Metaphor as language means of mythological and ideological discourses in linguophilosophical aspects

The aim of the article is to try to highlight the main characteristics of metaphor as a discursive strategy and mechanism of philosophical discourse (in mythological and ideological aspects). One of the main mechanisms of discursiveness as a phenomenon is the correlation of cognitive, expressive and evaluative metaphors, phraseological units and tropes. To bring these contradictions to a ‘common denominator’, the author of the article identifies relatively stable discursive constructions based on the ontologisation of lexico-grammatical metamorphoses of discourse. The main parameter of ideological-worldview discourse is the presence of a large number of addressees due to the fact that ideological-worldview discourse is a phenomenon of communication, and it is complex and, as a rule, occurs on a large scale. The article also aims to address the topical issue of metaphors as linguistic means used to create discourse mechanisms, since analysing their use would make it possible to identify and classify all kinds of discursive constructions. Such linguistic means, in particular, include tropes (metaphors) and stable phraseological turns. This issue is also investigated in detail in the process of analysing the linguistic means by which discourse is constructed. In addition, the questions of the adequacy of the use of stable metaphors and phraseological turns in the language and their role in the formation of discursive discourse as communicative acts are considered. The author of the article dwells on the aspects of mythological and ideological discourse in the refraction of the problems of modern linguistics (mythological and ideological aspects in the context of linguophilosophy). Further, an attempt is made to investigate and systematically reveal the structural content of various specific cases of discursivity: those features of discourse that would make it possible to identify a particular field of knowledge (for example, to distinguish science from religion, ideology from art) by the qualities of the communicative-speech utterances themselves. The article also identifies metaphors as discursive mechanisms as specific linguistic means (based on their universal nature) in the process of their functioning.

1. Foucault M. Archeology of knowledge. Kyiv, 1996:513.

2. Bouchard G. Michel Foucault: unité ou dispersion de l’œuvre. In Laval Théologique et Philosophique. Paris: Minuit, 2003:485-502.

3. Henry A, Roseberry RL. Using a small corpus to obtain data for teaching a genre. Small Corpus Studies and ELT. Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001:93-133.

4. Flowerdew J. Academic Discourse. London: Pearson Education, 2002:264.

5. Gaskell D, Cobb T. Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System 32/3. 2004:301-319.

6. Hyland K. Teaching and Researching Writing. London: Pearson Education. 2002:324.

7. Carter-Thomas Sh, Rowley-Jolivet E. Syntactic differences in oral and written scientific discourse: the role of information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019:37-42.

8. Resche C. Décryptage d’un genre particulier: les communiqués de presse de la banque centrale américaine. ASp 39/40. 2003:21-35.

9. Laffont H. Un ingénieur est-il bien an engineer? ASp 49/50. 2006:9-21.

10. Percebois J. Les économistes universitaires français et leurs homologues anglais et américains: aspects institutionnels, culturels et linguistiques. ASp 49/50. 2006:79-91.

11. Sinclair J. McH. How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004:317.

12. Johns T. Data-driven Learning page. In Language learning as discourse analysis. Implications for the LSP learning en Asp. 2007:51-52.

13. Gaskell D, Cobb T. Is there any measurable learning from hands on concordancing? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997:301-315.

14. O’Sullivan Í. Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. In Journal of Second Language Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006:49-68.

15. Swales J. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990:260.