Professor Higgins concluded his dispute, is a man of fine mental organization and a real gentleman. He often noticed the rudeness on the part of the scientist towards Eliza, and constantly made comments to him and tried in every way to reason with him.

"Does it occur to you, Higgins, that a girl might have feelings?" the Colonel asks Higgins, when he again allows himself to use rude language about Eliza. (250). And even at times, Eliza's obsessive behavior or a bad example from Higgins, did not give Pickering the opportunity to speak rudely and harshly against the young lady. According to the girl, it was Pickering's polite attitude towards her that made her feel like a real lady. “You see, the difference between a lady and a flower girl is not only in the ability to dress and speak correctly - this can be taught, and not even in the manner of behaving, but in how others behave with them. I will always be a flower girl with Professor Higgins because he has treated me and will continue to treat me like a flower girl. But with you I can become a lady, because you have behaved and will behave with me as with a lady, ”concludes Eliza (281). That is, the girl considers Pickering to be the person thanks to whom the metamorphosis occurred. Due to the fact that the man treated her with kindness, at some moments even with condescension, he understood and realized that she was the same person, with the same feelings as everyone else, that she had a living soul and it was also easy for her can be hurt, the girl was able to feel like a real lady.

Another interesting figure can also be distinguished in the work, Eliza's father, Alfred Doolittle. This hero has a share of charm that others notice and he is a denouncer of the vices of representatives of a privileged society.

Once a poor man and a former garbage man, he suddenly becomes rich and turns into a wealthy man. Doolittle receives a "share in the Chewed Cheese Trust" for three thousand annual income" in the will of a well-known millionaire and begins to lament how difficult and difficult the lot of the rich is (274). He talks about his painful and difficult situation compared to the times when he was an ordinary garbage man. In those days, he lived quietly, for his own pleasure, minding his own business and at any moment could extract money from any gentleman. Now completely different times have come and everyone strives to extract money from him: “A year ago I had two or three relatives in the whole wide world, and they didn’t want to know me either. And now there are about fifty of them, and everyone has nothing to live on. Live for others, and not for yourself - that's how it turned out, bourgeois morality" (275). However, his desire for comfort, a good life still turns out to be stronger and he does not want to give up favorable conditions: “So it turns out - no matter where you throw it, everything is a wedge: you have to choose between the Skilia of the workhouse and the Harbidia of the bourgeois class, but you can’t choose the workhouse rises. I'm scared, ma'am. Decided to give up. They bought me” (276). The fear of a poor life, a disappointing end in the workhouse turns out to be stronger than his moral attitudes, and the hero gives up and becomes a slave to the morality that he previously categorically denied. The wit, honesty and openness of the hero's judgments make him out of a seemingly secondary, at first glance, figure of a bright representative of a morally and morally sick society.

Thus, Shaw creates a vivid gallery of images of heroes. The characterization of his characters is not reduced to a few features, there are many more of them. His characters are very active, energetic and retain their character “thanks to their intelligence, their quirks and extravagances.”70 The characters in the works, like ordinary people, are not devoid of the ability to feel, they also rejoice and grieve, believe and are disappointed. Among the heroes it is impossible to identify villains and virtues. The show endows its characters with both positive and negative qualities. Even those persons who can arouse obvious sympathy and respect from the reader, the author endows either with ridiculous and absurd features, or, in a way, with weaknesses. The characters argue among themselves, discuss issues that are relevant to them, defend their points of view and give arguments in their defense. The heroes of the show are mostly passionate about “ideas, concepts, the latest theories, and they show passion primarily in proving their thoughts.”71 It is the creation of a problematic, debatable situation that is important and essential for understanding and revealing the character of the heroes of the work. A different view of the same problem helps the author to show the whole essence of his characters, tear off their masks and bring representatives of that era to the readers.

Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation

Novgorod State University

named after Yaroslav the Wise

Humanitarian Institute

Department of English

Graduate work

analysis of metaphors in the work of Bernard Shaw

“heartbreak house”

specialty 021700 - philology

Supervisor

d. fil. n., Professor V.V. Ivanitsky

Student group 7572

I.V. Lapushkin

Veliky Novgorod 2002

Introduction

Chapter I. The Theory of Metaphor

5. Functions of metaphors

Chapter II. Analysis of the play by B. Shaw "House where hearts break"

3.1 Zoomorphic metaphors

Conclusions on the second chapter

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

This thesis is devoted to one of the main issues of comparative stylistics - the transfer of metaphorical figurativeness of the original text of B. Shaw's play "House where hearts break" in its translation into Russian. Thus, this work is part of the general issue of transferring the qualitative figurative originality of the original, a question that to this day causes a large number of debates and disputes, forcing such prominent Russian philologists and linguists as V.V. Vinogradov, I.R. Galperin, N.D. Arutyunov and others, as well as foreign linguists, among whom we can single out Paul Ricœur, George Miller, Max Black, Philip Wheelright, to continue work on the theory of figurative means of language, put forward by Aristotle. The growth of theoretical interest in metaphor was stimulated by the increase in its presence in various types of texts, from poetic speech and journalism to the languages ​​of various branches of scientific knowledge.

The relevance of the topic of this work is determined by the insufficient systematization of the existing theoretical developments on the study of metaphor, as well as the scarcity of linguistic studies devoted to the functioning of this type of figurative language means. Means of figurative expression have a large share in the artistic system of B. Shaw's plays. He widely and freely uses metaphors in revealing the psychological state of the characters, connecting the moral experiences of his characters with the fate of the whole country. Nevertheless, researchers of the playwright's work prefer to leave this issue without due attention, dwelling in detail on the study of the problems associated with the writer's dramatic method.

That is why the purpose of our work was a detailed description of the use of words and free phrases with a metaphorical meaning and their comparison in the translation of B. Shaw's play "House where hearts break" into Russian. It is noted by many critics as the most poetic work of the playwright, created at the junction of two global periods of creativity.

The general goal determined the setting of specific tasks and the procedure for their solution in this work:

the study of the theoretical range of general stylistic and general linguistic problems that determine the status of metaphor as a figurative polyfunctional unit of language;

determination of the structural construction of the metaphor;

analysis of metaphor components;

comparative characteristics of the meanings of the components of the metaphor;

correlation of metaphor with the definitions of “epiphora” and “diaphora”;

study of the functioning of metaphor as a linguistic unit in the original and in translation;

considering metaphor as a source of vocabulary replenishment.

The scientific novelty of the thesis lies in the fact that we are trying to explore this linguistic figurative means and its functioning in the system of the artistic language of B. Shaw's play using material that has not been previously studied from the point of view of metaphor.

During his lifetime, this writer was called a classic and “written off”, declaring old-fashioned. However, studies of his work include a large number of works. B. Shaw’s drama language is a classic version of literary English. The play Heartbreak House was written at the beginning of the 20th century, during ideological crises and moral revelations on a global scale. European life

30s, created by Shaw a decade later, was prepared by all the previous work of the playwright, in particular, as many of his critics note, "fantasy in the Russian style", i.e. the play that is the object of our work.

The material for the practical part of the work was selected using the continuous sampling method. The primary analysis was carried out by means of a complete lexicographic description. The sample size is about 40 examples, which are compared with the same number of translation options.

The work consists of an introduction, the main part, traditionally divided into two chapters - theoretical and practical, equipped with conclusions, a conclusion and a list of references.

The first chapter provides a concise critical review of studies on the theory of metaphor, gives a number of opinions on the classification of metaphorical means of language, describes the theory of the functioning of metaphors, based on the position of the existence of a polyfunctional figurative language field.

In the second chapter, already on a particular example of the material of B. Shaw's play “Heartbreaking House”, an attempt is made to confirm the main provisions of the theories set forth in the first chapter of the work, an analysis is made of a continuous sample of metaphorical means of the play, and the correspondence between the degree of figurativeness of the original and translation is studied.

Chapter I. The Theory of Metaphor

1. On the problems of understanding and classifying metaphors

The main contradiction in the understanding of metaphor lies in the revealed dual nature of this phenomenon: on the one hand, metaphor is a means of language, a linguistic unit, on the other hand, its belonging to figurative figures of speech is undeniable. Having made a short digression into the history of the study of metaphor, in particular, referring to Aristotle, we can argue that until the 20th century this phenomenon was considered only as a poetic figure, and only about 100 years ago the first attempts began to “oppose the linguistic and artistic, poetic essence of metaphor” ( 4 p.333). In our time, the division of metaphor into two types is indisputable: linguistic metaphor and artistic metaphor. “In relation to metaphor as an accessory of fiction (both poetry and prose), Russian linguistics uses the following terms: artistic metaphor, poetic, tropeic, individual, individual authorial, creative, speech, optional, metaphor of style" (3 p. 31). "A metaphor is recognizable only due to the presence of an artistic element in it. It necessarily implies a certain degree of artistry. There can be no metaphors devoid of artistry, just as there are no jokes devoid of humor" (9 p. 173).

Scientists have not yet come to a consensus on this issue. So, O.S. Akhmanova (5 p. 231) divides metaphors into five types: hyperbolic, lexical, broken and sequential metaphor, as well as poetic metaphor. B.N. Tomashevsky divides metaphors into stylistic and linguistic ones. A.V. Belsky (7 p. 281), in addition, divides the metaphors of style into poetic and rhetorical. Yu.S. Yazikova (39 p. 154), distinguishing two types of metaphors: metaphors of language and metaphors of style, subdivides linguistic ones into genetic ones (“door handle”, “chair back”), which O.S. Akhmanova calls lexical, and into metaphors with a figurative meaning (“golden character”, “noble nest”). A.V. Belsky calls them rhetorical. Scholars differ both in the definition of the types of metaphors and in the definition of the criterion for their difference.

However, the classification of A.V. Kalinina (19), since it is based on such fundamental research that fixes linguistic imagery, such as dictionaries. It is the most appropriate for our study. Although it cannot reflect all the needs in the analysis of a literary text, A.V. Kalinin divides metaphors into three groups according to the degree of their use. (19s.28)

Metaphors are names that have ceased to be perceived as figurative bright figurative meanings of words, although by origin they can be called “creations of the speaker” they are worn out metaphors (“bow of the ship”, a coat of dust).

Figurative general language metaphors. The figurative, figurative nature of such metaphors is clearly felt by the speakers (“the sea of ​​loaves”, the ties of love). Such metaphors are reflected in the explanatory dictionaries of Russian and English, as well as in bilingual dictionaries, where they are classified as figurative.

Metaphors of the author's individual style. These are figurative metaphors, sparkling with their novelty of the discovery of one or another author. They have not become a fact of any language and belong to the peculiarities of the speech of any writer, poet, playwright. They are not reflected in dictionaries: “chintz of the sky”, “blood berries”, vehicle of his daily business life.

We agree with the classification of A.V. Kalinin in the fundamental points of differentiation, but this classification cannot fully meet our needs. The names seem somewhat vague to us. Metaphors - names form the backbone of the vocabulary of the language. Therefore, it is more appropriate to call a lexicalized, “dead”, “petrified”, “usual”, “erased” metaphor a lexical metaphor. It is given in dictionaries, in particular, in CID, BES as a derivative-nominative meaning that arose through not marked “transfer” or figurative (abbr. “transfer.” and fig).

When translating, lexical metaphors are most strongly influenced by differences in the etymological and lexical nature of the two languages ​​- Russian and English. Many of them have clear equivalents in another language, for example, a coat of dust is “a layer of paint”, and the direct meaning of the word coat is “jacket, outer dress, coat” (22 p. 128). Some scholars are inclined to believe that there can be no question of looking for figurative language means when translating or comparing such pairs of words.

The term “general language” seems to us less successful, since these metaphors also gravitate to speech, their use (or non-use) creates “one of the properties of the speech tissue of one or another functional style” (25.55). In addition, having become facts of the language, they are used in the so-called “individual” styles of different writers. To a certain extent, the translator knows the constant correspondences of the two languages: the mask of his face - “the mask of his face”, and shaolow of a smile - “the shadow of a smile ”, which are found in many authors. Such metaphors, notes I.A. Krylov, it is more expedient to call them general stylistic. “On the one hand, this term reflects the phenomenon of language - a functional style, on the other hand, the phenomenon of speech - an individual style” (25.56). It can be assumed that the name is a link between the name “lexical”, representing the phenomenon of language, and the term “individual-stylistic”, denoting the phenomenon of speech. We will consider general stylistic metaphors that are given in dictionaries marked fig (transt. / fig). Of course, these are well-established metaphors accepted in this language.

Individual stylistic metaphors have not become facts of language. They are facts of speech and occur in the individual style of a particular writer or translator. We will refer the term “individual-stylistic metaphors” or simply “individual” to those cases that are not included in the lexical system of the language as phenomena of figurative use and are not recorded in dictionaries, which are considered metaphorical occasionalisms. Occasional meaning is the meaning given to a word in in this context and representing a deviation from the usual, generally accepted. However, we can conclude that this classification is superficial and conditional; indeed, it cannot fully reflect the requirements for our research. This classification is indicative of demonstrating the main concepts developed by domestic linguists. In our work, we will use the term “artistic” metaphor, believing, following G.N. Sklyarevskaya (31) that the content of this term is wide and includes all the characteristics reflected in other terms related to artistic, rather than linguistic properties.

2. To the question of the definition of the term “metaphor”

First, we should give definitions of the metaphor itself, as a stylistic device that adequately meets the objectives of our study. O.S. Akhmanova in her dictionary of linguistic terms gives the following definition: “metaphor (meaning transfer). Tropes consisting in the use of words and expressions in a figurative sense based on similarity, analogy, etc. ” (p. 231). If we turn to LES, we can give the following definition: “metaphor (from the Greek. metaphora - transfer) is a trope, or a mechanism of speech, consisting in the use of a word denoting a certain class of objects, phenomena, etc. to characterize or name an object belonging to another class, or to name another class of objects similar to this one in any respect ...” (41, p. 296). It seems impossible for us to make a final conclusion on the definition of the term metaphor without citing the statements of various linguists on this issue, although both of the above dictionary definitions lie on the same plane and consider the metaphor from a stylistic point of view, which indicates the similarity of the basic concepts of the term definition. George F. Miller, in defense of the traditional point of view on metaphor, argues that “this is a tight comparison and the thought caused by it (metaphor) concerns similarities and analogies.” (26, p. 236) I. V. Arnold in his work on the style of the English language a concise definition of metaphor, saying that it is “usually defined as a hidden comparison carried out by applying the name of one object to another and thus revealing some important feature of the second” (2, p. 82) I.R. Halperin speaks on the subject of metaphor:

“metaphor is a relationship between a dictionary and a logical meaning arising from the context, based on the similarity or similarity of certain proper features of two similar concepts” (10, p. 136)

Along with the definitions just given, it is useful to compare some of the definitions of metaphor proposed by E. Jordan (4).

“Metaphor, therefore, is ... a verbal formulation of reality, which is contained in diversity, perceived as a set of properties.”

“Metaphor is a statement of individuality; an affirmation by which a complex of real qualities becomes an individual or asserts itself as a reality”.

“Metaphor is a verbal structure which, by virtue of its form, affirms the reality of an object. The form here, as elsewhere, is a system of interrelated features that transforms the totality of its elements into a harmonious whole. This whole is the object whose existence the metaphor asserts.

Therefore, we can now generalize and deduce the definition of a metaphor as an expressive means of a language as follows: it is a concise comparison consisting in transferring the meaning of one object (or class of objects) to another object (or class of objects) based on the similarity of some feature.

We note in passing that one should not make mistakes in identifying comparison and metaphor: they are similar in many respects, but their differences are obvious. Arutyunova N.D. (4) more than once in his works raises the question of the nature of tropes.

A brilliant generalization belonging to R. Jacobson (40) is as follows: “Any replacement of one term by another does not go beyond the scope of similarity.” that if the concept of "similarity" is allowed in the description of a metaphor, then it should be considered as a way of predicating a feature to a subject, and not as a way of substituting names. In the words of Beardsley (8), a metaphor is what turns an unviable, internally contradictory statement into an internally contradictory, but meaningful, meaningful statement. The implementation of this transition occurs through similarity. He said that a metaphor, in contrast to comparison, is similar to identity, it is only stated, excluding measurement, that it does not need an explication of the signs that served as the basis for the convergence of objects. We can support this statement by Miller's statement that the metaphor is based on the convergence of features that occupy different places in the models of compared objects, and this distinguishes it from comparison, which can bring both different and the same together. But D. Davidson spoke most clearly on this subject: “The most obvious semantic difference between metaphor and comparison is that all comparisons are true, and most metaphors are false.” (17, p. 173)

3. The dual nature of metaphors

Over the past thirty years, new, somewhat different criteria for the classification of words and free phrases with metaphorical content have been developed. However, all of them are based on the semantic duality of metaphor as a unit of language. “Significant units are bilateral, they are formed by the combination of form and meaning, or, in other words, they reveal two planes: the plane of content and the plane of expression" (1, p. 4). units in terms of their form and formal characteristics, then we consider it appropriate to begin to consider the metaphor in direct connection with its defined.Two pairs of components participate in the formation of a metaphor - the main and auxiliary subjects to which paired terms are applied;

Literal frame and metaphorical image;

Theme and “container”;

Referent and correlate.

And also the related properties of each object or class of objects.

Max Black (9) introduced the concepts of “focus” and “frame” in his work on metaphor. On the example of classical metaphor considered by him (an example of a “pure case” of metaphor), Black revealed the core of metaphor - a word with an indisputable metaphorical meaning (focus) and the periphery of words used literally (frame). He focuses on the fact that when considering such phenomena, we concentrate on one - a single word, in which lies the cause of metaphor.

When we talk about metaphor, we give as an example simple sentences or free phrases in which only some words are used metaphorically, and the rest - in their usual meaning. The notion we have to figure out is the metaphorical use of the “core” or, as Black calls it, the “focus” of a metaphor and its relation to the “frame”, because one “frame” can make a metaphor and the other cannot. The "focus" of a metaphor, that is, a clearly metaphorical word or expression inserted into a frame of words with a direct meaning, serves to convey a meaning that could be expressed literally. However, there are cases in the language where there is simply no literal equivalent. For example, in the mathematical terminology of the English language, the word side - the side of a triangle, square, etc. is expressed by the word leg, which literally means “leg”. Mathematicians say so because there is no other such condensed expression that most accurately characterizes this subject. which he understands the use of the word in some new sense in order to fill a gap in the dictionary. However, if the direct purpose of catachresis is to put "new meaning into old words" (9p.159), then the metaphor is not assigned to the function of enriching the vocabulary of the language . The replacement of literal expressions by metaphorical ones is also explained in Black's work for purely stylistic reasons. A metaphorical phrase in its literal use often refers to a more specific object than its literal equivalent, which gives pleasure to the reader of the text. Either the reader is pleased to solve the problems and puzzles presented by the author in such an ingenious interweaving, or he rejoices at the author’s ability to half hide, half to reveal the true meaning, or he, the reader, is in a state of “pleasant surprise”, etc. All these reasonings make decoration from metaphor, which, in principle, does not contradict its nature, but only determines one of the main functions of metaphor - aesthetic.

The theory of M. Black described above is called the "interactionist" point of view, which M. Black himself outlined in seven requirements, saying that a metaphorical judgment has two different subjects - the main and the auxiliary, which we managed to find out earlier. The mechanism of metaphor is application to the main subject of a system of “associated implications" (9, p. 167) associated with an auxiliary subject. These implications, Black explains, are nothing more than generally accepted associations associated in the minds of speakers with an auxiliary subject, however, non-standard ones can also occur. "Metaphor in an implicit form includes such judgments about the main subject, which are usually applied to the auxiliary subject. Thanks to this, the metaphor selects, singles out and organizes some, quite definite characteristics of the main subject and eliminates others "(9p.167). the statement is especially important for our research, because it allows us in any kind of artistic metaphor - whether it is a simple metaphor expressed in one word or a group of words, or whether it is a detailed metaphor - to isolate subjects and reason about their context.

4. Correlation of metaphor with the concepts of epiphora and diaphora

According to the method of influence on the addressee, metaphors are divided into epiphors and diaphors. For the first type of metaphors, the main one is the expressive function (i.e., it appeals to the imagination), expanding the meaning through comparison, for the second type of character, the appeal to intuition; generating new meaning through juxtaposition and synthesis.

Philip Wheelwright (34) considers these two phenomena quite deeply, saying that although they are differentiated within the metaphor, they are often a shadow of each other (in particular, he noticed that the shade of the epiphora accompanies the diaphora).

The term “epiphora” itself is borrowed from Aristotle, who wrote that a metaphor is the “transfer” (epiphora) of a name from the object denoted by this name to some other object. Epiphoric metaphor comes from the ordinary meaning of the word; then she relates the given word to something else based on comparison with a more familiar object and in order to indicate its comparison. The semantic movement, notes F. Wheelwright, comes from a more concrete and easily grasped image to something that is perhaps more indefinite.

“The essential feature of the epiphora is to express the similarity between something well known and something that is dimly perceived, and since it must do this through words, it follows that the epiphora implies the presence of some mediator of an image or concept that can be are easily understood, being indicated by the corresponding word or phrase "(34 p. 84). In one word, there must be an initial, "literal" basis for subsequent operations.

In passing, we note that the “literal” basis, the “literal” meaning of a word often appears in the definition of a particular concept, therefore, it seems correct for us to consider two meanings below - literal and figurative, figurative, as two starting concepts in the semantics of words with a metaphorical meaning.

Continuing to argue over the epiphora, we, following F. Wheelwright, can assert that the bare statement of comparison is not an epiphora.

In the practical part of the work, we will try to most clearly demonstrate the “semantic movement” within the epiphora.

The best epiphora are fresh, subtly drawing attention to similarities that are not so easy to spot. In general, an epiphora says F. Wheelwright, "probably more vital - that is, more significant and more effective - when it is clearly connected with a large poetic space, whether it be part of a work or the whole." A single epiphoric theme can be maintained for several lines, but this applies more to poetry. There are much fewer so-called “epiphoric themes” in prose, mostly only single epiphors are found.

Diaphora is another type of semantic movement, distinct, of course, from the epiphoric type. In diaphora, there is a movement through certain elements of experience (real or imaginary) along a new path, so that a new meaning appears as a result of a simple juxtaposition. It is almost impossible to find good examples of pure diaphora, as we noted earlier, it often, if not always, has epiphoric “overtones”. One can argue that contrast (in the literal sense) is the source of diaphora. However, this, in our opinion, applicable to music or painting, but cannot fully reflect the needs of literary art.Such a contrast in a literary text cannot be considered “by itself”, it functions only when viewed in a wider context, which, together with it, harmoniously reveals the signs diaphora.

It should be replaced that the connection of concepts in diaphora is based only on emotional correspondence. However, even in a broad context, the basic impression of diaphora remains. If you do not insist that the diaphora should be completely freed from the admixture of epiphora, then there is no doubt in the essential and significant role of the diaphora in poetry and prose - the presentation of various details in a new, musically speaking, arrangement. In principle, many linguists say that the two processes, epiphoric and diaphoric, are closely related aspects of language that, when interacting, enhance the effectiveness of any good metaphor. Approaching the question of the functions of metaphors, one should refer to the work of N.D. Arutyunova (4). The problems of defining the functions of a metaphor are as confusing a topic as, for example, the classification of a metaphor or its very definition. The question of the primary function of metaphor is solved in different ways. In rhetoric and lexicology, where the metaphor has been studied most fully, it is considered primarily as a means of nomination, that is, a unit that performs an identifying, classifying function. However, we, following N.D. Arutyunova, we allow ourselves to assume that the characterization function can be considered the initial for metaphor, in which, however, as in the case of the nominative function, a metaphorical image generated by the replacement of one meaning by another is assigned to the individual. The image contained in the metaphor usually does not acquire a semiotic function, that is, it cannot become a signifier of some meaning. This, in particular, distinguishes a metaphor as a unit of language from a symbol (in the narrow sense). “Meaning is stable in metaphor, it is directly associated with the word as with its signifier. In a symbol, an image that performs the function of a signifier is stable. A metaphor is united with a symbol and is distinguished from signs by the absence of a regulatory function, and as a result, the absence of direct addressing. (3, p. 358).

5. Functions of metaphors

When considering a metaphor as a resource of communication, we can say, based on the research of a number of linguists (9,17,4), that it is the source of many lexical phenomena. Let us repeat once again the common truth that a metaphor consists of words or free phrases that have a metaphorical meaning, or in other words, a metaphorical content. Metaphorization of the meaning of a linguistic unit can take place within the same functional category of words, or be accompanied by a syntactic shift. A metaphor that does not go beyond a specific vocabulary is used mainly for nominative purposes. Nominativity serves as a technical method of forming the names of objects (the stem of a glass, the eye of a needle, etc.). This often gives rise to homonymy. By definition, O.S. Akhmanova homonymy is the subject of “lexico-semantic variation of vocabulary units” (5, p. 104). To help in distinguishing between the polysemy of a word and homonymy, the study of the patterns of semantic relationships in a particular language comes. In modern English, the definition of the category of belonging of a language unit to homonyms is the definition of the lexico-semantic relationship between the variants of language units. And first of all, these are connections of a metaphorical nature (5 p. 163), and then of a metonymic nature, etc. All these connections characterize the ratio of the general sense and the more particular.

I would like to note that the issue of polysemy and homonymy is the main stumbling block. “The question of how to correctly determine the line on which a linguistic unit is not a lexical-semantic carrier of various semantic variants of one word, but becomes a case of homonymy” remains open to this day. However, as regards the metaphorization of the meaning of indicative words, we, following A. D. Arutyunova, we can argue that this metaphorical transfer is the source of the polysemy of the word. It is hardly possible to deny the very phenomenon of the polysemy of the word - its identity in the presence of two or more meanings expressed by the same sound segments. But there is a denial of the existence of the polysemy of words, while at the same time, the assertion that any semantic difference in the case of the coincidence of the sound form represents a case of homonymy and vice versa.

As we noted on the first pages of this chapter, we will try to consider the metaphor and all linguistic phenomena associated with it not only “in breadth”, i.e. its interaction with other figures of speech: comparisons, catachreses, etc., but also “in depth”, i.e. let us consider in sufficient depth the nature of the functions of metaphor, their origin and interaction. In general, the theoretical issues of metaphor have been studied, as they say, “along and across”, but we, trying not to repeat ourselves and be somewhat different from others, present a non-standard way of studying the functioning of metaphors, based on the position of the existence of a polyfunctional image of the language field and all the resulting facts and theories of language. Research L.A. Kiseleva (“Issues of the theory of speech influence” (23) and “The semantic basis of figurative means” (24)) we will consider as the basis of the above theoretical material. L.A. Kiseleva is a linguist, a follower of the Leningrad phonological school. Dealing with theoretical and practical issues of the semantics of figurative language means, in particular those related to the metaphorical group (comparison, metaphor, epithet, personification), she made a great contribution to the development of this issue both in theory and in practice: on the basis of domestic literature.

Thus, following L.A. Kiseleva, we can argue that figurative language means can be combined into a polyfunctional figurative language field, a kind of linguistic subsystem of the language. Under the figurative linguistic means of the language, one should understand both tropes and other stylistic devices: inversion, repetition, allusion, etc. Raising the question of the essence of the polyfunctional figurative field, we, following L.A. Kiseleva, we can consider it as a figurative language field, distinguished at the intersection of the nominative, expressive, emotional-evaluative and aesthetic fields. L.A. Kiseleva notes the existence of polyfunctional units and claims that they can be included in several fields as a manifestation of their relationship in the interaction of field-forming functions. Like any functional field, a figurative language field is a system of language units. Being a system, it has certain systemic properties, which we, following L.A. Kiseleva and give:

The figurative language field is an open system, and, like any functional field, a certain “growth” is characteristic of it.

The polyfunctional figurative field is characterized by integrity, which is ensured by the integration of its components through a common seme for them - “image”, “representation”, “vision of 2 pictures”, as well as the interaction of its components (the difference in metaphors, for example, according to the degree of usage, according to the structure etc.).

The selected polyfunctional figurative field is linguistic, that is, it is a system of bilateral linguistic units, which are the unity of content and form.

In it, as in any other field, one can distinguish the core and the periphery.

The core of the figurative language of the field is created by units that are most specialized for expressing the field-forming seme “image”, which, as a rule, are polyfunctional. contain expressive information, give someone, something an assessment and aesthetically form the thought of the writer in addition to their conceptual content.

Peripheral units, as the specialized seme “image” is stifled, gravitate toward one or another linguistic field. For example, lexical metaphors formed with the help of transfer, containing a “erased image”, which have lost their expression and serve for understanding, gravitate towards the nominative field.

Based on the understanding of the polyfunctional image of the field, one can also try to determine the functions of metaphors, linking them with the promotion of one or another seme that functions in parallel with the seme “image”. This is, first of all, a nominative function. literature: - concretizing, - generalizing, - illustrative. Through this function, metaphor becomes a kind of tool for cognizing reality. You can also talk about the expressive function of metaphor, supported by the expressive qualities of the language itself, that is, the special expressive power of language units, in particular words and phrases with a metaphorical content.

The next function that we highlight is the aesthetic function of metaphors, performing which language units should most fully correspond to their purpose or individual ideal. And, finally, the fourth function is emotional-evaluative, which, together with the two previous ones, is distinguished by linguists as a separate class of pragmatic functions of figurative units of language, in this case, metaphors. Thus, when translating metaphors or words and free phrases with metaphorical content from one language to another, a linguist should be guided by the multidimensionality of figurative information, due to the multifunctionality of figurative language units, in particular metaphors. Thus, we approach the issue of aspects of considering the constituents of a figurative language field in terms of their transmission in the translation of fiction, however, based on the title of our work, we will restrict ourselves to the consideration of constituents that carry a metaphorical image.

In passing, we note that the selection of aesthetic information and, as a result, the aesthetic function of figurative means in a number of other functions is under development. No wonder L.A. Kiseleva considers her substantiation of the aesthetic field, its constituents, a hypothesis (24, p. 56), but a hypothesis included in the resolution of the problem posed about the specifics of the aesthetic activity of works of art: “We need ... hypotheses about the nature of the aesthetic activity of art" (35, p. 5) .

So, as noted above, the difficulty of translating words and phrases with metaphorical content is due to their multifunctionality. No wonder they believe that a metaphor is an extension of the informational capabilities of a language (15, p. 107).

Apparently, when considering the translation of these units, it is necessary to take into account their semantic information. In this regard, when analyzing the translation, we will dwell on the semantic basis of metaphors, consider their violations, when the links of the metaphor “revitalization”, “support” - the words that update it - do not agree in direct meaning in the translation (see the practical part of p. - ).

A metaphorical figurative means is expressive, although the degree of expression is different. If this is a lexical metaphor, a metaphor-name, then it carries a weakened “dead” image. There is no mark “transfer” in dictionaries. Such a metaphor gravitates towards the nominative field. If it is a general stylistic metaphor, that is, usual, established, adopted in a particular language, it carries more expression. This is reflected in the dictionaries marked “transfer (figurative)”. stylistic metaphors form the core of the figurative field, since the seme “image”, “figurative impression” is most clearly represented in them. The dictionary does not reflect this expression. These are speech units, but the expression does not reach the highest degree.

When we can talk about the translation of individual stylistic metaphors by general stylistic, lexical and when we consider the translation of lexical metaphors by individual stylistic, general stylistic metaphors, we must compare the expressive power of the metaphorical image of the original and the translation, that is, the transmission of figurative information and the accompanying expressive information.

Speaking about the adequate transmission of expressive information (by language expressive information, we, following L.A. Kiseleva, understand information about the expressive qualities of the language itself, that is, about the special expressive power of language means) (24, p. 24), we will use the marking and unmarked dictionary meanings with the label “transfer”, figurative. Unmarked dictionary meanings are “words of a stylistically neutral layer (about 90%) that do not have any marks”. (17, p. 133). This layer can include “derivative-nominative meaning that arises through metaphorical transfer, but does not have the label “transfer” or figurative” (17, p. 133). The very inclusion of these values ​​in the neutral layer indicates the neutralization of expression, expressiveness in them.

There is a certain amount of novelty and freshness in these meanings, which does not allow words with this meaning to be included in the neutral layers of the vocabulary.

However, it seems to us that the expression of language units represented in dictionaries by the label “transfer”, figurative, is lower than the expression of figurative speech pragmes, whose figurative impact is the highest. Basically, such language units are created to perform one or another expressive, emotional-evaluative, aesthetic function in “a certain speech utterance” (24, p. 24), thus they are not included in the dictionary fund of the language and therefore are not marked in dictionaries.

This, apparently, once again confirms the validity of the division of metaphors into three types and the use of the terms “lexical”, “general stylistic” and “individual stylistic”.

As mentioned earlier, figurative metaphorical language means are included in the core of the expressive language field. (24, p.11). Thus, "considered from the point of view of the transfer of expression, metaphors are expressive pragmemes."

In this regard, it seems to us appropriate in terms of translation to consider how figurative information and the accompanying expressive information of figurative units of the original are presented in translation, whether the image and its expression coincide with the same stylistic categories in translation, whether the power of expression of the original image corresponds to the power of expression of the image in translation. In the reviewed literature on the translation of metaphors (4,8,31), it is emphasized that a living image (that is, an image with the highest expressive activity) is recreated in translation, an extinct image (an image with the lowest expression power, that is, reduced to zero in a lexical metaphor) is transmitted through meaning.

As the study shows, this aspect of the plan of the content of the image when transferred to another language appears in a slightly different light: there is no such direct dependence of the “extinct” - “non-extinct” image of the English language on its transfer - non-transmission into Russian. And if the expression of the image intensifies, then we can talk about richer figurative information in translation, since more “luminaries” of metaphors have a more transparent interaction of direct meaning and meaning in context, leading to a more vivid “representation”, “vision of two pictures” . Accordingly, the saturation of the statement increases from an informative point of view, which leads to a change in the influence of the read text on the reader's figurative thinking.

“The metaphorical image, carrying figurative expressive information, simultaneously transmits emotional and evaluative information.” (23, p. 70). When studying this pragmatic aspect of metaphor, it is necessary to analyze the syntagmatic environment in which the metaphor utterance is closely connected with the transfer of the completeness of semantic information in a metaphorical way” (24, p.71)

We, following A.I. Fedorov (35, p. 45) we believe that metaphorical semantics consists of several closely related elements:

The original “literal” meaning of words, retouched, shifted as a result of the interaction of semantic-associative fields of unusually connected words

The image that arises on the basis of the associative fields of these words

New logical (semantic, conceptual, conceptual) content, a new nomination resulting from the comprehension of metaphors.

This complex semantic formation is a carrier of several types of information: figurative, semantic, expressive, aesthetic, emotional and evaluative, during the transfer of which the corresponding function of metaphors is carried out, or several functions are performed simultaneously.

Aesthetic information in this or that work is objectified by specific linguistic metaphorical images (of course, along with other linguistic means). The transfer of metaphorical images, which carry aesthetic information in addition to figurative information, in translation leads to the preservation of the same aesthetic effectiveness of a work of art for the Russian reader.

Thus, it seems possible for us to assume that the three above-mentioned types of information - expressive, aesthetic, emotional - evaluative - are adequately conveyed by metaphorical images in translation and will have a pragmatically relevant effect on the reader of the corresponding Russian text.

However, before accepting this assumption, we consider it necessary to give an example of the parameter of the adequacy of the translation of metaphors in terms of content.

And this is, first of all, the parameter of the adequacy of the transfer of semantic information in a metaphorical way, which is closely related to the transfer of the nominative function of the metaphor. This function is carried out through the completeness of the transfer of semantic information. The higher the degree of correlation with the main, “literal” meaning, the more fully the main, nominative function is carried out.

This primarily concerns lexical metaphors, which carry the highest degree of semantic information. Semantics (or, otherwise, rational, logical, etc.) information is understood as such a subsystem of linguistic information that has correlative links with objects, phenomena, etc. reality through a system of relevant concepts about them, judgments, which is reflected in the content of intellectual language means (24, p.15).

The accuracy (as far as the language of translation allows) of the transfer of the semantic basis of the metaphors of the original leads to an adequate linguistic image of the metaphor in translation and its adequate semantic content, through which the nominative function of the metaphor is also carried out. In translation, this is confirmed by those cases where the impossibility of preserving the metaphorical image leads to the use of only the semantic content of the metaphor in order to perform at least a nominative function. The fact that the figurative meaning is polyfunctional and, in particular, has a nominative function can be confirmed once again by the statement of I.V. Arnold: “Meaning is called figurative or figurative when it not only names, but also describes or characterizes an object through its similarity or connection with other objects (2, p. 123)"

In order to create a holistic figurative impression when it is expressed by means of language, a writer or playwright “finds words with semantics corresponding to the image and combines them so that the features indicated by their semantics are combined and, complementing each other, create the same figurative representation in the mind of the reader. , which has developed in the mind of the writer. Choosing words for this and colliding them in phrases, the artist of the word acts on intuition. ” (6, p. 7).

In order to preserve in the translation a holistic figurative impression created by the writer in the original and expressed through words with semantics corresponding to the image, the translator, choosing words in the target language, does not act and cannot act on intuition. It starts from the semantics of words in the metaphorical combination of the original and goes through a comparison of the lexical meanings of words in the original language and the target language.

Metaphorical semantics of words, notes I.A. Krylova (25), has no clear boundaries if it arises on the basis of an associative connection of a person's impressions of objects. Therefore, with the normative semantics of words that create a metaphorical meaning, subjective personal associations can also arise in the mind of the reader, associated with his worldly experience, mental make-up, the nature of intellectual life, even mood. But the basis of the figurative impression remains the same, because it depends on the meaning that is assigned to the words that convey this or that image in the national language.

Therefore, when conveying the image of a metaphor, the translator is looking for words with such normative semantics, the meaning of which, assigned to them in the national language, would serve as a solid basis for the figurative impression. Thus, adequately rendered in translation by dictionary equivalents, a metaphor has an adequate nominative function in translation.

In connection with the above, it seems to us that the adequacy of the translation of words and phrases with a metaphorical meaning in terms of content implies the transfer of all types of information by equivalent means.

6. Lexical transformations in translation

Along with the use of sound correspondence as the basis of metaphor, when translating words and phrases with metaphorical content, variants based on meanings that at first glance deviate far from the meanings of dictionary equivalents are used. The use of such equivalents is based “on the formal-logical relations between similar concepts” (29, p. 61).

Methods of logical thinking, with the help of which the translator reveals the meaning of a foreign word in the context and finds a Russian equivalent for it that does not match the dictionary, Ya.I. Retzker calls “lexical transformations” (29, p. 37). “Semantically, the essence of transformations is to replace the translated lexical unit with a word or phrase of a different internal form, actualizing that component of a foreign word that is to be implemented in a given context” (29, p. .38).

We use the identified and described Ya.I. Retzker lexical transformations, reducing them to five varieties:

specification

value generalization

semantic development

holistic transformation

antonym translation

In an effort to convey the figurative information of the original, translators resort to the method of specifying the meaning that serves as the basis of the metaphor. This technique consists in narrowing the general, replacing the general with a particular, generic concept with a specific one. With the help of this technique, the basis of general stylistic metaphors is preserved.

The second technique - the generalization of meanings - consists in "replacing a specific general, specific concept with a generic one" (29, p. 40). As a result of applying this type of transformation, the translation version contains a word that names a phenomenon that enters the life of the described environment.

The reception of semantic development is used to convey to the reader of the translation the semantic basis of the metaphorical image. This technique consists in the use in translation as the basis of the metaphor of the meaning of the word, which denotes, if not any stage of the process, then its consequence or cause, not the object itself, but its characteristic feature, etc.

The collision of words with different semantics, their unusual environment generates a meaning caused by the influence of the context. And the interaction of logical and contextual meanings is a metaphor. It is distinguished by impressive figurativeness, the task of the translator is to preserve it when transferring it to the plane of another language.

The semantic basis of the metaphors of the original is very often conveyed using the method of holistic comprehension, where the connection between the internal form of the basis of the metaphor of the original and the translation is based on secondary intersecting semes. In this case, the transformation of the main metaphor takes place within the framework of the crossing. At the same time, the conceptual content of the basis of the metaphor of the original, its nominative function is conveyed by applying the method of integral transformation in the outside. In this case, the connection between the internal form of metaphorical words and phrases of the original and translation is not traced. Thematically, the metaphorical image of the translation is synonymous with the image of the original, equal in aesthetic function, emotional-evaluative function, the expression can be of the same strength, but the specificity of the image is different. Its semantic basis has no semantic connections with the basis of the metaphor in translation.

Antonomic translation in the transfer of imagery is an infrequently used technique. It consists in replacing the concept of the original with the opposite concept in translation, with a corresponding restructuring of the entire statement. In this case, the affirmative structure can be replaced by a negative one.

Chapter II. Analysis of the play by B. Shaw "House where hearts break"

1. Problems of B. Shaw's drama "Heartbreaking House", its historical context

Based on the fact that the object of our study is the play Heartbreak House by B. Shaw, we consider it appropriate to determine the place of this work in the work of B. Shaw, to say a few words about the historical context of the time when the play was written, to highlight the ideological drama issues.

Huge, almost like a century, Shaw's life and his work are more described than studied, notes A.G. Obraztsova (28, p.3). We, in turn, cannot but agree with this opinion. B. The show was made a classic during his lifetime and written off, declaring it old-fashioned. However, many critics who study his work notice that the completely new method of B. Shaw, different from all previous ones, has been little studied and, in general, is not fully understood.

"The inexhaustible gift of Bernard Shaw to turn everything generally accepted inside out, to look for their new, unexpected meaning in words and phenomena, seems to envy some of his critics" (28, p.4).

In the plays of the early period of B. Shaw's work, problems are highlighted that do not cast doubt on the expediency of the foundations of the social system in England. But saturated with satire, they have earned the name "unpleasant plays"; and then this causticity of well-chosen witticisms passed into the tragicomedies of the 20s and 30s, where the playwright depicts the political state structure of Europe in a grotesque description. The show himself calls these comedies "political extravagances."

B. Shaw entered the 20th century as an already well-known author of drama discussions, a satirist with the positions of an incorrigible subverter of traditional false idols, and a critic of capitalist foundations. The play "The House Where Hearts Break" by A.G. Obraztsova (28) calls one of the most remarkable works of the playwright.

Researcher of creativity B. Shaw, Doctor of Philology P.S. Balashov (6) writes about the play Heartbreak House as a tragicomedy of epochal significance. This work is the pinnacle of a whole cycle of plays that reveal the fragility of family and moral foundations in an English respectable family. All previous dramas were, as it were, sketches, foreshadowing, according to the tendencies laid down in them, a comprehensive socio-philosophical canvas "The House Where Hearts Break".

If we turn to world history, then the beginning of the twentieth century is a time of growing general crisis and confusion that gripped the bourgeois intelligentsia of Europe on the eve of the war. During this period, B. Shaw writes one of his most original philosophical dramas, Heartbreak House. The play was started in 1913 and was written for quite a long time - until 1917, which is completely unnatural for B. Shaw's work. I.B. Kantorovich (20), like many other researchers of the playwright's work, notes that "this is one of Shaw's best, most poetic plays, testifying to the deepening of critical realism in his work, to the perception and original interpretation of the traditions of Russian critical realism, in particular L. N. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov "(20, p. 26) about which Shaw himself writes in the preface to the play, calling it in the subtitle "Fantasy in the Russian style on English themes."

The creative path of B. Shaw began in 1885 with the play "The House of the Widower", therefore, the play "The House Where Hearts Break" falls on the years of the writer's creative maturity, it seems to connect all the main motives of the playwright's work into one knot. "The wrathfully satirical beginning in the play is organically intertwined with the lyrical, poetic beginning - an expression of the artist's passionate search for true humanity" (6, p. 17). It should also be noted that many critics consider the play "House where hearts break" the beginning of the emergence of a new genre - a kind of social and philosophical tragicomedy "genre, especially indicative of the 2nd stage of B. Shaw's work.

Now we should turn to the ideological content of the play, because it is obvious that the theme of Shaw's philosophical drama is wider than it was defined by the playwright himself, saying in the preface that he wanted to show "the worthlessness of cultural idlers who are not engaged in creative work" (38, p. 303) actually the theme of Shaw's philosophical drama, as I.B. Kantorovich is "the crisis of the entire bourgeois way of life, exposed by the war" (20, p. 29). The show creates a kind of "ark" from his artificially isolated home - the ship, which is described in a detailed, as always, side note. But the main thing, of course, is not the appearance of the house, but the customs that reign there. One of its inhabitants says: “We have such a game at home: to find out what kind of person is hiding under this or that pose” (38, p. 329). This is the main feature of this house, here they expose everything ostentatious, visible and try to get to the bottom of the essence of man and phenomena. The author settles in this unusual house tenants who are not accustomed to reckon with decency and, contrary to them, call a spade a spade. Another characteristic common line of similarity between the characters is that each of them is endowed with some catchy individual features (age, appearance, etc.) that single him out only for stage action, but which do not make him a truly original character.

In his play Heartbreak House, Shaw brought together people from various generations of the intelligentsia. The representative of the oldest generation is the old Captain Shotover, the owner of the house, through whose mouth B. Shaw most often judges the rotten world, which is destined to disappear from the face of the earth. As noted above, by and large, all three generations represented in the house are endowed with similar, complex characters, and in this case there could be no conflict, there could not be drama. That is why dissidents also penetrate into this house - the ship: Boss Mangan (Mangan), thief William Dan (The Burglar), partly this is the youngest daughter of the captain - Lady Utterword (lady Utterword)

"In the abstract - moral sense, notes I.B. Kantorovich, the conflict in Shaw's philosophical drama is dramatically maintained in the clash of people who do not try to seem better than they really are, with people who put on a mask of virtue and respectability" (20 , p.31). The main residents of the house - the ship belong to the first, they do not have much respect for themselves, or for others, or for the whole world. But they weren't like that before, were they?

The author gives us a definite answer to the question posed: they have become so since life broke their heart. The show brings everything to the judgment of readers, viewers, demonstrates the process of contrition of hearts, and some movement is associated with these images, the development of the action, which is almost imperceptible in the drama. If we talk about the plot design of the drama, then it is also negligible. Compared with the philosophical theme, the plot only serves the author's goal to transfer the semantic content of the drama to the philosophical and social plane, where Shaw makes an attempt to solve the problem of the crisis of bourgeois-capitalist society and the fate of its further development.

However, guided by the point of view of P.S. Balashov, we can say that in this drama, Shaw the artist is much more insightful than Shaw the thinker. "For the first time in the play, a pointed formulation of the main philosophical theme of the drama is given, which speaks of an understanding of a number of reasons why the catastrophe broke out. The world is so bad that Captain Shotover, this "wise man" already falling into infancy, is ready to blow it up, and he is bad because pigs rule it, "because of their belly they have turned the universe into a feeding trough" (6, p.13). play-fable were underestimated rather than overestimated.What should be the power of the playwright’s word in order to be able to identify the main philosophical theme of the work from the very first remark of the first act - the theme of the extraordinary atmosphere of an unusual house-ship and consistently draw it with internal subtext through the entire play, psychologically inflating the atmosphere of the house from phenomenon to phenomenon, from act to act.

I would like to note that the conversation about the individual transformation of the playwright's linguistic means on a particular example of the play Heartbreak House should begin with the title, since it is clearly metaphorical in nature.

It can be argued that in the drama "Heartbreaking House" the storyline serves only as a background for the main philosophical theme of the play, helping to translate the semantic content into a socio-philosophical plane. It was also possible to establish that when writing this work, B. Shaw enters first as an artist of the word, and then as a philosopher-thinker.

Turning directly to the question of the metaphorical nature of the language of a work of art in the original, we can rely on the above statements, putting them in defense of the choice of B. Shaw's dramaturgy, namely the play "Heartbreaking House" as an object of study.

When studying research works on the work of B. Shaw, one can observe the main tendency to identify the distinctive properties of style in his plays and, in particular, in the play "House Where Hearts Break". However, the totality of linguistic devices, including, of course, figurative ones, which determine the symbolism of the plays of the great playwright, is considered very concisely in all works and is reduced mainly to explaining the names of the dramas. This phenomenon is observed everywhere, especially when studying the literary works of foreign authors. And this, as the great critic exclaimed (10), against the backdrop of a growing general interest in the figurative means of language. Based on this provision, we can argue that the novelty of our work lies in the linguo-stylistic study of previously unstudied material, that is, the ideological drama of B. Shaw "The Heartbreak House", in order to identify words and free phrases with metaphorical content.

2. Metaphorical title as a way to reveal the idea of ​​the play

In general, our study of language units with metaphorical meaning will lie in the plane of stylistic semasiology. In this branch of linguistic sciences, various figures of speech (in particular, tropes) are analyzed from the point of view of the semantic transformations taking place in them and their stylistic function. The semantic interpretation of the material allows us to consider figures of speech of any grammatical nature in this regard, that is, without the influence of whether they are expressed by a single word, phrase, and possibly a whole sentence.

The name of the play - "House where hearts break" already contains a phrase with a metaphorical meaning - we, of course, mean the phrase "hearts break". This is an example of a simple metaphor, as I.V. calls this type. Arnold (2). However, we will not consider the study of I.V. Arnold as the basis for the characterization of metaphors, we will only briefly touch on the basic simple division of words and free phrases with a metaphorical meaning. In the above analysis of the English version of the play, this expression, "Heartbreak House" is written in two words: "Heartbreak House". This is an illustrative example from the point of view of a comparative analysis of the two languages. English word formation is fundamentally different from the similar process of the Russian language for the simple reason that English is an analytical language, and Russian is an inflectional language.

But let's return directly to the definition of the components of the "heartbreak" metaphor. The word "heart", in our opinion, is a carrier of figurativeness, since B. Shaw used it not in a direct "literal" sense, but in a figurative, therefore, metaphorical one. In general, expressions such as "you broke my heart", "broken heart", the closest to the option under consideration, and the expressions "heart cries", "heart groans" are quite often used both in prose and in poetry, and half of those presented options can be found in the phraseological dictionary. We consider it superfluous here to give an example of the use of any of these expressions in the works of writers and poets. The image of a loving heart, a broken heart, etc., these are frequent characteristic images in the work of any writer working in the "writer's field". Therefore, we found out that the above metaphor is not the author's occasionalism, but quite the contrary, it is a vivid example of a poetic metaphor (in relation to the classification of O.S. Akhmanova (5)) In other words, this metaphor can be called a figurative general language, more precisely, a general stylistic metaphor figurative, figurative nature of which is clearly felt by the speaker.

The choice of such a vividly figurative metaphor included in the title is not accidental for the author. Shaw himself notes this in the preface to the play, saying that in the drama he shows two forces opposed to each other. Allegorically, they can be called "Heartbreak House" and "Horseback Hall" ("House where hearts break" and "Manege where horses go round"). The inhabitants of the "House" are intellectuals, the inhabitants of the "Manege" are businessmen. The social struggle is portrayed by the playwright as a clash of these two forces.

It is quite obvious that the metaphorical reading of the expression “hearts are broken” differs from the literal one: the expression, which in its literal meaning is used for the physical characteristics of, say, sick people, when figuratively read, highlights a different class of inanimate objects, however, having a hint of being in their semantics, in as a result of which none of the objects belonging to the class of internal organs can be distinguished in the same way as the "heart", while expressing the same idea.

Correlating the studied linguistic figurative component - the metaphor "hearts break" with the theory of M. Black (9), we can single out the so-called "focus" of the metaphor and its environment - the "frame". And then we will make an attempt to explain why this "frame" in combination with this "focus" gives a metaphorical imagery.

So, according to the substitutional concept, the focus of a metaphor (that is, a clearly metaphorical word inserted into the frame of the direct meanings of words) serves to convey a meaning that, in principle, could be expressed literally. We can conclude that the focus of this metaphor is the word "heart". The author uses it instead of another series of concepts (hopes, expectations, aspirations, etc.), which are abstract in contrast to the completely materialized concept of "heart". The word is a substitute (or means of transmission) not for a separate impression received in the past, but for a combination of general characteristics "(17, p. 46). This statement by Ivor A. Richards is the general formulation of the formation of a metaphor.

The second component of a metaphor that is simple in structure - "break up", respectively, is a frame. The new, different context of the word "heart", that is, the focus of the metaphor, causes the expansion of the meaning of the focal word through the "frame". The word that serves as the focus of the metaphor has not changed its meaning in the "system of generally accepted associations" (1, p. 165), it has only expanded its meaning.

Let's try to clarify the above: "analogy" immediately comes to the reader's mind, but a closer examination of the metaphor shows that analogy alone is not at all enough: the change in meaning occurs through contextual conditioning in the broad sense of the word "context". From this it follows that speaking of the metaphorical phrase "heartbreak" we must take into account the rest of the "environment" - that is, the full name of the play "House where hearts break".

In defense of the just given extended version of the metaphor, we can put forward the following statement by E. McCormack: "A metaphor in all its beauty can be realized only through an extended correlate" (34 p. 88). In our case, the correlate is expressed by the term "frame". The whole aesthetic manifesto of B. Shaw can be deduced in the following words: “The expressiveness of the statement is the alpha and omega of style.” Style for Shaw is, first of all, a thought that absorbs life, returning to it realistic images that affect the minds of people.

This transition to the problem of imagery and style is generally not accidental in our work. The image is the source of basic semiotic concepts, the structure of which is created by the interaction of fundamentally different planes - the plane of expression and the plane of content. Metaphor is very often defined through an appeal to the image created by the figurative meaning of language units. This image in the narrow sense serves as a compositional moment in creating the image of a literary hero, character, and sometimes an artistic symbol - as in our case. The image of a house where the hearts of both young and more mature people are broken was created by B. Shaw not without the help of metaphorical transfer, which served as a "tool" for imagery and symbolism along with other tropes. Let us take as proof the lines of N.I. Isachkina: "The symbolism of the Show is dual - often it not only allows you to fix broad social generalizations in a figurative form, but also masks the contradictions and bewilderment of the playwright" (18, p. 53). Further N.I. Isachkina in her research work on the work of B. Shaw comments on the use of the concept of "heartbreak". She says that it takes on a special meaning in the context of the whole play. The show treats the theme of "heartbreak" in two ways: in everyday life, when unsuccessful love acts as the cause of "heartbreak," and in philosophical, when historical timelessness turns out to be its cause.

Summarizing all the statements given earlier, we can draw the following picture: the concept of "House where hearts break" ("Heartbreak House") is metaphorical due to the figurative, figurative meaning of the concept "heart", which serves as a focal point and, with a known contextual expansion, forms such meaning, which, on the one hand, is due to the development of the play, the title of which is the metaphor in question, and, on the other hand, reveals the figurative, to some extent even the philosophical concept of "House", as an expanded meaning.

3. Metaphors in the language system of the play

Turning to the analysis of the text of the play in the original and in translation, we should note that we will consider words and free phrases with metaphorical content based on the following scheme:

Determination of the initial structural characteristics of the metaphor (simple / extended).

Analysis of metaphor components (focus and frame).

Characterization of the meanings of the metaphor components.

Correlating metaphor with the definitions of epiphora and diaphora.

The functioning of metaphor as a language unit.

Consideration of metaphor as a source of replenishment of the dictionary.

Identification of the frequency of use of non-linguistic metaphors in the text.

The author of the play, B. Shaw, provided his work with an extensive remark, immediately introducing the reader into the strange atmosphere of a strange house - a ship. Marine terminology saturates the entire remark from beginning to end. The same applies to the play itself, or rather one acting character - Captain Shotover, the owner of the house - the ship. His speech is replete with marine terms, which, acquiring an unusual environment through context, can be considered as linguistic units with a figurative meaning:

…young and attractive female waiting in the poop.

The literal translation of the word "poop" is "poop, feed". However, the old captain rewards the hall of his house with this name.

…as a child she thought the figure - head of my ship…the most beautiful thing on earth.

The literal translation of the highlighted phrase is "the figure on the prow of my ship". Captain Shotover calls his home a ship.

…you will not marry the pirate, s child.

The highlighted phrase, which translates as "child, child of a pirate," old Shotover refers to a simple young girl Ellie (Ellie), the daughter of the unsuccessful romantic Mazzini Den (Mazzini).

Go there yourself, you and all the crew.

Batten down the hatches.

The highlighted word has the following literal translation - “hatch, hatch cover". Telling everyone to go to the basement during the bombing, Shotover also orders to close the hatches. In relation to the contextual environment, the door from the basement is called a hatch. It should be noted that the expression “Batten down the hatches " is the naval command “Back the hatches! ”,

Take him to the forecastle.

“the forecastle” - a tank, a bow cabin for mattresses. Saying the phrase, Captain Shotover sends the thief who got into the house to the kitchen to the servants.

I'll have no boatswain on my quarter-desk .

The first highlighted word translates as “boatswain.” On an ordinary ship, this is the person of the junior commanding staff, to whom the ship’s housekeeping team is subordinate. The captain calls the thief Billy Dan “quarter - desk” - yut, shkantsy, for Shotover, this is the living room in his house.

If we conduct a small experiment and replace the words of marine terminology with ordinary everyday words, then we will get the following phrase: “I'll have no thief (pilferer) in my living-room (in my house)”, which can be translated as follows: “I I will not tolerate a thief in my living room (in my house)."

On the one hand, all these words and expressions can be considered as used in a figurative, figurative sense, but, on the other hand, one cannot but take into account the image of the house of Captain Shotover, the house - the ship. From which it follows that the transfer of meaning cannot be fully correlated with the metaphorical transfer, therefore, the highlighted words and free combinations cannot be undeniably classified as metaphors. They are more symbolic than metaphorical. "Starting from the image, the metaphor and the symbol "lead" it in different directions. At the heart of the metaphor is a categorical shift ... therefore, the metaphor relies on the meaning ... In the symbol, the form stabilizes." (4s.23). Along with those already mentioned, there are still a large number of differences - fundamental ones at that - between metaphor and symbol. If the transition from an image to a metaphor is caused by semantic (intralinguistic) needs and concerns, then the transition to a symbol is most often determined by extralinguistic factors. This applies to both occasional (as in our case) and stable characters. N.D. Arutyunova (4) notes that an image becomes a symbol by virtue of the function it acquires in the life of a person, calling such cases of symbolism "personal symbols." Drawing a conclusion, we can assert that the examples under consideration can rather be attributed to symbolism.

I would like to highlight one more case of B. Shaw's use of the marine lexicon in phrases with a metaphorical meaning: “The church is on the rocks, breaking up. I told him it would unless it headed for God’s open sea.” In the translation under consideration (M.B. and S.B.), these sentences look like this: “The Church was thrown on the rocks, it will be blown to pieces. I told him that this would be the case if she did not keep her course on the sea of ​​God.

Shotover's words have a double meaning: literal - "(local) church on the rock, it is collapsing" and figurative "the church is generally aground, it is collapsing" because "to be on the rock" is an idiomatic expression accepted in the English language. It is equivalent to the Russian idiom “to run aground”, in other words, to be in a difficult position. In the translation, the authors did not resort to any lexical transformations, which led to the loss of idiomatic expression and, as a result, the loss of a certain amount of expression. At the very end of the quote, one can single out the figurative nature of the use of the expression “God’s open sea”, literally translated “open divine sea”, “open sea of ​​God”, in the considered one - “the sea of ​​God”. This phrase can be considered as the author's occasionalism, i.e. individually - a stylistic metaphor preserved in translation. Continuing the theme of occasional metaphors, it should be emphasized that their use in the text is of a singular nature.

Still, there is no use catching physical colds as well as moral ones…

But if you have not saved yourself from a moral cold, then why else should you catch a cold physically ...

letters. per. “But there is no point in having a physical cold as well as a moral cold.

… I should ever have dreamed of forcing her inclinations in any way…

letters. - I ever thought about raping her inclinations.

Returning to the metaphorical phrase “God's open sea”, it should be noted that the phrases: sea of ​​lights, flowers, air, bliss, bliss, joy, happiness, etc. We have given a literal translation of the phrase “God's open sea”, which clarifies the motives for the use of the word “God” instead of “divine” by translators. The latter can be understood by the reader in two ways: either as an adjective with the meaning beautiful, enchanted, or as an adjective related to religion - church. To avoid confusion of meanings, the authors of the translation resorted to the use of a synonymous concept.

"On the port side of the room, near the bookshelves, is a sofa with it , s back to the windows. It is a sturdy mahogany article, oddly upholstered in sailcloth, including the bolster, with a couple of blankets handing over the back ."

The above sentences give a vivid example of the use of metaphor as a technique for forming the names of objects. The concept of "back" - in literal translation means "back". Here this word serves nominative, identifying purposes, being attached to some object (in our case, to a piece of furniture - a sofa) as the name of its main component, both natural and literary language is replete with such examples.

Further in the remark: "Between the sofa and the drawing - table is a big wicker chair, with broad arms and a low sloping back…" arms of a chair - chair handles, low sloping back - low sloping back. Again, examples of nominative metaphors are given that perform the corresponding function - naming, i.e. nominative. However, not only the description of furniture contains lexical metaphors, which have already become a kind of norm of the language. We will not dwell on them due to the fact that this class of metaphors is considered the norm both in English and in Russian, these are "petrified", "dead", metaphors that are not of particular importance.

To further visualize the metaphors, we will take the following example: "…He resembled it. He had the same expression: wooden yet enterprising. She married him and will never set foot in this house again." B. Shaw put these phrases into the mouth of Captain Shotover, a hero with "author's traits", who condemns almost all the actions and decisions of other heroes of the play. Saying these words, the old man condemns the decision of his youngest daughter to marry a man who, in his opinion, looks like a wooden figure of a ship. Although this decision was made 23 years ago. In this case, the focus of the metaphor is the word "wooden" - wooden. The figurative meaning of this word is "insensitive, stupid, empty." The reader immediately recreates the feedback and reproduces the desired figurative, metaphorical meaning instead of the direct meaning. The frame or referent in this extended metaphor is the words before the colon. I would like to note that the role of the concept of "expression" is very interesting - in literal translation - "expression." It is used here with an explicit transfer of the meaning of a part of the body (face) on the one hand and an internal state on the other (internal character traits of the hero). It can be assumed that the dual nature of the disclosure of the meaning of the concept "expression" lies in the dual nature of the metaphor itself and the above concept as an integral part of this metaphor.

We consider it necessary to emphasize that "in general, there are no standard rules for determining the weight or power that should be attributed to this or that use of the expression" (9 p.157). In order to understand what the author meant by introducing the word "expression", we need to know how "seriously" he takes the concept that serves as the focal point of the metaphor. Whether he is satisfied with an approximate synonym, or chooses this particular word, which is the only possible one. In the case under consideration, we can definitely say that, indeed, the word "wooden" is the only possible one, since in the extended context a parallel is drawn, implicitly showing a comparison of the object of conversation with a wooden figure on the bow of the ship. But what role does comparison play here? In this case, we will apply the definition of comparison given by Paul Ricoeur: "Comparison is drawing attention to the similarity of objects or ways to pay attention to some characteristics of one object through pointing to another adjacent to it" (30 p. 61). Thus, we were able to determine the focus of "wooden" and the frame of the metaphor, characterize them, show them in interaction due to their position within a complex system - phrases with metaphorical content.

If we turn to the question of the functioning of this metaphor, then it is rather difficult to determine the field to which it gravitates the most: its nominativity is indisputable - it characterizes, classifies the object. Performing a characterizing function in a sentence, this metaphor acquires an indefinite indicative meaning - starting from the figurative, and ending with the meaning of a wide range of compatibility. At the same time, the metaphor under study refers to a specific subject, and this asserts it within the meanings directly related to its characteristic: "insensitive, stupid, stupid."

The following metaphor under consideration will be given in an expanded context for its visual demonstration in conjunction with another figure of speech - a comparison (a pure example of a comparison), which together give a figurative picture that is important for understanding the text of the play and is the "starting point" for further development of the plot. So, "You"ve made the acquaintance of Ellie, of course. She is going to marry a perfect hog of a millionaire for the sake of her father, who is as poor as a church mouse; and you must help me to stop her." The first highlighted phrase is a metaphor, and the second is a comparison. The key word of the metaphor, its focus, is the phrase "a hog of a millionaire" - a hog - a millionaire in translation (M.B. and S. B), and with a frame that reveals a wide context - " she is going to marry" - she is going to get married, in the translation of the same authors. The image of a person like a hog, drawn by this metaphor, characterizes both the object itself and the character expressing this thought. The situation is such that Mrs. Hashebye, introducing the young girl Ellie to Lady Utterword, speaks of her intention to marry Boss Mengen and rewards his person with the above characteristic.

Arguing about this metaphor, taking into account the pragmatic aspect of language, we can talk about those areas that connect these linguistic units with the context, first of all, this is the sphere of speech acts. As for the context, according to S. Levin (Samuel R. Levin) "It includes the speaker, the listeners and the extralinguistic environment of communication" (4, p. 346). We, following S. Levin, can talk about the main idea underlying the speech act as something specific that, in addition to expressing its own meaning, can also perform certain actions: it can assert something, ask about something, order, demonstrate, warn, promise and the like; all these are the acts that the speaker performs when uttering this or that sentence.

In our case, there is a demonstration as a kind of action performed by thought, in parallel with its direct purpose. To "support" the figurativeness of the statement being made, the speaker (Mrs. Hashebye) makes a comparison that is essentially antonymous with the preceding metaphor: Ellie's millionaire hog, Ellie's fiancé, is contrasted with her father, who is "poor as a church mouse." The comparison includes a well-known phraseological unit containing the highest degree of expressiveness. This expressiveness is transmitted by virtue of general language laws, and the comparison itself, which is the "support" of the metaphor. Based on the laws of polyfunctionality of language units, we can identify, in addition to the undeniably present, characterizing function, also an expressive function.

As shown by the above analysis, this extended metaphor is translated in a combination of absolute speech variants, i.e. without applying any of the language transformations often used in translations. This will allow us to talk about the preservation of imagery in general, and figurative expressive information in particular, in the Russian version of the text, which indicates the preservation and transfer of the corresponding function of metaphor in translation. However, if the images of the original and the translations coincided, then we can assert that the nominative characterizing function of the metaphor also, figuratively speaking, "migrated into the translation without change." This does not require serious evidence, since everything is obvious: the images of the original and the translation can only coincide if the semantic information in words and free phrases matches the metaphorical meaning, which indicates the presence of nominativity, which is caused by dependence on the semantic basis of the metaphor, which remained unchanged in the translation. .

As we noted earlier, this metaphor is a kind of "starting point" for further development of the plot of the play. But now we will talk about a slightly different, but correlated process: the so-called subtext of the work, which is not expressed directly, but only guessed, runs like a thin thread throughout the play: we are talking about the ideological expression in the work of a real class struggle, moral crisis and conflict.

3.1 Zoomorphic metaphors

At the very end of the first act, Captain Shotover asks Hector, who is close to him in many ways: "What then is to be done? Are we to be kept forever in the mud by these hogs to whom the universe is nothing but a machine for greasing their bristles and filling their snouts?"

Note that the word "hog" used in the last example in the plural is given in translation not as "hogs", but as "pigs". This suggests that the metaphor of the original and the translation differ, firstly, in terms of motivation, and secondly, in terms of the degree of expression. In English, motivation is hidden behind the grammatical form, in Russian, behind the lexical one, which leads to the use of synonyms. In this case, we can talk about weakened or strengthened speech versions of the original and translation. However, taking into account the particular metaphorical context, we can argue that we are dealing with an enhanced speech version of the metaphor in translation. We also believe that when transferring the figurativeness of the original as an artistic whole, there is a fluctuation of figurative metaphorical information (the above analysis of the metaphor proves this). The boundaries of fluctuations are within the limits set by the semantics of language images, the characteristics of the characters, the tonality of the work.

Indeed, for Captain Shotover, a male character who embodies the image that opposes the "businessmen", it is more expressive to use the word "pigs" than "hogs". Their semantics in Russian is different. The word "hog" is usually used in a figurative sense in relation to a man - prosperous, self-satisfied. The semantics of the word "pig" is a bit broader. We will break down our reasoning step by step:

This word can characterize both men and women, that is, it is applicable to absolutely everyone.

It can denote dirty, untidy, foul-smelling people.

Often a figurative meaning is used to characterize ungrateful people who acted badly.

According to external signs of personality, massiveness, along with comparisons "like a cow," like a hippopotamus", the word "pig" in question is often used, and so on.

But in the original of the play, B. Shaw leaves the word "hog" already used by him once. The motives that determined this choice are not known to us - we can only guess about them. However, we can make an assumption and identify two motives, firstly, the use of this particular word "hog", as we noted earlier, supports the internal thread of the text, and secondly, the semantics of the words "pig" and "hog" in English are similar much more than the semantics of their Russian counterparts. Therefore, we can conclude that the expressive information is conveyed in the translation without loss of intensity, and the replacement of the word "boars" with the word "pigs" ensures this preservation.

The second part of the considered free phrase with metaphorical content is a rather illustrative example in a comparative analysis of the original and translation. B. Shaw writes: "The universe is nothing but a machine fore greasing their bristles and filling their snouts." Literally, this can be translated as follows: the universe is nothing more than a machine (mechanism) for sucking, (greasing) their bristles and filling their snouts (muzzles). The lexical transformation of the meaning applied in the translation immediately attracts attention (M.B. and S.B.). Lexical transformations, as we noted in the theoretical part, are methods of logical thinking, with the help of which the translator reveals the meaning of a foreign word in the context and finds a Russian equivalent for it that does not match the dictionary. We tend to believe that in this case the translators used the method of holistic transformation, in which the semantic basis of the metaphor of the original is transmitted through rethinking, where the connection between the internal basis of the metaphor of the original and the translation is based on secondary intersecting semes, while the conceptual content of the main metaphor of the original, its nominative function does not change. Pay attention to the following fragment: fore greasing their bristles and filling their snouts. If we correlate our literal translation of this passage with the literary translation of the authors mentioned above, then we can observe the integration of meanings, as well as the implication of new concepts that are similar in semantic structure. We are talking about the words "snout" and "belly". Indeed, it is more appropriate to use "stuff the belly", and not "fill the snout", in view of the general patterns of the use of such phrases and taking into account their semantic features in the Russian language. Semantic compatibility and complementarity is obvious, we agree that it is inappropriate to talk about a person "he filled his mouth", meaning the profitability of his life. We'd rather say "he stuffed his belly, belly". In the meaning generated by this phrase, the concept of what has already been irrevocably appropriated by a person appears.

Here we will continue the study of the original, in particular, we will turn to the theory of epiphora and diaphora. Earl R. MacCormac argues that "since a metaphor is based on both similarities and dissimilarities between the properties of its referents, in any metaphor there is both an epiphoric and a diaphoric element. A metaphor, to a greater extent associated with the similarity between the properties of its referents, can be considered an epiphora, while a metaphor, more associated with dissimilarity, can be considered a diaphora" (34, p. 363). Based on the above statement, which reinforces our reasoning, we can conclude that we are dealing with an epiphora, that is, it rather tends to appeal to the reader's imagination, in contrast to the diaphora, which appeals to intuition. The referents of the metaphor, or its framework, as we have identified earlier, is the verbal environment of two concepts: "hog" and "machine". The first concept is revealed by the designation of rich, prosperous people, the second serves as an object of comparison of the Universe. Their environment, frames are in direct interdependent relationship with each other.

The metaphors considered above, in which the word “hog” appears, can be classified, as well as a number of others given below, to the category of zoomorphic metaphors.

Think of this garden in which you are not a dog barking to keep the truth out!

(Remember our garden, where you did not have to be a watchdog that barks to block the way to the truth) (hereinafter translated by M. B and S. B).

…but it's a god's life; and I don't own anything.

(... but this is a dog's life. And I have no property)

the sign that forms the zoomorphic metaphor “…you are not a god barking to keep the truth out”, not only is not essential for the original concept, but even contradicts the mass associations that the word “dog” evokes. A dog has long been perceived as a symbol of devotion, disinterested friendship and fidelity, however, these well-known qualities have not found a linguistic embodiment, and completely different associations have been fixed in metaphorical meanings - an evil, bad person (in our case), or a dexterous, skillful person in any business .

In Russian translation, one can observe the replacement of the concept “dog” by another concept “watchdog”. In English, both “dog” and “dog” have the same lexical form “dog”. It can be assumed that the authors of the translation, guided by the negative associations of the metaphorical meaning “dog”, chose the Russian version of the translation “dog”, which is more consistent with the meanings of evil, bad and has a greater expression, i.e. performs the corresponding expressive function. In addition, this linguistic metaphor also performs a nominative function. Dating back to ancient science, the delimitation of the functions of naming (nomination) and predication is distributed primarily by parts of speech. The role of the nomination is performed by nouns - in this case, the noun "dog".

The use of the adjective “dog”, derived from “dog”, but not having such positive mass associations, is indicative. In this adjective, the metaphorical feature loses its specific meaning, while, as G.N. Sklyarevskaya (31) notes, the seme is preserved and comes to the fore intensification, a general negative assessment. The phrase “dog life” in question has the meaning “very difficult, difficult, unbearable. ” Both in English and in Russian, the semantics of this combination is the same, which allowed translators to preserve the image that evokes the same type of associations in different languages.

The following considered case of a free phrase with a metaphorical meaning can be attributed to metaphors containing zoomorphic characteristics and, at the same time, to individual stylistic author's metaphors:

I tell you I have often thought of this killing of human vermin.

The Russian translation is as follows:

I often thought about the extermination of humanoid reptiles.

The expression "human vermin", or in the Russian version of "humanoid reptiles" is not traditional for any of the languages ​​under consideration. It is believed that zoomorphic characteristics can be directed not only to humans, but also to other animals. Using "human" , i.e. literally translated “human being”, B. Shaw brings a person closer to animals. Therefore, this metaphor is due to a complicated, double semantic transformation: having been fixed in the language as a characteristic of a person - a bearer of qualities attributed to snakes (vile, slippery, deceitful) - such a metaphor will also be used in anthropomorphism, when an animal that characterizes the metaphorical transfer of the meaning of a person is attributed human qualities drawn from zoomorphic characteristics.As some researchers note, the type of metaphor under consideration does not have a regular character and tends to be commonplace.This once again confirms the opinion that this metaphorical free the phrase can be attributed to the author's occasionalisms.

What a brute I was to quarrel with you…

(What a beast I am that I started to swear with you ...)

The word “brute”, in Russian translation - “cattle” has a collective meaning: beast, domestic animal, usually cattle. But in its semantics, there is another meaning rude, with animal instincts. The expression “what a brute I was” has a pronounced metaphorical character, which is realized through the figurative meaning of the word “brute”, which is the focus of the metaphor, inserted into the meaning of words used literally.

Ellie: you are a wicked sordid little beast.

(Ellie! You vicious little petty animal)

Again, we have highlighted an example containing the collective meaning of “beast” - “animal, cattle, creature”.

This zoomorphism, displaying its meaning in human qualities, gives the object the features of an animal, considering it as a certain class highlighting the general features of the subject: stupid, unreasonable, insensitive.

Taking into account the contextual expansion of this word with a metaphorical meaning, one can observe the expanded use of adjectives that characterize a young girl. Hesiona Hashaby refers to Ellie as a way to dissuade her from marrying Boss Mangek. This, according to Hesiona, is moral meanness and a betrayal of the best human qualities. The introduction of a number of adjectives makes it possible to enhance the expressiveness of the metaphor as a whole and highlight its emotional and evaluative function.

When analyzing the text in order to identify other types of metaphors, it was possible to establish that the largest number of use of free phrases with metaphorical content refers to those metaphors that focus on the meaning of the concepts “heart” and “soul”, which include other, abstract concepts that characterize the inner the human world - love, hatred, fidelity, devotion, etc. An analysis of such metaphors is given later in the work.

Single cases of use include such metaphors in which the objective similarity between objects consists in the following properties: - color, - shape, - size. Also among the rarely used are those metaphors that are based on comparison with plants, flowers and insects.

3.2 Other metaphorical transfers

One of the main tasks that we set ourselves at the beginning of the work is the consideration of the metaphors used by B. Shaw as a source of replenishment of the dictionary. Recall that we talked about polysemy, synonymy, and also about homonymy, however, the primary analysis of the sample of metaphors showed that B. Shaw cannot be ranked among those writers and poets whose work is rich in linguistic innovations, replete with author's neologisms and occasionalisms. In confirmation of this, we can cite the words of A.G. Exemplary (28) about that. that the work of B. Shaw was permeated with characteristically traditional features, therefore, during his lifetime, he was called a classic and "written off", declaring old-fashioned. Of course, this is only indirect evidence inspired by general ideas about traditional conservative England and B. Shaw as her true "son". However, none of the researchers of the writer's work spoke about occasionalisms derived by the author or about something like that: on the contrary, they all spoke out in support of the traditionalism of Shaw's methods when writing dramas of a new ideological content. And as you know, to put forward a new idea, it is not necessary to derive "new" words. You just need to find a new use for them, to reveal a new meaning.

But let us return to the text and continue: the following metaphor, the analysis of which we have to perform, belongs to the category of general stylistic metaphors, as some foreign Germanists distinguish (in particular, Birdsly), it can also be classified as a color metaphor: "I must believe that my spark , small as it is, is divine, and that the red light over their door is hell fire. I should spare them in simple magnanimous pity." These lines in the play are spoken by Hector in a conversation with Captain Shotover. Hector Heshebye is one of the inhabitants of "House", a brilliant handsome man, a brave man and a thrill-seeker who carefully hides his true noble deeds and selflessly lies about fictional lion hunts. He, like the old captain, is full of hatred for the inhabitants of the "Manege" - businessmen and money-grubbers, speaking out on their account, he utters the above phrase.

The word "spark", whose translation is "spark" has a clearly metaphorical meaning in this text. The hero speaks of the divinity of this spark - "I must believe that my spark… is divine": "divine" literally translates as "divine, prophetic." The focus of this metaphor is undeniably the word "spark", used in a figurative sense: "something that prompts action; something that inspires". However, all of us, imagining sparks, draw to ourselves something like the following picture: white small drops, light as air, flying out from somewhere, dissipate and go out; or: red dots, pouring down like a waterfall and burning brightly, fall on some surface and die out. We gave an example of the literal meaning of the word "spark", which generates in the human imagination an image that correlates with the direct meaning of this word. With a figurative meaning and understanding of the image generated by the word "spark", only color associations arise in memory - for example, the following example can be given: "the spark in a man,s soul" - "a spark in a person's soul" - an emerging image: something the bright shines in a person, prompts him to action. The example of a metaphor that we are considering is built on a similar association, transferring the literal meaning of "spark" to objects and phenomena that are only correlated in terms of semantic characteristics.

Further, B. Shaw continues to draw a color picture: "the red light over their door is hell fire" - he already directly includes the adjective "red" denoting "red" in a number of used words. This kind of "pickup" of the metaphor allows the reader to imagine in his imagination an indelible color image, supported by a "double" color metaphor. This is another "secret" of the author - B. Shaw, speaking about the inhabitants of the "House", rewards them with a light color image, and the words about "dealers" put into Hector's mouth create an unpleasant, burning, dark shade of red - bloody color. Generating in this way the subtext of the play, the author inclines readers to the side with which he himself is more sympathetic.

This metaphor carries deep aesthetic information. By aesthetic information we mean, following L.A. Kiseleva (23), information about the aesthetic qualities of the language itself, the main criterion of which is the most complete correspondence of language units to their purpose or ideal (literal meaning). Therefore, we can talk about the presence of an aesthetic function in this extended metaphor.

4. The role of metaphorical transfer when revealing the figurativeness of concepts in the key dialogue of the play

The plot outline of the play is formed by the story of the failed marriage of the representative of the world of businessmen Mengen to the daughter of the "inventor - loser" Mazzini Dan, Ellie Dan. The dialogue of Ellie - once a sensitive and vulnerable girl whose heart has already broken and Mengen - is one of the key in the play.

"The main thing is the dialogues, during which the intellectuals are debunked, the businessmen are exposed and a picture of the deepest ideological and moral crisis arises" (14, p. 125). The clash of people of different mental make-up is just a substitution for the real class struggle, for the opening of which B. Shaw uses this technique. "The air may suit us; but the question is, should we suit one another? Have you thought about that?" - says Boss Mangen Ally at the very beginning of their conversation. A literary literary translation is practically a literal version of the translation: "The air here, of course, suits us, but the question is, do we suit each other. Have you thought about it?" We are only interested in the highlighted phrase, since, in our opinion, it carries a figurative meaning expressed by the word "we are approaching", i.e. "suit". This whole statement is an example of an extended metaphor.

Focus - the word "fit" carries only a small amount of expression, and therefore, figurativeness, since it is quite often used in a similar context, forming a lexical metaphor. These metaphors, as we noted earlier, serve mainly nominative purposes and are not very expressive, since they have long been traditionally used. The reader does not notice "freshness" or "innovation" in them;

But Ellie Mengen's answer is more expressive: of course, she is a girl who was once filled with gratitude to this man who "saved" her father - now Ellie, having survived the collapse of her dreams and hopes, is determined to "get Boss Mengen as a husband": "But we can get on very well together if we choose to make the best of it. Your kindness of heart will make it easy to me." some effort to this. Your kind heart will make everything much easier for me." Ellie tries to be as affectionate and figurative as possible with words to achieve her goals.

The author, B. Shaw, uses abstract concepts that were very successfully conveyed in translation. And again the theme of the heart sounds, a concept that we have already analyzed in detail above. For the time being, Ellie calls him "good heart", but after the dialogue that debunks Mangen as a virtue, she can no longer say this.

Further along the play, B. Shaw often uses metaphors supported by comparison or identities. This technique is called "pick up". It serves to ensure that the reader focuses his attention on the words, not just running his eyes, but consciously creating a certain image, consisting partly of the reader’s personal experience and partly of the images generated by the read text, which, as it were, “regulates” the creation of the image, complementing it facts: "I took your father's measure. I sow that he had a sound idea, and that he would work himself silly for it if he got the chance. I saw that he was a child in business, and was dead certain to outrun his expenses and be in too great hurry to wait fore his market." "I immediately saw through your father. I saw that he had a good idea and that he would go out of his way if he was given the opportunity to put it into practice. And I saw that in business he was a real baby and would not be able to meet the budget and bide your time to win the market."

All underlined free phrases are metaphorical in nature. However, each of them should be considered in detail in order to visualize the creation of that picture of the characteristic features of Mazzini Dan, which the author, B. Shaw, draws through the Mengen business.

We can distinguish two lexical metaphors in the English text - “a sound idea” and “a child in business”, which have long become commonplace and more or less commonly used. Taken out of context, they serve only nominative purposes, without expressing any or expressive characteristics.However, becoming a contextual extension of any extended metaphor, such language units serve as a "pickup", which allows an already expanded metaphor to have a greater figurative potential.

In the Russian version, one of these “dead” lexical metaphors is not preserved, the translation is given through an ugly derivative meaning - “he has a good idea”. The second - “a child in business”, which has the most pronounced seme “image”, is transmitted in translation by lexical equivalents. If the translation had “child” instead of “baby”, then we could talk about the transfer of imagery through full lexical equivalents. The reason for this replacement, in our opinion, was the desire of the authors of the translation, on the one hand, to reduce, reduce the professional qualities of Mazzini Dan, to show that his naivety, which Boss took advantage of in his time, and on the other hand, to show such qualities of Mengen as narcissism and self-confidence, which vividly characterize him as a clever businessman. His expressions “to wait for his market”, “dead certain to outrun his expenses” contain vocabulary specific to a businessman. He operates with it “with the dexterity of a circus performer”, giving it out in combinations that give rise to a figurative meaning. In the Russian version of the play, one can observe the grouping of these lexical units: “... will not be able to meet the budget and wait for the time to conquer the market.” All of them together give a full-fledged figurative meaning, an extended metaphor formed by several lexical metaphors.

It should be noted that the Russian version, in our opinion, has the greatest expression, since the metaphor includes a number of idiomatic expressions that make it concise, put it into practice, wait for time, go out of your way, which at the same time compensates for the replacement of the lexical metaphor of the English language “a sound idea” is an ugly phrase.

In continuation of our work, I would like to highlight several types of metaphors that are typical for use in the play. These are, first of all, metaphors relating to the semantic sphere “the psychological world of a person”. The denotations concentrated in this sphere are non-material, and therefore cannot serve as a source of metaphorical transformations. This sphere attracts metaphors from the objective world, demonstrating the need for a person’s spiritual worldview to be realized in specific objective meanings. The most commonly used objective meanings by Bernard Shaw are “heart” and “soul”. One can argue about the objectivity of the “soul” connotation, but it is through it that the author shows the feelings of his characters, referring “soul” to the category of real-life objects: “... I have knocked over all the chairs in a room without a soul paying any attention to me …", which is translated as follows: “Once in one house I had to break all the chairs, and at least one living soul woke up."

“Living soul” is a lexical metaphor that has already become traditional, in order to somehow highlight it, draw the attention of readers, translators resorted to inversion, putting a definite noun before the adjective that defines it. The English version does not have an equivalent for the word “live”. The noun “soul” i.e. “soul” is given without any characteristics explaining it.

In principle, there is no need to include this adjective in the Russian text. But, perhaps, the authors, based on their own perception of lexical units, decided to insert the adjective “living”, which is often an attribute of the word “soul”.

“There is a soul in torment here. What is the matter? ”

It should be noted that in the translation the word “torment” means “torment, torment.” But in the entire text of the translation, one can distinguish the authors’ tendency to use religious terms even where they are not in the original, as in this case: “Whose soul is given here to torment hell? What happened here?". Such vocabulary of a religious nature is often included in Captain Shotover's lines. Perhaps this is because this character is the bearer of the philosophical beginning in the play, through his speeches B. Shaw introduces into the text various concepts that reveal the essence of being and the meaning of human life, which many people try to learn through religion. The captain himself, in his youth, “sold his soul to the devil in Zanzibar”, and now he is trying: “to achieve the seventh degree of self-contemplation”. However, this is a positive character, if only such a division can be applied to the heroes of this play, where idols are debunked, businessmen are exposed, ideals are transmitted and, as a result, hearts are broken.

“They know it and act on it strangling our souls. They believe in themselves. When we believe in ourselves, we shall kill them". The literal translation of the word “strangling" is to strangle, strangle. The same could be attributed to a person: “strangling me”, however, the word “soul” lexically is a receptacle for all the psychological traits of a person, this seme absorbs all the moral qualities of people. “They know this and therefore do everything to crush our souls. They believe in themselves. When we believe in ourselves, we will overcome them". In the translation (M.B. and S.B.) a different translation is given, revealing a different semantic basis of the Russian equivalent of the translation “strangling". The word “crush” literally means “heavy, flatten, ... kill.” The differences in the semantics of this word and the word “strangle” are obvious. But the authors have resorted to using the lexical transformation technique to use a word whose semantics is similar to the semantics of the direct translation equivalent.

The question arises: why did the authors use the synonym? Obviously, its semantic basis is more suitable for transferring “soul” to this seme. “Smother the soul” and “crush the soul” - in Russian the difference between these phrases is revealed, in English the semantics of the concept “strangle” and “crush” are so different that they cannot be synonymized.

One could single out a few more cases of using the word “soul” in the metaphorical transfer of the meaning, but there it is worth considering the use of another object of the real world, to which the author transfers abstract concepts from the sphere of the psychological perception of the world by a person. This “heart” is a kind of keyword for the ideological content of the play. Each of the characters in turn, in one or another contextual expansion, pronounces the main metaphor of the work - “hearts break”, speaking about unfulfilled dreams, about the collapse of hopes. But there are also a number of other metaphors in the play, the focus of which is “heart”. “And you have a heart, Alfy, a wimpling little heart, but a real one”. "It turns out you have a heart, Alf. Such a tiny, pitiful heart, but still real." In this case, the word “heart” denotes human feelings of love, devotion, duty, honor. In Mangeni, they are so little expressed that they can easily “fit in a tiny, miserable heart.” This diminutive image in English is created using adjectives that have the appropriate meaning; in the Russian text of the play, the diminutive derivative “heart” is also the bearer of this meaning.

“Yet she breaks hearts, easy as her house is. That poop devil upstairs with his flute howls when she twists his heart…”. “No, she breaks hearts herself in this comfortable home of hers. And that unfortunate one up there with his flute howls the same way when she turned his heart inside out ... "

We are interested in the second highlighted phrase - “she twists his heart”. The literal translation of the word “twist” is “twist, twist, twist”. In literary translation, there is a replacement of the literal meaning with the exact opposite: “untwist, twist”. It can be concluded that the authors of the translation resorted to the method of partial antonymous transfer, replacing one word with a certain semantics with another word that is opposite in meaning, and, accordingly, with an opposite semantic meaning. The reasons for this replacement are obvious with a broader contextual expansion, the meaning of the entire highlighted metaphor is as follows: Hesiona morally tormented a young man in love with her, i.e. turned his loving heart inside out, forcing him to open up to her, to make confessions. In this case, it means to expose, to reveal the truth. In order not to lose the figurative impression caused by this phrase, the authors obviously decided to give up literalness in translation.

The above examples clearly show the use of the two concepts “heart” and “soul” as some material substances containing in their meaning, by means of metaphorical transfer, abstract concepts of the psychological qualities of a person.

Conclusions on the second chapter

The specificity of B. Shaw's language style is the use of various vocabulary words as the basis of metaphorization: concrete, abstract, poetic, as well as terms.

The most numerous in the text of the play are lexical or linguistic metaphors, which perform mainly a nominative function. Also, the author is characterized by the use of zoomorphic metaphors, especially when creating images of “horsebackers”, often identified with images of animals, the semantic meanings of which evoke negative associations: reptile (snake), dog, dog, boar, pig.

There are few metaphorical transfers based on comparison with plants, flowers, insects; as well as isolated cases of use include those metaphors in which the objective similarity between objects consists in the following properties: color, shape, size.

The ways of transferring the basis of metaphor in translation are:

the path of full speech equivalents, based on the use of absolute speech variants in translation;

the path of partial speech equivalents based on the use of lexical transformation techniques.

With the latter technique, there is either a loss of metaphorical figurativeness, or its strengthening, supported by the use of other tropes, idioms, or phraseological units, which leads to the conclusion that there is some fluctuation of figurative metaphorical information in the texts of the original and translation. The boundaries of fluctuations are within the limits set by the semantics of language images, the tonality of the entire work.

Conclusion

In this paper, we examined B. Shaw's use of words and free phrases with metaphorical content in the play "Heartbreaking House", and also analyzed the translation of metaphors from English into Russian.

Managed. establish that the metaphorical transfer of meaning is a widely and freely used technique in the text of the play. B. Shaw is characterized by a detailed processing of artistic techniques, which prepares the reader for a figurative perception of not only general stylistic, but also lexical metaphors. The presentation of abstract concepts through a metaphorical image based on specific vocabulary makes the narrative tangible, tangible, visible.

It should be answered the complicated, multi-stage nature of the use of various techniques in the language of the play, namely:

1. Using the chain introduction of metaphors: a metaphor "animated" by some technique is a contextual explanation of another adjacent metaphor.

2. The use of comparison as a "support" technique that enhances the figurative perception of the entire metaphorical context.

3. Internal technique - strengthening metaphorical imagery through the deployment of metaphors into several links.

All metaphorical figurative means considered in the work were analyzed in accordance with the concepts of "focus" and "frame". This analysis showed that the focus of a metaphor, as a rule, is a word used in a figurative sense, inserted into the frame of the direct meanings of words. The focus word is a substitute or a means of conveying not a separate impression, but a combination of the general characteristics of some abstract concept, realized in the text with the help of another, subject concept.

The entire text sample was compared with the same amount of translation. This made it possible to identify language inconsistencies when translating the play into Russian. The considered translation by M. Bogoslovskaya and S. Bobrov was made by using full dictionary equivalents. But cases of application of lexical transformations are frequent. We managed to find out that such methods are used in translation to preserve the figurative information of the original, which also makes it possible to transfer and preserve the pragmatic functions of metaphors: aesthetic, expressive, emotional and evaluative.

Bibliography

1. Arnold I.V. Lexicology of modern English. - M.: Higher school., 1973. - 304 p.

2. Arnold I.V. Stylistics of modern English. - 2nd ed., revised. - L .: Education, 1981. - 295s.

3. Arutyunova N.D. Metaphors and discourse // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. - 512s.

4. Arutyunova N.D. Language and the human world: a collection / N.D. Arutyunov. - 2nd ed., corrected. - M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture 1995. - 892 p.

5. Akhmanova O.S. Essays on general and Russian lexicology. - M.: GosUchpediz min. enlightenment RSFSR, 1957. - 295 p.

6. Balashov P.S. The Artistic World of B. Shaw: Abstract of a dissertation for a degree. - M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR in-t world. literature named after A.M. Gorky 1974. - 63s.

7. Belsky A.A. Foreign drama: collection of articles / A.A. Belsky. - Perm: Perm State. Univer. them. A.M. Gorky. 1989. - p.5-27

8. Beardsley M. Metaphorical plexus // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. - p. 201-219

9. Black M. Metaphor // Theory of Metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. -p.153-173

10. Vinogradov V.V. On the language of artistic prose. - M.: Nauka, 1980. - 358s.

11. Vilyuman V.G. English synonymy: Proc. allowance - M.: Higher School, 1980. - 128s.

12. Vygotsky L.S. Thinking and speech // L.S. Vygotsky Selected psychological studies. - M.: Nauka, 1956. - 386 p.

13. Gabrikovskiy N.K. Linguistic problems of translation: Collection of articles / Gabrikovsky N.K. - M.: Higher School, 1981. - 135p.

14. Grazhdanskaya Z.G. Bernard Shaw: Essay on life and work. Proc. settlement - M.: Enlightenment, 1979. - 175p.

15. Gyubbenet I.V. Fundamentals of philological interpretation of a literary text. M.: MSU. - 1991. - 205s

16. Dimanov S.S. Foreign literature. Collection of articles / S.S. Dinamov, M.: Goslitizdat, 1960. - 455p.

17. Davidson D. What do metaphors mean // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. - p.173-194.

18. Isachkina N.I. Aesthetics B. Shaw: Collection of articles from the history of Western literature / Koblikova L.G. -M.: MGU. - 1957. - p.122-152

19. Kalinin A.V. Stylistic essays. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University. 1979. - 195p.

20. Kantorovich I.B. “House where hearts break” and the crisis of Shaw's Fabianism // Collection of articles / A.A. Belsky. - Perm: Perm State. Univ. named after A.M. Gorky: - 1989. - p.28-39

21. Kirilova L.Ya.B. Shaw and A.P. Chekhov // Word about the theater. - M.: Rainbow, 1996. - p.34-45.

22. Smith M.D. Stylistics of the English language / M.D. Kuznets, Yu m. Skrebnev, N.N. Amosov. - L.: Uchpediz, 1960. - 173p.

23. Kisileva L.A. Questions of the theory of speech influence. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - L .: Publishing house of Leningrad State University, 1985. - 167p.

24. Kisileva L.A. Semantic basis of figurative means. - L.: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1989. - 92p.

25. Krylova I.A. On the semantic nature of metaphors: Scientific notes, - Gorky: From the Gorky University, issue 76,: 1976. - 130s.

26. Miller J. Images and models, uses and metaphors. // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. - p.236-284.

27. Nikitin Fundamentals of the linguistic theory of meaning. - M.: Higher school, 1988. - 167p.

28. Obraztsova A.N. Dramaturgical method B. Shaw. - M.: Nauka, 1956. - 316 p.

29. Retsker Ya.I. Theory and translation practice. - M.: Iz-vo IMO, 1994. - 216s.

30. Riker P. Metaphorical process as knowledge, imagination and sensation. // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. - p.416-436

31. Sklyarevskaya G.N. Metaphor in the system of language. - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1993. - 151 p.

32. Smirnitsky A.I. Morphology of the English language. - M.: Nauka, 1959. - p.249-255

33. Tomashevsky B.V. Stylistics. Proc. allowance - 2nd ed., corrected. and additional - L .: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1983. - 288s.

34. Wheelwright F. Metaphor and reality. // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress. 1990. - p.82-110

35. Fedorov A.I. Semantic structure of the word as a component of the semantic structure of the statement // Semantic structure of the word / V.G. Gak. - M.: Nauka, 1981 p.78-96

36. Fedorov A.V. Essays on general and comparative stylistics. - M.: Higher school, 1971. - p. 194.

37. Show B. Autobiographical notes. Articles. Letters.: Collection / Per. from English; Compiled by A. Obrztsova and Yu. Fridshtein. - M.: Rainbow, 1989. - 496s.

38. Yazikova Yu.S. Analysis of the metaphors of the style of M. Gorky's story “In People”.

39. Jacobson R. Two aspects of language and two types of aphatic disorders. // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress. 1990. - p.110-133

40. Galperin I. R. Stylistics: Book for students. - M.: Vyssaja Skola, 1971. - 342p.

41. Siedl J., Mordie M. English idioms and how to use them. - M. Vyssaja Skola, 1983. - 265p.

List of sources and their abbreviations

1. Shoy B. Heart break House // Four Plays / A. Anikst. Moscow: Foreign Languages ​​Publishing House. - 1952. - p.137-241

2. Show B. The house where hearts break // Plays / Z. Grazhdanskaya per. from English M. Bogoslovskaya, S. Bobrov. M: True. - 1981. - p.253-351 - B. Show “D, grs”

List of dictionaries and their abbreviations

1. Akhmanova - Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. - M.: 1966.

2. BES - Big Encyclopedic Dictionary / A.M. Prokhorov., in 2 vol., M.: Soviet encyclopedia., 1991.

3. Galperin I.R. Big English - Russian Dictionary - M.: 1972.

4. KLE - Brief literary encyclopedia / A.A. Surkov, v.4., M.: Soviet Encyclopedia 1967.

5. LES - Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary / V.N. Yartseva, M.: Soviet Encyclopedia 1990.

6. Muller V.K. New Russian - English dictionary - M.: Russian language., 1998.

7. Muller V.K. New English - Russian dictionary - M.: Russian language., 1998.

8. Malakhovskiy L.V. Dictionary of English homonyms and amoforms. - M.: Russian language., 1995.

9. Dictionary of synonyms / A.P. Evgeniev, - L .: Nauka, 1977.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Huge, almost like a century, Shaw's life and his work are more described than studied, notes A.G. Obraztsova (28, p.3). We, in turn, cannot but agree with this opinion. B. The show was made a classic during his lifetime and written off, declaring it old-fashioned. However, many critics who study his work notice that the completely new method of B. Shaw, different from all previous ones, has been little studied and, in general, is not fully understood.

"The inexhaustible gift of Bernard Shaw to turn everything generally accepted inside out, to look for their new, unexpected meaning in words and phenomena, seems to envy some of his critics" (28, p.4).

In the plays of the early period of B. Shaw's work, problems are highlighted that do not cast doubt on the expediency of the foundations of the social system in England. But saturated with satire, they have earned the name "unpleasant plays"; and then this causticity of well-chosen witticisms passed into the tragicomedies of the 20s and 30s, where the playwright depicts the political state structure of Europe in a grotesque description. The show himself calls these comedies "political extravagances."

B. Shaw entered the 20th century as an already well-known author of drama discussions, a satirist with the positions of an incorrigible subverter of traditional false idols, and a critic of capitalist foundations. The play "The House Where Hearts Break" by A.G. Obraztsova (28) calls one of the most remarkable works of the playwright.

Researcher of creativity B. Shaw, Doctor of Philology P.S. Balashov (6) writes about the play Heartbreak House as a tragicomedy of epochal significance. This work is the pinnacle of a whole cycle of plays that reveal the fragility of family and moral foundations in an English respectable family. All previous dramas were, as it were, sketches, foreshadowing, according to the tendencies laid down in them, a comprehensive socio-philosophical canvas "The House Where Hearts Break".

If we turn to world history, then the beginning of the twentieth century is a time of growing general crisis and confusion that gripped the bourgeois intelligentsia of Europe on the eve of the war. During this period, B. Shaw writes one of his most original philosophical dramas, Heartbreak House. The play was started in 1913 and was written for quite a long time - until 1917, which is completely unnatural for B. Shaw's work. I.B. Kantorovich (20), like many other researchers of the playwright's work, notes that "this is one of Shaw's best, most poetic plays, testifying to the deepening of critical realism in his work, to the perception and original interpretation of the traditions of Russian critical realism, in particular L. N. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov "(20, p. 26) about which Shaw himself writes in the preface to the play, calling it in the subtitle "Fantasy in the Russian style on English themes."

The creative path of B. Shaw began in 1885 with the play "The House of the Widower", therefore, the play "The House Where Hearts Break" falls on the years of the writer's creative maturity, it seems to connect all the main motives of the playwright's work into one knot. "The wrathfully satirical beginning in the play is organically intertwined with the lyrical, poetic beginning - an expression of the artist's passionate search for true humanity" (6, p. 17). It should also be noted that many critics consider the play "House where hearts break" the beginning of the emergence of a new genre - a kind of social and philosophical tragicomedy "genre, especially indicative of the 2nd stage of B. Shaw's work.

Now we should turn to the ideological content of the play, because it is obvious that the theme of Shaw's philosophical drama is wider than it was defined by the playwright himself, saying in the preface that he wanted to show "the worthlessness of cultural idlers who are not engaged in creative work" (38, p. 303) actually the theme of Shaw's philosophical drama, as I.B. Kantorovich is "the crisis of the entire bourgeois way of life, exposed by the war" (20, p. 29). The show creates a kind of "ark" from his artificially isolated home - the ship, which is described in a detailed, as always, side note. But the main thing, of course, is not the appearance of the house, but the customs that reign there. One of its inhabitants says: “We have such a game at home: to find out what kind of person is hiding under this or that pose” (38, p. 329). This is the main feature of this house, here they expose everything ostentatious, visible and try to get to the bottom of the essence of man and phenomena. The author settles in this unusual house tenants who are not accustomed to reckon with decency and, contrary to them, call a spade a spade. Another characteristic common line of similarity between the characters is that each of them is endowed with some catchy individual features (age, appearance, etc.) that single him out only for stage action, but which do not make him a truly original character.

In his play Heartbreak House, Shaw brought together people from various generations of the intelligentsia. The representative of the oldest generation is the old Captain Shotover, the owner of the house, through whose mouth B. Shaw most often judges the rotten world, which is destined to disappear from the face of the earth. As noted above, by and large, all three generations represented in the house are endowed with similar, complex characters, and in this case there could be no conflict, there could not be drama. That is why dissidents also penetrate into this house - the ship: Boss Mangan (Mangan), thief William Dan (The Burglar), partly this is the youngest daughter of the captain - Lady Utterword (lady Utterword)

"In the abstract - moral sense, notes I.B. Kantorovich, the conflict in Shaw's philosophical drama is dramatically maintained in the clash of people who do not try to seem better than they really are, with people who put on a mask of virtue and respectability" (20 , p.31). The main residents of the house - the ship belong to the first, they do not have much respect for themselves, or for others, or for the whole world. But they weren't like that before, were they?

The author gives us a definite answer to the question posed: they have become so since life broke their heart. The show brings everything to the judgment of readers, viewers, demonstrates the process of contrition of hearts, and some movement is associated with these images, the development of the action, which is almost imperceptible in the drama. If we talk about the plot design of the drama, then it is also negligible. Compared with the philosophical theme, the plot only serves the author's goal to transfer the semantic content of the drama to the philosophical and social plane, where Shaw makes an attempt to solve the problem of the crisis of bourgeois-capitalist society and the fate of its further development.

However, guided by the point of view of P.S. Balashov, we can say that in this drama, Shaw the artist is much more insightful than Shaw the thinker. "For the first time in the play, a pointed formulation of the main philosophical theme of the drama is given, which speaks of an understanding of a number of reasons why the catastrophe broke out. The world is so bad that Captain Shotover, this "wise man" already falling into infancy, is ready to blow it up, and he is bad because pigs rule it, "because of their belly they have turned the universe into a feeding trough" (6, p.13). play-fable were underestimated rather than overestimated.What should be the power of the playwright’s word in order to be able to identify the main philosophical theme of the work from the very first remark of the first act - the theme of the extraordinary atmosphere of an unusual house-ship and consistently draw it with internal subtext through the entire play, psychologically inflating the atmosphere of the house from phenomenon to phenomenon, from act to act.

I would like to note that the conversation about the individual transformation of the playwright's linguistic means on a particular example of the play Heartbreak House should begin with the title, since it is clearly metaphorical in nature.

It can be argued that in the drama "Heartbreaking House" the storyline serves only as a background for the main philosophical theme of the play, helping to translate the semantic content into a socio-philosophical plane. It was also possible to establish that when writing this work, B. Shaw enters first as an artist of the word, and then as a philosopher-thinker.

Turning directly to the question of the metaphorical nature of the language of a work of art in the original, we can rely on the above statements, putting them in defense of the choice of B. Shaw's dramaturgy, namely the play "Heartbreaking House" as an object of study.

When studying research works on the work of B. Shaw, one can observe the main tendency to identify the distinctive properties of style in his plays and, in particular, in the play "House Where Hearts Break". However, the totality of linguistic devices, including, of course, figurative ones, which determine the symbolism of the plays of the great playwright, is considered very concisely in all works and is reduced mainly to explaining the names of the dramas. This phenomenon is observed everywhere, especially when studying the literary works of foreign authors. And this, as the great critic exclaimed (10), against the backdrop of a growing general interest in the figurative means of language. Based on this provision, we can argue that the novelty of our work lies in the linguo-stylistic study of previously unstudied material, that is, the ideological drama of B. Shaw "The Heartbreak House", in order to identify words and free phrases with metaphorical content.

2. Metaphorical title as a way to reveal the idea of ​​the play

In general, our study of language units with metaphorical meaning will lie in the plane of stylistic semasiology. In this branch of linguistic sciences, various figures of speech (in particular, tropes) are analyzed from the point of view of the semantic transformations taking place in them and their stylistic function. The semantic interpretation of the material allows us to consider figures of speech of any grammatical nature in this regard, that is, without the influence of whether they are expressed by a single word, phrase, and possibly a whole sentence.

The name of the play - "House where hearts break" already contains a phrase with a metaphorical meaning - we, of course, mean the phrase "hearts break". This is an example of a simple metaphor, as I.V. calls this type. Arnold (2). However, we will not consider the study of I.V. Arnold as the basis for the characterization of metaphors, we will only briefly touch on the basic simple division of words and free phrases with a metaphorical meaning. In the above analysis of the English version of the play, this expression, "Heartbreak House" is written in two words: "Heartbreak House". This is an illustrative example from the point of view of a comparative analysis of the two languages. English word formation is fundamentally different from the similar process of the Russian language for the simple reason that English is an analytical language, and Russian is an inflectional language.

But let's return directly to the definition of the components of the "heartbreak" metaphor. The word "heart", in our opinion, is a carrier of figurativeness, since B. Shaw used it not in a direct "literal" sense, but in a figurative, therefore, metaphorical one. In general, expressions such as "you broke my heart", "broken heart", the closest to the option under consideration, and the expressions "heart cries", "heart groans" are quite often used both in prose and in poetry, and half of those presented options can be found in the phraseological dictionary. We consider it superfluous here to give an example of the use of any of these expressions in the works of writers and poets. The image of a loving heart, a broken heart, etc., these are frequent characteristic images in the work of any writer working in the "writer's field". Therefore, we found out that the above metaphor is not the author's occasionalism, but quite the contrary, it is a vivid example of a poetic metaphor (in relation to the classification of O.S. Akhmanova (5)) In other words, this metaphor can be called a figurative general language, more precisely, a general stylistic metaphor figurative, figurative nature of which is clearly felt by the speaker.

The choice of such a vividly figurative metaphor included in the title is not accidental for the author. Shaw himself notes this in the preface to the play, saying that in the drama he shows two forces opposed to each other. Allegorically, they can be called "Heartbreak House" and "Horseback Hall" ("House where hearts break" and "Manege where horses go round"). The inhabitants of the "House" are intellectuals, the inhabitants of the "Manege" are businessmen. The social struggle is portrayed by the playwright as a clash of these two forces.

It is quite obvious that the metaphorical reading of the expression “hearts are broken” differs from the literal one: the expression, which in its literal meaning is used for the physical characteristics of, say, sick people, when figuratively read, highlights a different class of inanimate objects, however, having a hint of being in their semantics, in as a result of which none of the objects belonging to the class of internal organs can be distinguished in the same way as the "heart", while expressing the same idea.

Correlating the studied linguistic figurative component - the metaphor "hearts break" with the theory of M. Black (9), we can single out the so-called "focus" of the metaphor and its environment - the "frame". And then we will make an attempt to explain why this "frame" in combination with this "focus" gives a metaphorical imagery.

So, according to the substitutional concept, the focus of a metaphor (that is, a clearly metaphorical word inserted into the frame of the direct meanings of words) serves to convey a meaning that, in principle, could be expressed literally. We can conclude that the focus of this metaphor is the word "heart". The author uses it instead of another series of concepts (hopes, expectations, aspirations, etc.), which are abstract in contrast to the completely materialized concept of "heart". The word is a substitute (or means of transmission) not for a separate impression received in the past, but for a combination of general characteristics "(17, p. 46). This statement by Ivor A. Richards is the general formulation of the formation of a metaphor.

The second component of a metaphor that is simple in structure - "break up", respectively, is a frame. The new, different context of the word "heart", that is, the focus of the metaphor, causes the expansion of the meaning of the focal word through the "frame". The word that serves as the focus of the metaphor has not changed its meaning in the "system of generally accepted associations" (1, p. 165), it has only expanded its meaning.

Let's try to clarify the above: "analogy" immediately comes to the reader's mind, but a closer examination of the metaphor shows that analogy alone is not at all enough: the change in meaning occurs through contextual conditioning in the broad sense of the word "context". From this it follows that speaking of the metaphorical phrase "heartbreak" we must take into account the rest of the "environment" - that is, the full name of the play "House where hearts break".

In defense of the just given extended version of the metaphor, we can put forward the following statement by E. McCormack: "A metaphor in all its beauty can be realized only through an extended correlate" (34 p. 88). In our case, the correlate is expressed by the term "frame". The whole aesthetic manifesto of B. Shaw can be deduced in the following words: “The expressiveness of the statement is the alpha and omega of style.” Style for Shaw is, first of all, a thought that absorbs life, returning to it realistic images that affect the minds of people.

This transition to the problem of imagery and style is generally not accidental in our work. The image is the source of basic semiotic concepts, the structure of which is created by the interaction of fundamentally different planes - the plane of expression and the plane of content. Metaphor is very often defined through an appeal to the image created by the figurative meaning of language units. This image in the narrow sense serves as a compositional moment in creating the image of a literary hero, character, and sometimes an artistic symbol - as in our case. The image of a house where the hearts of both young and more mature people are broken was created by B. Shaw not without the help of metaphorical transfer, which served as a "tool" for imagery and symbolism along with other tropes. Let us take as proof the lines of N.I. Isachkina: "The symbolism of the Show is dual - often it not only allows you to fix broad social generalizations in a figurative form, but also masks the contradictions and bewilderment of the playwright" (18, p. 53). Further N.I. Isachkina in her research work on the work of B. Shaw comments on the use of the concept of "heartbreak". She says that it takes on a special meaning in the context of the whole play. The show treats the theme of "heartbreak" in two ways: in everyday life, when unsuccessful love acts as the cause of "heartbreak," and in philosophical, when historical timelessness turns out to be its cause.

Summarizing all the statements given earlier, we can draw the following picture: the concept of "House where hearts break" ("Heartbreak House") is metaphorical due to the figurative, figurative meaning of the concept "heart", which serves as a focal point and, with a known contextual expansion, forms such meaning, which, on the one hand, is due to the development of the play, the title of which is the metaphor in question, and, on the other hand, reveals the figurative, to some extent even the philosophical concept of "House", as an expanded meaning.

3. Metaphors in the language system of the play

Turning to the analysis of the text of the play in the original and in translation, we should note that we will consider words and free phrases with metaphorical content based on the following scheme:

Determination of the initial structural characteristics of the metaphor (simple / extended).

Analysis of metaphor components (focus and frame).

Characterization of the meanings of the metaphor components.

Correlating metaphor with the definitions of epiphora and diaphora.

The functioning of metaphor as a language unit.

Consideration of metaphor as a source of replenishment of the dictionary.

Identification of the frequency of use of non-linguistic metaphors in the text.

The author of the play, B. Shaw, provided his work with an extensive remark, immediately introducing the reader into the strange atmosphere of a strange house - a ship. Marine terminology saturates the entire remark from beginning to end. The same applies to the play itself, or rather one acting character - Captain Shotover, the owner of the house - the ship. His speech is replete with marine terms, which, acquiring an unusual environment through context, can be considered as linguistic units with a figurative meaning:

…young and attractive female waiting in the poop.

The literal translation of the word "poop" is "poop, feed". However, the old captain rewards the hall of his house with this name.

…as a child she thought the figure - head of my ship…the most beautiful thing on earth.

The literal translation of the highlighted phrase is "the figure on the prow of my ship". Captain Shotover calls his home a ship.

…you will not marry the pirate, s child.

The highlighted phrase, which translates as "child, child of a pirate," old Shotover refers to a simple young girl Ellie (Ellie), the daughter of the unsuccessful romantic Mazzini Den (Mazzini).

Go there yourself, you and all the crew.

Batten down the hatches.

The highlighted word has the following literal translation - “hatch, hatch cover". Telling everyone to go to the basement during the bombing, Shotover also orders to close the hatches. In relation to the contextual environment, the door from the basement is called a hatch. It should be noted that the expression “Batten down the hatches " is the naval command “Back the hatches! ”,

Take him to the forecastle.

“the forecastle” - a tank, a bow cabin for mattresses. Saying the phrase, Captain Shotover sends the thief who got into the house to the kitchen to the servants.

I "ll have no boatswain on my quarter-desk .

The first highlighted word translates as “boatswain.” On an ordinary ship, this is the person of the junior commanding staff, to whom the ship’s housekeeping team is subordinate. The captain calls the thief Billy Dan “quarter - desk” - yut, shkantsy, for Shotover, this is the living room in his house.

If we conduct a small experiment and replace the words of marine terminology with ordinary everyday words, then we will get the following phrase: “ I "ll have no thief (pilferer) in my living-room (in my house)”, which can be translated as follows: “I I will not tolerate a thief in my living room (in my house)."

On the one hand, all these words and expressions can be considered as used in a figurative, figurative sense, but, on the other hand, one cannot but take into account the image of the house of Captain Shotover, the house - the ship. From which it follows that the transfer of meaning cannot be fully correlated with the metaphorical transfer, therefore, the highlighted words and free combinations cannot be undeniably classified as metaphors. They are more symbolic than metaphorical. "Starting from the image, the metaphor and the symbol "lead" it in different directions. At the heart of the metaphor is a categorical shift ... therefore, the metaphor relies on the meaning ... In the symbol, the form stabilizes." (4s.23). Along with those already mentioned, there are still a large number of differences - fundamental ones at that - between metaphor and symbol. If the transition from an image to a metaphor is caused by semantic (intralinguistic) needs and concerns, then the transition to a symbol is most often determined by extralinguistic factors. This applies to both occasional (as in our case) and stable characters. N.D. Arutyunova (4) notes that an image becomes a symbol by virtue of the function it acquires in the life of a person, calling such cases of symbolism "personal symbols." Drawing a conclusion, we can assert that the examples under consideration can rather be attributed to symbolism.

I would like to highlight one more case of B. Shaw's use of the marine lexicon in phrases with a metaphorical meaning: “The church is on the rocks, breaking up. I told him it would unless it headed for God "s open sea." that this is what will happen if she does not keep her course on the sea of ​​God.

Shotover's words have a double meaning: literal - "(local) church on the rock, it is collapsing" and figurative "the church is generally aground, it is collapsing" because "to be on the rock" is an idiomatic expression accepted in the English language. It is equivalent to the Russian idiom “to run aground”, in other words, to be in a difficult position. In the translation, the authors did not resort to any lexical transformations, which led to the loss of idiomatic expression and, as a result, the loss of a certain amount of expression. At the very end of the quote, one can single out the figurative nature of the use of the expression “God" s open sea ", in the literal translation "open divine sea", "open sea of ​​God", in the considered one - "the sea of ​​God". This phrase can be considered as the author's occasionalism, t i.e. individually - stylistic metaphor, preserved during translation.Continuing the theme of occasional metaphors, it should be emphasized that their use in the text is of a single character.

Still, there is no use catching physical colds as well as moral ones…

But if you have not saved yourself from a moral cold, then why else should you catch a cold physically ...

letters. per. “But there is no point in having a physical cold as well as a moral cold.

… I should ever have dreamed of forcing her inclinations in any way…

letters. - I ever thought about raping her inclinations.

Returning to the metaphorical phrase “God"s open sea", it should be noted that the phrases: sea of ​​lights, flowers, air, bliss, bliss, joy, happiness, etc. the most frequently encountered combinations with a certain familiarity, they are more or less well-known and commonly used. We have given a literal translation of the phrase "God" s open sea ", which clarifies the motives for the translators to use the word "Lord" instead of "divine". The latter can be understood by the reader in two ways: either as an adjective with the meaning beautiful, enchanted, or as an adjective related to religion - church. To avoid confusion of meanings, the authors of the translation resorted to the use of a synonymous concept.

The description of the room of the house - the ship, given by the author in the remark, gives quite illustrative examples of nominative metaphors:

"On the port side of the room, near the bookshelves, is a sofa with it , s back to the windows. It is a sturdy mahogany article, oddly upholstered in sailcloth, including the bolster, with a couple of blankets handing over the back ."

The above sentences give a vivid example of the use of metaphor as a technique for forming the names of objects. The concept of "back" - in literal translation means "back". Here this word serves nominative, identifying purposes, being attached to some object (in our case, to a piece of furniture - a sofa) as the name of its main component, both natural and literary language is replete with such examples.

Further in the remark: "Between the sofa and the drawing - table is a big wicker chair, with broad arms and a low sloping back…" arms of a chair - chair handles, low sloping back - low sloping back. Again, examples of nominative metaphors are given that perform the corresponding function - naming, i.e. nominative. However, not only the description of furniture contains lexical metaphors, which have already become a kind of norm of the language. We will not dwell on them due to the fact that this class of metaphors is considered the norm both in English and in Russian, these are "petrified", "dead", metaphors that are not of particular importance.

To further visualize the metaphors, we will take the following example: "…He resembled it. He had the same expression: wooden yet enterprising. She married him and will never set foot in this house again." B. Shaw put these phrases into the mouth of Captain Shotover, a hero with "author's traits", who condemns almost all the actions and decisions of other heroes of the play. Saying these words, the old man condemns the decision of his youngest daughter to marry a man who, in his opinion, looks like a wooden figure of a ship. Although this decision was made 23 years ago. In this case, the focus of the metaphor is the word "wooden" - wooden. The figurative meaning of this word is "insensitive, stupid, empty." The reader immediately recreates the feedback and reproduces the desired figurative, metaphorical meaning instead of the direct meaning. The frame or referent in this extended metaphor is the words before the colon. I would like to note that the role of the concept of "expression" is very interesting - in literal translation - "expression." It is used here with an explicit transfer of the meaning of a part of the body (face) on the one hand and an internal state on the other (internal character traits of the hero). It can be assumed that the dual nature of the disclosure of the meaning of the concept "expression" lies in the dual nature of the metaphor itself and the above concept as an integral part of this metaphor.

We consider it necessary to emphasize that "in general, there are no standard rules for determining the weight or power that should be attributed to this or that use of the expression" (9 p.157). In order to understand what the author meant by introducing the word "expression", we need to know how "seriously" he takes the concept that serves as the focal point of the metaphor. Whether he is satisfied with an approximate synonym, or chooses this particular word, which is the only possible one. In the case under consideration, we can definitely say that, indeed, the word "wooden" is the only possible one, since in the extended context a parallel is drawn, implicitly showing a comparison of the object of conversation with a wooden figure on the bow of the ship. But what role does comparison play here? In this case, we will apply the definition of comparison given by Paul Ricoeur: "Comparison is drawing attention to the similarity of objects or ways to pay attention to some characteristics of one object through pointing to another adjacent to it" (30 p. 61). Thus, we were able to determine the focus of "wooden" and the frame of the metaphor, characterize them, show them in interaction due to their position within a complex system - phrases with metaphorical content.

If we turn to the question of the functioning of this metaphor, then it is rather difficult to determine the field to which it gravitates the most: its nominativity is indisputable - it characterizes, classifies the object. Performing a characterizing function in a sentence, this metaphor acquires an indefinite indicative meaning - starting from the figurative, and ending with the meaning of a wide range of compatibility. At the same time, the metaphor under study refers to a specific subject, and this asserts it within the meanings directly related to its characteristic: "insensitive, stupid, stupid."

The following metaphor under consideration will be given in an expanded context for its visual demonstration in conjunction with another figure of speech - a comparison (a pure example of a comparison), which together give a figurative picture that is important for understanding the text of the play and is the "starting point" for further development of the plot. So, "You"ve made the acquaintance of Ellie, of course. She is going to marry a perfect hog of a millionaire for the sake of her father, who is as poor as a church mouse; and you must help me to stop her." The first highlighted phrase is a metaphor, and the second is a comparison. The key word of the metaphor, its focus, is the phrase "a hog of a millionaire" - a hog - a millionaire in translation (M.B. and S. B), and with a frame that reveals a wide context - " she is going to marry" - she is going to get married, in the translation of the same authors. The image of a person like a hog, drawn by this metaphor, characterizes both the object itself and the character expressing this thought. The situation is such that Mrs. Hashebye, introducing the young girl Ellie to Lady Utterword, speaks of her intention to marry Boss Mengen and rewards his person with the above characteristic.

Arguing about this metaphor, taking into account the pragmatic aspect of language, we can talk about those areas that connect these linguistic units with the context, first of all, this is the sphere of speech acts. As for the context, according to S. Levin (Samuel R. Levin) "It includes the speaker, the listeners and the extralinguistic environment of communication" (4, p. 346). We, following S. Levin, can talk about the main idea underlying the speech act as something specific that, in addition to expressing its own meaning, can also perform certain actions: it can assert something, ask about something, order, demonstrate, warn, promise and the like; all these are the acts that the speaker performs when uttering this or that sentence.

In our case, there is a demonstration as a kind of action performed by thought, in parallel with its direct purpose. To "support" the figurativeness of the statement being made, the speaker (Mrs. Hashebye) makes a comparison that is essentially antonymous with the preceding metaphor: Ellie's millionaire hog, Ellie's fiancé, is contrasted with her father, who is "poor as a church mouse." The comparison includes a well-known phraseological unit containing the highest degree of expressiveness. This expressiveness is transmitted by virtue of general language laws, and the comparison itself, which is the "support" of the metaphor. Based on the laws of polyfunctionality of language units, we can identify, in addition to the undeniably present, characterizing function, also an expressive function.

As shown by the above analysis, this extended metaphor is translated in a combination of absolute speech variants, i.e. without applying any of the language transformations often used in translations. This will allow us to talk about the preservation of imagery in general, and figurative expressive information in particular, in the Russian version of the text, which indicates the preservation and transfer of the corresponding function of metaphor in translation. However, if the images of the original and the translations coincided, then we can assert that the nominative characterizing function of the metaphor also, figuratively speaking, "migrated into the translation without change." This does not require serious evidence, since everything is obvious: the images of the original and the translation can only coincide if the semantic information in words and free phrases matches the metaphorical meaning, which indicates the presence of nominativity, which is caused by dependence on the semantic basis of the metaphor, which remained unchanged in the translation. .

As we noted earlier, this metaphor is a kind of "starting point" for further development of the plot of the play. But now we will talk about a slightly different, but correlated process: the so-called subtext of the work, which is not expressed directly, but only guessed, runs like a thin thread throughout the play: we are talking about the ideological expression in the work of a real class struggle, moral crisis and conflict.

3.1 Zoomorphic metaphors

At the very end of the first act, Captain Shotover asks Hector, who is close to him in many ways: "What then is to be done? Are we to be kept forever in the mud by these hogs to whom the universe is nothing but a machine for greasing their bristles and filling their snouts?"

Note that the word "hog" used in the last example in the plural is given in translation not as "hogs", but as "pigs". This suggests that the metaphor of the original and the translation differ, firstly, in terms of motivation, and secondly, in terms of the degree of expression. In English, motivation is hidden behind the grammatical form, in Russian, behind the lexical one, which leads to the use of synonyms. In this case, we can talk about weakened or strengthened speech versions of the original and translation. However, taking into account the particular metaphorical context, we can argue that we are dealing with an enhanced speech version of the metaphor in translation. We also believe that when transferring the figurativeness of the original as an artistic whole, there is a fluctuation of figurative metaphorical information (the above analysis of the metaphor proves this). The boundaries of fluctuations are within the limits set by the semantics of language images, the characteristics of the characters, the tonality of the work.

Indeed, for Captain Shotover, a male character who embodies the image that opposes the "businessmen", it is more expressive to use the word "pigs" than "hogs". Their semantics in Russian is different. The word "hog" is usually used in a figurative sense in relation to a man - prosperous, self-satisfied. The semantics of the word "pig" is a bit broader. We will break down our reasoning step by step:

This word can characterize both men and women, that is, it is applicable to absolutely everyone.

It can denote dirty, untidy, foul-smelling people.

Often a figurative meaning is used to characterize ungrateful people who acted badly.

According to external signs of personality, massiveness, along with comparisons "like a cow," like a hippopotamus", the word "pig" in question is often used, and so on.

But in the original of the play, B. Shaw leaves the word "hog" already used by him once. The motives that determined this choice are not known to us - we can only guess about them. However, we can make an assumption and identify two motives, firstly, the use of this particular word "hog", as we noted earlier, supports the internal thread of the text, and secondly, the semantics of the words "pig" and "hog" in English are similar much more than the semantics of their Russian counterparts. Therefore, we can conclude that the expressive information is conveyed in the translation without loss of intensity, and the replacement of the word "boars" with the word "pigs" ensures this preservation.

The second part of the considered free phrase with metaphorical content is a rather illustrative example in a comparative analysis of the original and translation. B. Shaw writes: "The universe is nothing but a machine fore greasing their bristles and filling their snouts." Literally, this can be translated as follows: the universe is nothing more than a machine (mechanism) for sucking, (greasing) their bristles and filling their snouts (muzzles). The lexical transformation of the meaning applied in the translation immediately attracts attention (M.B. and S.B.). Lexical transformations, as we noted in the theoretical part, are methods of logical thinking, with the help of which the translator reveals the meaning of a foreign word in the context and finds a Russian equivalent for it that does not match the dictionary. We tend to believe that in this case the translators used the method of holistic transformation, in which the semantic basis of the metaphor of the original is transmitted through rethinking, where the connection between the internal basis of the metaphor of the original and the translation is based on secondary intersecting semes, while the conceptual content of the main metaphor of the original, its nominative function does not change. Pay attention to the following fragment: fore greasing their bristles and filling their snouts. If we correlate our literal translation of this passage with the literary translation of the authors mentioned above, then we can observe the integration of meanings, as well as the implication of new concepts that are similar in semantic structure. We are talking about the words "snout" and "belly". Indeed, it is more appropriate to use "stuff the belly", and not "fill the snout", in view of the general patterns of the use of such phrases and taking into account their semantic features in the Russian language. Semantic compatibility and complementarity is obvious, we agree that it is inappropriate to talk about a person "he filled his mouth", meaning the profitability of his life. We'd rather say "he stuffed his belly, belly". In the meaning generated by this phrase, the concept of what has already been irrevocably appropriated by a person appears.

Here we will continue the study of the original, in particular, we will turn to the theory of epiphora and diaphora. Earl R. MacCormac argues that "since a metaphor is based on both similarities and dissimilarities between the properties of its referents, in any metaphor there is both an epiphoric and a diaphoric element. A metaphor, to a greater extent associated with the similarity between the properties of its referents, can be considered an epiphora, while a metaphor, more associated with dissimilarity, can be considered a diaphora" (34, p. 363). Based on the above statement, which reinforces our reasoning, we can conclude that we are dealing with an epiphora, that is, it rather tends to appeal to the reader's imagination, in contrast to the diaphora, which appeals to intuition. The referents of the metaphor, or its framework, as we have identified earlier, is the verbal environment of two concepts: "hog" and "machine". The first concept is revealed by the designation of rich, prosperous people, the second serves as an object of comparison of the Universe. Their environment, frames are in direct interdependent relationship with each other.

The metaphors considered above, in which the word “hog” appears, can be classified, as well as a number of others given below, to the category of zoomorphic metaphors.

Think of this garden in which you are not a dog barking to keep the truth out!

(Remember our garden, where you did not have to be a watchdog that barks to block the way to the truth) (hereinafter translated by M. B and S. B).

...but it "s a god"s life; and I don't own anything.

(... but this is a dog's life. And I have no property)

the sign that forms the zoomorphic metaphor “…you are not a god barking to keep the truth out”, not only is not essential for the original concept, but even contradicts the mass associations that the word “dog” evokes. A dog has long been perceived as a symbol of devotion, disinterested friendship and fidelity, however, these well-known qualities have not found a linguistic embodiment, and completely different associations have been fixed in metaphorical meanings - an evil, bad person (in our case), or a dexterous, skillful person in any business .

In Russian translation, one can observe the replacement of the concept “dog” by another concept “watchdog”. In English, both “dog” and “dog” have the same lexical form “dog”. It can be assumed that the authors of the translation, guided by the negative associations of the metaphorical meaning “dog”, chose the Russian version of the translation “dog”, which is more consistent with the meanings of evil, bad and has a greater expression, i.e. performs the corresponding expressive function. In addition, this linguistic metaphor also performs a nominative function. Dating back to ancient science, the delimitation of the functions of naming (nomination) and predication is distributed primarily by parts of speech. The role of the nomination is performed by nouns - in this case, the noun "dog".

The use of the adjective “dog”, derived from “dog”, but not having such positive mass associations, is indicative. In this adjective, the metaphorical feature loses its specific meaning, while, as G.N. Sklyarevskaya (31) notes, the seme is preserved and comes to the fore intensification, a general negative assessment. The phrase “dog life” in question has the meaning “very difficult, difficult, unbearable. ” Both in English and in Russian, the semantics of this combination is the same, which allowed translators to preserve the image that evokes the same type of associations in different languages.

The following considered case of a free phrase with a metaphorical meaning can be attributed to metaphors containing zoomorphic characteristics and, at the same time, to individual stylistic author's metaphors:

I tell you I have often thought of this killing of human vermin.

The Russian translation is as follows:

I often thought about the extermination of humanoid reptiles.

The expression "human vermin", or in the Russian version of "humanoid reptiles" is not traditional for any of the languages ​​under consideration. It is believed that zoomorphic characteristics can be directed not only to humans, but also to other animals. Using "human" , i.e. literally translated “human being”, B. Shaw brings a person closer to animals. Therefore, this metaphor is due to a complicated, double semantic transformation: having been fixed in the language as a characteristic of a person - a bearer of qualities attributed to snakes (vile, slippery, deceitful) - such a metaphor will also be used in anthropomorphism, when an animal that characterizes the metaphorical transfer of the meaning of a person is attributed human qualities drawn from zoomorphic characteristics.As some researchers note, the type of metaphor under consideration does not have a regular character and tends to be commonplace.This once again confirms the opinion that this metaphorical free the phrase can be attributed to the author's occasionalisms.

What a brute I was to quarrel with you…

(What a beast I am that I started to swear with you ...)

The word “brute”, in Russian translation - “cattle” has a collective meaning: beast, domestic animal, usually cattle. But in its semantics, there is another meaning rude, with animal instincts. The expression “what a brute I was” has a pronounced metaphorical character, which is realized through the figurative meaning of the word “brute”, which is the focus of the metaphor, inserted into the meaning of words used literally.

Ellie: you are a wicked sordid little beast.

(Ellie! You vicious little petty animal)

Again, we have highlighted an example containing the collective meaning of “beast” - “animal, cattle, creature”.

This zoomorphism, displaying its meaning in human qualities, gives the object the features of an animal, considering it as a certain class highlighting the general features of the subject: stupid, unreasonable, insensitive.

Taking into account the contextual expansion of this word with a metaphorical meaning, one can observe the expanded use of adjectives that characterize a young girl. Hesiona Hashaby refers to Ellie as a way to dissuade her from marrying Boss Mangek. This, according to Hesiona, is moral meanness and a betrayal of the best human qualities. The introduction of a number of adjectives makes it possible to enhance the expressiveness of the metaphor as a whole and highlight its emotional and evaluative function.

When analyzing the text in order to identify other types of metaphors, it was possible to establish that the largest number of use of free phrases with metaphorical content refers to those metaphors that focus on the meaning of the concepts “heart” and “soul”, which include other, abstract concepts that characterize the inner the human world - love, hatred, fidelity, devotion, etc. An analysis of such metaphors is given later in the work.

Single cases of use include such metaphors in which the objective similarity between objects consists in the following properties: - color, - shape, - size. Also among the rarely used are those metaphors that are based on comparison with plants, flowers and insects.

3.2 Other metaphorical transfers

One of the main tasks that we set ourselves at the beginning of the work is the consideration of the metaphors used by B. Shaw as a source of replenishment of the dictionary. Recall that we talked about polysemy, synonymy, and also about homonymy, however, the primary analysis of the sample of metaphors showed that B. Shaw cannot be ranked among those writers and poets whose work is rich in linguistic innovations, replete with author's neologisms and occasionalisms. In confirmation of this, we can cite the words of A.G. Exemplary (28) about that. that the work of B. Shaw was permeated with characteristically traditional features, therefore, during his lifetime, he was called a classic and "written off", declaring old-fashioned. Of course, this is only indirect evidence inspired by general ideas about traditional conservative England and B. Shaw as her true "son". However, none of the researchers of the writer's work spoke about occasionalisms derived by the author or about something like that: on the contrary, they all spoke out in support of the traditionalism of Shaw's methods when writing dramas of a new ideological content. And as you know, to put forward a new idea, it is not necessary to derive "new" words. You just need to find a new use for them, to reveal a new meaning.

But let us return to the text and continue: the following metaphor, the analysis of which we have to perform, belongs to the category of general stylistic metaphors, as some foreign Germanists distinguish (in particular, Birdsly), it can also be classified as a color metaphor: "I must believe that my spark , small as it is, is divine, and that the red light over their door is hell fire. I should spare them in simple magnanimous pity." These lines in the play are spoken by Hector in a conversation with Captain Shotover. Hector Heshebye is one of the inhabitants of "House", a brilliant handsome man, a brave man and a thrill-seeker who carefully hides his true noble deeds and selflessly lies about fictional lion hunts. He, like the old captain, is full of hatred for the inhabitants of the "Manege" - businessmen and money-grubbers, speaking out on their account, he utters the above phrase.

The word "spark", whose translation is "spark" has a clearly metaphorical meaning in this text. The hero speaks of the divinity of this spark - "I must believe that my spark… is divine": "divine" literally translates as "divine, prophetic." The focus of this metaphor is undeniably the word "spark", used in a figurative sense: "something that prompts action; something that inspires". However, all of us, imagining sparks, draw to ourselves something like the following picture: white small drops, light as air, flying out from somewhere, dissipate and go out; or: red dots, pouring down like a waterfall and burning brightly, fall on some surface and die out. We gave an example of the literal meaning of the word "spark", which generates in the human imagination an image that correlates with the direct meaning of this word. With a figurative meaning and understanding of the image generated by the word "spark", only color associations arise in memory - for example, the following example can be given: "the spark in a man,s soul" - "a spark in a person's soul" - an emerging image: something the bright shines in a person, prompts him to action. The example of a metaphor that we are considering is built on a similar association, transferring the literal meaning of "spark" to objects and phenomena that are only correlated in terms of semantic characteristics.

Further, B. Shaw continues to draw a color picture: "the red light over their door is hell fire" - he already directly includes the adjective "red" denoting "red" in a number of used words. This kind of "pickup" of the metaphor allows the reader to imagine in his imagination an indelible color image, supported by a "double" color metaphor. This is another "secret" of the author - B. Shaw, speaking about the inhabitants of the "House", rewards them with a light color image, and the words about "dealers" put into Hector's mouth create an unpleasant, burning, dark shade of red - bloody color. Generating in this way the subtext of the play, the author inclines readers to the side with which he himself is more sympathetic.

Similar Documents

History of the theatrical process at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The emergence of a "new drama". Principles of "intellectual drama" poetics B. Shaw. The plays "Pygmalion" and "House where hearts break" as examples of intellectual drama. Reflection of the technique of "paradox" in plays.

thesis, added 07/23/2017


Topical topics that are considered in the play "Heartbreak House" by Bernard Shaw. Analysis of the speech characteristics of the characters in the play. The ideological content of the work. The evolution of the state of mind, demeanor and character of the characters in the play.

article, added 09/19/2017


The main feature of a metaphor is its semantic duality. Expansion of the denotative field of metaphor. The logical essence of metaphor. The function of characterization and nomination of individuals. processes of metaphorization. Metaphor in poetic speech.

abstract, added 01/28/2007


Theoretical foundations for the use of special visual means of language in literary works. Trope as a figure of speech. The structure of metaphor as a visual means. Analysis of linguistic material in E. Zamyatin's novel "We": a typology of metaphors.

term paper, added 11/06/2012


Metaphors as a way of expressiveness of the speech of fiction. Analysis of their functioning in Russian and English. A practical study of the use of metaphors to describe the distinctive personality traits of different characters in the novel by C. Dickens.

term paper, added 06/22/2015


The study of drama. Drama specific. Drama analysis. Questions of the theory of literature. The specifics of studying the play by A.N. Ostrovsky. Methodological research on teaching the play "Thunderstorm". Summaries of lessons on the study of the play "Thunderstorm".

term paper, added 12/04/2006


The logical essence of metaphor. The role of metaphor in Blok's poetry. Vivid imagery of Blok's poetry. Metaphorical image of the "Beautiful Stranger". Metaphor in portrait and landscape. Embodied in the symbols of the feelings and thoughts of the author.

abstract, added 02/12/2007


Igor Bakhterev is an extraordinary poet of the 20th century. Creativity I. Bakhterev. The concept of metaphor. feature of poetic metaphor. Features of I. Bakhterev's poetry. The place of metaphor in the poetry of I. Bakhterev. Metonymy, hyperbole, oxymoron and metaphor.

term paper, added 01/24/2007


The study of drama. Drama specific. Drama analysis. The specifics of studying the play by A.N. Ostrovsky. Methodological research on the teaching of the play. Thematic planning for the play. Summaries of lessons on the study of the work.

term paper, added 01/19/2007


The main intention of the author in the work "Thunderstorm". Place of drama in literature. Images of heroes in the plot of Ostrovsky's play. Assessment of the drama by Russian critics. "Ray in the dark kingdom" Dobrolyubov. Refutation of Dobrolyubov's views in Pisarev's Motifs of Russian Drama.