Changes

"=====Definition=====[[metaphorMetaphor]]" (is usually defined as a [[Frtrope]]. ''in which one [[thing]] is described by comparing it to [[métaphoreanother]]''), but without directly asserting a comparison.

=====Jacques Lacan=====However, [[Lacan]]'s use of the term owes little to this definition and much to the [[work]] of [[MetaphorRoman Jakobson]] is usually defined as , who, in a trope major article published in which one thing is described by comparing it to another1956, but without directly asserting a comparisonestablished an opposition between [[metaphor]] and [[metonymy]].

[[Metaphor]] thus corresponds to [[Saussure]]'s paradigmatic relations (which hold ''in absentia'') and [[metonymy]] to [[syntagmatic]] relationships (which hold ''in praesentia'').<ref>Jakobson, Roman. (1956) "Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. ''Selected Writings'', vol. II, ''[[Word]] and Language'', The [[Hague]]: Mouton, 1971, pp. 239--59.</ref>

However=====Influence=====[[Lacan]], like many [[Lacanother]] [[French]]'s use intellectuals of the term owes little to this definition [[time]] (such as [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] and much [[Roland Barthes]]), was quick to the work of take up [[Roman Jakobson]], who, in a major article published in 1956, established an opposition between 's [[interpretation|reintepretation]] of [[metaphor]] and [[metonymy]].

On In the basis of a distinction between two kinds of aphasia, very same year that [[Jakobson]] distinguished two fundamentally opposed axes of 's seminal article was published, [[languageLacan]]: the refers to it in his [[metaphorseminar]]ical axis which deals with and begins to incorporate the selection of opposition into his [[linguistic]] terms and allows for their substitution, and the [[metonymy|metonymic]] axis which deals with the combination rereading of [[linguisticFreud]] items (both sequentially and simultaneously).<ref>{{S3}} p. 218-20, 222-30</ref>

A year later he dedicates a [[Metaphorwhole]] thus corresponds paper to a more detailed [[Saussureanalysis]]of the opposition.<ref>{{L}} 's paradigmatic relations (which hold ''in absentia'') and [[metonymySeminar V|Le Séminaire. Livre V. Les formations de l'inconscient, 1957-58]] to syntagmatic relationships (which hold ''in praesentia'').<ref>Jakobson, unpublished. 1956</ref>

[[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]].=====Algebraic Formula===== In the very same year that [[Jakobson]]'s seminal article was published, [[Image: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> A year later he dedicates a whole paper to a more detailed analysis of the oppositionfirstmetaphor.<ref>Lacan. 1957b.</ref> -- Following [[Jakobson]]'s [[identification]] of [[metaphor]] with the substitutive axis of [[language]], [[Lacan]] defines [[metaphor]] as the substitution of one [[signifierjpg|center]] for another, and provides the first formula of [[metaphor]].<ref>{{E}} p.164</ref>  --

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."

[[Image:Lacan--secondmetaphor.jpg|center]]

=====Signification=====The [[idea ]] behind this rather obscure formulation is that there is an inherent [[resistance]] to [[signification]] in [[language]] (a [[resistance]] which is [[symbolize]]d by the [[bar]] in the [[Saussure]]an [[sign|algorithm]]).

The formula is meant to illustrate [[Lacan]]'s [[thesis ]] that this operation, the production of [[meaning]], which [[Lacan]] calls "[[signification]]", is only made possible by [[metaphor]].

[[MeaphorMetaphor]] is thus the passage of the [[signifier]] into the [[signified]], the creation of a new [[signified]].---

=====Second Formula=====[[Lacan]] presents another formula for [[metaphor]] in a paper written a few months later.<ref>{{E}} p.200</ref> --

<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]].

=====Repression and Neurotic Symptoms=====[[Lacan]] argues that [[repression]] ([[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]].

=====The Anal Drive=====In his paper, '"[[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|On transformations of instinct as exemplified in anal eroticism]]"', [[Freud]] shows how [[anal eroticism ]] is closely connected with the possibility of substitution. [[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 [[structure]]d 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 [[Lacansubject]] takes this as grounds for linking anal eroticism to of [[metaphorlack]], 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>

<blockquote>The anal level is the locus of metaphor - one object for another, gives the faeces in place of the phallus.<ref>==See Also=={{S11See}}{{Also}} p.104</ref></blockquote>

===Identification=References==[[Metaphor]] is also the [[structure]] of [[identification]], since the latter consists in substituting oneself for another.<ref>{{S3}} p.218<references/ref>

<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>{{S8Encore}} ppp.53</ref></blockquote>112, 120, 127, 128