УДК 811.111’374

Aliona Martyniuk 

MICROFIELD «BAD SMELL» IN ENGLISH

The article deals with the lexical units that belong to the microfield of «bad smell»; the results of lexicographical analysis was given and the semantic markers which we can find in the literature. The material of our investigation we took the dictionary entries of five explanatory dictionaries (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dic­tionary of Current English, MacMillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Collin’s English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary), as well as the British and American works or art (XVIII–ХХ cent.). In the process of the research work we have found out that in the entries, of the explanatory dictionaries, mainly denotes only the presence of the appointed semantic feature, but the information about the possible reference and the source of the unpleasant smell is not given. In this lexico-semantic field also we have found out that the quantity of the lexical units that denote unple­asant smells prevails over the quantity of the lexical units that mark pleasant smells.

Key words: microfield, semantics, lexical unit, semantic marker.

 

Stating of the scientific problem and its meaning. Nowadays lin­guistics is mostly anthropothentric. Anthropo-oriented research work realizes through the study of the human existence’ peculiarities in the certain language, social and cultural space. It is also indicates the cultural peculiarities, national character and mentality in the immediate connection with the human being, its world-view and inward practical activities.

In such an aspect we can examine units that form the lexico-semantic field «smell». In the process of nomination of certain phenomena, human being manifests his/her relation towards this phenomenon. This gives us the grounds to say that the assessment given by the individual is subjective.

Taking into consideration the importance of the microfield descrip­tion, united by the same semantic feature (but with the different types of the assessment), we decided to analyze the microfield «bad smell», which is the part of the semantic field «smell».

One considers the assessment to be the qualification, which demon­strates the relation of the human being to the certain object or event towards society norms as well as the assessment that is related with the opposition «good/bad» [3, p. 392].

N. D. Arutiunova divides specific assessments into 3 types: 1) senso­rial assessments, those that are related with the sensations, sensual expe­rience (pleasant – unpleasant); 2) sublimate assessments, are those which contain moral and aesthetic assessments (beautiful – unattractive); 3) ratio­nal assessments, are those which contain utilitarian, normative, theological assessments (useful – harmful, normal – abnormal, successful – unsucces­sful) [1, p. 77–78].

On the assessment scale one distinguishes such assessed zones: 1) po­sitive assessment; 2) neutral (zero) assessment; 3) negative assessment.

Positive assessment provides that of the certain object must have not only these or those properties, but also that their general «weight» prevail over the weight of negative properties. Negative assessment points out not only to the certain existing drawbacks of the object, but also to the positive qualities which the object has, though are not sufficient in order to compensate them.

The object’s negative assessment, as usual, points out to the indiffe­rence of the subject of consciousness towards the given object. In the semantic field «smell» in English, to the neutrally assessed units belongs the word smell. It is the most general word by its meaning and it shows only the availability of some objects to have smell. We consider the word smell to be unidentified unit of the lexico-semantic filed. This lexeme is semantically unidentified only if it is concretized with the help of the attribute. In this case it acquires negative as well as positive assessments.

Lexical units which form the structure of the lixico-semantic field, are usually related to each other or to the direct oppositions, or associatively. Consequently the boundaries of the field are rather «washed out» and the structure of the field constantly changes. O. Akhmanova assigns «the semantic field is the part of the reality, which is theoretically, has the reflection to the language in the form of certain microsystem» [2, p. 334]. The main characteristics of the semantic field are shown in the work by P. Denysov. H. Ibsen assigned the field (the semantic field) as the totality of the words, which have general meaning.

The analysis of the recent research works. In the recent years the quantity of the linguistic research works concerning the studying of the semantics of the lexical units, which denote processes sand results of the human being sense perception. In the linguistic literature there exist lots of research works that deal with the conceptualization and verbalization in such spheres of sense perception as hearing and eyesight (A. Vezhbitska, N. Arutiunova, G. Kustova and others). As far as the lexical units with the semantics of eyesight and hearing perception were investigated rather wide, so the words that denote olfactory perception are to be investigated.

The aim and the target of the article. The aim of our work is the lexicographical analysis of the lexical units, which form the microfield «bad smell», and the detection of those semantic features, which realizes through the context, though are not fixed in the dictionaries.

The main material exposition and argumentation of the received results. Bad smell in English is marked by the units of three synonymic rows, which belongs to the different parts of the speech: 1) substantive synonyms with the dominant lexeme whiff; 2) verbal synonyms to smell, to stink, to reek; 3) adjective synonyms reeking, stinking, noisome, putrid, fetid.

First of all let us take a view at the synonymic row with the dominant lexeme whiff. In English, bad smell is represented by the following nouns: whiff, odour, stench, stink, reek.

According to the explanatory dictionaries of English (OALD, LDCE, MEDAL), the noun odour can denote smell, that is very unpleasant: a distinctive smell, especially an unpleasant one [OALD, 877; LDCE, 1136; MEDAL, 1032].

Stench is interpreted like this: a strong and very unpleasant smell [OALD, 1271; LDCE, 1625; MEDAL, 1465].

Stink – a strong unpleasant smell [OALD, 1276; LDCE, 1631; MEDAL, 1471].

Reek a strong offensive smell [OALD, 1066; LDCE, 1376; MEDAL, 1244].

Whiffvery slight unpleasant smell: an unpleasant smell that is only smelt briefly or faintly [OALD, 1475; LDCE, 1880; MEDAL, 1700].

As the analysis of the lexicographical sources shows, the system of the parameters, according to which this units are opposed, requires the detailed research, because in the dictionaries the description of the word’s semantics often is not full.

According to the parameter of the feature intensity this synonymic row can be divided into two subclasses: 1) whiff (according to the para­meter of the smell intensity it denotes weak smell); 2) stench, odour, stink, reek, shows rather extreme measure of smell intensity. The reality of such opposition illustrates the following examples: 1) After a while a whiff of smoke drifted round to where he sat (Joseph Conrad «An Outcast of the Islands»); 2) The pitch was bubbling in the seams; the nasty stench of the place turned me sick; if ever a man smelt fever and dysentery, it was in that abominable anchorage (Robert Louis Stevenson «Treasure Island»).

The nouns we are talking about also can be opposed by the parameter of measure prevalence in space. Let us take a look on the following exam­ples: 1) A narrow winding street, full of offence and stench(Charles Dickens «A Tale of Two Cities»); 2) «How clumsy of me» he mumbled very vexed, while the pungent odour of spilt alcohol enveloped us suddenly with an atmosphere of a low drinking-bout in the cool, pure darkness of the night (Joseph Conrad «Lord Jim. A Tale»); 3) A horrible odour filled the place (Oscar Wilde «A House of Pomegranates»). This examples denote that the words odour and stench mark the situations, when the smell fills the whole apartment or space. The word stink denotes the situations when the source of the smell finds itself in the certain place and fills it, for example: …they had brought along a provision of hippo-meat which went rotten and made the mystery of the wilderness stink in my nostrils (Joseph Conrad «Heart of Darkness»). On the contrary, reek and whiff, usually come out from the certain point (from the smell bearer), but do not fill the space, which envelope the experiencer. For the illustration: 1) …Billy Budd was like a young horse fresh from the pasture suddenly inhaling a vile whiff from some chemical factory, and by repeated snortings tries to get it out of his nostrils and lungs (Herman Melville «Billy Budd, Sailor»); 2) A reek of beer floats from the public-house and a loud clatter and rattle of voices (Katherine Mansfield «The Garden-Party»). It is worth to note, that the parameter of measure preva­lence in space is not fixed by lexemes stink and stench. These units totally can denote that the smell that is spread from some certain source doesn’t fill the space: 1) …and enveloping himself in clouds of smoke and raising a composite stink that made the castle next to unendurable, and could be smelt in heaven (Mark Twain «No. 44, The Mysterious Stranger»); 2) … that though the stench he complained of, did not flow from the steward’s own body … (Tobias Smollett «The Adventures of Roderick Random»).

We consider that the lexical units of the field we analyze, have the parameter of the volumeness. The next examples show us the reality of such conclusion: 1) …He that follows his Nose always, will very often be led into a Stink (William Congreve «Love for Love»); 2) Then in that volume of stench would he discern the sullen yellow eye of malice (George Meredith «The Egoist. A Comedy in Narrative»); 3) A horrible odour filled the place (Oscar Wilde «A House of Pomegranates»). From the above examples we can see that stink, stench and odour are the smells, which can fill the space, for example apartment. So, these are not simply the smells which escort any thing or object (like whiff and reek).

Unlike stink, stench and odour, lexeme reek can denote not only bad smell but also a smoke: Mrs. Lespel led the way to the deserted smoking-room, where the stale reek of tobacco assailed the ladies… (George Mere­dith «Beauchamp’s Career»). Such a feature we can find also in the entry in Merriam Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary: «А strong or disagreeable fume or odor».

Stench – very often is the smell of rotting or decaying, for example: …I say, I must be allowed to believe, that no one in this whole Nation ever receiv’d the Sickness or Infection, but who receiv’d it in the ordinary Way of Infection from some Body, or the Cloaths, or touch, or stench of some Body that was infected before (Daniel Defoe «A Journal of the Plague Year»).

In the lexical definitions the given semantic feature is shown only in one dictionary, MacMillan English Dictionary. It is important to note a very interesting fact: in the rest of the explanatory dictionaries only the examples illustrate this feature. In the Oxford American Dictionary for Lingvo X3 in the entry about stench there is an example: the stench of rotting fish.

According to the semantic feature «smell of the rotting or decaying» lexeme stench is very close to the word odour, which is very often shows the smell of rott or mould. For example: … but from certain constellations of small yellow spots upon it, and a mouldy odour about it suggestive of a damp clothes-chest … (George Eliot «The Mill on the Floss»). In certain cases lexeme stink also shows the smell of something rotten: And, after all, they did not eat each other before my face: they had brought along a provision of hippo-meat which went rotten and made the mystery of the wilderness stink in my nostrils (Joseph Conrad «Heart of Darkness»). We have to mention that even today in lexicographical sources the fact of this semantic feature presence is not reflected.

It is important to underline that stink, stench and odour are not only became closer by their semantic feature «the smell of the rotting or de­caying», but also are opposed. Stink and stench denote foul, strong smell, while odour denotes strong, suffocating, long-lasting smell. Let us illustra­te this by the following examples: 1) My uncle was complaining of the stink (Tobias Smollett «The Expedition of Humphry Clinker»); 2) As he crossed the suspension bridge a strong stench of fennel and decayed refuse streamed from the gully… (Katherine Mansfield «In a German Pension»); 3) A choking odour reminded her that she had not extinguished the lamp… (Robert Gissing «Born in Exile»).

Lexical units stench and odour admit strengthening of their seman­tics: strong stench/odour. Stink doesn’t admit such strengthening. We didn’t happen to find the construction strong stink in the literature.

Now let us take a look at the verbal synonyms with the semantics of bad smell.

According to the explanatory dictionaries the verb to smell means that something emits bad smell: to emit an unpleasant odour [OALD, 1218; LDCE, 1561; MEDAL, 1410]. Lexeme to stink denotes that something is distributing strong unpleasant smell: to emit a strong and very unpleasant smell [OALD, 1276; LDCE, 1631; MEDAL, 1471]. The word to reek denotes that something is distributing bad smell: to emit a strong, unpleasant smell [OALD, 1066; LDCE, 1244; MEDAL, 1032].

In the given microfield the synonyms to smell, to stink and to reek, as well as the nouns are opposed to each other by the semantic feature of the smell intensity. According to this parameter verb to stink and to reek are used in order to denote more weak smell. The verb to smell is used to show rather strong smell. For example: 1) … next, they stink of fish, and leek-porridge miserably… (Ben Jonson «Every Man in His Humour. A Comedy»); 2) The house simply reeked of grilled bloaters (David Herbert Lawrence «Lady Chatterley’s Lover [First Version]»).

While opposing nouns and adjectives of the given field we have found out that synonymic adjectives also differ from each other according to the parameter of «smell intensity». To denote strong unpleasant smell one uses the adjective stinking. If we want to denote the very strong unpleasant, even offensive smell, we use the adjectives reeking, stinking and rank. Strong unpleasant bad smell, which makes us sick, we denote by the word fetid. For the nomination of the nasty smells we usually use lexemes reeking, stinking, noisome, fetid and rank. Nasty, offensive smell one denote by the adjective mephitic. Smelly denotes strong, unpleasant and disgusting smell. Stated above adjectives we refer to the lexical units with the high measure of smell intensity, and only one unit malodorous we state to have low measure of smell intensity.

The conclusions and perspectives of the following research. The microfield «bad smell» consists of three synonymic rows (according to the part of the speech). The exception of the word smell, these units contain the semantic component «unpleasant offensive smell». For its fixation in the dictionary enties one uses such lexical units as: bad, strong, foul, unpleasant, offensive, rank, nasty, nauseating. In the dictionaries there is mainly denotes only the presence of the appointed semantic feature, but the information about the possible reference and the source of the unplea­sant smell is not given. This fact complicates the adequate perception of the semantics of these or those units of the microfield. The conducted analysis shows that the units of the microfield «bad smell» differ from each other according to the semantic parameter of intensity and volumeness, as well as according to the character of the source of the smell. In this lexico-semantic field we can see the vividly lined assessed asymmetry – «the shift to side with the negative meanings» [4, p. 61]. In other words units which denote unpleasant smell quantitatively prevail over the positively marked units.

The presence of the considerable quantity of the lexemes which form the given microfield affirms the relevance of the bad smells for the native speakers.

References

  1. Arutiunova N. D. Tipy yazykovykh znachenii: Otsenka. Sobytie. Fakt / N. Aru­tiunova – М. : Nauka, 1988. – 341 с.
  2. Akhmanova О. S. Slovar lingvisticheskikh terminov / О. S. Akhmanova. − Izd. 2-е, stereotip. − М.: Sov. entsikl., 1969. – 608 с.
  3. Volf Е. М. О otnoshenii kvalifikativnoi i deskriptivnoi struktur v semantike slova i vyskazuvanii / Е. М. Volf // Izvestiia Akademii nauk. Ser. literatury i yazyka. – 1981. – Tom 40, № 4. – С. 391–397.
  4. Raikhshtein А. D. Sopostavitelnyi analis nemetskoi i russkoi frazeologii : ucheb. posobie dlia in-tov i fak. inostr. yaz. – М. : Vyssh. shk., 1980. – 143 с.

Література

  1. Арутюнова Н. Д. Типы языковых значений: Оценка. Событие. Факт / Н. Арутюнова – М. : Наука, 1988. – 341 с.
  2. Ахманова О. С. Словарь лингвистических терминов / О. С. Ахманова. − Изд. 2-е, стереотип. – М.: Сов. энцикл., 1969. – 608 с.
  3. Вольф Е. М. О отношении квалификативной и дескриптивной структур в семантике слова и высказывании / Е. М. Вольф // Известия Академии наук. Сер. литературы и языка. – 1981. – Т. 40, № 4. – С. 391–397.
  4. Райхштейн А. Д. Сопоставительный анализ немецкой и русской фразеологии : учеб. пособие для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. – М. : Высш. шк., 1980. – 143 с.

Dictionaries

  1. LDCE – Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English / Adam Gadsby. – New edition. – Pearson Education Limited, 2007. – 1300 p.
  2. MEDAL – MacMillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners / Michael Rundell, Gwyneth Fox. – London : MacMillan Publishers Ltd., 2007. – 1260 p.
  3. OED – Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English / A. S. Hornby. – Oxford University Press, 2001. – 1500 p.
  4. MW – Merriam Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (електронний словник), 2000.
  5. C – Collins English Dictionary (електронний словник), 5-th edition, 2000.
  6. ARSS – Apresian Yu. D. Anglo-russkii sinonimicheskii slovar / Yu. Apresian. – М. : Rus. yaz., 1988. – 544 с.
  7. KSSAYa – Potapova I. А. Kratkii slovar sinonimov angliyskogo yazyka / I. Pota­pova. – L. : [b. i.], 1957. – 148 с.
  8. SSAM – Barantsev K. T. Slovnyk synonimiv angliyskoi movy / K. Barantsev. – K. : Rad. shk., 1964. – 516 с.

Словники

  1. LDCE – Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English / Adam Gadsby. – New edition. – Pearson Education Limited, 2007. – 1300 p.
  2. MEDAL – MacMillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners / Michael Run­dell, Gwyneth Fox. – London : MacMillan Publishers Ltd., 2007. – 1260 p.
  3. OED – Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English / A. S. Hornby. – Oxford University Press, 2001. – 1500 p.
  4. MW – Merriam Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (електронний словник), 2000.
  5. C – Collins English Dictionary (електронний словник), 5-th edition, 2000.
  6. АРСС – Апресян Ю. Д. Англо-русский синонимический словарь / Ю. Апре­сян. – М. : Рус. яз., 1988. – 544 с.
  7. КССАН – Потапова И. А. Краткий словарь синонимов английского языка / И. Потапова. – Л. : [б. и.], 1957. – 148 с.
  8. ССАМ – Баранцев К. Т. Словник синонімів англійської мови / К. Т. Баран­цев. – К. : Рад. шк., 1964. – 516 с.

Мартинюк Альона. Мікропіле «неприємний запах» в англійській мові. У статті розглянуто лексичні одиниці, які входять до мікрополя «Неприємний запах»; представлено результати лексикографічного аналізу лексем даного мікрополя, виявлено семантичні ознаки, які проявляються в текстах художньої літератури. Матеріалом дослідження виступили словникові статті п’яти тлу­мачних словників англійської мови (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, MacMillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Collin’s English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary), а також художні твори британської та американської літератури (XVIII−ХХ ст.). У ході дослідження було виявлено, що у словни­кових статтях переважно відзначається лише наявність вказаної семантичної ознаки, проте не подається інформація про можливу референцію та джерело неприємного запаху, що ускладнює адекватне сприйняття семантики тих чи тих одиниць мікрополя. В даному лексико-семантичному полі виявлено, що кількість одиниць, які позначають неприємний запах переважає над кількістю лексичних одиниць, які маркують приємні запахи.

Ключові слова: мікрополе, семантика, лексична одиниця, семантична ознака.

Мартынюк Алёна. Микрополе «неприятный запах» в английском языке. В статье рассмотрены лексические единицы микрополя «Неприятный запах», показаны результаты лексикографического исследования лексем дан­ного микрополя, обнаружены семантические признаки, которые содержатся в текстах художественной литературы. Метериалом исследовая выступили сло­варные статьи пяти толковых словарей английского языка (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, MacMillan English Dictionary for Advan­ced Learners, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Collin’s English Dic­tionary, Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary), а также художественные про­изведения британской и американской литературы (XVIII–XX в.). В ходе иссле­дования было обнаружено, что в словарных статьях преимущественно отмеча­ется только наличие обозначенных семантических признаков, но не подано информацию о возможной референции и источнике неприятного запаха, что усложняет адекватное восприятие семантики тех или иных единиц микрополя. В данном лексико-семантическом поле было также обнаружено, что количество лексических единиц, которые обозначают неприятные запахи, превосходит количество лексических единиц, которые маркируют приятные запахи.

Ключевые слова: микрополе, семантика, лексическая единица, семанти­ческий признак.

 

 


©  Martyniuk A., 2015