Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Metonymy

5,244 bytes removed, 19:27, 20 May 2019
The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).
{{Top}}métonymie{{Bottom}}
===Linguistic Definition===
[[Metonymy]] is usually defined as a [[trope]] in which a term is used to denote an [[object]] which it does not literally refer to, but with which it is closely linked. This link may be one of [[physical]] contiguity, but not necessarily.
===Roman Jakobson===
However, [[Lacan]]'s use of the term owes little to this definition apart from the [[notion]] of contiguity, since it is inspired by the [[work]] of [[Roman Jakobson]], who established an opposition between [[metonymy]] and [[metaphor]].<ref>[[Roman Jakobson|Jakobson, Roman]]. "Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances," ''Selected Writings'', vol. II, ''[[Word]] and Language'', The [[Hague]]: Mouton, 1971 [1956]., p. 21.</ref>
===Metonymic Axis of Language===Following [[MetonymyJakobson]], [[Lacan]] [[links]] is usually defined as a trope in which a term is used to denote an [[objectmetonymy]] which it does not literally refer to, but with which it is closely linked.This link may be one the combinatorial axis of physical contguity[[language]], but not necessarilyas opposed to the [[substitutive]] axis.
Metonymy is a figure ===Diachronic Dimension of speech that involves transferring a name from one thing to another Signifying Chain===In his most detailed work on the basis of certain typical kinds of relations: designating the effect with the causesubject, the whole with a part, the contents with its container. An example would be "a sail on the horizon" for "a ship on the horizon."Metonymy is a fundamental notion supporting [[Lacan's thesis that "]] defines [[metonymy]] as the unconscious is structured like a language." It is analogous with the Freudian concept of "displacement" [[diachrony|diachronic]] relation between one [[signifier]] and refers to [[another]] in the problematic of desire and demand[[signifying chain]].
===Metonymy Versus Metaphor===
[[Metonymy]] thus concerns the ways in which [[signifier]]s can be combined / linked in a single [[signifying chain]] ("horizontal" relations), whereas [[metaphor]] concerns the ways in which a [[signifier]] in one [[signifying chain]] may be substituted for a [[signifier]] in another [[chain]] ("vertical" relations). Together, [[metaphor]] and [[metonymy]] constitute the way in which [[signification]] is produced.
However, Lacan's use of the term owes little to this definition apart from the notionn of contiguity, since it is inspired by the work of [[Roman Jakobson]], who established an opposition between [[metonymy]] and [[metaphor]].<ref>Jakobson 1956</ref>Following [[Jakobson]], [[Lacan]] links metonymy to the combinatorial axis of [[language]], as opposed to the substitutive axis.(For example, in the sentence 'I am happy,' the relation between the words 'I' and 'am' is a metonymic relation, whereas the possibility of substituting 'sad' ===Formula for 'happy' depends on the metaphoric relation between these two terms.)Metonymy===In his most detailed work on the subject, [[Lacan]] defines [[metonymy]] as the [[diachrony|diachronic]] relation between one [[signifier]] and another in the [[signifying chain]].[[Metonymy]] thus concerns the ways in which [[signifier]]s can be combined/linked in provides a single [[signifying chain ('horizontal' relations), whereas [[metaphor]] concerns the ways in which a [[signifier]] in one [[signifying chain]] may be substituted for a [[signifier]] in another chain ('vertical' relations).Together, [[metaphorformula]] and [[metonymy]] constitute the way in which [[signification]]s is produced.[[Lacan]] provides a formula for [[metonymy]].<ref>{{E}} p. 164</ref>This formula is to be read as follows.On the lefthand side of the equation, outside the brackets, [[Lacan]] writes ''f'' '''S''', the signifying function, which is to say the effect of [[signification]].Inside the brackets he writes '''S . . . S'''', the link between one [[signifier]] and another in a [[signifying chain]].On the righthand side of the equation there is '''S''', the [[signifier]], and ( - ), the [[bar]] of the [[Saussure]]ean algorithm.The sign = is to be read 'is congruent with'.Thus the whole formula reads: "the signifying function of the connection of the signifier with the signifier is congruent with maintenance of the bar."The formula is meant to illustrate [[Lacan]]'s thesis that in [[metonymy]] the [[resistance]] of [[signification]] is maintained, the [[bar]] is not crossed, no new [[signified]] is produced.
Lacan proposed the following symbolic formula for metonymy[[Image:This formula represents the fact that any new signifier (S0) intervenes because it is contiguous with a prior signifier (S). Metonymy is best illustrated by the kind of displacement that takes place in dreams.The Freudian concept of displacement emphasizes the shift of value and of meaning. What usually happens is that words and feelings, in a distorted and disguised form, are transferred to nearby material. Lacan insisted that -metonymy resists being meaningful by always producing apparent nonsense, as is usually the case with the manifest content of a dream. jpg|center]]
[[Lacan]] puts his concept of [[metonymy]] This formula is to use in a variety of contexts.== Metonymy and Desire==[[Lacan]] presents [[metonymy]] as a [[diachrony|diachronic]] movement from one [[signifier]] to another along the [[signifying chain]], as one [[signifier]] constantly refer sto another in a perpetual deferral of meaning.[[Desire]] is also characterized by exactly the same never-ending process of continual deferral; since [[desire]] is always "Desire for something else,"<ref>E. 167</ref> be read as soon as the [[object]] of [[desire]] is attained, it is no longer desirable, and the [[subject]]'s [[desire]] fixes on another [[object]].Thus [[Lacan]] writes that "desire ''is'' a metonymy."<ref>E 175</ref>follows:
== Metonymy and Displacement==On the lefthand side of the [[Lacanalgebra|equation]] also fllows , [[Jakobsonoutside]] in linking the brackets, [[metaphorLacan]]-writes '''<i>f</i>''' '''S''', the [[metonymypaternal function|signifying function]] distinction , which is to say the mechanisms effect of the [[dream worksignification]] described by . [[FreudInside]]the brackets he writes '''S .However. . S'''', he differs from [[Jakobson]] over the precise nature of this link.Just as between one [[displacementsignifier]] is logically prior to and another in a [[condensationsignifying chain]], so [[metonymy]] is the condition for [[metaphor]], because "the coordination of signifiers has to be possible before transferences of the signified are able to take place."<ref>S3. 229</ref>
On the righthand side of the [[algebra|equation]] there is '''S''', the [[signifier]], and ('''---'''), the [[bar]] of the [[Saussure]]ean [[sign|algorithm]]. The [[sign]] <b>=</b> is to be read "is congruent with."
== Another Definition =Formula for Metonymy - Summary===Thus the [[whole]] formula reads:
<blockquote>"The signifying function of the connection of the signifier with the signifier is congruent with maintenance of the bar."</blockquote>
To The formula is meant to illustrate [[Lacan]]'s [[thesis]] that in [[metonymy]] the overall conception [[resistance]] of linguistics he borrows from Saussure Lacan adds Roman Jakobson’s distinction between metaphor and metonymy:[[signification]] is maintained, the [[bar]] is not crossed, no new [[signified]] is produced.
On the basis ===Contexts===[[Lacan]] puts his [[concept]] of a distinction between two kinds of aphasia, Jakobson distinguished two fundamentally opposed axes of language: the metaphorical axis which deals with the selection of linguistic items and allows for their substitution, 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 use in praesentia)a variety of contexts. (Evans 111)
That is, metaphor can be seen as having a vertical relationship, in which the line between the signifier ===Metonymy and the signified is crossed, Desire===[[Lacan]] presents [[metonymy]] 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 [[diachrony|diachronic]] movement from Evans 111). A compression of linguistic space and relations, metaphor is the direct substitution of one [[signifier for ]] to another such that along the second signifier ("the sun") supersedes the first (glorious, bright[[signifying chain]], fair, beautiful) in relation to the signified ("Juliet"). This process is the basic structure of identification as it occurs in the imaginary "since one [[itsignifier] consists in substituting oneself for ] constantly refers to 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 perpetual [[deferred action|deferral]] of the process of symbolising the imaginary: "if the symptom is a metaphor, it is not a metaphor to say so […[signification|meaning]] the symptom is a metaphor" (Ecrits 175).
The second term which Lacan borrows from Jakobson to fill out his understanding of the symbolic order [[Desire]] is metonymy: "following Jakobson, Lacan links metonymy to also characterized by exactly the combinatorial axis same never-ending [[process]] of language, as opposed to the substitutive axiscontinual [[deferred action|deferral]]; since [[desire]] is always " (Evans 113). If metaphor is a process of substitution, whereby one signifier comes to stand in desire for another in relation to a given signifiedsomething else, then metonymy is a purely diachronic movement above the barrier separating signifier from signified"<ref>{{E}} p. In contrast to 167</ref> as soon as the vertical motion [[object]] of metaphor[[desire]] is attained, 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 generatedno longer desirable, and the symbolic’s dependence [[subject]]'s [[desire]] fixes on the metonymic function of signifier relations thus becomes the primary focus of Lacan’s concern with languageanother [[object]]. He emphasises the metonymic deferral of meaning Thus [[Lacan]] writes 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)"desire ''is'' a metonymy. 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"<ref>{{E}} p.175</ref>
== Miscellaneous =Metonymy and Displacement===Primal repression and [[Lacan]] also follows [[Jakobson]] in linking the [[metaphor of ]]-[[metonymy]] [[distinction]] to the name mechanisms of the Father impose the mediation of a signifier upon desire[[dream work]] described by [[Freud]]. The signifier of However, he differs from [[Jakobson]] over the name precise [[nature]] of the Father initiates the alienation of desire in language. Desire can no longer operate directlythis link. Insofar Just as it takes [[displacement]] is logically prior to [[condensation]], so [[metonymy]] is the form of speech and is expressed as demandcondition for [[metaphor]], desire becomes nothing more than a reflection of itself. Increasingly lost in because "the chain coordination of [[signifiers, desire refers ]] has to an indeterminate series be possible before transferences of objects, one after another, that the signified are substitutes for the lost object (das Ding), and thus it refers able to an indeterminate series of signifiers that symbolize these substitutive objectstake [[place]]."<ref>{{S3}} p.229</ref>
Desire always refers to something fundamentally other than the objects it aims for or the signifiers that symbolize them. Thus desire inevitably follows the path of metonymy. Because desire is expressed by a symbolizing demand, it always designates a desire for the whole (the lost object) by expressing a desire for a part (the substitute object), just as the metonymic figure "a sail on the horizon" designates the whole (a ship) by a part (a sail).  == See Also =={{See}}* [[CondensationBar]]* [[Desire]]||
* [[Displacement]]
* [[Language]]
||
* [[Metaphor]]
* [[Signification]]
||
* [[Signifier]]
* [[SignificationSignifying chain]]* [[Desire]]* [[Roman Jakobson]]  {{Also}}
== References ==
<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>
 
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]]
[[Category:Jacques Lacan]]
[[Category:Linguistics]]
[[Category:Dictionary]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Symbolic]]
[[Category:Concepts]]
[[Category:Terms]]
[[Category:OK]]
* Lacan Jacques. (1993). The seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book 3: The psychoses (Russell Grigg, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1981; originally presented 1955-1956)* ——. (1998). Le séminaire. Book 5: Les formations de l'inconscient, 1957-1958. Paris: Seuil.* ——. (2002).Écrits: A selection (Bruce Fink, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton__NOTOC__
Anonymous user
Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/Special:MobileDiff/8359...46546"

Navigation menu