‘apahasia as a linguistic topic’ in Selected Writings: Word and Language
in this volume, this essay precedes the ‘two types’ essay more routinely cited.
232: “The two opposite tropes, metaphor and metonymy, present the most condensed expression of two basic modes of relation: the internal relation of similarity (and contrast) underlies the metaphor; the external relation of contiguity (and remoteness) determines the metonymy.”
“Language in its various aspects deals with both modes of relation. Whether messages are exchanged or communication proceeds unilaterally from the addresser to the addressee, there must be some kind of contiguity betweent he participants of any speech event to assure the transmission of the message. The separation in space, and often in time, between two individuals, the addresser and the addressee, is bridged by an internal relation: there must be a certain equivalence between the symbols used by the addresser and those known and interpreted by the addressee. Without such equivalence the message is fruitless–even when it reaches the receiver, it does not affect him.”
notes: metonymy as external relation, emphasis on remoteness (and presumably nearness); mode of relation [so emerson’s focus on relations fits this linguistic understanding Jakobson offers. also see that metonymy/contiguity is basis for communication: for transmission of message; and metaphoric for interpretation. So metonymy thus focused more on medium; and metaphor on message?
235: describes the similarity disorder: those who can’t make internal relation/substitituion based on similarity that associates with metaphor. thus tend toward metonymy. notes that this means they can’t do metalanguage.
236: the attention is focused upon contiguity.the most frequently used words are the ‘indices of relations” found in conjunctions, pronouns, articles
the opposite disorder: patient cannot operate with contiguity, but can use similarity. lose ability to “propositionize. The context disintegrates” relational words omitted.
does ‘propositionize’ or sense of build meaning through context compare to emerson’s notion of analogizing?
His concluding paragraph, 238: “While each of these two types of aphasia tends toward unipolarity, normal verbal behavior is bipolar. But any individual use of language, any verbal style, any trend in verbal art displays a clear predilection either for the metonymical or for the metaphorical device.”
any comparisons to be made with Hayles on deep vs. hyper attention?
