Paraphrasing and Related Concepts: Exploring Similarities

and Variations

Ikhtiyar E. Umirov

, Farkhad K. Yuldashev

, Farogat F. Yuldasheva

, Dilnoza M. Kholikova

Salomat F. Yuldasheva

and Malokhat S. Sharipova

Uzbek State World Languages University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Keywords: Trope, Metaphor, Linguistic Metaphor, Artistic Metaphor, Paraphrase, Epithet, Euphemism, Phraseological

Unit, Fixed Conjunction, Figurative Expression, Figurative Device.

Abstract: Until now, paraphrases have not been the primary focus of scientific research, nor have they been extensively

studied in Uzbek linguistics or Turkology. Despite their active use in both oral and written forms as a means

of artistic expression, paraphrases significantly contribute to the richness and semantic diversity of our

language. They enhance clarity, logic, and uniqueness in speech. Although some articles acknowledge the

unique characteristics of paraphrases within artistic representation, comprehensive studies are lacking. This

article addresses this gap by scientifically and theoretically distinguishing paraphrases from related linguistic

phenomena such as euphemism, phraseologism, synonymy, epithet, metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and

functional transfer. It also provides preliminary insights into the creation of paraphrases and serves as a

theoretical resource for their study and analysis. This research enriches current understanding in stylistics and

contributes to solving aspects of the relationship between language and speech.

1 INTRODUCTION

Paraphrases and metaphors, though related, function

differently in language and literature. Metaphor,

derived from the Greek word for "transfer," involves

using words figuratively based on similarities

between objects or events, changing the word's

meaning but not the underlying concept. For instance,

"tip" can refer to both the end of a belt and the top of

a poplar tree, showing how one term can have

multiple metaphorical meanings. In literary studies,

metaphors differ by focusing on resemblance in

attributes like colour and characteristics, enhancing

expressiveness and emotional impact. Examples

include phrases like "the dark forces" and "wolves"

symbolising enemies, which are not literal but evoke

vivid imagery. Artistic metaphors, as described by

Prof. S. Usmanov and linguist B. Umurkulov, provide

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0494-2698

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4980-3591

https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7533-4883

https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1890-8911

https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7377-5347

https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4692-8001

stylistic richness and are integral to the writer's craft,

unlike linguistic metaphors that serve nominative

functions. These artistic metaphors are categorised

into various types, such as lexical and compound,

reflecting their structural diversity.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

According to Prof. R. Kongurov, metaphors in poetry

are categorised into two types: simple and extended.

A simple metaphor consists of a single word, whereas

an extended metaphor includes two or more words.

For instance, "dome" (sky), "snake" (cold person),

"lion" and "falcon" (strong person), and "fox"

(cunning person) are examples of simple metaphors.

Extended metaphors include "steel horse" (car), "blue

ship" (cotton-picking machine), "white gold"

Umirov, I., Yuldashev, F., Yuldasheva, F., Kholikova, D., Yuldasheva, S. and Sharipova, M.

Paraphrasing and Related Concepts: Exploring Similarities and Variations.

DOI: 10.5220/0012913400003882

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 2nd Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies (PAMIR-2 2023), pages 691-694

ISBN: 978-989-758-723-8

691

(cotton), "blue fire" (gas), and "steel bird" (plane). R.

Kongurov, E. Begmatov, and Y. Tojiev explain this

classification, although it diverges from the views of

S. Usmanov and B. Umurkulov. These scholars argue

that artistic metaphors are simple, while paraphrases

(figurative expressions) should be considered

extended metaphors.

Paraphrases, such as "queen of the field" for corn,

are semantically tied to their referents, requiring a

clear image of the object to transfer meaning. Linguist

A. Shomaksudov emphasises the importance of

understanding lexical development to use words

effectively and contextually. Unlike metaphors,

which directly transfer the name of one object to

another (e.g., "the eye of a tree" or "a ring"),

paraphrases describe objects or events through

detailed metaphorical imagery. This method

enhances expressiveness, variety, and vividness in

language. For example, "Islamic culture" refers to

Tashkent, "green wealth" to nature, and "green field"

to a stadium.

Paraphrases are formed through metaphorical

meaning transfer, using symbolic associations. For

instance, in "The Key to Knowledge" (book) and

"The Silver Thread" (cocoon), the terms "key" and

"silver" are metaphorically linked to their referents.

These metaphors and paraphrases enrich the

language, making abstract or complex ideas more

accessible and vivid, thus increasing the expressive

value of words through metaphorical and symbolic

methods.

3 DISCUSSIONS

Paraphrases: Object Clarity and Convincing

Expression

Clear Object Requirement: Paraphrases need a

clear object to describe. Without this clarity, the

visual expressions created are unconvincing.

Comparison with Metaphors: Metaphors do not

require this clarity, differentiating them from

paraphrases.

• Paraphrase and Metonymy

Definition: Metonymy, from Greek, means

renaming based on the interdependence of

things and events, without similarity.

Example: "Tablecloth" representing "treats"

due to their direct connection.

Differences from Paraphrases:

o Nature of Naming: Metonymy

uses one object's name for another,

while paraphrases provide a

deeper, more descriptive name.

o Relationship of Objects:

Metonymy involves related

objects, whereas paraphrases use

unrelated objects to describe

existing ones differently.

o Naming Process: Metonymy

transfers names directly;

paraphrases describe and explain

before naming.

o Ellipsis Feature: Metonymy often

omits words for brevity; this

feature is not observed in

paraphrases.

o Structural Focus: Metonymy

involves two related members;

paraphrases emphasize descriptive

expression.

• Paraphrase Formation via Metonymy:

Paraphrases can be created using metonymy,

e.g., "dancing queen" for Mukarrama

Turgunboeva.

Meaning in Context: Metonymy clarifies

meaning within text, while paraphrases

enhance understanding through context.

• Paraphrase and Euphemism

Definition: Euphemism softens harsh or

blunt terms, often seen in polite expressions.

Comparison:

o Similarity: Both rename concepts,

enhancing expression.

o Differences:

 Softening Effect:

Euphemisms replace rude

terms with gentler ones,

unlike paraphrases.

 Figurativeness:

Paraphrases are more

figurative and expressive.

 Opposite Concepts:

Euphemisms have

dysphemism (opposite

harsh terms); paraphrases

maintain a positive,

expressive tone.

Examples:

Euphemisms: "He died" as "the

soul came out," "closed its eyes."

o Paraphrases: "The spring of life"

for youth, emphasizing positive

imagery.

• Paraphrase and Phraseology

Similarity: Both involve multiple-word

expressions replacing a single term, but

differ fundamentally.

PAMIR-2 2023 - The Second Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

692

Differences:

o Nature of Representation:

Paraphrases descriptively represent

subjects/events; phraseological

idioms denote state/action.

o Formation Methods: Paraphrases

use metaphor, metonymy,

synecdoche, and functional

transfer; idioms primarily use

metaphor.

o Single Word Formation:

Paraphrases can be a single

descriptive word; idioms cannot.

o Semantic Closeness: Paraphrases

maintain semantic closeness with

described words; idioms do not.

Examples:

o Paraphrases: "Book" as "the lamp

of the mind," "spring" as "the

season of awakening."

o Idioms: "To cheat" as "to fill one's

stomach with nuts."

• Paraphrase and Epithet

Definition: Epithets are poetic qualifiers,

emphasizing a feature of a subject.

Comparison:

o Similarity: Both describe

important characteristics,

enhancing speech.

o Differences:

 Descriptive Method:

Paraphrases omit the

described word, using

figurative names; epithets

directly modify the word.

 Function: Paraphrases act

as figurative names;

epithets are artistic tools

highlighting important

traits.

Examples:

o Paraphrases: "The bride of the

seasons" for spring, "white gold"

for cotton.

o Epithets: "Silver winter," "emerald

spring," emphasizing autumn's

beauty.

Distinctive Features: Paraphrases,

metonymy, euphemism, phraseology, and

epithet each have unique roles in enhancing

language expressiveness.

Functional Differences: Understanding

their distinctions helps in appreciating the

richness and diversity of linguistic

expression.

Paraphrases, metonymy, euphemism,

phraseology, and epithets are fundamental

elements of linguistic creativity, each

contributing uniquely to the expressiveness

of language. Paraphrases demand a clear

object for effective communication,

providing a vivid and descriptive alternative

name, unlike metaphors that can be abstract.

Metonymy involves renaming based on the

interdependence of concepts, making it

distinct from paraphrases, which do not rely

on such connections. For instance, referring

to a "dancing queen" for a talented dancer

like Mukarrama Turgunboeva is a

metonymic paraphrase, highlighting her

prowess without directly naming her.

Euphemisms, which soften harsh or blunt

terms, differ from paraphrases through their

lack of vivid figurative language. While both

can rename concepts, euphemisms focus on

gentler expression. Phraseological idioms,

though multi-word units, do not maintain the

same direct semantic relationship with their

subjects as paraphrases do. For example,

"mother's milk has not left her mouth"

describes inexperience but is not directly

connected to the subject as a paraphrase

would be.

Epithets, serving as poetic qualifiers,

enhance the description of nouns but differ

from paraphrases by explicitly modifying

the terms they describe. Unlike paraphrases,

epithets do not omit the word they modify

but emphasize its attributes. Understanding

these distinctions enriches our appreciation

of linguistic tools, revealing how language

can be precisely tailored for clarity,

emotional impact, and stylistic flourish. This

knowledge is invaluable for linguists,

writers, and communicators who seek to

master the art of effective and evocative

expression.

4 CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, paraphrases, metonymy, euphemism,

phraseology, and epithets each play distinct yet

interconnected roles in the realm of linguistic

expression. Paraphrases require a clear object for

effective communication, distinguishing them from

metaphors which do not necessitate such clarity.

Paraphrasing and Related Concepts: Exploring Similarities and Variations

693

Metonymy, though similar to paraphrases in

renaming concepts, differs fundamentally in its

reliance on the interdependence of objects, whereas

paraphrases use unrelated objects to convey deeper

meanings. Euphemisms soften blunt terms, differing

from paraphrases in their lack of strong figurative

expression, while phraseological idioms, despite their

multi-word structure, do not maintain the same

semantic closeness with their subjects as paraphrases

do. Epithets, acting as poetic qualifiers, enhance the

descriptive quality of language but differ from

paraphrases by directly modifying the words they

describe.

The exploration of these linguistic phenomena

underscores the richness and diversity inherent in

language. Paraphrases stand out for their ability to

convey intricate and vivid imagery, enhancing both

written and spoken communication. Understanding

the nuances between these elements not only aids in

appreciating their individual contributions but also

highlights their collective impact on stylistic

expression. This nuanced comprehension is vital for

linguists, writers, and anyone interested in the art of

effective communication, as it reveals the

sophisticated mechanisms through which language

can be manipulated to achieve clarity, expressiveness,

and emotional resonance.

REFERENCES

An explanatory dictionary of the Uzbek language. (1981).

Moscow, Russia.

Begmatov, E., & Tojiev, Yo. (1992). Speech culture and

methodological foundations. Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Dolinin, K. A. (1978). Stylistics in the French language.

Leningrad, Russia.

Ismatullaev, N. (1996). Euphemisms in the Uzbek language

and their classification. EXCESSIVE.

Golub, I. B. (1976). Stylistics of the contemporary Russian

language. Moscow, Russia.

Kongurov, R. (1977). Pictorial means of the Uzbek

language. Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Lapasov, J. (1995). Epithet: A work of art and linguistic

analysis. Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Usmanov, S. (1964). A metaphor. UTA.

Utkina, V. P. (1959). Periphrastic circulation in Russian

godly literature. Izvestia Krymskogo pedagogi-

cheskogo instituta, 33(1), Simferopol, Ukraine.

Umurkulov, B. (1980). Poetic metaphor and its importance

in poetic speech.

Shamsiddinov, Kh. (1993). About the periphrasis: Some

conclusions. UTA.

Shomaksudov, A., Rasulov, I., Kongurov, R., & Rustamov,

H. (1981). Stylistics of the Uzbek language. Tashkent,

Uzbekistan.

PAMIR-2 2023 - The Second Pamir Transboundary Conference for Sustainable Societies- | PAMIR

694