Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper investigates the working of antithesis in Shakespeare’s most famous soliloquy “To be, or not to be” and its three Ukrainian translations. In cognitive poetics, antithesis is often viewed as a verbal variety of conceptual oxymoron. However, this paper argues for distinguishing antithesis from conceptual oxymoron based on consideration of the different processes at work behind their creation and reading. Significantly, in antithesis the emergent meaning retains the dichotomy of two input spaces rather than creating a new one, as happens in conceptual oxymoron. In this context, we consider antithesis in English-Ukrainian translations against the backdrop of Kaluża’s (1984) reflection on asymmetry and irreversibility in antithesis. As will be seen, renditions into Ukrainian change the perception of the original antithesis prompted by structural and semantic changes in the translations.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Akademichnyj tlumachnyj slovnyk
    Akademichnyj tlumachnyj slovnyk 1970–1980 [Academic Ukrainian Dictionary]. sum.in.ua (Last accessed on13 August 2017).
  2. Baars, Bernard J.
    1988A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barrett, Louise
    2011Beyond the Brain: How Body and Environment Shape Animal and Human Minds. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Belekhova, Larysa
    2002 Obraznyj prostir amerykans’koї poeziї: lingvokognityvnyj aspekt [Image space of American poetry: Linguocognitive perspective]. DSc Dissertation. Kyiv National Linguistics University.
  5. 2006 Kontseptualnyj oksymoron: kreatyvnyj mekhanizm formuvannia novyzny slovesnykh obraziv (na materiali amerykanskoї poeziї) [Conceptual oxymoron: creative mechanism of making verbal images novel (based on American poetry)]. Naukovyj visnyk Khersonskoho derzhavnoho universytetu: Seriia “Lingvistyka” [Kherson State University Herald: Linguistics Series]. linguistics.kspu.edu/webfm_send/969 (Last accessed on22 July 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boyce, Charles
    1990Shakespeare A to Z: The Essential Reference to His Plays, His Poems, His Life and Times, and More. New York: Laurel / Dell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brône, Geert & Jeroen Vandaele
    (eds) 2009Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains, and Gaps. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213379
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213379 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cornelius, Judson K.
    2005 [1998]Literary Humour. Bandra: Better Yourself Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dancygier, Barbara
    2012 Negation, stance verbs, and intersubjectivity. InViewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds). New York: Cambridge University Press, 69–93.10.1017/CBO9781139084727.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.006 [Google Scholar]
  10. Elbow, Peter
    1993 The uses of binary thinking. Journal of Advanced Composition (14): 22–51. scholarworks.umass.edu/eng_faculty_pubs/14 (Last accessed on8 January 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Estes, Zachary & Thomas B. Ward
    2002 The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity Research Journal14 (2): 149–156.10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_2 [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans, Vyv
    2007A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1994Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511624582
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    2002The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1982 Frame semantics. InLinguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.). Seoul: Hanshin, 111–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fischer, Olga C. M.
    1997 Iconicity in language and literature: Language innovation and language change. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen98: 63–87. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/3232869/3428_139202.pdf (Last accessed on13 August 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Franke, Michael
    2008 Pseudo-imperatives and other cases of conditional conjunction and conjunctive disjunction. In ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’. InSentence and Text: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 255–280.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr.
    1993 Process and products in making sense of tropes. InMetaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 252–276.10.1017/CBO9781139173865.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.014 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1994The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Givón, Talmy
    2009 [1989]Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. New York and London: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hajičová, Eva
    2017 Theme. InThe Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Linguistics. linguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-216 (Last accessed on13 August 2017).10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.216
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.216 [Google Scholar]
  23. Harrison, Chloe
    2017Cognitive Grammar in Contemporary Fiction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lal.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.26 [Google Scholar]
  24. Harrison, Chloe , Louise Nuttall , Peter Stockwell & Wenjuan Yuan
    (eds) 2014Cognitive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.17 [Google Scholar]
  25. Horpynych, Volodymyr
    2004Morfolohiia ukraїnskoї movy [Ukrainian Language Morphology]. Kyiv: Akademiia.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Janda, Laura
    2007 Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. Studies in Language31 (3): 607–648.10.1075/sl.31.3.04jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.04jan [Google Scholar]
  27. Jarvie, Gordon
    2007Bloomsbury Grammar Guide: Grammar Made Easy. London: A&C Black.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kaluża, Irena
    1984 Antithesis – a linguistic approach. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia17: 101–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kolomiiets, Lada V.
    2006 Dva Leonidy Hrebinky: Do pytannia pro avtentychnyj pereklad i redaktorsku pravku (na materiali perekladu ‘Hamleta’ V. Shekspira) [Two Grebinkas: On authentic translation and editor’s changes (based on W. Shakespeare’s Hamlet)]. Inozemna lologija [Foreign Philology] 40: 31–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kövecses, Zoltán
    2010Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakoff, George
    2003 Metaphor and semantics. InInternational Encyclopedia of Linguisitcs: AAVE-Esperanto. Vol.1. New York: Oxford University Press, 53–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    2003 [1980]Metaphors We Live By. London: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara
    2007 Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. InThe Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds). New York: Oxford University Press, 139–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lu, Wei-lun & Arie Verhagen
    2016 Shifting viewpoints: How does that actually work across languages? An exercise in parallel text analysis. InViewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, Barbara Dancygier , Wei-Lun Lu & Arie Verhagen (eds). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 169–190.10.1515/9783110365467‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467-008 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lu, Wei-lun , Susanne Kemmer , Svitlana Shurma & Jiří Rambousek
    . Under review. Use of translation as a research method in contrastive cognitive poetics: Word formation in Jabberwocky and its Ukrainian translations. Submitted to: Journal of Literary Semantics.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lu, Wei-lun , Arie Verhagen & I-wen Su
    2018 A Multiple-Parallel-Text approach for viewpoint research across languages: The case of demonstratives in English and Chinese. InExpressive Minds and Artistic Creations: Studies in Cognitive Poetics, Szilvia Csábi (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 131–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Newell, Alex
    1965 The dramatic context and meaning of Hamlet’s “To Be or Not to Be” soliloquy. PMLA80 (1): 38–50.10.2307/461124
    https://doi.org/10.2307/461124 [Google Scholar]
  39. Plett, Heinrich F.
    2010International Studies in the History of Rhetoric. Vol. 2. Literary Rhetoric: Concepts – Structures – Analyses. Leiden and Boston: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004171138.i‑320
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004171138.i-320 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ponomariv, Oleksander
    2014 Blog profesora Ponomareva: pro riznytsiu mizh “chy” ta “abo” [Professor Ponomariv’s blog: on the difference between “chy” and “abo”]. www.bbc.com/ukrainian/blogs/2014/08/140820_ponomariv_blog27_ko (Last accessed on13 August 2017).
  41. Preminger, Alex & Terry V. F. Brogan
    (eds) 1993The New Princeton Encyclopaedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ramshaw, Gail
    1996Liturgical Language: Keeping it Metaphoric, Making it Inclusive. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ross, George
    . s.d. [1867] Studies: Biographical and Literary. London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2000English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110808704
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  45. Semino, Elena , Zsofia Demjén & Jane E. Demmen
    2016 An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics1–22. doi: 10.1093/applin/am028
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/am028 [Google Scholar]
  46. Shakespeare, William
    1986 Hamlet, prynts datskyj. Tr. by L. Hrebinka . In V. Shekspir . Tvory v shesty tomah [Works in Six Volumes]. Vol.5. Kyiv: Dnipro, 5–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2004 Hamlet, prynts danskyj. Tr. by G. Kochur . In U. Shekspir . Tragediї [Tragedies]. Kharkiv: Folio, 165–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2008Hamlet, prynts danskyj. Tr. by Yu. Andrukhovych . Kyiv: A-BA-BA-GA-LA-MA-GA.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. . (upd. 2008) Act III. Scene 1. Hamlet [online]. www.shakespeareswords.com/Plays.aspx?Ac=3&SC=1&IdPlay=2#117126 (Last accessed on31 July 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  50. . (upd. 2018) Act III. Scene 1. Hamlet [online]. https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=hamlet&Act=3&Scene=1&Scope=scene (Last accessed on21 August 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Shen, Yeshayahu
    1997 Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics8 (1): 33–71.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2002 Cognitive constraints on verbal creativity: The use of figurative language in poetic discourse. InCognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis, Elena Semino & Jonathan Culpeper (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211–230.10.1075/lal.1.11she
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.1.11she [Google Scholar]
  53. Shulzhuk, Kalenyk
    2004Syntaksys ukraїnskoї movy [Syntax of the Ukrainian Language]. Kyiv: Akademiia.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Shurma, Svitlana & Wei-Lun Lu
    2016 A cognitive poetic analysis of LIFE and DEATH in English and Ukrainian: A Multiple-Parallel-Text approach to Hamlet’s soliloquy. Theatralia19 (2): 9–28.10.5817/TY2016‑2‑1
    https://doi.org/10.5817/TY2016-2-1 [Google Scholar]
  55. Simpson, Paul
    2004Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Skidan, Olga
    2007 Kontrastyvni stylistychni zasoby vtilennia konceptu TVORCHA OSOBYSTIST u hudozhnikh tekstakh U.S. Moema [Contrastive stylistic means that embody the concept CREATIVE PERSONALITY in W.S. Maugham’s novels]. Abstract of PhD Dissertation. Karazin National University of Kharkiv.
  57. 2008 Hrotesk iak zasib vtilennia konceptu TVORCHA OSOBYSTIST u tvorakh U.S. Moema [Grotesque as a means of CREATIVE PERSONALITY concept embodiment in W.S. Maugham’s works]. Naukovyj Visnyk Khersonskogo derzhavnoho universytetu. Seriia: “Linhvistyka” [Kherson State University Herald. Linguistics series], 262–266. linguistics.kspu.edu/webfm_send/1268 (Last accessed on12 August 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2010Kohnityvnyj pidkhid do stylistychnoho analizu anglomovnogo hudozhnioho tekstu [Cognitive approach to stylistic analysis of English literary texts]. Sevastopol: Izdatelstvo SevNTU.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Stockwell, Peter
    2002Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Rothenberg, Albert
    1973 Word association and creativity. Psychological Reports33: 3–1210.2466/pr0.1973.33.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1973.33.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  61. Talanchuk, O.
    2002100 najvidomishykh obraziv ukraїnskoї mifolohiї [100 Most Famous Images of Ukrainian Mythology]. Kyiv: Orfej.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Tomasello, Michael
    2005 [2003]Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Tsur, Reuven
    1992Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics. Amsterdam: North Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Turner, Mark
    2014 Blending in language and communication. InHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 211–232. Online version available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2487552 (Last accessed on20 July 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Williamson, Claude C. H.
    (ed.) 2005 [1950]Readings on the Character of Hamlet. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): antithesis; blend; conceptual oxymoron; mapping; parallel texts
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error