Home Releases

HARD TIMES FOR METAPHOR

Linguistics , UDC: 81'1

Authors

  • Khazagerov George Doctor of Philology, Professor

Annotation

The article is focused on the diminishing social role of metaphors. The first part of the article observes two main trends that contributed most to the prevailing understanding of metaphors as elements that predetermine linguistic world-image. The Orwellian idea of «language of power and power of language» and G. Lakoff’s approach to metaphors were mostly based on the experience of totalitarianism in Germany and the USSR. The new reality of political and commercial propaganda shows that the play with a «typical» is more effective than a metaphor. This idea is supported by several examples showing the leading position of metonymy in advertisements that have become more focused on paradigms rather than parables. Metaphors in modern communication no longer have influence they used to have. Metaphor itself is a derivative of a stable rural civilization. Totalitarian propaganda tried to make its metaphors similar to symbols familiar to migrants from rural communities but in the course of time these metaphors became outdated and inefficient. This point is proved in the article by the fact that by the end of the Soviet regime propaganda had become the object of ridicule for Soviet citizens. Even intercultural comparison shows that metaphors do not distort the perception of foreign culture – they just make it easier to describe it. So, it is concluded that it is life that guides metaphor but not vice versa. In the second part of the article it is assumed that metaphor has lost its leading position as a mean of speech influence on the conceptualization of reality due to lots of factors like visualization, high speed of social interaction. Twittering communication and hypertextuality also have impact on literature and our perception of it. Hypertext ruins the unity of the literary text so it becomes impossible for author to transmit their ideas and intentions through the text composition and global system of metaphors. Fragmentary perception of text may be treated as «le plaisir du texte» suggested by Roland Barhes or viewed as a useful tool for information search but in some spheres (for example, in academic text) the shift from author’s intention to fast navigation might be less beneficial. It is concluded that modern communication environment has left metaphor behind metonymy, play with a «typical» and «performative», i.e. units view something as a given. The role of cognitive metaphors is supposed to be overestimated and it can’t be treated separately from «communicative catalysts». The main argument here is a tendency for propaganda communicative patterns to oulive its content.

How to link insert

Khazagerov, G. . (). HARD TIMES FOR METAPHOR Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", ,
References
1. Aristotel. Ritorika. Antichnye ritoriki. Moskva: Izd-vo MGU, 1978. 352 s.
2. Bart R. Udovolstvie ot teksta. Izbrannye raboty. Moskva, 1994. S. 462–518.
3. Budaev E.V. «Mogut li metafory ubivat»?: Pragmaticheskij aspekt politicheskoj metaforiki // Politicheskaya lingvistika. Vyp. 20. Yekaterinburg, 2006. S. 67–74.
4. Budaev E.V., Chudinov A.P. Lingvisticheskaya sovetologiya. Yekaterinburg: Izd-vo UGPU, 2009. 291 s.
5. Likhachev D.S. Razvitie russkoy literatury X–XVII vekov. Leningrad: Nauka, 1973. 254 s.
6. Megentesov S.A. Semanticheskij perenos kak faktor struktury funktsionirovaniya i razvitiya yazyka [Tekst]: avtoref. ... dokt. filol. nauk (10.02.01) / Kubanskiy gos. un-t. Krasnodar, 1993 URL: http://www.dissercat.com/content/semanticheskii-perenos-kak-faktor-struktury-funktsionirovaniya-i-razvitiya-yazyka.
7. Pokrovskaya Ye.A. Rol’ prozy shestidesyatnikov v stanovlenii yazyka literatury neklassicheskoj paradigmy // Politicheskaya lingvistika. Vyp. 18. Yekaterinburg, 2006. S. 191–201.
8. Khazagerov G.G. Eanod // Khazagerov G.G. Ritoricheskij slovar. Moskva: Flinta, 2009. S. 131.
9. Khazagerov G.G. Propaganda v ploskosti «parabola – paradigma» // Respectus Philoljgivus / 27(32) 2015.Vilniaus universitetas. P. 11–22.
10. Khartsiev V. Elementarnye formy poezii // Voprosy teorii i psikhologii tvorchestva. T. 1. Kharkov: Mirnyj trud, 1911. .S. 347–398.
11. Yazyk i modelirovanie sotsialnogo vzaimodeystviya / Sost. V.M. Sergeeva i P.B. Parshina. M.: Progress, 1987. 464 s.
12. How to Mind Map URL: https://imindmap.com/how-to-mind-map/.
13. Jakobson R. Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances // Jakobson R. Selected writings. The Hague – Paris, 1971. Vol. 2. P. 239–259.
14. Khazagerov G.G. On Monstrosity of Metaphor in Cognitive Paradigm // Proceedings of Southern Federal university. Philology. 2016. № 2. P. 97–101.
15. Klemperer V. Lingua Tertii Imperii Notizbucheines Philologen. Berlin, 1947. 302 p.
16. Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. 256 p.
17. Lakoff G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Minds. University of Chicago Press, 1987. 614 s.
18. Pipes R. Russia under the Old Regime. New York: Charles. Scribner’s Sons, 1974. 361 s.
Download file .pdf 110.14 kb