Metaphor analysis in Heartbreak House by Bernard Shaw

Different definitions and types of metaphor, stylistic use. Metaphor compared as metonymy. Stylistic use of metaphor in the play "Heartbreak House" by Bernard Shaw. The metaphor is one of the most used stylistic devices in literature and language.
Краткое сожержание материала:

Размещено на

МИНОБР НАУКИ РОССИИ

Федеральное государственное бюджетное

образовательное учреждение

высшего профессионального образования

«Чувашский государственный университет имени И.Н. Ульянова»

Факультет иностранных языков

Кафедра романо-германских языков

КУРСОВАЯ РАБОТА

по дисциплине: Основы теории первого иностранного языка

на тему: Metaphor analysis in "Heartbreak House" by Bernard Shaw

Выполнила:

студентка группы 2А-11

Ретюнская Н. Е.

Научный руководитель:

к. ф. н. доцент

Абрамова А. Г.

г. Чебоксары - 2012 г



CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1. METAPHOR: ITS DEFINITION, TYPES AND STYLISTIC USE

1.1 Different definitions and types of metaphor. Metaphor in Literature and Language

1.2 Metaphor compared as metonymy and simile

CHAPTER 2. STYLISTIC USE OF METAPHOR IN THE PLAY "HEARTBREAK HOUSE" BY BERNARD SHAW

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY



INTRODUCTION

The metaphor is one of the most used stylistic devices in literature and language. During the day we can say any metaphorical statement and even don't notice it, because metaphor is an integral part of our speech long since.

The theme of our paper is hugely topical, because a great number of different books and articles were written concerning the phenomenon of metaphor but the interpretation of this term still is an open question.

The subject of our course work is metaphor.

And the object is different types of metaphors.

So, the aim of writing this course work is the entire investigation of metaphor essence, characteristics, theories, types and use. According to this aim the main task of this paper includes carrying out of metaphor analysis using the example of literary work of English author ("Heartbreak house" by Bernard Shaw).

In compliance with specific purpose and main task of the research the following theoretical and analytical tasks were set in this course work:

1. to examine existing definitions of metaphor and to choose the most appropriate one;

2. to consider the structure and types including categorization of metaphor, review several interesting and contradictory metaphor types;

3. to analyze the use of metaphors in the play "Heartbreak House" by Bernard Shaw.

The methodological and theoretical data base used for writing of this course work includes works of English, Russian and American linguists, scientists, writers.

The first (theoretical) chapter includes the research concerning metaphors theories, metaphor definitions, types and use in different scopes (literary, language) and also philosophical interpretation of metaphors. The second (analytic) chapter of this course work contains the investigation about metaphor analysis with the usage of examples from “Heartbreak house”.

Structurally the course work consists of the introduction, two chapters, conclusion and list of information sources.



CHAPTER 1. METAPHOR: ITS DEFINITION, TYPES AND STYLISTIC USE

1.1 Different definitions and types of metaphor. Metaphor in Literature and Language

Metaphor is a term that can mean a comparison of several objects, a rhetoric figure, a figure of speech, representation of one element using other one and all of this at the same time. There are different definitions of the term “metaphor”; one of them says that metaphor is a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance [10, p. 24]. Another definition of metaphor is a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity [5, p. 51]. According to Davidson, metaphor is the transference of the relation between one set of objects to another set for the purpose of brief explanation [7, p. 18].

An aggregate metaphor (from the Greek: мефбцпсЬ - metaphora, “a transfer”, in rhetoric “transference of a word to a new sense", from мефбцЭсщ - metaphero, "to carry over, to transfer”) is a language tool that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects. In the simplest case, this takes the form: “The [first subject] is a [second subject].” More generally, a metaphor is a rhetorical trope that describes a first subject as being or equal to a second subject in some way. Thus, the first subject can be economically described because implicit and explicit attributes from the second subject are used to enhance the description of the first. This device is known for usage in literature, especially in poetry, where with few words, emotions and associations from one context are associated with objects and entities in a different context [4, p. 72].

Within the non rhetorical theory a metaphor is generally considered to be a concluded equation of terms that is more forceful and active than an analogy, although the two types of tropes are highly similar and often confused. One distinguishing characteristic is that the assertiveness of a metaphor calls into question the underlying category structure, whereas in a rhetorical analogy the comparative differences between the categories remain salient and acknowledged. Similarly, metaphors can be distinguished from other closely related rhetorical concepts such as metonymy, synecdoche, simile, allegory and parable.

The use of metaphor is a dynamic phenomenon which enables us to generate new meanings from old. This process can be illustrated with the phenomenon of metaphorical generalisation. The view that metaphor is a principal avenue by which language progresses is based on the perfectly reasonable assumptions that language has to start somehow, and its initial concerns would have been with items in a speaker's immediate vicinity. A plausible origin myth is that the most primitive linguistic resources provided rudimentary verbal representations for solid sensible objects and for animal and (especially) human activities [4, p.48]. Initially the resources of natural language would presumably have been fairly parsimonious. A problem consists in a question: how could the primitive linguistic resources, grounded in representations for sensible objects and expressions for basic activities, be extended to embrace the higher reaches of abstract thought that we now articulate through the rich resources of natural language. A fundamental mechanism for extending and refining language is metaphor.

We can consider the verb “run”. In its simplest and most basic sense it designates a human (and animal) activity. But through metaphorical extension it comes to be applied to objects which lie outside its basic reference class, such as rivers. The term began with a more limited scope or extension, and when talk first arose of rivers running it must have sounded bizarre. It might well have been objected, when the metaphor was green and fresh, that rivers cannot run: they have no legs. This is a banal example of so-called frozen (or dead) metaphor. Once metaphor freezes (or dies) it becomes an ordinary part of our literal vocabulary. So it comes about that rivers run, taps run and fences run, and they “run” in a way which has generalised the meaning of this expression.

When we speak of fences “running” around a boundary, for example, there is no suggestion of motion. The metaphor has generated a static sense of “running”. Running has acquired the sense of following a path. That has amplified one aspect of the original idea of running, and suppressed other elements. Running is a simple activity which involves putting one leg in front of the other in a certain systematic, sequential and rhythmic fashion. It is a basic activity, but one nevertheless with complicated aspects, and by abstracting certain elements of the activity we are able to produce a generalisation of the basic sense of the word.

Metaphorical extension in this way, starting from the modest beginnings of describing macroscopic objects and simple activities, forges and reshapes concepts and thereby modifies language so that it comes to embrace an ever wider and more complicated repertoire of referents and activities. This process or generalisation and abstraction is a plausible explanation of how it is that we are able to start off with a decidedly limited or restricted set of verbal resources and extend them further, and reshape and refine them, to cope with the ever more complicated world which these very resources help us to create.

Expressions surely must have a deep as well as a surface level. It is at the surface level that we recognize the falsehood of the metaphor, e.g. `Richard is a gorilla' [18, p. 139]. We apprehend immediately that this sentence is not literally true. Indeed if Kripke is right about the meaning of natural kind expressions, not only is Richard not a gorilla, he is necessarily not a gorilla. How can a necessarily false statement provide us with an interesting and possibly useful insight?

The answer presumably is that the words have complex structure, and this structure is revealed by the possibility of meta...