Problems of Metaphor, Film, and Perception
Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapport › Bidrag til bog/antologi › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Problems of Metaphor, Film, and Perception. / Langkjær, Birger.
Embodied Metaphors in Film, Television, and Video Games: Cognitive Approaches. red. / Kathrin Fahlenbrach. New York : Routledge, 2015. s. 115-128 (Routledge research in cultural and media studies; Nr. 76).Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapport › Bidrag til bog/antologi › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - CHAP
T1 - Problems of Metaphor, Film, and Perception
AU - Langkjær, Birger
PY - 2015/10/12
Y1 - 2015/10/12
N2 - Metaphor has been understood and explained within at least two differenttheoretical frameworks. First, metaphor has been considered a special kindof poetic or rhetorical form. In the traditional view of the eighteenth centurymetaphor was conceived of as mainly a decorative trope, or “a sort ofhappy extra trick with words” (Richards 1972 [1936], 90); in the modernview it is creative, interactive, and also part of everyday language (Richards1972 [1936]; Black 1962). Despite these differences, both decorative andcreative views conceive metaphors as specific and manifest stylistic featuresthat trigger a comparison between two things of different kinds. Second,in conceptual metaphor theory, metaphor is not only claimed to be widespreadbut also a constituent of everyday language. Further, conceptualmetaphors structure not language only but also thinking, perception, andaction (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). In this view, metaphors are conceptualstructures that in a systematic fashion underpin manifest metaphors. In thefirst theoretical framework, the move from language to images and othermodalities is a difficult one and many scholars who are skeptical about thevalue and evidence of visual or multimodal metaphors embrace this viewon metaphor. In the second, no such move is needed because metaphorsare considered as conceptual structures. The move from specific instancesto deep structure, from language to concepts, frees the metaphor fromsentence structures that—however central to metaphors—seem incompatiblewith visual forms of representation. Those scholars who embrace thisview on metaphor tend to be very positive about visual and multimodalmetaphors.In this article I will show that both pessimists and optimists are wrongbut for different reasons. The article first presents the trope-view onmetaphor and some examples of visual and multimodal metaphors arediscussed. It is argued that the lack of syntax and the perceptual singularityof visual depictions are not as big a problem as some like to think. Thenthe concept-view on metaphor is presented and, again, some related visualand/or multimodal examples are discussed. It is argued that the reference tothought and action can be quite deceptive and implies some serious pitfalls.Yet it can also have explanatory value.
AB - Metaphor has been understood and explained within at least two differenttheoretical frameworks. First, metaphor has been considered a special kindof poetic or rhetorical form. In the traditional view of the eighteenth centurymetaphor was conceived of as mainly a decorative trope, or “a sort ofhappy extra trick with words” (Richards 1972 [1936], 90); in the modernview it is creative, interactive, and also part of everyday language (Richards1972 [1936]; Black 1962). Despite these differences, both decorative andcreative views conceive metaphors as specific and manifest stylistic featuresthat trigger a comparison between two things of different kinds. Second,in conceptual metaphor theory, metaphor is not only claimed to be widespreadbut also a constituent of everyday language. Further, conceptualmetaphors structure not language only but also thinking, perception, andaction (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). In this view, metaphors are conceptualstructures that in a systematic fashion underpin manifest metaphors. In thefirst theoretical framework, the move from language to images and othermodalities is a difficult one and many scholars who are skeptical about thevalue and evidence of visual or multimodal metaphors embrace this viewon metaphor. In the second, no such move is needed because metaphorsare considered as conceptual structures. The move from specific instancesto deep structure, from language to concepts, frees the metaphor fromsentence structures that—however central to metaphors—seem incompatiblewith visual forms of representation. Those scholars who embrace thisview on metaphor tend to be very positive about visual and multimodalmetaphors.In this article I will show that both pessimists and optimists are wrongbut for different reasons. The article first presents the trope-view onmetaphor and some examples of visual and multimodal metaphors arediscussed. It is argued that the lack of syntax and the perceptual singularityof visual depictions are not as big a problem as some like to think. Thenthe concept-view on metaphor is presented and, again, some related visualand/or multimodal examples are discussed. It is argued that the reference tothought and action can be quite deceptive and implies some serious pitfalls.Yet it can also have explanatory value.
M3 - Book chapter
SN - 9781138850835
T3 - Routledge research in cultural and media studies
SP - 115
EP - 128
BT - Embodied Metaphors in Film, Television, and Video Games
A2 - Fahlenbrach, Kathrin
PB - Routledge
CY - New York
ER -
ID: 142042302