Metaphor is a figure of speech that involves designating one thing with the name of another, a process that is carried out essentially by substituting one term for another.
Metaphor is a fundamental notion that Jacques Lacan introduced in relation to his thesis that "the unconscious is structured like a language." He justified its legitimacy principally by analogy with the Freudian mechanism of "condensation," and more generally in relation to the structure of the formations of the unconscious and the metaphorical process of the Name-of-the-Father.
Lacan proposed the following symbolic formula for "[[metaphor ]]" (2002, p[[Fr]]. 190):''[[métaphore]]''
The Lacanian use of metaphor [[Metaphor]] is founded on the principle of usually defined as a signifying substitution that promotes the authority of the signifier over that of the signified. In language, metaphorical substitution most often occurs between two terms on the basis of semantic similarity. At the level of unconscious processes, this similarity trope in which one thing is not always immediately apparentdescribed by comparing it to another, and only but without directly asserting a series of associations can bring it to lightcomparison.
Thus Freudian condensation plays a role in the different unconscious formations, such as dreams and symptoms, for example. Just as the unconscious material in dreams, telescoped by condensations, reappears in a meaningless form in the manifest dream content, so the symptom expresses, in reality, something completely different from what it appears to mean.
The metaphor of the Name-of-the-Father, as it was called by Lacan, is based on the same principle—that of the substitution of signifiers. In this case, the signifier of the Name-of-the-Father substitutes for the signifier of the mother's desire, which thus becomes the object of repression and becomes unconscious.
The "fort/da game" that Freud described (1920g) directly attests to the process However, [[Lacan]]'s use of metaphorization and the repression that is linked term owes little to it. A relation of signifying substitution is established by the child as soon as they "name" the signifying reference this definition and much to the father as the cause work of the mother's absences. In addition to the paternal metaphor[[Roman Jakobson]], which makes it possiblewho, the fort/da game is also inscribed in a double metaphorical process. In itselfmajor article published in 1956, the reel is already a metaphor for the mother, and the game of its presence and absence is another established an opposition between [[metaphor since it symbolizes her departure ]] and return[[metonymy]].
JOËL DOROn the basis of a distinction between two kinds of aphasia, [[Jakobson]] distinguished two fundamentally opposed axes of [[language]]: the [[metaphor]]ical axis which deals with the selection of [[linguistic]] terms and allows for their substitution, and the [[metonymy|metonymic]] axis which deals with the combination of [[linguistic]] items (both sequentially and simultaneously).
See also: Condensation; Displacement; Forgetting; Formations of the unconscious; Letter, the; Linguistics [[Metaphor]] thus corresponds to [[Saussure]]'s paradigmatic relations (which hold ''in absentia'') and psychoanalysis; Matheme; Metonymy; Mirror stage; Name-of-the-Father; Phobias [[metonymy]] to syntagmatic relationships (which hold ''in children; Psychoses, chronic and delusional; Signifier; Signifierpraesentia'').<ref>Jakobson. 1956</signified; Signifying chain; Symptom/sinthome; Topology.Bibliographyref>
* Dor, Joël. (1998). Introduction to the reading of Lacan: The unconscious structured like a language (Judith Feher Gurewich and Susan Fairfield, Eds.). New York: Other Press, 1998. * Freud, Sigmund. (1920g). Beyond the pleasure principle. SE, 18: 1-64. * Lacan, Jacques. (2002).Écrits: A selection (Bruce Fink, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton.-
[[Lacan]], like many other French intellectuals of the time (such as [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] and [[Roland Barthes]]), was quick to take up [[Jakobson]]'s [[interpretation|reintepretation]] of [[metaphor]] and [[metonymy]].
In the very same year that [[Jakobson]]'s seminal article was published, [[Lacan]] refers to it in his [[seminar]] and begins to incorporate the opposition into his [[linguistic]] rereading of [[Freud]].<ref>{{S3}} p.218-20, 222-30</ref>
==new==A year later he dedicates a whole paper to a more detailed analysis of the opposition.<ref>Lacan. 1957b.</ref>
To the overall conception of linguistics he borrows from Saussure Lacan adds Roman Jakobson’s distinction between metaphor and metonymy:--
On the basis of a distinction between two kinds of aphasia, Following [[Jakobson distinguished two fundamentally opposed axes ]]'s [[identificaiton]] of language: [[metaphor]] with the metaphorical substitutive axis which deals with of [[language]], [[Lacan]] defines [[metaphor]] as the selection substitution of linguistic items and allows one [[signifier]] for their substitutionanother, and provides the metonymic axis which deals with the combination first formula of linguistic terms (both sequentially and simultaneously)[[metaphor]]. Metaphor thus corresponds to Saussure’s paradigmatic relations (which hold in absentia) and metonymy to syntagmatic relationships (which hold in praesentia)<ref>{{E}} p. (Evans 111)164</ref>
That is, metaphor can be seen as having a vertical relationship, in which the line between the signifier and the signified is crossed, as the signifier passes over into the signified and a new signifier is produced. For example, in the metaphor "Juliet is the sun" the various signifiers that might have stood in place of "the sun" (glorious, bright, fair, beautiful) thus pass through the barrier between the signifier and the signified, joining that object designated as "Juliet," and become signifieds of the new signifier, "the sun" (this example is drawn from Evans 111). A compression of linguistic space and relations, metaphor is the direct substitution of one signifier for another such that the second signifier ("the sun") supersedes the first (glorious, bright, fair, beautiful) in relation to the signified ("Juliet"). This process is the basic structure of identification as it occurs in the imaginary "since [it] consists in substituting oneself for another" (Evans 113). And insofar as this process escapes full symbolization (i.e. insofar as it is a compression of language that brings the imaginary into play as an equal partner in the linguistic production of meaning), Lacan reads it as the basic structure of the symptom, as an indicator of a breakdown of the process of symbolising the imaginary: "if the symptom is a metaphor, it is not a metaphor to say so […] the symptom is a metaphor" (Ecrits 175).
The second term which Lacan borrows from Jakobson to fill out his understanding of the symbolic order is metonymy: "following Jakobson, Lacan links metonymy to the combinatorial axis of language, as opposed to the substitutive axis" (Evans 113). If metaphor is a process of substitution, whereby one signifier comes to stand in for another in relation to a given signified, then metonymy is a purely diachronic movement above the barrier separating signifier from signified. In contrast to the vertical motion of metaphor, it is a horizontal movement along the chain of signification, as "one signifier constantly refers to another in a perpetual deferral of meaning" (Evans 114). As the only realm in which meaning is generated, the symbolic’s dependence on the metonymic function of signifier relations thus becomes the primary focus of Lacan’s concern with language. He emphasises the metonymic deferral of meaning that takes place in the incessant play of signifiers, referring to the ready movement of the chain of signifiers over the signifieds as glissement (slippage). This designation of the movement along the signifying chain as a slippage emphasises Lacan’s re-writing of Saussure’s concept such that the relationship between signifier and signified ceases to be stable (if arbitrary) and becomes profoundly unstable.-
This formula is to be read as follows.
On the lefthand side of the equation, outside the brackets, [[Lacan]] writes '''<i>f</i>''' '''S''', the signifying function, which is to say the effect of [[signification]].
Inside the brackets, he writes '''S'/S''', which means "the substitution of one signifier for another."
On the righthand side of the equation there is '''S''', the [[signifier]], and '''<i>s</i>''', the [[signified]].
'Metaphor' Between these two [[symbol]]s there is defined as a trope in the [[symbol]] (+) which one thing is described by comparing it to another, but without directly asserting a comparison (with represents the use crossing of the word [[bar]] ('''-''like')of the [[Saussure]]an [[sign|algorithm]], and which represents "the emergence of signification."
The [[sign]] = is to be read: "is congruent with."
Thus the whole formula reads: the signifying function of the substitution of one [[signifier]] for another is congruent with the crossing of the [[bar]].
Lacan's use of the term owes much to the work of [[Roman Jakobson]] who, in a major article published in 1956, established an opposition between metaphor and metonymy.--
Jakobson distinguished two fundamentally opposed axes of alngauge: the metaphorical axis The idea behind this rather obscure formulation is that there is an inherent [[resistance]] to [[signification]] in [[language]] (a [[resistance]] which deals with is [[symbolize]]d by the selection of linguistic items and allows for their substitution, and the metonymic axis which deals with [[bar]] in the combination of linguisitic items[[Saussure]]an [[sign|algorithm]]).
[[Meaning]] does not simply appear spontaneously, but is the product of a specific operation which crosses over the [[bar]].
What The formula is a metaphor?...Itmeant to illustrate [[Lacan]]'s a signifier thesis that takes this operation, the place production of another signifier.[seminar of January 15[meaning]], which [[Lacan]] calls "[[signification]]", 1958 is only made possible by [[metaphor]].
[[CategoryMeaphor]] is thus the passage of the [[signifier]] into the [[signified]], the creation of a new [[signified]].--- [[Lacan]] presents another formula for [[metaphor]] in a paper written a few months later.<ref>{{E}} p.200</ref> -- [[Lacan]]'s own explanation of this second formula is as follows:Symbolic <blockquote>The capital Ss are signifiers, x the unknown signification and s the signified induced by the metaphor, which consists in substitution in the signifying chain of S for S'. The elision of S', represented here by the bar through it, is the condition of the success of the metaphor.<ref>{{E}} p.200</ref></blockquote> ==Contexts==[[Lacan]] puts his concept of [[metaphor]] to use in a variety of contexts. ===The Oedipus Complex===[[Lacan]] analyzes the [[Oedipus complex]] in terms of a [[metaphor]] because it invovles the crucial concept of substitution; in this case, the substitution of the [[Name-of-the-Father]] for the [[desire]] of the [[mother]]. This fundamental [[metaphor]], which founds the possibility of all ther [[metaphors]], is designated by [[Lacan]]as the [[paternal metaphor]]. ===Repression and Neurotic Symptoms===[[Lacan]] argues that [[Category:Termsrepression]] (secondary repression) has the [[structure]] of a [[metaphor]]. The "metonymic object" (the [[signifier]] which is elided, S' in the previous formula) is repressed, but returns in the surplus meaning (+) produced in the [[metaphor]]. The return of the [[repressed]] (the [[symptom]]) therefore also has the [[structure]] of a [[metaphor]]; indeed; [[Lacan]] asserts that "the symptom ''is'' a metaphor."<ref>{{E}} p.175</ref> ===Condensation===[[Lacan]] also follows [[Jakobson]] in linking the [[metaphor]]-[[metonymy]] distinction to the fundamental mechanisms of the dream work described by [[Freud]]. However, he differs from [[Jakobson]] over the precise nature of this parallel. Whereas for [[Jakobson]], [[metonymy]] is linked to both [[displacement]] and [[condensation]], [[metaphor]] to [[identification]] and [[symbolism]], [[Lacan]] links [[metaphor]] to [[condensation]] and [[metonymy]] to [[displacement]]. [[Category:ConceptsLacan]] then argues that just as [[displacement]] is logically prior to [[condensation]], so [[metonymy]] is the condition for [[metaphor]]. ===The Anal Drive===In his paper, 'On transformations of instinct as exemplified in anal eroticism', [[Category:PsychoanalysisFreud]]shows how anal eroticism is closely connected with the possibility of substitution. [[Category:Jacques Lacan]]takes this as grounds for linking anal eroticism to [[metaphor]]. <blockquote>The anal level is the locus of metaphor - one object for another, gives the faeces in place of the phallus.<ref>{{S11}} p.104</ref></blockquote> ===Identification===[[Metaphor]] is also the [[structure]] of [[identification]], since the latter consists in substituting oneself for another.<ref>{{S3}} p.218</ref> ===Love===[[Love]] is structured like a [[metaphor]] since it involves the operation of substitution. <blockquote>It is insofar as the function of the ''érastès'', of the lover, who is the subject of lack, comes in the place of, substitutes himself for, the function of ''érômènos'', the loved object, that the signification of love is produced.<ref>{{S8}} p.53</ref></blockquote>
