Masaryk UniversityFaculty of Arts

Department of Englishand American Studies

English Language and Literature

Olga Žižková

A Comparative Study of English and Czech Idioms

Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, CSc.

2010

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..Author’s signature

2

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, CSc., for her guidance and valuable advice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................5

2. Theoretical part....................................................................................................................7

2.1. Idiom.................................................................................................................................7

2.2. Comparison and simile................................................................................................8

2.3. Simile and metaphor.................................................................................................12

2.4. Components of comparison......................................................................................13

2.5. Transformation and variation...................................................................................16

3. Practical part......................................................................................................................17

3.1. Material...........................................................................................................................17

3.2. Semantic analysis......................................................................................................18

3.2.1. Methodology....................................................................................................18

3.2.2. Comparisons.....................................................................................................21

3.2.3. Semantic analysis of comparatum....................................................................30

3.2.4. Conclusion........................................................................................................31

3.3. Formal analysis..........................................................................................................32

3.3.2. Conclusion........................................................................................................36

4. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................37

5. Resumé...............................................................................................................................41

Sources of idioms.......................................................................................................................43

References.................................................................................................................................43

1. Introduction

4

Idiomatic language and expressions constitute a crucial part of each language.

Idioms make language richer, more colorful and playful. They are the precious “spice”

of language that should not be overused (Hrách 1998:6).

Students of English all over the world strive to master idioms and become

more like native speakers. However, this is not an easy task because idioms in each

language significantly vary. This differentiation and diversity of idiomatic language

make this field a very attractive object of study. There exist studies comparing English

and Czech idioms of different categories, such as animal, color or body.

This thesis will compare English and Czech idiomatic comparisons. It will

analyze over 290 English comparisons collected from different sources and compare

them with their Czech equivalents, if any such exists. The source language for the

comparisons is English and the main source of English comparisons is Oxford

Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Vol. 2 by A. P. Cowie (1993). The second

most important source is Sbírka anglických idiomů & slangu by Tomáš Hrách (1998).

Further comparisons were added from two internet sources, mainly Dictionary,

Encyclopedia and Thesaurus – The Free Dictionary and also English Language (ESL)

Learning Online. The Czech translations are based on Čermák’s Slovník české

frazeologie a idiomatiky: Přirovnání (1983). Some Czech equivalents, however, cannot

be found in this source but nevertheless exist. In such cases, the existence of such

expressions is verified in the Czech national corpus or Google.

As will follow from this thesis, both languages are very rich in comparisons.

They can be found everywhere – in everyday language and conversation, in newspapers

and novels. Furthermore, it will become obvious that English and Czech language

considerably vary. However, there are relatively few English comparisons that do not

have Czech idiomatic counterpart.

5

The thesis is divided into two parts. The first part provides the theoretical

background. It offers the definition of an idiom and then continues to deal with the

notion of comparison and simile. It introduces different approaches towards the

difference between comparison and simile and shows the features of idiomatized “false”

comparisons. Furthermore, it deals with the structure of comparisons as elaborated by

Čermák (1982:476), discusses the characteristics of the individual components of

comparisons. Finally, it mentions the flexibility of the comparisons, variations and

transformation.

The second, practical, part analyzes the material from two aspects. First, it

divides the comparisons into groups according to the similarity of comparatum in both

languages. It discovers that the largest section of the comparisons varies in both

languages. However, it is shown that general tendencies of the kind of comparatum

(concrete entities, animals) are approximately the same.

The next part of the practical analysis deals with the formal aspects of the

comparisons. It compares the distribution of verbs and adjectives on the left side of the

comparisons and then discusses whether the nominal tendency of English influences the

right side of comparisons as compared to the Czech equivalents.

The aim of this thesis is to collect a sufficient number of English comparisons

to show the general tendencies of English idiomatic comparisons and to be able to

compare them with the Czech comparisons and their tendencies.

2. Theoretical part

6

2.1. Idiom

An idiom is traditionally defined as “a set expression in which two or more

words are syntactically related, but with a meaning like that of a single lexical unit”

(The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics) or “conventional multi-word units that

are semantically opaque and structurally fixed” (Langlotz 2006:2) or, more simply

expressed: “a number of words which, taken together, mean something different from

individual words of the idiom when they stand alone” (Seidl, 1978:20). However, as

Cowie argues, the definition based on semantic opaqueness covers only a small class of

idioms. It is important, as Cowie (1993:xii) further discusses, to take into account “the

possibility of internal variation, or substitution of part for part.”

The notion of “fixedness” (Langlotz 2006:4) and grammatical and syntactic

restrictions (Palmer 1996:80) applies only to a class of idioms defined by Cowie as

“pure idioms”. Examples of this class include notoriously quoted idiom kick the bucket.

This idiom is fixed or “petrified” (Leech 1981:225) and restricted as far as tense and

number are concerned. However, the possibility of voice modification varies and while

*the bucket was kicked is incorrect, the beans have been spilled is acceptable. It is

therefore necessary to judge the restrictions of each idiom individually.

Cowie, however, further distinguishes, apart from already mentioned pure

idioms, three other classes: figurative idioms, restricted collocations and open

collocations. Figurative idioms are characterized by having figurative meaning but at

the same time keeping literal meaning as well. A good example is provided by

Nesselhauf (1996:15): do the U-turn in the sense “completely change one’s policy or

behaviour.” The next category, restricted collocations, are referred to as “semi-idioms”

and are composed of one literal component and one figurative which is restricted to this

context. The literal element can be replaced or deleted, as shown in this example

7

provided by Cowie: The Board didn’t entertain the idea, and the Senate wouldn’t

entertain it either. Open collocations, on the other hand, are distinguished from the

idioms and are not considered idiomatic. In expressions such as fill the sink both

elements are used in literal sense and can be substituted by other expressions

(fill/drain/empty the sink/basin/bucket).

According to this division, the expressions analyzed in this thesis fall within

the category restricted collocations. Anomalous collocability, meaning that one element

is in given function or meaning restricted only to given context or to a very limited

number of contexts, is also the main characteristic of idiomatic and phraseological

expressions as defined by Čermák (1983:10).

This section dealt with idioms and the notion of idiomacity in general. The next

section will deal with different approaches to comparisons, similes and their

idiomatized character.

2.2. Comparison and simile

Comparing is a very frequent process in language and similarity is one of the

basic semantic relations (Čermák 1986:464). As Seidl (1978:233) points out,

comparisons are used to make language vivid and clear.

According to the online version of The Oxford Dictionary of English

Grammar, comparison can be quite vaguely defined as “the act or an instance of

comparing one thing with another”. In addition, comparisons of equivalence and

comparisons of non-equivalence are distinguished in this dictionary. An example of the

comparison of non-equivalence is today is colder than yesterday. Within comparisons

of non-equivalence, two parts can be distinguished: the standard and the basis. The

standard in this example is represented by the “coldness” and basis by “yesterday”. On

8

the other hand, comparisons of equivalence take the form as X as, e.g. she is as

generous as her mother.

There is, however, another way of dividing comparisons. Cvejnová (1999:88)

distinguishes “false” comparisons, so called idiomatized comparisons. These “false”

comparisons are characterized by the loss of deictic character. As Cvejnová shows, the

meaning of Peter is taller than John is highly dependent on the linguistic and extra

linguistic context and the comparison is of deictic nature, i.e. it tells the hearer nothing

about Peter’s absolute height. This can be demonstrated by comparing these two

sentences provided by Cvejnová: he is as strong as his father and he is as strong as a

lion. In the second example, the expression lion loses its deictic character and serves as

a model of attributed characteristic. From this point of view it is clear that all

comparisons analyzed in this thesis are “false” and idiomatized.

It is also important to mention the term simile. Simile, as defined by the online

version of The Oxford Dictionary of English, is a figure of a speech “involving the

comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a

description more emphatic or vivid (e.g. as brave as a lion).“

An even better definition is provided by Wikberg (2008:128), who writes that

simile is “a figurative expression used to make an explicit comparison of two unlike

things by means of the prepositions like(as)...as or the conjunctions as, as if, as

though.”

Similarly to the aforementioned comparisons, two parts of similes can be

distinguished: a vehicle and a tenor. Vehicle is represented by the entity that something

is compared to and it “conveys a meaning about the word or thing which is likened to

it“ (Harris 1980, online). In the example strong as an ox, the vehicle is represented by

9

ox. Some vehicles are very frequent and occur in many similes. Veale (2007) provides

the example of vehicle snowflake that occurs in similes like white, pure, fresh, beautiful,

natural, delicate, intricate and many more. Tenor is the thing likened to the vehicle. It is

the subject to which the comparison is applied and in the example Peter is as strong as

an ox, Peter is the tenor. Furthermore, another element is the ground, which is the

property, usually the adjective. It is similar to the standard of comparison mentioned

above and in the given example the ground is represented by strong.

It is important to pay attention to the difference between comparison and

simile. Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language distinguishes between

comparison and simile on the basis of the reality of the comparison. Therefore, some

dogs are like wolves is not a simile because it lacks the quality of being “a more or less

fanciful or unrealistic comparison” An example of simile would then be the Assyrian

came down like the wolf on the fold because the Assyrian do not physically look like

wolfs.

On the other hand, Veale (2009) offers another explanation of this difference

and it is based on the salience of the vehicle. As he writes in his article: “ a simile uses a

vehicle for which a given ground property is especially salient to highlight this property

in a topic. Simple comparisons, on the other hand, merely point out correlations and

commonalities between two things, regardless of whether those commonalities are

particularly salient in the vehicle.” It is best explained on an example. While strong as

an ox is a simile because the vehicle ox is used because of its typical, salient

characteristics, example like as big as a tennis-ball is a comparison because bigness is

not a typical characteristic of a tennis-ball.

10

Furthermore, Wikberg (2008:129) draws attention to the difference between

literal comparison and simile. Literal comparison, as opposed to simile, is reversible. It

is thus possible to say olive oil is like a fine wine and a fine wine is like olive oil.

It is clear from what has been noted that the approaches to comparisons,

similes and similarity differ. The question is how to handle the material of this thesis. It

can be viewed as “false” idiomatized comparisons according to Cvejnová, and in

English Idioms and How to Use them, they are dealt with as “idioms as comparison”.

However, according to Oxford Companion to the English Language and Veale, these

examples are not regarded as comparisons but as idiomatic, “pre-fabricated”, similes,

which can also be called stock, familiar or frozen similes (Moon 2008:4). Nevertheless,

it was decided to call the material of the thesis comparisons which is regarded as a

general term.

Yet another characterization of comparisons is introduced by Čermák

(1983:464). He argues that the similarity of two denotates can in language

representation take nonspecific or specific form. The former usually includes verbs such

as look like, seem like and the speaker freely chooses the model for comparison, e.g. the

rock looks like an egg, a ball, etc. In the latter, however, the model is fixed and in

expressions such as as like as two peas a pod the entities compared do not bear any

resemblance to a pea. These fixed and normalized expressions are called comparison.

Comparisons are then characterized by Čermák as fixed and idiomatic expressions

which serve to identify and evaluate the similarity between a noun and a predefined

model. Furthermore, Čermák identifies comparison as a functionally, formally and

semantically indecomposable unit.

Idiomatic similes or idiomatized comparisons, as Veale (2009) mentions,

expose the key stereotypes in language and culture. Similarly, Piirainen (2008:214)

11

argues that the vehicle reflects salient concepts and cultural connotations of a given

community. Comparing these idiomatic and fixed similes can then reveal the

similarities and differences in the stereotypes given language and society holds.

2.3. Simile and metaphor

Another issue that is important to mention is the relation between metaphor

and simile. The online version of the Oxford Dictionary of Classical World

distinguishes metaphor as an implicit comparison as opposed to simile which is an

explicit comparison. Furthermore, as Čermák (1983:482) points out, the general

function of each comparison is similarity, which is a metaphorical relation.

This question was dealt with already by Aristotle in his Rhetoric. He claims

that “The Simile also is a metaphor; the difference is but slight” (book III, chapter 4).

He also argues that the difference is only in the way it is put. Similes are longer and thus

less attractive than metaphors which are elliptical.

However, Wikberg (2008:131) shows that even though this is true for some

metaphors (he is a wolf – he is like a wolf), there are metaphors which cannot be turned

into a simile, such as the orientational metaphor in this example: the number of crimes

keeps going up. Furthermore, as Wikberg also explains, similes and metaphors express

different things (while he is like a wolf refers the salient quality, such as rapacity or

ferocity; metaphor assigns the wolf-like qualities more in general and these qualities can

be understood only in context). Another important difference stated by Wikberg is that

similes can express what equivalent metaphors cannot (it is possible to say a rose is like

a dog and then continue to explain what is the similarity, i.e. taking care of it, reward

etc.; this cannot be done with the metaphor a rose is a dog).

12

Therefore, while it is true that a simile such as like a fishwife can be freely and

without changes turned into a metaphor (she turned into screaming fishwife), it is

important to realize that the statement that metaphors are only similes without some

parts is not necessarily true.

2.4. Components of comparison

As already discussed, different designations for the components of comparison

are used. Given an example Peter is as strong as an ox, according to The Oxford

Dictionary of English Grammar, basis (strong) and standard (ox) can be identified.

However, Veale distinguishes tenor (Peter), ground (strong) and vehicle (ox).

From the semantic point of view, Čermák (1983:476) distinguishes five

components of comparison: Comparandum (Peter) – relator (is) – tertium comparationis

(strong) – comparator (as) – comparatum (an ox). The following discussion will

compare the characteristics of each component as described by Čermák for the Czech

language with English comparisons, providing examples from the collected material,

and show the differences and similarities between the two languages.

Comparandum is a referent of the comparison, in given example Peter. The

knowledge of the right and possible referent is crucial. For example, the difference

between smooth as a billiard-table and smooth as a mill-pond is in the acceptable

referent and sentences like the sea was smooth as a billiard-table or the grass was

smooth as a mill-pond are not correct. Furthermore, there are examples with only one or

very few possible referents. For instance, the comparison as big as saucers has only one

referent, i.e. eyes.

A relator is usually a verbal element expressing the kind of similarity

involved. Therefore it can be not only the verb be but also look or feel. However, the

13

relator is omitted in examples such as drink like a fish. In this example, the relator

merges with tertium comparationis (he is drinking -> he drinks).

Teritum comparationis is represented by an adjective (as hungry as hunter),

verb (drop like flies) or, less often, noun (memory like an elephant) or adverb (result of

transformation quick – quickly as a lightning. Transformation will be dealt with in the

following section). Its function is to specify the characteristics compared. The frequency

of adjectives and verbs as tertium comparationis is related to the semantics of

comparison, which mainly evaluates quality and action. The frequency of adjectives as

opposed to verbs will also be analyzed in the practical part.

In some cases, the tertium comparationis is deleted. This can happen only if the

comparatum is salient enough (e.g. Čermák (1983:477) provides an example je jako

zpomalený film; in English such example would be like a hot knife through butter where

it is obvious that it goes smoothly or easy) or if the tertium comparationis is not easily

expressed by a single word (e.g. like the curate’s egg where it means “of partial quality,

partially good, partially bad”; in Czech for example jsou jako siamská dvojčata). The

relator in such cases remains but tertium comparationis is deleted.

The comparator is the formal marker. In English, it can take form of as X as Y

or like or as if/though. These markers served as the criterion for inclusion to the material

of the thesis, i.e. the material consists only of comparisons containing one of the

mentioned comparators. However, as Čermák (1983:479) points out, there are

substandard types of comparisons which semantically function as comparisons even

though they formally look like adverbial clause of manner, measure or result, as in smál

se, až se za břicho popadal. In such cases, the comparatum is internal and homogenous

with the comparandum. These subtypes, however, share the fixed and generalized

model with comparison. Other examples in Czech include zavřít někoho až zčerná or

14

udělat něco, než bys řekl švec. In English, expressions such as before you can say Jack

Robinson/knife; it’s not worth a row of beans or talk until one is black/blue in the face

would fall into this subtype but they are not dealt with in this thesis.

The comparatum is the standardized, known model for comparison. It may be

a single word (free as a bird), phrase (as artful as wagon-load of monkeys) or a sentence

(look as if/though one has slept in the suit for a week). As Čermák (1983:472) shows,

the majority of comparatums is constituted by concrete entities (45%), the second most

common are animals (20%) and human professions and functions (20%), and the rest is

divided into proper names, local names, abstract expressions and compounded

expressions including sentences. This, however, applies to the Czech language and the

frequency for English will be examined in the practical part. Furthermore, Čermák

(1983:467) states that the comparatum is predominantly nominal. Therefore, the

practical part will examine the extent to which the nominal tendency of English

manifests itself in the comparisons.

As already mentioned, the comparatum, or vehicle, must be salient and

prototypical. On the other hand, Čermák (1983:481) writes about desemantisation. The

expressions concerned (in Czech prase, pes, blázen) can appear as comparatums in

many comparisons (e.g. pes appears in almost 40 comparisons) and their function is

intensification. In English, an example of such intensification is like crazy, which

appears in connection with many verbs, such as these examples found in the British

National Corpus: laugh, kick, fight, rock, wave, meow and other. In addition, Čermák

(1983:471) writes about the high frequency of common and familiar domestic animals,

such as cat, pig, bull or dog. These animals, too, appear in English comparisons; but not

as often as in Czech and are not desemantized to such extent. For example, in Czech

jako prase serves as an intensification with a complete loss of meaning (bolí to jako

15

prase, kyselý jako prase, opilý jako prase). In English, however, pig retains its meaning

and appears in expressions such as fat as a pig, snore as a pig in the sun or happy as a

pig in poops where it does not function as an intensifier.

This section dealt with the components of comparisons as stated in Čermák

(1983:476) and thus summarized the basic characteristics of comparisons and compared

them with English comparisons. However, the differences between these two languages

from the semantic and formal point of view will be more closely examined in the

practical part.

2.5. Transformation and variation

Comparisons exist in many variations and forms. Transformation, as explained

by Čermák (1983:489), is similar in meaning and form to the basic form. However, it

differs as far as function is concerned. Transformation includes the already mentioned

examples quick as a lightning – quickly as a lightning. Further examples are white as

snow – snow-white or silent as a grave – grave silence. However, this thesis analyzes

the basic forms of the comparisons as found in the dictionary and does not deal with

transformation any further.

Variation, on the other hand, does not differ in function from the basis and

includes these examples stiff/straight as a ramrod or strong as an ox/a horse. These

obligatory variations are signaled by a slash. In addition, there are optional words in the

brackets, such as helpless as a (new-born) child. Many comparisons appear in rich

variations in concrete realizations, such as examples provided by Cowie et al (1983):

like a red rag to a bull – like waving a pair of red panties at a bull; or like the cat that

16

stole the cream – like a cat presented with an unexpectedly large bowl of cream. These

examples also show the language play and creativity involved in the idiomatic language.

Finally, it is important to briefly mention the limitations of grammatical

transformation. While Čermák (1983) provides information about the

possibility/impossibility of negation, question, imperative or plural for each entry, no

such information is provided in Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English.

However, since comparisons are relatively fixed expressions, it is clear that forms such

as he does not look as if he saw a ghost or he looks as if he didn’t see a ghost are

incorrect. Neither are examples such as it was eaten like a horse or is it like herding

frogs? found in the British National Corpus or Google.

3. Practical part

3.1. Material

This thesis analyzes English and Czech idiomatic comparisons. English served

as the source language and the Czech translations are based on Čermák’s Slovník české

frazeologie a idomatiky: Přirovnání (1983). Czech equivalents that cannot be found in

this dictionary but nevertheless exist were found and verified on Google or Czech

National Corpus.

About three quarters of the material were collected from Cowie’s Oxford

Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Volume 2 (1993). This dictionary was

published in 1983 and may be therefore a little dated; however, it is the most extensive

available source containing comparisons and thus suits perfectly as the basic source.

Almost 15 % of the material is constituted by comparisons from Hrách’s Sbírka

anglických idiomů & slangu. This rather thin collection was published in 1998 and

17

provides more modern expressions and is thus a useful complement to the

aforementioned dictionary. The remaining 10 % of the material consists of comparisons

found online in The Free Dictionary which was compiled from the Cambridge

International Dictionary of Idioms and the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms.

The second internet source is English Language (ESL) Learning Online.

This collection of comparisons is not at all exhaustive, neither are the Czech

translations, which do not contain all the Czech variations provided by Čermák (1983)

because the focus of the thesis are primarily English comparisons. The material,

however, can still serve as a representative sample to prove the general tendencies and

differences of both languages.

3.2. Semantic analysis

3.2.1. Methodology

The semantic analysis is based on the similarity or difference of comparatum.

The formal aspect is not taken into account but two basic criteria were considered when

sorting the material into categories. The first one is the meaning of the whole

comparison which must be the same. Some comparisons have more meanings and in

only one of them agree with the Czech translation. In such case, the comparison is listed

twice in different categories, e.g. common as a dirt can mean either that there is a lot of

something and can be translated to Czech as je toho jako hub po dešti and is then

included within the category non correspondence; or it can mean low class or uncouth.

For this meaning there is no Czech equivalent and the comparison is included within the

category no equivalence.

18

In the opposite case, the comparison has two variations and each belongs to a

different category, for example stink like a polecat/to high heaven. While the first

variation belongs to the category total correspondence (smrdět jako tchoř), the second

one belongs to non correspondence (smrdět jako bolavá noha/kanál).

The equivalence of meaning is the basic criterion. The second criterion is the

semantic similarity of comparatum. Based on the comparatum, the following categories

were created:

Total correspondence – this category includes comparisons with identical

comparatum. Since the form will be dealt with in the second part of practical analysis,

this category does not take into account whether the left side is verbal or adjectival,

therefore changeable as a weathercock and its Czech translation být/otáčet se jako

korouhvička are included in this category. Similarly, the expressions stuck pig and jako

když píchne prase were placed in this category.

Overall correspondence – this category is divided into five subcategories: The

first one is diminutive, where Czech comparatums are expressed by diminutive form.

The second category includes hyponymy where two of four English comparatums are

hyperonyms to the Czech translations (bird – vrabeček, candy – lízátko) and two, on the

contrary, are hyponyms (čert – Lucifer, talíř – saucer). The next subcategory deals with

meronymy and includes one comparison where the Czech comparatum is a meronym of

the English one (old boot – podešev/podrážka) and one example where it is the other

way round (hodinky – clockwork). The last two subcategories deal with comparisons

which differ only in number (slaves/horses – otrok/kůň) or abstractness of the

comparatum (flame – světlo).

Partial correspondence – this category includes comparisons with

comparatums expressing similar images (look as if one has slept in the suit for a week –

19

vypadá jako by v tom spal). The image to which something is compared is basically the

same only expressed by slightly different means (or more in detail).

As opposed to the previous category, in the non correspondence category the

comparatum is completely different (hungry as a hunter – hladový jako vlk). This

category comprises over one half of the collected comparisons and can serve as an

illustration of the diversity of the two languages.

The last category, no equal comparison, includes comparisons which do not

have opposite Czech idiomatic comparisons (bright/cute as button – chytrý, chápavý).

This category constitutes only about 10% of the material. It is not without interest that

there is no Czech idiomatic comparison for the positive meaning of clever. As Čermák

(1983:480) points out, the Czech comparisons are of primarily negative evaluation

(drunk, stupid...). On the other hand, in English there are comparisons bright/cute as a

button and clever/smart as paint. Furthermore, while English wise as Solomon means

very wise, with good judgment, Czech moudrý jako Šalamoun is used also in the ironic

sense, meaning too clever. Even though Čermák (1983:345) states that this comparison

also means velmi chytrý, zkušený, the predominance of ironic and mocking meaning is

indicated by the ironic and derogatory expression tvářit se jako by snědl Šalamounovo

hovno.

20

3.2.2. Comparisons

Total correspondence

English Czech Notearise/rise like a phoenix from the ashes

vzlétnout/zrodit se jako fénix (z popela)  

avoid sb/sth like the plaguevyhýbat se někomu/něčemu jako moru  

black as coal černý jako uhel  black as soot černý jako saze  bleed like a stuck pig krve jako když píchne prase  blind as a bat slepý jako netopýr  bold/brave as a lion statečný jako lev  clear as a bell hlas jako zvon  clear as crystal jasný jako křišťál  clear as day/daylight jasné jako den  cold as ice studený jako led  crazy/cunning as a fox mazaný jako liška  drop like flies padat jako mouchy  fat as a pig tlustý jako prase  flat as a board plochý jako prkno  free as a bird volný jako pták  fresh as a rose krásná jako růže  gentle/meek as a lamb mírný/krotký jako beránek  go like the wind běžet/letět jako vítr  good as new jako nové  hard as (a) stone tvrdý jako kámen tvrdý,bezcitný

hard as flint tvrdý jako křemennemilosrdný, bez soucitu

hard as iron/rock jako ze železa/skála  have (got)/with a memory like a sieve mít paměť jako cedník  have a memory like an elephant mít paměť jako slon  heavy as lead jako z olova  helpless as a (new-born) child/babe bezmocný/bezbranný jako dítě  changeable as a weathercock být/otáčet se jako korouhvička  like a bolt from the blue jako blesk z čistého nebe  like a cat with nine lives jako kočka s devíti životy  like a fish out of water jako ryba na suchu/bez vody  like a hawk jako ostříž  like a mad thing jako šílenec/blázen  like a new man (women) jako znovuzrozený(a)  like a shot jako střela  like greased lightning jako namydlený blesk  

like rats abandoning a sinking shipjako krysy opouštějící potápějící se loď  

look as if/though one has seen a vypadá jako by viděl strašidlo  

21

ghostnervous as a cat/kitten nervózní jak kočka  obstinate/stubborn as a mule tvrdohlavý jako mezek/beran  old as Methuselah starý jako Metuzalém  pack sb like sardines namačkat jako sardinky  pale as death bledý/bílý jako smrt  patient as Job trpělivý jako Job  poor as church mouse chudý jako kostelní myš  pretty as a picture pěkný jako obrázek  proud/vain as a peacock pyšný jako páv  pure as the driven snow čistý jako padlý sníh  quick as lightning/flash rychlý jako blesk  quiet as a mouse tichý jako myš  quiet/silent as the grave/tomb ticho jako v hrobě  red as a turkey-cock rudý jako krocan  rich as Croesus bohatý jako Krésus  shake like a jelly/leaf třást se jako sulc/(osikový) list  sharp as a needle ostrý jako jehla  sink like a stone jít ke dnu jako kámen  sleep like a log spát jako poleno/špalek  smoke like a chimney kouřit/hulit jako (tovární) komín  smooth as a velvet hebký jako samet  smooth as glass hladký jako sklo  sour as vinegar kyselý jako ocet  

spread like wildfire šířit se jako oheň

novinky, vzpoura, nemoc

squeal like a stuck pig křičet/kvičet jako raněné prase  still as a statue stát/být jako socha  stink like a polecat smrdět jako tchoř  strong as a horse/an ox silný jako kůň/býk  

swarm like locustsvrhnout se/sesypat se někoho/něco jako kobylky  

sweat like a pig potit se jako prase  sweet as honey sladké jako med  thin as a lath hubený jako tyčka  weak as water je to jako voda pitíwhite as chalk bílý jako křída  white as snow bílý jako sníh  

Overall correspondence

DEMINUTIVE    busy as a bee pilný jak včelička  fresh as a rose krásná jako růžička  gay as a lark veselý jako skřivánek  light as a feather lehký jako peříčko lehkýlight as air lehký jako vánek bezstarostný

22

smooth as a baby's bottom hladký jako dětská prdelka       HYPONYMY    Eat like a bird jíst jako vrabec/vrabeček  like taking candy from a baby jako ukrást dítěti lízátkobig/round as saucers oči jako talíře o očíchproud as Lucifer pyšný jako čert       SINGULAR - PLURAL    work like slaves/horses dělat/dřít jako otrok/kůň       ABSTRACT - CONCRETE    like moths to a flame jako můry ke světlu       MERONYMY    tough as an old boot tuhý jako podešev/podrážka  go/run like clockwork pracovat jako hodiny  regular as clockwork přesný jako hodinky  

Partial correspondence

artful as wagon-load of monkeys mazaný jako stádo opic  digestion like an ostrich mít žaludek jako kachna  have a hide/skin like rhinoceros mít kůži jako hroch  like a bull in a china shop jako slon v porcelánu  like a bullet out of/from a gun letět/běžet/vyrazit jako střela  like a cat on hot bricks/ hot tin roof

být/sedět jako na žhavém/řeřavém uhlí  

like a fart in a bottle lítat jako zakletej prd v lucerně  like a kid with a new toy šťastný/radovat se jako malé dítě  like/as sheep to the slaughter vést někoho jako na porážku/jatka  look as if/though one has slept in the suit for a week vypadá jako by v tom spal  look as if/though one has stepped out of bandbox být jako ze škatulky  plain as the sun at moonday je to nad slunce jasné/jasnější  read sb like a book číst v někom jako v otevřené knize  

Non correspondence

(as) like as two peas/peas in a pod

jako (siamská) dvojčata; být si podobní vejce vejci; jako by si z oka vypadli  

bald as a coot plešatý jako koleno  be laid out like a rug vožralej jako Dán/dělo/kanec/kára  

23

bent/queer as nine-bob note falešný jako pětkataké homosexuální

black as ace of spades černý jako saze/smola/noc  black as ink tma jako v pytli  black as it is painted zlý jako ho dělají/jak se zdá  bold as a brass drzý jako opice/stádo opic  

brown as berryčerný/opálený jako ašant; opálený jako Indián; hnědý jako čokoláda opálený

clean as a hound's tooth čistý jako slovo boží  clean as a new pin čistý jako ze škatulky/klícka  clean as a whistle jako vymeteno čistý/prázdný

clear as mudspletené/zamotané že se v tom ani prase nevyzná

nejasný, zmatený

clever as sinvychcanej jako mraky/chytrý jako žid/advokát  

close as an oyster chladný jako psí čumák  

cold as charity

studený jako had/kámen/mramor/ rampouch; zima jako v morně/ psinci/psírně/jako na Sibiři chladný/zima

common as dirt/muckje toho jako hnoje/hub po dešti/ máku/jako když nasere/jak nasráno  

cool as a Christian with aces wired nervy jako dráty/ze železa  cool as a cucumber nervy jako dráty/ze železa  

cross as a bear with a sore headmrzutý jako jezevec; rozmrzelý/bručet jako (staré) dudy  

cross as two sticks

vzteklý jako čert/prskat jako kočka/napružený jako péro/rozzuřený jako býk  

daft as a brush blbej jako tágo/pučtok/putna  deaf as a post hluchý jako pařez/poleno/dřevo  

different as chalk from/and cheesejako David a Goliáš/nebe a dudy/noc a den/oheň a voda  

done like a dinner/turnvymačkaný jako citrón/vyřízený jako žádost  

done/dressed up like a dog's dinner/a pox doctor's clerk

vystrojený jako na svatbu/do kostela; být jako (vystřižený) ze žurnálu  

dressed up like a sore finger/ thumb/toe být jako loutka

naparáděný a neumět se v tom přirozeně chovat

drink like a fish pít jako duha/houba/námořník  

drunk/pissed as a lord/newt

vožralej jako Dán/dělo/kanec/ kára/prase; nalitej jako pupen/ slíva/sud/svině/štěně/zákon káže  

dry as a bonesuchý jako drn/trn/troud; vyprahlý jako Sahara  

dry as a dust suchý jako drn/trn/troud suchý

dry as paper sucho jako na Sahaře; vyprahlý jak nepříjemně/

24

Sahara; mít v hubě jako v polepšovně

nezdravě sucho

dull as ditch-water napínavé jako kšandy nudnýeasy/simple as ABC/pie/kiss your hand/falling off a log/horse

jednoduché jako facka/násobilka/ pár facek  

eat like a horsejíst jako bezedný/nedovřený/ nádeník/vlk  

eyes like pissholes in the snow mít oči (červené) jako králík  fat as butter/a young thrush být jako cvalík/melounek  feel as if a cat has kittened in one's mouth mít v hubě jako v polepšovně  

feel like a wet ragcítit se slabý jako moucha; utahaný jako kotě  

fight like Kilkenny cats rvát se jako psi  fit as a fiddle/flea zdravý jako rybička/řípa  Fit like a glove padne jako ulitý  free as (the) air volný jako Amerika/pták  

fresh as a daisyčilý jako čamrda/čiperka/ryba/ rybka/rybička  

full as an egg nalitej jako pupen/slíva/snop/sud  go down like ninepins sesypat se jako domeček z karet  good as gold hodný jako anděl  

green as grassjako jelimánek/by spadl z vině/z měsíce/jako mladá vrána

naivní, nezkušený

grin like a Cheshire cat šklebit se jako opice  handwriting like chicken scratch škrabat jako kocour  hang/hold on sth like grim death držet se něčeho/někoho jako klíště  happy as a clam/a king/a sandboy/ Larry šťastný jako blecha/malé dítě  

hard as nailsbýt jako z křemene; svaly jako z ocele

tvrdý (fyzický odolný), sobecký, bezohledný

hate sb/sth like poison

nenávidět někoho až do morku kostí; mít někoho rád jako veš v kožiše/vosinu v prdeli  

have (got)/with a memory like a sponge mít paměť jako slonhave a mouth like the bottom of a parrot's cage mít v puse jako v polepšovně  hoarse as an (old) crow hlas jako nakřáplý hrnec hlas

honest as the day is longsrdce jako na dlani; být jako otevřená kniha  

hungry as a hunter hladový jako vlk/lev/pes  

cheap as dirtto je jako zadarmo/za pusu/za hubičku  

innocent as a (new-born) babe/babe unborn

nevinný jako anděl/lilie/čistý jako slovo boží  

keen as mustard být do toho jako žhavý  

25

know sth like the back/palm of one's hand znát něco jako své boty  large/big as a cabbage velký jako trám/vrata (od stodoly)  

laugh like a drainsmát se jako blázen/až se za boky/břicho popadal  

lean as an alley cathubený jako chroust/kostlivec/lunt/vyžle  

light as thistledown lehký jako pápěra  like a bad penny vracet se jako bumerang  like a bat out of hell jako blesk/drak/čert/blázen  like a blind dog in a meat market jako utržený ze řetězu  

like a bull at a gatevyvádět/dělat jako utržený ze řetězu; jako velká voda  

like a bump on a logjako bluma/bačkora/tvrdé Y/buchta na pekáči/pecka/kvočna na vejcích  

like a dog with two tails šťastný jako blecha  

like a fishwifeječet jak siréna; křičet jak kráva; mít hubu jako šlejfíř/kramář  

like a headless chickenlítat jako hadr na holi/jako špinavé prádlo/až se z něj kouří  

like a hot knife through butter/ margarine jde to jako po másle  

like a house on fire

přihnat se jako bouře/lavina/ povodeň/smršť/tajfún/tornádo; přiběhnout jako s keserem  

like a red rag to a bull jako když píchne do vosího hnízda  

like a scalded cat

vyskočit jako když ho bodne/ho vosa píchne/jako splašený/jako by mu za patama hořelo/jako uštknutý  

like a shag on a rock jako kůl v plotě/hruška v poli  like a ship without rudder jako bludná ovce  

like a spare prick at a weddingjako páté kolo u vozu; být někde jako oušlapek  

like a three-ring circusjako v blázinci/v holubníku/v mraveništi/v úle  

like a ton of brickstěžký jako bejk/cent/hrom/kámen/ šutr; padnout jak balvan  

like Caesar’s wifežít jako mnich/jeptiška; být jako světec/světice

čistý, upřímný, cudný

like flies to manure slézat se jako švábi na pivo  like herding frogs být jako pytel blech  like pulling teeth jako z chlupaté deky  like shelling peas jako pro blbý/facka/nic  like shooting fish in a barrel  jednoduché jako násobilka  like stealing acorns from a blind pig jako ukrást dítěti lízátko  

like water off duck's back

jako mluvit do dubu/do větru; jako když hrách na stěnu hází; jako když plácne do vody; jako nabírat  

26

vodu do síta

live like a fighting cockmít se jako prase v žitě/husa na krmníku  

lively as a cricketčilý jako čamrda/čiperka/pytel blech; bujný jako hříbě  

look as if hit with a pack saddle být/chodit/ jako pytlem praštěný  look as if/though sth has been stirred with a stick

vypadá to jako po bitvě/v chlívě/v maštali/na smetišti  

look like a drowned ratmokrý jako hastrman/myš; vypadat jako utopené kotě  

look like sth the cat brought inmokrý jako myš; vypadat jako utopené kotě  

mad as a hatter/a March hare

chovat se jako blázen/jako by mu v hlavě přeskočilo/jako by neměl všech pět pohromadě  

mad as a wet henvzteklý jako čert/ďábel/křeček/pes; být jako podebranej vřed  

mean as a louse lakomý jako chrt/křeček  

miserable as sin

nešťastný jako šafářův dvoreček; být jako zpráskaný pes/pytel neštěstí/hromádka neštěstí/zmoklá slepice; tvářit se jako boží umučení; smutný jako želva  

nutty as a fruit-cake

chovat se jako blázen/jako by mu v hlavě přeskočilo/jako by neměl všech pět pohromadě  

old as the hills starý jako lidstvo samo/Praha  old as time starý jako sám svět  packed like rabbits in warren namačkaný jako sardinky  

plain as a pikestaffjasný jako facka/pár facek/den/ Brno  

plain as a pikestaff

ošklivý(a) jako čarodějnice/noc/ ropucha/strašidlo/opice/strašák do zelí  

plain as the nose on your facejasný jako facka/pár facek/den/ Brno  

pleased as a Punch

šťastný jako blecha/malé dítě/v sedmém(devátém) nebi; zářit jako sluníčko  

prickly as a hedgehog být jako netýkavka  quick as thought rychlý jako vítr/střela  red as a turkey-cock červený jako rak  

right as a trivetzdravý jako buk/dub/hřib/rys/ tuřín/řípa  

right as rainzdravý jako řípa;funguje to jako hodiny

zdravý, v pořádku

sell like hot cakes jde to jako na dračku  

sick as a dogblít jak Diana; nešťastný jako šafářův dvoreček; být jako

hodně zvracet/ v depresi

27

zpráskaný pes/pytel neštěstí/hromádka neštěstí

sleep like a topspát jako dub/dřevo/pařez/jako když ho do vody hodí  

smooth as a billiard ball/pebble hladký jako mramor povrch

smooth as a billiard table hladký jako sklotrávník, cesta, podlaha

smooth as a mill-pond hladký jako zrcadlo hladinasnore like a pig in the sun chrápat jako když dříví/pilou řeže  

snug as a bug in a rugjako v bavlnce/za pecí/ve vatičce/ v ráji  

sound as a bell zdravý jako řípa  

sour as a crabkyselý jako ocet; mrzutý jako jezevec  

steady as a rockpevné jako přibité/přišité; drží to jako helvétská víra/ ze železa  

stick/cling to sb like a leech/limpet držet se něčeho/někoho jako klíště  

stiff as a poker rovný jako by spolkl pravítko/svíce

vzpřímený/ upjatý/ křečovitý

stiff/straight as ramrod

chodit jako generál; stát jako voják; rovný jako svíce/svíčka/ topol vzpřímený

stink to high heaven smrdět jako bolavá noha/kanál  

straight as a die

jako podle pravítka; jako když střelí/střihne; jako šňůra; mít srdce na dlani rovný/upřímný

straight as an arrowjako podle pravítka; jako když střelí/střihne/ rovný

strong as old socks/onion breath silný jako kůň/býk/lev/medvěd/tur  strut like a turkey naparovat se/nosit se jak páv  

sure as eggs is eggsjako že dvě a dvě jsou čtyři/jedna a jedna jsou dvě  

sure as God made little apples jako že je bůh nade mnou  sure/true as I'm sitting/standing here jako že jsem XY  

swear like a lordklít jako drvoštěp/pohan; sprostý jako dlaždič  

talk like a Dutch unclemluvit jako bible/farář/kniha/jako z kazatelny  

thick as thieves jako (siamská) dvojčata  

thick as two short planksblbý/hloupý jako boty/hovado/ jelito/necky/patník/troky/tágo  

thin as a rake hubený jako špejle/bidlo  

tight as a tick

vožralej jako Dán/dělo/kanec/ kára/prase/nalitej jako pupen/ slíva/sud/svině/štěně/jak zákonec káže  

tight as Dick's Hatband lakomý jako čert/chrt/křeček  

28

timid as a mouse

plachá jako laň/srna; koukat/vykukovat jako myš z komisárku; být jako oukoupeček  

treat sb like dirtjednat s někým jako s děvečkou/ hadrem/onucí  

true as steel věrný až za hrob/jako pes  

ugly as sin

ošklivý(a) jako čarodějnice/noc/ ropucha/strašidlo/opice/strašák do zelí  

warm as toastteplo jako za kamny/za pecí/v peřinách/v lázni příjemně teplo

weak as water slabý jako komár/moucha/chroust/ člověkwelcome as the flowers in May jako na zavolanou  white as a sheet bílý jako stěna/zeďwise as an owl mít hlavu jako starosta ironicky

work like a Trojan/black/tigerdělat/dřít jako mezek/mourovatej/ galejník/Slovák  

yellow as guinea žlutý jako citrón  

No equal comparison

agree like the clocks of London rozcházet se, neshodovat se  bright/cute as button chytrý/bystrý/chápavý  clever/smart as paint chytrý  common as a muck nevychovaný, drzý  dead as a doornail mrtvý (fyzicky)  dead as mutton mrtvý (nevýznamný, období)  dead as the dodo mrtvý, ztracený (neexistující)  

deep as a wellzáludný/nepochopitelný/ překvapivý  

dry as a dust nudný, nezáživnýflat as a fluke/flounder plochý, placatý  

flat as a pancakeplacatý/na placku/vyznít do ztracena  

good as a play zábavný, vtipný, k popukání  have a mind like a steel trap učenlivý, chápavý  like a fly in amber uchovaný  like fighting snakes obtížné, chaotické, náročné  like nailing jelly to the wall nepochopitelný, neuchopitelný  

like Rip van Winkleneznalý, neuvědomovat si; sto let za opicema  

like ships that pass in the night minout se  like the cat that stole the cream spokojený sám se sebou  like the clappers na plný pecky/grády  

like the curate's eggsmíšené kvality, částečně dobré, částečně špatné  

like turkeys voting for (an early) Christmas

souhlasit se situací, z které pro nás plyne něco špatného  

29

need sth like a hole in the head nepotřebovat  shine like a good deed in a naughty world světlá výjimka  sober as a judge střízlivý, vážný  solemn as an owl vážný  spend money like water/like a sailor utrácet, rozhazovat peníze  spread like rash rozprostírat se (viditelně)  thick as two Jews on a pay-day vzájemně známí/blízcí  tough as a boiled/biled owl hádavý v opilostí/hádavá opice  wise as Solomon velmi moudrý, s dobrým úsudkemwork like magic účinkovat, zabrat  

3.2.3. Semantic analysis of comparatum

As already stated, Čermák (1983:472) shows that the Czech comparatum is

constituted by mainly concrete entities (45%), animals (20%), human professions and

functions in a broad sense (20%) and proper and local names, abstract nouns and

composite expressions constitute the rest.

As far as English comparisons listed in this thesis are concerned, the

distribution of comparatum is shown in the following table. The category concrete

entities includes only non-living concrete entities such as bell, rock or picture. The

category animals includes single word comparatums like fox, pig and nominal groups

with an animal as a head of the group (cat that stole the cream, blind dog in a meat

market). Examples where the animal does not function as the head of the comparatum

are not included in this category (herding frog, taking acorns from a blind pig, sth the

cat brought in). The category human includes humans, human professions and functions

in a broad sense, such as slaves, kid, Christian, Dutch uncle etc. The next category,

activity, includes gerund phrases (pulling teeth, herding frogs) and sentences: look as

if/though sth has been stirred with a stick or as sure as I’m standing here. The last but

one category, abstract nouns, is limited to ten examples (charity, day, death, deed,

30

heaven, magic, plague, sin, time and thought) and the last category, proper nouns,

include only nine examples (Caeser’s wife, Croesus, Dick’s Hatband, Job, Lucifer,

Methuselah, Punch, Rip van Winkle and Solomon).

Category Percentage

Concrete entities  52.2

Animals  28.3

Human  6.5

Activity  6.5

Abstract entities  3.4

Proper names  3.1

3.2.4. Conclusion

This section presented the collected English comparisons and compared them

with the Czech equivalents as far as the comparatum is concerned. From this point of

view, it showed significant differences between the two languages, since only about one

quarter of the comparisons share the same comparatum and 10% have very similar

comparatums. The largest section of the comparisons (55%) differ and use a different

comparatum altogether. The remaining 10% are comparisons which do not have a

Czech idiomatic equivalent.

On the other hand, as far as the distribution of the type of comparatum is

concerned, English comparisons do not significantly differ and broadly copy the

numbers stated by Čermák (1983:472). The right side of the comparison, Čermák

(1983:472) argues, is predominantly concrete. This claim is confirmed by this analysis.

It even shows a slightly higher percentage of concrete entities in English, at least as far

as the collected material is concerned. Furthermore, animals in the English comparisons

seem to appear more often that in Czech, as opposed to human professions which

31

constitute only 6.5% of the English material, whereas in Czech it is about 20%. The

difference between the representation of human professions and functions in the

comparatum of both languages is the most significant difference found. However, to

confirm such supposition, more exhaustive and in-depth study would be required.

3.3. Formal analysis

From the formal aspect, four autosemantic word classes are present in the

comparisons: nouns, adjective, verb and adverb. They are, however, represented

unevenly and the distribution will be analyzed in this section.

Wikberg (2008:134) mentions these four types or patterns of English

comparison:

a) As ADJ/ADV as – this type includes the majority of comparisons. In fact,

examples such as as free as a bird comprise almost 59% of the material. As already

mentioned, adverbs do not appear in the comparisons and are only results of

transformation. However, the expression as quiet as a mouse can also function as an

adverb, such as the child sat as quiet as a mouse. Nevertheless, it is still an instance of

transformation, only the adjective and adverb share the same form.

b) Is like N – this category includes the aforementioned examples with deletion

of tertium comparationis, such as like a hot knife through butter. However, many

examples with the form like + N do not use the relator is. For example, like a scalded

cat appears frequently with these verbs run, jump or fly out. These verbs, however, are

not part of the fixed comparison but only frequent collocations and function rather as a

relator. These comparisons are therefore included in this category. Furthermore,

comparisons feel like a wet rag or look like sth the cat brought it are included in this

category rather than in the category d) V like N because the verb feel and look functions

32

as a relator as opposed to the verb drink in drink as a fish where it specifies the

characteristics compared and serves as tertium comparationis.

c) Is like V-ing N – this category includes the aforementioned gerund phrases

(like shooting a fish in a barrel). The gerund is always followed by a noun, be it in

singular (a fish) or plural (like fighting snakes).

d) V like N – including examples bleed like a stuck pig or eat like a horse.

These four categories, however, do not cover all the collected material. It

leaves out these examples:

e) Look/feel as if/though – the conjunction is followed by an adverbial clause

of manner (as if/though one has slept in the suit for a week) and not by a noun as in the

preceding categories. Due to the nominal tendency of the right side, which will be

discussed later, this category is not very numerous

f) N/ADJ like N – this category includes few examples, such as memory like an

elephant. Adjectives preceding the preposition like are verbal participles (done, dressed

up, packed).

The distribution of these six categories is shown in the following table:

Category Percentage

as ADJ/ADV as 58.6

is like N 16.1

is like V-ing N 2.8

V like N 15.4

look/feel as if/though 2.1

N/ADJ like N 5.0

As Čermák (1983:466) points out, on the left side of the comparison appear

almost exclusively verbs and adjectives. This is confirmed by this table and it is clear

33

that the comparisons with nouns on the left side are very rare (in the material limited to

only these examples: memory, digestion, hide/skin, eyes, handwriting, mouth and mind).

As far as the Czech translations are concerned, a noun on the left side is also very rare

and in most cases corresponds with the English examples (memory – paměť, digestion –

žaludek, hide – kůži, eyes – oči, mouth – huba). In other cases, it does not correspond

(black as ink – tma jako v pytli, cool as a cucumber – nervy jako ze železa).

Nevertheless, the overall frequency of nouns on the left side is similar.

On the other hand, the right side of the comparison is strongly nominal.

However, the table does not show what follows after as ADJ as in the first category. As

Čermák (1983:467) mentions, on the right side adjectives can also appear. Adjectives

on the right side in Czech are usually participles or prefixed and are very rare. This is

caused by the fact that comparisons usually compare quality; therefore adjectives, which

also express quality, cannot serve as the model. It is thus impossible to say as clever as

cunning.

Nevertheless, there is one adjective on the right side: as good as new. More

adjectives, dominantly deverbal, appear in the Czech translations: nové, znovuzrozený,

bezedný, nedovřený, ulitý, žhavý, splašený.

Besides the aforementioned adjective, the right side of the comparison pattern

as ADJ as are nouns, with these four exceptions: as black as it is painted, as honest as

the day is long, as sure as God made little apples and as sure as I’m standing here.

Even though it is obvious that the right side is predominantly nominal in both

languages, the following section will analyze it in more detail with regards to the

nominal tendency of English.

3.3.1. Nominal tendency of English

34

As Mathesius (1975:104) notes, the nominal tendency of English is very

important. One way of presenting the action nominally, he further argues, is by the

gerund. As already mentioned, gerund phrases constitute about three percent of the

material. These gerund constructions semantically express an activity but grammatically

function as a noun. They are translated to Czech either using infinitives (like taking

candy from from a baby – jako ukrást dítěti lízátko) or by totally different means (like

herding frogs – jako pytel blech).

Even though in both languages nouns prevail on the right side, Czech seems to

use more verbal constructions than English. This includes these examples:

Jako když píchne prase – like a stuck pig

Jako by si z oka vypadli – as like as two peas in a pod

Zamotané že se v tom ani prase nevyzná – as clear as a mud

Je toho jako když nasere – as common as muck

Smál se až se za břicho popadal – laugh like a drain

Jako když píchne do vosího hnízda – like a red rag to a bull

Vyskočit jako když ho bodne vosa – like a scalded cat

Jako když hrách na stěnu hází – like water off duck’s back

Jako by neměl všech pět pohromadě – as mad as a hatter

Spát jako když ho do vody hodí – sleep like a top

Rovný jako by spolkl pravítko – stiff as a poker

Jako když střelí – straight as a die

All these and more examples point to a higher representation of the noun on the

right side of the English comparisons. However, it is not that simple because some of

the above listed Czech expressions have a noun variation, e.g. spát jako dub or je toho

35

jako hub etc. Furthermore, there are Czech comparisons with nominal comparatum

which are expressed by verbal constructions in English: look as if sth has been stirred

with a stick – vypadá to jako v chlívě/maštali.

Nevertheless, verbal constructions, be it as one possible variation, still appear

more in Czech than in English comparisons, which might be a result of a general

nominal tendency of English. This, again, would have to be verified by a more

extensive study.

3.3.2. Conclusion

The formal analysis of the material distinguished six types of comparisons

represented in the material and showed their distribution. It confirmed that the left side

consists predominantly of adjectives and verbs, whereas nouns appear very rarely and

adverbs do not appear at all. As far as the right side of the comparison is concerned, it

showed that it is almost exclusively nominal with few verbal constructions (altogether

less than 5%) and infrequent (in English only one) examples of adjectives. Finally, it

considered the nominal tendency of English and showed how it manifests itself on the

right side of the comparisons.

4. Conclusion

36

The aim of the thesis was to analyze English idiomatic comparisons and

compare them with their Czech equivalents. The material for the analysis consisted of

over 290 English comparison collected from two printed and two electronic sources, as

specified above.

The first section of the theoretical part dealt with idioms in general. It provided

basic definitions of the term and explained the difference between pure idioms,

figurative idioms and restricted collocations and showed that according to this division,

the comparisons belong to the category restricted collocations.

The following subsection dealt with comparison and simile. It defined

comparisons in general (comparison of equivalence and non-equivalence), named the

parts of the comparison (standard, basis), discussed its deictic nature and showed how

idiomatized comparisons differ in this respect, i.e. the expression lion in he is as strong

as a lion looses its deictic character which is present in comparisons such as he is as

strong as his father.

Furthermore, this section defined the figure of speech similes, showed its

components (tenor, ground, vehicle) and tried to explain the difference between simile

and comparison as argued for by different sources. The difference between these two

terms can be explained on the basis of reality of the comparison (similes being

unrealistic and fanciful) or with regards to the salience of the vehicle. Therefore the

example as big as a tennis ball is not considered a simile, because bigness is not a

salient characteristic of a tennis ball. As followed from the discussion, the material of

the thesis could be designated as similes from these points of view but are nevertheless

called idiomatized comparison by Cvejnová and comparisons by Čermák. It was

therefore decided to call the material comparisons, which is regarded as a general term.

37

Subsection 2.3. explored the differences between simile and metaphor and

showed that it is not correct to claim that a simile is only a metaphor without some of its

parts. The difference was illustrated by the impossibility to turn some similes into

metaphors and changes in meaning between a simile (he is like a wolf) and a metaphor

(he is a wolf).

Subsection 2.4. was devoted to a detailed examination of individual constituents

of the comparison as outlined by Čermák (1983:476), i.e. comparandum (Peter) –

relator (is) – tertium comparationis (strong) – comparator (as) – comparatum (an ox).

The basic characteristics of these constituents were compared with the collected English

comparisons. It discussed the possibility of deletion of tertium comparations in

examples like a hot knife through butter or like curate’s egg which is enabled by the

salience of the comparatun (former example) or difficulty to express the tertium

comparationis by a single word (latter example). Finally, it showed the difference

between intensification in both languages: while in Czech it is possible to use the

desemantized expression jako prase as an intensifier (bolí to jako prase), in English

such expression does not have an intensifying function but retains its characteristics

(snore like a pig).

The theoretical background was followed by the practical analysis which

consisted of two parts. The first part analyzed the comparisons from the semantic point

of view. First, it divided the collected material into following categories according to

the similarity or difference of comparatum: total correspondence, overall

correspondence, partial correspondence, non correspondence and no equal comparison.

The largest section (55 %) of the 290 collected English comparisons is constituted by

the comparisons of non correspondence, i.e. those with totally different comparatum,

such as happy as a clam – šťastný jako blecha. About 35 % of the comparisons, on the

38

other hand, are constituted by examples with identical comparatum (total

correspondence) and very similar comparatum (overall correspondence). The remaining

10 % is made up by comparisons which do not have an equal Czech comparison. This

differentiation in comparatum illustrates the cultural and lexical diversity of both

languages.

The next part of the semantic analysis examined the types of comparatum of

both languages and discovered that there is no significant difference. The most frequent

comparatum in both languages is a concrete entity (nails, bone, board) (52 %), with

animals (horse, ox, dog) being the second most common (28 %). However, the collected

sample contained only about 6 % of comparison with comparatum constituted by

humans, human professions or functions (e.g. slaves, kid, Christian, Dutch uncle etc) as

opposed to 20% for Czech as stated by Čermák (1983:472). This difference may not be

significant as it could be due to the incompleteness of the collected material. Further

category activity (pulling teeth, as sure as I’m standing here) constitutes another 6 %

and the last two categories – abstract entities (charity, day, heaven) and proper nouns

(Job, Lucifer, Solomon) – make up 3 % each.

The second part of the analysis explored the formal aspects of the comparisons.

It dealt with the distribution of the four autosemantic word classes: noun, adjective,

adverb and verb. With the help of these six types or patterns of comparisons, it

illustrated the frequency and distribution of the aforementioned word classes: as ADJ

as; is like N; is like V-ing N; V like N; look/feel as if/though; N/ADJ like N.

As far as the left side of the comparison is concerned, the analysis proved that it

consists almost entirely of verbs and adjectives, the same as in the Czech comparisons.

This can be illustrated by the most numerous group as ADJ as which constitutes 58 %

of the material. Comparisons with a verb on the left side (V like N) make up over 15 %.

39

The remaining categories (is like, look/feel as if/though) are also verbal but the verb is

not a part of the fixed expression and functions more like a relator. The only examples

where the left side was not occupied by an adjective or verb were only few nouns with

their Czech equivalents being translated also mostly by a noun (memory – paměť,

digestion – žaludek, skin – kůže, eyes – oči).

The right side of the comparison was confirmed to be mostly nominal as in

Czech. The only exceptions are adjectives and verbs. Adjectives appear in the English

comparisons only once (as good as new), as opposed to Czech where more examples of

dominantly verbal and prefixed adjectives can be found (nedovřený, ulitý, šplašený).

Verbs and verbal structures also appear in English but, as was shown, not as often as in

the Czech translations, which was illustrated by the English nominal comparatums and

their Czech verbal equivalents (like a red rag to a bull – jako když píchne do vosího

hnízda). Czech, in general, seems to use verbal constructions (jako když, jako by) more

often.

Furthermore, actions in English tend to be expressed by gerund (taking candy

from a baby, herding frogs). These gerund constructions express action but function as a

noun. As shown by Mathesius (1975:104) gerund phrases are one way in which the

nominal tendency of English manifests itself. The nominal tendency in English, further

discussed in the subsection 3.3.1., is very strong and differentiates English from Czech,

which, on the contrary, uses more verbal constructions.

Comparisons represent a very important part of the lexicon in both languages.

Each language, as was shown in this thesis, is very rich in comparisons and at the same

time original. Examining this diversity more closely not only shows us the structural

differences of both languages but also the different models and stereotypes rooted in the

society.

40

5. Resumé

This thesis compared English and Czech idiomatic comparisons. The material for

the comparison consists of over 290 English comparisons collected from four different

sources. The Czech equivalents are based on Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky:

Přirovnání (Čermák 1983).

The aim of the thesis was to find, confirm and demonstrate the differences and

similarities of the two languages involved.

This was achieved by analysis of the material from two aspects. The first part of the

analysis examined the semantic aspect of the comparisons. The material was divided

into categories based on the similarity of the comparatum. Since the most numerous

category was constituted by comparisons with totally different comparatum, the

diversity of the two languages was demonstrated.

In addition, the semantic analysis also examined the type of comparatum of both

languages and discovered that there is no significant difference in this respect. The most

common comparatums were confirmed to be concrete entities and animals.

The second part of the analysis concentrated on comparing the formal aspects of the

comparisons. It showed that in both languages the left side of the comparatum is made

up almost entirely by verbs or adjectives, whereas the right side consists mainly of

nouns. However, the nominal tendency of English demonstrates itself by a higher

representation of nouns on the right side.

The thesis provided an insight into one section of English idiomatic language which

forms an important part of the lexicon.

41

Resumé

Tato bakalářská práce se zabývá porovnáním anglických a českých

idiomatických přirovnání. Materiál práce je tvořen více než 290 přirovnáními, která

byla sesbírána ze čtyř různých zdrojů a jejichž české ekvivalenty vychází ze Slovníku

české frazeologie a idiomatiky: Přirovnání od Františka Čermáka.

Cílem práce bylo zjistit, potvrdit a ukázat rozdíly a podobnosti obou jazyků.

Praktická část práce proto zkoumá daný materiál ze dvou hledisek.

První část analýzy se věnuje sémantickým rozdílům mezi těmito jazyky.

Materiál je rozdělen do skupin na základě podobnosti či rozlišnosti comparata.

Nejpočetnější kategorie je přitom tvořena přirovnáními, která mají zcela odlišné

comparatum, což svědčí o rozličnosti a pestrosti obou jazyků.

Dále byl také zkoumán typ comparata. V tomto ohledu ovšem nebyl zjištěn

žádný podstatný rozdíl. Bylo potvrzeno, že nejčastěji se jako comparatum u obou

jazyků objevují konkrétní entity a na druhém místě zvířata.

Analýza formální stránky přirovnání si všímala rozložení slovních druhů.

Ukázala, že levá strana přirovnání je tvořena téměř výhradně slovesy a přídavnými

jmény, zatímco pravá strana je převážně nominální, a to u obou jazyků. Nicméně bylo

ukázáno, že nominální tendence angličtiny se v přirovnáních projevuje vyšším

zastoupením podstatného jména na pravé straně anglického přirovnání.

Tato bakalářská práce zkoumá jednotlivé aspekty idiomatického přirovnání, jež

tvoří nedílnou součást slovní zásoby každého jazyka.

42

Sources of idioms

Cowie, A. P., Mackin, R., and McCaig, I. R. (1993) Oxford Dictionary of Current

Idiomatic English. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Čermák, František (1983) Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky: Přirovnání. Praha:

Academia

Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus – The Free Dictionary. Farlex, Inc. Web. 20

Oct. 2009. < http://www.thefreedictionary.com/>.

English Language (ESL) Learning Online. Web. 20. Oct. 2009.

<http://www.usingenglish.com/>.

References

Aristotle. Rhetorics. Trans. W. Rhys. Ed. Lee Honeycutt. Web. 21 March 2010.

The British National Corpus. Oxford University Computing Services, 2007. Web. 22

Oct. 2009. <http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk>.

The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. McArthur, Tom. Oxford

University Press, 1998. Web.  8 December 2009 . 

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Matthews, P. H. Oxford University

Press, 2007. Web.  2 December 2009 .

Cvejnová, Jitka(1999) “Komparace a intenzifikace”. Sborník prací filozofické fakulty

brněnské univerzity A 47. 77-85.

Čermák, František (1983) Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky: Přirovnání. Praha:

Academia.

Hrách, Tomáš (1998) Sbírka anglických idiomů & slangu. Praha: Argo.

Langlotz, Andreas (2006) Idiomatic Creativity: A Cognitive-linguistic Model of Idiom-

representation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

43

Leech, Geoffrey Neil (1981) Semantics. Harmodsworth: Penguin Books.

Mathesius, Vilém (1975) A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General

Linguistic Basis. Praha: Academia.

Moon, Rosamund (2008) “Conventionalized as-similes in English: A Problem Cases.”

In International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing Company. 3-37

Nesselhaulf, Nadja (2005) Collocation in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Chalker, Sylvia, and Weiner, Edmund.

Oxford University Press, 1998. Web.  7 December 2009.

The Oxford Dictionary of English. Soanes, Catherine, and Stevenson, Angus. Oxford

University Press, 2005. Web.  8 December 2009.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Ed. John Roberts. Oxford University

Press, 2007. Web.  8 December 2009.  

Piirainen, Elizabeth (2008) “Phraseology in a European framework: A Cross-linguistic

and Cross-cultural Research Project on Widespread Idioms“ In Phraseology: An

Interdisciplinary Perspective. Eds. Granger, Sylviane, and Meunier, Fanny.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 243–258

Seidl, Jennifer, and McMordie, W. (1978) English Idioms and How to Use them.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Veale, T., and Hao, Y. (2009) „Support Structures for Linguistic Creativity: A

Computational Analysis of Creative Irony in Similes.“ CogSci 2009, the 31st

Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Eds. Niels Taatgen and Hedderik

van Rijn. Amsterdam. 1376-1381

44

Veale, T., and Hao, Y. (2007) „Learning to Understand Figurative Language: From

Similes to Metaphors to Irony.“ CogSci 2007: the 29th Annual Meeting of the

Cognitive Science Society Nashville, Tennessee.

Wikberg, Kay (2008) “Phrasal Similes in the BNC.” In: Phraseology: An

Interdisciplinary Perspective. Eds. Granger, Sylviane, and Meunier, Fanny.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 127–142.

45