Axiological Potential of Metaphors in Modern English Drama

Abstract

The article is devoted to axiological marking of speech metaphors in English stylized communication within drama discourse. Modern drama discourse, being the discursive space of its own status, unites the characteristics of belle-lettres discourse and colloquial speech, due to which the traditional linguistic markers of fiction obtain new meanings. While embedding into the context of stylized communication, metaphors significantly extend their functional paradigm, the centre of which is now taken by axiological function with expressive and emotive actualization. The article is aimed at systematization and linguistic interpretation of speech metaphors in English-language drama with the purpose of adequate determination of their evaluative potential and their role in linguistic representation of linguocultural axiosphere. The axiological nature of metaphors as their leading characteristic in the English-language drama has not previously been the subject of a separate linguistic study. The empirical base of the research includes 200 metaphors and metaphorical complexes recorded in modern English-language plays; the  method of complex linguoaxiological interpretation was employed as the main one. In the course of the study, the boundaries of structural variation of axiological metaphors in the English-language drama discourse were determined and their leading patterns were identified, such as one-component metaphorical nominations, multi-component metaphorical nominations and metaphorical complexes. Besides, the types of thematic transfers of speech metaphors were determined, with attention being paid to the implementation of their evaluative function in the utterance. The defined system of evaluative objects within metaphorical evaluative statements allowed to identify the components of English linguocultural axiosphere which are conceptualized in drama with the help of various structural and thematic metaphorical types, namely 'family', 'intellect', 'truth'. Each of these axiological dominants acts as a value guideline in the English-language linguoculture being linguistically marked by a certain set of metaphors fulfilling their interdiscoursive evaluative potential

 

About the authors

Yu. S. Starostina

Samara National Research University

Author for correspondence.
Email: juliatim@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1578-7590

Candidate of Philological Sciences, associate professor, Department of English Philology

Russian Federation, 34, Moskovskoye shosse, Samara, 443086, Russian Federation

References

  1. Ananko 2017 – Ananko T. (2017) The category of evaluation in political discourse. Advanced Education, no. 8, pp. 128–137. DOI: http://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.108550.
  2. Banaruee еt al. 2019 – Banaruee H., Khoshsima H., Zare-Behtash E. & Yarahmadzehi N. (2019) Types of metaphors and mechanisms of comprehension. Cogent Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–9. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1617824.
  3. Fountaine, Stavick 2004 – Fontaine J., Stavick J. (2004) Like nobody else: the secrets of metaphorical style. DELTA, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 49–75. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502004000100003.
  4. Kotlyarova еt al. 2015 – Kotlyarova V.V., Roudenko A.M., Shubina M.M. and Shestakov Y.A. (2015) Explication of the methodological difficulties of modern axiology. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 477–482. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3s1p477.
  5. Manoliu 2016 – Manoliu M.N. (2016) The dramatic discourse. International Journal of Communication Research, vol, 6, no. 1, pp. 23–27. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5040/9781472593603.0044.
  6. Musolf 2012 – Musolff A. (2012) The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 301–310. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2012.688300.
  7. Travers, Smith, Ellis 2011 – Travers N., Smith B. and Ellis L. (2011) Language of evaluation: how PLA evaluators write about student learning. Prior, Experiential and Informal Learning in the Age of Information and Communication Technologies, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 80–95. DOI: http://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i1.946.
  8. Arakelova 2016 – Arakelova A.R. (2016) Value of a linguokognitive category. Collection of publications of the scientific journal «Archivarius» based on the materials of the X international research and practical conference: «Science in the modern world». Kyiv: Arkhivavarius, pp. 47–52. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26485154. (In Russ.)
  9. Voyakina 2012 – Voyakina E.Yu. (2012) Interdiscourse potential of metaphor (based on onomastic metaphor in the economic discourse). Bulletin of the Center for International Education of Moscow State University. Philology. Culturology. Pedagogy. Methodology, no. 4, pp. 7–11. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=18358824. (In Russ.)
  10. Didenko 2016 – Didenko V.V. (2016) Methodological problems of modern axiological linguistics. In: Modern problems of literary criticism, linguistics and communication through the eyes of young scientists: traditions and innovation. Ufa: Bashkirskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, pp. 120–126. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26431147. (In Russ.)
  11. Zaitseva 2019 – Zaitseva I.P. (2019) About the originality of the manifestation of the aesthetic function in modern dramatic discourse. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 673–686. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2019-10-3-673-686. (In Russ.)
  12. Zinkovskaya 2015 – Zinkovskaya A.V. (2015) Dramatic discourse as a basically new discursive formation. The Bulletin of the Adyghe State University, the series «Philology and the Arts», no. 2 (153), pp. 36–42. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23935741. (In Russ.)
  13. Karasik 2019 – Karasik V.I. (2019) Values as culturally significant landmarks of behavior. In: Humanitarian technologies in the modern world: collection of materials of the VII International Research and Practical Conference. Kaliningrad: Zapadnyi filial Rossiiskoi akademii narodnogo khoziaistva i gosudarstvennoi sluzhby pri Prezidente Rossiiskoi Federatsii, pp. 22–25. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=38551762&pf=1. (In Russ.)
  14. Leonovich, Kharkovskaya 2016 – Leonovich M.L., Kharkovskaya A.A. (2016) Irony as a marker of the personages' speech behavior in modern English drama discourse. Vestnik Samarskogo universiteta. Istoriia, pedagogika, filologiia = Vestnik of Samara University. History, pedagogics, philology, no. 1, pp. 185–190. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27215678. (In Russ.)
  15. Mechkovskaya 2019 – Mechkovskaya N.B. (2019) Assessments in language and in speech acts: what is controversial in linguistic axiology? In: Axiological aspects of modern philological research: abstracts of reports of international scientific conference (UrFU, October 15–17, 2019). Yekaterinburg: Izdatel'skii dom «Azhur», pp. 42–44. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ruitem.asp?id=41372995; https://elar.urfu.ru/bitstream/10995/77284/1/978-5-91256-452-9_2019_18.pdf. (In Russ.)
  16. Chekulai еt al. 2014 – Chekulai I.V., Prokhorova O.N., Bagana Zh., Kuprieva I.A. (2014) The principle of evaluative actualization in modern English. Moscow: Infra-M, 160 p. (In Russ.)
  17. Serebrennikova 2011 – Serebrennikova Ye.F. (2011) Aspects of axiological linguistic analysis. In: Ethnosemiometry of value meanings. Irkutsk: IGLU, pp. 8–62. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=32514708. (In Russ.)
  18. Starostina 2008 – Starostina Ju.S. (2008) Linguistic Markers of Stylized Spoken English (System Characteristics). In: Communicative and cognitive aspects of linguistic research in Germanic languages: International collection of scientific articles. Samara: Samarskii universitet, pp. 214–221. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25121769. (In Russ.)
  19. Strokan 2020 – Strokan Ye.V. (2020) Lexical Means of Evaluation Representation: Unity and Struggle of Opposites (by the Material of the English-Language Articles on the British Monarchy). Philology. Theory and Practice, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 229–236. DOI: http://doi.org/10.30853/filnauki.2020.5.45. (In Russ.)

Statistics

Views

Abstract: 188

PDF (Russian): 123

Dimensions

PlumX

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Starostina Y.S.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies