Authors
- Khazagerov George Doctor of Philology, Professor
Annotation
The article deals with the theory of tropes and rhetorical figures. The modern approach to
these phenomena has some asymmetry, although the approach is a united system. In the basis of
universally recognized and clear classification of tropes there is the notion of tropes as moti-
vated signs. This obscures the conventional side of tropes, though this side is necessary for
studying them from the philological and lingua-cultural point of view. At the same time the
absence of universally recognized classification of rhetorical figures stimulates their descrip-
tion from philological point of view considering these or those historical priorities. In the article
an attempt to collaborate the common approach to tropes and figures is made. There are also
described some ways how to fill existing research lacunas.
References
1.
Avelichev, A. K. 1986. The Return of Rhetoric // Dubois J., Manet F.,Edelin F. et al.General Rhetoric. - Moscow.
2.
Antique theories of language and style. 1936. // Edited by O. M. Freidenberg, Moscow-Leningrad.
3.
Aristotle, 1978. Rhetoric /I Antique Rhetoricians. - Moscow.
4.
Akhmanova, O. S. 1966. Dictionary of linguistic terms. - Moscow.
5.
Beregovskaya, E. M., Verger, J.-M. 2000. Busy rhetoric. - Moscow.
6.
Beardley, M. 1990. Metaphorical entanglement // Theory of metaphor. - Moscow.
7.
Galkina-Fedoruk, E.M. 1958. On expressivity and emotionality in language // Collection of articles on linguistics. - Moscow.
8.
Gasparov, M. L. 1997. Selected Works. Vol.1 On poets. - Moscow.
9.
Gurevich, A. Y. 1989. Culture and society of medieval Europe through the eyes of contemporaries (Exempla XIII century). - Moscow.
10.
Dvoretskiy, I. Kh. 1958. Ancient Greek-Russian Dictionary. Т. 2. - Moscow.
11.
Lakoff, D., Johnson, M. 1990. Metaphors we live by// Metaphor Theory-Moscow.
12.
Markasova, E. V. 2002. Presentations of figure of speech in Russian rhetoricians of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century. Petrozavodsk.
13.
Murzin, L. N. 1989. Norma. Speech technique and error from the dynamic point of view // Speech techniques and errors. Typology. Derivation, functioning. - Collection of Scientific Works - Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of Linguistics, Perm State University.
14.
Pekarskaya, I. P. 2000. Contamination in the context of the problem of systemicity of stylistic resources of the Russian language. Ч. 1, 2. - Abakan.
15.
Khazagerov G. G. The conventional and the iconic in figures and tropes as a basis for two directions of their research
16.
Skrebnev, Y. M. 1987. Tropes and figures as an object of classification /I Problems of expressive stylistics. An interuniversity collection. - Rostov-on-Don.
17.
Khazagerov, T. G., Shirina, L. S. 1999. General rhetoric. - Rostov-on-Don.
18.
Bonheim, H. 1975. Bringing classical Rhetoric up-to-date // Semiotica, no. 34. - Mouton-Hague.
19.
Quintilians institutes oforatory or elocution ofan orator. 1909. - London.
20.
Schofer, P., Rice, D. 1977. Metaphor, Metonymi, and Synecdoche Revis(it)ed // Semiotica.v. 21. - The Hague, Mouton.
21.
Todorov, Ts. 1967. Tropes et figures I/ To honor R. Jackobson. Vol. III. - The Hague.
22.
Tpuitvoč teri tropru. 1856 / Spengel L. Rhetores Graeci ex recognicione, Lipsiae, vol. III.