Epithet from English into Uzbek

Информация о документе

Цена	12000UZS
Размер	81.2KB
Покупки	0
Дата загрузки	26 Декабрь 2024
Расширение	docx
Раздел	Курсовые работы
Предмет	Английский язык

Epithet from English into Uzbek

Купить

THE MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIAL
EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

UZBEKISTAN STATE UNIVERSITY OF WORLD LANGUAGES __
ENGLISH LANGUAGE FACULTY

COURSE PAPER

The theme: Epithet from English into Uzbek

2

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………3
CHAPTER I . STYLISTICS AS A BRANCH OF LINGUISTICS
I.1 . General notes on style and stylistics………………………………….....7
I.2 Types of meanings…………………………………………………........20
CHAPTER III . EPITHET FROM ENGLISH INTO UZBEK
II. 1 .Epithet in Modern English and its main
peculiarities……………..........25
II.2 The analysis of translation of Epithet……………………………...........31
SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………....44
CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………..46
BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………..50

3

INTRODUCTION
This course paper is devoted to the study of one the stylistic devices and the
work is titled as «The expression of emotional meaning with the help of Epithet in
modern English».
The actuality of the work is that epithet is less studied unit among other
stylistic devices and also its specific features is not much revealed problem.
The hypothesis of the work is that epithet and the study of stylistic devices
more deeply gives the opportunity to understand the literary works and their
effectiveness and emotionality in high level.
The purpose of the work is to open the main peculiarities of epithet and show
its role in speech.
The purpose directs us to discuss the following problems to reveal the theme
and achieve desired goal. So, the tasks are;
- to speak about the stylistic devices and their role in speech -
to discuss about the types of meanings
- to survey the main peculiarities of these types of meanings
- to speak about the stylistic devices based on logical and
emotional meanings to study the functions of these stylistic devices
- to discuss about epithet and show its difference from other
stylistic devices based on emotional meaning such as hyperbole and
oxymoron
- to point out the morphological and syntactical characteristics of
epithet
There we have used different methods as comparative, analytical,
componential and synchronic ones.
The novelty of the work is that we have studied epithet in the English
language in comparison with Uzbek language, i.e. in typologically non-related
languages. Also we have seen the theme in two or three levels of linguistics as
4

from stylistic, lexical and morphological points of view. Moreover we have
stopped at the problems of translation of epithet and some other stylistic devices.
The theoretical value of this work is that the presented theories can be used
in seminars and lectures and of course it can be used as a material for further
researches on the theme as a research of masters’ degree or so on.
The practical value is that the analyzed examples can be used in seminars,
lectures on stylistics, lexicology and the theoretical and practical translation.
Moreover the gathered examples can be useful for compiling manuals on stylistics
and text interpretation.
The structure of the work is as following; Introduction, Main Part,
Conclusion, Summary, Bibliography.
Introduction states the actuality, the aim, the reason of choosing this theme,
the methods of the course paper. It also gives brief information about the plot of
the work.
Main part includes the theoretical ideas and practical examples. The
examples have been gathered from English, American and Uzbek writers’ work of
art.
Thus, Chapter I deals with the problem of Stylistics as a subject, it includes;
1. Functional styles; 2. Stylistic devices; 3. Expressive means.
In its own way Functional Styles are subdivided into;
a) Belles-lettres style, b) Official style, c) Newspaper style, d) Publicistic
style, e) Scientific prose. Each of them has own peculiarities according to their
usage in speech.
Next stage of Stylistics is Stylistic devices. They are formed on the base of
different lexical meanings.
Lexical, meaning of words can be divided logical, nominal, emotional and as
a subdivision contextual ones.
Chapter II deals with the problem of Epithet as a stylistic device; revealing
its own features; the function of Epithet in speech and some other problems.
5

Epithet is a stylistic device based on the interplay of emotive and logical
meanings in a word phrase or even sentence. It shows the individual emotional
attitude of the writer or the speaker towards the object mentioned.
“She had a wide, cool, do to hell mouth” Here a group of epithets helps the
writer in a concise form to express the emotional attitude of a personage towards
an object or phenomenon.
From the point of view compositional structure epithets may be divided into
simple, compound and phrase-epithets.
Simple epithets are ordinary adjectives Compound epithets are built like
compound adjectives; heart-burning smile, cat-like eyes.
Phrase epithets are extremely characteristic of English language. They help
not only to reveal the individual view of author and his characters but at the same
time to do it in a rather economical manner a life-and-death struggle.
Sometimes three four, five and even more epithets are joined in chains. They
are called string epithets; It was an old, musty fusty, clean and bitter room.
Chapter III deals with the problem of translating Epithet from English into
Uzbek Here we discussed about stylistic aspect of translation stylistically marked
language units, the analysis of translation of Epithet “The path of Thunder”, “Love
of life”, “Gone with the wind”.
The ways of translation of oxymoron into Uzbek is rather complicated as the
word “ugly pretty” can be considered neutral or emotional combination in Uzbek it
can be used only in colloquial and in literary speech it turns into not oxymoron but
hyperbole or logical attribute ugly-pretty-“dahshat go’zal” in colloquial speech, but
“Benihoya go’zal”, “go’zal malak” are not oxymoron they are hyperbole and
epithet in translation.
So we must pay attention to the usage of words and word combinations
according to the context.
Conclusion is about summarizing ideas on the theme.
6

Bibliography reflects the alphabetical list of literatures and sources used in
carrying out the theme chosen under discussion.

7

CHAPTER I.STYLISTICS AS A BRANCH OF LINGUISTICS
I.1. General notes on style and Stylistics
Stylistics sometimes called “linguostylistics”, as a branch of general
linguistics has now been more or less definitely outlined. It deals mainly with two
independent and interdependent tasks:
a) the investigation of the inventory of special language media
which by
their ontological features secure the desirable effect of the utterance:
Certain types of texts which due to the choice and arrangement of language
means are distinguished by the pragmatic aspect of the communi с ation. The two
objectives of stylistics are clearly discernable as two separate fields of
investigation. The inventory of special language media can be analyzed and their
ontological features revealed if presented in a system of which the coorelation
between the media becomes evident. 1

b) But most pre-twentieth century discussions appear as
components of rhetorical and grammatical analyses or in general studies of
literature and literary language. The appearance of stylistics as a
semiautonomous discipline is a modern phenomenon. And going development
in linguistics description that is closely tied to the similar rise of literary
criticism and linguistics as academic subjects and department Modern
stylistics, in general, draws much of its analytical power from the analytical
methods and descriptive intentions of linguistics, while modern literary
stylistics, in particular, draws upon that area and adds to it the interpretive
goals of modern literary criticism. In both cases, the use of linguistic
methodology has allowed stylistics to move beyond earlier normative and
prescriptive descriptions of “correct” styles to a fuller analysis of language
itself and the purposes to which language regularly is put Whatever the limits
of previous approaches to style, or the difficulties that have arisen from the
1 Galperin I.R “Stylistics” Moscow, High School 1977 9p

8

practical application of linguistics methods to stylistic analysis, the desire to
begin with a set of well-defined terms and procedures lies at the core of the
initial formation of stylistics as a discipline. While all versions of literary
stylistics have dedicated themselves to the study and interpretation of literary
texts, it was the growing importance of European historical linguistics during
the mid-nine-tenth century that produced the most easily recognized
component of early modern stylistics: a deeply rooted concern with formal
linguistic description of literary language. The methodological benefits that
stylistic scanned by uniting literary interpretation and linguistics analysis were
wile matched by institutional gains as well. Historical and general linguistics
were well-established academic disciplines at the turn of the twentieth
century, and stylistics could expect to benefit from that status. The use of
linguistic procedures thus offered stylistics both an affinity with an
established discipline and the possibility of finding the description and
interpretation of style upon the bedrock of science`.
While its air of scientific analysis made linguistics attractive, linguistic
science was not itself a monolithic entity. During the latter half of the nineteenth
century, linguistic study o between a desire to define language through efficient
analytical methods (often requiring a contextual descriptions) and another desire to
define language as a social and cultural phenomenon. The work of the
grammarians, key figures in the formation of linguistic description the
attractiveness of scientific method dictated to show elimination of the user as a
complex part of the description. The result for some linguistics, notably the
philologists, was a sacrificing of the linguistics to a linguistics to a sterile
formalism; for many, however, the shift was the logical result of a move into a
modern scientific age it was in terms of these separate views of the proper role of
linguistic description that the predominant approaches to modern stylistics
developed and because of the strong continental influence of romance philology
on historical linguistics modern stylistics usually is seen as having begun there.
9

The roots of modern stylistics con be uncovered in the work of Charles Bally
(1865-1947) and Leo Spitzer (1887-1960). Bally’s “précis de stylistique” (1905)
stresses the description and analysis of a language’s generally availably stylistic
properties. Literary texts, in Bally’s formulation, are particular examples of
language use and the analysis of their style is not a central part as the general
stylistics he emphasizes. Nevertheless, Bally’s work and its later realization in the
work of Jules Marouzeau (Précis de steshstique froncause,1946) and Marcel
Cressot ide Style et ses techniques, 1947) strongly influenced the formation of
literary stylistics Such analytical work offered literary critics a relatively precise
methodology for describing the components and features of a text. In place of an
open ended and evaluative interpretive process linguistics both underwrote the
und for a more precise analytical toward language and provided specific categorist
for characterizing sound rhythm and eventually syntax as well as points of
comparison and contrast between registers, forms and functions within genres and
literary periods. In contrast to the “stylistique” of Bally and his proponents Leo
Spitzer insisted upon following the more philologically based tradition of textual
analysis. Such work, while using the analytical techniques of modern linguistics,
strives to unite the analytical description with a critical interpretation that relates
the style to a larger conceptual or situational frame (E.G Linguistics and Literary
History 1-39) Style is seen as an expression of a particular psychological, social or
historical sensibility or moment rather than as a general property of a particular
language. In undertaking these wider interpretations, critics such as Spitzer did not,
however, assume they were defining their stylistics as a separate from or as a
subject of, linguistic analysis. In both his etymological studies and his more
specifically literary-critical interpretations. (Stilstudien, 1928, and Romanische Stil
und Literature student 1931)Spitzer insisted that he was promulgating a general
program of linguistic study, of fering his stylistics in opposition to what he saw as
the more reductionism analyses of general, scientific linguistics Spitzer himself
emphasized the split until the end of his career regularly referring to his work as
10

Stilforschung (literary, cultural interpretation of style philology in his eyes) to set it
apart from that of stylistic or
Bally’s stylistigue (e.g «Les Etudes de style et les different pays 23-29»)
At the same time he assumed as did fellow critics of style such as Ernst
Robert Curtius, Kare Vossler and Helmut Hatzfelt-that he was not reducing the
scientific aspect of linguistics but only offsetting a false, positivistic tone that was
becoming increasingly predominant in the field. The tension in linguistics between
general linguistics description and less formal sociocultural interpretation thus was
mirrored stylistic interpretation and linguistic stylistic description. It is a separation
and a tension that remains at the heart of modern stylistics.
This tension Spitzer’s and Bally’s position as Continental rather than
AngloAmerican linguistics and the popularity of Practical Criticism and New
Criticism in England and the United States all lay behind the relative lack of an
organized. Anglo – American literary stylistics during the First half of the
twentieth century. Literary stylistic analyses were occurred in England and in the
United States at this time, but they did not contain the formal linguistic orientation
that characterizes the modern discipline of stylistics. Instead, they drew support
and procedures from the basic but less analytically structured orientation of New
Criticism and practical criticism And while the influence of Romance language
study grew during the mid-twentieth century (due in n$ stall part to the presence in
England and in the United States of many expatriated scholars) the established
strength of other more empirical linguistic methodologies reduced possible
exchange between linguistics and literary criticism. The eventual appearance of
modern stylistics in AngloAmerican work repeated the earlier Continental process
appearing most clearly when united with an interest in linguistic analysis at mid-
century and wits the related interest in literary Structuralism somewhat later. By
the late 1950 s, the general ambience provided by the rise and fall of New
Criticism and practical criticism, in combination with a grawing interest in
11

comparative literary studies and a new awareness of the increasing importance of
linguistic science, provided the needed impetus for a strong appearance of literary
stylistics outside the European continent. The processes behind the formation of
American stylistics are exemplified by wore done by Michael Riffaterre on
Romance languages Riffaterre’s published dissertation. It Style des Pleiades de
Gobineau (1957) is a self described attempt to blend Spitzer’s work with that of
contemporary structural linguistics while the later even more formal stylistic
methodology du set forth in Criteria for Style Analyses (1959) and Stylistic (1960)
shifts away from interpretative description and toward the general linguistic
analysis that was beginning to dominate academic study. Such work in stylistics
reflected a larger trend occurring within literary criticism as a whole during this
period. Riffaterre’s particular interest in a systematic formal description of literary
style mirrored a growing awareness among literary critics in general of the
possibilities provided to literary study by trends and theories available from formal
linguistic study. The discovery of linguistic work by Ferdinand de Saussure,
Roman Jacobson, and structural linguistic theory in general all formed part of the
rapid flowering of critical work closely related to, if not directly based upon,
particular methods of linguistic analysis. It was not a link between literary stylistics
and structural linguistic analysis that marked the real establishment of stylistics as
a discipline within the United States, however. It was the transformational-
generative grammar of Noam Chomsky (Syntactic Structures, 1957) that signaled
the arrival of stylistics as a discipline with independent, self-defined goals, if not
yet a real autonomy from lither linguistic or literary-critical approaches to language
analysis.
The rapid established importance of Chomsky’ linguistics within his own
discipline by provided a strong argument for the importance of
transformationalgenerative grammar within literary stylistics as well. But beneath
that academic institutional cause lay particular features of the theory that explain
further the explosion of stylistic work using transformational-generative grammar.
12

The grammar’s focus on syntax, it’s distinction between dup and surface structures
and the resulting dynamism in its descriptive procedures au contributed to a
methodology that allowed for a much wider discussion of the possible forms (and
by implication styles) available to the user of language. At the same time, the
declared mentalist of Chomsky’s grammar was sun by many as providing literary
stylistics with a formal linguistic means of uniting a still lingering Romantic sense
of creativity with a formal linguistic description needed to provide the analysis
with a now-requisite air of scientific study. Many critics found not only an implied
connection between language and mind within Chomsky’s grammar but an actual
justification for trying intention to structure. Whichever aspect of Chomsky’s
grammar provided the impetus for a particular study , the general influence was
had and the numerous studies that appeared during the years 1965-75 testify to the
boost that Chomsky’s work, include Donald Freeman “Linguistics and Literary
Style (1970), Pieree Guiraud ,Essays de stylisque (1970), Guiraud and A’ezze
Kuentz, eds, La Stylistiqye, Lectwres (1970), Seymour Chatman, ed.. Literary
Style; A. Symposium (1971); Roger Fowler ed, Style and Structure in Literature.
Essays in the New Stylistics (1975), Helmut Hatzfield ed... Essays in Modern
Stylistics (1981) 1
by comparing this collection’s announced focus on
transformational-generative grammar had become decidedly less dominating by
1980, as the rest of the collections demonstrate. The differing models and
methodologies fould in a text such as Chatman and Samuel R. Leuin’s Essays on
the Language of Literature (1967), which is not devoted to stylistics alone, serve to
demonstrate that other methods were equally popular e/se where, even before the
eager pursuit of Chomsky’s linguistics had faded. In England, interest in describing
not only the structure of language but also the properties of discourse and its
functions gathered around the work of J.R. firth, in general and the union between
linguistics and literary criticism that appears in the work of M. K. Holliday, in
particular, while the work of Stephen Ull man provided yet another example of
1 . gttp;II home.swip net seltex.eng.h.tm
13

stylistic analysis to fruition by an expatriated Continental Romance scholar. At the
same time, philologically oriented work similar to that of Spitzer continued to be
available, especially in Italy, while other work, such as that of Richard W. Bailey
and Lubomir Dolezel in statistical analysis, argued for yet another method within
what was already a very eclectic field. In fact, while linguistic formalism applied to
Lubomis Dolezel in stylistically analysis, argued for yet another method within
what was already a very eclectic field. In fact while linguistic formalism applied to
literary language remained the basis of modern stylistic procedure, the field
continued to build upon what was historically a large variety of possible stylistic
approaches. Numerous descriptive categories have been created to provide some
order among the resulting variety of approaches to style, but the most common and
useful taxonomies are those designed around a communication model such as that
of Jacobson (“Linguistics and Poetics, in
Sebeok”). Some approaches are essentially concerned with describing style as a
habitual form of expression particular to an author or authorial psyche, while other
formats begin with style as an affective response generated in the reader.
Similar to these alternatively expressive and receptive approaches are
definitions that see style as indicative of a larger context: a cultural sensibility, a
historical period, or a national feeling.
More textually focused approaches define style in terms of a particular
genre, or in relation to other linguistic registers, or simply as a web of relations
between the element of the text itself 1
In all this work, whatever its variety, the
main attraction for stylistics remains that of formal descriptive power. The interest
eventually began to come under increasing censure for that what was perceived as
its sacrificing of interpretive complexity for scientific analysis on which stylistics
based itself was inherently flawed. In essence, the arguments stated that there was
no way to link the empirically defined features of the text with the rest of the
critical analysis except through the subjective interpretive framework of the critic.
In fact, the arguments declared, even the stylistic features described in the analysis
14

were themselves subject to the interpretive choices of the reader or critic. In
attacking this aspect of stylistic analysis, these discussions were taking aim at one
of the specific reasons for the rise of stylistics as an academic discipline during the
twentieth century. The depth and cogency of arguments such as those put forth by
Fish, Barbara, Herrnstein Smith, and others were clear signal of shifting trends in
literary criticism and in its attitude toward linguistic analysis by 1980 it was
impossible to argue for any stylistic model without addressing these trends,
although by then the issue already had been partially settled by an increasing
concern with discourse in favors of a return to the speech situation and the context
of producing and those discussions merged nicely in literary circles with an
increased interest in historical and contextual analysis. The question for stylistics
became one of how to blend this increased desire for social, cultural and contextual
critical analysis with the disciplines foundation in formal linguistics 1
(See
Discourse and Speech Acts ) Although the problem came to the forefront of
stylistic became one of how to blend by 1980 it had been looming on the horizon
for a white. The value of efficient description began to fade before a renewed
desire for social and contextual analysis in the study of language and of its
situation of production and reception and the basic movement under way in
linguistics displayed itself in a variety of ways and works in literary stylistics
Roger Fowler, for example issued Essays on style and Language (1969) and style
and structure in literature (1975) but shifted to Literature as Social Discourse
(1981).
Haliday, who also had been working on discourse issues for sometime in
Great Britain, produced Language as Social Semiotic (1978), while the positive
reception given to Mary Louise Pratt s Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary
Discourse (1977) demonstrated within the United States
Finally, the growing influence of feminism and psychoanalysis on linguistics
and literary eroticism exemplified by Robin Lakoff’s Language and woman’s
1 Арнолъд Ирина Владимировна «Стилистика современного английского языка» Москва 1990
15

Place (1975), Cheris Kramarae’s women and man speaking (1981) Deborah
Cameron s Feminism and Linguistic Theory (1985) and John Forrester s language
and the origins of Psychoanalysis (1980), reinforced the need adopt a new stance
toward contextually rooted discussions in both stylistics and linguistics. The
resulting shift away from strict formalism and toward a greater concern with
function and context together with a rebirth of interest in interpretive as well as
descriptive analysis, once again forcefully brought forward the issue of what
constituted the proper degree (or non-degree) of methodological rigor in stylistics.
At the turn of the twentieth century allegiance to linguistic procedures was the
primary defining element of stylistics as a discipline and it remains so in the last
quarter of the century. The major question facing stylistics is whether movement
away from that defining characteristics no matter how slight well result not only in
a loss of self-definition but also in a shifting back of the entire field into the related
disciplines of literary criticism, linguistics or more probably Rhetoric, which is
enjoying a strong rebirth. In addressing that question, stylistics continues to fall its
status as a discipline operating among all these from which it historically has
drawn both its goals and its methods. Work being done in the last quarter of the
century on his topical and contextual readings of literary and nonliterary texts
suggests that stylistic models can be expanded sufficiently to allow the discipline
to continue to draw upon all related fields adequately for its own purposes while
maintaining it own autonomy.
The types of texts can be analyzed if their linguistic components are
presented in their interaction thus revealing the unbreakable unity and transparency
of constructions of a given type. The types texts that are distinguished by the
pragmatic aspect of the communication are lolled functional styles of language
(F.S); the special media of language which secure the described desirable devices
effects of the utterance are called stylistic deices (SD) and expressive means (E.M)
.
16

The first field of investigation. i.e. SD s and expressive means necessarily
touches upon such general language problems as the aesthetic function of language
synonymous ways of rendering one and the same idea, emotional coloring in
language the interrelation between language and thought the individual manner of
an author in making side red well-formed. Everything that fails to meet this
requirement should be excluded from linguistics.
But language studies can not avoid subjecting to observation any language
data whatever so wherever grammar refuses to tread stylistics steps in. Stylistics
has acquired its own status with its own inventory of tools. (SD s and E.M.s) with
its own methods of research.
The stylistics of a highly developed language like English or Russian has
brought into the science ob language a separate body of media, thus widening the
range of observation of phenomena in language . The significance of this branch
can hardly be overestimated. A number of events in the develop mint of stylistics
must be mentioned here as hand marks. The first is the discussion of the problem
of style and stylistics in “ Вопросы языкознания » in 1954 in which many
important general and particular problems were broadly analyzed and some
obscure aspect elucidated. Secondly a conference on style in language was had at
Indiana University in the spring of 1958, followed by the publication of the
proceedings of this conference (1960) under the editorship of Thomas Sebeka.
Thirdly, a conference on appeared as a reaction against descriptive linguistics have
conf irmed that task of any grammar is to limit the scope of infestation of language
data to sentences which are considered well formed. Everything that fails to met
this requirement should be excluded from linguistics.
But language studies can not avoid subjecting to observation any language
data whatever so wherever grammar refuses to tread stylistics steps in. Stylistics
has acquired its own status with its own inventory of tools. (SD s and E.M.s) with
its own methods of research.
17

The stylistics of a highly developed language like English or Russian has
brought into the science ob language a separate body of media, thus widening the
range of observation of phenomena in language . The significance of this branch
can hardly be overestimated. A number of events in the develop mint of stylistics
must be mentioned here as hand marks. The first is the discussion of the problem
of style and stylistics in “ Вопросы языкознания » in 1954 in which many
important general and particular problems were broadly analyzed and some
obscure aspect elucidated. Secondly a conference on style in language was had at
Indiana University in the spring of 1958, followed by the publication of the
proceedings of this conference (1960) under the editorship of Thomas Sebeok.
Thirdey a conference on Style and Stylistics was held in the Moscow State
Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages in March, 1969. At this conference
lines were drown along which studies in lingua stylistics might be maintained. An
interesting symposium was also held in Italy, the proceedings of which were
published under the editorship of professor S.Chatman in 1971.
It is in view of the over-growing significance of the exploration of language
potentialities that so much attention is paid in linguo-stylistics to the analysis of
exploration means (E.M. s) and stylistic devices to their classification and to
possible interpretations (and classification of them) of additional meanings they
may carry in a message as well as their aesthetic value 2

In order to ascertain the borders of stylistics it is necessary to go at some
length into the question of what is style.
The word style is derived from the Latin word “stilus” which meant a short
stick sharp at one end and flat at the other by the Romans for writing on wax
tablets. Now the word “style” is used in so many senses that it has become a
breeding ground for ambiguity. The word is applied to the teaching at how to write
a composition; it is also used to reveal the correspondence between thought and
expression it frequently denotes an individual manner of making use of language,
sometimes refers to more general abstract notions thus in edit ably becoming vague
18

and obscure, as for example “style is deviations” (EnR -vist) “style is choice” and
others.
All these ideas directly or indirectly blare on issues in stylistics. Some of
them become very useful by revealing the springs which make our utterances
emphatic effective and goal directed. It wile therefore not come amiss to quote
certain interesting observations regarding style made by different writers from
different angles. Some of these observations are dressed up as epigrams. Here are
some of them; “Style is a quality of language which communications precisely
emotions or thoughts, peculiar to the ones quoted other” (L.Middleton Murry)
“Style is a selection of non-distinctive features of language (L.Bloomfield.)
“Style is essentially a citational process, a body of formulae a memory
(almost in the cybernetic sense of the woord) a cultural and not an expsemive
inheritabce” (Loland Barthes.)
Some linguists consider that the word “Style” and the subject of linguistic
stylistics is confined to the study of the effects of the message i.e. its impact on a
reader. Thus Michael Riffaterre writes that “Stylistics will be a linguistics of the
effects of message, of the out put of the act of communication of its
attentioncompelling function. This point of view has clearly been reached under
the information language being one of the means of communication or to be exact
the most important means of communication, is regarded in the above quotation
from a pragmatic point of view. Stylistic in that case is regarded as a language
science which deals with the results of the act of communications
To a very considerable degree this is true. Stylistics must take care of and
take into consideration the “out put of the act of communication”. But stylistics
must also investigate the ontological, i.e. natural, inherent and functional
peculiarities of the means of communication which may ensure the effect sought.
Archibald A. Hill states that “A current definition of style and stylistics is
that structures sequences and patterns which extend or may extend, beyond the
19

boundaries of individual sentences define style and that the study of them is
stylistics”.
The truth of this approach to style and stylistics lies in the fact that the author
concentrates on such phenomena in language as present a system, in other words,
on facts which are not confined to individual use.
The most frequent definition of style is one expressed by Seymour Chatman
“Style is a product of individual choices and patterns of choices among linguistic
possibilities”.
There is no point in quoting other definitions of style. They are too many and
too heterogeneous to fall under one more or less satisfactory unified notion.
Undoubtedly all these diversities in the understanding of the word “style” stem
from its ambiguity. Another point the above quotations have in common is that all
of them concentrate on the from of the expression almost to the detriment of the
content. In other words, style is regarded as something that belongs exclusively to
the plan of expression and not to the plan of content. It follows then the term
“style” seeing ambiguous, needs a restricting adjective to demote what particular
aspect of style we intend to deal with.
It is suggested here that the term individual style should be applied to that
sphere of linguistic and literary science which deal with the peculiarities of a
writer’s individual manner of using language means to achieve the effect he desires
Deliberate choice of variants must be distinguished from a habitual idiosyncrasy in
the use language units, every individual has is own manner and habits of using
them. When Buffon coined his famous saying which dui to its epigrammatically
form became by word all over the world, he had in mind the idiolect, i.e. those
qualities of speech which are inherent and which reveal man’s breeding education,
social standing etc. All these factors are however undoubtedly interwoven with
individual style.
A man’s breeding and his tam of mind and there fore will naturally be
revealed in his speech and writing. It follows then that the individual style of a
20

writer is marked by its uniqueness. It can be recognized by the specific and
peculiar combination of language media and stylistic devices which in their
interaction present a certain system. This system derives its origin from the creative
spirit and elusive thought it may seem, it can nevertheless be ascertained. Naturally
the individual style of a writer will never be entirely independent of the literary
norms and canons of the given period. Alexander Bloch said that the style of a
writer can be ascertained only by analysis of from i.e. language media.
I.2. Types of meanings
When you read a book of fiction and enjoy it, when the book observes your
interest and attention you rarely pay heed to the means employed by the author to
bring forth this or that particular effect. It is not until you started and through
examination of the text that you notice not only what but also how the writer did it.
One of basic concerns of stylistics is to clarify the “how’s”-to define and
analyze the means and devices which offer a wide choice of their help to the reader
and writer.
To the expressiveness and vividness of the author’s style may contribute
both the lexical and the syntactical units which, often overlap. in their usage. It
would be reasonable therefore to specify such groups of expressive means and
stylistic devices:
1. Lexico - phraseological
2. Syntactical
3. Phonetic
Within each of these divisions there exist subdivisions, to a brief analysis of
which we came across in our stylistics and text interpretation lessons. Out of these
ones we intended to study Epithet, which is described in the books on stylistics as a
stylistic device set according to logical and emotive meaning of a word. In its own
way it belongs to our first group as Lexico - Phraseological stylistic means.
Lexico – Phraseological stylistic means and devices are grouped into the
following classes;
21

a) Those which ore based on the interaction of different lexical meanings of
the word.
b) Those which give additional characteristics of the object described.
c) Those which are based on the use of phraseological units and allusions. 1

In the first class of lexico-phraseological stylistic devices the meaning of a
lexical unit employed is of paramount importance for the achievement of the
desired particular effect.
The main constituting feature of a stylistic device (SD) is binary opposition
of two meanings of the employed unit, one of which is normatively fixed in the
language and does not depend upon the context, while the other one originates
within certain context and is contextual. 2
Types of lexical meanings.
For the stylistic purposes out of a variety of meanings, belonging to a word
we single out the following three types of lexical meanings;
1. Logical meaning
2. Nominal meaning
3. Emotive meaning
Logical meaning is an expression of the concert of the given thing
phenomenon though one of its qualities Logical meaning is a historical category
and it usually changes in the course of time. Logical meaning is the base upon
which secondary logical meanings develop.
For example the word “head” is a pole semantic word and it has the
followings;___
1. uppen part of man’s body
2. natural aptitude of talent
3. person
4. cutting or striking part of tool and some other logical meanings
1 .I.R.Galperin “Yavlayetza li stilistika urovnem jazika?” In;
“Problemi jazioznaniya”-
.I.R.Galperin “Yavlayetza li stilistika urovnem jazika?” In; “Problemi jazioznaniya”-

22

Nominal meaning names beings or things There are words where the
nominal meanings prevails, they are proper names or proper nouns. Generally
proper names have developed from common nouns, so the word “smith” has
become proper name Smith or the word “sharp” has given Miss Sharp in the novel
“Vanity fair” by William Tackeray.
Emotive meaning expresses the followings;
Feelings and emotions connected with the object or phenomenon denoted by
the word. Emotive meaning usually coexist with logical meaning as in the words;
sonny, birdie, sweet happiness, etc.
But some words are devoid of logical meaning and only emotive meaning.
These words are interjections and exclamatory words; oh, alas, good, gracious, etc.
Such words as “alas”, “oh”, “ah”, “gosh”, and the like have poetically no logical
meaning at all; words like “the devil”, “Christ”, “God”, “goodness gracious”, etc,
are frequently used only in their emotive meaning. The same can be said about the
words bloody, damn and others.
Many words acquire on emotive meaning only in a definite context.
Let us see the following examples;
1. Now horrible unjust of you all the same it is awfully sweet of you.
(O.Wilde)
2. “Oh, this is becoming an awful bore for you..” (H.Bates)
The emotive meaning of the italicized words is stronger than the logical
meaning and we may say that they have lost their logical meaning and function in
the language as interjections. Such words as alas, oh, ah, pooh, olarn, gosh and the
like have practically no logical meaning at all; words like the devil, Christ, God,
goodness gracious, etc are frequently used only in their emotive meaning. The
same kind can be said about the words bloody, down.
23

There are groups of words in the language in which emotive meaning
prevails. Among them we have such wards as; love, hate, motherland, scoundrel,
traitor, hero.
In that case we say that the world has a contextual emotive meaning.
So even colorless everyday terms may in some contexts, acquire unexpected
emotional overtones, as for instance wall in this illustration from a
“Midsummer Night’s Dream;
And thou, O wall, O sweet, O lovely wall,
:Thanks, caurteous wall….O wicked wall
Emotive meanings of words play an important role in stylistics-writers use
the words with emotive meanings for definite stylistic effects, thus calling the
attention of the reader to the meaning of such words. The following words have
also emotive meanings…
1. Interjections: O!, Alas!, Hey!, Yogh!, Gosh!
2. Exclamatory words: Good!, WEM!, look out!, Hurrah!, Hear!,
Heavens!
3. Oat and swear words: Upon my word!, The devil!, Christ! God!
Goodness gracious! Bloody, damn, bastoord!
4. Qualitative and intensifying adjectives and adverbs: awfully, terrible,
wonderful, dreadful, fine, fantastic, terrific.
Suffixes having diminative meanings may also be treated as adding emotive
meaning to words with neutral logical meaning; cubicle (cube), particle (part),
town let (town), booklet (boor), shirtie (shirt), birdie (bird).
Anything recognizable as having a strong impact on our senses may be
considered as having emotive meaning either dictionary or contextual.
The context helps to distinguish it the word is used in its emotive meaning or
in its logical meaning.
The above three lexical meanings from the semantic structure of the word.
Apart from them there exists meaning which appears only within the given context.
24

This is the contextual meaning. The word may acquire in the context as contextual
nominal meaning or a contextual emotive meaning.
For example in his novel “To let” Galsworthy writes; “Forsytes deprived
from their mutton-bones are wont to sulk”. Besides its logical meaning the word
“mutton-bones” has here contextual logical meaning of something very dear to the
Forsytes their property, money and the like.
Contextual meaning of the word is closely connected with such
lexicological notions is polisemy, shades of meaning and transference of meaning.
The majority of lexical-stylistic devices are based on the interaction of
different lexical meanings of the word.
In our research we want to study epithet, which is considered to be based
on logical meaning of the word. Before we start it, it is necessary to make summary
to the types of lexical meaning.
A number of stylistic devices are basic on the particular and peculiar use of
lexical meanings. Therefore it is necessary define the types of meanings of words
which we meet in stylistic devices.
Before we start analyzing the main peculiarities of epithet, let’s see what is a
word. According to the definition of sciences a word is a language sign that
expresses a concept by its forms and meanings.
By concept we mean an abstract or general idea of some phenomenon of
objective reality including the subjective feelings and emotions of human beings.
The meaning of a word is the means by which the concept is materialized.
Both lexical and grammatical meanings may be polysemantic. This means that a
word may have a number of meanings. The meanings are liable to change.
When there is a connection between different meanings, we call them
shades of meanings, sometimes separate meanings. When the process of breaking
away from the basic meaning has gone so far and we don’t fell any connection
between the meanings, we have itif ferent words-homonyms.
25

The meanings of a word are the only means of materializing a concert in
language, though some concepts may be materialized not by means of words but
by other signs-by gestures, mimicry, music,painting, sculpture etc.
Impressions which have born by the interplay of different meanings, which
we discussed above as logical, emotive, nominal and contextual meanings.
CHAPTER II . STYLISTIC ASPECT OF TRANSLATION
II.1. Epithet in Modern English and its peculiarities
The epithet is a stylistic device based on interplay of emotive and logical
meaning in an attributive word, phrase or even sentence used to characterize an
object and pointing out the reader and frequently imposing on him, some of the aim
of giving an individual perception and evaluation of these features. 1
The epithet is
markedly subjective and evaluative. Thus in “green meadows”, “white snow”,
“round table” and the like the adjectives are more logical attributes than epithets.
Epithets may be classified from different standpoints; semantic and structural.
Semantically epithets may be divided into two groups; those associated with the
noun, following and those unassociated with it. Associated epithets are those which
point to a feature which is essential to the objects they describe; the idea expressed
in the epithet is to a certain extent inherent in the concert of the object. The
associated epithet immediately refers the mind to the concert in question due to
some actual quality of the object it is attached to, for instance, “the red sunset”,
“dark forest”, “dreary midnight”, etc.
Unassociated epithets are attributes used to characterize the object by adding
a feature not inherent in it.
Unassociated epithets in this case should old a feature which may be so
unexpected as to strike the reader by its novelty as for instance, “heartburning
smile”, “sullen earth ” etc However, there are combinations in which the ties
between the attribute and the defined are very close and the whole combinations
1 .Mусаев К. “English Stylistics” Tashkent 2003

26

viewed as a linguistic whole. Combinations of this type appear as a result of the
frequent use of certain definite epithets with definite nouns. They become stable
word-combinations i.e. “bright face”, “thirsty deserts”, “deep feelings”, “classic
examples” and the like. Functions of epithets of this Rind remains basically the
same: to show the evaluating, subjective attitude of the writer towards the thing
described. But for this purpose the author doesn’t create his own, new unexpected
epithets; he uses ones that have become traditional and may be termed “language
epithets” as they belong to the language as a system Thus epithets may be divided
into language epithets and speech epithets Examples of speech epithets are;
“slavish knees”, “sleepless bay”.
The process of strengthening the connection between the epithet and the
noun may sometimes go so far as to build a specific unit which does not lose its
poetic flavor. Such epithets are called fixed and are mostly used in ballads and folk
songs. Here are some examples for fixed epithets;
“true love”, “Sweet Sir”, “green wood”.
Structurally, epithets can be viewed from the angle of; a)
composition
b) distribution
From the paint of view of their compositional structure epithets may be
divided into simple, compound, phrase and sentence epithets. Simple epithets are
ordinary adjectives; iron hate, silver hair. Compound epithets are built like
compound adjectives. Examples are; “hurt-burning sigh”, “sylphlike figures”,
“cloud shapen giant”.
The tendency to cram into one language unit as much information as
possible has led to new compositional models for epithets which we shale call
phrase epithets.
This inner semantic quality of the attributive relations in lexical
combinations, as they are called by O.S.Akhmanova, is perhaps, most striking in
27

the phrase and sentence epithets. Here the “concise way” is most effectively used.
Here some examples of phrase epithets.
It is this to do it yourself, go it alone attitude that has thus far held back real
development of the Middle East’s river resources.
Another structural variety of the epithets is one which we shall term
reversed. The versed epithet is composed of two nouns linked in one of phrase.
The subjective, evaluating, emotional element is embodied not in the noun attribute
but in the noun structurally described, for example:
“the shadow of a smile”, “… a long nightshirt of mackintosh …”.
It will be observed that such epithets are metaphorical. The noun to be
assessed is contained in the of phrase and the noun it qualifies is a metaphor
(shadow, devil, military abbreviation).
Sometimes three, four, five and even more epithets are joined in chains.
They are called string epithets 1
. The structural type of string epithets is like
enumeration. These attributes describe the object from different points of view:
It was an old, musty, narrow-minded, clean and bitter room.
Another distributional model is the transferred epithet 2
. Transferred epithets
are ordinary logical attributes generally describing the state of human being by
referring to an unanimated object. E.g.: sick chamber, sleep less pillow, merry
hours.
Individual epithets depend on the author’s style and his artistic purpose:
“He looked sky and embarrassed and a wild hope came to me”.
Relation to the figures of substitution is some disputable. Epithet may be
determined as emotional (of a certain denotation) emotional-valuable or
expressive-figurative definition of a certain denotation. With this epithet is
distinguished usual or logic, definition which don’t certain emotionality, value or
figurativeness.
1 Galperin I.R “Stytistics” M 1977
2 Kukharenko U.A “A book of practice in Stylistics” M 1986
28

Difference between expressive-figurative epithets and logical definition it’s
easy to reveal with the help of transformation, for example: iron gate –gate, made
of iron (logical definition) and iron lady-lady possessing the qualities of iron
(metaphor-epithet).
Distinction between emotional-evaluative epithet and logical definition
officially do not reveal but it’s concluded that epithet shows the same evaluation,
which point out subjective attitude of speaker to the subject of speech. Compare:
mild-day-next day; poor mother-windowed mother; blank face-round face; burning
eyes-dark eyes; beautiful windows-lighted windows, where at first article pairs
always shows element of subjective absence at the second article. It’s possible to
mention that a limit between logical definition and valued epithet is
supplement.
You ought to note that the limit between logical attribute and evaluate
epithet is considered to be active in one and the same word combination an
attribute dependent on the context, may project as a logical attribute (when he was
a little boy he was a poor man) and as epithet (compare in address-“My little boy!”
and the exclamation – “Oh, poor man!”).
From above account summary it’s possible that to the figures of
substitutions, that’s connected with the second nomination, may carry only
metaphorical epithet (helpless stupefied loneliness, he muttered hopelessly,
breathless eagerness), emotional-evaluate epithet rather is connected with the
figures of combination because it’s stylistic means is defined with synthetic
connections between the attribute and its determine.
Let’s examine synthetic and structural peculiarities of epithets. Totality of
epithets may divide into different classifications. The first classification-division of
epithets into metaphor and evaluative epithets, was considered above totality of
29

epithets may be divided to another criteria, distinguishing traditional or lingual,
original and speech
epithets 1
.
By the traditional epithets are understood setting epithets (language cliché)
distinguished by simplicity, invariable and insignificant with the stylistic effect.
They are characterized by folk lore (Eng: the nut-bate) (a silvery laugh) or
adverbial modifier (to slimy cuttingly) or an address (my sweet!), optionally differs
from the figurative (metaphorical) character of expressing its words and obligatory
advisability in this emotional or expressive and other connotations, thanks to the
expression of the authors attitude to the object. Property of being the epithet
occurred in a word or several words only in combinations, with the name of the
object or phenomenon which it determines. Especially often in the function of
epithets come forward the adjectives or participle but infrequently the epithets,
expressed by nouns.
Although the term “epithet” is considered as one of the most ancient terms of
stylistic and may be mainly that’s why there is any unity of its definition. So, U. M
Jirmunsky, delimiter the epithet in wide and narrow meaning of words, realized by
the first any definition, distinguishing in notion an essential sign, and by the epithet
in narrow meaning the words definition which don’t introduce any new sign but
repeat the sign, has already contained in this or that degree in defined words.
By the tautological epithets is understood semantically agreed epithet,
emphasizing any principal property of attributive: fair sun, the sable night wide sea
that’s repeating in the structure the means inalienable pro-second turn by
emotional-evaluate epithets.
Another classification of epithets was suggested by an academician A.N.
Vasilevsky, who divided the epithets into tautological, explanatory, metaphor and
sincerity, from that epithets we consider the first and seconds 1
. By the tautological
epithet indicates the sign which initially is usual to determiner and thus it may
belong to the all classes of defined subject.
1 Жирмунский Введение в метрику Теория стиха Ленинград 1925
30

And finally in the quality of the epithets may perform as word- combinations
take all you can get approach and as a whole sentence, I did it myself shelf. The
popular example of this kind of epithet is-“There is a sort of” Oh – what-a-wicked
world this is and how I wish I could do something to make it better and nobler
“expression about Montmorency (name of dog) that has been known to bring the
tears into eyes of pious old ladies and gentleman”. (J.K. Jerome).
Metaphor, metonymy and synecdoche are considered clearly lexical
expressive means. The Epithet is lexica-synthetic trope so far it fulfills the function
of the attribute (a silvery laugh) or adverbial modifier (to smiley cuttingly) or an
address (my sweet!) optionally differs from the figurative (metaphorical) character
of expressing its words and obligatory availability in this emotional or expressive
and other connotations, thanks to the expressive of the author’s attitude to the
object. Property of being the epithet occurred in a or several words only in
combinations with the name of the object or phenomenon which it determines.
Especially of ten in the function of epithets come for word the objectives or
participle, but infrequently the epithets, expressed by nouns.
Although the term “epithet” is considered as one of the most ancient terms of
stylistic and may be mainly that’s why there is any unity of its definition.
So, U. M Jirmunsky, delimiter the epithet in wide and narrow meaning of
words, realized by the first any definition, distinguishing in notion an essential
sign, and by the epithet in narrow meaning the words definition which don’t
introduce any new sign but repeat the sign, has already contained in this or that
degree in defined words.
By the tautological epithets is understood semantically agreed epithet,
emphasizing any principal property of attributive: fair sun, the sable night, wide
sea, that’s repeating in the structure the means inalienable property of the sun night
and sea.
Explanatory epithets; a grand style, unvalued jewels, vast and thankless legs
of stone point out any important outline of defined thing, not obligatory the usual
32

to the all classes of the subject what they belong to that’s really characterized just
them.
II.2. Stylistic functions of epithet
In spite of that English has one rule there are different ideas of scientists
about epithet. According to I.R.Galperin 1
The epithet is a stylistic dense based on the un an attribute word, phrase or
even sentence used to characterize an object and painting out to the reader and
frequently imposing on him some of the properties or features of the object with
the aim of diving an individual perception and evaluation of these feature or
properties.
U.A. Kukhachenko coins that 2
“Epithet is a stylistic device based on the
interaction of the logical and emotive meanings. It shows the purely individual
emotional attitude of the writer or the speaker towards the object mentioned;
“Shining serenely as same in measurable mirror beneath the smiling face of
heaven the solitary ocean lay in unzipped silence”
The epithet is markedly subjective and evaluative. The logical attribute is
purely objective non –evaluating. It is descriptive and indicates an inherent or
phenomenon in question.
Thus in “green meadows”, ”white show”, “round table”, “blue skies”, “pale
complexion”, “lofty mountains” and the like the adjectives, are more logical
attributes that epithets. They indicate those qualities of the objects which may be
recognized as generally recognized. But in wild “wind”, “loud ocean “,
“remorseless dash ‘of pillows”, ”for minable wears”, “her burning smite” the
adjectives do not point to inherent qualities of the objects . They are subjectively
evaluative.
The epithet makes a strong impact on a reading to match and evaluate things
unwittingly begins to se and evaluate things as the writer wants him to. Indeed in
1 I.R.Galperin”Stylistik”Moskow High school 1977.
2 Kukharenko V.A “A book of practice” M 1986.
33

such word combination as “destructive charms”, “glorious sight”, encouraging
smile”, the combinations as “glorious sight”, the interrelation between logical and
emotive meanings may be said to manifest itself in different degrees. The word
destructive has retained its logical meaning to a considerable extent, but at the
same time an experienced reader cannot help perceiving the meaning emotive of
the word which in this combination will signify “conquering, irresistible
dangerous” The logical meaning of the word “sight” has almost entirely faded out
“glorious” is already fixed in dictionaries as a word having an emotive meaning
alongside its primary logical meaning.
In fact, it is sometimes difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation between
a clear epithet and logical attribute. In some passages the logical enveloped in the
emotional aspect of the utterance that it begins to radiate emotiveness though for
nature, it is logically descriptive. Take for example, the adjectives green. In a
suitable context this may all have a definite emotional impact on the reader. This is
probably explained by the fact that the quality most planed characteristic of the
given object is attached to it, thus strengthening of the quality. Morphological
characteristics of epithet Epithet can be expressed by:
1. Adjectives: “… they thought themselves superior: the cheap,
mean, nasty, selfish, upstairs”.
(Dreiser)
2. Adverbs: “And he watched her eagerly, sadly, bitterly,
ecstatically, as she walked lightly from him”.
Adjectives and adverbs constitute the greatest majority of epithets.
3. Participles: (both present and past): “The stems and turfs waved
frantically with the frightened movement of the wind”. (Wilson).
4. Nouns: especially often in phrase: “And numerous indeed are
the hearts to which Christmas brings a brief of happiness and enjoyment”.
(Dickens).
34

5. Word combinations: “His view is that a sermon nowadays
should be a right, brisk, straight-from the shoulder address, never lasting more
than ten and twelve minutes”. (G.P. Wodehouse).
6. Whole phrases: “She had a wide, cool; go to mouth“.
(Chsandler).
The last two groups of epithet help the writer in a rather concise form to
express the emotional attitude towards an object or phenomenon: “I closed my
eyes, smelling” the sun-shine-in-the-next-breakfast-room... (Braine). In most
cases it is a direct quotation of the character’s remark: “She had a high color, sally
and blue eyes that were more the eyes of a boy and a rather abrupt and don’t-
withme” manner. (Deeping) or so think first of her, but not in the “I love you so
that induce me to marry you” fashion. (Galsworthy).
Such a usage of quotation for an epithet stresses the subjectivity,
individuality of the character’s perception. Even occurring in the author’s speech it
renders the emotional attitude of the personage. There is something about evening
service in a country-church that makes a fellow feel drowsy and peaceful. Sort of
and-of a perfect-day feeling. (P.G. Wodehouse).
During our search, we have also addressed to internet sites.
Very often epithets are expressed in attributive function, proportional or
post-position ally.
Postpositionally epithets posses the considerable large degree of
productiveness and the same the stylistic expressiveness, that the pre positive
epithets. For example:”With finger weary and worth”. Epithet also can be
expressed by noun formed in attributes, very often so called “of phrases”. For
example: an hour of bliss: muscles of iron and soon . 1

In English the wide spreading has the other structural type of epithet, which
is built on the analogical correlation of the attribute and definition. What is
1 Kukharenko V.B. “A book of a practice in stylistics” Moscow, 1986
35

$contained in the attribute, definition: what is syntactical, that is definition, by contents represents by itself epithet. For example: devil of a sea rolls in that day (G. Byron) a littlie Flying Dutchman of a cab (J. Galsworthy) a dog of a fellow (Ch. Dickens): her brute of a brother (J. Galsworthy). Apparently from the given example epithets are contained in the syntactical category of defined but not attributes. The attributes and defining, as they change their pales. Epithet can be expressed by nouns and the whole word combinations in the syntactically formed the sentence. For example: lightning my pilot sits. (P.Shelly) the punctual servant of all work the sun. (Ch. Dickens). Often the epithets are expressed not only translate into Russian and Uzbek as metaphorical epithet. Russian version: Тесный маленький кружок. Uzbek version: Kichkina tor davra. The Path of Thunder. Book me home p\7. (P.A) by one word but also by word, but also by word combinations, which according to their attribute function and prepositional position posses the character of the watched, fairly balanced give-and-take couple. Epithet can be expressed by the qualitative adverbs, since these letters characterize the signs of action (and objects). In the sentence “He laughed heartilyheartily is epithet”. Epithet and logical attribute. Epithet should not be mixed up with logical attributes, which have the same syntactical function but which do not convey the subjective attribute of the author towards the described object painting out only the objectively existing feature of the same Compare: “He unlocked the iron gate easily”. (Gronin). And “The iron hate in soul pushed him on again”. (M. Wilson). “Iron” in the first case shows the material of 36$