«Тахиййат»: Сборник статей в честь Н. Н. Дьякова

m 176 n Ludmila Torlakova Close to the previous idiom is (4) ░aqlu ṭ iflin fī jismi jamalin. Here again a physical characteristic (an oversized body) is exploited to convey a mental prop- erty and to qualify a person as stupid or ignorant. The idiom is clearly motivated since it is possible to perceive the interaction of the denominative intention and the metaphoric and metonymic devices for expressing it. The rational and emo- tive evaluations included in the connotations are similar to those in the first three idioms discussed above. But here they include also annoyance, irritation, and dis- like. Another idiom from the same semantic field, (5) rajulun law ḥ un — a stu- pid, stubborn man (lit., a man [like] a wooden board), has a strongly negative rational evaluation which is expressed by a clear image that pictures a person as a wooden board. Thus the listener can easily understand the meaning and the underlying connotations, which are different from the connotations of the previous idioms. Rajulun law ḥ un characterizes not only a stupid, ignorant per- son but also one who is headstrong and unbending. The image itself and the implied connotations trigger a strong negative emotional evaluation of disdain, animosity, and contempt. Another aspect of the concept of stupidity is described in a distinctive way by a group of idioms that are built on one and the same phraseological model 1 and that form a discrete frame or cluster. 2 The images are built by pre- senting (1) a situation in which two completely opposite notions or objects are contrasted and (2) a person who cannot see the difference between them. Thus, any one of this group of idioms can be used to characterize an ignorant or stupid person who is out of touch with reality. The contrast between the two objects of the image is deliberate, meant to surprise and shock, but the inability to distinguish between the objects is clearly not to be taken literally. Thus all of the following idioms (6–12) can be considered clearly motivated, since it is easy to recognize the denominative intention and the image used to express it. 1 V. M. Mokienko defines phraseological model (or pattern) as “a structural- semantic invariant of stable expressions”, adding that “this model schematically reflects the rela- tive stability of the form and semantics of these expressions”. MokienkoV. M. Slavians- kaia frazeologiia , 1st edition. Moscow: Vysshaia Shkola, 1980. P. 43. Compare the idea of phraseological models with the notion put forward by Charles Fillmore et al. of “formal or lexically open idioms.” These are defined as “syntactic patterns dedicated to semantic and pragmatic purposes not knowable from their form alone.” Charles J. Fillmore, Paul Kay and Mary Catherine O’Connor, “Regularities and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone ”, Language 64, no. 3 (1988): 505. 2 According to Rosamund Moon, lexico-grammatical frames are examples of variation since “clusters of FEIs share single or common structures, but the realizations of one con- stituent vary relatively widely, though usually still within the bounds of a single lexical set. The meanings of individual FEIs within the clusters are often identical or very similar”. Moon R. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. P. 146.