Vimarsh

Literary parables are only one artifact of the mental process of parable. Proverbs frequently present a condensed, implicit story to be interpreted through projection: […]. In cases like this, the target story – the story we are to understand – is not even mentioned overtly, but through our agile capacity to use both story and projection, we project the overt source story onto a covert target story. –Mark Turner The quotation from Mark Turner explains a core idea from cognitive rhetoric and conceptual blending theory. Turner argues that "parable" is not just a literary genre (like Jesus's stories in the Bible), but a fundamental mental process —our natural way of understanding the world by projecting one story onto another. Key point: Proverbs often work as highly compressed source stories . They don't spell out the real-life situation they're about (the target story ). Instead: - The proverb gives you an overt source (e.g., "A rolling stone gathers no moss...

Parable begins with narrative imagining – the understanding of a complex of objects, events, and actors as organized by our knowledge of story. It then combines story with projection: one story is projected onto another. The essence of parable is its intricate combining of two of our basic forms of knowledge – story and projection. This classic combination produces one of our keenest mental processes for constructing meaning. The evolution of the genre of parable is thus neither accidental nor exclusively literary: it follows inevitably from the nature of our conceptual systems. - Mark Turner To put it in simple words, a parable is a special kind of story that helps us understand big or complicated ideas. According to Mark Turner, here's how it works:   WE NATURALLY THINK IN STORIES. We look at the messy events, people, and things in life and organize them into a story structure with characters, actions, problems, and outcomes. This is called "narrative imagining."   W...

“Communication is a systemic process in which individuals interact with; through symbols to create and interpret meanings.” – Julia Wood   This is a widely used definition from communication scholar Julia T. Wood, often featured in her textbooks like “ Communication in Our Lives” or “ Communication Mosaics .” It captures a transactional, symbolic, and contextual view of communication common in modern communication studies.   Breaking It Down   Systemic process : PROCESS means communication is ongoing, dynamic, and continuous —not a single event or static exchange. It’s always in motion, evolving based on prior interactions, feedback, and context. Once you communicate, it influences future interactions.   SYSTEMIC emphasizes that communication doesn’t happen in isolation. It occurs within interconnected systems —such as relationships, families, organizations, cultures, or societies. Everything is linked: what you say affects others, and the environment (physical, s...

As you read this, you are using the winning technology. The greatest tool in the world is language. Without it there would be no culture, no literature, no science, no history, no commercial enterprise or industry. The genus Homo rules the Earth because it possesses language. - Daniel Everett The above quote celebrates language as humanity's supreme invention and the foundation of all our success.   "As you read this, you are using the winning technology." This is a clever, meta opening. Right now, as your eyes scan these words and your brain turns symbols into meaning, you're participating in the most powerful technology ever created. The author is pointing out that even something as ordinary as reading a sentence demonstrates why humans have outcompeted every other species and built civilizations. Language isn't just a means of communication — it's the ultimate "technology" that has allowed us to win the game of survival and dominance. ...

This makes it self-evident that every reflection is at one and same time a dislocation, a deformation which, on the one hand, emphasizes certain aspects of the object, and on the other hand shows up the structural principle of the language into whose space the given object is being projected. Yuri Lotman (Universe of the Mind)   This quote comes from the Russian semiotician Yuri Lotman (often in discussions of his work on cultural semiotics, the semiosphere, and mirror imagery as a model for representation). It captures a key insight about how language, signs, and modelling systems work.   Breakdown of the Quote "Every reflection" : Here, "reflection" does not primarily mean pondering or thinking (though it can overlap). It refers to REPRESENTATION or MODELLING — how we "reflect" an object, idea, event, or reality in a sign system, that is, language, art, culture, discourse, etc. Think of it like a mirror image, a description, a translation, a map, or a...

The opposition Stylistics/semantics works as follows: every semiotic system (or language) has a hierarchical structure. Semantically speaking, we can see this hierarchy in the fact that the semantic field of the language is divided into separate, self-contained spaces, between which a relationship of similarity exists. - Yuri Lotman (Universe of Mind)   This quotation comes from Yuri Lotman, a key figure in the Tartu-Moscow School of semiotics, in his work on semiotics of culture and artistic texts (from Universe of the Mind ). CORE IDEA: THE STYLISTICS/SEMANTICS OPPOSITION Lotman frames stylistics and semantics as complementary but opposing aspects of how meaning works in any semiotic system: a sign-based system like natural language, art, myth, or culture itself. SEMANTICS concerns CONTENT and MEANING — the "what" (denotative or referential meaning, semantic fields). STYLISTICS concerns EXPRESSION , FORM , and HOW meaning is organized and presented, the artistic or s...

Neo-rhetoric operates basically with three concepts: metaphor – the semantic of a ‘seme’ according to the principle of similarity or likeness, metonymy – a substitution according to the principle of contiguity , association, causality (different authors emphasize different types of connection); synecdoche, which some authors regard as the primary figure and others as a particular example of metonymy – a substitution on the basis of participation, inclusiveness, partiality or the substitution of plurality by singleness. -Yuri Lotman (Universe of Mind)   This passage describes the core framework of neo-rhetoric (also called the "new rhetoric" or modern rhetorical theory, particularly in its structuralist and semiotic forms from the mid-20th century onward). Neo-rhetoric shifts classical rhetoric’s focus on persuasion and ornate figures toward a more systematic, linguistic, and semantic analysis of how meaning is produced through tropes, i.e. figures of speech that involve subst...

A trope is the semantic transposition from a sign in praesentia to a sign in absentia, 1) based on the perception of a connection between one or more semantic features of the signified; 2) marked by the semantic incompatibility of the micro- and macro-contexts; 3) conditioned by a referential connection by similarity, or inclusiveness, or opposition. Yuri Lotman [Universe of Mind]   This quotation sounds intimidating, but it’s really describing how figurative language, i.e. tropes works. Let’s try and understand it.   What is a “trope”? A trope is when we use a word or expression in a shifted or indirect way—like in metaphors, similes, irony, or symbolism. Example: “Time is a thief.” Time isn’t literally a thief, but we treat it like one to express meaning.   Now, the quotation in simple parts: 1) “Semantic transposition from a sign in praesentia to a sign in absentia” - You replace what is actually there (present) with someth...