DOI: 10.25136/1339-3057.2022.2.37238

Abstract: The problem of adequate presentation of English counterparts of Russian phraseological euphemisms in the “Russian-English Dictionary of Phraseological Euphemisms”, which is the first bilingual dictionary of euphemistic units in both languages is presented. Saving significational-denotational component of meaning of Russian phraseological euphemisms while translating them into English is crucial. The subject is possible ways of adequate transmitting of non-equivalent Russian transferred euphemistic units' semantics. The aim is to determine and present possible ways of translating non-equivalent Russian phraseological euphemisms into English: the right part of the dictionary entry is under study. The research methods are: the method of continuous sampling, the comparative method, the method of phraseological description, developed by A.V. Kunin, the method of analyzing dictionary definitions, component (seme) analysis. The novelty of the research: for the first time possible ways of translation of non-equivalent phraseological euphemisms which combine the characteristic features of both phraseological and euphemistic nomination are discussed. The results prove that there are four ways of translating non-equivalent phraseological euphemisms: with the help of translation loans, lexical, descriptive and combined translation, the last one being most important in providing the necessary information on the euphemistic orientation of Russian phraseological euphemisms. Conclusions are made about the necessity to include additional information about the features of the euphemistic nomination of Russian phraseological euphemisms in the form of descriptive translation into English, in contrast to the way of presenting the translation of non-equivalent phraseological units in existing bilingual phraseological dictionaries.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2022.2.37445

Abstract: Cognitive strategies of occasional transformational use of English phraseological euphemisms in linguistic experiment are subject to consideration. The purpose of the study is to determine the cognitive strategies of the occasional use of phraseological euphemisms. The subject of the research: the types of cognitive strategies, which are used in ocasional transformations of English phraseological euphemisms, the study of which was performed after the literature survey and a brief description of the linguistic experiment. Research methods: the method of phraseological analysis developed by A.V. Kunin, which exists in two forms - phraseological identification and phraseological description, contextual analysis method, definitional analysis, component (seme) analysis. The novelty of the study: as a result of the linguistic experiment, for the first time, cognitive strategies of the transformational use of English phraseological euphemisms, combining the characteristic features of both phraseological and euphemistic nominations, were determined. Results of the study: two cognitive strategies were identified that are characteristic of all types of occasional use – informing strategy and the strategy of expressivization. Evaluation strategy is defined when using the addition of a component / components, insertion and replacement of a component / components; objectification strategy is revealed in the cleft use of euphemistic units; accentualization strategy when using phraseological reiteration, permutation and phraseological saturation of context. For the first time, we have singled out the strategy of cognitive deployment of the image, which is characteristic of the most complex types of occasional use of phraseological euphemisms, namely, phraseological pun, extended metaphor and phraseological allusion.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2021.12.37168

Abstract: This article explores the problem of adequate translation of English equivalents of the Russian phraseological euphemisms in the compiled by the authors “Russian-English Dictionary of Phraseological Euphemisms” – the first bilingual dictionary of euphemisms. Special attention is given to preservation of the significative and denotative component of the meaning of Russian phraseological euphemisms in their translating into English. The subject of this research is the methods of adequate transmission of the semantics of nonequivalent reinterpreted Russian euphemisms. The goal lies in the description of possible methods of translating nonequivalent Russian phraseological euphemisms into English: the right part of the dictionary entry is still under study. The novelty of this research lies in the discussion of possible methods of translating nonequivalent phraseological euphemisms that combine the characteristic features of both phraseological and euphemistic nominations. These typical characteristics are reflected in the right part of the dictionary entry. The acquires results prove that existence of four methods of translating nonequivalent phraseological euphemisms: using loanwords, lexical, descriptive and compound translation; the letter is crucial in delivering necessary information on the Russian phraseological euphemisms. The conclusion is made on the need to include additional information on the peculiarities of euphemistic nomination of the Russian phraseological euphemisms in form of descriptive translation into English, as opposed to the method of translating nonequivalent phraseological units in the existing bilingual phraseological dictionaries.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2021.9.36436

Abstract: The object of this research is the Russian and English phraseologisms-euphemisms that denote poverty as one of the concepts of euphemistic reflection of the real world. The subject of this research is the peculiarities of euphemistic nomination of phraseologisms-euphemisms with the meaning of poverty in the Russian and English languages. This article is first to examine the Russian and English phraseologism-euphemisms that denote poverty from the perspective of expressing the pejorative real denotation using euphemistic units, the key goal of which is mitigation and hazing of the concept of “poverty”. Such phraseologisms-euphemisms are characterized by pejorative assessment that can be “improved” by neutral or humorous affective evaluation. In conclusion, the author proves that in both languages the key role in better pejorative assessment of poverty is played by figurativeness and prototype of the analyzed phraseologisms-euphemisms. In both languages, a number of phraseologisms-euphemisms are characterized by ameliorative-evaluative prototypes, which in turn, lead to neutralization of pejorative rational assessment. The scientific novelty consists in application of the new approach towards analyzing the phraseological meaning of a peculiar type of phraseological units based on euphemistic nomination. The acquired results can be used in studying the semantics of phraseological units, lexical and phraseological euphemisms, including in the comparative aspect.