论文部分内容阅读
虽然传统隐喻研究中的隐喻意义与非隐喻意义之分为隐喻研究抓住了问题的根本,但这也为研究隐喻的本质和工作机制的研究带来了束缚。在尼采和德里达的视野里,这种区分既非准确也非必要,因为在他们看来,从来就没有那种纯粹的隐喻意义和非隐喻意义,在话语的使用中人们所拥有的只是二者的“博弈”(interplay of the literal and nonliteral)。隐喻在尼采看来就是非“真实”的艺术想象力,而对德里达来说就是书写中的“印迹”。印迹的生命史又告诉我们隐喻的意义,即隐喻的本质以及认知机制则在于话语的运动中。
Although the metaphorical research divides the metaphorical meaning into the metaphorical research in the traditional metaphorical research, it grasps the root of the problem, but this also brings the restriction to the study of the essence and working mechanism of metaphor. In the Nietzsche and Derrida perspectives, this distinction is neither accurate nor necessary, since in their opinion there is no purely metaphorical or non-metaphorical meaning in which people have only two ’S “gameplay” (interplay of the literal and nonliteral). The metaphor appears to Nietzsche to be “nonrealistic” artistic imagination, and to Derrida the “imprint” in writing. The history of imprinting again tells us the meaning of metaphor, that is, the essence of metaphor and the cognitive mechanism lies in the movement of discourse.