|
|
|
|
|
|
/songe/, except for the phonetic similarity, there is no contiguity; in order to unite them, a leap was first necessary from one to another of the diagram's discontinuous points. But, if the points are discontinuous, it is because the diagram is incomplete. A review of the fields of notions acquired by a given culture would have rapidly led us from /Freud/ to /songe/, or from /fraud/ to /Freud/ (independently of the phonetic similarity), or from /Freud/ to /Jung/. This means that, under the apparent metaphoric short circuit (for here the similarity between two senses seems to click for the first time), there is an uninterrupted web of culturalized contiguity that our hypothetical automaton might be able to traverse through a sequence of binary choices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A metaphor can be invented because language, in its process of unlimited semiosis, constitutes a multidimensional network of metonymies, each of which is explained by a cultural convention rather than by an original resemblance. The imagination would be incapable of inventing (or recognizing) a metaphor if culture, under the form of a possible structure of the Global Semantic System, did not provide it with the subjacent network of arbitrarily stipulated contiguities. The imagination is nothing other than a ratiocination that traverses the paths of the semantic labyrinth in a hurry and, in its haste, loses the sense of their rigid structure. The 'creative' imagination can perform such dangerous exercises only because there exist 'Swedish stall-bars' which support it and which suggest movements to it, thanks to their grill of parallel and perpendicular bars.
11 The Swedish stall-bars are Language [langue]. On them plays Speech [parole], performing the competence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.6. Rhetoric of the Swedish Stall-Bars |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A semiotic explanation of different rhetorical figures can be attempted through the development of the theory of interpretants as represented in the Model Q.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose a code is formed that posits a system of paradigmatic relations of the following sort: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where the horizontal line constitutes a paradigm of different sememes and the vertical correlation constitutes relations from sememe to seme or semantic mark (k is a semantic mark of A; obviously, according to the Model O, k can become in its turn a sememe k to be analyzed through other semantic marks, among which even a could be considered). |
|
|
|
|
|