Lecture
Almost every word has its own meaning. Yet we often use words not in their own sense but figuratively. This happens in everyday life (the sun rises; the rain drums on the roof), and it occurs even more often in literary works. Thus, already in the opening lines of Pushkin's «October 19» (1825) — «The forest sheds its crimson raiment,/Frost silvers the withered field» — of nine linguistic units only three appear in their literal sense. It is no accident that A.A. Potebnya held: «...poetry is always allegory»1. The scholar distinguished figurativeness «in the broad sense of the word,» which he took to include the problem of the poetic image, from figurativeness «in the narrow sense» — as «transference (metaphoricity)». Words used in a figurative sense are called tropes (from Gr. tropos — a turn, a turn of phrase).
The doctrine of tropes took shape in ancient poetics and rhetoric3. Aristotle already divided words into common and rare ones, including «transferred» words. He called the latter metaphors: «this is an alien name transferred from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy»4. Later, in literary scholarship, each variety of trope (all of which Aristotle called metaphor) received its own name. However, both in ancient stylistics and in modern literary studies, emphasis is placed on the well-established property of tropes — to mute, and at times even to destroy, the basic meaning of a word. Tropes can be regarded as a form of the author's presence in the text, as «overt ways of modeling the world.» Their properties are studied in the branch of theoretical poetics that B.V. Tomashevsky and V.M. Zhirmunsky called poetic semantics5. Sometimes tropes are classed among the devices of minor figurativeness. D.S. Likhachev treats them within the «poetics of literary devices»6.
Among literary theorists there is no unanimity as to what counts as a trope. Everyone recognizes metaphor and metonymy as tropes. Other varieties of trope — even such traditional ones as epithet, simile, synecdoche, periphrasis — are called into question. There is no unanimity regarding personification, symbol, allegory, oxymoron (another spelling occurs — oxymoron). Also classed among the tropes is irony (here we mean the rhetorical-stylistic device, not the aesthetic category). (concluded from Timofeev)
30. Tropes: metaphor, types of metaphor – allegory, personification.
Almost every word has its own meaning. Yet we often use words not in their own sense but figuratively. This happens in everyday life, and it occurs even more often in literary works. Words used in a figurative sense are called tropes (from Gr. tropos — a turn, a turn of phrase).
The doctrine of tropes took shape in ancient poetics and rhetoric3. Aristotle already divided words into common and rare ones, including «transferred» words. He called the latter metaphors: «this is an alien name transferred from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy»4. Later, in literary scholarship, each variety of trope (all of which Aristotle called metaphor) received its own name (which is what will be discussed below). However, both in ancient stylistics and in modern literary studies, emphasis is placed on the well-established property of tropes — to mute, and at times even to destroy, the basic meaning of a word. V.I. Korolkov, writing about tropes, spoke of «an "unusual" (from the standpoint of ancient theorists) two-plane use of a word, in which its sound realizes two meanings at once — the allegorical and the literal».
Tropes can be regarded as a form of the author's presence in the text, as «overt ways of modeling the world.» Sometimes tropes are classed among the devices of minor figurativeness.
Among literary theorists there is no unanimity as to what counts as a trope. Everyone recognizes metaphor and metonymy as tropes. Other varieties of trope — even such traditional ones as epithet, simile, synecdoche, periphrasis — are called into question. There is no unanimity regarding personification, symbol, allegory, oxymoron (another spelling occurs — oxymoron). Also classed among the tropes is irony.
Metaphor (from Gr. metaphora — transfer). In essence a metaphor is a comparison, but in it the conjunctions usual in such comparisons — «as,» «like,» «as though» — are absent and merely implied. In metaphor, as in comparison, two or more semantic planes are combined, but on their basis there arises, unlike a two-term comparison, a single, indivisible image.
Poetic metaphor is of the same nature as linguistic metaphor and at the same time differs from it, chiefly in its expressiveness and novelty.
The authors of «rhetorics» and later researchers supplemented the classification of metaphors proposed in Aristotle's «Poetics.» In the main, two types of metaphor are distinguished. In the first case, «phenomena of the inanimate world,»2, «objects and phenomena of dead nature»3 are likened to human feelings and properties, to the living world in general. This identification of nature and man is called anthropomorphism.
In the second case the metaphor arises in exactly the opposite way: natural phenomena, «features of the external world,»4 are transferred onto man, onto phenomena of inner, spiritual life.
Another classification of metaphors is possible. But that is not the main point. Let us note only that practically any part of speech can become a metaphor. As is evident from the examples cited above, there are adjective-metaphors: «paled stars» (V. Bryusov); verb-metaphors: «The day grew faint, and the crimson west/Proudly closed its fiery eyes» (V. Bryusov); «...the wind long since had murmured/and swept past over me...» (F. Sologub), which are mostly personifications; noun-metaphors: «the hopelessness of grief», «the wordlessness of stillness» (K. Balmont). One can also cite examples of metaphor-participles, participial phrases: «feathers nodding from the clouds» (M. Tsvetaeva).
But in all cases what is common, as Potebnya emphasized, is «figurativeness in the narrow sense of the word, transference (metaphoricity), when the image and the meaning belong to orders of phenomena far removed from one another, such as, for example, external nature and personal life».
It is no accident that the question of metaphor (and of tropes as a whole) troubles not only literary theorists. Thus F. Nietzsche saw at the base of our apprehension of the external world an endless process of metaphorization — «bold metaphors».
V.M. Zhirmunsky traced metaphor as a whole back to symbol (from Gr. symbolon — sign, identifying mark), and metonymy — to emblem (from Gr. emblema — raised ornament). In modern literary studies there is a tendency to consider the emblem a variety of metaphor2. It seems to us, however, that Zhirmunsky's remark is correct: «If a symbol signifies something on the principle of resemblance, and thus belongs to the sphere of metaphor — whether it be a rose as a symbol of a maiden or some other traditional image — then the emblem is based not on resemblance but precisely on conventional, traditional usage». As an example of an emblem Zhirmunsky cites lines by A. Fet: «To whom the crown — to the goddess of beauty herself,/Or to her image reflected in the mirror?», commenting on them as follows: «Here «the crown» is used in the sense of preeminence, of superiority, which by tradition is denoted by the act of crowning, the crowning with laurels, coronation upon a throne, and so on. Between the crown and preeminence, superiority, there is no feature of resemblance whatsoever. This is not a symbol but an emblematic sign».
Almost every word has its own meaning. Yet we often use words not in their own sense but figuratively. This happens in everyday life (the sun rises; the rain drums on the roof), and it occurs even more often in literary works. Thus, already in the opening lines of Pushkin's «October 19» (1825) — «The forest sheds its crimson raiment,/Frost silvers the withered field» — of nine linguistic units only three appear in their literal sense. It is no accident that A.A. Potebnya held: «...poetry is always allegory»1. The scholar distinguished figurativeness «in the broad sense of the word,» which he took to include the problem of the poetic image, from figurativeness «in the narrow sense» — as «transference (metaphoricity)»2. Words used in a figurative sense are called tropes (from Gr. tropos — a turn, a turn of phrase).
For literary analysis (as opposed to linguistic analysis) it is extremely important to distinguish common-language tropes, that is, those that have entered the language system and are used by all its speakers, from authorial tropes, which are used only once by a writer or poet in a given specific situation. Only tropes of the second group are capable of creating poetic imagery; the first group – common-language tropes – should, for perfectly understandable reasons, not be taken into account in analysis. The point is that common-language tropes, from frequent and universal use, become as it were «worn smooth,» lose their figurative expressiveness, are perceived as a cliché, and are thereby functionally identical to vocabulary with no figurative meaning at all.
Tropes can be regarded as a form of the author's presence in the text, as «overt ways of modeling the world.» Among literary theorists there is no unanimity as to what counts as a trope. Everyone recognizes metaphor and metonymy as tropes. Other varieties of trope — even such traditional ones as epithet, simile, synecdoche, periphrasis — are called into question. There is no unanimity regarding personification, symbol, allegory, oxymoron (another spelling occurs — oxymoron). Also classed among the tropes is irony (here we mean the rhetorical-stylistic device, not the aesthetic category).
Metonymy. At the base of metonymy (from Gr. metonymia, literally — renaming), as with metaphor, lies allegory, but one conditioned not by resemblance but by contiguity. The formation of metonymy likewise goes back to antiquity. Let us note at once that Zhirmunsky and Tomashevsky did not reduce metonymy to just any transference by contiguity. Zhirmunsky saw as central to «metonymic relations» «not simple, chance contiguity, but some logical unity, some element uniting — whole and part, general and particular»3. Tomashevsky emphasized that «between the literal and figurative meaning of a trope there exists some material dependence, that is, the very objects or phenomena denoted by the literal and figurative meanings stand in a causal or other objective relation»4. Let us cite examples of linguistic metonymy: to drink a glass, to buy a bottle. Matters are more complex with poetic metonymy. In Blok's poem «A Girl Sang in the Church Choir...» we read: «...her white dress sang in the ray of light». Through the image of the girl the countenance of the Mother of God shows through5, and the metonymy underscores the multiple meaning of the image. It is no accident that Zhirmunsky saw in metonymy «a transfer of meaning based on logical connections and meanings»6.
Periphrasis. Metonymy can be subsumed under the broader concept of periphrasis (from Gr. periphrasis — retelling, i.e., the replacement of a direct designation with a descriptive turn of phrase, an indication of the features of an object). A periphrasis may be metonymic («the victor at Austerlitz» instead of the direct designation — Napoleon), or metaphorical (not a bird, but the «winged tribe»). Metonymic periphrasis is widely used in literary speech, for example in O. Mandelstam: «No, not the moon, but a bright dial...»; «No, not a migraine, but the cold of sexless space...».
In literary studies attempts have been made to distinguish two types of poets — metaphorical and metonymic. Thus Zhirmunsky held: «Blok is a poet of metaphor». He called the propensity for metaphor the «stylistic dominant» of the Romantics and the Symbolists3. In Blok and in Bryusov the scholar saw a «passion» for catachresis (from Gr. katachresis — misuse). Under this concept «ancient rhetoric grouped together various cases <...> of internally contradictory images»4. M.L. Gasparov classes as catachresis a metaphor «not felt as a stylistic device, that is, either too habitual («the leg of a chair,» «red ink»), or, more often, too unfamiliar, felt as a flaw (usually in a multi-stage metaphor: «through the tentacles of world imperialism a red thread runs the wave...» — a parodic catachresis in V.V. Mayakovsky)»5.
V.M. Zhirmunsky traced metaphor as a whole back to symbol (from Gr. symbolon — sign, identifying mark), and metonymy — to emblem (from Gr. emblema — raised ornament). In modern literary studies there is a tendency to consider the emblem a variety of metaphor2. It seems to us, however, that Zhirmunsky's remark is correct: «If a symbol signifies something on the principle of resemblance, and thus belongs to the sphere of metaphor — whether it be a rose as a symbol of a maiden or some other traditional image — then the emblem is based not on resemblance but precisely on conventional, traditional usage».
Of course, the division of poets into metaphorical and metonymic is highly conventional, relative. Let us point to an obvious fact: in Blok, the «poet of metaphor,» there are many expressive metonymies (one example was cited above: «...her white dress sang in the ray of light»).
Litotes. Litotes is a trope having the meaning of understatement or deliberate softening. Litotes is a figurative expression, a stylistic figure, a turn of phrase containing an artistic diminution of the magnitude, force, or significance of the object or phenomenon depicted. Litotes in this sense is the opposite of hyperbole, which is why it is also called inverted hyperbole. In litotes, on the basis of some common feature, two heterogeneous phenomena are compared, but this feature is present in the phenomenon that serves as the means of comparison to a considerably lesser degree than in the phenomenon that is the object of comparison. For example: «A horse the size of a cat,» «A man's life is but an instant,» and so on. In essence litotes is extremely close to hyperbole in its expressive value, which is why it can be regarded as a kind of hyperbole. In old works on rhetoric, hyperbole was divided into «increase» (Anc. Gr. αὔξησις auxesis) and «decrease» (ταπινωσις tapinosis or μείωσις meiosis). On the other hand, by its verbal structure litotes can be classified as a simile, a metaphor, or an epithet. Many litotes are set phrases or idioms: «a snail's pace,» «a stone's throw,» «next to no money,» «the sky seemed no bigger than a sheepskin.» Litotes occurs in folk and literary fairy tales: «Tom Thumb,» «the little peasant no bigger than a fingernail,» «Thumbelina.»
Hyperbole. Hyperbole is a stylistic figure of overt and deliberate exaggeration, aimed at heightening expressiveness and underscoring the thought expressed, for example «I've said this a thousand times» or «we have enough food to last six months.» Hyperbole is often combined with other stylistic devices, lending them a corresponding coloring: hyperbolic comparisons, metaphors, and so on («the waves rose like mountains»). The character or situation depicted may likewise be hyperbolic. Hyperbole is characteristic also of the rhetorical, oratorical style, as a means of pathetic elevation, as well as of the Romantic style, where pathos borders on irony. Among Russian authors, Gogol was especially inclined to hyperbole; among the poets, Mayakovsky.
Irony. Irony (from Anc. Gr. εἰρωνεία — «pretense») is a trope in which the true meaning is hidden or contradicts (is opposed to) the overt meaning. Irony creates the sense that the subject under discussion is not what it seems. By Aristotle's definition, irony is «an utterance containing mockery of one who genuinely thinks so». Irony is the use of words in a negative sense, directly opposite to the literal one. Example: «Well, aren't you brave!», «So clever, so clever…». Here positive statements carry a negative subtext. Forms of irony: Direct irony — a means of belittling, of lending a negative or comic character to the phenomenon described. Anti-irony is the opposite of direct irony and allows the object of the anti-irony to be presented as underrated. Self-irony is irony directed at oneself. In self-irony and anti-irony, negative statements may imply the reverse (positive) subtext. Example: «As if the likes of us fools could ever manage.» Socratic irony is a form of self-irony constructed so that the object to whom it is addressed seems to arrive independently at the natural logical conclusions and discovers the hidden meaning of the ironic statement, following the premises of a subject who «does not know the truth.» An ironic worldview is a state of mind that allows one not to take common assertions and stereotypes on faith, and not to treat various «universally recognized values» too seriously.
Tropes are a property not only of poetry but also of prose. Let us recall the description of the blizzard from Pushkin's «The Captain's Daughter»: «The wind howled, a snowstorm arose. In an instant the dark sky merged with the sea of snow. Everything vanished». Further on, Pushkin, narrating from the perspective of the main character, Petrusha Grinev, seems to apologize for the metaphoricity of his prose, for the device of personification: «The wind howled with such fierce expressiveness that it seemed alive...» Almost a hundred years later A. Bely turns in his prose to poetic figurativeness without any reservation whatsoever. Figurativeness becomes the stylistic dominant of his prose: «Through my room the outer world distinctly pushed its way in — that is, what had fallen away from me and on which dreams flitted, sticking like wallpaper to the concealed rooms; and through them, from the corners, there flowed a current of gloomy life...» («Kotik Letaev»). Here every word is a trope. In this Bely is a disciple of Gogol, who held: «A novel, though written in prose, can nonetheless be a poetic creation.»
Comments