EXPRESSIVE MEANS AND STYLISTIC DEVICES

INTERACTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF LEXICAL MEANING

Words in context may acquire additional lexical meanings, which are not fixed in
dictionaries, i.e. contextual meanings. The contextual meaning can deviate [‘di: vieit]
(отклоняться, отступать) from the dictionary meaning to such a degree that the new
meaning becomes the opposite of the primary meaning. This is especially the case when
we deal with transferred (пересное) meanings.

A transferred meaning is a result of interaction between two types of lexical meaning:

dictionary and contextual. The contextual meaning will always depend on the dictionary
(logical) meaning to a lesser or greater extent. Only when the deviation [,di:vi’ei n]
(отклонение) from the dictionary meaning causes an unexpected turn in the recognized
logical, we register a stylistic device.

Thus, if both the logical (dictionary) and the contextual meanings are realized in an
opposition simultaneously, within the same context, we can speak of a fresh (original,
genuine) SD (оригинальный, подлинный, истинный).

When one of the meanings is suppressed by the other, we can speak of a trite (banal,
hackneyed) SD (избитый, банальный, затасканный).

When the contextual meaning is completely blended with the initial one, we deal with the
disappearance of a SD and its replacement by polysemy or phraseology.

CLASSIFICATION OF LEXICAL EMs and SDs (Professor Galperin)

Based on the interaction of:

1. primary dictionary and contextual meaning (metaphor, metonymy, irony)

2. primary and derivative lexical meaning (play on words)

3. logical and emotive meaning (epithet, oxymoron)

4. logical and nominal meaning (antonomasia)

5. based on the intensification of a certain feature of a thing or phenomenon (simile,

hyperbole)

6. peculiar use of set expressions

LEXICAL STYLISTIC DEVICES

I. Interaction of Primary Dictionary and Contextual (Logical) Meaning: Metaphor.

Metonymy. Irony

Interaction between the dictionary and contextual meaning can be based either on
principles of similarity (affinity – cхожесть) or contiguity (proximity – близость).

When the author identifies two objects, which may have nothing in common, but in
which he subjectively sees a function, a property, a feature that can make the reader see
these objects as identical, we deal with a metaphor.

When the author finds it possible to substitute one object for another on grounds of some
actual interdependence or interrelation between them, we deal with a metonymy.
When the word describing a certain property or quality of an object is used in the
opposite or contradictory sense, we deal with irony.

METAPHOR

(from the Greek “metaphora” = transference – перенос of some quality from one object
to another)

A metaphor becomes a stylistic device when two different phenomena (things, ideas,
events, actions) are simultaneously brought to mind by the imposition of some or all of
the properties of one object on the other. Based on the similarity (or identification) of two
objects, it has the power of realizing two lexical meanings (the dictionary and the
contextual) simultaneously. Due to this power metaphor is one of the most powerful
means of creating images.

An IMAGE is a reflection of the world in and by the human mind. Imagery helps top
transfer the vision of the world by an individual to the reader. Every image is based on
similarity between two objects, which on the whole can bear no resemblance to each
other. The more difference between the two objects compared, the more unexpected their
comparison is. The unexpected character of the image is of great importance. Baffling
(расстраивать, опрокидывать, ставить в тупик, сбивать с толку) the reader, defeating
his expectations, the writer achieves a greater stylistic effect.

Metaphor can be expressed by all notional parts of speech and function in the sentence as
any of its members. But the identification is most clearly seen when the metaphor is
expressed either by an attributive word (e.g. pearly teeth) or in a predicative word
combination (e.g. Dear Nature is the kindest Mother still - Byron)

A lot of metaphors can be found in poetry.

e.g. O, never say that I was false of heart,

Though absence seemed my flame to qualify – ослаблять, смягчать

(Shakespeare, Sonnet CIX)

The word “flame” is used metaphorically, in the meaning of ‘love’ and emphasizes its
ardour (пыл) and passion. Such a metaphor expressed by a single word is called a simple
(or word) metaphor. A simple metaphor does not necessarily consist of one word only:
e.g. “the eye of heaven” meaning the sun is also a simple metaphor:

“Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines” (Shakespeare, Sonnet 18)

A developed (sustained or prolonged) metaphor consists of some sentences or clauses in

which a group of simple metaphors is clustered around the same image to make it more
vivid and complete.

e.g. From the dim woods on either bank, Night’s ghostly army, the grey shadows, creep
out with noiseless tread to chase away the lingering rear-guard of the light, and pass, with
noiseless unseen feet, above the waving river-grass.
(Jerome K. Jerome)

Metaphors can also be classified according to their degree of originality. Metaphors that
are absolutely unpredictable are called genuine. Whereas those that are commonly used
in speech and therefore belong to the expressive means of the language are trite (dead,
hackneyed, banal). Genuine metaphors are regarded as belonging language-in-action, i.e.
they are speech metaphors. Trite metaphors belong to language-as-a-system, i.e. language
proper, and are usually fixed in dictionaries as units of the language.
e.g. a ray of hope a flood of tears

a flight of fancy a shadow of a smile

Genuine metaphors are mostly found in poetry and emotive prose. Trite metaphors are
generally used as EMs of the language in newspaper articles, oratorical style and even in
scientific language. The use of trite metaphors should not be regarded as a drawback of
style. They help the writer to enliven [in’laiv n] (оживить) his work and make the
meaning more concrete.

When we identify inanimate objects or abstract notions and human qualities, we speak of
a special type of metaphor –personification (from the Latin “persona” – лицо and
“facere” – делать). It is used in high prose, poetry, tales.

Personified objects function in the language mostly as nouns – names of living beings.
They can be substituted by the pronouns ‘he’ and ‘she’, they can be used in the form of
the Possessive case and can be combined with verbs expressing actions and states typical
of people (verbs of speaking, thinking, volition, intention).

The word used as personification is often capitalized.

E.g. this bloody tyrant Time (Shakespeare)

E.g. In November a cold, unseen stranger, whom the doctors called Pheumonia, stalked
[o:] (подкрадываться) about the colony, touching one here and there with his icy fingers.

METONYMY

(from the Greek “metonymia” = re-naming – переименование).

Unlike metaphor, metonymy is based on a different type of relation between the

dictionary and contextual meaning - on actual association connecting the two concepts
which these two meanings represent.

E.g. the word ‘crown’ can stand for ‘king’ or ‘queen’

The words ‘cup’ or ‘glass’ can stand for the drink contained

The above-mentioned examples of metonymy are traditional and therefore fixed in

dictionaries.

The association itself can be based on the relations between the material and the thing
made of it; between the place and the people who are in it; between the process and its
result; between the action and its instrument, etc.

E.g. in Shakespeare’s sonnets we can find a lot of examples of metonymical association

between the name of feeling and the part of the human body which is thought responsible
for it. The words ‘eye, ear, heart, brain’ are commonly used metonymically.

E.g. In faith, I do not love thee with mine eyes;

For they in thee a thousand errors note;

But ‘tis my heart that loves what they despise,

Who in despite of view is pleased to dote.

(Shakespeare. Sonnet CXLI)

The interrelation between the dictionary and the contextual meanings should stand out
clearly and conspicuously (бросаться в глаза, быть заметным). Only in this case we can
state that we deal with a stylistic device. Otherwise metonymy is simply a way of coining
new words, a means of word-building.

Metonymy used in language-in-action, i.e. contextual metonymy is genuine. It is an

unexpected substitution of one word or concept for another.

E.g. Then they came in. Two of them, a man with long fair moustaches and a silent dark
man… Definitely, the moustache and I had nothing in common. (Doris Lessing)

Here we have a feature of a man, which catches the eye, in this case – his facial
appearance: the moustache stands for the man himself.

E.g. (the same function) there was something very agreeable in being so intimate with
such a waistcoat; in being on such off-hand terms so soon with such a pair of whiskers
that Tom was uncommonly pleased with himself. (C. Dickens
“Hard Times”)

In these two cases of genuine metonymy a broader context than that required by a
metaphor is necessary in order to decipher the true meaning of the SD. In both examples
it is necessary to understand the words in their proper meaning first. Only then it is
possible to grasp metonymy.

In the process of disclosing a metaphor one image excludes the other.

E.g. the metaphor ‘lamp’ in ‘the sky lamp of the night’, when deciphered, means ‘the
moon’, and though there is a definite interplay of meaning, we perceive only one object –
the moon.

This is not the case with metonymy. Metonymy, while presenting one object to our mind,
does not exclude the other. In the first example the moustache and the man himself are
both present.

A special type of metonymy (based on the relations between part and its whole) is called
synechdoche (Greek ‘synekdoche’), in which a part is made to stand for the whole, or the
whole for a part. Plural is used instead of the singular and vice versa. A widely used case
of synechdoche is the use of the nouns ‘ear’ and ’eye’ in the Sg.

E.g. Since I left you, mine eye is in my mind.

E.g. For there can be no hatred in thine eye.

Other types of relations may serve the basis for metonymy.

As a means of building imagery metonymy is generally concerned with concrete objects,

which are generalized. The process of generalization is carried out with the help of the
definite article.

IRONY.

(from the Greek ‘eironeia’ = скрытая насмешка)

Irony [‘ai r ni] is a SD based on the simultaneous realization of 2 logical meanings –

dictionary and contextual, with the 2 meanings standing in opposition to each other.

E.g. It must be delightful to find oneself in a foreign country without a penny in one’s
pocket.
The word ‘delightful’ here acquires a meaning quite opposite to its primary dictionary
meaning, i.e. ‘unpleasant’, ‘not delightful at all’. The word containing irony is strongly
marked by intonation. It has an emphatic stress and is generally supplied with a special
melody design, unless the context itself renders this intonation pattern unnecessary.

It should be mentioned that there are practically no cases of irony in language-as-a-

system.

Irony must not be confused with humour, although they have much in common. Humour
causes laughter. What is funny must come as a sudden clash of the positive and the
negative. In this respect irony can be compared to humour. But the function of irony is
not confined (ограничивать) to producing a humorous effect. In a sentence like ‘How
clever of you!’ where due to the intonation pattern, the word ‘clever’ conveys a sense
opposite to its literal meaning, the irony does not cause a ludicrous [‘lu:dikr s] effect. It
rather expresses a feeling of irritation, displeasure, pity or regret. A word used ironically
may sometimes express very subtle, almost imperceptible (незаметный,
незначительный) nuances [nj(:)’a:ns] of meaning.

The effect of irony lies in the striking contrast (disparity) between what is said and what
is meant which is achieved through the intentional interplay of two meanings standing in
opposition to each other.

It should be born in mind that irony is generally used to convey a negative meaning, i.e.
the contextual meaning always conveys the negation of the positive concepts embodied in
the dictionary meaning.

E.g. It’s nice to listen to a foreigner without understanding a word.

It was pleasant to drag along the forest in rainy weather, without any eatables and a
shelter.

Bitter socially and politically aimed irony is called sarcasm [‘sa:k zm].

Humour is milder than irony or sarcasm. When we speak about a person ironically or
sarcastically, our attitude to the person is negative.

Interaction of Primary and Derivative Logical Meanings.

Stylistic Devices Based on Polysemantic Effect or Homonyms

PLAY ON WORDS: Zeugma and Pun [p^ n] игра слов, каламбур

(From the Greek ‘zeugyana‘ - соединять, сочетать).

It is known that the word (of all language units) is the most sensitive to change. It is
normal for almost every word to acquire derivative meanings Primary and derivative
meanings are characterized by their relative stability [st ‘biliti ] and therefore are fixed in
dictionaries, thus constituting the semantic structure of a word.
However, in case a word begins to manifest an interplay between primary and one of the
derivative meanings, we are confronted with a SD.

Zeugma is the use of one word in the same grammatical but different semantic relations
to 2 adjacent (соседний ) words in the context, the semantic relations being, on the
hand, literal, and on the other hand, transferred (as, for example, with homogeneous
members of the sentence). In other words, one word-form is deliberately used in 2
meanings. The effect is humorous.

e.g. He lost his keys and his temper.

 He took his hat and his leave.
She possessed 2 false teeth and a sympathetic heart. (O.Henry)
She dropped a tear and her pocket handkerchief.

This stylistic device is much favoured in English emotive prose and poetry.

e.g. They had met at the table … and found their tastes in art, chicory salad and
bishop sleeves so congenial that the joint studio resulted.

The Pun is another SD based on the interaction of 2 well-known meanings of a

word/phrase. It is difficult to distinguish between zeugma and pun. The only reliable
distinction is structural. Pun is more independent than zeugma (though like any other
SDs, it depends on the context). In pun the key word is usually repeated (this is not the
case with zeugma) and the whole structure is changed. The context may be expanded (a
whole work of emotive prose). Thus, the title of one of Oscar Wilde’s plays “The
Importance of Being Earnest” has a pun in it.
Earnest = the name of the hero ‘Earnest’ + the adj meaning ‘seriously-minded ‘are both
present in our mind.
e.gYou have always told me it (your name) was Earnest, I have introduced you to
everyone as Earnest, you answer to the name of Earnest. You look as if your name
was Earnest. You’re the most earnest-looking person I ever saw in my life.
Another e.g. (with a larger context for its realization):
“Bow to the board”, said Bumble. Oliver brushed away two or three tears that were
lingering in his eyes; and seeing no board but the table, fortunately bowed to that.“
(Dickens).
Here, in fact, the humorous effect is caused by the interplay of two words, not of two
meanings of one word. ‘Board’ is a group of people, officials with the functions of
administration and management and ‘board’ is also a piece of furniture (a table).

Puns are often used in riddles and jokes, for example:

PUN

A pun is the lowest form of wit

It does not tax the brain a bit
One merely takes a word that’s plain
And picks one out that sounds the same.
Perhaps some letters may be changed,
Or others slightly disarranged,
This to the meaning gives a twist,
Which much delights the humorist.
A sample now may help to show
The way a good pun ought to
‘It isn’t the cough that carries you of
It’s the coffin they carry you off in.”

Let us illustrate the use of pun by one more example – a famous extract from
“Alice in Wonderland ” where the Mock Turtle tells Alice about the school she went to
and the subjects she took there:
“I couldn’t afford to learn it, “ said the Mock Turtle with a sigh. “I only took a
regular course”.
“What was that?” inquired Alice.
“Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with,” the Mock Turtle replied; “and then
the different branches of Arithmetic –Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.”
“What else did you learn?” asked Alice.
“Well, there was Mystery,” the Mock Turtle replied, counting off the subjects on his
flappers –“Mystery, ancient and modern, with Seaography; then Drawling – the
Drawling master was an old conger-eel, that used to come once a week: he taught us
Drawling, Stretching and Fainting in coils”.
Cf.: Reeling and Writhing = reading and writing
Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision = addition, subtraction, multiplication
and division
Mystery = history
Seaography = geography
Drawling = drawing
Stretching =sketching
Fainting in coils = painting in oils
More examples of pun (used in jokes and riddles):
e.g. - What is the difference between a school-master and an engine-driver?
- One trains the mind and the other minds the train.

e.g. - Waiter, what is it?

- It’s bean soup.
- No matter, what it’s been. What is it now?

e.g. He left her a comfortable fortune and a daughter.

e.g. - Have you seen a horse-fly here?

- No, but I’ve seen a cow jumping over the fence.
e.g. - Can February march?
- No, but April may.
Lexical Stylistic Devices: Interaction of Logical and Emotive Meanings

Some elements of a language have emotive meaning in their structure (semantic

structure). Others acquire this meaning in a context under the influence of a stylistic
device or other expressive means in the utterance.

The most highly emotive words (charged with emotive meaning to such an extent that
their logical meaning can hardly be registered) are interjections and exclamations. Next
come epithets in which we can observe a kind of parity [p riti] (равенство, аналогия,
соответствие) between emotive and logical meaning.
EPITHET

The epithet is a SD based on the interplay of emotive and logical meaning in an

attributive or adverbial word, phrase or sentence. It is used to characterize an object with
the aim of giving an individual perception and evaluation of its features and properties.
The epithet is markedly subjective and evaluative. (Cf: the logical attribute is purely
objective). Epithets do not point to inherent [in’hi r nt] qualities of the object described.
Cf.: logical attributes and epithets in the following table:

green meadows wild wind

pale complexion loud ocean
lofty mountains heart-burning smile

The epithet makes a strong impact on the reader so that he begins to see things as the
writer wants him to.

Epithets can be classified semantically and structurally. Structurally epithets can be:
1) simple or word epithets i.e. expressed by any notional part of speech;
2) compound epithets
e.g. cat-like smile, hunger-driven prisoners, etc.
3) two-step epithets (supplied with an intensifier). Their structure is adv. + adj.
e.g. extraordinarily cruel
4) phrase epithets and sentence epithets
e.g. What I dislike is “do-it-yourself” attitude.
Those innocent ‘I -don’t-know-what-you-are-talking- about’ eyes;
5) syntactical epithets, expressed by a noun + an of-phrase
They are based on the illogical syntactical relations of the modifier and the modified
word
e.g. a doll of a wife
a dumpling of a boy
a devil of a job
Such epithets are always metaphorical.

Semantically, epithets can be divided into:

1) associated
e.g. a cold reception, a sweet smile, a brilliant career, a fatigued brain
The idea expressed in an associated epithet is to a certain degree inherent
[in’hi r nt] to the concept of the object.

2) unassociated
e.g. majestic anger
sullen time / CF: sullen earth
voiceless sands
Unassociated epithets characterize the object by adding a feature which is not inherent to
it and which strikes us by its unexpectedness. Unassociated epithets are genuine SDs.

Another category of epithets - transferred epithets denote human qualities, which are
used in reference to inanimate objects or abstract notions:
e.g. logical attributes transferred epithets
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sick man
sick room
sleepless girl sleepless pillow
merry people merry hours
disapproving man disapproving finger

OXYMORON

(From the Greek ‘oxymoron’ - остроумно-глупое).

Oxymoron is a combination of two words (mostly an adjective and a noun, or an adverb
with an adjective) in which the meaning of the two clash, being opposite in sense.
e.g. low skyscraper, sweet sorrow, nice rascal, pleasantly ugly face, horribly
beautiful, a deafening silence, etc.
If the primary meaning of the qualifying word changes or weakens, the stylistic effect of
oxymoron is lost. This is the case with such combinations as awfully nice, terribly glad,
etc. which were once oxymorons; but the words ‘awfully’ and ‘terribly’ have lost their
primary logical meaning and are now used with emotive meaning only, as intensifiers.
Thus, oxymoron is a juxtaposition of 2 non-combinative words.
Lexical Stylistic Devices: Interaction of Logical and Nominal Meaning
ANTONOMASIA

The interplay between the logical and nominal meaning is called antonomasia. Both the
meanings must be realized in the word simultaneously. If only one meaning is
materialized in the context, we have trite metonymy.
e.g. hooligan
boycott
sandwich
diesel
The nominal meaning of a word is not intended to give any information about the person.
It only serves the purpose of identification. (Proper names, i.e. words with nominal
meaning, can etymologically, in most cases, be traced to some quality, property or trait of
a person, or his occupation – e.g. – Smith. But this etymological meaning may be
forgotten and the word understood as a proper name and nothing else). It is not so with
antonomasia.

Antonomasia is intended to point out the most typical, characteristic feature of a person
or event and at the same time to pin this feature to a person or event concerned as a
proper name.
We distinguish 3 types of antonomasia:
1) the use of a proper name for a common noun (e.g. Token or telling names) –
always trite
e.g. Vralman, Othello, Molchalin, Korobochka, Monte Cristo, etc.
2) The use of a common noun for a proper name –always genuine SD
e.g. Mr Mischief, Miss Blue Eyes , Miss Mumble
Mr Logic
Miss Fancy
My dear Miss Simplicity

Mr Smb Smth

Mr What’s –his –name

Dr Rest Dr Diet Dr Fresh Air
e.g. Miss Blue byes was a beauty, one of the most beautiful girls at the party.
) a round-about phrase stands for a proper name
e.g. the pride of the school (Miss Brown) went forward – (periphrasis)
In fact, antonomasia is a revival of the initial stage in naming individuals. It is a much
favoured device in belles-lettres style.
e.g. The only child was the hope of the family.

Lexical SDs: Intensification of a Certain Feature of a Thing or Phenomenon

Hyperbole. Understatement. Periphrasis. Euphemism. Simile

In this group of stylistic devices, we find that one of the qualities of the object in
question is made to sound essential. The quality picked out may or may not be seemingly
unimportant, transitory [ t’r nzit ri] but for a special reason it is elevated to the greatest
and made into a telling feature.

HYPERBOLE
(From the Greek ‘hyperbole’ - преувеличение)
Hyperbole can be defined as a deliberate overstatement or exaggeration of a feature
essential to the object or phenomenon. Like many SDs, hyperbole may lose its quality as
a SD through frequent repetition and become a unit of the language-as-a-system,
reproduced in speech in its unaltered form.
e.g. (language hyperbole) - a thousand pardons
scared to death
immensely obliged
I’d give worlds to see him
Hyperbole differs from mere exaggeration as it is intended to be understood as an
exaggeration.

UNDERSTATEMENT

Unlike hyperbole which is aimed at exaggerating quantity or quality, understatement is

directed the opposite way, when the size, shape, dimensions, characteristic features of the
object are not overrated but intentionally underrated. The mechanism of its creation and
functioning is identical with that hyperbole. It does not signify the actual state of affairs
in reality but presents the latter through the emotionally coloured perception and
rendering of the speaker/writer.

English is well-known for its preference for understatement in everyday speech:

e.g. instead of ‘I’m infuriated’ – I’m rather annoyed
‘There’s a gale [geil] blowing outside’ – The wind is rather strong.

PERIPHRASIS

Periphrasis [p ‘rifr sis] Is a device in which a longer phrasing is used instead of a shorter
and plainer/simpler form of expression. It is a round-about, indirect way of naming a
familiar object or phenomenon.

The essence of the device is that it is decipherable only in context. If periphrasis is

understandable outside the context, it is not a SD but merely a synonymous expression.
Such easily decipherable periphrases are also called traditional, dictionary or language
periphrases = periphrastic synonyms:
e.g. the cap and gown = student body
a gentleman of the long robe = a lawyer
the fair sex = women
one’s better half = one’s wife
Traditional (trite) periphrasis (or cliche) [‘kli: ei] is often found in newspaper
language:
e.g. to tie the knot = to marry

Stylistic periphrasis can be divided into logical and figurative. Logical periphrasis is
based on one of the inherent [in’hi r nt] properties of the object described.
e.g. instruments of destruction = pistols (Dickens)
the object of admiration = love
Figurative periphrasis is based either on metaphor or metonymy.
e.g. the punctual servant of all work = the sun (Dickens)
There is little difference between metaphor or metonymy in a figurative periphrasis.
EUPHEMISM

There is another variety of periphrasis, which is called euphemistic periphrasis.

Euphemism (as you know) is a word or phrase used to replace an unpleasant word or
phrase, expression by a conventionally more acceptable.
e.g. the word ‘to die’ has bred the following euphemisms:
to pass away to join the majority
to expire to be gone
to be no more to kick the bucket
to depart to go west, etc.

Euphemism is sometimes called a ‘whitewashing device’ - figuratively. The linguistic

peculiarity of euphemism lies in the fact that every euphemism must call up a definite
synonym in the mind of the reader or listener. The synonymic dominant in a group of
synonyms, must follow the euphemism like a shadow.
e.g. a four-letter word = an obscenity
a woman of a certain type = a prostitute, a whore
to glow =to sweat
e.g. ”In private I should merely call him a liar. In the Press you should use the
words: “Reckless disregard for truth, and in Parliament –that you regret he should have
been so misinformed”. (Galsworthy “The Silver Spoon”)

SIMILE
(From the Latin ‘similis’ –подобное)
Simile and ordinary comparison must not be confused. They represent 2 diverse
processes. Comparison is used to show the likeness or difference of 2 objects belonging
to the same class of things. It takes into consideration all the properties of the object in
question, stressing the one that is compared.

Unlike a simple comparison, simile characterizes an object bringing it in contact with an

object of an entirely different class of things. Simile focuses on one quality of the 2
objects which is made common to both. It excludes all the other properties of the 2
objects, except the one, which is made common.

Some linguists call simile an extended metaphor, because in essence they are alike. Only
simile is more transparent than a metaphor. It points out the quality at once. Similes are
easily recognizable as they have formal elements in their structure, such as: comparative
conjunctions “like, as, such, as if” the verbs “seem, remind of, look like”, etc.
e.g. a cat-like smile
a snake-like movement
In English, like in any developed language, there is a list of hackeneyed similes showing

analogy between the various qualities, states and actions of human beings compared to

those of different animals and birds, etc., who are supposed to be the bearers of these

qualities.

e.g. hungry as a wolf

as busy as a bee
blind as a bat (mole)
playful as a kitten
faithful as a dog