• info@ukrmova.iul-nasu.org.ua
  • +38 (044)-278-12-09
  • Print ISSN 1682-3540
  • e-ISSN 2707-5249


Journal Ukrainian Language №2 (62) 2017
UDC 81’42:82:81’373.612.2

Vitalii Kononenko
Doctor of Philology, Professor, Academician of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, Head of the Department of General and German Linguistics, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University
57 Shevchenko St., Ivano-Frankivsk 76018, Ukraine
E-mail: kzm@pnu.edu.ua

Heading: Researches
Language: Ukrainian

Abstract: The article deals with linguo-cognitive characteristics of artistic hyperbolization and its place in the system of figurative means of the Ukrainian language. Hyperbole has been represented from the point of view of logico-semantic classification, taking into consideration extra lingual factors, by setting the reference correlation features on the associative and sensual basis with reliance on evaluative connotation. Analysis of possible approaches to implementation of contextual distinction of hyperbole and other tropes has been carried out, with connotation of existing transitional forms such as metaphors-hyperboles, similes-hyperboles, epithets-hyperboles. Language and aesthetic techniques of hyperbole inclusion into text by means of attributive, predicative and comparative structures, constructions with quantitative indicators, descriptive words that is by intensifying particles, standardized causative constructions have been described. Ways of artistic hyperbolization and quasi-hyperbolization differentiation, aesthetic functions of hyperbole in image creation and its everyday conversational realization have been identified. Attention has been paid to hidden motivation of hyperbolization in a great many phraseological units; the conclusion is that hyperbolization doesn’t influence its meanings. In hyperbolic meaning evaluation subjective factors of individual author’s perception are taken into account. However, hyperbolic comprehension is objectified on the basis of cognition principles.

Keywords: an artistic text, a hyperbole, hyperbolization, a quasi-hyperbole, a referent, an attribute, a predicate, a figure of speech, a metaphor, a simile, a symbol, an epithet, discourse words, causation.


  1. Arutiunova, N.D. (1999). The language and the world of man. Moscow (in).
  2. Bacevych, F.S. (2014). Parts of the Ukrainian language as discursive words. Lviv (in Ukr.).
  3. The Bible or the Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments: from Hebrew and Greek to Ukrainian re-translated. (1993). Ukrainian Bible Society (in Ukr.).
  4. Yermolenko, S.Ya. (2009). Linguistic and aesthetic signs of Ukrainian culture. Kyiv (in Ukr.).
  5. Metropolyt Ilarion. (1961). Grammar-stylistic dictionary of Shevchenko’s language. Winnipeg (in Ukr.).
  6. Kozhevnikova, N.A. (1979). About reversibility of trails. Linguistics and Poetics. P. 215 Moscow (in Rus.).
  7. Kolshansky, G.V. (1975). The ratio of subjective and objective factors in language. Moscow (in Rus.).
  8. Kononenko, V.I. (2002). Language. Culture. Style: coll. articles. Kyiv – Ivano-Frankivsk (in Ukr.).
  9. Kubriakova, E.S. (2001). On cognitive linguistics and semantics of the term “cognitive”. VSU Bulletin. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. Issue. 1. P. 4 – 10(in Rus.).
  10. Potebnia, O.O. (1985). Aesthetics and poetics of the word. Kyiv (in Ukr.).
  11. Bilodid, I.K. (Ed.). (1973). Modern Ukrainian literary language. Stylistics. Kyiv (in Ukr.).
  12. Striuk, L.B. (2001). Ethnology of Ukraine in song. Kyiv (in Ukr.).
  13. Teliia, V.N. (1986). The connotative aspect of the semantics of nominative units. Moscow (in Rus.).
  14. Toporov, V.N. (1990). Trails. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. See ed. V.N.  Yartseva. P. 520521. Moscow (in Rus.).
  15. Freud, Z. (1996). Poet and fantasy. Trans. from germ. Anthology of world literary-critical thought of the twentieth century. M. Zubritska. P. 8590. Lviv (in Ukr.).
  16. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago (in Eng.).