Національна Академія Мистецтв України Інститут культурології

This method in its turn continues the earlier elaborated methods – those of quantification (S.G. Gavrin)⁵⁹⁶ and of applicability (V.P. Zhukov). In opposite to translations here the different interpretations of the same locution within the same language are taken so that direct and derivative meanings (and respectively the idiomatic and free collocations) are confronted and compared⁵⁹⁷ so that these cases of usage are regarded as homonyms [Жуков, 1978, (§ 1), 7] (as in <зарезать без ножа / зарезать страну>). Respectively one can divide phrases into applicable (as in <дрожать / трястись над копейкой / книгой / вещью>) and inapplicable⁵⁹⁸ where the central element of the semantic field can be found (as in <без дальних / лишних слов>). Apparently such transformations presuppose further continuation of explicatory inferential textual evolvement that would enormously enlarge the textual corpus attached to the initial proverbial enunciation. While referring to the field structure of a phrase with its division into central and peripheral elements this approach makes it necessary to discern integrative powers of a proverbial text from those providing their constancy in reproduced repetitions.

Therefore the known idiomatic criterion of frequentation & fixation is here to be reconceived as that of reproducibility & integration respectively. Here different degrees of integration become discernible. In particular it is to differ between semantic and phrasal centers of the integrated locution (as in “white flies” for the designation of ‘snowy flakes’: “white” would be the semantic one referring to the designated attribute while “flies” refers to the structure of phrase without connection to this attribute). It entails the known duplicity of proverbial phrase that displays the properties of a proposition as a self-sufficient epigrammatic enunciation, at one side, and of a necessary lexical unit (a composed word), at another side⁵⁹⁹. Furthermore, one can say of different degrees of integration from a comparatively free collocation (as in <не стоит медного / ломаного гроша (выеденного яйца); стереть в порошок / в мыло; смотреть в глаза правде / смерти / судьбе / опасности / нужде; пришла беда – отворяй ворота / ни туда, ни сюда / да еще не одна>) to strictly fixed phrase. Such “variable constant combinations” demonstrate the restrictions put on variability⁶⁰⁰ so that one can say of the gradual scale of integration. Apparently this scale concerns essentially the property of lexical compatibility and attraction that differ respectively to different degrees of integration and enables disclosing different centers (actual vs. potential, semantic vs. phrasal), the cases being exemplified with the row <погружаться в сон / воспоминания / мечту / молчание / печаль / мысли>⁶⁰¹. Thus one can say of restrictions put on compatibility as the initial source of integration that doesn’t deny transformability and variability of proverbial enunciations.

In this respect one could add that the existence of different degrees of integration is not the only reason for transformability. It is the necessity of different interpretations (in particular those of direct and derivative meanings as in ‘to wash hands’ that displays derivative meaning while referring to Pontius Pilatus, ‘black cat’ as an animal and a symbol or Russ. ‘eyes replaced to forehead’ <глаза на лоб полезли> taken anatomically and figuratively)⁶⁰² that entails the admissibility of different metamorphoses of a fixed phrase. The sentences “all rivers flow to sea” or “a thin thread can be torn easily” are common assertions while being read in their direct meaning. Meanwhile the first of them becomes a part of La Rochefoucauld’s 171st aphorism where ‘rivers’ are compared to ‘dignities’ that are accumulated in the ‘interest’ as in ‘sea’. In the same way the common assertion about a thread turns into a problem while referring to the derivative meaning of a job.

Moreover, one can easily detect the necessity of such semantic metamorphoses of referring to the present direct meaning while observing the use of proverbs in the text of a literature. “You say you want to put wind in her sail; but aren’t you afraid of putting too much?” – such is the cue of Mr Touchett (H. James, “The Portrait of a Lady”, Ch. 18). Here the adage ‘to put wind in one’s sail’ is commented and gives rise to the continuation concerning the intensity of wind as if it weren’t figurative designation. Another example from “The Hound of the Baskervilles” (Ch. 13) demonstrates the use of adage after the narration as a conclusion in Sherlock Holmes’ remark: “What a nerve the fellow has! … we have never had o foeman more worthy of our steel”. The locution ‘worth of steel’ refers here to psychic qualities of a person at the same time implying the opportunity of the real usage of metal in the struggle. In “The Mistake of the Machine” (G.K. Chesterton’s “The Father Brown Stories”) Father Brown says: “You talk as if a miser on Monday would be a spendthrift on Tuesday. You tell me this man … used a drug at the best, and a poison at the worst”. The use of proverb gives a pretest for narrative evolvement, so that the antithesis of the persons of ‘miser’ and ‘spendthrift’ becomes the start for the demonstration of the opponent’s inferences’ absurdity. The integrity of proverbial enunciations in all cited places remains intact; meanwhile the transformations of the contents become apparent in the generated inferences. Paradoxically integration doesn’t preclude transformation; vice versa, it gives rise to the development of textual transformability. Therefore the reasons for integration are to be seen in the motivational filament inherent to proverbial enunciations. In particular it is the relation between inner and outer forms where the motivation of the whole is to be found with its distinction from inferences being taken into consideration⁶⁰³. When the inner form of a locution is retained⁶⁰⁴ one can say of motivated or spontaneous combination as the explicit source of integration.

It is to remind here that such interpretative activity always arises together with the very act of reproduction of fixed elements referring to code. As far as generitive register displays reproducible elements they inevitably give rise to variegated interpretations. Meanwhile the very existence of this ambiguity ensuing from tautological repetitions and entailing interpretative inferences attests the convergence of reproducibility and transformability. Actually reproduction is nothing else as the zero degree of transformation in the same way as identification presupposes discernibleness. One can therefore regard reproduction as the transformation aiming at making up a code. The genuine transformation would be then that where a proverb were replaced with an extensive narration as in evolving a parable. Besides, there exists another way of supplementing a proverb with an account on an imaginary situation where it could aptly serve as a conclusion. This case can be exemplified with instructive practice where adages are represented within conversational passages that demonstrate their situational validity. In the following example the idiomatic locution ‘to get away from a window = to fail’ is used as an argument in a microscopic discussion. <“Du bist doch ein ausgezeichneter Fachmann. Warum studierst du eigentlich so viel nebenbei?” “Wenn man sich heute nicht ständig weiterbildet, ist man schnell weg vom Fenster”> [Görner, 1982, 55]. ‛– You are an excellent specialist. Why do you study still? – Now if one doesn’t advance continuously one will soon vanish from the window (fail)’.

These instructive devices demonstrate in a reduced form the relics of a much more developed creative practice of scenic interpretation of proverbs. Therefore transformability of proverbial locutions is tied with their compression that prepares also favorable conditions for self-descriptive procedures. It opens free space for experimental textual variability and to the formation of respective versions with substantives replacing gerundival locutions. Although such experimental versions can be absent in folklore collections they remain quite compatible with the genuine folklore variants. For example the replacement of taxis affords transforming the following proverb < за большим погонишься – малое потеряешь → погнавшись (за большим) потерять (малое)> that gives derivative locution where taxis replaces propositional structure of subordinate clause with the derivative “kernel” motif <*терять гонящимся>; another sample <врага шапками закидаем → шапкозакидательство> demonstrates the formation of a normative composed word motivated with the initial proverbial locution. In the same manner one can cite <стенку лбом не прошибешь → прошибать стенку> to exemplify the motivation of the respective image. The last case affords also the exemplification of inferential transformation presuming the implication <пробивать стену → устранять препятствие> that would refer already to cultural code. One could say of inferential transformability with the view of enabling expansion of proverbial locutions in an extended narration.

Proverbs have propositional form of sufficient textual units (in opposite to necessary units of lexical form). Meanwhile these units aren’t still autonomous entities. They must still be supplemented with comments and evolved in textual development. As a poly-predicative inferential structure any proverb represented with a simple sentence can be converted into an equivalent clausal structure with the same taxis of actual predicates (rhemes) so that the propositional division discloses its inessentiality and irrelevance. This overt confrontation of inference vs. proposition enables making up a multitude of textual versions of the same invariant inferential contents. Thus for instance the proverb ‘hunger breaks stone walls’ can easily be converted into ‘even stone walls will be broken if there is hunger’ where antecedent and consequent are represented explicitly. The statements on proverbs being implicational inferences where one always can discern antecedent and consequent were for the first time put in the works of already mentioned G. L. Permyakov and further in those of Z. Kanyo and V. Voigt. While developing these statements A. Krikmann has come to the conclusion on the specific modal nature of proverbial locutions especially on their specific aspect and temporality⁶⁰⁶. Besides, one has to conceive the inferential foundation in a very broad sense so that a superstructure arises (as in the proverb what’s long that’s thin and what’s thick that’s short where also the reciprocal antonymous negations are implied)⁶⁰⁷.

It is already simple existential sentences that are derived with each proverbial utterance as for instance custom is older than law → there’s custom & there’s law (that are to be discerned). Further there could follow the sentences of identification or definitions that would give the description of the existent objects. At last, there must be also the immediate inferential consequences obtained from the logical square’s rules, the mentioned adversative clauses being their part and parcel. This is why proverbs most overtly demonstrate the irreducibility to propositions and inapplicability of predicate calculus. Proverbs represent the steps of the process of deduction. Furthermore proverbs can be converted in the couples of “interrogative - indicative” statements (or question - assertion) that build up an elementary step of catechism. Such conversion can be demonstrated with the proverb it is never too late to mend that can derive such a conversational couple: - And may I ask whether it would be still possible to mend my words? – Come on, it’s never too late. Thus peculiar “conversational cellules” are generated as the derivations of proverbial locutions. Still more important is this conversion’s reciprocity so that such couple in its turn can derive a sentential locution that would sum up its contents. In particular it concerns various jokes as for instance such dialogue of a judge and a witness: - Do you take the accused for capable of stealing much? - And how much has he stolen? It can produce the following derivative summary with overt absurdity (‘vicious circle’): *whether does the witness take the accused for capable of stealing or not, it depends upon the sum stolen. The similar transformation gives the proverbial locution; - Why do you always win with me? - Because you always loose → *One wins because another looses. The transformations of the kind give grounds to regard anecdotes and witty dialogues as the source of potential proverbial locutions. Thus each proverb behaves as the representative of a whole set of virtual propositional utterances so that the very propositional structure becomes unessential as far as the inferential structure generates such set. Although one deals only with separate isolated utterances there must exist a textual expansion that each proverb does imply (as it is itself a textual compression). It entails the necessity of taking into account the actual sense (in particular the rheme) of proverbial locutions and the changeability of their function so that a kind of semantic modulation takes place that looks like derivational condensation.

Poly-predicative structure as the premise for transformability is to be displayed especially clear within the interpretative field of actualities. The reproduction of an utterance imparts to it the inevitable verve of tautology and therefore gives rise to interpretative intensification with the aim of removing the arising ambiguity. Meanwhile it is the reproducibility that is suspected to entail the inapplicability of actual division to proverbial sentence. The adherents of the viewpoint on proverbs as the statements void of actual division refer usually to the just thought that the potential grammar structure as the only initial basis for the development of actuality performs integrative mission on opposite to that of divisional that actualization imparts to sentence⁶⁰⁸. Meanwhile this argument of fixation proves to be invalid as one doesn’t take into consideration that any proverbial statement presupposes the broader text including it as a particle. Therefore the determination of actual predicate depends upon the functional distribution within such supposed extent speech where the proverb is inserted. These functions change together with the textual extension so that the initial potential syntactic conditions serve to provide determination of the functions imparted with textual environment.

There exists an objection as to the applicability of actual division based on the statement that the device being applicable to free collocations, it would become impossible to seek for different variants of actual division within the corpse of such bound utterances as proverbs. For instance the idioms as nicknames are coined as stable substitutions of proper names so that they act entitling and compressing textual entireties. Thus respectively to the nature of circumlocutions as partial denotations the idioms don’t submit the way of their usage. Proverbs participate within the speech as the constant structures independent from occasional variations and from mutability of syntactic structure caused with situational relativity. Their syntax is determined with their role of periphrastic descriptions void of communicative purports because they serve as the substitutes for