Дата публикации 31.10.2019
Когнитивная метафора: вне рамок объективности и субъективности
Абрамова Дарья Дмитриевна
Магистрант кафедры перевода и переводоведения Российского Государственного Социального Университета, firstname.lastname@example.org
Аннотация: В настоящей статье рассматривается утверждение о том, что абстрактные концептуальные понятия структурируются посредством метафорических отображений из областей, основанных непосредственно на опыте. Анализ цитаты философа рационалиста Джона Локка, показал, что она является метафоричной, при условии, что автор утверждает о важности избегании использования сравнений и стилистических средств. Так же, затрагивается история возникновения понятия метафоры, ее роль в когнитивной лингвистике и развитие в российских и зарубежных трудах посвященных этому направлению. Исследовав понятие когнитивной метафоры, высказывается предположение, что данное понятие может быть консолидацией противопоставляемых друг другу понятий – субъективизм и объективизм.
Ключевые слова: когнитивная метафора, ориентационная метафора, объективизм, субъективизм, дуализм, эмпиризм
Master of the Department of translation and translation studies, Russian State Social University
Abstract: This paper discussed the claim that abstract conceptual concepts are structured through metaphorical mappings from domains based directly on experience. Analysis quotes philosopher rationalist John Locke, who shows that it is metaphorical, provided, that the author argues about avoiding the use of comparisons and stylistic funds. It also touches the history of the concept of cognitive metaphor and its development in Russian and foreign linguistics. Having studied the concept of cognitive metaphor, it is suggested that this concept can be a consolidation of opposable concepts-subjectivism and objectivism.
Keywords: Objectivity, dualism, subjectivity, rhetoric, metaphor, concept, cognitive distortion
The model of the world at all times is a dualism. Black and white. Man and woman. Evil and kind. And so on all sides of rationalism and irrationalism. Both trends are fighting for the right to reach the truth. It is also known that mutually exclusive parties acquire small qualities of two opposite properties, which makes impossible the existence of one of the parties without her rival. English writer John Fowles in his work "Aristos" introduced the term counter-support, which means the possibility coexistence mutually exclusive parties to the presence by their conflict. "Fire and water together dominate each other, and each separately — neither to itself nor to something another" [1,с.45].
Which counter-support may glue a rational and irrational way of thinking? Could this contact point give new tools for the work of linguists, philosophers, psychologists, and scientists from various directions in the attainment of truth?
Due to the cradle of the world, all variations of rationalism are good and right. The world is made up of objects. They have specific properties independent of people's perceptions. Science allows us to rise above the senses and reach an understanding that is universally meaningful and objective. Using clear, precise, and simple language, one can accurately speak about the outside world and make statements that can be attributed to false or true. What is rational it's unbiased, it's deprived of emotions generated by human experience, it's objective. Objectivism is a neutral, perfect sphere without taking into account contacts and interaction of social symptoms. Hence, emotions, experiences, desires, allegories – are not subjects of reality, of truth. Objectivism is also motivated by an interest in justice and impartiality in those cases when it is essential and can be achieved in some reasonable way.
The postulates of subjectivity argue that in our lives, the most important feelings, aesthetic perception, moral values, and spiritual revelations. We face an apocentric view of the importance of emotions and desires. The values are individual and due to the fact what it is crucial for a person. Value is always connected with what matters and is essential for a person. What the individual considers necessary and what this means to him is a matter of intuition, imagination, feeling, and individual experience. What this means for an individual cannot become fully known to anyone else or be adequately conveyed in the process of communication. Experience is entirely holistic; there is no natural structured experience of man. Any structure that we or anyone else imposes on our experience is artificial, which takes us away from the physical world.
The contrast of subjectivism and objectivism is so high that it can be found in many aspects of life, as well as in sciences and disciplines. So, in linguistics, this debate was expressed in two leading directions in the development of the world science of language: "abstract objectivism" and "individualistic subjectivism" .
Is it possible to correlate words with the world without taking into account human understanding? Conversely, if statements do not have a system-wide basis?
In search of a contact point of counter-support of objective and subjective, let us scrutinize at first glance a clear on its premise quote by the English philosopher, empiricist John Locke. «How people love to deceive and be deceived, since rhetoric, that powerful instrument of power of error and deceit, has its established professors» [3,с.78].
Lock is against emotional and allusive or somewhat metaphorical speech because it may lead to misconception. At first glance, the philosopher follows his conviction; quota is pure from stylistic devices. Rhetoric is a definition of the art of persuasion. Rhetoric aims to study the capacities of writers or speakers needed to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. Rhetoric is a concept for an abstract phenomenon that cannot be felt physically. Instrument means technical tools, word from area of physical. Something that we use to fix or power the mechanism. The author correlates these two concepts, RHETORIC is an INSTRUMENT. To convey his idea, the author uses the help of comparing two different terms, which gives rise to a metaphor. Probably John Locke was not going to use this technique in his statement because he opposed it. The word tool is used not only in the field of mechanics, and often people replace them with concepts that are going to operate, work, and apply to achieve their goals. Thus we focus on the fact that some object becomes the subject reaching the goal, step back its initial value. We use this technique so often in speech that we do not see any allegory here. Here we come to cognitive metaphor. It is one of the leading mental operations, a way of cognition, structuring, and explanation of the world around us; the intersection of knowledge about one conceptual area in another conceptual area.
A cognitive metaphor is a fundamental association that is systematic in both language and thought. It is one of the essential terms in cognitive linguistics that refers to the process of establishing cognitive connections, or mappings, between several concepts belonging to different domains. The metaphor is "understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another" [4, c. 154].
One of the first who spoke about metaphor was ancient greek philosopher Aristotle. In particular, Aristotle's definitions reflect a multi-aspect and diffuse approach to metaphor. It is "an uncharacteristic name transferred from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy", "to create good metaphors is to notice similarities", "speak about the real and connect it with the impossible" [5, с. 179].
First, in this definition, the metaphor is characterized both from the onomasiological point of view and from the semasiological and semantic .
Secondly, the process of metaphorization by Aristotle, is included in the system of cognitive processes. Cognitive activity-metaphor as a transfer "from genus to species, or from species to species, or from species to species, or by analogy". Thus, the ancient philosopher indicates the ability of "metaphor to penetrate the essence of things ".
Thus, cognitive linguistics, in the study of metaphor, abandons the traditional (dating back to Aristotle) view of it as an “shortened comparison” or a way of “decorating” speech and considers it as an analogical potential of human thinking. N. V. Pecherskaya points out that in cognitive science metaphor acquires, in fact, epistemological status. Now it is considered not only as a means of describing reality, but also as an explicating scheme, a way of constructing possible worlds [6, с. 96].
The main prerequisites of the cognitive approach to the study of metaphor were the position of its mental character (ontological aspect) and cognitive potential (epistemological aspect). The phenomenon of metaphorical thinking drew the attention Of D. Vico, F. Nietzsche, A. Richards, M. Beardsley, H. Ortega y Gasset, E. McCormack, P. Riker, E. Cassirer. In 1967, M. Osborne pointed to the fact that people tend to metaphorically associate power with the top, and all unwanted symbols placed at the bottom of the spatial axis, which, in fact, corresponds to the class of orientation metaphors in the theory of conceptual metaphor .
Most of our fundamental concepts are organized in terminological or several orientational metaphors. We turn to the words of the American psycholinguist, a specialist in cognitive science, Professor, researcher in the field of language and cognition Lera Boroditsky. "the way we talk about complex and abstract ideas is suffused with metaphor" [8, c. 185].
Each of the spatial metaphor has an internal consistency. For example, which is given in the famous work "Metaphors we live by" of Lakoff George and Johnson Mark, the happy IS UP metaphor defines a coherent system, not series of disparate and random metaphors. An example of the breakdown of the system we would have if, say, the phrase I'm feeling up meant 'I feel happy' and the sentence My spirits rose means 'I'm getting sadder. A variety of orientation metaphors embraces the overall system, matching them together. So, that was a GOOD one — the TOP sets orientation is TOP for overall well-being, and this orientation is agreed with the individual cases of the type of HAPPINESS — the TOP HEALTH -ТOP, LIVE — TOP, CONTROL — TOP. Metaphor STATUS - the TOP consistent with the metaphor CONTROL IS TOP" [8, с.38]. Orientation metaphors are rooted in physical and cultural experience; they are used not by chance. Metaphors can serve as a mean of understanding of this or that concept only due to its empirical basis. (Some of the problems associated with the practical basis metaphors are discussed in the next section.)
Metaphors can be based on different physical and social factors and phenomena. Coherence within the standard system seems to explain, in part, the choice of one. For example, the state of happiness in the physical sphere, as a rule, correlates with a smile and the general state of expansiveness. In principle, it could serve as the basis for the metaphor HAPPY IS WIDE; SAD IS NARROW "HAPPINESS - BROAD, SADNESS—NARROW" [9,с.117]. As can be seen, in our culture, the main thing for the corresponding state is the Association of happiness with the top; it is possible to justify why we are talking about the "top of happiness" and not about the "width of happiness." A metaphor for HAPPINESS — the TOP is closely aligned with the metaphors GOOD IS the TOP HEALTH — TOP, etc. [10,с.451].
Truth is based on understanding. A statement can be true or false in a given situation based on cultural experience and conceptual system. The objectivism program cannot give a satisfactory explanation of the phenomena of the conceptual scheme of human thinking and communication.
A conceptual or rather cognitive metaphor is not a "shortened comparison," not one of the ways to decorate speech or even a property of words and the language as a whole. In the view of modern cognitive science, a metaphor is one of the leading mental operations, and it is a way of knowing, structuring, and explaining the world around us. "The metaphor penetrates everyday life, not only in language but also in thinking and action. Our everyday conceptual system, in the language of which we think and act, is essentially metaphorical" .
Given the above, most of the conceptual structure is metaphorical. The conceptual structure is rooted in material and cultural experiences. Consequently, meaning can never be objective; it is always connected with a person and is still based on the use of a conceptual system acquired by a person. Proposals have no intrinsic meanings that exist independently of a person, and communication cannot merely be a transfer of objective meanings. To achieve truth requires understanding, which is impossible without experience.
This is what cognitive metaphors represent - a deep understanding and transformation on an unconscious level of one's existence in time and space, awareness of one's experience of being included in the environments in which our sensations are ordered. The metaphor, according to the researcher M. Minsky, favors the formation of interframe connections, which are unpredictable and characterized by a huge heuristic force .
Summing up the above material, it is suggested that cognitive metaphor has the attributes of subjectivism - personal indexation of the individual, - objectivism - physical and temporal assessment, - empiricism - personal transformation of information into a system. It follows that this concept is a consolidation of the above terms.
It can be concluded, that when we talk about concepts, abstractions, we can't escape from our imagination and sensual, physical, and national experience, which contradicts the idea of objectivity and subjectivity. The concept is fundamentally metaphorical. The contact point of counter-support is cognitive metaphor, which combines mind and imagination.
1.Фаулз Дж. Аристос. М.: АСТ: АСТ МОСКВА. - 2008. – С.216.
2.Волошинов В. Философия и социология гуманитарных наук. М.: АстаПресс.1995. - С. 5 - 22
3. Джон Локк. Опыт о человеческом разумении. Издательство: «УЧПЕДГИЗ» - 1939 – С.355.
4. Lakoff G. Cognitive semantics // Indiana University Press. - 1988. - P. 154.
5. Аристотель. Поэтика // Аристотель. Соч. М. : Мысль. - 1983. С. 645–681.
6.Королева Е.В. Метафора как средство реализации лингво-культурологического кода // Молодой ученый. - С.2016
7. Болдырев Н.Н. Когнитивная семантика. Введение в когнитивную лингвистику: курс лекций. – Тамбов: Издат. дом ТГУ им. Г.Р. Державина. - 2014. – С.236.
8.Boroditsky L. Ramscar M. The Roles of Body and Mind in Abstract Thought // Psychological Science. - 2003. - № 1. - С. 185.
9. Бондарчук Г. Г. Некоторые вопросы теоретического изучения и преподавания современной терминологии // Вестник Московского государственного лингвистического университета. - 2014. - № 1. - С.21–32.
10. Майкова Е. В. Метафора в когнитивной лингвистике // Молодой ученый. -- 2018. - №20. - С. 448-450.
11. Блох М.Я. Теоретические основы грамматики. – Дубна: «Феникс». - 2017. – С.460.
12. Бондарчук Г. Г. Некоторые вопросы теоретического изучения и преподавания современной терминологии // Вестник Московского государственного лингвистического университета. - 2014. - №1 - С. 21–32.