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).

The second term which Lacan borrows from Jakobson to fill out his understanding On the basis of the symbolic order is metonymy: "following Jakobson, Lacan links metonymy to the combinatorial axis a [[distinction]] between two kinds of language[[aphasia]], as [[Jakobson]] distinguished two fundamentally opposed to the substitutive axis" (Evans 113). If metaphor is a process axes 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 [[language]]: the barrier separating signifier from signified. In contrast to the vertical motion of [[metaphor, it is a horizontal movement along ]]ical axis which deals with the chain selection of signification[[linguistic]] [[terms]] and allows for their substitution, as "one signifier constantly refers to another in a perpetual deferral of meaning" (Evans 114). As and the only realm in [[metonymy|metonymic]] axis which meaning is generated, the symbolic’s dependence on the metonymic function of signifier relations thus becomes the primary focus of Lacan’s concern deals with language. He emphasises the metonymic deferral combination 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 [[linguistic]] items (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 both sequentially and signified ceases to be stable (if arbitrarysimultaneously) and becomes profoundly unstable.

=====Influence=====[[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> A year later he dedicates a [[Categorywhole]] paper to a more detailed [[analysis]] of the 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:SymbolicLacan-firstmetaphor.jpg|center|200px|First formula of metaphor]] This formula is to be read as follows. On the lefthand side of the equation, [[Categoryoutside]] 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]]. Between these two [[symbol]]s there is the [[symbol]] (+) which represents the crossing of the [[bar]] ('''-''') 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:Termsthe signifying function of the substitution of one [[signifier]] for another is congruent with the crossing of the [[bar]]. [[CategoryImage:ConceptsLacan-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 [[language]] (a [[resistance]] which is [[symbolize]]d by the [[bar]] in the [[Saussure]]an [[sign|algorithm]]). [[Meaning]] does not simply appear spontaneously, but is the product of a specific operation which crosses over the [[bar]]. 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]]. [[Metaphor]]is thus the passage of the [[signifier]] into the [[signified]], the creation of a new [[signified]]. =====Second Formula=====[[CategoryLacan]] 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:Psychoanalysis <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. =====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 [[metaphor]], is designated by [[Lacan]] as the [[paternal metaphor]]. =====Repression and Neurotic Symptoms=====[[Lacan]] argues that [[repression]] ([[secondary repression]]) has the [[structure]] of a [[metaphor]]. The "[[Categorymetonymic]] [[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|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]]. [[Lacan]] then argues that just as [[displacement]] is logically prior to [[condensation]], so [[metonymy]] is the condition for [[metaphor]]. =====The Anal Drive=====In his paper, "[[Sigmund Freud:Jacques 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 [[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> ==See Also=={{See}}{{Also}} ==References==<references/> {{OK}} __NOTOC__ {{Encore}} pp. 112, 120, 127, 128