Met Me Met Mad
Was feeling way out of my league (not in a positive sense) during today's lesson with my glaring technical weakness in linguistics creeping in. Sought reprieve through the reading of various madmen like Lacan, Saussure and Derrida. Set me thinking on the use of Metaphor and Metonyms in Discourse. Set me writing this short rant on it. May not be accurate, but does reflect present, mad thoughts.
Linguistic analysis requires its practitioners to possess assumptions that communication and its communicator is conscious. Lacan's development of Freudian Linguistics and interpretation on the unconscious slippages which constitute, to a large extent, the contents of daily discourse, causes one to pause and reflect on the adequacy of such assumptions. Therein lies the difficulties in a Pragmatic Analysis of Metonymy and Metaphors, as they are reflection on the unconscious, rather than conscious, speech.
The difficulties in understanding text belies a simplistic notion that every unit in language is able to be understood. A signifier attains meaning only in relation to its contrastive signifier, e.g. "pleasing" and "painful". This results in infinite chains of reference in the language, and with further chains within a single word developing, the tasks of mere perception and linkage of chains in understanding discourse may prove inadequate. Linkages may not be linear, i.e., they may have to create a net-like structure, in contrast to its various opposites, to create a full meaning of the signifier. Metaphors and Metonyms are reflection of a non-linear linkage.
The nature, function and the effects created by Metaphors and Metonyms create a far greater problem for Pragmatists as Metaphors are deliberately used to emphasize the separation of the real from the present state, and any analysis could only reflect the seperation, not the state. Metonyms, on the other hand, use symbols to elicit further qualities on the signified. Again, the problem lies in the description of the qualities: though it may create a mental picture of the signified, the signified is only seen through its qualities and loses its being, which is akin to the post-modern "I-Me" differentiation.
Communication and Linguistics has evolved to a present post-modern state where Centrality, Static States and Statements, and Objectivity has had to give way to a Diverse, Fluid, and Subjective Universe where traditional assumptions and notions have to be reconsidered. The use of Metaphors and Metonyms is but a small reflection of this new state, and "Me" in relation to reality may have to give way to the "I", which in turn may evolves into "-"?
Linguistic analysis requires its practitioners to possess assumptions that communication and its communicator is conscious. Lacan's development of Freudian Linguistics and interpretation on the unconscious slippages which constitute, to a large extent, the contents of daily discourse, causes one to pause and reflect on the adequacy of such assumptions. Therein lies the difficulties in a Pragmatic Analysis of Metonymy and Metaphors, as they are reflection on the unconscious, rather than conscious, speech.
The difficulties in understanding text belies a simplistic notion that every unit in language is able to be understood. A signifier attains meaning only in relation to its contrastive signifier, e.g. "pleasing" and "painful". This results in infinite chains of reference in the language, and with further chains within a single word developing, the tasks of mere perception and linkage of chains in understanding discourse may prove inadequate. Linkages may not be linear, i.e., they may have to create a net-like structure, in contrast to its various opposites, to create a full meaning of the signifier. Metaphors and Metonyms are reflection of a non-linear linkage.
The nature, function and the effects created by Metaphors and Metonyms create a far greater problem for Pragmatists as Metaphors are deliberately used to emphasize the separation of the real from the present state, and any analysis could only reflect the seperation, not the state. Metonyms, on the other hand, use symbols to elicit further qualities on the signified. Again, the problem lies in the description of the qualities: though it may create a mental picture of the signified, the signified is only seen through its qualities and loses its being, which is akin to the post-modern "I-Me" differentiation.
Communication and Linguistics has evolved to a present post-modern state where Centrality, Static States and Statements, and Objectivity has had to give way to a Diverse, Fluid, and Subjective Universe where traditional assumptions and notions have to be reconsidered. The use of Metaphors and Metonyms is but a small reflection of this new state, and "Me" in relation to reality may have to give way to the "I", which in turn may evolves into "-"?
posted by Tormented genius at 5:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home