Roman Jakobson illustrates the complexity relationship between psychological linguistic and literary criticism. The description begins with a discussion about the relationship between metaphor and metonymy–the two polar types of aphasia, a brain disorder affecting speech. Aphasic disturbance consist some impairment, either for selection and substitution or for combination and contexture. The relation of similarity is suppressed previously, while the contiguity is the latest type of aphasia. Jakobson presumes that metaphor is an alien to the similarity disorder and metonymy to the contiguity disorder. But the discourse happens in the semantic phase where one topic may lead to another either through their similarity or contiguity. Yet, in normal verbal behaviour, metaphor and metonymy reveal under the influence of the cultural pattern and personality, the verbal style preference is given to one of the two processes over the other. Manipulating the similarity and contiguity in positional and semantic aspects is exhibiting someone’s personal style, his verbal predilections and preferences.
In poetry there are various motives determining the choice between metaphor and metonymy. A competition between them is manifested in any symbolic process, either intrapersonal or social. J. G. Frazer principle divides them into two types: charms based on the law of similarity and those based by contiguity. The first of the two great branches of sympathetic magic has been called homeopathic or imitative, and the second is contagious magic. Romantic is closely linked metaphor, whereas reality to metonymy. The similarity in meaning connects the symbols of a metalanguage with the symbols of the language referred to. Similarity connects a metaphorical term with the substituted one.
Poetry is focused upon sign, and pragmatically prose primarily upon referent, tropes, and figures were studied mainly as poetical devices. The principle of similarity underlies poetry; the metrical parallelism of lines or the phonic equivalence of rhyming words prompts the question of semantic similarity and contrast; there exist, for example grammatical and antigrammatical but not a grammatical rhyme. Prose is forwarded essentially by contiguity.
In my opinion, metaphor and metonymy are not language disorder or aphasic disturbance as they are improved along with someone’s development, personality, culture, thought and environment. Both are important types of figurative language deviating on someone’s apprehend as the ordinary or standard, significance or sequence of words to achieve special meaning or effect. Metaphor and metonymy are where one word may be used in place of another. I believe that these two “aphasia disturbance” are come from Saussure theory of sign, which is constituted by an inseparable union of signifier or the speech-sounds or written marks composing the sign and the signified or the conceptual meaning of the sign. So that those are the reason poetry and prose have these to express thought, idea and feeling.
In poetry there are various motives determining the choice between metaphor and metonymy. A competition between them is manifested in any symbolic process, either intrapersonal or social. J. G. Frazer principle divides them into two types: charms based on the law of similarity and those based by contiguity. The first of the two great branches of sympathetic magic has been called homeopathic or imitative, and the second is contagious magic. Romantic is closely linked metaphor, whereas reality to metonymy. The similarity in meaning connects the symbols of a metalanguage with the symbols of the language referred to. Similarity connects a metaphorical term with the substituted one.
Poetry is focused upon sign, and pragmatically prose primarily upon referent, tropes, and figures were studied mainly as poetical devices. The principle of similarity underlies poetry; the metrical parallelism of lines or the phonic equivalence of rhyming words prompts the question of semantic similarity and contrast; there exist, for example grammatical and antigrammatical but not a grammatical rhyme. Prose is forwarded essentially by contiguity.
In my opinion, metaphor and metonymy are not language disorder or aphasic disturbance as they are improved along with someone’s development, personality, culture, thought and environment. Both are important types of figurative language deviating on someone’s apprehend as the ordinary or standard, significance or sequence of words to achieve special meaning or effect. Metaphor and metonymy are where one word may be used in place of another. I believe that these two “aphasia disturbance” are come from Saussure theory of sign, which is constituted by an inseparable union of signifier or the speech-sounds or written marks composing the sign and the signified or the conceptual meaning of the sign. So that those are the reason poetry and prose have these to express thought, idea and feeling.
