Cognitive Mechanism of Analogy and its Role in Processes of Primary Metaphor Creation
The article deals with the problem of the cognitive nature of metaphor formed in the medium of mythological consciousness of the primitive human. It is supposed that such the main features of the mythological thinking as sensory concreteness and inability to form abstract notions caused the nature of the primary metaphor which was formed through the cognitive mechanism of analogy the surrounding objects and phenomena, and the inner mental states of the human – this metaphor was not linguistic, but concrete and sensory. It is ascertained that the direction of metaphorization in the primitive consciousness was inverted to modern one, because the modern people mind uses more intelligible concrete concepts to express abstract concepts, but the primitive humans conceiving themselves as a part of the nature and understanding their inner world as the outer one projected their inner states, which are comprehended as abstract now, onto the natural phenomena, which can be perceived through the organs of sense. It is argued that formation of critical abstract thinking is related with the development of the human cognitive abilities, what caused the metaphorization veer and also the transition from the mythological mind to linguistic one. It is analyzed three approaches to solving the problem of the relation between language and myth where an important argument was the metaphoricity both of thinking and language: 1) the linguistic theory of myth by M. Müller according to which the loss initial sense of the linguistic metaphor generated myth; 2) the theory of myth based not on the linguistic metaphor, but on the concrete sensory analogy of the real objects and human perceptions (E. Tylor, A. Potebnya); 3) Neo-Kantian theory by E. Cassirer which postulates the simultaneous development of language and myth which have the common sources. It is proved that metaphoricity is inherent in the human mind of every historical period, because the linguistic metaphor is based on the cognitive one, that is the latter makes it possible to comprehend the world and ourselves in this world and express the obtained knowledge by means of language. At the same time, metaphoricity and abstractness of thinking are harmonious processes which provides the productive cognizing of the world and the creative working its results out through the fixation of them in the linguistic forms.
Cienki, A. (1998). Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. ed. Jean-Pierre Konig. Stanford, California: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information). 189–204.
Frazer, J. (1986). Zolotaya vetv [The Golden Bough]. M.: Izd-vo politicheskoy literatury. 704.
Freeman, M. (2003). Poetry and the scope of metaphor: Toward a cognitive theory of literature. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. eds A. Barcelona. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 253–281.
Herder, J. G. (1959). Traktat o proiskhozhdenii yazyka [Treatise on the Origin of Language]. Izbrannye sochineniya. sost. V. M. Zhirmunskiy. M.–L.: Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo khudozhestvennoy literatury. 133–154.
Holyoak, K. J., Stamenkovic, D. (2018). Metaphor Comprehension: A Critical Review of Theories and Evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 144. 6. 641–671.
Jung, C. Ob arkhetipakh kollektivnogo bessoznatelnogo [Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious]. Retrieved from http://gtmarket.ru/laboratory/basis/4229/4232
Kompa, N. (2017). The Myth of Embodied Metaphor. Croatian Journal of Philosophy. 17. 50. 195–210.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. 396.
Kravtsova, Yu. V. (2011). Metaforicheskoe modelirovanie mira: poeziya i proza [Metaphorical modeling of the world: poetry and prose]. K.: Izd-vo NPU im. M. P. Dragomanova. 360.
Kuhn, A. (1859). Die Herabkunft des Feuers und des Göttertranks [The descent of the fire and the deity]. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmler’s Verlagsbuchhandlung. 285.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and Thought. ed. A. Ortony. N. Y.: Cambridge University Press. 202–251.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. N. Y.: Basic Books. 624.
Losev, A. F. (1964). Mifologiya (Mythology). Filosofskaya entsiklopediya. M.: Izdatelstvo “Sovetskaya entsiklopediya”. 3. 457–466.
Mozheyko, M. A. (2003). Mifologiya (Mythology). Noveyshiy filosofskiy slovar. 3-e izd., ispravl. Minsk: Knizhnyy Dom. 634–638. Retrieved from http://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Philos/New_Dict/477.php
Müller, M. (1887). Religiya, kak predmet sravnitelnogo izucheniya [Introduction to the Science of Religion]. per. A. M. Gilevicha. Kharkov: Tipografiya Adolfa Darre. 138.
Müller, M. (2009). Lektsii po nauke o yazyke [Lectures on the Science of Language]. predisl. K. G. Krasukhina. 2-e izd., dop. M.: Knizhnyy dom “LIBROKOM”. 314.
Naydysh, V. M. (2010). Mifologiya: uchebnoe posobie [Mythology: tutorial]. M.: KNORUS. 432.
Ortega y Gasset, J. (1990). Dve velikie metafory [The Two Great Metaphors]. Teoriya metafory. obshch. red. N. D. Arutyunovoy, M. A. Zhurinskoy. M.: Progress. 68–81.
Potebnya A. A. (1989). Slovo i mif [Words and Myths]. M.: Izdatelstvo “Pravda”. 622.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (1995). Metaphor, schema, invariance: The case of verbs of answering. By Word of Mouth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 205–243.
Schelling, F. (2013). Filosofiya mifologii: v 2 t. [Philosophy of Mythology: in 2 vol.]. SPb.: Izdatelskiy dom Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 1. Vvedenie v filosofiyu mifologii (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mythology). per. s nem. V. M. Lineykina. khkhiv + 480.
Spencer, H. (1876). Osnovaniya sotsiologii: v 2 t. [The Principles of Sociology: in 2 vol.]. SPb.: Izd. I. I. Bilibina. 1. 496.
Timofeev, V. G., Petrov, N. V. (2010). Svoystva mifologicheskogo soznaniya [Properties of mythological conscience]. Vestnik Chuvashskogo universiteta. 4. 146–151.
Tsur, R. (1992). Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics. Amsterdam etc.: Elsevier Science Publ. 580.
Turner, M., Fauconnier, G. (2003). Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. ed. A. Barcelona. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 133–148.
Tylor, E. (1989). Pervobytnaya kultura [Primitive culture]. M.: Politizdat. 573.
Usener, Н. (1896). Götternamen. Versuch einer Lehre von der religiösen [Gods name. Attempt of a doctrine of the religious]. Begriffsbildung. Bonn: Verlag von Friedrich Cohen. 391.
Vico, G. (1994). Osnovanie novoy nauki [The New Science]. M.–K.: “RELF-book” – “ISA”. 656.
Wendorff, F. (1889). Erklärung aller mythologie aus der annahme der erringung des sprechvermögens (mit vorzüglicher berücksichtigung des griechischen und sanskritischen idioms) [Explanation of all mythology from the assumption of the power of speech (with exquisite consideration of the Greek and Sanskrit idioms)]. Berlin, Nauck. 199.
Wundt, W. (1914). Mif i religiya [Myth and Religion]. SPb.: Izdanie Brokgauz-Yefron. 427.
Zahalna psykholohiia: Pidruchnyk [General psychology: Textbook] (2011). eds O. V. Skrypchenko, L. V. Dolynska, Z. V. Ohorodniichuk ta in. K: Karavela. 464.