Department of English and American Studies. English Language and Literature. A Comparative Study of English and Czech Idioms Bachelor s Diploma Thesis

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature

Olga Žižková

A Comparative Study of English and Czech Idioms Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, CSc.

2010

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. ……………………………………………..

Author’s signature

2

Acknowledgement I would like to thank PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, CSc., for her guidance and valuable advice.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5

2.

Theoretical part ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.1. Idiom .................................................................................................................................. 7

3.

2.2.

Comparison and simile ................................................................................................ 8

2.3.

Simile and metaphor ................................................................................................. 12

2.4.

Components of comparison ...................................................................................... 13

2.5.

Transformation and variation .................................................................................... 16

Practical part ....................................................................................................................... 17 3.1. Material ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.2.

Semantic analysis ....................................................................................................... 18

3.2.1.

Methodology ..................................................................................................... 18

3.2.2.

Comparisons ..................................................................................................... 21

3.2.3.

Semantic analysis of comparatum .................................................................... 30

3.2.4.

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 31

3.3. 3.3.2.

Formal analysis .......................................................................................................... 32 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 36

4.

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 37

5.

Resumé ................................................................................................................................ 41

Sources of idioms ........................................................................................................................ 43 References................................................................................................................................... 43

4

1. Introduction Idiomatic language and expressions constitute a crucial part of each language. Idioms make language richer, more colorful and playful. They are the precious “spice” of language that should not be overused (Hrách 1998:6). Students of English all over the world strive to master idioms and become more like native speakers. However, this is not an easy task because idioms in each language significantly vary. This differentiation and diversity of idiomatic language make this field a very attractive object of study. There exist studies comparing English and Czech idioms of different categories, such as animal, color or body. This thesis will compare English and Czech idiomatic comparisons. It will analyze over 290 English comparisons collected from different sources and compare them with their Czech equivalents, if any such exists. The source language for the comparisons is English and the main source of English comparisons is Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Vol. 2 by A. P. Cowie (1993). The second most important source is Sbírka anglických idiomů & slangu by Tomáš Hrách (1998). Further comparisons were added from two internet sources, mainly Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus – The Free Dictionary and also English Language (ESL) Learning Online. The Czech translations are based on Čermák’s Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky: Přirovnání (1983). Some Czech equivalents, however, cannot be found in this source but nevertheless exist. In such cases, the existence of such expressions is verified in the Czech national corpus or Google. As will follow from this thesis, both languages are very rich in comparisons. They can be found everywhere – in everyday language and conversation, in newspapers and novels. Furthermore, it will become obvious that English and Czech language

5

considerably vary. However, there are relatively few English comparisons that do not have Czech idiomatic counterpart. The thesis is divided into two parts. The first part provides the theoretical background. It offers the definition of an idiom and then continues to deal with the notion of comparison and simile. It introduces different approaches towards the difference between comparison and simile and shows the features of idiomatized “false” comparisons. Furthermore, it deals with the structure of comparisons as elaborated by Čermák (1982:476), discusses the characteristics of the individual components of comparisons. Finally, it mentions the flexibility of the comparisons, variations and transformation. The second, practical, part analyzes the material from two aspects. First, it divides the comparisons into groups according to the similarity of comparatum in both languages. It discovers that the largest section of the comparisons varies in both languages. However, it is shown that general tendencies of the kind of comparatum (concrete entities, animals) are approximately the same. The next part of the practical analysis deals with the formal aspects of the comparisons. It compares the distribution of verbs and adjectives on the left side of the comparisons and then discusses whether the nominal tendency of English influences the right side of comparisons as compared to the Czech equivalents. The aim of this thesis is to collect a sufficient number of English comparisons to show the general tendencies of English idiomatic comparisons and to be able to compare them with the Czech comparisons and their tendencies.

6

2. Theoretical part

2.1. Idiom An idiom is traditionally defined as “a set expression in which two or more words are syntactically related, but with a meaning like that of a single lexical unit” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics) or “conventional multi-word units that are semantically opaque and structurally fixed” (Langlotz 2006:2) or, more simply expressed: “a number of words which, taken together, mean something different from individual words of the idiom when they stand alone” (Seidl 1978:4). However, as Cowie argues, the definition based on semantic opaqueness covers only a small class of idioms. It is important, as Cowie (1993:xii) further discusses, to take into account “the possibility of internal variation, or substitution of part for part.” The notion of “fixedness” (Langlotz 2006:4) and grammatical and syntactic restrictions (Palmer 1996:80) applies only to a class of idioms defined by Cowie as “pure idioms”. Examples of this class include notoriously quoted idiom kick the bucket. This idiom is fixed or “petrified” (Leech 1981:225) and restricted as far as tense and number are concerned. However, the possibility of voice modification varies and while *the bucket was kicked is incorrect, the beans have been spilled is acceptable. It is therefore necessary to judge the restrictions of each idiom individually. Cowie, however, further distinguishes, apart from already mentioned pure idioms, three other classes: figurative idioms, restricted collocations and open collocations. Figurative idioms are characterized by having figurative meaning but at the same time keeping literal meaning as well. A good example is provided by Nesselhauf (1996:15): do the U-turn in the sense “completely change one’s policy or behaviour.” The next category, restricted collocations, are referred to as “semi-idioms”

7

and are composed of one literal component and one figurative which is restricted to this context. The literal element can be replaced or deleted, as shown in this example provided by Cowie: The Board didn’t entertain the idea, and the Senate wouldn’t entertain it either. Open collocations, on the other hand, are distinguished from the idioms and are not considered idiomatic. In expressions such as fill the sink both elements are used in literal sense and can be substituted by other expressions (fill/drain/empty the sink/basin/bucket). According to this division, the expressions analyzed in this thesis fall within the category restricted collocations. Anomalous collocability, meaning that one element is in given function or meaning restricted only to given context or to a very limited number of contexts, is also the main characteristic of idiomatic and phraseological expressions as defined by Čermák (1983:10). This section dealt with idioms and the notion of idiomacity in general. The next section will deal with different approaches to comparisons, similes and their idiomatized character.

2.2. Comparison and simile Comparing is a very frequent process in language and similarity is one of the basic semantic relations (Čermák 1986:464). As Seidl (1978:233) points out, comparisons are used to make language vivid and clear. According to the online version of The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, comparison can be quite vaguely defined as “the act or an instance of comparing one thing with another”. In addition, comparisons of equivalence and comparisons of non-equivalence are distinguished in this dictionary. An example of the comparison of non-equivalence is today is colder than yesterday. Within comparisons

8

of non-equivalence, two parts can be distinguished: the standard and the basis. The standard in this example is represented by the “coldness” and basis by “yesterday”. On the other hand, comparisons of equivalence take the form as X as, e.g. she is as generous as her mother. There is, however, another way of dividing comparisons. Cvejnová (1999:88) distinguishes “false” comparisons, so called idiomatized comparisons. These “false” comparisons are characterized by the loss of deictic character. As Cvejnová shows, the meaning of Peter is taller than John is highly dependent on the linguistic and extra linguistic context and the comparison is of deictic nature, i.e. it tells the hearer nothing about Peter’s absolute height. This can be demonstrated by comparing these two sentences provided by Cvejnová: he is as strong as his father and he is as strong as a lion. In the second example, the expression lion loses its deictic character and serves as a model of attributed characteristic. From this point of view it is clear that all comparisons analyzed in this thesis are “false” and idiomatized.

It is also important to mention the term simile. Simile, as defined by the online version of The Oxford Dictionary of English, is a figure of a speech “involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g. as brave as a lion).“ An even better definition is provided by Wikberg (2008:128), who writes that simile is “a figurative expression used to make an explicit comparison of two unlike things by means of the prepositions like(as)...as or the conjunctions as, as if, as though.” Similarly to the aforementioned comparisons, two parts of similes can be distinguished: a vehicle and a tenor. Vehicle is represented by the entity that something

9

is compared to and it “conveys a meaning about the word or thing which is likened to it“ (Harris 1980, online). In the example strong as an ox, the vehicle is represented by ox. Some vehicles are very frequent and occur in many similes. Veale (2007) provides the example of vehicle snowflake that occurs in similes like white, pure, fresh, beautiful, natural, delicate, intricate and many more. Tenor is the thing likened to the vehicle. It is the subject to which the comparison is applied and in the example Peter is as strong as an ox, Peter is the tenor. Furthermore, another element is the ground, which is the property, usually the adjective. It is similar to the standard of comparison mentioned above and in the given example the ground is represented by strong. It is important to pay attention to the difference between comparison and simile. Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language distinguishes between comparison and simile on the basis of the reality of the comparison. Therefore, some dogs are like wolves is not a simile because it lacks the quality of being “a more or less fanciful or unrealistic comparison” An example of simile would then be the Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold because the Assyrian do not physically look like wolfs. On the other hand, Veale (2009) offers another explanation of this difference and it is based on the salience of the vehicle. As he writes in his article: “a simile uses a vehicle for which a given ground property is especially salient to highlight this property in a topic. Simple comparisons, on the other hand, merely point out correlations and commonalities between two things, regardless of whether those commonalities are particularly salient in the vehicle.” It is best explained on an example. While strong as an ox is a simile because the vehicle ox is used because of its typical, salient characteristics, example like as big as a tennis-ball is a comparison because bigness is not a typical characteristic of a tennis-ball.

10

Furthermore, Wikberg (2008:129) draws attention to the difference between literal comparison and simile. Literal comparison, as opposed to simile, is reversible. It is thus possible to say olive oil is like a fine wine and a fine wine is like olive oil. It is clear from what has been noted that the approaches to comparisons, similes and similarity differ. The question is how to handle the material of this thesis. It can be viewed as “false” idiomatized comparisons according to Cvejnová, and in English Idioms and How to Use them, they are dealt with as “idioms as comparison”. However, according to Oxford Companion to the English Language and Veale, these examples are not regarded as comparisons but as idiomatic, “pre-fabricated”, similes, which can also be called stock, familiar or frozen similes (Moon 2008:4). Nevertheless, it was decided to call the material of the thesis comparisons which is regarded as a general term. Yet another characterization of comparisons is introduced by Čermák (1983:464). He argues that the similarity of two denotates can in language representation take nonspecific or specific form. The former usually includes verbs such as look like, seem like and the speaker freely chooses the model for comparison, e.g. the rock looks like an egg, a ball, etc. In the latter, however, the model is fixed and in expressions such as as like as two peas a pod the entities compared do not bear any resemblance to a pea. These fixed and normalized expressions are called comparison. Comparisons are then characterized by Čermák as fixed and idiomatic expressions which serve to identify and evaluate the similarity between a noun and a predefined model. Furthermore, Čermák identifies comparison as a functionally, formally and semantically indecomposable unit. Idiomatic similes or idiomatized comparisons, as Veale (2009) mentions, expose the key stereotypes in language and culture. Similarly, Piirainen (2008:214)

11

argues that the vehicle reflects salient concepts and cultural connotations of a given community. Comparing these idiomatic and fixed similes can then reveal the similarities and differences in the stereotypes given language and society holds.

2.3. Simile and metaphor Another issue that is important to mention is the relation between metaphor and simile. The online version of the Oxford Dictionary of Classical World distinguishes metaphor as an implicit comparison as opposed to simile which is an explicit comparison. Furthermore, as Čermák (1983:482) points out, the general function of each comparison is similarity, which is a metaphorical relation. This question was dealt with already by Aristotle in his Rhetoric. He claims that “The Simile also is a metaphor; the difference is but slight” (book III, chapter 4). He also argues that the difference is only in the way it is put. Similes are longer and thus less attractive than metaphors which are elliptical. However, Wikberg (2008:131) shows that even though this is true for some metaphors (he is a wolf – he is like a wolf), there are metaphors which cannot be turned into a simile, such as the orientational metaphor in this example: the number of crimes keeps going up. Furthermore, as Wikberg also explains, similes and metaphors express different things (while he is like a wolf refers the salient quality, such as rapacity or ferocity; metaphor assigns the wolf-like qualities more in general and these qualities can be understood only in context). Another important difference stated by Wikberg is that similes can express what equivalent metaphors cannot (it is possible to say a rose is like a dog and then continue to explain what is the similarity, i.e. taking care of it, reward etc.; this cannot be done with the metaphor a rose is a dog).

12

Therefore, while it is true that a simile such as like a fishwife can be freely and without changes turned into a metaphor (she turned into screaming fishwife), it is important to realize that the statement that metaphors are only similes without some parts is not necessarily true.

2.4. Components of comparison As already discussed, different designations for the components of comparison are used. Given an example Peter is as strong as an ox, according to The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, basis (strong) and standard (ox) can be identified. However, Veale distinguishes tenor (Peter), ground (strong) and vehicle (ox). From the semantic point of view, Čermák (1983:476) distinguishes five components of comparison: Comparandum (Peter) – relator (is) – tertium comparationis (strong) – comparator (as) – comparatum (an ox). The following discussion will compare the characteristics of each component as described by Čermák for the Czech language with English comparisons, providing examples from the collected material, and show the differences and similarities between the two languages. Comparandum is a referent of the comparison, in given example Peter. The knowledge of the right and possible referent is crucial. For example, the difference between smooth as a billiard-table and smooth as a mill-pond is in the acceptable referent and sentences like the sea was smooth as a billiard-table or the grass was smooth as a mill-pond are not correct. Furthermore, there are examples with only one or very few possible referents. For instance, the comparison as big as saucers has only one referent, i.e. eyes. A relator is usually a verbal element expressing the kind of similarity involved. Therefore it can be not only the verb be but also look or feel. However, the

13

relator is omitted in examples such as drink like a fish. In this example, the relator merges with tertium comparationis (he is drinking -> he drinks). Teritum comparationis is represented by an adjective (as hungry as hunter), verb (drop like flies) or, less often, noun (memory like an elephant) or adverb (result of transformation quick – quickly as a lightning. Transformation will be dealt with in the following section). Its function is to specify the characteristics compared. The frequency of adjectives and verbs as tertium comparationis is related to the semantics of comparison, which mainly evaluates quality and action. The frequency of adjectives as opposed to verbs will also be analyzed in the practical part. In some cases, the tertium comparationis is deleted. This can happen only if the comparatum is salient enough (e.g. Čermák (1983:477) provides an example je jako zpomalený film; in English such example would be like a hot knife through butter where it is obvious that it goes smoothly or easy) or if the tertium comparationis is not easily expressed by a single word (e.g. like the curate’s egg where it means “of partial quality, partially good, partially bad”; in Czech for example jsou jako siamská dvojčata). The relator in such cases remains but tertium comparationis is deleted. The comparator is the formal marker. In English, it can take form of as X as Y or like or as if/though. These markers served as the criterion for inclusion to the material of the thesis, i.e. the material consists only of comparisons containing one of the mentioned comparators. However, as Čermák (1983:479) points out, there are substandard types of comparisons which semantically function as comparisons even though they formally look like adverbial clause of manner, measure or result, as in smál se, až se za břicho popadal. In such cases, the comparatum is internal and homogenous with the comparandum. These subtypes, however, share the fixed and generalized model with comparison. Other examples in Czech include zavřít někoho až zčerná or

14

udělat něco, než bys řekl švec. In English, expressions such as before you can say Jack Robinson/knife; it’s not worth a row of beans or talk until one is black/blue in the face would fall into this subtype but they are not dealt with in this thesis. The comparatum is the standardized, known model for comparison. It may be a single word (free as a bird), phrase (as artful as wagon-load of monkeys) or a sentence (look as if/though one has slept in the suit for a week). As Čermák (1983:472) shows, the majority of comparatums is constituted by concrete entities (45%), the second most common are animals (20%) and human professions and functions (20%), and the rest is divided into proper names, local names, abstract expressions and compounded expressions including sentences. This, however, applies to the Czech language and the frequency for English will be examined in the practical part. Furthermore, Čermák (1983:467) states that the comparatum is predominantly nominal. Therefore, the practical part will examine the extent to which the nominal tendency of English manifests itself in the comparisons. As already mentioned, the comparatum, or vehicle, must be salient and prototypical. On the other hand, Čermák (1983:481) writes about desemantisation. The expressions concerned (in Czech prase, pes, blázen) can appear as comparatums in many comparisons (e.g. pes appears in almost 40 comparisons) and their function is intensification. In English, an example of such intensification is like crazy, which appears in connection with many verbs, such as these examples found in the British National Corpus: laugh, kick, fight, rock, wave, meow and other. In addition, Čermák (1983:471) writes about the high frequency of common and familiar domestic animals, such as cat, pig, bull or dog. These animals, too, appear in English comparisons; but not as often as in Czech and are not desemantized to such extent. For example, in Czech jako prase serves as an intensification with a complete loss of meaning (bolí to jako

15

prase, kyselý jako prase, opilý jako prase). In English, however, pig retains its meaning and appears in expressions such as fat as a pig, snore as a pig in the sun or happy as a pig in poops where it does not function as an intensifier.

This section dealt with the components of comparisons as stated in Čermák (1983:476) and thus summarized the basic characteristics of comparisons and compared them with English comparisons. However, the differences between these two languages from the semantic and formal point of view will be more closely examined in the practical part.

2.5. Transformation and variation Comparisons exist in many variations and forms. Transformation, as explained by Čermák (1983:489), is similar in meaning and form to the basic form. However, it differs as far as function is concerned. Transformation includes the already mentioned examples quick as a lightning – quickly as a lightning. Further examples are white as snow – snow-white or silent as a grave – grave silence. However, this thesis analyzes the basic forms of the comparisons as found in the dictionary and does not deal with transformation any further. Variation, on the other hand, does not differ in function from the basis and includes these examples stiff/straight as a ramrod or strong as an ox/a horse. These obligatory variations are signaled by a slash. In addition, there are optional words in the brackets, such as helpless as a (new-born) child. Many comparisons appear in rich variations in concrete realizations, such as examples provided by Cowie et al (1983): like a red rag to a bull – like waving a pair of red panties at a bull; or like the cat that

16

stole the cream – like a cat presented with an unexpectedly large bowl of cream. These examples also show the language play and creativity involved in the idiomatic language. Finally, it is important to briefly mention the limitations of grammatical transformation.

While

Čermák

(1983)

provides

information

about

the

possibility/impossibility of negation, question, imperative or plural for each entry, no such information is provided in Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. However, since comparisons are relatively fixed expressions, it is clear that forms such as he does not look as if he saw a ghost or he looks as if he didn’t see a ghost are incorrect. Neither are examples such as it was eaten like a horse or is it like herding frogs? found in the British National Corpus or Google.

3. Practical part

3.1. Material This thesis analyzes English and Czech idiomatic comparisons. English served as the source language and the Czech translations are based on Čermák’s Slovník české frazeologie a idomatiky: Přirovnání (1983). Czech equivalents that cannot be found in this dictionary but nevertheless exist were found and verified on Google or Czech National Corpus. About three quarters of the material were collected from Cowie’s Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Volume 2 (1993). This dictionary was published in 1983 and may be therefore a little dated; however, it is the most extensive available source containing comparisons and thus suits perfectly as the basic source. Almost 15 % of the material is constituted by comparisons from Hrách’s Sbírka anglických idiomů & slangu. This rather thin collection was published in 1998 and

17

provides more modern expressions and is thus a useful complement to the aforementioned dictionary. The remaining 10 % of the material consists of comparisons found online in The Free Dictionary which was compiled from the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms and the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms. The second internet source is English Language (ESL) Learning Online. This collection of comparisons is not at all exhaustive, neither are the Czech translations, which do not contain all the Czech variations provided by Čermák (1983) because the focus of the thesis are primarily English comparisons. The material, however, can still serve as a representative sample to prove the general tendencies and differences of both languages.

3.2. Semantic analysis

3.2.1. Methodology The semantic analysis is based on the similarity or difference of comparatum. The formal aspect is not taken into account but two basic criteria were considered when sorting the material into categories. The first one is the meaning of the whole comparison which must be the same. Some comparisons have more meanings and in only one of them agree with the Czech translation. In such case, the comparison is listed twice in different categories, e.g. common as a dirt can mean either that there is a lot of something and can be translated to Czech as je toho jako hub po dešti and is then included within the category non correspondence; or it can mean low class or uncouth. For this meaning there is no Czech equivalent and the comparison is included within the category no equivalence.

18

In the opposite case, the comparison has two variations and each belongs to a different category, for example stink like a polecat/to high heaven. While the first variation belongs to the category total correspondence (smrdět jako tchoř), the second one belongs to non correspondence (smrdět jako bolavá noha/kanál). The equivalence of meaning is the basic criterion. The second criterion is the semantic similarity of comparatum. Based on the comparatum, the following categories were created: Total correspondence – this category includes comparisons with identical comparatum. Since the form will be dealt with in the second part of practical analysis, this category does not take into account whether the left side is verbal or adjectival, therefore changeable as a weathercock and its Czech translation být/otáčet se jako korouhvička are included in this category. Similarly, the expressions stuck pig and jako když píchne prase were placed in this category. Overall correspondence – this category is divided into five subcategories: The first one is diminutive, where Czech comparatums are expressed by diminutive form. The second category includes hyponymy where two of four English comparatums are hyperonyms to the Czech translations (bird – vrabeček, candy – lízátko) and two, on the contrary, are hyponyms (čert – Lucifer, talíř – saucer). The next subcategory deals with meronymy and includes one comparison where the Czech comparatum is a meronym of the English one (old boot – podešev/podrážka) and one example where it is the other way round (hodinky – clockwork). The last two subcategories deal with comparisons which differ only in number (slaves/horses – otrok/kůň) or abstractness of the comparatum (flame – světlo). Partial correspondence – this category includes comparisons with comparatums expressing similar images (look as if one has slept in the suit for a week –

19

vypadá jako by v tom spal). The image to which something is compared is basically the same only expressed by slightly different means (or more in detail). As opposed to the previous category, in the non correspondence category the comparatum is completely different (hungry as a hunter – hladový jako vlk). This category comprises over one half of the collected comparisons and can serve as an illustration of the diversity of the two languages. The last category, no equal comparison, includes comparisons which do not have opposite Czech idiomatic comparisons (bright/cute as button – chytrý, chápavý). This category constitutes only about 10% of the material. It is not without interest that there is no Czech idiomatic comparison for the positive meaning of clever. As Čermák (1983:480) points out, the Czech comparisons are of primarily negative evaluation (drunk, stupid...). On the other hand, in English there are comparisons bright/cute as a button and clever/smart as paint. Furthermore, while English wise as Solomon means very wise, with good judgment, Czech moudrý jako Šalamoun is used also in the ironic sense, meaning too clever. Even though Čermák (1983:345) states that this comparison also means velmi chytrý, zkušený, the predominance of ironic and mocking meaning is indicated by the ironic and derogatory expression tvářit se jako by snědl Šalamounovo hovno.

20

3.2.2. Comparisons Total correspondence English arise/rise like a phoenix from the ashes avoid sb/sth like the plague black as coal black as soot bleed like a stuck pig blind as a bat bold/brave as a lion clear as a bell clear as crystal clear as day/daylight cold as ice crazy/cunning as a fox drop like flies fat as a pig flat as a board free as a bird fresh as a rose gentle/meek as a lamb go like the wind good as new hard as (a) stone hard as flint hard as iron/rock have (got)/with a memory like a sieve have a memory like an elephant heavy as lead helpless as a (new-born) child/babe changeable as a weathercock like a bolt from the blue like a cat with nine lives like a fish out of water like a hawk like a mad thing like a new man (women) like a shot like greased lightning

Czech vzlétnout/zrodit se jako fénix (z popela) vyhýbat se někomu/něčemu jako moru černý jako uhel černý jako saze krve jako když píchne prase slepý jako netopýr statečný jako lev hlas jako zvon jasný jako křišťál jasné jako den studený jako led mazaný jako liška padat jako mouchy tlustý jako prase plochý jako prkno volný jako pták krásná jako růže mírný/krotký jako beránek běžet/letět jako vítr jako nové tvrdý jako kámen tvrdý jako křemen jako ze železa/skála mít paměť jako cedník mít paměť jako slon jako z olova

bezmocný/bezbranný jako dítě být/otáčet se jako korouhvička jako blesk z čistého nebe jako kočka s devíti životy jako ryba na suchu/bez vody jako ostříž jako šílenec/blázen jako znovuzrozený(a) jako střela jako namydlený blesk jako krysy opouštějící potápějící se like rats abandoning a sinking ship loď 21

Note

tvrdý,bezcitný nemilosrdný, bez soucitu

look as if/though one has seen a ghost nervous as a cat/kitten obstinate/stubborn as a mule old as Methuselah pack sb like sardines pale as death patient as Job poor as church mouse pretty as a picture proud/vain as a peacock pure as the driven snow quick as lightning/flash quiet as a mouse quiet/silent as the grave/tomb red as a turkey-cock rich as Croesus shake like a jelly/leaf sharp as a needle sink like a stone sleep like a log smoke like a chimney smooth as a velvet smooth as glass sour as vinegar spread like wildfire squeal like a stuck pig still as a statue stink like a polecat strong as a horse/an ox swarm like locusts sweat like a pig sweet as honey thin as a lath weak as water white as chalk white as snow

vypadá jako by viděl strašidlo nervózní jak kočka tvrdohlavý jako mezek/beran starý jako Metuzalém namačkat jako sardinky bledý/bílý jako smrt trpělivý jako Job chudý jako kostelní myš pěkný jako obrázek pyšný jako páv čistý jako padlý sníh rychlý jako blesk tichý jako myš ticho jako v hrobě rudý jako krocan bohatý jako Krésus třást se jako sulc/(osikový) list ostrý jako jehla jít ke dnu jako kámen spát jako poleno/špalek kouřit/hulit jako (tovární) komín hebký jako samet hladký jako sklo kyselý jako ocet šířit se jako oheň křičet/kvičet jako raněné prase stát/být jako socha smrdět jako tchoř silný jako kůň/býk vrhnout se/sesypat se někoho/něco jako kobylky potit se jako prase sladké jako med hubený jako tyčka je to jako voda bílý jako křída bílý jako sníh

novinky, vzpoura, nemoc

pití

Overall correspondence DEMINUTIVE busy as a bee fresh as a rose gay as a lark light as a feather

pilný jak včelička krásná jako růžička veselý jako skřivánek lehký jako peříčko 22

lehký

light as air smooth as a baby's bottom

lehký jako vánek hladký jako dětská prdelka

HYPONYMY Eat like a bird like taking candy from a baby big/round as saucers proud as Lucifer

jíst jako vrabec/vrabeček jako ukrást dítěti lízátko oči jako talíře pyšný jako čert

SINGULAR - PLURAL work like slaves/horses

dělat/dřít jako otrok/kůň

ABSTRACT - CONCRETE like moths to a flame

jako můry ke světlu

MERONYMY tough as an old boot go/run like clockwork regular as clockwork

tuhý jako podešev/podrážka pracovat jako hodiny přesný jako hodinky

Partial correspondence artful as wagon-load of monkeys digestion like an ostrich have a hide/skin like rhinoceros like a bull in a china shop like a bullet out of/from a gun like a cat on hot bricks/ hot tin roof like a fart in a bottle like a kid with a new toy like/as sheep to the slaughter look as if/though one has slept in the suit for a week look as if/though one has stepped out of bandbox plain as the sun at moonday read sb like a book

mazaný jako stádo opic mít žaludek jako kachna mít kůži jako hroch jako slon v porcelánu letět/běžet/vyrazit jako střela být/sedět jako na žhavém/řeřavém uhlí lítat jako zakletej prd v lucerně šťastný/radovat se jako malé dítě vést někoho jako na porážku/jatka vypadá jako by v tom spal být jako ze škatulky je to nad slunce jasné/jasnější číst v někom jako v otevřené knize

Non correspondence

(as) like as two peas/peas in a pod bald as a coot

jako (siamská) dvojčata; být si podobní vejce vejci; jako by si z oka vypadli plešatý jako koleno 23

bezstarostný

o očích

be laid out like a rug

vožralej jako Dán/dělo/kanec/kára

bent/queer as nine-bob note black as ace of spades black as ink black as it is painted bold as a brass

falešný jako pětka černý jako saze/smola/noc tma jako v pytli zlý jako ho dělají/jak se zdá drzý jako opice/stádo opic černý/opálený jako ašant; opálený brown as berry jako Indián; hnědý jako čokoláda clean as a hound's tooth čistý jako slovo boží clean as a new pin čistý jako ze škatulky/klícka clean as a whistle jako vymeteno spletené/zamotané že se v tom ani clear as mud prase nevyzná vychcanej jako mraky/chytrý jako clever as sin žid/advokát close as an oyster chladný jako psí čumák studený jako had/kámen/mramor/ rampouch; zima jako v morně/ cold as charity psinci/psírně/jako na Sibiři je toho jako hnoje/hub po dešti/ common as dirt/muck máku/jako když nasere/jak nasráno cool as a Christian with aces wired nervy jako dráty/ze železa cool as a cucumber nervy jako dráty/ze železa mrzutý jako jezevec; cross as a bear with a sore head rozmrzelý/bručet jako (staré) dudy vzteklý jako čert/prskat jako kočka/napružený jako cross as two sticks péro/rozzuřený jako býk daft as a brush blbej jako tágo/pučtok/putna deaf as a post hluchý jako pařez/poleno/dřevo jako David a Goliáš/nebe a different as chalk from/and cheese dudy/noc a den/oheň a voda vymačkaný jako citrón/vyřízený done like a dinner/turn jako žádost vystrojený jako na svatbu/do done/dressed up like a dog's kostela; být jako (vystřižený) ze dinner/a pox doctor's clerk žurnálu dressed up like a sore finger/ thumb/toe drink like a fish drunk/pissed as a lord/newt dry as a bone dry as a dust

být jako loutka pít jako duha/houba/námořník vožralej jako Dán/dělo/kanec/ kára/prase; nalitej jako pupen/ slíva/sud/svině/štěně/zákon káže suchý jako drn/trn/troud; vyprahlý jako Sahara suchý jako drn/trn/troud 24

také homosexuální

opálený čistý/prázdný nejasný, zmatený

chladný/zima

naparáděný a neumět se v tom přirozeně chovat

suchý

dry as paper dull as ditch-water easy/simple as ABC/pie/kiss your hand/falling off a log/horse

sucho jako na Sahaře; vyprahlý jak Sahara; mít v hubě jako v nepříjemně/ne polepšovně zdravě sucho napínavé jako kšandy nudný jednoduché jako facka/násobilka/ pár facek jíst jako bezedný/nedovřený/ nádeník/vlk mít oči (červené) jako králík být jako cvalík/melounek

eat like a horse eyes like pissholes in the snow fat as butter/a young thrush feel as if a cat has kittened in one's mouth mít v hubě jako v polepšovně cítit se slabý jako moucha; utahaný feel like a wet rag jako kotě fight like Kilkenny cats rvát se jako psi fit as a fiddle/flea zdravý jako rybička/řípa Fit like a glove padne jako ulitý free as (the) air volný jako Amerika/pták čilý jako čamrda/čiperka/ryba/ fresh as a daisy rybka/rybička full as an egg nalitej jako pupen/slíva/snop/sud go down like ninepins sesypat se jako domeček z karet good as gold hodný jako anděl jako jelimánek/by spadl z vině/z naivní, green as grass měsíce/jako mladá vrána nezkušený grin like a Cheshire cat šklebit se jako opice handwriting like chicken scratch škrabat jako kocour hang/hold on sth like grim death držet se něčeho/někoho jako klíště happy as a clam/a king/a sandboy/ Larry šťastný jako blecha/malé dítě tvrdý (fyzický odolný), být jako z křemene; svaly jako z sobecký, hard as nails ocele bezohledný nenávidět někoho až do morku kostí; mít někoho rád jako veš v hate sb/sth like poison kožiše/vosinu v prdeli have (got)/with a memory like a sponge mít paměť jako slon have a mouth like the bottom of a parrot's cage mít v puse jako v polepšovně hoarse as an (old) crow hlas jako nakřáplý hrnec hlas srdce jako na dlani; být jako honest as the day is long otevřená kniha hungry as a hunter hladový jako vlk/lev/pes to je jako zadarmo/za pusu/za cheap as dirt hubičku innocent as a (new-born) nevinný jako anděl/lilie/čistý jako babe/babe unborn slovo boží 25

keen as mustard know sth like the back/palm of one's hand large/big as a cabbage laugh like a drain lean as an alley cat light as thistledown like a bad penny like a bat out of hell like a blind dog in a meat market like a bull at a gate like a bump on a log like a dog with two tails like a fishwife like a headless chicken like a hot knife through butter/ margarine like a house on fire like a red rag to a bull like a scalded cat like a shag on a rock like a ship without rudder like a spare prick at a wedding like a three-ring circus like a ton of bricks like Caesar’s wife like flies to manure like herding frogs like pulling teeth like shelling peas like shooting fish in a barrel like stealing acorns from a blind pig

být do toho jako žhavý znát něco jako své boty velký jako trám/vrata (od stodoly) smát se jako blázen/až se za boky/břicho popadal hubený jako chroust/kostlivec/lunt/vyžle lehký jako pápěra vracet se jako bumerang jako blesk/drak/čert/blázen jako utržený ze řetězu vyvádět/dělat jako utržený ze řetězu; jako velká voda jako bluma/bačkora/tvrdé Y/buchta na pekáči/pecka/kvočna na vejcích šťastný jako blecha ječet jak siréna; křičet jak kráva; mít hubu jako šlejfíř/kramář lítat jako hadr na holi/jako špinavé prádlo/až se z něj kouří jde to jako po másle přihnat se jako bouře/lavina/ povodeň/smršť/tajfún/tornádo; přiběhnout jako s keserem jako když píchne do vosího hnízda vyskočit jako když ho bodne/ho vosa píchne/jako splašený/jako by mu za patama hořelo/jako uštknutý jako kůl v plotě/hruška v poli jako bludná ovce jako páté kolo u vozu; být někde jako oušlapek jako v blázinci/v holubníku/v mraveništi/v úle těžký jako bejk/cent/hrom/kámen/ šutr; padnout jak balvan žít jako mnich/jeptiška; být jako čistý, upřímný, světec/světice cudný slézat se jako švábi na pivo být jako pytel blech jako z chlupaté deky jako pro blbý/facka/nic jednoduché jako násobilka jako ukrást dítěti lízátko

26

like water off duck's back live like a fighting cock lively as a cricket look as if hit with a pack saddle look as if/though sth has been stirred with a stick look like a drowned rat look like sth the cat brought in mad as a hatter/a March hare mad as a wet hen mean as a louse

miserable as sin nutty as a fruit-cake old as the hills old as time packed like rabbits in warren plain as a pikestaff plain as a pikestaff plain as the nose on your face pleased as a Punch prickly as a hedgehog quick as thought red as a turkey-cock right as a trivet right as rain

jako mluvit do dubu/do větru; jako když hrách na stěnu hází; jako když plácne do vody; jako nabírat vodu do síta mít se jako prase v žitě/husa na krmníku čilý jako čamrda/čiperka/pytel blech; bujný jako hříbě být/chodit/ jako pytlem praštěný vypadá to jako po bitvě/v chlívě/v maštali/na smetišti mokrý jako hastrman/myš; vypadat jako utopené kotě mokrý jako myš; vypadat jako utopené kotě chovat se jako blázen/jako by mu v hlavě přeskočilo/jako by neměl všech pět pohromadě vzteklý jako čert/ďábel/křeček/pes; být jako podebranej vřed lakomý jako chrt/křeček nešťastný jako šafářův dvoreček; být jako zpráskaný pes/pytel neštěstí/hromádka neštěstí/zmoklá slepice; tvářit se jako boží umučení; smutný jako želva chovat se jako blázen/jako by mu v hlavě přeskočilo/jako by neměl všech pět pohromadě starý jako lidstvo samo/Praha starý jako sám svět namačkaný jako sardinky jasný jako facka/pár facek/den/ Brno ošklivý(a) jako čarodějnice/noc/ ropucha/strašidlo/opice/strašák do zelí jasný jako facka/pár facek/den/ Brno šťastný jako blecha/malé dítě/v sedmém(devátém) nebi; zářit jako sluníčko být jako netýkavka rychlý jako vítr/střela červený jako rak zdravý jako buk/dub/hřib/rys/ tuřín/řípa zdravý jako řípa;funguje to jako zdravý, v hodiny pořádku 27

sell like hot cakes

sick as a dog sleep like a top smooth as a billiard ball/pebble

jde to jako na dračku blít jak Diana; nešťastný jako šafářův dvoreček; být jako zpráskaný pes/pytel neštěstí/hromádka neštěstí spát jako dub/dřevo/pařez/jako když ho do vody hodí hladký jako mramor

smooth as a billiard table smooth as a mill-pond snore like a pig in the sun

hladký jako sklo hladký jako zrcadlo chrápat jako když dříví/pilou řeže jako v bavlnce/za pecí/ve vatičce/ snug as a bug in a rug v ráji sound as a bell zdravý jako řípa kyselý jako ocet; mrzutý jako sour as a crab jezevec pevné jako přibité/přišité; drží to steady as a rock jako helvétská víra/ ze železa stick/cling to sb like a leech/limpet držet se něčeho/někoho jako klíště stiff as a poker stiff/straight as ramrod stink to high heaven straight as a die straight as an arrow strong as old socks/onion breath strut like a turkey sure as eggs is eggs sure as God made little apples sure/true as I'm sitting/standing here swear like a lord talk like a Dutch uncle thick as thieves thick as two short planks thin as a rake tight as a tick

hodně zvracet/ v depresi povrch trávník, cesta, podlaha hladina

vzpřímený/ upjatý/ rovný jako by spolkl pravítko/svíce křečovitý chodit jako generál; stát jako voják; rovný jako svíce/svíčka/ topol vzpřímený smrdět jako bolavá noha/kanál jako podle pravítka; jako když střelí/střihne; jako šňůra; mít srdce na dlani rovný/upřímný jako podle pravítka; jako když střelí/střihne/ rovný silný jako kůň/býk/lev/medvěd/tur naparovat se/nosit se jak páv jako že dvě a dvě jsou čtyři/jedna a jedna jsou dvě jako že je bůh nade mnou jako že jsem XY klít jako drvoštěp/pohan; sprostý jako dlaždič mluvit jako bible/farář/kniha/jako z kazatelny jako (siamská) dvojčata blbý/hloupý jako boty/hovado/ jelito/necky/patník/troky/tágo hubený jako špejle/bidlo vožralej jako Dán/dělo/kanec/ kára/prase/nalitej jako pupen/ 28

tight as Dick's Hatband timid as a mouse treat sb like dirt true as steel ugly as sin warm as toast weak as water welcome as the flowers in May white as a sheet wise as an owl work like a Trojan/black/tiger yellow as guinea

slíva/sud/svině/štěně/jak zákonec káže lakomý jako čert/chrt/křeček plachá jako laň/srna; koukat/vykukovat jako myš z komisárku; být jako oukoupeček jednat s někým jako s děvečkou/ hadrem/onucí věrný až za hrob/jako pes ošklivý(a) jako čarodějnice/noc/ ropucha/strašidlo/opice/strašák do zelí teplo jako za kamny/za pecí/v peřinách/v lázni příjemně teplo slabý jako komár/moucha/chroust/ člověk jako na zavolanou bílý jako stěna/zeď mít hlavu jako starosta ironicky dělat/dřít jako mezek/mourovatej/ galejník/Slovák žlutý jako citrón

No equal comparison agree like the clocks of London bright/cute as button clever/smart as paint common as a muck dead as a doornail dead as mutton dead as the dodo deep as a well dry as a dust flat as a fluke/flounder flat as a pancake good as a play have a mind like a steel trap like a fly in amber like fighting snakes like nailing jelly to the wall like Rip van Winkle like ships that pass in the night like the cat that stole the cream like the clappers

rozcházet se, neshodovat se chytrý/bystrý/chápavý chytrý nevychovaný, drzý mrtvý (fyzicky) mrtvý (nevýznamný, období) mrtvý, ztracený (neexistující) záludný/nepochopitelný/ překvapivý nudný, nezáživný plochý, placatý placatý/na placku/vyznít do ztracena zábavný, vtipný, k popukání učenlivý, chápavý uchovaný obtížné, chaotické, náročné nepochopitelný, neuchopitelný neznalý, neuvědomovat si; sto let za opicema minout se spokojený sám se sebou na plný pecky/grády

29

like the curate's egg like turkeys voting for (an early) Christmas need sth like a hole in the head shine like a good deed in a naughty world sober as a judge solemn as an owl spend money like water/like a sailor spread like rash thick as two Jews on a pay-day tough as a boiled/biled owl wise as Solomon work like magic

smíšené kvality, částečně dobré, částečně špatné souhlasit se situací, z které pro nás plyne něco špatného nepotřebovat světlá výjimka střízlivý, vážný vážný utrácet, rozhazovat peníze rozprostírat se (viditelně) vzájemně známí/blízcí hádavý v opilostí/hádavá opice velmi moudrý, s dobrým úsudkem účinkovat, zabrat

3.2.3. Semantic analysis of comparatum As already stated, Čermák (1983:472) shows that the Czech comparatum is constituted by mainly concrete entities (45%), animals (20%), human professions and functions in a broad sense (20%) and proper and local names, abstract nouns and composite expressions constitute the rest. As far as English comparisons listed in this thesis are concerned, the distribution of comparatum is shown in the following table. The category concrete entities includes only non-living concrete entities such as bell, rock or picture. The category animals includes single word comparatums like fox, pig and nominal groups with an animal as a head of the group (cat that stole the cream, blind dog in a meat market). Examples where the animal does not function as the head of the comparatum are not included in this category (herding frog, taking acorns from a blind pig, sth the cat brought in). The category human includes humans, human professions and functions in a broad sense, such as slaves, kid, Christian, Dutch uncle etc. The next category, activity, includes gerund phrases (pulling teeth, herding frogs) and sentences: look as

30

if/though sth has been stirred with a stick or as sure as I’m standing here. The last but one category, abstract nouns, is limited to ten examples (charity, day, death, deed, heaven, magic, plague, sin, time and thought) and the last category, proper nouns, include only nine examples (Caeser’s wife, Croesus, Dick’s Hatband, Job, Lucifer, Methuselah, Punch, Rip van Winkle and Solomon).

Category

Percentage

Concrete entities

52.2

Animals

28.3

Human

6.5

Activity

6.5

Abstract entities

3.4

Proper names

3.1

3.2.4. Conclusion This section presented the collected English comparisons and compared them with the Czech equivalents as far as the comparatum is concerned. From this point of view, it showed significant differences between the two languages, since only about one quarter of the comparisons share the same comparatum and 10% have very similar comparatums. The largest section of the comparisons (55%) differ and use a different comparatum altogether. The remaining 10% are comparisons which do not have a Czech idiomatic equivalent. On the other hand, as far as the distribution of the type of comparatum is concerned, English comparisons do not significantly differ and broadly copy the numbers stated by Čermák (1983:472). The right side of the comparison, Čermák (1983:472) argues, is predominantly concrete. This claim is confirmed by this analysis. It even shows a slightly higher percentage of concrete entities in English, at least as far 31

as the collected material is concerned. Furthermore, animals in the English comparisons seem to appear more often that in Czech, as opposed to human professions which constitute only 6.5% of the English material, whereas in Czech it is about 20%. The difference between the representation of human professions and functions in the comparatum of both languages is the most significant difference found. However, to confirm such supposition, more exhaustive and in-depth study would be required.

3.3. Formal analysis From the formal aspect, four autosemantic word classes are present in the comparisons: nouns, adjective, verb and adverb. They are, however, represented unevenly and the distribution will be analyzed in this section. Wikberg (2008:134) mentions these four types or patterns of English comparison: a) As ADJ/ADV as – this type includes the majority of comparisons. In fact, examples such as as free as a bird comprise almost 59% of the material. As already mentioned, adverbs do not appear in the comparisons and are only results of transformation. However, the expression as quiet as a mouse can also function as an adverb, such as the child sat as quiet as a mouse. Nevertheless, it is still an instance of transformation, only the adjective and adverb share the same form. b) Is like N – this category includes the aforementioned examples with deletion of tertium comparationis, such as like a hot knife through butter. However, many examples with the form like + N do not use the relator is. For example, like a scalded cat appears frequently with these verbs run, jump or fly out. These verbs, however, are not part of the fixed comparison but only frequent collocations and function rather as a relator. These comparisons are therefore included in this category. Furthermore,

32

comparisons feel like a wet rag or look like sth the cat brought it are included in this category rather than in the category d) V like N because the verb feel and look functions as a relator as opposed to the verb drink in drink as a fish where it specifies the characteristics compared and serves as tertium comparationis. c) Is like V-ing N – this category includes the aforementioned gerund phrases (like shooting a fish in a barrel). The gerund is always followed by a noun, be it in singular (a fish) or plural (like fighting snakes). d) V like N – including examples bleed like a stuck pig or eat like a horse.

These four categories, however, do not cover all the collected material. It leaves out these examples: e) Look/feel as if/though – the conjunction is followed by an adverbial clause of manner (as if/though one has slept in the suit for a week) and not by a noun as in the preceding categories. Due to the nominal tendency of the right side, which will be discussed later, this category is not very numerous f) N/ADJ like N – this category includes few examples, such as memory like an elephant. Adjectives preceding the preposition like are verbal participles (done, dressed up, packed). The distribution of these six categories is shown in the following table: Category

Percentage

as ADJ/ADV as

58.6

is like N

16.1

is like V-ing N

2.8

V like N

15.4

look/feel as if/though

2.1

N/ADJ like N

5.0

33

As Čermák (1983:466) points out, on the left side of the comparison appear almost exclusively verbs and adjectives. This is confirmed by this table and it is clear that the comparisons with nouns on the left side are very rare (in the material limited to only these examples: memory, digestion, hide/skin, eyes, handwriting, mouth and mind). As far as the Czech translations are concerned, a noun on the left side is also very rare and in most cases corresponds with the English examples (memory – paměť, digestion – žaludek, hide – kůži, eyes – oči, mouth – huba). In other cases, it does not correspond (black as ink – tma jako v pytli, cool as a cucumber – nervy jako ze železa). Nevertheless, the overall frequency of nouns on the left side is similar. On the other hand, the right side of the comparison is strongly nominal. However, the table does not show what follows after as ADJ as in the first category. As Čermák (1983:467) mentions, on the right side adjectives can also appear. Adjectives on the right side in Czech are usually participles or prefixed and are very rare. This is caused by the fact that comparisons usually compare quality; therefore adjectives, which also express quality, cannot serve as the model. It is thus impossible to say as clever as cunning. Nevertheless, there is one adjective on the right side: as good as new. More adjectives, dominantly deverbal, appear in the Czech translations: nové, znovuzrozený, bezedný, nedovřený, ulitý, žhavý, splašený. Besides the aforementioned adjective, the right side of the comparison pattern as ADJ as are nouns, with these four exceptions: as black as it is painted, as honest as the day is long, as sure as God made little apples and as sure as I’m standing here. Even though it is obvious that the right side is predominantly nominal in both languages, the following section will analyze it in more detail with regards to the nominal tendency of English.

34

3.3.1. Nominal tendency of English As Mathesius (1975:104) notes, the nominal tendency of English is very important. One way of presenting the action nominally, he further argues, is by the gerund. As already mentioned, gerund phrases constitute about three percent of the material. These gerund constructions semantically express an activity but grammatically function as a noun. They are translated to Czech either using infinitives (like taking candy from from a baby – jako ukrást dítěti lízátko) or by totally different means (like herding frogs – jako pytel blech). Even though in both languages nouns prevail on the right side, Czech seems to use more verbal constructions than English. This includes these examples: Jako když píchne prase – like a stuck pig Jako by si z oka vypadli – as like as two peas in a pod Zamotané že se v tom ani prase nevyzná – as clear as a mud Je toho jako když nasere – as common as muck Smál se až se za břicho popadal – laugh like a drain Jako když píchne do vosího hnízda – like a red rag to a bull Vyskočit jako když ho bodne vosa – like a scalded cat Jako když hrách na stěnu hází – like water off duck’s back Jako by neměl všech pět pohromadě – as mad as a hatter Spát jako když ho do vody hodí – sleep like a top Rovný jako by spolkl pravítko – stiff as a poker Jako když střelí – straight as a die

All these and more examples point to a higher representation of the noun on the right side of the English comparisons. However, it is not that simple because some of

35

the above listed Czech expressions have a noun variation, e.g. spát jako dub or je toho jako hub etc. Furthermore, there are Czech comparisons with nominal comparatum which are expressed by verbal constructions in English: look as if sth has been stirred with a stick – vypadá to jako v chlívě/maštali. Nevertheless, verbal constructions, be it as one possible variation, still appear more in Czech than in English comparisons, which might be a result of a general nominal tendency of English. This, again, would have to be verified by a more extensive study.

3.3.2. Conclusion The formal analysis of the material distinguished six types of comparisons represented in the material and showed their distribution. It confirmed that the left side consists predominantly of adjectives and verbs, whereas nouns appear very rarely and adverbs do not appear at all. As far as the right side of the comparison is concerned, it showed that it is almost exclusively nominal with few verbal constructions (altogether less than 5%) and infrequent (in English only one) examples of adjectives. Finally, it considered the nominal tendency of English and showed how it manifests itself on the right side of the comparisons.

36

4. Conclusion The aim of the thesis was to analyze English idiomatic comparisons and compare them with their Czech equivalents. The material for the analysis consisted of over 290 English comparison collected from two printed and two electronic sources, as specified above. The first section of the theoretical part dealt with idioms in general. It provided basic definitions of the term and explained the difference between pure idioms, figurative idioms and restricted collocations and showed that according to this division, the comparisons belong to the category restricted collocations. The following subsection dealt with comparison and simile. It defined comparisons in general (comparison of equivalence and non-equivalence), named the parts of the comparison (standard, basis), discussed its deictic nature and showed how idiomatized comparisons differ in this respect, i.e. the expression lion in he is as strong as a lion looses its deictic character which is present in comparisons such as he is as strong as his father. Furthermore, this section defined the figure of speech similes, showed its components (tenor, ground, vehicle) and tried to explain the difference between simile and comparison as argued for by different sources. The difference between these two terms can be explained on the basis of reality of the comparison (similes being unrealistic and fanciful) or with regards to the salience of the vehicle. Therefore the example as big as a tennis ball is not considered a simile, because bigness is not a salient characteristic of a tennis ball. As followed from the discussion, the material of the thesis could be designated as similes from these points of view but are nevertheless called idiomatized comparison by Cvejnová and comparisons by Čermák. It was therefore decided to call the material comparisons, which is regarded as a general term.

37

Subsection 2.3. explored the differences between simile and metaphor and showed that it is not correct to claim that a simile is only a metaphor without some of its parts. The difference was illustrated by the impossibility to turn some similes into metaphors and changes in meaning between a simile (he is like a wolf) and a metaphor (he is a wolf). Subsection 2.4. was devoted to a detailed examination of individual constituents of the comparison as outlined by Čermák (1983:476), i.e. comparandum (Peter) – relator (is) – tertium comparationis (strong) – comparator (as) – comparatum (an ox). The basic characteristics of these constituents were compared with the collected English comparisons. It discussed the possibility of deletion of tertium comparations in examples like a hot knife through butter or like curate’s egg which is enabled by the salience of the comparatun (former example) or difficulty to express the tertium comparationis by a single word (latter example). Finally, it showed the difference between intensification in both languages: while in Czech it is possible to use the desemantized expression jako prase as an intensifier (bolí to jako prase), in English such expression does not have an intensifying function but retains its characteristics (snore like a pig). The theoretical background was followed by the practical analysis which consisted of two parts. The first part analyzed the comparisons from the semantic point of view. First, it divided the collected material into following categories according to the

similarity

or

difference

of

comparatum:

total

correspondence,

overall

correspondence, partial correspondence, non correspondence and no equal comparison. The largest section (55 %) of the 290 collected English comparisons is constituted by the comparisons of non correspondence, i.e. those with totally different comparatum, such as happy as a clam – šťastný jako blecha. About 35 % of the comparisons, on the

38

other hand, are constituted by examples with identical comparatum (total correspondence) and very similar comparatum (overall correspondence). The remaining 10 % is made up by comparisons which do not have an equal Czech comparison. This differentiation in comparatum illustrates the cultural and lexical diversity of both languages. The next part of the semantic analysis examined the types of comparatum of both languages and discovered that there is no significant difference. The most frequent comparatum in both languages is a concrete entity (nails, bone, board) (52 %), with animals (horse, ox, dog) being the second most common (28 %). However, the collected sample contained only about 6 % of comparison with comparatum constituted by humans, human professions or functions (e.g. slaves, kid, Christian, Dutch uncle etc) as opposed to 20% for Czech as stated by Čermák (1983:472). This difference may not be significant as it could be due to the incompleteness of the collected material. Further category activity (pulling teeth, as sure as I’m standing here) constitutes another 6 % and the last two categories – abstract entities (charity, day, heaven) and proper nouns (Job, Lucifer, Solomon) – make up 3 % each. The second part of the analysis explored the formal aspects of the comparisons. It dealt with the distribution of the four autosemantic word classes: noun, adjective, adverb and verb. With the help of these six types or patterns of comparisons, it illustrated the frequency and distribution of the aforementioned word classes: as ADJ as; is like N; is like V-ing N; V like N; look/feel as if/though; N/ADJ like N. As far as the left side of the comparison is concerned, the analysis proved that it consists almost entirely of verbs and adjectives, the same as in the Czech comparisons. This can be illustrated by the most numerous group as ADJ as which constitutes 58 % of the material. Comparisons with a verb on the left side (V like N) make up over 15 %.

39

The remaining categories (is like, look/feel as if/though) are also verbal but the verb is not a part of the fixed expression and functions more like a relator. The only examples where the left side was not occupied by an adjective or verb were only few nouns with their Czech equivalents being translated also mostly by a noun (memory – paměť, digestion – žaludek, skin – kůže, eyes – oči). The right side of the comparison was confirmed to be mostly nominal as in Czech. The only exceptions are adjectives and verbs. Adjectives appear in the English comparisons only once (as good as new), as opposed to Czech where more examples of dominantly verbal and prefixed adjectives can be found (nedovřený, ulitý, šplašený). Verbs and verbal structures also appear in English but, as was shown, not as often as in the Czech translations, which was illustrated by the English nominal comparatums and their Czech verbal equivalents (like a red rag to a bull – jako když píchne do vosího hnízda). Czech, in general, seems to use verbal constructions (jako když, jako by) more often. Furthermore, actions in English tend to be expressed by gerund (taking candy from a baby, herding frogs). These gerund constructions express action but function as a noun. As shown by Mathesius (1975:104) gerund phrases are one way in which the nominal tendency of English manifests itself. The nominal tendency in English, further discussed in the subsection 3.3.1., is very strong and differentiates English from Czech, which, on the contrary, uses more verbal constructions. Comparisons represent a very important part of the lexicon in both languages. Each language, as was shown in this thesis, is very rich in comparisons and at the same time original. Examining this diversity more closely not only shows us the structural differences of both languages but also the different models and stereotypes rooted in the society.

40

5. Resumé This thesis compared English and Czech idiomatic comparisons. The material for the comparison consists of over 290 English comparisons collected from four different sources. The Czech equivalents are based on Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky: Přirovnání (Čermák 1983). The aim of the thesis was to find, confirm and demonstrate the differences and similarities of the two languages involved. This was achieved by analysis of the material from two aspects. The first part of the analysis examined the semantic aspect of the comparisons. The material was divided into categories based on the similarity of the comparatum. Since the most numerous category was constituted by comparisons with totally different comparatum, the diversity of the two languages was demonstrated. In addition, the semantic analysis also examined the type of comparatum of both languages and discovered that there is no significant difference in this respect. The most common comparatums were confirmed to be concrete entities and animals. The second part of the analysis concentrated on comparing the formal aspects of the comparisons. It showed that in both languages the left side of the comparatum is made up almost entirely by verbs or adjectives, whereas the right side consists mainly of nouns. However, the nominal tendency of English demonstrates itself by a higher representation of nouns on the right side. The thesis provided an insight into one section of English idiomatic language which forms an important part of the lexicon.

41

Resumé Tato bakalářská práce se zabývá porovnáním anglických a českých idiomatických přirovnání. Materiál práce je tvořen více než 290 přirovnáními, která byla sesbírána ze čtyř různých zdrojů a jejichž české ekvivalenty vychází ze Slovníku české frazeologie a idiomatiky: Přirovnání od Františka Čermáka. Cílem práce bylo zjistit, potvrdit a ukázat rozdíly a podobnosti obou jazyků. Praktická část práce proto zkoumá daný materiál ze dvou hledisek. První část analýzy se věnuje sémantickým rozdílům mezi těmito jazyky. Materiál je rozdělen do skupin na základě podobnosti či rozlišnosti comparata. Nejpočetnější kategorie je přitom tvořena přirovnáními, která mají zcela odlišné comparatum, což svědčí o rozličnosti a pestrosti obou jazyků. Dále byl také zkoumán typ comparata. V tomto ohledu ovšem nebyl zjištěn žádný podstatný rozdíl. Bylo potvrzeno, že nejčastěji se jako comparatum u obou jazyků objevují konkrétní entity a na druhém místě zvířata. Analýza formální stránky přirovnání si všímala rozložení slovních druhů. Ukázala, že levá strana přirovnání je tvořena téměř výhradně slovesy a přídavnými jmény, zatímco pravá strana je převážně nominální, a to u obou jazyků. Nicméně bylo ukázáno, že nominální tendence angličtiny se v přirovnáních projevuje vyšším zastoupením podstatného jména na pravé straně anglického přirovnání. Tato bakalářská práce zkoumá jednotlivé aspekty idiomatického přirovnání, jež tvoří nedílnou součást slovní zásoby každého jazyka.

42

Sources of idioms Cowie, A. P., Mackin, R., and McCaig, I. R. (1993) Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Čermák, František (1983) Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky: Přirovnání. Praha: Academia Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus – The Free Dictionary. Farlex, Inc. Web. 20 Oct. 2009. < http://www.thefreedictionary.com/>. English Language (ESL) Learning Online. Web. 20. Oct. 2009. .

References Aristotle. Rhetorics. Trans. W. Rhys. Ed. Lee Honeycutt. Web. 21 March 2010. The British National Corpus. Oxford University Computing Services, 2007. Web. 22 Oct. 2009. . The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. McArthur, Tom. Oxford University Press, 1998. Web. 8 December 2009 . The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Matthews, P. H. Oxford University Press, 2007. Web. 2 December 2009 . Cvejnová, Jitka(1999) “Komparace a intenzifikace”. Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity A 47. 77-85. Čermák, František (1983) Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky: Přirovnání. Praha: Academia. Hrách, Tomáš (1998) Sbírka anglických idiomů & slangu. Praha: Argo. Langlotz, Andreas (2006) Idiomatic Creativity: A Cognitive-linguistic Model of Idiomrepresentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

43

Leech, Geoffrey Neil (1981) Semantics. Harmodsworth: Penguin Books. Mathesius, Vilém (1975) A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis. Praha: Academia. Moon, Rosamund (2008) “Conventionalized as-similes in English: A Problem Cases.” In International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 3-37 Nesselhaulf, Nadja (2005) Collocation in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Chalker, Sylvia, and Weiner, Edmund. Oxford University Press, 1998. Web. 7 December 2009. The Oxford Dictionary of English. Soanes, Catherine, and Stevenson, Angus. Oxford University Press, 2005. Web. 8 December 2009. The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Ed. John Roberts. Oxford University Press, 2007. Web. 8 December 2009. Piirainen, Elizabeth (2008) “Phraseology in a European framework: A Cross-linguistic and Cross-cultural Research Project on Widespread Idioms“ In Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Eds. Granger, Sylviane, and Meunier, Fanny. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 243–258 Seidl, Jennifer, and McMordie, W. (1978) English Idioms and How to Use them. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Veale, T., and Hao, Y. (2009) „Support Structures for Linguistic Creativity: A Computational Analysis of Creative Irony in Similes.“ CogSci 2009, the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Eds. Niels Taatgen and Hedderik van Rijn. Amsterdam. 1376-1381

44

Veale, T., and Hao, Y. (2007) „Learning to Understand Figurative Language: From Similes to Metaphors to Irony.“ CogSci 2007: the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Nashville, Tennessee. Wikberg, Kay (2008) “Phrasal Similes in the BNC.” In: Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Eds. Granger, Sylviane, and Meunier, Fanny. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 127–142.

45