What is a metaphor in literature? Brief definition. Metaphor in literature is a hidden comparison. The meaning of the metaphor. Definition of the term and examples of metaphors

from Greek metaphora - transfer, image) - the use of a word in a figurative meaning based on the similarity in any respect of two objects or phenomena; replacing an ordinary expression with a figurative one (for example, golden autumn, the sound of waves, an airplane wing).

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

METAPHOR

from Greek metaphora - transfer) - a trope (see tropes) of a word, which consists in transferring the properties of one object, process or phenomenon to another on the basis of their similarity in some respect or contrast. Aristotle in “Poetics” noted that M. is “an unusual name, transferred from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy.” Of the four kinds of M., wrote Aristotle, in Rhetoric the M. based on analogy deserve the greatest attention, for example: “Pericles spoke of youth killed in war as the destruction of spring among the seasons.” Aristotle considers M. action to be especially strong, that is, one where the analogy is based on the representation of the inanimate as animate, depicting everything as moving and living. And Aristotle considers Homer to be an example of the use of such metals: “The bitter sting of the arrow... bounced back from the copper. A sharp arrow rushed into the midst of the enemies, towards the intended greedy victim” (Iliad). But how, with the help of M., the actions of B.L. Pasternak creates the image of a cloud: “When a huge purple cloud, standing on the edge of the road, silenced the grasshoppers that were sultryly crackling in the grass, and the drums in the camps sighed and trembled, the earth grew dark in the eyes and there was no life in the world... The cloud looked over look at the low, baked stubble. They stretched all the way to the horizon. The cloud easily reared up. They extended further, beyond the camps. The cloud settled on its front legs and, smoothly crossing the road, silently crawled along the fourth rail of the crossing" ( Airways). When creating M., according to Quintilian (compendium “Twelve Books of Rhetorical Instructions”), the most typical will be the following four cases: 1) replacement (transfer of property) of one animate object with another animate one (today we can talk about the transfer of property from living to living, because The Greeks and Romans considered only people to be animate). For example: “There were horses - not horses, tigers” (E. Zamyatin. Rus'); the walrus “... rolls up onto the platform again, on its fat, powerful body Nietzsche’s mustachioed, bristly head with a smooth forehead appears” (V. Khlebnikov. Menagerie); 2) one inanimate object is replaced (property transfer occurs) with another inanimate object. For example: “A river swirls in the desert fog” (A. Pushkin. Window); “Above him is a golden ray of sun” (M. Lermontov. Sail); “A rusty leaf fell from the trees” (F. Tyutchev. N.I. Krolyu); “The boiling sea below us” (song “Varyag”); 3) replacement (transfer of properties) of an inanimate object with an animate one. For example: “The word is the greatest ruler: it looks small and imperceptible, but does wonderful things - it can stop fear and ward off sadness, cause joy, increase pity” (Gorgias. Praise to Helen); “The night is quiet, the desert listens to God, and star speaks to star” (M. Lermontov. I go out alone on the road...); “The rusty bolt at the gate will cry” (A. Bely. Jester); “Bright Kolomna, hugging my sister Ryazan, wets my bare feet in the tear-stained Oka” (N. Klyuev. Devastation); “The linden trees were chilled to the bones” (N. Klyuev. The linden trees were chilled to the bones...); 4) replacement (transfer of properties) of an animate object with an inanimate one. For example: “Strong heart” (i.e., stingy, cruel) - the officer says about the moneylender Sanjuelo (R. Lesage. The Adventures of Gil Blas from San Tillana); “The Sophists are poisonous shoots that cling to healthy plants, hemlock in a virgin forest” (V. Hugo. Les Misérables); “The Sophists are lush, magnificent flowers of the rich Greek spirit” (A. Herzen. Letters on the study of nature). Aristotle in “Rhetoric” emphasized that M. “has a high degree of clarity, pleasantness and a sign of novelty.” It was M., he believed, along with commonly used words native language, are the only material useful for the style of prose speech. M. is very close to comparison, but there is also a difference between them. M. is a rhetorical trope, the transfer of the properties of one object or phenomenon to another based on the principle of their similarity in some respect, and comparison is a logical technique similar to the definition of a concept, a figurative expression in which the depicted phenomenon is likened to another. Usually comparison is expressed using the words like, like, as if. M., in contrast to comparison, has greater expression. The means of language allow us to separate comparison and materialism quite strictly. This was done back in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Here are comparisons by I. Annensky in “The Trefoil of Temptation”: “A cheerful day is burning... Among the withered grasses, all the poppies are spotted - like greedy impotence, like lips full of temptation and poison, like scarlet butterflies with unfurled wings.” They can easily be turned into a metaphor: Poppies are scarlet butterflies with unfolded wings. Demetrius, in his work “On Style,” considered another aspect of the relationship between M. and comparison. If M., he wrote, seems too dangerous, then it is easy to turn it into a comparison, inserting it, as it were, and then the impression of riskiness characteristic of M. will weaken. In the treatises of rhetoricians, in the works of specialists in the field of poetics and stylistics, most attention is paid to M himself. Quintilian called it the most common and beautiful of the tropes of rhetoric. It is, the Roman rhetorician believed, something innate and even in complete ignoramuses it often emerges in the most natural way. But it is much more pleasant and beautiful when M. is tastefully sought out and shines with her own light in high speech. It increases the richness of the language by changing or borrowing everything that is lacking in it. M. is used to amaze the mind, to more strongly identify the subject and to present it as if before the eyes of the listeners. Of course, one cannot exaggerate her role. Quintilian noted that excess M. bothers the listener’s attention and turns speech into an allegory and a riddle. You should not use low and indecent M., as well as M. based on false similarity. Aristotle saw one of the reasons for the pompousness and coldness of a speaker’s speech in the use of inappropriate words. He believed that three types of words should not be used: 1) having a funny meaning; 2) the meaning of which is too solemn and tragic; 3) borrowed from afar, and therefore having an unclear meaning or poetic look. The subject of constant discussions, since antiquity, has been the question of how much metal can be used at the same time. Already the Greek theorists of rhetoric accepted as a “law” the simultaneous use of two, maximum three M. Having agreed, in principle, with this position, Pseudo-Longinus in his treatise “On the Sublime” still believes that justification large number and M.’s courage is “the appropriate passion of speech and its noble sublimity. It is natural for the growing tide of stormy feeling to carry everything along with it.” It is these properties of M. that were superbly demonstrated by M.V. Lomonosov: “The ruler of many languages, the Russian language, not only in the vastness of the places where it dominates, but also in its own space and contentment is great before everyone in Europe... Charles the Fifth... if only he Russian language was skillful, then... would have found in him the splendor of Spanish, the liveliness of French, the strength of German, the tenderness of Italian, and, moreover, the richness and strong brevity of the Greek and Latin languages ​​in the images” (M. Lomonosov. Russian Grammar). Description of boron by E.I. Zamyatin is given through the use of numerous M.: “... Blue winter days, the rustle of snow chunks - from top to bottom along the branches, vigorous frosty crackling, a woodpecker hammering; yellow summer days, wax candles in gnarled green hands, transparent honey tears down hardened strong trunks, cuckoos counting the years. But then the clouds swelled in the stuffiness, the sky split into a crimson crack, a drop of fire began to light up - and the centuries-old forest began to smoke, and by morning red tongues were buzzing all around, a thorn, a whistle, a crackling, a howl, half the sky was in smoke, the sun was barely visible in the blood” (E. Zamyatin. Rus'). Assessing the role of M. in fiction paid a lot of attention to B.L. Pasternak: “Art is realistic as an activity and symbolic as a fact. It is realistic in that it did not invent M. itself, but found it in nature and sacredly reproduced it” (B. Pasternak. Safe-conduct). “Metaphorism is a natural consequence of the fragility of man and the long-planned enormity of his tasks. Given this discrepancy, he is forced to look at things with the keen eye of an eagle and explain himself with instantaneous and immediately understandable insights. This is poetry. Metaphorism is a shorthand for a great personality, a shorthand for his spirit” (B. Pasternak. Notes on translations from Shakespeare). M. is the most common and most expressive of all tropes. Lit.: Ancient theories of language and style. - M.; L., 1936. - P. 215-220; Aristotle. Poetics // Aristotle. Works: In 4 vols. - M., 1984. - T. 4. - P. 669-672; Aristotle. Rhetoric // Ancient rhetoric. - M., 1978. - P. 130-135, 145-148; Arutyunova N.D. Metaphor//Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. - M., 1990; Demetrius. About style // Ancient rhetoric. - M., 1978; Jol K.K. Thought. Word. Metaphor. - Kyiv, 1984; Quintilian. Twelve books of rhetorical instructions. In 2 parts. - St. Petersburg, 1834; Korolkov V.I. On extra-linguistic and intra-linguistic aspects of the study of metaphor // Uch. zap. MGPIIYA. - M., 1971. - Issue. 58; Lomonosov M.V. A Brief Guide to Eloquence: Book One, Which Contains Rhetoric, Showing general rules both eloquence, that is, oratorio and poetry, composed for the benefit of those who love verbal sciences // Anthology of Russian rhetoric. - M., 1997. - P. 147-148; Lvov M.R. Rhetoric: Tutorial for students 10-11 grades. - M., 1995; Panov M.I. Rhetoric from antiquity to the present day // Anthology of Russian rhetoric. - M., 1997. - P. 31-32; Freidenberg O.M. Metaphor // Freidenberg O.M. Myth and literature of antiquity. - M., 1978; encyclopedic Dictionary young literary critic: For medium and older students. school age/ Comp. IN AND. Novikov. - M., 1988. - P. 167-169. M.I. Panov

A metaphor is a figure of speech that uses a word or expression in an unusual sense, with significant similarities between the two terms.

This word was brought from Greek (μεταφορά), where it means “change”, “rearrangement”, “translation”, “transfer”.

A metaphor is a comparison of words where one term replaces another. This is a shortened comparison in which the verb is not expressed, but only implied.

For example: “My friend is like a bull, he moved a heavy cabinet himself.” Obviously, he is not a bull and does not physically resemble this animal at all, but he is so strong that he resembles a bull. This example compares the strength of an animal and this person.

This rhetorical figure corresponds to the replacement of one term with another through analogy.

Analogy is a relationship of established similarity between two or more separate objects. An analogy can be made, for example, between the head and the body or the captain and the soldiers. It is important to note that for an analogy to occur, there must be similar semantic elements between the two terms.

Metaphor is a linguistic tool often used in Everyday life, which is important in communication between people. It would be almost impossible to speak and think without resorting to metaphor.

Recent studies have shown that people use an average of 4 metaphors per minute when speaking. Often people are unwilling or unable to express how they really feel. Therefore, they say metaphorical phrases where the meaning is implied.

Examples of metaphors:

• sharp mind;
• heart of stone;
• golden head;
• iron character;
• skillful fingers;
• poisonous person;
• gold words;
• the cat cried;
• hedgehog gloves;
• dead night;
• wolf grip;
• fifth wheel in a cart;
• step on the same rake.

Metaphor - examples from literature

"We drink from the cup of existence with our eyes closed..."
(M. Lermontov)

"Hut-old woman jaw threshold
Chews the odorous crumb of silence"
(S. Yesenin)

"Sleeping on my wall
Willow lace shadow"
(N. Rubtsov)

“The autumn of life, like the autumn of the year, must be gratefully accepted”
(E. Ryazanov)

"The ensigns fixed their eyes on the Tsar"
(A. Tolstoy)

“The sky above the port was the color of a TV turned on to an empty channel.”
(William Gibson)

“All our words are just crumbs that fall during the feast of our mind.”
(Khalil Gibran)

Types of metaphor

Nominative metaphor

This is a means of creating new terms, intended for the formation of names of objects that do not yet have their own name.

For example:

• Earth satellite;
• zipper;
• table leg;
• spout;
• bow of the ship (similarity of objects in shape and location;
• cup handle;
• door peephole;
• base of the mountain;
• chair back;
• Rose of Wind;
• eyeball;
• white of the eye
• chanterelles (a type of mushroom)
• umbrella (type of inflorescence), etc.

The “metaphorical freshness” of such names exists only at the moment of nomination. Gradually, the internal form of the metaphor “fades away,” and the connection with the corresponding object is lost.

Cognitive metaphor

Metaphorization of the meaning of attribute (predicate) words gives rise to this type of metaphor, which has cognitive value, since with its help a person can comprehend an abstract concept based on the concrete. For example: stand like a wall, dull pain, sharp mind, prickly answer, etc.

According to the concept of N.D. Arutyunova, from a means of creating an image, cognitive metaphor turns into a way of forming meanings missing in language.

Figurative metaphor

Metaphorization can be accompanied by a syntactic shift: a noun moves from a nominal position to a predicate position.

For example: Sobakevich was a real bear; he is such a hare, he is afraid of everything, etc. A metaphor of this type has the goal of individualizing or evaluating an object. A figurative metaphor contributes to the expansion of synonymous means of language and leads to the emergence of new synonymous connections (shy and hare).

Conceptual metaphor

This type is already understood as a way of thinking about one area of ​​experience through the lens of another, for example, the expression “a love relationship has reached a dead end” can be interpreted as the implementation of the conceptual metaphor “love is a journey.”

The images in which the world is comprehended are, as a rule, stable and universal within one culture. Despite the fact that the image is erased from repeated use of the metaphor, the positive or negative connotation associated with it remains.

Conceptual metaphor is intended to perform in language the function of forming new concepts based on already formed ones. Examples: election machine, presidential race, field of activity.

What is a trope

A trope is a figurative turn of speech in which a word or expression is used in a figurative meaning, two objects or phenomena that are related in meaning are compared.

The word "trope" comes from other Greek. τρόπος "turnover". It is used to enhance the imagery of language and artistic expression speech. Tropes are widely used in literature, in oratory, and in everyday speech.

Main types of trails:

• metaphor;
• metonymy;
• synecdoche;
• epithet;
• hyperbola;
• dysphemism;
• pun;
• litotes;
• comparison;
• paraphrase;
• allegory;
• pathos;
• personification;
• sarcasm;
• oxymoron;
• irony;
• euphemism.

Difference between metaphor and simile

Metaphor implies a veiled, allegorical, figurative comparison. The object being compared is called by the name of something similar to it. Comparison usually concerns homogeneous or similar objects.

The meaning of a metaphor is always figurative, but in comparison it is direct. The comparison is made only with physical objects, but in metaphor it is done in different ways.

A metaphor, without indicating the presence of similarities, encourages searching general qualities objects, and comparison directly indicates similarities between objects.

A metaphor is often larger in content than a simile, and introductory words does not require. In comparison, comparative conjunctions are often used.

Iceberg metaphor

Iceberg metaphor - the essence is that often the visible part of the iceberg, which is on the surface, is very small compared to the part that is immersed in water. This metaphor is widely used to explain various social phenomena.

The metaphor of an iceberg is often used to describe the human mind, where the surface part is conscious and the larger, submerged part is subconscious.

This metaphor makes people realize that there is often much more truth than our eyes can see. With it we can also learn that there is still a lot beyond the surface and it often has much greater value than what is on the surface and visible to everyone.

This example shows how the use of metaphors enriches our language.

The majesty of the Russian language knows no limits. We can rearrange words in a sentence, use words in some special form, or even come up with words (for example: “finch” - like some kind of detail or little thing). At the same time, we understand each other perfectly. It is difficult to explain such features to a foreigner. But even if you do not accept “words”, but use the Russian language like a true philologist, you are not immune from the perplexed expressions on the faces of foreigners (and sometimes Russian people). For example, you use trails. Today we’ll talk about one of its types: what is a metaphor?

Definition of metaphor

Metaphor (from Greek “figurative meaning”) is a type of trope; a phrase used in a figurative meaning, which is based on the transfer of characteristics from one phenomenon to another due to the presence of certain similarities between them (i.e. comparison).

3 elements of comparison

1. what is being compared ("subject")
2. what is it compared to ("image")
3. on what basis is it compared ("sign")

For example: “chocolate candy” - “chocolate tan” (transfer by color); “the dog howls” - “the wind howls” (the nature of the sound).

So, we conclude what a metaphor is in Russian: it is a figurative expression, a hidden comparison.

Functions of metaphor

Evaluation function

Metaphors are used to evoke in a person certain, fairly specific associations about an object (phenomenon).

For example: "wolf man", " sharp vision", "cold heart".

Thus, the metaphor “wolf man” evokes associations associated with anger and predation.

Emotive-evaluative function

Metaphor is used to obtain an expressive effect as a means of emotional influence.

For example: “He looked at her like a ram at a new gate.”

Another function that shows why a metaphor is needed is a means of creating figurative speech. Here the metaphor is associated with artistic forms of reflecting the world. This function rather answers the question of what a metaphor is in literature. The function is expanding, now it is not only a comparison in order to strengthen some feature, now it is the creation of a new image in the imagination. Both the emotional and logical spheres are already involved: a metaphor creates an image and fills it with specific emotional content.

Nominative function

Inclusion (with the help of metaphor) of a new object in the cultural and linguistic context by creating a name for it by direct analogy. That is, a name is given to a new object (phenomenon) by comparing it with those that already exist in reality.

For example: “digest information” - that is, just as something is simmering and boiling in a saucepan, so thoughts are “cooked” in your head (in a confined space). Or, for example, the head is called a bowler (due to its similar round shape).

The cognitive function of metaphors is obvious. Metaphors help to see what is essential in an object, the main properties. Metaphors fill our knowledge with new semantic content.

We have tried to explain clearly what a metaphor is. Examples will help you better understand the material. Try to come up with examples for each function of metaphor yourself.

Types of metaphors

1. A sharp metaphor. Connects concepts that are far apart in meaning. For example: "filling a statement"
2. Erased metaphor. On the contrary, it connects concepts whose figurative character is similar. For example: "table leg".
3. Metaphor-formula. Close to an erased metaphor, but even more stereotypical. Sometimes it cannot be converted into a non-figurative construction. For example: "worm of doubt".
4. Expanded metaphor. Unfolds throughout the entire statement, message (or throughout a large fragment).
5. A realized metaphor. A metaphor used as if it had a literal meaning (that is, the figurative nature of the metaphor is ignored). The outcome can be comical. For example: “I lost my temper and entered the house.”

Now you know what a metaphor is and why it is needed. Use them in conversation and surprise others.

Metaphor- this is the transfer of a name from one object to another based on similarity.

Similarity can be external and internal.

Type of metaphor:

similarity of shape (draw a circle - a lifebuoy);

similarity appearance(black horse - gymnastic horse);

the similarity of the impression made (sweet grapes - sweet dream);

similarity of location (leather sole - the sole of the mountain, whitewash the ceiling - three in Russian - its ceiling);

similarity in the structure of assessments (light portfolio - easy text, the son has outgrown his father, has become very tall - outgrowing his mentor);

similarity in the way of presenting actions (grasp the trunk of a tree with your hands - she was overcome with joy, the piles support the bridge - support Ivanov’s candidacy);

similarity of functions (mercury barometer - barometer of public opinion).

Ways to form a metaphor

Metaphorical transfer may be based on some real similarity between objects, another type of similarity is based on historically or nationally established ideas (for example, a crow is a bungler).

The metaphor is usually national in nature. This is one of its features.

Words of the same type direct meaning do not necessarily give the same figurative meanings in different languages ​​(a cow - in Russian is a fat woman, in German - a tastelessly dressed woman; a fox in Russian is a cunning person, in German - a first-year student).

In some cases, metaphor arises due to the exclusion of individual semes from the meaning of words, i.e. simplifying the meaning. For example, to fly is to move quickly through the air. I flew to this meeting (the "travel" component was excluded).

Types of Metaphors

I. By features of use, functions.

1. Nominative, ugly(emphasis on second syllable)

This metaphor is dry and has lost its imagery. Dictionaries, as a rule, do not mark this meaning as figurative, metaphorical.

For example, a door handle, a teapot spout, the white of an eye, a door peephole.

There is imagery in the word, it lies in the very fact of transferring the name from one object to another.

2. Figurative metaphor

Contains a hidden comparison and has a characterizing property.

For example, a star (celebrity), a sharp mind.

A figurative metaphor arises as a result of a person’s comprehension of objects in the real world.

3. Cognitive metaphor

Mental reflection of a real or attributed commonality of properties between compared concepts.

Forms the abstract meaning of a word.

For example, a handful of people (small number), spinning (constantly in thoughts).

II. By role in language and speech.

1. General language (usual).

Reflects the social image and is systematic in use. It is reproducible and anonymous, fixed in dictionaries.

2. Individual (artistic).

For example:

Among the midday languor

Turquoise covered with cotton wool.

Giving birth to the sun, the lake languished.

transferring the properties of one object to another based on the principle of their similarity in some respect or contrast. For example, " electricity", "aroma elementary particles”, “city of the Sun”, “Kingdom of God”, etc. A metaphor is a hidden comparison of objects, properties and relationships that are very distant, at first glance, in which the words “as if”, “as if”, etc. omitted but implied. The heuristic power of metaphor is in the bold unification of what was previously considered to be of different quality and incompatible (for example, “ light wave", "pressure of light", "earthly paradise", etc.). This makes it possible to destroy habitual cognitive stereotypes and create new mental constructs based on already known elements (“thinking machine”, “social organism”, etc.), which leads to a new vision of the world and changes the “horizon of consciousness”. (See comparison, scientific creativity, synthesis).

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

METAPHOR

from Greek ??????? transfer) is a rhetorical trope, the essence of which is that instead of a word used in the literal sense, a word similar in meaning to it, used in a figurative sense, is used. For example · a dream of life, a dizzying slope, days are flying by, wit, remorse, etc., etc.? Apparently, the earliest theory of M. is the theory of substitution, dating back to Aristotle. Explaining that “an unusual name transferred ... by analogy” implies a situation in which “the second is related to the first as the fourth is to the third, and therefore the writer can say the fourth instead of the second or the second instead of the fourth,” Aristotle (“Poetics” ) gives the following examples of “proportional metaphors”: the cup (phial) relates to Dionysus as the shield relates to Ares, therefore the cup can be called the “shield of Dionysus”, and the shield the “cup of Ares”; old age relates to life as evening relates to day, therefore old age can be called “evening of life” or “sunset of life”, and evening - “old age of day”. This theory of proportional metaphors has been repeatedly and sharply criticized. Thus, A. A. Potebnya (“From notes on the theory of literature”) noted that “such a game of movement is a rare case, possible only in relation to ready-made metaphors,” this rare case is impossible, therefore , be considered as an example of M. in general, which, as a rule, assumes a proportion “with one unknown.” In the same way, M. Beardsley criticizes Aristotle for the fact that the latter considers the transference relation as reciprocal and, as Beardsley believes, replaces M. with a rationalized comparison.

Even in ancient times, the Aristotelian theory of substitution was competed with by the theory of comparison, which was developed by Quintilian (“On the Education of the Orator”) and Cicero (“On the Orator”). Unlike Aristotle, who believed that comparison is simply an extended metaphor (see his “Rhetoric”), the theory of comparison considers M. as an abbreviated comparison, thereby emphasizing the relationship of similarity underlying M., and not the action of substitution as such. Although the theory of substitution and the theory of comparison are not mutually exclusive, they presuppose a different understanding of the relationship between M. and other tropes. Following his theory of substitution, Aristotle defines M. unjustifiably broadly; his definition forces us to consider M as “an unusual name transferred from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy.” For Quintilian, Cicero and other supporters of the theory of comparison, M. is limited only to transfer by analogy, while transfers from genus to species and from species to genus are synecdoche, narrowing and generalizing, respectively, and transfer from species to species is metonymy.

IN modern theories M. is more often contrasted with metonymy to/or synecdoche than identified with them. In the famous theory of R. O. Yakobson ("Notes on the prose of the poet Pasternak") M. is contrasted with metonymy as transfer by similarity - transfer by contiguity. Indeed, metonymy (from the Greek ????????? - renaming) is a rhetorical trope, the essence of which is that one word is replaced by another, and the basis for the replacement is (spatial, temporal or causal) contiguity signified For example: stand in the heads, midday side, a stone's throw, etc., etc. As noted by the Liege rhetoricians from the so-called group "Mu" ("General Rhetoric"), metonymy, unlike M., represents the substitution of one word in place of another through a concept that is not an intersection (as in the case of M), but encompasses the signifieds of the replaced and replacing words. Thus, in the expression “get used to the bottle,” the transfer of meaning presupposes a spatial unity that unites the bottle and its contents. Jacobson extremely widely used the opposition “contiguity/similarity” as an explanatory means: not only to explain the traditional difference between prose and poetry, but also to describe the features of ancient Slavic poetry, to classify the types of speech disorders in mental illness, etc. However, the opposition “contiguity” /similarity" cannot become the basis for a taxonomy of rhetorical tropes and figures. Moreover, as reported by the Mu Group's General Rhetoric, Jakobson often mixed metonymy with synecdoche. Synecdoche (Greek - recognition) is a rhetorical trope, the essence of which is either to replace a word denoting a part of a whole with a word denoting the whole itself (generalizing synecdoche), or, conversely, to replace a word denoting a whole with a word denoting a part of this whole (narrowing synecdoche). Examples of generalizing synecdoche: catching fish, striking iron, mortals (instead of people), etc., examples of narrowing synecdoche: calling for a cup of tea, master's eye, getting a tongue, etc.

The "Mu" group proposed to consider M. as a juxtaposition of narrowing and generalizing synecdoche; this theory makes it possible to explain the difference between conceptual and referential M. The difference between M at the seme level and M at the level of mental images is caused by the need to rethink the concept of similarity that underlies any definition of M. The concept of “similarity of meanings” (of the replaced word and the replacing word) , no matter what criteria it is determined by (usually the criteria of analogy, motivation and general properties), remains highly ambiguous. Hence the need to develop a theory that considers M. not only as a relationship between the replaced word (A. A. Richards in his “Philosophy of Rhetoric” called its signified content (tenor) M.) and the replacing word (Richards called it the shell (vehicle) M .), but also as a relationship between a word used in a figurative sense and the surrounding words used in the literal sense.

The theory of interaction, developed by Richards and M. Black (“Models and Metaphors”), considers metaphor as a resolution of the tension between a metaphorically used word and the context of its use. Drawing attention to the obvious fact that most M. is used surrounded by words that are not M., Black identifies the focus and frame of M., i.e. M. as such and the context of its use. Mastery of mathematics implies knowledge of the system of generally accepted associations, and therefore the theory of interaction emphasizes the pragmatic aspect of the transfer of meaning. Since the mastery of mathematics is associated with the transformation of the context and, indirectly, the entire system of generally accepted associations, mathematics turns out to be an important means of cognition and transformation of society. This corollary of interaction theory was developed by J. Lakoff and M. Johnson ("Metaphors We Live By") into a theory of "conceptual metaphors" that govern the speech and thinking of ordinary people in everyday situations. Usually the process of demetaphorization, the transformation of figurative meaning into direct meaning, is associated with catachresis. Catachresis (Greek - abuse) is a rhetorical trope, the essence of which is to expand the meaning of a word, to use a word in a new meaning. For example: a table leg, a sheet of paper, sunrise, etc. Catachresis is widespread both in everyday life and in scientific language, all terms of any science are catachreses. J. Genette (“Figures”) emphasized the importance for rhetoric in general and for the theory of M. in particular of one dispute about the definition of the concept of catachresis. The great French rhetorician of the 18th century. S. S. Dumarce (“Treatise on Paths”) still adhered to the traditional definition of catachresis, believing that it represented an expansive interpretation of the word, fraught with abuse. But already in early XIX V. P. Fontanier ("Classical textbook for the study of tropes") defined catachresis as an erased or exaggerated M. It is traditionally believed that a trope differs from a figure in that without tropes speech is generally impossible, while the concept of a figure embraces not only tropes, but also figures, serving simply as a decoration for speech that need not be used. In Fontanier's rhetoric, the criterion of a figure is its translatability. Since catachresis, unlike M., is untranslatable, it is a trope, and, in contrast to traditional rhetoric (this contrast is emphasized by Genette), Fontanier believes that catachresis is a trope that is not at the same time a figure. Therefore, the definition of catachresis as a special kind of M. allows us to see in M. a mechanism for the generation of new words. In this case, catachresis can be presented as a stage of demetaphorization, at which it is lost, forgotten, deleted from the dictionary modern language"content" M.

Fontanier's theory is closely related to the debate about the origin of language that arose in the second half of the 18th century. If J. Locke, W. Warburton, E.-B. de Condillac and others developed theories of language as an expression of consciousness and imitation of nature, then J.-J. Rousseau (“Essay on the Origin of Language”) proposed a theory of language, one of the postulates of which was the assertion of the primacy of figurative meaning. A century later, F. Nietzsche (“On Truth and Lies in the Extramoral Sense”) developed a similar theory, arguing that truths are M., about which they have forgotten what they are. According to Rousseau’s (or Nietzsche’s) theory of language, not M., dying, turns into catachresis, but, on the contrary, catachresis is restored to M., there is no translation from literal into figurative language (without postulating such a translation, no traditional theory M.), but, on the contrary, the transformation of figurative language into quasi-literal. It is precisely this theory of M. that was created by J. Derrida (“White Mythology: Metaphor in a Philosophical Text”). The theory of M., not related to the consideration of the relationship of similarity, forces us to reconsider the question of the iconicity of M. C. S. Peirce once considered M. as an iconic metasign, representing the representative character of the representamen by establishing its parallelism with something else.

According to W. Eco (“Parts of the Cinematic Code”), the iconicity of cinematography is neither a logical truth nor an ontological reality, but depends on cultural codes. Thus, in contrast to traditional ideas about M., the theory of M. that is emerging today understands this trope as a mechanism for generating names, which by its very existence asserts the primacy of the figurative meaning.

The first group of theories of M. considers it as a formula for replacing a word, lexeme, concept, name (nominative construction) or “representation” (construction of “primary experience”) with another ersatz word, lexeme, concept, concept or contextual construction containing the designations “ secondary experience" or signs of another semiotic. order (“Richard the Lionheart”, “lamp of reason”, eyes - “mirror of the soul”, “the power of words”; “and the stone word fell”, “you, centuries of the past, decrepit sowing”, “Onegin” the airy mass stood above like a cloud) me" (Akhmatova), "the wolfhound age", "a deep swoon of lilacs, and sonorous steps of colors" (Mandelshtam). An explicit or implicit connection of these concepts in a speech or mental act (x as y) is produced in the course of replacing one circle of meanings ( "frame", "scenario", in the words of M. Minsky) with other or other meanings through subjective or conventional, situational or contextual redefinition of the content of the concept ("representation", "semantic field of the word"), carried out while maintaining the background generally accepted ("objective" , “objective”) meaning of a lexeme, concept or concept. Such “objectivity” itself (objectiveness of meaning) can only be preserved “translinguistically”, by social conventions of speech, cultural norms, and is expressed, as a rule, by substantive forms. This group of theories emphasizes semantics. incomparability of elements forming relations of replacement, “synopsis of concepts”, “interference” of the concepts of the subject and definitions, qualifications, connections of semantics. functions of image (“representation”) and value expression or appeal. Not only departments can be replaced. semantic elements or concepts (within one system of meanings or frameworks of correlation), but entire systems of meanings indexed in specific terms. "discursive-rhetorical context" dept. M.

M.'s theories are also grouped around methodological principles. ideas of "semantically anomalous" or "paradoxical predication". M. in this case is interpreted as an interactional synthesis of “imaginative fields”, “spiritual, analogizing the act of mutual coupling of two semantic regions” that form a specific. the quality of obviousness or imagery. “Interaction” here means subjective (free from normative regulations), individual operating (interpretation, modulation) with generally accepted meanings (semantic conventions of subject or existential connectives, predicates, semantic, value meanings of the “existence” of an object). (“A mirror dreams of a mirror”, “I am visiting a memory”, “troubles are missing us”, “the rosehip was so fragrant that it even turned into a word”, “and now I am writing, as before, without blots, my poems in a burnt notebook” ( Akhmatova), “But I forgot what I want to say, and the disembodied thought will return to the palace of shadows” (Mandelshtam), “in the structure of the air there is the presence of a diamond” (Zabolotsky). speech or intellectual action, emphasizes the functional meaning of the semantic convergence or connection of two meanings used.

The theories of substitution summed up the experience of analyzing the use of metaphor in relatively closed semantic spaces (rhetorical or literary traditions and group canons, institutional contexts), in which the metaphorical subject itself is quite clearly defined. utterance, its role, and its recipient or addressee, as well as the rules of metaphor. substitution, accordingly, of the norms for understanding metaphor. Before the modern era, there was a tendency for strict social control over newly introduced metaphors (fixed by oral tradition, a corporation or class of singers and poets, or codified within the framework of normative poetics of the classicist type, such as, for example, the French Academy of the 17th-18th centuries), the residuals of which preserved in the pursuit of hierarchy. division of the “high”, poetic. and everyday, prosaic. language. The situation of modern times (subjective lyrics, modern art, non-classical science) is characterized by a broad interpretation of music as a process of speech interaction. For researchers who share the predicate or interactional paradigm of metaphor, the focus of attention shifts from listing or containing descriptions of the metaphors themselves to the mechanisms of their formation, to the situational (contextual) rules and norms of metaphors subjectively developed by the speaker himself. synthesis of a new meaning and the limits of its understanding by others, the Crimea is addressed to a statement constituted by a metaphor - to a partner, reader, correspondent. This approach significantly increases thematic field of study of M., making it possible to analyze its role outside of tradition. rhetoric, considered as the main. structure of semantic innovation. In this capacity, mathematics is becoming one of the most promising and developing areas in the study of the language of science, ideology, philosophy, and culture.

From the beginning of the 19th century. (A. Bizet, G. Feichinger) and to this day, this means that part of the research on M. in science is devoted to identifying and describing the functional types of M. in various types. discourses. The simplest division is associated with the division of erased (“cold”, “frozen”) or routine M. - “bottle neck”, “table leg”, “clock hands”, “time goes or stands”, “golden time”, “flaming chest", this also includes the whole metaphor of light, mirror, organism, birth, flourishing and death, etc.) and individual M. Accordingly, in the first case, connections between M and mythology are traced. or traditional consciousness, semantics are revealed. the roots of the significance of M. in rituals or magic. procedures (methodology and cognitive techniques of disciplines gravitating towards cultural studies are used). In the second case, the emphasis is on the analysis of the instrumental or expressive meaning of M. in systems of explanation and argumentation, in suggestive and poetic. speeches (works of literary scholars, philosophers and sociologists dealing with issues of the cultural foundations of science, ideology, historians and other specialists). At the same time, “nuclear” (“root”) M. are distinguished, defining axiomatic ones—ontological ones. or methodical - a framework of explanation that embodies the anthropopol. representations in science in general or in particular. its disciplines and paradigms, in the spheres of culture, and occasional or contextual M., used by the department. by researchers for their own explanatory or argumentative purposes and needs. Of particular interest to researchers are the basic, root M., the number of which is extremely limited. The appearance of new M. of this genus means the beginning of specialization. differentiation in science, the formation of “regional” (Husserl) ontologies and paradigms. Nuclear M. defines general semantics. the framework of the disciplinary “picture of the world” (ontological construction of reality), the elements of which can unfold in departments. theory designs and concepts. These are the fundamental mathematics that arose during the formation of modern science - the “Book of Nature”, which is “written in the language of mathematics” (Galileo’s metaphor), “God as a watchmaker” (respectively, the Universe is a clock, a machine or a mechanical system) etc. Each similar metaphor. education sets the semantic framework of the methodology. formalization of private theories, semantic. rules for reconciling them with more general conceptual contexts and scientific paradigms, which provides science with a common rhetoric. empirical interpretation scheme observations, explanations of facts and theories. evidence. Examples of nuclear M. - in economics, social and historical. sciences: about how an organism (biol. system with its own cycles, functions, organs), geol. structure (formations, layers), structure, buildings (pyramid, base, superstructure), machine (mechanical system), theater (roles), social behavior as text (or language); balance of forces of interests) and actions of various. authors, balance (scales); "invisible hand" (A. Smith), revolution. Expansion of the scope of conventional use of M., accompanied by methodological codification of situations of its use, turns M. into a model, scientific concept or term with a definition. volume of values. These are, for example, the main concepts in natural sciences sciences: particle, wave, forces, voltage, field, arrow of time, primary. explosion, attraction, swarm of photons, planetary structure of the atom, inform. noise. black box, etc. Each conceptual innovation affecting the structure of a disciplinary ontology or basic methods. principles, is expressed in the emergence of new M.: Maxwell's demon, Occam's razor. M. do not simply integrate specialists. spheres of knowledge with the sphere of culture, but are also semantic structures that define. characteristics of rationality (its semantic formula) in one or another area of ​​human. activities.

Lit.: Gusev S.S. Science and metaphor. L., 1984; Theory of metaphor: Sat. M., 1990; Gudkov L.D. Metaphor and rationality as a problem of social epistemology M., 1994; Lieb H.H. Der Umfang des historischen Metaphernbegriffs. Koln, 1964; Shibles W.A. Metaphor: An annotated Bibliography and History. Whitewater (Wisconsin), 1971; Theorie der Metapher. Darmstadt, 1988; Kugler W. Zur Pragmatik der Metapher, Metaphernmodelle und histo-rische Paradigmen. Fr./M., 1984.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓