THE LINGUISTIC SYSTEM OF TROPES AND THEIR SEMANTIC AND AESTHETIC FUNCTIONS IN LITERARY TEXTS
Keywords:
tropes, figurative language, metaphor, metonymy, cognitive poetics, semantic transformation, literary stylistics, aesthetic function, rhetoricAbstract
This article investigates the linguistic system of tropes as a constitutive feature of literary language, examining the interplay between semantic transformation and aesthetic effect. Drawing on classical rhetoric, modern structural linguistics, and cognitive poetics, the study proposes a unified taxonomy of major tropic categories — metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, irony, hyperbole, litotes, and personification — while analyzing the mechanisms through which each category produces meaning beyond the literal. The paper argues that tropes are not mere ornamental devices but fundamental cognitive and communicative instruments that reshape conceptual domains, create evaluative stances, and generate the affective resonance that distinguishes literary discourse from ordinary language. Close-reading analyses of representative passages from prose and poetry illustrate how semantic ambiguity, cross-domain mapping, and foregrounding function in tandem to produce aesthetic value. The article further explores the pragmatic dimension of tropes, addressing their dependence on contextual inference and reader competence. By integrating linguistic, cognitive, and literary-theoretical perspectives, the study aims to provide a comprehensive account of tropic function that is applicable to both stylistic analysis and literary pedagogy.
References
Aristotle. (1984). The rhetoric and the poetics of Aristotle (W. R. Roberts & I. Bywater, Trans.). Modern Library.
Booth, W. C. (1974). A rhetoric of irony. University of Chicago Press.
Cicero. (2001). On the ideal orator (J. M. May & J. Wisse, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
Culler, J. (1975). Structuralist poetics: Structuralism, linguistics and the study of literature. Routledge.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. Basic Books.
Genette, G. (1982). Figures of literary discourse (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Columbia University Press.
Groupe µ. (1981). A general rhetoric (P. B. Burrell & E. M. Slotkin, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jakobson, R. (1956). Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In R. Jakobson & M. Halle, Fundamentals of language (pp. 53–82). Mouton.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Levin, S. R. (1977). The semantics of metaphor. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. Oxford University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1977). The rule of metaphor (R. Czerny, Trans.). University of Toronto Press.
Shklovsky, V. (1917/1965). Art as technique. In L. Lemon & M. Reis (Trans. & Eds.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 3–24). University of Nebraska Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Harvard University Press.
Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive poetics: An introduction. Routledge.
Tsur, R. (1992). Toward a theory of cognitive poetics. Elsevier.
White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press.
