...
首页> 外文期刊>Psychoanalytic Inquiry >Metaphor and Metonymy as the Basis of a New Psychoanalytic Language
【24h】

Metaphor and Metonymy as the Basis of a New Psychoanalytic Language

机译:隐喻和转喻作为一种新的精神分析语言的基础

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Metaphors are “in terms of” relationships whereas metonymies are “stands for” or “belongs to” relationships. These relationships are basic on the linguistic, mental, and developmental level. They are therefore suitable for a psychoanalytic framework language capable of uniting the psychoanalytic schools and achieving a rapprochement to those cognitive sciences which already see the mind's functioning as based on metaphor and metonymy. Psychoanalysis with its dialectic between past, present, and future yields a temporal dimension to metaphor: Mentation at one time is understood in terms of mentation at another time—therefore metaphorically (“in terms of”). If metaphoric “in terms of” flexibility is lost, a metonymic (neurotic) “stands for” or “belongs to” relationship holds between issues rooted in different times. It is this temporal dimension of metaphor and metonymy which can conceptually bridge the cognitive sciences with psychoanalysis. The main psychodynamic concepts transference, interpretation, and defense, if slightly reformulated, become relevant within and without the treatment setting. They all can be seen as relating issues from different times flexibly (metaphorically) or neurotically (metonymically) with each other. This leads to conceptualizing transference, interpretation, and defense as having two variants: A metaphoric (healthy) and metonymic (neurotic) one. Psychoanalytic theory was burdened by a one-sided focus on clarification at the expense of enigmatization, both being important aspects of metaphor. The enigmatization, not understood in its theoretical centrality, was therefore collectively enacted as a Babel-like confusion between psychoanalytic languages. The central importance of metaphor and metonymy was not theorized.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2010.515872
机译:隐喻是“关系”,而代名词是“代表”或“属于”关系。这些关系是在语言,心理和发展水平上的基础。因此,它们适合于一种心理分析框架语言,该语言能够使精神分析学派团结起来,并与那些已经将思维的功能基于隐喻和转喻的认知科学融为一体。心理分析及其在过去,现在和未来之间的辩证关系产生了一个隐喻的时间维度:一次的思考是在另一次的思考中进行的,因此是隐喻的(就其而言)。如果失去了隐喻性(就灵活性而言),则代名词(神经病)“代表”或“属于”属于不同时期的问题之间的关系。隐喻和转喻的时间维度可以在概念上将认知科学与心理分析联系起来。如果略微重新定义,则主要的心理动力学概念的转移,解释和防御在治疗环境之内和之外都将变得重要。它们都可以被视为彼此灵活地(隐喻地)或神经系统地(隐喻地)在不同时间关联问题。这导致将转移,解释和防御概念化为两个变体:隐喻的(健康的)和转喻的(神经病的)。精神分析理论的一个方面是侧重于澄清,却以牺牲为代价,这两个方面都是隐喻的重要方面。因此,从理论上的中心地位无法理解的这种迷惑被集体地表述为精神分析语言之间的类似巴贝尔的混乱。隐喻和转喻的中心重要性尚未得到理论化。 google,more“,发布号:” ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b“};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2010.515872

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号