Фигуры контраста как средство иронической характеристики персонажей в романах И. Ильфа и Е. Петрова «Двенадцать стульев» и «Золотой теленок»

Abstract

The present paper is aimed to analyse the figures of contrast used to ironically portray the characters in the novels written by I. Ilf and E. Petrov. It is worth noting that the contrast in both novels under consideration, i.e. “The Twelve Chairs” and “The Golden Calf” acts both as a compositional principle for constructing a text, visual and expressive means, and as a semantic dominant of the work. It covers consistent and unequivocal speech images, the semantic and stylistic system of works, and it is reflected in numerous figures and tropes, which are organized here in two ways: opposites and contradictions. In the novels “The Twelve Chairs” and “The Golden Calf”, relying on the principle of contrast, the author satirically depicts the soviet bureaucracy, people’s love of slogans and posters, the unstableness and the poverty, the pathological passion for free money, etc. The reader sees the rambling gallery where the people possess narrow interests and worthless values. It should be said that among the opposite figures, the antithesis stands out in the novels and lexical antonyms, converse terms and enantiosemy are the lexical means of its creation. Such figures of contrast as syncrisis (mukabala), paradiastole, diathesis, acrothesis, diaphora and ploka are widely used. A rather rare figure of opposition – alloise, emphasizing the dissimilarity in the similar is skillfully used by I. Ilf and E. Petrov. The authors also do not neglect the false oppositeness, when the final part of the statement seemingly contradicts the initial one in form, but in reality develops and strengthens it. Among the figures of contrast oxymoron, catachreza, antiphrasis, different types of paradox are the most common in I. Ilf and E. Petrov’s works. Paradox can be created by absurd comparisons, absurd hyperbole. The statements, in which the cause and effect relationships are violated, occur quite often, and as a result, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. The referential ambiguity of objects is based on the communicative-pragmatic paradox that relflects the discrepancy between the interlocutors’ illocutionary forces. The prospects of further research suggest the creation of a gallery of satirical linguistic portraits in the above-mentioned novels.