Demetaphorization in terminology contexts of theoretical sociology


In recent decades, the research focus of metaphor studies has gradually shifted from the humanities, to the social sciences, as well as to the related scientific fields, namely cognition and consciousness studies (including artificial intelligence). This emphasizes the necessity of some revision of the conceptual and terminological apparatus, the one expanding accordingly, especially in the focus of identifying the cognitive abilities of different linguistic means, used interdisciplinarily. Accordingly, the processes of “metaphorization” (interdisciplinary terminological extrapolation), as well as “demetaphorization” (as a gradual deprivation of “unnecessary” subjectivization in favor of the dominance of the objectification of the terminological field), to be accentuated and articulated. In this case, “demetaphorization” is “in the shadow” of the research attention to “metaphorization”. However, sociologically, they must be viewed in dialectical unity and complementarity. The dominant research methods (in the social sciences – primarily reconstruction), through the prism of “reflective postmodern” exert their influence on the toolkit of “metaphoricity”. It is the cognitive toolkit of metaphorization and the operational resource of the demetaphorization that is dialectically an auxiliary channel of social science operationalization in the “gray zone” of the classical positivist and alternative cognitive paradigms, which as a whole actualizes and accentuates scientific and analytical understanding of the problem. A general problem of the forms of scientific knowledge (including demetaphorized scientific terms e.g. “privatization of violence”) circulating in society requires further research.

  1. Humboldt, von W. (1984). On Language, On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species. In W. von Humboldt (Ed.), Selected works on language Studies. Moscow: Progress [in Russian]

  2. Ertner, D.E. (2015). Historical approach to metaphor studies:  methodological frames of interpretation. Vestnik Tyumenskoho hosudarstvennoho universiteta. Humanitarnye issledovaniya. Humanitates – Tyumen State University Herald. Humanities Research. Humanitates, 1, 4 (4), 167-174 [in Russian]

  3. Laguta, O.N. (2003). Metaphorology: theoretical aspects. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University [in Russian]

  4. Chudinov, A.P. (2013). Essays on contemporary political metaphorology. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical Univercity [in Russian]

  5. Theory of Metaphor: collected works. (1990). Moscow: Progress [in Russian]

  6. Arutyunova, N.D. (1990). Theory of Metaphor. Moscow: Progress [in Russian]

  7. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago.

  8. Shmerlina, I.A. (2001). Biological metaphor in sociology: Monograph Review. Biology as Society, Society as Biology: Metaphors. Ed. by S. Maasen, E. Mendelsohn, P. Weingart. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995. Sotsiologicheskij Zhurnal – Sociological Journal, 4, 135-165 [in Russian]

  9. Pachosskiy, I.K. (1921). Fundamentals of Phytosociology. Kherson [in Russian]

  10. Frumkina, R.M. (1999). Self-awareness of linguistics – yesterday and tomorrow. Izvestiya AN. Literatura i yazyk, 58, 4, 28-38 [in Russian]

  11. Foucault, M. (1977). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Moscow: Progress [in Russian]

  12. Sobolevska, M. (2012). The Specificity of Status of Sociology as a Humanity Discipline. Visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Sotsiolohiia – Bulletin of Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University. Sociology, 3, 10-15 [in Ukrainian]

  13. Mottier, V. (2008). Metaphors, Mini-Narratives and Foucauldian Discourse Theory. In T. Carver, J. Pikalo (Eds.), Political Language and Metaphor. London: Routledge.

  14. Razinkina, N.M. (2005). Stylistics of English Scientific Text. Moscow: Editorial-URSS [in Russian]

  15. Paul, G. (1960). Principles of Language History. Moscow: Inostrannaya literatura [in Russian]

  16. Benjamin, W. (1986). Critique of Violence. Reflections. NY: Schocken Books.

  17. Makeiev, S. (2017). State of Singularity: Events & Crisis & Emergency & Exclusion. In S. Makeiev, O. Oksamytna (Eds.), State of singularity: social structures, situations, everyday practices (pp. 21-37). Kyiv: NAUKMA [in Ukrainian]

  18. Poltorakov, A. (2009). Privatization of violence: socio-political context. Politika i obshchestvo, 10, 45-52 [in Russian]

  19. Poltorakov, O. (2019). Privatization of violence: historical-social dynamics of formation. Visnyk Natsionalnoho tekhnichnoho universytetu Ukrainy “Kyivskyi politekhnichnyi instytut”. Politolohiia. Sotsiolohiia. Pravo – National Technical University of Ukraine Journal. Political science. Sociology. Law, 3, 127-132 [in Russian]

  20. Paskhaver, O., Verkhovodova, L., Ageieva, K. (2006). Privatization and Reprivatization in Ukraine after the “Orange Revolution”. Kyiv: Milenium [in Ukrainian]

  21. Black, M. (1977). More about metaphor. Dialectica, 31, 431-457.

Full text