Article.
Tetiana Kosmeda
УДК 811.161.2=162.1’374
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF MODERN
BILINGUAL LEXICOGRAPHY:
THE PROBLEM OF REPRESENTATION
OF POLISH-UKRAINIAN SET EXPRESSIONS
The article provides a fragmentary analysis of the achievements of modern
Ukrainian-Polish lexicography products, taking into account the tradition of
representation of set expressions in Polish and Ukrainian paremiography.
Specific presentation of set expressions that include word equivalents and
paremias in the broad meaning (phraseological units, proverbs and sayings) is
analyzed. Certain methodological drawbacks of the dictionaries are identified
and analyzed.
Keywords: word equivalents, paremiography, paremia, Ukrainian-Polish
lexicography, set expressions, phraseological units.
Being sovereign democratic states Poland and Ukraine have a good tradition
of good neighbourhood and cooperation. It is nowadays when the Polish and
Ukrainian nations are most active in demonstrating mutual understanding, unity
of opinions, outlook, intensifications of old and new cultural relations that
is primarily topical in the period when Ukraine is in the process of entering
the EU, period of tough political and social and economic situation. During
this time Poland as a good-neighbour European country provides consistent and
thorough support to Ukraine: partnership relations of nations enter new phase
that also influence language contacts and requires that experts in the
Humanities be more active in research and scientific work. European aspirations
of Ukraine have an impact on the choice of scientific priorities in the field
of Humanities in all the European countries. Obviously this choice is one more
impetus for linguo-, ethno-, cultural and ethnographic researches, particularly
in the field of studying such a fragment of LPW as set expressions of Polish
and Ukrainian linguocultures that represent national identity, history,
culture, mentality of nations.
Nowadays Linguistics has a number of lingual and
ethnoculturological comparative research aimed at Polish-Ukrainian set lingual
stereotypes (phraseological units, proverbs, sayings, word equivalents), which
can be represented in the field of lexicographic theory and practice by
analyzing achievements and drawbacks of the available lexicographical sources
and elaborating the concept of «Polish-Ukrainian Dictionary of the Common Set
Expressions» which is absent both in Polish and Ukrainian Lexicography. Modern
Linguistics has elaborated key principles of compiling bilingual lexicographic
dictionaries which primary task undoubtedly is the most adequate representation
of the corresponding lingual unit by means of another language.
This article aims at analyzing
key lexicographic basis of the dictionaries of Polish-Ukrainian set lingual
stereotypes (phraseological units, proverbs, sayings, word equivalents) by
highlighting certain problematic issues, drawbacks of the existing dictionaries
and indicating the ways of correcting these drawbacks to design and implement
the concept lexicographic concept of the modern Polish-Ukrainian bilingual dictionary
of set expressions.
By analyzing critical scientific literature (reviews on the dictionaries by
such authoritative researchers as M. Kochergan, К. Mizin, etc.,
academic articles focusing on the analysis of lexicographical products – О. Andreichenko, S. Vinnichenko,
G. Pietrzak-Porwisz), as well as the texts of the very dictionaries we
shall try to highlight the advantages, merits and methodological drawbacks or
gaps of such modern bilingual Ukrainian-Polish dictionaries as: 1)
“Ukrainian-Polish Dictionary of Word Equivalents” («Українсько-польський
словник еквівалентів слова») compiled by А. Luchyk, О. Antonova,
І. Dubrovs’ka (2011), 2) “Ukrainian-Russian-Bulgarian-Polish
Dictionary of Similes” («Українсько-російсько-болгарсько-польський словник
порівнянь») compiled by О. Levchenko (2011) while placing particular
emphasis on the general concept of the dictionary and analysis of its
Ukrainian-Polish projection; 3) “Ukrainian-Polish Dictionary of Interlingual
Homonyms and Paronyms” («Українсько-польський словник міжмовних омонімів і
паронімів») compiled by І. Kononenko and О. Spivak (2008) – we shall
focus primarily on phraseological homonyms. Moreover, the analysis will also
include classical dictionaries of Polish and Ukrainian paremiography where
belong such editions as: а) «Księga przysłów przypowieści i wyrażeń
przysłowiowych» by S. Adalberg (1889–1894) and b) “Halychyna–Rus’
Folk Proverbs and Sayings” («Галицько-руські народні приповідки») compiled and
explained by I. Franko (second edition, 2006). The dictionaries in question
have become the focus of author’s attention due to the fact that by using
S. Adalberg’s dictionary І. Franko was comparing Ukrainian paremias
with Polish ones highlighting analogues and borrowings that is very important
for modern Ukrainian-Polish or Polish-Ukrainian paremiography. Moreover, the
very paremiographic concept by I. Franko is highly topical.
Great success of modern Ukrainian-Polish lexicography is
«Ukrainian-Polish Dictionary of Word Equivalents» compiled by А. Luchyk,
О. Antonova, І. Dubrovs’ka [Лучик, Антонова, Дубровська 2011]. This
dictionary received lots of reviews published in the academic journals of
Ukraine (see, for example, [Космеда 2014]). Publication of the dictionary was
fostered by the Institute for Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
It represents special type of language units that take an intermediate place in
the system of phraseological units, word combinations and words. The units represented in the
dictionary are equivalents to
separate adverbs, pronouns, prepositions,
conjunctions, interjections, stable combinations which have not formed their
belonging to any part of speech. The role these language units play in everyday
communication is extremely great as they not only have certain semantics but,
first of all, pragmatics that is specifically presented in any national
language and its discourse. In scientific literature these units are called
«linking (cohesive) words», «structural words», «discourse words». They perform
important pragmatic functions in communication. Polish and Ukrainian
Linguistics has not as yet established good tradition of lexicographying
discourse words, the problem is only being elaborated.
During the formation process discourse words can be continuously
transformed into other parts of speech. Traditionally in Linguistics such
transformed forms are called alternants, while the process of transference of
certain parts of speech into other or their acquiring corresponding new
meanings is logically called alternation. Peculiar character of these units is explained by the presence of
pragmatic meaning that pushes out semantic, denotative and sygnificative
meaning. Thus, such words have
«chameleon-like nature» and are fully dependent on the context. At the same
time in the text (discourse) they perform a special function of expressing key
sense. The above-mentioned phenomenon is based on one of the key facts in
Linguistics identified and explained by W. von Humboldt, namely:
understanding language as activity. In Humboldt’s evolutionary theory the
language is developing spontaneously as a natural organism. Language-formation
process represents the spontaneous mass activity of generations. Development of
the language manifests creative element of the folk spirit. Crystallization of
the previous language-forming activity, accumulation of its results shapes and
improves the structure of the language, making fruitful language
transformations of the peculiarities of the national self-awareness and world
outlook at every historical period of nation development. Due to infinite
transformations and sense expansion the language is enriched with new sense,
undergoes structural improvement and develops its functions.
Having agreed that word equivalents are the combinations characterized
by stability, unity of meaning, mainly continuous, unchangeable form and in
speech flow also make up one-stress unit – in the majority of cases they have
one verbal stress, А. Luchyk adds up to this definition making rightly
noting that word equivalents are characterized by non-morphological ways of
formation, which are applied according to the established lingual schemes. This
means that the units in question perform definite pragmatic functions.
The paragraph «Structure of the Dictionary» states that this dictionary
includes «the most common unit of the Ukrainian language of this type and their
correspondences in the Polish Language» (however, there is no information about
their quantity), indicates the way material is presented – according to ABC
principle – which is fully justified.
In the paragraph «The Register of the Dictionary and its Order» it is
indicated that the dictionary provides orthoepic (stress and phonematic),
morphological (indicators of the form of case endings, categories of gender and
number, suffix morphemes) and punctuation (presence-absence of comma) variants,
as well as optional components of word equivalents structure.
The paragraph «Grammar Information» includes data about remarks on
morphology and syntax, provides information on the structure of word
equivalents, stresses that within the structure of word equivalents there are
units that cannot be correlated with any part of speech. In this case they are
classified according to their syntactic function. For example, to such units
belong word equivalents that function only as predicate components: під
стать functioning as predicate; по силі functioning as
predicate; у згоді functioning as predicate. Expletive
constructions, which are also included into the register of the dictionary,
also make up numerous group of word equivalents: на жаль functioning
as an introductory word; як на біду functioning as an
introductory word». Actually, the last two statements require some
considerations. If it is not possible to consequently define morphological
relation and this parameter is replaced with characteristic of performing
certain syntactic functions or indication of the status regarding revealing in
the context the category of modality, it does not it mean that instead of this
information one could provide information that would be constant for all the
units in question, would unify their status with clear explanation. It looks
like that such a parameter can be indication of pragmatic functions. In the
same way intonation construction, which is mentioned in this paragraph, also
needs identification of communicative intentions (pragmatics).
Information in the paragraph «Stylistic Peculiarities» is well-thought
over and valuable for representation of discourse practice peculiarities. By
the way, the paragraph «Semantic Characteristics» partially already provides
pragmatic information which would only improve if extended with corresponding
parametrization, cf.: з подивом аналог прислівника (відчуваючи,
виражаючи здивування). Pragmatic information is in brackets which are fully
justified. The last helpful element that is present at the end of the
dictionary «Literature Sources of the Dictionary»: to illustrate the material
lexicographers used the material representing the most common types of
discourse practice of Poles and Ukrainians which are realized in their artistic
and publicist styles.
I am absolutely convinced that the compilers of lexicographic bilingual editions
of set expressions should in future take into account methodology and the very
register of the dictionary in question, including such a type of set
expressions as word equivalents.
Of importance are basic ideas and register of «Ukrainian-Russian-Belarus-Bulgarian-Polish
Dictionary of Similes» compiled by the Ukrainian Slavist researcher
О. Levchenko [Левченко 2011], though it should be mentioned that in its
Preface this dictionary fails to expressly represent the respective conceptual
framework. The object of the dictionary is 200 phraseological units limited by
structural and semantic principle – it includes only phraseological similes.
The units are arranged according to ABC-topic principle. It should be stressed
that the author of the dictionary combined lingual and speech units. This as
well as other drawbacks of the dictionary are mentioned by K. Mizin in the
published review [Мізін 2012]. The edition does not claim normative status
that, in our opinion, is not methodologically justified. It has lots of
individual author similes that are not fixed by the language system. Such expressions are characterized by
one-time usage, therefore, they are not typical for the Ukrainian linguoculture
and there is no need to search for their equivalents in other languages, which,
following K. Mizin’s opinion, we consider to be a methodological mistake on the
part of the author: one cannot combine set normative expressions and
occasional, non-fixed and non-normative ones.
It is necessary to pinpoint sometimes unsuccessful choice of Polish
analogues to similes in Ukrainian, e.g.: Ukr. пишна як пава and Pol. pyszny
jak kaliszka świnia can hardly be called equivalents as in the Ukrainian
language the meaning is ‘про гордовиту, зверхню людину’, while in Polish– ‘про повну,
товсту людину’; Ukr. похмурий як свиня
meaning ‘дуже відлюдькуватий’ is quite different from Polish smutny jak Świnia w deszcz or niewesoły jak Świnia w deszcz.
К. Mizin also is of the opinion that it is necessary to be more accurate
while describing semantics of register units as such Ukrainian similes as круглий наче бочка; круглий наче макітра;
круглий як беривка; круглий як дерев’яна діжка; круглий як ковбичка; круглий як мішок пшениці «are
presented in a very simplified way – ‘зовсім круглий; невисокий і товстий’» [Мізін 2012: 92].
Moreover, as it has been mentioned already, quite a number of similes
provided in the dictionary by О. Levchenko are absent in the existing
phraseological dictionaries and are unlikely to be fixed there as their functioning
is too limited, e.g.: Ukr. простий як півлітри «московської»; простий як хліб на столі or
its Polish analogue prostyj jak chleb meaning ‘надто примітивний’. Regarding this point К. Mizin states:
«Let us indicate that О. Levchenko, being aware of the significance of the
problem of simile interpretation according to usage / non-usage (occasional
usage), does not share O. Kunin’s criteria, supported by us, regarding
determination of lingual units usage, in particular, phraseological
combinations (p. 50), – this or that unit being fixed at least in one dictionary or
being used by three authors (preference should be given to the artistic,
publicist and conversational discourses). It is understandable that such an
approach to selecting material for the dictionary can be marked by some
restrictions and here we share the opinion of О. Levchenko, however,
application of the afore-mentioned approach would make it possible to «toss
out» some similes irrelevant for the linguocultures that are compared, which to
some extent «distort» the real characteristics of the lingual picture of the
world» [Мізін 2012: 91].
Illustrations provided by О. Levchenko are not always correct, in
particular it is true about the facts of the Ukrainian language, e.g.: Ukr. порожній (пустий) як дірка від бублика means
‘пусте місце, ніщо; абсолютно нічого’
(checked in the academic dictionary), though О. Levchenko defines it only
as ‘абсолютно порожній’; the illustrations provided in the academic
phraseological dictionaries are the following: Взяв з бублика дірку!.. (Іван
Нехода, Хто сіє вітер, 1959, 157) or
– Мовчи, Марино.., – не вгавав Левко. – Що я там маю з
того шоферування? Дірку з бублика (В. Кучер); – Ця справа не варта дірки з бублика (М.
Зарудний); Начальству – ордени, а споживачеві – дірка від бублика (З
газети).
Let us compare this illustrative material with the examples provided by
О. Levchenko, Ukr.
«І хоча наша Будда-природа
не має з Природою Будди нічого спільного, окрім поверхневих устремлінь наших порожніх, як дірка
від бублика, тіл» (<www.hw.net.ua/art.php>); «Мабуть, не знайти сьогодні газети в Україні, де б цілий шестисторінковий
номер присвячувався ювілеєві редактора –
з великими портретами й
фото сім’ї, виступами родичів, телеграмами, а потім цілий місяць публікаціями
різних послань, пустими, як дірка від бублика, роздумами про надіслані
привітання» (<www.tovarish.com.ua/print/Milioner_I2736.html>). It seems that the authors of the examples given
above incompetently used this idiom in the meaning ‘порожній, беззмістовний’,
and there is a logical question, what for do we need such illustrations?
К. Mizin also observes a surprising fact of «the dictionary covering
similes selected from samples of colloquial speech (forums, Internet chats,
etc.)…» [Мізін 2012: 91]. It is evident that there should
be a more thorough approach to selection of the material.
As the researcher does
not provide a detailed description of status of the similes, does not present
them as multi-aspect units with possible different types of classifications and
takes into account only two types of them following one of the principles of
cognitive linguistics, – attributive and scenario
ones, – she includes into her
dictionary the units of different types that provoke many questions, namely,
can the following expressions from the dictionary be considered idioms: сильний як тур; дужий як слон? дужий як Самсон? міцний як
граніт? вільний як орел etc.?
We agree with the well-known idea of the scholars (А. Ivchenko,
О. Kunin, К. Mizin, V. Mokiyenko, etc.): despite the fact that
simile belongs to the basic tropes, it is not that easy to understand and is
the basis for modeling such tropes and figures as parallelism, metaphor,
metonymy, hyperbole, litotes, personification (prosopopeia, personification),
etc. Considering theory of cognitive linguistics, these units also cause
necessity of representing arguments-based typology.
Yet К. Mizin, analyzing the typology of simile, an attempt of which
is made by О. Levchenko, states:
«Typologization of similes offered by О. Levchenko allows for some
restrictions. First of all, both attributive and scenario similes are formed
around certain feature, therefore, it is very difficult to determine a boundary
between primitive and non-primitive semantics of the attribute (…). Secondly,
both types of similes are formed on the basis of cognitive situation that
happen due to semantization of this or that feature, that means that the
speaker may imagine – scene or scenario – a dirty pig or a dirty horse on a
rop. Taking into account this fact, differentiation criteria of attributive and
scenario similes offered by О. Levchenko is not
completely clear» [Мізін 2012: 92].
We agree with К. Mizin, that «one should be careful while using the
material of the dictionary» [Мізін 2012: 91], as a lot of questions arise in
the process of using the dictionary, topical problems «come to the surface»
which to some extent is useful as it brings about new ideas and results in
scientific research.
A significant contribution to the development of Ukrainian-Polish
lexicography is «Ukrainian-Polish
Dictionary of Interlingual Homonyms and Paronyms» compiled by
І. Kononenko and О. Spivak [Кононенко, Співак 2008]. In the «Preface»
to this dictionary the authors explain in details the motives that made them
remove one of the lexicographical Ukrainian-Polish lacunas, rightly emphasizing
the frequency of mistakes in the speech of Poles or Ukrainians which are caused
by interference. It is understandable that Ukrainian and Polish lingual units
«may have common Indo-European or general Slavic origin, however, in the
process of language development these words became different in their lexical
meaning at the same time preserving their sounding, cf.: гора – góra, гострий – ostry, колір – kolor.
Certain pairs of interlingual homonyms and paronyms were formed due to the
differences in words borrowed from the other languages under the influence of
intralingual processes, cf.: аванс – awans, акорд – akord. The
phenomenon of interlingual homonymy and paronymy can also appear from the
process of word transfer from the Polish language into Ukrainian and vice
versa, cf. the change of meaning in lexical pairs: вензель – with Polish. węzel,
hulać – with Ukr. гуляти.
Sometimes interlingual homonyms and paronyms emerge due to accidental
coincidence in the soundings of words of two languages, cf.: ангельський – angielski» [Кононенко, Співак 2008: 6], which, and it is logical,
is reflected in the phraseological systems of these languages as mentioned by
the authors of this dictionary stating that «in terms of usage complicated for
speakers of the Ukrainian or Polish languages are also interlingual
homonyms-phraseological units, which are different in semantics not because of
the meaning of separate components but because of their general meaning, e.g.: з дня на день – z dnia
na dzeń» [Кононенко, Співак 2008: 7]. The authors have put such units
separately which is really important.
Undoubtedly, one of the achievements of the authors of the dictionary is
that they based their dictionary not only on lingual phenomena fixed by the
existing dictionaries, but also took into account «facts of the modern oral
discourse, reflected in publicist texts, TV- and radio programs, their own card
of conversations register with records of conversations. Internet materials
have also been extensively used…» [Кононенко, Співак 2008: 8]. We agree that
this particular approach «allowed to specify semantic structure and stylistic
characteristics» of the words and phraseological combinations in both
languages. Thus, the dictionary by І. Kononenko and О. Spivak is a
good basis for compiling other Ukrainian-Polish dictionaries.
Having provided a comprehensive review on the dictionary, М. Kochergan
emphasized that the lexicon under analysis is «an invaluable source for
theoretical researches in contrastive lexical semantics of the Ukrainian and
Polish languages» [Кочерган 2008: 103]. We support this high evaluation.
Comparative analysis of the lingual material of the afore-mentioned
dictionary with the data of other phraseological dictionaries of the Ukrainian
and Polish languages allowed realizing that although a majority of meanings of
phraseological units coincides with those provided in the authoritative
lexicographical sources, still we observe some irregularities that violate
integrity of accepting criteria of lingual units selection for explaining
polysemantic PU, in particular, this is absence in the dictionary under
analysis of fixation of separate meanings of polysemantic phraseological units,
which is stressed by other researchers (see: [Лозинська 2008: 213;
Pietrzak-Porwisz 2006: 141]), e.g.: валити
з ніг – ‘ударивши, штовхнути, змушувати падати’; до речі ‘зі сл. відповідати,
говорити і т. ін. Так, як треба’;
з головою ‘зі сл. поринати,
поринути, пірнати, пірнути і т. ін. Заглибившись,
не відволікаючись ні на що’; заходити в
голову ‘напружено думати над чим-небудь, шукаючи виходу; згадувати щось’; мати око ‘наглядати, стежити за
ким-небудь, за чиїмись учинками’; мати на
оці ‘що. Пам’ятати, не забувати, знати’; на пні ‘перен., зі сл. посивіти, залишитися і т. ін.
Незайманий’; biała śmierć ‘наркотики’; szczerzyć zęby ‘1. жарт. Усміхатися, зазвичай нещиро; 2. злитися,
протестувати; 3. відкривати, показувати зуби’; wpadać w ucho ‘щось випадково почути’.
Explanation of the meanings of separate units, which in our opinion is
useful, includes information representing peculiarities of phraseological
units’ usage in specific speech contexts, e.g.: ані руш. ‘1. Ні на крок. Стій, ані руш’; за плечима ‘1. у кого, за чиїми і без додатка. У минулому. За плечима цієї немолодої жінки роки важкої
праці. 2. у кого, за чиїми і без додатка. У доробку. У дослідника за плечима є унікальний досвід
роботи з провідними біотехнологами світу’; jak noc ‘1. ~ смутний, насуплений, похмурий. Ponury jak noc. 2. Дуже бридкий. Dziewczyna była brzydka jak noc’. It is necessary to note that in different speech
contexts jak noc is used to intensify
pragmatics of discourse words that are part of comparative constructions,
particularly with meaning ‘very’, e.g.: Czarny
jak noc; Brzydki jak noc; Ciemny jak noc; Chmurny jak noc; Ponury jak
noc.
There are some similar examples: ostrzyć
zęby ‘1. na coś, kogoś. Пов’язувати з чимось свої плани, з
нетерпінням очікувати здійснення, появи когось, чогось. Ostrzę sobie zęby na nową książkę swego ulubionego prozaika, która ma się ukazać na jesieni następnego roku. 2. Зазіхати на когось, щось. Gigant medialny ostrzy sobie zęby na lokalną stację radiową; postawić na nogi ‘3. Відновити сили, поліпшити настрій. Kawa postawiła go na nogi.
4. Мобілізувати, спонукати до дії. Informacja
o podłożonej bombie postawiła na nogi całą policję. 5. Перервати чийсь сон,
примусити когось прокинутись; розбудити. Wycie
psa postawiło cały dom na nogi’; puszczać (pierskie) oko ‘1.
По-змовницьки моргати. Autor puszcza oko
w stronę publiczności, mówiąc: „Nie bierzcie tego wszystkiego serio”. 2.
~ Задивлятися на когось; виявляти зацікавленість, інтерес до когось. Podpity brunet z naprzeciwka ciągle puszczał
do niej oko’; z godziny na godzinę
‘1. Раптово, несподівано. Z godziny na
godzinę stał się bezrabotny’.
One can also trace that some dictionary articles are not overloaded with
too many details about semantic structure of the PU, which seems to be fully
justified. Thus, the meaning of the word equivalent на руку – ‘1) кому.
Вигідний, зручний для кого-небудь; 2) для
кого, кому. Вигідно, зручно
кому-небудь’ which are included into the “Dictionary of Phraseological Units of
the Ukrainian Language” («Словник фразеологізмів української мови») (see:
[Словник фразеологізмів 2003)], in the dictionary by І. Kononenko,
О. Spivak are combined into one – ‘кому,
для кого. Бути вигідним, зручним для когось. Ситуація, що склалася, була йому на руку’
At the same time we consider formulation of the explanation of the
phraseological unit w miarę as
‘1. Порівняно. Pokój był w miarę
duży. Żył w miarę dostatnio’ to
be inaccurate and offer to specify it – ‘стільки, скільки треба; якраз’, which
absolutely corresponds to the data from the dictionaries of the Polish language
and illustrations provided in it (see: [Słownik języka polskiego…; Skorupka
1985]). In addition, it turned out that phraseological unit in question can
also be used in the meaning ‘так, як треба; нормально’ (порівн.: Wszystko w miarę. Nie za dużo, w miarę),
which is absent not only in the dictionary by І. Kononenko,
О. Spivak, but also in the Polish phraseological dictionaries. Taking all
the afore-mentioned into account, as well as considering presence of the
meaning ‘відповідно до чогось, залежно
від чогось’, word equivalent w miarę
cannot be considered interlingual homonym to в міру as in this case one can trace presence of similar meanings.
Certain inconsistency can also be traced in the criteria of selection of
dictionary material. The compilers provide dictionary articles важка рука – ciężka ręka and мати важку
руку – mieć ciężką rękę, however,
do not include мати легку руку – mieć lekką
rękę, but only легка рука – lekka ręka. Besides, the meaning
of the polysemantic phraseological unit ciężka
ręka as mieć ciężką rękę are
marked as homonymous, cf.: Ciężka ręka.
1. = важка рука. Ojciec miał ciężką rękę. 2. Сувора,
диктаторська влада. Generał sprawował
władzę ciężką ręką. 3. Відсутність справності в чомусь. W filmie wyczuwa się ciężka ręka reżysera.
Mieć ciężką rękę do czegoś [Regarding this see: Андрейченко 2011: 126]. Не мати здібності до чогось. Mieć ciężką rękę do pisania listów. Mieć ciężką rękę (see: [Винниченко 2005: 202]) = мати важку руку. Ojciec miał ciężką rękę. We shall add that phraseological unit важка рука at the modern stage of
Ukrainian language development undergoes semantic transformation: clichéd
meaning ‘хтось дуже сильний без особливих зусиль може боляче вдарити’ is
redefined as ‘за рахунок сполучних можливостей’ and gets additional meaning ‘відчути жорстокість’. Знову
стала помітна важка рука служб безпеки’
(see: [Андрейченко 2011: 126]).
There can be multi-aspect interpretation of the fact the phraseological
units альфа і омега – alfa i omega are classified as
interlingual homonyms. On the one hand, there is a statement that
phraseological units of biblical origin are international and are equivalents
(see: [Винниченко 2005: 202]), on the other hand, – there is complete
difference in meanings, cf.: Альфа і
омега. книжн. 1. Початок і кінець чогось. Все має свій початок і кінець – альму і омегу. 2. чого. Головне в чомусь, основа. Слово
– альфа і омега кожної мови. Аlfa i omega. Незаперечний авторитет в якійсь ділянці, чудовий знавець чогось,
найважливіша особа. Dziadek był dla malca alfą i omegą we wszystkich dziedzinach [Кононенко,
Співак 2008: 308]. However, the primary meaning of the Polish
phraseological unit is ‘beginning and end of everything’, that is God: I rzekł mi: «Stało się. Jam jest Alfa i Omega. Początek i Koniec» (Apokalipsa św. Jana 21, 6); nowadays it
is mostly used in religious texts: Bóg-człowiek,
alfa i omega, Logos, który stał się ciałem, ukrzyżowany został na Literze
[Narodowy Korpus]; ... jako trawestację Objawienia św. Jana, w
której sam Mickiewicz występuje jako, ni mniej, ni więcej, Syn Człowieczy,
alfa i omega, czyli Logos [Narodowy
Korpus].
At the present stage of Polish language development this meaning has been
transformed into the following one: ‘незаперечний авторитет у певній ділянці,
бездоганний знавець чогось, важлива особа’, however, the field of idiom usage
is not restricted to animate beings as it is indicated in the description, cf.:
Literatura
francuska, cząstka literatury powszechnej, staje się alfą i omegą naszych uczonych (SFJP); Jeden wałkował Pink Floyd, wmawiając nam, że to alfa i omega
współczesnej muzyki, a drugi dołował gotykiem, wszczepiając nienawiść do
hip-hopu i życia jako takiego [Narodowy
Korpus] Ukrainian phraseological unit has broader meaning, cf.: [Неофіт-раб:] Що за слово? [Єпископ:] Те слово – Бог. Він альфа і омега, початок і
кінець (Леся Українка) [Словник
фразеологізмів 2003]; Все має свій
початок і кінець – альфу і омегу [Кононенко, Співак 2008], as well as the
meaning identical to the Polish one. Therefore, one can state that these
phraseological equivalents semantically are not fully adequate, they have only
partial similarities in semantics and pragmatics.
It seems that there is no grounds to consider that idioms змокнути до нитки – zmoknąć (przemoknąć) do (suchej) nitki are homonyms as the second
meaning of the Ukrainian PU: ‘обібрати, обдерти, обідрати, пограбувати, пропити
і т. ін., and PU пограбувати до
нитки is part of the semantic structure of the phraseological unit до нитки.
The compilers think that to the group of interlingual phraseological
homonyms also belong the units ходити на
пальцях and chodzić na palcach
substantiating this fact with the meaning of the Ukrainian phraseological unit
‘дуже тихо, обережно, щоб не створювати шуму’, while the Polish one has
additional meaning ‘ставитися до когось делікатно, догоджати комусь’. However, ходити на пальцях is explained in the
Ukrainian dictionaries as ‘а) рухатися обережно, навшпиньках, щоб уникнути
шуму; б) (перед ким) побоючись кого-небудь, лестити комусь, запобігати перед
кимось впливовим, авторитетним’ [see: Словник фразеологізмів 2003] that fully
corresponds to the meaning of the Polish phraseological unit. Thus, these are
absolute equivalents.
Certainly, this new experience of lexicographing set expressions is
valuable. However, the traditions should also be taken into account. In this
respect it is necessary to draw attention to the monument of the Polish
culture, Polish lexicography and linguistics, which, in our opinion, should be
once again “discovered” for the modern science. It goes about the dictionary by
S. Adalberg «Księga przysłów przypowieści i wyrażeń przysłowiowych» [Adalberg 1889–1894].
It is known that S. Adalberg had been working on his dictionary since
1883 till 1894. His
work includes about 5 100 key expressions, that means separate articles
listing almost 30 000 paremias, without their variants. The material is
divided into two parts: the first part consists of the material published
before (all collections of paremias, ethnographical works, excerpts from the
works of the most outstanding writers that had been published before the XVIth,
XVIIth, XVIIIth centuries), the second part represents the materials that have not
been published before. S. Adalberg was trying to avoid mistakes. Later S. Adalberg got acquainted with І. Bernstein, who opened for him
his private library numbering more than 2 000 books with paremias.
S. Adalberg was working with the old editions, manuscripts by
Ya. Pshybylsky,T. Lipinski, etc.
While fixing paremias the researcher was guided by the key principle –
represent them without any shortenings and changes, preserving even all archaic
features and changing only their orthographic form. S. Adalberg compared the
task of the compiler of the dictionary with that of the librarian
“who should ideally place the books in such a way that the book under search
could be found very quickly, without any difficulties” [Adalberg 1889–1894: 13]. “Subject Indicator” introduced in the book includes
about 40 000 references and makes it possible to quickly find the paremias
related to the key expressions. S. Adalberg provides brief but exhaustive
explanations regarding usage of paremias, their origin and history, archaisms,
dialectal variants, etc., sometimes resorting to comparing the information from
the earlier sources. From the Book one can trace history of paremias origin and
usage, get information on the collections where they can be found and where
they were recorded for the first time, what variants each paremia has, what
ancient authors had used it before this or that paremia was included into this
collection.
As one can see, the work of
S. Adalberg is an invaluable and rich source specifically for the Polish
culture, as well as for Slavic, European paremiology in general. This work was
the basis for А. Brückner, who in 1895 published his collection «Przysłowia, kartki z dziejów literatury i
kultury polskiej», as continuation of S. Adalberg’s work appeared
fundamental work by Ju. Krzyżanowski – four-volume collection «Nowa księga przysłów i wyrażeń
przysłowiowych polskich» (1969–1978).
At the end of the ХІХth–beginning
of the ХХth century in Ukraine paremiological dictionary was in the
focus of attention of the well-known in Europe researcher Ivan Franko who
highly valued paremiological collection by S. Adalberg, probably
that was the reason why he so often resorted to this collection and used it to
compile his «Halytsko-Rus’ Folk
Proverbs and Sayings» [Галицько-руські 2006], providing Polish
parallels, including source base of that dictionary as he “wanted to show what
is the percentage of Ukrainian original proverbs and sayings and what was taken
from Russians, Byelorussians and Poles…”
[Франко 1986: 13].
The afore-mentioned
collection of the Polish paremiographer is also used by Ivan Franko to compare
the meaning of the Ukrainian paremia with its Polish equivalent, to find the
ways of explaining paremias and specifying parameters regarding usage of set expressions,
providing stylistic remarks as well as explanation of Polish and Ukrainian
proverbs and sayings.
І. Franko as S. Adalberg viewed paremias in a broad way,
broader than they are viewed by modern paremiologists even when they apply
broad approaches to interpret paremias. In his opinion, similar to that of
S. Adalberg, these are “not only moral, philosophical judgments, rules of
life, but also certain stereotypical personal reflections, expressions of
peoples’ feelings, curses, jokes, sarcastic wits, derisive jokes, comparisons
and figurative expressions, as well as some basic magic formulas – „spells”, […]
various parodies (of prayers, rituals, curse spells and even serious proverbs)
[…], some „outdated” riddles, which meaning with time became so transparent
that people stopped thinking about them as riddles and used them as proverbs” [З фольклористичної
1963: 94].
І. Franko made a detailed research of interlingual borrowings. In
the process of using S. Adalberg’s dictionary he set two tasks for himself
– to find Polish-Halytsian
correspondences, functioning in Halychyna at the end of the ХІХth – at
the beginning of the ХХth centuries and to understand specific
character of Polish influence onto formation of Halytsko-Rus’ proverbs and
sayings he collected. The scholar enriched theory and practice of
Ukrainian lexicography using S. Adalberg’s
experience and developing his ideas. He collected huge amount of materials (30 000 of
proverbs and sayings), recording it “from the folk”, including various
published sources and manuscripts. It is evident that the Dictionary compiled
by Ivan Franko laid foundations for Ukrainian-Polish and Polish-Ukrainian
phraseological dictionary or dictionary of set expressions which is highly
topical nowadays.
Despite the fact that there exists some experience of Ukrainian-Polish
lexicography and paremiography, there are bilingual Ukrainian-Polish aspect
dictionaries (dictionaries of homonyms, similes, word equivalents), however,
there is insufficient experience of compiling paremia units as there is no
parametric phraseological Ukrainian-Polish dictionary that would meet the needs
of the society and modern theoretical lexicographical foundations. Sometimes
dictionary compilers violate fundamental principles of lexicographic activity
and even do not provide any comments regarding their conceptual principles in
the traditional Preface. To such violations also belong attempts of the
lexicographers to record not the established lingual facts but accidental
speech (occasional) formations: in some cases their usage is not confirmed by
at least three-time usage in discourse practice.
Modern dictionaries should be more consistent regarding provision of
pragmatic characteristics of lingual units, in particular, it concerns
discourse phraseological expressions – word equivalents. Illustrative material
should be based both on the texts of classical artistic texts and the facts of
modern live conversations which is usually in the focus of attention of the
compilers of the dictionary under analysis. We also think that, fortunately,
Ukrainian-Polish paremiography has good traditions in the form of the
dictionary compiled by І. Franko who was ahead of his time and partially
represented pragmatic parameters of paremias regarding peculiarities and
specific features of paremias usage in different communicative situations, he
fixed typical set expressions of addressees and addressers depending on their
status (age, gender, social functions, etc.). Theory
and practice of Ukrainian-Polish lexicography and paremiography requires new
efforts of researchers,
first of all, elaboration of the modern original concept of the
Ukrainian-Polish and Polish-Ukrainian phraseological dictionary or dictionary
of set expressions that would correspond to the level of lexicography
development, achievements of linguistics that is developing in the direction of
interpretative pragmatics-oriented linguistics and would be based on the
existing tradition.
References.
References
Андрейченко 2011: Андрейченко, О. Стилістичні функції фразеологічних одиниць у мові газети кінця ХХ – початку ХХІ [Текст] / О. Андрейченко // Культура слова. – 2011. – № 74. – С. 124-130.
Винниченко 2005: Винниченко, С.
Конотація як компонент значення (на матеріалі українських, польських та
англійських фразеологічних одиниць з компонентом вода) / [Текст] / С. Винниченко // Проблеми слов’янознавства. – 2005. – Вип. 55. – С. 197-211.
Галицько-руські
2006: Галицько-руські народні приповідки : [у 3 т] / [зібрав, упорядкував
і пояснив Др. Іван Франко] [Текст]. – Львів : ВЦ ЛНУ ім. І. Франка, 2006. − 2-е вид. − Т. 1. − 818 с. − Т. 2. − 813 с. − Т. 3. − 699 с.
З фольклористичної 1963: З фольклористичної спадщини Івана Франка.
Недрукована передмова до збірки прислів’їв [Текст] / [підготовка до
друку, переклад і вступна замітка О. І. Дея] // Народна
творчість та етнографія. – 1963. – № 2. – С. 94-96.
Кононенко, Співак 2008: Кононенко, І. Українсько-польський словник міжмовних омонімів і паронімів [Текст] / І. Кононенко, О. Співак. – К. : Вища школа, 2008. – 343 с.
Космеда 2014: Космеда, Т.А. Рецензія. А. Лучик, О. Антонова, І. Дубровська. Українсько-польський словник
еквівалентів слова, К., 2011, 312 с. [Текст] / Т. А. Космеда // Мовознавство. – 2014. – № 2. – С. 85-87. – Бібліогр. : 1 назв. – укр.
Кочерган 2010: Кочерган, М. Рецензія. Кононенко І., Співак О. Українсько-польський словник міжмовних омонімів і
паронімів. – К. : Вища школа, 2008. – 343 с. [Текст] / М. Кочерган // Мовознавство. – 2010. – № 1.
– С. 100-103. – Бібліогр. : 1 назв. – укр.
Левченко
2011: Левченко, О. Українсько-російсько-болгарсько-польський словник порівнянь
[Текст] / О. Левченко.
– Львів : Вид-во Львів. Політехніки, 2011. – 748
с.
Лозинська 2008: Лозинська, О. Емоції у невербальному та вербальному вираженні (на матеріалі польської
мімічної фразеології) [Текст] / О. Лозинська // Проблеми слов’янознавства.
– 2008. – Вип. 57. – С. 209-221.
Лучик,
Антонова, Дубровська 2011: Лучик, А., Антонова, О., Дубровська, І.
Українсько-польський словник еквівалентів слова [Текст] / А. Лучик, О. Антонова, І. Дубровська. – Київ, 2011. – 312 с.
Мізін 2012: Мізін, К. Рецензія. Левченко О.
Українсько-російсько-білорусько-болгарсько-польський словник порівнянь (Львів :
Вид-во Львів. Політехніки, 2011. – 748 с.) [Текст] / К. Мізін //
Мовознавство. – 2012. – № 9. – С.89-92.
Словник фразеологізмі 2003: Словник
фразеологізмів української мови [Текст] / уклад. В. М. Білоноженко, І. С. Гнатюк, В. В. Дятчук та ін. – К. : Наукова думка, 2003. – 1098 с.
Франко 1986: Франко, І.Я. Лист до М. П. Драгоманова від 4 грудня 1883 р. [Текст] / І. Я. Франко // Франко, І.Я. Зібрання творів : у 50-ти томах. – Київ : Наукова думка, 1986. – Т. 48. – С. 383-384.
Adalberg, 1889–1894: Adalberg, S. Księga przysłów przypowieści i wyrażeń przysłowiowych [Text] / S. Adalberg. – Warszawa : Druk Emila Skiwskiego, 1889–1894. – 805 s.
Pietrzak-Porwisz 2006: Pietrzak-Porwisz, G. Semantyka bieli w języku polskim i szwedzkim [Text] / G. Pietrzak-Porwisz // Sdudia Linguistica. – 2006. – № 123. – S. 135-154.
Skorupka 1985: Skorupka, S. Słownik frazeologiczny języka polskiego [Text] / S. Skorupka : w 2 t. – Warszawa : Wiedza Powszechna, 1985. – T. 1 (A – P). – 904 s.
Słownik języka polskiego: Słownik języka polskiego. – Access mode : URL : http://sjp.pwn.pl/. – Title from the screen.
Narodowy Korpus: Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego [Text]. – Access mode : URL : www.nkjp.pl. – Title from the screen.
У статті зроблено
фрагментарний аналіз досягнень сучасної українсько-польської лексикографічної
продукції, враховано й традицію репрезентації усталених мовних виразів у
польській і українській пареміографії. Проаналізовано специфіку подання у
двомовних словниках усталених виразів, до яких відносимо еквіваленти слова і
паремії в широкому їх розумінні (фразеологічні одиниці, прислів’я і приказки).
Виокремлено й проаналізовано деякі методологічні недоліки словників.
Ключові слова: еквіваленти
слова, пареміографія, паремія, українсько-польська лексикографія, усталені
мовні вирази, фразеологічні одиниці.
Available
15 November 2014.
|