Changes

On the basis of =====Definition=====[[Metaphor]] is usually defined as a distinction between two kinds of aphasia, Jakobson distinguished two fundamentally opposed axes of language: the metaphorical axis [[trope]] in which deals with the selection of linguistic items and allows for their substitutionone [[thing]] is described by comparing it to [[another]], and the metonymic axis which deals with the combination of linguistic terms (both sequentially and simultaneously). Metaphor thus corresponds to Saussure’s paradigmatic relations (which hold in absentia) and metonymy to syntagmatic relationships (which hold in praesentia)but without directly asserting a comparison. (Evans 111)

That is=====Jacques Lacan=====However, 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 [[Lacan]]'s use 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" (term owes little to this example is drawn from Evans 111). A compression of linguistic space definition 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 much to the signified ("Juliet"). This process is the basic structure [[work]] of identification as it occurs in the imaginary "since [it[Roman Jakobson] consists ], who, 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 major article published in the linguistic production of meaning), Lacan reads it as the basic structure of the symptom1956, as established an indicator of a breakdown of the process of symbolising the imaginary: "if the symptom is a opposition between [[metaphor, it is not a metaphor to say so ]] and [[…metonymy]] the symptom is a metaphor" (Ecrits 175).

On 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). [[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 second term which [[Hague]]: Mouton, 1971, pp. 239-59.</ref> =====Influence=====[[Lacan borrows from ]], like many [[other]] [[French]] intellectuals of the [[time]] (such as [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] and [[Roland Barthes]]), was quick to take up [[Jakobson to fill out his understanding ]]'s [[interpretation|reintepretation]] of [[metaphor]] and [[metonymy]]. In the symbolic order is metonymy: "following very same year that [[Jakobson]]'s seminal article was published, [[Lacan links metonymy ]] 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 combinatorial opposition.<ref>{{L}} ''[[Seminar V|Le Séminaire. Livre V. Les formations de l'inconscient, 1957-58]]'', unpublished.</ref> =====Substitution=====Following [[Jakobson]]'s [[identification]] of [[metaphor]] with the substitutive axis of [[language]], [[Lacan]] defines [[metaphor]] as the substitution of one [[signifier]] for another, and provides the first [[formula]] of [[metaphor]].<ref>{{E}} p.164</ref> =====Algebraic Formula=====[[Image:Lacan-firstmetaphor.jpg|center|200px|First formula of metaphor]] This formula is to be read as opposed 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 substitutive axissubstitution of one signifier for another."  On the righthand side of the equation there is '''S''', the [[signifier]], and '''<i>s</i>''', the [[signified]]. Between these two [[symbol]]s there is the [[symbol]] (+) which represents the crossing of the [[bar]] (Evans 113'''-''')of the [[Saussure]]an [[sign|algorithm]], and which represents "the emergence of signification. If metaphor " The [[sign]] = is to be read: "is a process congruent with." Thus the whole formula reads: the signifying function of the substitution, whereby of one [[signifier comes to stand in ]] for another is congruent with the crossing of the [[bar]]. [[Image:Lacan-secondmetaphor.jpg|center|200px|Second formula of metaphor]] =====Signification=====The [[idea]] behind this rather obscure formulation is that there is an inherent [[resistance]] to [[signification]] in relation to [[language]] (a given signified[[resistance]] which is [[symbolize]]d by the [[bar]] in the [[Saussure]]an [[sign|algorithm]]). [[Meaning]] does not simply appear spontaneously, then metonymy but is the product of a purely diachronic movement above specific operation which crosses over the barrier separating signifier from signified[[bar]]. In contrast  The formula is meant to illustrate [[Lacan]]'s [[thesis]] that this operation, the vertical motion production of [[meaning]], which [[Lacan]] calls "[[signification]]", is only made possible by [[metaphor]]. [[Metaphor]] is thus the passage of the [[signifier]] into the [[signified]], it 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> [[Lacan]]'s own explanation of this second formula is a horizontal movement along as follows: <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 significationS for S'. The elision of S', represented here by the bar through it, as "one signifier constantly refers is the condition of the success of the metaphor.<ref>{{E}} p.200</ref></blockquote> =====Contexts=====[[Lacan]] puts his [[concept]] of [[metaphor]] to another use in a variety of contexts. =====Oedipus Complex=====[[Lacan]] analyzes the [[Oedipus complex]] in terms of a perpetual deferral [[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 meaning" all ther [[metaphor]], is designated by [[Lacan]] as the [[paternal metaphor]]. =====Repression and Neurotic Symptoms=====[[Lacan]] argues that [[repression]] (Evans 114[[secondary repression]])has the [[structure]] of a [[metaphor]]. As  The "[[metonymic]] [[object]]" (the only realm [[signifier]] which is elided, S' in which meaning the previous formula) is generatedrepressed, but returns in the [[surplus]] meaning (+) produced in the [[metaphor]]. The [[return]] of the symbolic’s dependence on [[repressed]] (the metonymic function [[symptom]]) therefore also has the [[structure]] of signifier relations thus becomes a [[metaphor]]; indeed; [[Lacan]] asserts that "[[The Symptom|the symptom]] ''is'' a metaphor."<ref>{{E}} p.175</ref> =====Condensation=====[[Lacan]] also follows [[Jakobson]] in linking the [[metaphor]]-[[metonymy]] distinction to the primary focus fundamental mechanisms of Lacan’s concern with languagethe [[dream]] work described by [[Freud]]. He emphasises  However, he differs from [[Jakobson]] over the metonymic deferral precise [[nature]] of meaning 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]]. [[Lacan]] then argues that takes place just as [[displacement]] is logically prior to [[condensation]], so [[metonymy]] is the condition for [[metaphor]]. =====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 incessant play possibility of signifiers, referring substitution. [[Lacan]] takes this as grounds for linking [[anal eroticism]] to [[metaphor]]. <blockquote>"The [[anal]] level is the ready movement locus of metaphor - one object for another, gives the chain faeces in [[place]] of signifiers over the signifieds as glissement (slippage)[[phallus]]."<ref>{{S11}} p. This designation 104</ref></blockquote> =====Identification=====[[Metaphor]] is also the [[structure]] of [[identification]], since the movement along latter consists in substituting oneself for another.<ref>{{S3}} p. 218</ref> =====Love=====[[Love]] is [[structure]]d like a [[metaphor]] since it involves the signifying chain operation of substitution. <blockquote>"It is insofar as a slippage emphasises Lacan’s re-writing 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 Saussure’s concept such ''érômènos'', the loved object, that the relationship between signifier and signified ceases to be stable (if arbitrary) and becomes profoundly unstablesignification of love is produced."<ref>{{S8}} p. 53</ref></blockquote> ==See Also=={{See}}{{Also}} ==References==<references/> {{OK}} __NOTOC__ {{Encore}} pp.112, 120, 127, 128