·ûºÅÓ봫ý:×ܵÚ11¼­:2015Çï¼¾ºÅ:11

·ûºÅÓ봫ý:×ܵÚ11¼­:2015Çï¼¾ºÅ:11 ½ÚÑ¡

¡¡¡¡¡¶·ûºÅÓ봫ý£¨2015Çï¼¾ºÅ11£©¡·£º¡¡¡¡All the while£¬ I will be particularly interested in establishing if.there issuch a thing as pictorial metaphors £¨See Sonesson£¬ 2003£©.According to Lakoff£¬ metaphoricity depends on cognitive£¬ rather than linguistic£¬structures£¬ and thus may well be identical for language and pictures as well asother visual s'igns.Indeed£¬ this seems'to be taken for granted by£¬ for instance£¬ Charles Forceville £¨2004¡ª2009£©.Among students of pictorialsemiotics£¬ on the contrary£¬ the conclusion has been£¬ as we will see£¬ thatthere can be no pictorial metaphors£¬ although other rhetorical figures are possible.I will suggest£¬ however£¬ that given the functional definition of themetaphor£¬ inspired as much in Max Black £¨1962£© as in Peirce£¬ pictorial metaphors exist£¬ but are differently manifested from those of verballanguage.On the other hand£¬ the picture is an iconic sign£¬ whether it contains metaphors or not£¬ which is to say that all pictures share a property with metaphors£¬ whether pictorial or not£º that of being an iconic sign.¡¡¡¡Metaphor is£¬ together with metonymy£¬ one of the most abused terms ofsemiotics£¬ starting from Jakobson's £¨1942£© equation of the former with the syntagm£¬ and the latter with the paradigm.This amounts to a confusion ofrelationships within sign systems with relationships between particular sign tokens or secondary relationships between signs.Indeed£¬ metaphors£¬ likemetonymies£¬ are either created in a particular given text£¬ or they are stock images£¬ which relate signs£¬ or at least sign contents£¬ in stable relations£¬whereas syntagms and paradigms are constant primary relationships between signs.Moreover£¬ the similarity present in a paradigm is often simply the position in the syntagm£¬ whereas some more pregnant similarity relation is required in the metaphor.¡¡¡¡¡­¡­