Journal articles on the topic 'Hendiadys'

In Turkic, hendiadys has an important place as a method that is used for the emphasis of an expression. In addition to Old Turkic inscriptions, hendiadyses, which are often used in Old Uyghur texts, still survive in contemporary Turkic languages. In this article, the hendiadys of yogun yolpa i.e. ‘unmannerly, cumbersome, rude, ugly’ which appears only once (hapax legomenon) in Old Uyghur texts, and never in works from other periods, will be studied in comparison to examples from contemporary Turkic languages. The etymology of the two words yogun and yolpa which form the hendiadys will be investigated. The first element of the hendiadys, yogun, ‘intense, rude, rough, ugly’ has already been the subject of various studies. The other element of the hendiadys, the word yolpa, which does not appear in any other text, is analysed in this article.

Stylistic synonymy or hendiadys (Latinized from Old Greek έν διά δυοȋν «one through two») is an important feature frequently detected in Ottoman Turkish literary standard texts. Simultaneously several scholars found it as a prominent feature of the Bible language, precisely in Old Testament. Thus, it is not surprising to find it in the fragment of Book of Daniel in Krymchak manuscript, Yosif Gabai’s jonk, dated to the early 20th century, which is in the possession of the Crimean Ethnographic Museum. As linguistic data proves, Book of Daniel probably was translated much earlier in Ottoman period and represents Hebrew-Turkic translation literature. The translator employed hendiadys by using different strategies of combination, but usually they are two nouns, or two verbs connected by a conjunction. Phrases composed by Turkic and foreign words of the same meaning or synonymic loanwords with Turkic suffixes, expressing one notion. Stylistic figures found in the manuscript are represented by following types: Turkic-Hebrew, Hebrew-Arabic, Arabic-Persian, Persian-Turkic, Arabic-Mongolian, Arabic-Turkic. Some of them could be treated as religious hendiadys. Hendyadyoin is not attested in folklore texts of Yosif Gabai’s Krymchak jonk, but in religion texts, which are variety of standard.

This paper considers the linguistic status of West Germanic alliterative, formulaic, syntactically tight pairs. These hendiadys binomials are phonetically interwoven, phrasally autonomous units. Echoic reduplication, including hendiadys, is a common way for language to generate iconic forms. Building on recent work on sound-symbolic expressives, iconicity, and the significance of poetic features (compression, phrasal symmetry) for language, this study argues that alliterative binomials are fundamentally affective, with proverb-like sentential characteristics, deriving idiomatic force from their iconically self-signaling structural properties. Like Stabreim, phonetically reinforced and with reciprocally highlighted components, they define a cohesive utterance (saying, phrase, metrical line). In this they share phrase-level contour properties with Behaghel's Law, which shapes the linguistic structure of day-to-day poetics, particularly in fixed idioms. The inquiry examines phrasal syntax, phrase-level iconicity and expressive symbolism, and the poetics of folk-discourse genres, reflecting language's structure.*

Azerbaijani Turkish is the name of the written language that is located in the eastern part of Southwest Turkish and developed in this field. Based on Oghuz language, Southwest Turkish, which has been used from the 13th century until today, has been divided into Ottoman Turkish and Azerbaijani Turkish in time. Azerbaijani Turkish forms the Eastern Oghuz language. The duplications that enrich the expression possibilities of our language, reinforce the meaning, increase the expression power, are the elements that are formed by the repetition of the same word or whose meanings are close or opposite to each other or by the similarity of sounds. Reduplications, which are one of the most important elements of the Turkish language showing the richness of expression, have been seen since the earliest historical periods of Turkish and are frequently used in contemporary Turkish dialects today. This study includes the analysis of the duplications in the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Azerbaijani Language" in terms of structure and meaning. Definitions and studies on reduplications have been explained and they have been classified in terms of structure and meaning. Due to the high number of duplications detected, some examples of duplications were included and the study was supported with numerical data. In addition, the archaic features of some duplications are emphasized in the conclusion of the study.

Azerbaijani Turkish is the name of the written language that is located in the eastern part of Southwest Turkish and developed in this field. Based on Oghuz language, Southwest Turkish, which has been used from the 13th century until today, has been divided into Ottoman Turkish and Azerbaijani Turkish in time. Azerbaijani Turkish forms the Eastern Oghuz language. The duplications that enrich the expression possibilities of our language, reinforce the meaning, increase the expression power, are the elements that are formed by the repetition of the same word or whose meanings are close or opposite to each other or by the similarity of sounds. Reduplications, which are one of the most important elements of the Turkish language showing the richness of expression, have been seen since the earliest historical periods of Turkish and are frequently used in contemporary Turkish dialects today. This study includes the analysis of the duplications in the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Azerbaijani Language" in terms of structure and meaning. Definitions and studies on reduplications have been explained and they have been classified in terms of structure and meaning. Due to the high number of duplications detected, some examples of duplications were included and the study was supported with numerical data. In addition, the archaic features of some duplications are emphasized in the conclusion of the study.

This is the reading of Clausen's OCT, in which no variant for line 131 is recorded in the apparatus.No doubt the hendiadys ‘scutica et metus…erilis’ is not impossible,2 but it seems to me not to be a well chosen expression. Since the scutica belongs to the master, one is tempted to construe erilis with both nouns, not just with metus. But then the adjective must function in two different ways: ‘scutica… erilis’ is possessive, ‘his master's strap’, but ‘metus…erilis’ is objective, ‘fear of his master’. And ‘metus…erilis’ in this passage receives no support from ‘erilis…metus’ at Plautus, Amphitruo 1069, which means ‘fear for my mistress’.

Despite the fact that the term arrabo has not been attested by legal sources as nomen iuris or as a technical term, the syntagm ‘pignoris arrabonisve nomine’ occurs in a chirograph documented by TPSulp. 51, from the age of Tiberius. This article shows, first, that the loans model contract of the TPSulp. 51 contained the hendiadys ‘pignus arrabove’ to denote the pledge. Second, it concludes that the mention of arrabo is related to precautionary reasons and that it may be explained by the use of a colloquial term introduced in Latin language by way of Greek lexical borrowing. Finally, this implies some considerations on language contact, lexical interference and integration of loan-words in Latin.

Постановка задачи. В статье даётся анализ дистинктивных признаков реконструируемости парных образований гендиадисного типа в современном английском языке. Если понятие «гендиадиса» достаточно хорошо изучено, а его лексические единицы лексикографически освоены, то отличительные особенности реконструируемости единиц указанного класса остаются зачастую за рамками анализа. В настоящем исследовании вопрос реконструируемости гендиадисных пар подлежит разбору с точки зрения узуальных и окказиональных характеристик. Результаты. Вопрос реконструируемости гендиадисных единиц изучен широко, но недостаточно для понимания природы их дифференциации в современном английском языке. Предметом исследования являются системные и структурные признаки конструируемости гендиадисных пар, выявленные у таких групп исследуемых единиц как нереконструируемые, реконструируемые и свободно конструируемые (окказиональные). Эмпирический корпус исследования составлен из ряда первичных и вторичных источников и включает 623 гендиадисных образования. Критерием отбора выступила структура A+l+B , где А и В - знаменательные элементы, а l - связующее звено. Среди трех предложенных групп признаков реконструируемости наиболее объемной является группа реконструируемых гендиадисных пар (311 единиц; 50%). Второе место принадлежит группе нереконструируемых гендиадисных сочетаний (216 единиц; 34,8%) и, наконец, свободно конструируемые (окказиональные) комбинации занимают третью позицию (96 единиц; 15,2%). 100% гендиадисных единиц в английском языке комплексные, т.е. состоят из двух и более компонентов. Среди дистинктивных признаков нереконструируемых гендиадисных единиц выявлены стабильность и идиоматичность. В разряде реконструируемых гендиадисных единиц преобладает признак условной стабильности, включающий сокращаемость (92 единицы; 30%), расширяемость (92 единицы; 30%), заменимость синонимами (77 единиц; 24%) и синхронную вариативность (50 единиц; 16%). Группу окказиональных гендиадисных единиц отличают невоспроизводимость (творимость), синхронно-диахронная диффузность («хроническая» новизна), словообразовательная производность, ненормативность и номинативная факультативность. Выводы. Парные образования гендиадисного типа характеризуются двойственностью лингвистической интерпретации. С одной стороны, они попадают в разряд нереконструируемых лексических единиц, становясь при этом стилистическими фигурами речи и клишированными единицами. Вместе с тем, приобретая признаки нестабильности (условной стабильности), они могут преобразовываться в реконструируемые лексические единицы. Однако, с другой стороны, исследуемые структуры могут относиться к окказионализмам, т.е. свободно конструируемым сочетаниям. Problem statement. The article provides an analysis of distinctive features of hendiadic pair-word units reversibility in Modern English. The concept of hendiadys is sufficiently well studied, and its lexical units are lexicographically mastered, but the traits of the reversibility of these units often remain beyond the scope of analysis. In this study, the issue of reversibility of hendiadic pairs is to be analyzed from the point of view of usual and occasional characteristics. Results. The question of hendiadic units reversibility has been studied extensively, but not enough to reveal the nature of their differentiation in modern English. The subject of the study is the systemic and structural features of the groups of hendiadic word pairs formation and reversibility including irreversible hendiadic units, reversible hendiadic units and freely constructed (occasional) hendiadic units. The empirical corpus of the study is composed of a number of primary and secondary sources and includes 623 hendiadic units. The selection criterion was the structure like A+l+B , where A and B are significant elements with l as a link. Among the proposed groups, the most numerous is the group of reversible hendiadic pairs (311 units; 50%). The second place belongs to the group of irreversible hendiadic combinations (216 units; 34.8%) and, finally, freely constructed (occasional) pairs occupy the third position (96 units; 15.2%). 100% of hendiadic units in English are complex, i.e. consist of two or more components. Among the distinctive features of irreversible hendiadic units, stability and idiomaticity were found. In the reversible hendiadic units group, the feature of conditional stability prevails, including contractility (92 units; 30%), extensibility (92 units; 30%), substitutability with synonyms (77 units; 24%) and synchronous variability (50 units; 16%). The occasional hendiadic units are distinguished by irreproducibility (creativity), synchronous-diachronic diffuseness (“chronic” novelty), word-building derivativeness, substandard performance and nominative optionality. Conclusion. Hendiadic pair-word units are characterized by the duality of linguistic interpretation. On the one hand, they fall into the group of irreversible lexical units, while becoming stylistic figures of speech and formulaic expressions. At the same time, acquiring features of instability (conditional stability), they can be transformed into reversible lexical units. On the other hand, the studied structures also fall under the group of occasional units, i.e. freely constructed combinations.

AbstractIt is widely held that Romans 8:22 contains a hendiadys portraying creation as "groaning in travail." This paper argues that the two terms connote diverse ideas and therefore should be translated as "groaning and in travail." The thesis of this paper is that the groaning of creation is creation's mourning due to ongoing human sin and a concomitant divine judgment — as attested nine times in the Hebrew prophets, but most fully expressed in Joel 1-2. This view challenges the prevailing interpretation that creation's plight is due to her distress originating from the curse of the Fall (Gen 3:17). Furthermore, Israelite mourning customs require that the entire community join the mourner in order to restore the mourner to the proper place in the social order. This practice elucidates Paul's references to believers joining with the groaning creation in Romans 8, where creation is presented as an object of God's redemption.

The wording describing Peter's third denial: "curse and swear" gave rise to several contradictory interpretations. Some think that it is hendiadys meaning nothing but swearing. Advocates of the transitive sense of the verb ἀναθεματίζω try to guess who is the object of Peter's curse. The dominant view is that Peter curses Jesus. Others think that Peter curses himself or those who accuse him. But formula "curse and swear" appears in the Henochic myth about fallen angels (1 Hen 6:4.5.6). Peter, who denies Jesus, resembles one of the fallen angels, who opposed God's will on Mount Hermon and separated themselves from God. The following pattern, which can be observed in the First Book of Enoch (1-6): the revelation of God, the announcement of the Last Judgment and the fall of those who belong to God appear in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew twice: in Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27-38, Matt 16:13-28 ) and in the Caiaphas palace (Mark 14:53-75, Matt 26:57-72). The apocryphal context helps to understand that the curse always touches one who opposes God. Throwing a curse on yourself is confirmed by examples from ancient culture.

To coin a phrase, lots of Virgil line our pockets and purses. Real money may be a matter of digits on a credit card over the internet, but cultural identity is still summed up for a vocal minority of English in terms of heavy metal. The pound, that vestige of the ￡ibra (Schillings und Denarii). Here is a post-modern coin's paean to its own nature: round each rim runs the ￡egend:DECVS*ET*TVTAMENSo ￡ong as the ￡ettering is ￡egible, the pound is ￡egal currency. And so it proclaims: this inscription tells us its function, ‘ornament’ + ‘defence’, as Dryden would put it. This 3-D epigraphy is worth its weight in cash – it is the pound's ‘grace plus protection’. In fact, it works towards hendiadys (my favourite rhetorical figure, for some reason: ‘twofathepriceofone’; any ‘one-in-two’ cleft), since the single band running ceaselessly and unbroken 360° around the rim is at once the glory of the unit of exchange and the safeguard it is banking on. Credit where credit is due, these are the two sides of the coin's identity. Its realm must still be the Rome from Rome of pre-Commonwealth Britannia, for brass is brass, and never lies – in Anglo-￡atin.

This article aims to introduce in the scientific debate on the future of EU labour law and its relationship with human and fundamental rights, a redefinition of the collective labour rights in terms of ‘collective labour freedoms’. This redefinition is undertaken in different steps and initiates from the so-called ‘Laval doctrine’ that has emancipated the economic freedoms (mainly referred to as the freedoms of the employers) from the social rights (mainly referred to as the rights of workers and trade unions): collective labour freedoms do not question the outcome of the balance struck by the CJEU but the possibility of balancing per se. In order to do so, this contribution proposes a different methodology that synthesises a socio-historical analysis of social rights as materially considered and acted by social partners with a positive reading of fundamental charters and constitutions in which the freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and industrial action are recognised as tools to regulate the interests of a social and economic nature (in form of an inseparable hendiadys) pursued by both sides of the labour market, employers and employees. Collective labour freedoms underline the inherent economic nature of labour law and, in line with the theoretical framework (but opposite in terms of political goals) with the German ordoliberals, they do not deny the freedom of market; moreover, they are valuable entitlements to achieve the social market economy as enshrined in Art. 3(3) of TEU. The article finally presents a possible outcome of the proposed methodology with an example taken from a pivotal case from the Italian Supreme Court on the limits to the exercise of the right to strike in non-standard forms.

Введение. Гендиадис в английском языке – это биномиальное образование, представляющее собой двух-компонентную структуру, элементы которой могут быть скоординированы союзом и вместе выражают одно сложное понятие. При этом данная конструкция строится по формуле A(+l) + B, где A – первый структурный элемент (знаменательный), l (link) – второй структурный элемент (служебный), т. е. связующее звено (союз, связка), B – третий структурный элемент (знаменательный), например: safe (A) and (l) sound (B), forewarned (A), forearmed (B). В рамках всесторонних исследований в области изучения парных образований биномиального характера неизбежно возникает вопрос приоритета одного знаменательного элемента над другим, т. е. A над B. Как следствие, факторы, определяющие порядок элементов в биномиалах, долгое время оставались предметом обсуждений в лингвистике.Цель – анализ и систематизация ограничительных факторов, призванных определять последовательность знаменательных элементов в биномиальных образованиях.Материал и методы. Эмпирическая база исследования формировалась методом сплошной выборки. Материалом исследования послужил корпус лексических единиц гендиадисного типа, отобранных из первичных (тексты, публикации, скрипты) и вторичных (электронные и печатные словари) источников. В исследовании также применяются методы сравнительного и компонентного анализа.Результаты и обсуждение. Ограничительные факторы, определяющие последовательность знаменательных элементов в биномиальных образованиях, ранее исследовались стихийно и только недавно стали предметом количественного анализа. Наиболее всесторонними научными изысканиями в этой связи являются труды Я. Малкиеля (1959), У. Купера и Дж. Росса (1975), С. Б. Бенор и Р. Леви (2006), а также С. Моллин (2012) и Г. Зауэра и Б. Шван (2017). Результатом исследования стала система факторов, состоящая из нескольких групп и подгрупп. Основными являются группы, которые носят семантический и фонологический характер: семантический связан со структурированием элементов согласно глубине восприятия, логике, хронологии, иерархии и т. д., фонологический предполагает свойства гласных/согласных звуков. Помимо этого выделяют метрические факторы, подразумевающие особенности следования слогов в исследуемых элементах. Кроме того, отмечены такие факторы, как трансляционный (переводной), фактор частоты употребления тех или иных элементов в составе различных гендиадисных единиц и фактор синхронной вариативности, выражающийся в наличии множества вариантов трансформации гендиадисной единицы с одними и теми же знаменательными элементами.Заключение. Опираясь на выводы, основанные на данных эмпирических исследований зарубежных ученых, удалось подтвердить факт существования иерархической последовательности ограничительных факторов, составить их классификацию и осуществить систематизацию. Таким образом, выдвинуто предположение о том, что среди представленных групп факторов превалируют семантические, а значит, композиционная структура английского гендиадиса строится в логике от семантики к метрике и фонологии. The purpose of the article is the analysis and systematization of ordering constraints used for identifying the sequence of constituents in hendiadic (binomial) constructions. The object of the study is six groups of constraints that are tested on 562 binomials. The materials of the study are hendiadic units collected from the sources of various genres and dictionaries. The use of this material allows us to explore the concept of that many factors can play a role under the right conditions, including the semantic relationship between the items, metrical and other phonological properties of the possible orderings, and relative item frequency. Results and discussion. The ordering constraints that determine the sequence of constituents in binomials were previously studied haphazardly and only recently became the subject of quantitative analysis. The most comprehensive scientific researches in this regard are the works of Ya. Malkiel, W. Cooper and J. Ross, S. B Benor and R. Levy, as well as S. Mollin and H. Sauer and B. Schwan. As a result of the study, several groups of ordering constraints and their subgroups were classified and systematized. These groups of factors include semantic constraints, i.e. structuring elements according to the perception, logic, chronology, hierarchy, etc., phonological constraints, i.e. the properties of vowels and consonants. In addition, among these factors are also metric constraints, implying the peculiarities of the syllables in the studied constituents. The other ones are such constraints as translational, item frequency and synchronic variation of the order. Thus, basically, it can be concluded that the ordering constraints are not only subject to classification and systematization, but also have a clear hierarchy.

The following work is going to treat assembling main studies about the topic, the criminological analysis of sexual vicious behavior, outcome of a research led within a Master’s contest about “Criminology, investigative and strategic sciences for security”, by the Unitelma Sapienza University of Rome. The number of victims caused by this peculiar aberration of human behavior, per year, is comparable to a war: even though, of the latter one, shares only a subtle gradient of aggressiveness, produced or linked with sexual choices and not relating to more socially-elaborated frames, growth out to a political-military basis. Therefore, “Behavior”, first and foremost, “sexual vicious”, furthermore: this one is the indivisible hendiadys that will remark the “behavior1” on which the focus points into, to no scatter speculative energies and to tighten the essay’s core in two clamped angles of research, that otherwise could spread outwards, becoming loose and approximative. Consequently, will be of preliminary importance to start from the semantic compounds between aggressiveness and sex, that spread themselves in the definitions of rape and sexual abuse. Possibly, we will obtain a perimeter, a slot from which observe the general topic about the sexual normality and deviance: in the twilight interstice, stemmed from the difference between these two poles, that could seem a prism but also an opaque and shady tissue, the sexual vicious behavior shows off its dynamics, its inner mechanics, its selfpropelling criminal engine. Of course, the article’s structure had to contemplate all the psychodynamic path of the sex offender, profiting by methodological guidelines of prof. Vincenzo Mastronardi, so arriving in a ranking whose value, probably, founds the peak utility in investigative environments (if there was an acting-out). ---------- Il lavoro che segue tratterà, rassegnando le principali ricerche in materia, l’analisi criminologica del comportamento sessuale violento, frutto di una ricerca condotta nell’ambito del Master in “Criminologia, scienze investigative e strategiche per la sicurezza” dell’Università Unitelma Sapienza di Roma. I numeri delle vittime di questa peculiare aberrazione del comportamento umano, per anno, sono paragonabili a quelli di una guerra: eppure, di quest’ultima, ne condividono solamente un certo gradiente di violenza, generata o correlata a opzioni di natura sessuale e non in contesti socialmente più elaborati di matrice politico-militare. Per cui “comportamento”, innanzitutto, “sessuale violento”, poi: quest’ultima è l’endiadi inscindibile che connoterà il “comportamento” su cui punta il focus, per non disperdere le energie speculative e per stringere in due serrati angoli di ricerca l’argomento, che altrimenti presterebbe il fianco ad infinite indagini euristiche, ovvero a gradazioni prospettiche troppo ampie e, quindi, inesorabilmente approssimative. Risulterà pertanto di preliminare rilevanza partire dalle combinazioni semantiche tra violenza e sesso, che si irradiano nelle definizioni di stupro ed abuso sessuale. Si otterrà, auspicabilmente, un perimetro, una feritoia dalla quale osservare l’argomento più generale attinente la normalità e la devianza sessuale: nell’interstizio chiaroscurale, ricavato dalla breve ed incerta distanza tra questi poli, che può essere sì un prisma ma anche uno stagnante tessuto opaco ed adombrante, il comportamento sessuale violento svela la propria meccanica, il proprio intrinseco funzionamento, la propria semovenza criminale. Certamente, la strutturazione dell’articolo doveva tenere in considerazione tutto l’itinerario psicodinamico del sex offender, traendo particolare giovamento dalle indicazioni metodologiche del prof. Vincenzo Mastronardi, così arrivandone, in ragione delle singole estrinsecazioni della devianza, ad una classificazione il cui valore, probabilmente, trova l’apice della propria utilità in ambienti investigativi (laddove vi sia stato un acting-out). ---------- El trabajo que sigue, al renunciar a la investigación principal sobre este tema, el análisis criminológico del comportamiento sexual violento, es el resultado de una investigación realizada en el Máster en “Criminología, Ciencias de Investigación y Estratégicas para la Seguridad” en la Universidad Unitelma Sapienza Roma. El número de víctimas de esta peculiar aberración del comportamiento humano por año es comparable al de una guerra, sin embargo, estas últimas solo comparten un cierto grado de violencia, generada o relacionada con opciones de naturaleza sexual, y no contextos socialmente más elaborados de la matriz político-militar. Por lo tanto, “comportamiento” es en primer lugar un “sexo violento”, entonces: este último es la dotación inseparable que transmitirá el “comportamiento” en el que se enfoca el foco, para no dispersar las energías especulativas y sujetar en dos esquinas de la búsqueda el argumento, que de otra manera se adheriría a investigaciones heurísticas interminables, o a grados prospectivamente amplios y por lo tanto inexorablemente aproximados. Por lo tanto, será de primordial importancia a partir de las combinaciones semánticas entre violencia y sexo, que irradian las definiciones de violación y abuso sexual. Esperemos hallar un perímetro, una rendija desde la cual observar el argumento más general sobre la normalidad y la desviación sexual: en el intersticio de claroscuro, obtenido a partir de la distancia corta e incierta entre estos polos, que puede ser un prisma, pero también uno Tejido mate y opaco estancado, el comportamiento sexual violento revela su propia mecánica, su funcionamiento intrínseco, su propia auto evolución criminal. Ciertamente, la estructuración del artículo debe tener en cuenta todo el itinerario psicodinámico del delincuente sexual, obteniendo un beneficio particular de las indicaciones metodológicas del prof. Vincenzo Mastronardi, llegando, en razón de la extinción individual de la desviación, a una clasificación cuyo valor probablemente encuentre su aptitud en los entornos de investigación (donde ha sido un acting-out).

The article studies the individual authorial neologisms in T. Melnychuk’s linguistic world. A structural-semantic analysis of the neolexemes that have a national-cultural colouring is given. The main attention is paid to the examples of noun word formation as a powerful corpus of the poet’s lexical neologisms. Occasional diminutive innovations with a folk-based component in their stem are outlined. It is established that the diminutive lexemes are actively formed by the suffix formants -ат(а), -ят(к)(о, а), -оньк(о), -еньк(о), -ен(ят)(а), -ен(ятк)(о), by means of which nouns denoting the state of being not fully grown are made. The author consciously breaks word formation rules and combines the above suffixes with motivating nouns that denote lifeless thing, thus making occasional words (бриндушата, калинята, скибенята). This way the poet spiritualises his images, which is a characteristic feature of folk songs. The formation of certain lexical innovations (горенятко, снігурчата) is studied, whose derivational direction can only be defined via context. Diminutives are found in compound nouns formed by combining a numeral and a noun denoting a typical folk stylised linguistic pet form. At the level of expressive word formation, the artist forms compound words in pet forms of negatively connotated abstract nouns (трижурбонька, трилишенько etc). Juxtaposite innovations are proved to be active word formative means in the author’s linguistic world, among them hendiadys forms (казочка-перев’язочка, колисонька-висонька etc), whose specific modelling in folk song tradition is a specific feature of lullabies. It is shown that active use of ethnocultural linguistic signs, making them more structurally and semanticaly complex, their modern combination and interpretation form the main feature of T. Melnychuk’s individual style.

Making Sense of Nonsense: Readings of Children’s Poetry as Play and Creative Thinking Abstract: Nonsense and meaning are not necessarily conflicting concepts, but can be conceived of as a hendiadys, that is, not opposites, the one or the other, but as one and the other. The idea that meaning and nonsense are related and coexist is a premise for this article, which describes different structures of meaning in the nonsense poetry of Birgitte Krogsbøll and Kamilla Wichmann’s picture book Funkelgnister: Rim, råb og remser (2015, Glittersparks: Rhymes, Roars and Rigmaroles). By linking our analysis of Funkelgnister to Johan Huizinga’s theory of play as a prerequisite for culture, we reveal how the specific structures and logics of the poems generate meaning and thereby we disclose how children’s nonsense poetry is simultaneously meaningful and nonsensical, as a creative thinking akin to culture developed through play and playfulness. We describe how meaning can be sought in three directions, suggested by Gilles Deleuze: above, below and on the surface. In the first case, we consider nonsense as a seductive acoustic phenomenon. In the second, we focus on nonsense poetry as subversive. And finally, in the third case, we show how it is an event. In all, these different aspects demonstrate how nonsense poetry functions as play and challenges our understanding of what it means to read. Following Jurij Lotman’s understanding of pictorial language as creative thinking, we show how nonsense in Funkelgnister opens up a free space by utilizing an in-between, where meaning takes on different forms as signs and sounds, and how the inherent rejection of normative rules of reading in such a venture, initiates a production of meaning as metonymic activity. We thereby highlight how nonsense generates a ground for a creative development of meaning.