ТЯЖЕЛЫЕ ВРЕМЕНА ДЛЯ МЕТАФОРЫ
Authors: Хазагеров Г.Г. 
Published: October 2024

Статья сфокусирована на убывании социальной роли метафоры. Делается предположение, что под влиянием таких факторов, как визуализация, высокая скорость общения, клиповое мышление и технология гипертекста, метафора утрачивает лидирующую позицию в качестве средства концептуализации действительности. Игра с типичным в пропаганде и рекламе оказывается более эффективным средством воздействия, чем метафора. Общее место когнитивной лингвистики метафоры, которыми мы живем подвергается критике. Признается, что власть метафор преувеличена. Для ее осуществления всегда были нужны коммуникативные катализаторы вроде двух минут ненависти Оруэлла. Аргументом в пользу предложенной гипотезы выступает то обстоятельство, что практики пропаганды переживают ее контент. Сегодня же под влиянием целого ряда факторов роль метафоры как социального гида продолжает падать. Все эти факторы и анализируются в предлагаемой статье.
The article is focused on the diminishing social role of metaphors. The first part of the article observes two main trends that contributed most to the prevailing understanding of metaphors as elements that predetermine linguistic worldimage. The Orwellian idea of language of power and power of language and G. Lakoffs approach to metaphors were mostly based on the experience of totalitarianism inGermany and the USSR. The new reality of political and commercial propaganda shows that the play with a typical is more effective than a metaphor. This idea is supported by several examples showing the leading position of metonymy in advertisements that have become more focused on paradigms rather than parables. Metaphors in modern communication no longer have influence they used to have. Metaphor itself is a derivative of a stable rural civilization. Totalitarian propaganda tried to make its metaphors similar to symbols familiar to migrants from rural communities but in the course of time these metaphors became outdated and inefficient. This point is proved in the article by the fact that by the end of the Soviet regime propaganda had become the object of ridicule for Soviet citizens. Even intercultural comparison shows that metaphors do not distort the perception of foreign culture they just make it easier to describe it. So, it is concluded that it is life that guides metaphor but not vice versa. In the second part of the article it is assumed that metaphor has lost its leading position as a mean of speech influence on the conceptualization of reality due to lots of factors like visualization, high speed of social interaction. Twittering communication and hypertextuality also have impact on literature and our perception of it. Hypertext ruins the unity of the literary text so it becomes impossible for author to transmit their ideas and intentions through the text composition and global system of metaphors. Fragmentary perception of text may be treated as le plaisir du texte suggested by Roland Barhes or viewed as a useful tool for information search but in some spheres (for example, in academic text) the shift from authors intention to fast navigation might be less beneficial. It is concluded that modern communication environment has left metaphor behind metonymy, play with a typical and performative, i.e. units view something as a given. The role of cognitive metaphors is supposed to be overestimated and it cant be treated separately from communicative catalysts. The main argument here is a tendency for propaganda communicative patterns to oulive its content.