European Applied Sciences #1 – 2013 Europäische Fachhochschule

Section 1. Philology and linguistics272) Often a shift of a biological feature is supplemented with a mythopoetic image of a bird that exists in this or that culture. For instance,голубь, голубчик, голубка, голуба, голубушка, горлица, горлинка/голубки (dove; turtle-dove) — an ethological feature (characteristic activityor movements): remain partners through the whole nesting period; when courting the birds preen each other’s plumage and touch bills as if ina kiss → symbolics: cooing male and female symbolize the beloved; doves are widespread as poetic images of a bride and bridegroom 1 ; thedove is the personification of mildness, timidity and love; the turtle-dove is a symbol of faithfulness and great affection 2 → (a gentle vocative)dear, darling/the beloved 3 .3) Ornithometaphor is quite frequently based on a false idea about a certain bird’s biological feature. The most frequent one is a falsepresentation of a bird as a foolish creature that is used to characterize a silly person, a simpleton, e. g., тетеря → a narrow-minded, stupid,unlucky person 4 ; a pigeon → a person who is easily fooled or cheated 5 ; a turkey → a naïve, stupid, or inept person 6 .It is well known that in metaphor formation two subjects take part: the main subject and the subsidiary generalized subject, which bothhave explicit and implicit forms of expression. The character of the subsidiary subject (explicit or implicit) is determined by the main subject 7 .As the similarity between man and birds can cover a wide complex of characteristics, comparison may demand the clarification of this or thatmetaphoric nomination. This is normally done with the aid of adjectives. Such an adjective, on the one hand, implies the class of subjects towhich the subsidiary subject is referred to, and, on the other hand, it clarifies the characteristic feature of the main subject 8 .In some cases an adjective duplicates the characteristic feature of the main subject which results in the intensification of a metaphorthe way it takes place in the following examples: желторотый птенец (a young, naïve, or inexperienced person 9 ) — a somatic feature (acharacteristic feature of passerine juveniles): a juvenile’s bill has a yellow or yellowish-white swelling around it and in the corners ← птенец (achild, a very young person 10 ) — age: a young bird, especially when less than a year old; a night owl (a person who often stays up late at night 11 )← an owl (a person who enjoys staying awake all night 12 ) — an ethological feature (activity time): active at night and twilight.But mostly the extension of a metaphor under the influence of an adjective that functions as a metaphorized basis of comparison isobserved, e. g., a gay/lively/funny bird (a person who seems gay, lively, funny 13 ) — a false idea about a bird’s carelessness ← a bird (a fellow; aman 14 ). The extension of a metaphor is also observed when the chosen adjective (or a genitive construction) is based entirely on a biologicalfeature of the main subject, e. g., a bird of passage (someone who never stays in the same place for long 15 ) — an ethological feature (time orseason of migration): birds of passage as a rule fly from the nesting area in winter and return into this area or a neighbouring place in spring← a bird (a fellow; a man).Actually the most frequent use is acquired by metaphors reflecting stable associations that are fixed in people’s minds and are culturallydetermined. Such ornithomorphous phraseological units do not demonstrate any noticeable structural changes and reflect universalspiritual values which makes them widely used in different cultures. A bird species as the main subject that takes part in the formation of aphraseological unit in one culture can be absolutely different in another culture. As for an adjective or a genitive construction used to constitutea fixed metaphoric formation, it can be based either on a bird’s biological feature, or a metaphorized one.Due to the influence of Latin many languages can boast of such a fixed metaphoric formation as редкая птица (Latin rara avis, English arare bird, French oiseau rare) which implies a rare person or thing; rarity 16 , or a person with rare talents or abilities 17 . The given ornithometaphor isfurther developed in two variants: 1) a different adjective is used (alba avis): 2) both the adjective and the main subject that create the metaphorbecome different (белая ворона, a white crow; merula alba, merle blanc; a black swan). Both variants of the metaphor are based on thesomatic feature of a bird (the colour of plumage): an albino that can rarely be met; as for the black swan, it used to be a rarity in Europeancountries being endemic to Australia; nowadays the black swan can be found as a park bird all over the world.Ornithomorphous metaphors can sometimes unfold into comparative constructions with the basis of comparison being explicit whichmakes the two language phenomena look alike, e. g., стрекотать/трещать как сорока (chatter like a magpie → сорока (magpie) — a chatterbox,gossip; an incessantly talkative person 18 ; as grave as an owl → owl — a gloomy, solemn person 19 . The thing is that being the comparisonstandard in ornithomorphous comparative constructions ornithonyms themselves do not become anthropomorphous. However, one can findornithomorphous comparative constructions in which human features are ascribed to birds by means of such adjectives as brave, cheerful, drunk,happy, silly, wise, etc, used as metaphorized bases of comparison. Ornithonyms being part of such constructions become anthropomorphous,1 Gura A. V. Animal Symbolism in Slavic Folk Tradition. – Moscow. – «Indrik». – 1997. P. 615.2 Encyclopedia of Symbols, Signs, and Emblems. – Moscow. – Eksmo; Saint Petersburg. – Midgard. – 2005. Pp. 460, 461.3 BEDRL. Op.cit.; Müller V. K. Op.cit.4 BEDRL. Op.cit.5 RHWCCD. Op.cit.6 RHWCCD. Op.cit.7 Glazunova O. I. The Logic of Metaphoric Transformations. – Saint Petersburg. – Publishing house «Piter». – 2000. Retrieved November 1, 2012 fromhttp://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/glazunova-00.htm8 Arutjunova N. D. Language and the World of Man. – Moscow. – «Languages of the Russian Culture». – 1999. P. 355.9 BEDRL. Op.cit.10 BEDRL. Op.cit.11 RHWCCD. Op.cit.12 RHWCCD. Op.cit.13 LDCE. Op.cit.14 Müller V. K. Op.cit.15 LDCE. Op.cit.16 RHWCCD. Op.cit.17 Spears R. A. Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions. – Lincolnwood, Illinois, USA. – National Textbook Company, Special edition.– 1991.18 BEDRL. Op.cit.; RHWCCD. Op.cit.19 RHWCCD. Op.cit.