Kamil Wiśniewski - linguist, translator, and philosopher :)

Literary vs. conceptual metaphor

admin — Sat, 09 May 2009 07:51:25 +0000

The study of the use of metaphor in literature has a much longer tradition than the cognitive linguistic approach to this subject and therefore it ought not to be surprising that literary scholars have developed their own terminology to describe various phenomena, including metaphors. However, the influence of cognitive linguistics on other fields of inquiry has been so immense that cognitive linguistic terminology has became more and more frequently used. Thus, nowadays both terminologies are acknowledged as equally valid, but that may well cause some confusion as sometimes there are now several different terms to refer to one thing.
In cognitive linguistics there is the distinction between the ‘source’ and the ‘target’ domains. The source domain incorporates metaphorically used concepts, while the target domain includes concepts used non-metaphorically. Those terms are sometimes used interchangeably with those introduced by literary studies scholars, namely ‘vehicle’ which in cognitive linguistic theory is called ‘source domain’ and ‘tenor’ – the ‘target domain’. Still another tradition of description of metaphors has a different terminology and thus the ‘source domain’ can be called ‘focus’ and the ‘target domain’ might be referred to as ‘frame’ (Steen, 2005:53).
The classification of metaphors as seen by cognitive linguists has been presented above and as it has been said, it also influenced literary studies. However, there are certain differences, or to put it another way, some additional types of metaphor can be found in literature, whether fulfilling the role of rhetorical device or not. Among them Leech cites four types of functional roles for metaphors. he defines them as follows: (Leech, 1991:158):

One more metaphor type is an extended metaphor which is usually formed by numerous different figurative phrases, and which stretches throughout several lines of poetry, or over a few sentences in prose. Still another type of metaphor, which is to be found in literature is, as Leech (1991:160) says, a compound metaphor. According to this scholar, a compound metaphor is one that comprises of the overlapping of two or more different metaphorical phrases. Moreover, even larger than extended metaphors are so called megametaphors. As Stockwell (2002:111) puts it, megametaphors are metaphors which recur throughout the text “often at pivotal moments and often in the form of thematically significant extended metaphors”. What is more, Stockwell compares megametaphors with micrometaphors, which according to him are “specific realizations of the numerous metaphors that occur in the text and that accumulate into the sense of a megametaphor” (Stockwell, 2002:111).
In various types of texts or for stylistic purposes the above mentioned metaphors and metaphorical expressions may take different forms. Some of the representations of metaphorical phrases at first sight do not even resemble metaphors and only after a thorough analysis can they be properly understood. Stockwell presents various interesting realizations of the metaphor BRAIN IS A CITY in the following examples (Stockwell, 2002:107). His categorization reflects a variety of traditional categories as well as syntactic ones. Thus he groups simile, analogy and extended metaphor into a single group. Then he highlights copula constructions, appositional patterns, partitive and genitive expressions, adjective plus noun phrases, compounds and lexical blends, grammatical metaphor and sentence metaphor. He ends his list of metaphor categories with fiction and allegory. In a sense, one could say that Stockwell is still quite tied to syntax, but he has certainly shifted his stance toward a truly semantic view of things. His definitions of these categories are given in (32) (a-i) (Stockwell, 2002:107):

Although all of the above examples have their basis in the BRAIN IS A CITY metaphor they all portray the idea from different perspectives, thus making the readers perceive it in a slightly different manner. As there are practically no limits to the ways in which one metaphor may be represented in literature, it is often difficult to keep track of their use.

The role of metaphor in literature

admin — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:10:58 +0000

As Gerard Steen suggests in his article entitled Metaphor: Stylistic Approaches, throughout centuries there have been different views as to what the role of metaphors in literature in fact is. Citing a work written at the beginning of 1980s dealing with the rhetorical devices in literature he indicates that in that book “metaphor is included in the section on tropes, together with metonymy, synecdoche, and other figures of speech defined by ‘strange meaning’ or ‘semantic deviation’” (Steen, 2005:51). This suggests that even among scholars analyzing metaphor use there were certain discrepancies in the perception of the role of this figure of speech in literature, not to mention the fact that they were not concerned with the analysis of metaphor use in any other type of discourse.
In the most recent history of literary studies, that is in the second half of the XXth century, numerous changes of perception of the nature and role of metaphors in literature occurred. Steen indicates that according to views perceived as valid prior to the emergence of cognitive linguistics and the new approach to the study of metaphorical expressions, metaphors were seen merely as rhetorical phenomenon. In the 1960s many scholars believed that metaphors involved some kind of grammatical deviance, while in the 1970s the famous philosophers John R. Searle and H. P. Grice argued that comprehending metaphors requires pragmatic inferencing, a view subsequently abandoned by cognitive linguists (Steen, 2005:53).
Moreover, changes in the perception of metaphorical expressions by different scholars led to partial explications of their nature, use and importance, but at the same time to certain differences in the very definition of metaphors. Not all linguists unanimously agreed to the definition of metaphors as suggested by cognitive linguists and as a result in the stylistic and literary analyzes there are now at least three, definitions of this phenomenon:
“1. The restricted rhetorical definition of metaphor as active or deliberate metaphor.
2. The broader cognitive-linguistic definition is that which focuses on metaphor as “a specific linguistic form, whether it is active and deliberate.
3. The most encompassing cognitive definition, which defines metaphor as a cross-domain mapping in conceptualization that may be realized by various rhetorical figures, of which linguistic metaphor is one that has to be contrasted with simile, analogy, and so on” (Steen, 2005:53).
What is more, the development of cognitive linguistics as a separate branch of study and the achievements of cognitive linguists exerted an additional impact on other researchers. After the initial confusion in literary studies caused by cognitive linguistics, a new sub-branch of science dealing with the analysis of literary texts emerged. Cognitive poetics with its new approach to the study of literary text meanings started successfully dealing with hitherto problematic issues, such as the capacity of texts to render multiple meanings. Additionally, as Margaret H. Freeman puts it: “it starts with language and not with ideology; it includes cognitive process together with the contextual/cultural dimensions” (Freeman, 2000:265).
In addition to presenting the new approaches to the study of metaphors in literary texts, cognitive poetics serves additional purposes of equally significant importance (Freeman, 2000:277). These include the following aspects of literary text studies: (a) description, (b) explanation, (c) theory, (d) prediction, (e) demonstration, (e) demonstration, (e) evaluation, (f) evaluation and (g) elegance. These are defined as follows:

Cognitive poetics is, in addition, characterized by the recognition that meaning does not reside in language, but it is only accessed by it, in that readers make use of their entire encyclopedic knowledge while interpreting discourse.

Metaphor in literature.

admin — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:57:09 +0000

Prior to the publication of Metaphors We Live By by Lakoff and Johnson metaphors were mostly seen as ornamental units that make literature more appealing. Indeed, the work of these two scholars significantly changed the perception of metaphors and more strenuous effort was made in order to verify if metaphors might have some more applications, or any unique underlying cognitive processes. As we known now, metaphors are not mere rhetorical figures of speech which embellish prose and poetry, but are strongly embedded in the human perception of the world and our ways of thinking. Therefore, they are indispensable to portraying thoughts in language which makes them omnipresent not only in literature, but also in everyday speech. Moreover, as studies have shown certain types of discourses are more susceptible to metaphorical speech and the increased number of metaphorical phrases exploited in a text serves additional functions, such as explanation in education, or distractive and misleading statements in politics. For years numerous scholars devoted large volumes to the study of the role of metaphors in literature and although their views have recently been modified, they have to be portrayed here so as to outline the complete history of the study of the very interesting phenomena of the use of metaphors.

Metaphor vs. metonymy

admin — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:56:17 +0000

Although there are some differences of opinions as to how different types of metaphors ought to be classified, there seems to be agreement among the majority of linguists on the nature of correlation between metonymy and metaphor. Already at the very beginning of 1980s, Lakoff and Johnson started to describe similarities between the two cognitive phenomena. They thought that metonymies, similarly to metaphors, are not arbitrary linguistic phenomena, but that their systematic occurrence suggests that they are “part of the ordinary, everyday way we think and act as well as talk” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:37). Moreover, they claim that metonymy is even more basic to human understanding than metaphor, since metonymies most frequently involve direct physical or casual associations.

However, there are also some differences between the two. Namely, metaphors involve mapping between two different conceptual domains, while metonymies allow one entity to stand for the other because both of them exist within the same domain. Additionally, the fact that in metaphors the logic and structure are mapped from source domain to target domain suggests that metaphors are used mainly to ease understanding of certain concepts while metonymies are used for reference. Therefore, since metaphorical expressions are used to explicate complex or abstract ideas, they are more elaborated than metonymies which are oftentimes used in speech as a sort of cognitive and linguistic shortcut. What is more, as Mendoza Ibáñez suggests “the relationship between the source domain and target of a metaphor is of the “is – a” kind; in metonymies there is a “stand – for” relationship” (Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 1998:113).

The differences between the nature of metaphor and metonymy might be illustrated by the following graph (Evans, Green, 2006:313):

Although the differences between metaphors and metonymies seem clearly visible in structure and usage, in fact, it is frequently extremely difficult to definitively state whether a given phrase is metaphorical in nature, or metonymic. Detailed analysis of the manner in which metaphors and metonymies interact led Goosens to the conclusion that there are at least a few possible ways for such interactions, however, he also concluded that only two of these can be commonly found. Goosens coined a new term to denote such an interaction – he named it “metaphtonymy”. He called the first commonly experienced relation metaphor from metonymy as in this interaction the metaphor is grounded in a metonymic relationship, and the second interaction was called metonymy within metaphor (Evans, Green, 2006:320).

A definition of metonymy.

admin — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:50:52 +0000

One of the most characteristic and well-known rhetorical uses of metonymy can be found in the sentence “The pen is mightier than the sword”. In this phrase the pen stands for something else than it might seem at the first glance and might be interpreted as words written down with it, or even as the intellectual writing the words. Also the sword might refer to aggressive behaviour, or a person wielding a sword. According to Nerlich the first definition of metonymy already appeared in the first century A.D. As the ancient scholars put it, a metonymy is “a trope that takes its expression from near and close thing and by which we can comprehend a thing that is not denominated by its proper word” (Nerlich, 2005:109).

As in the case of the contemporary theory of metaphor, Lakoff and Johnson’s work entitled Metaphors We Live By shed some new light also on the issue of the usage of metonymy. Lakoff and Johnson defined metonymy as “using one entity to refer to another that is related to it” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:35) and provided numerous examples of its use in everyday speech:

(18) He likes to read the Marquis de Sade.
(19) He’s in dance.
(20) The Times hasn’t arrived at the press conference yet.

‘Marquis de Sade’ refers to his writings, ‘dance’ refers to the dancing profession and ‘Times’ in this case refers to the reporter from the Times magazine.

They were also interested in another as they called it ‘special case of metonymy’, namely synecdoche. However, European linguistic tradition makes a distinction between metonymy and synecdoche, while in the American tradition both of them are perceived as being instances of metonymy. Synecdoche can be defined as expression in which a part stands for the whole, which can be easily seen in the following examples (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:36):

(21) We need a couple of strong bodies for out team.
(22) There are a lot of good heads in the university.
(23) I’ve got a new set of wheels.
(24) We need some new blood in the organization.

‘Strong bodies’ stands for strong people, ‘good heads’ stands for intelligent people, ‘set of wheels’ stands for a car, a motorcycle, etc. and ‘new blood’ stands for new people.
Again, as in the case of metaphorical expressions, Lakoff and Johnson claim that metonymies are not just a matter of language, but are linguistic representations of how people perceive the world and think about it. The view that metonymic concepts are grounded in human experience is supported by research that they conducted which indicates that there are many patterns of creating such expressions (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:38).
The first of such patterns is the PART FOR WHOLE, instantiated by the sentences in (25) (a-c):

(25) a. Get your butt over here!
b. We don’t hire longhairs.
c. The Giants need a stronger arm in right field.

Another pattern involves the metonymy PRODUCER FOR PRODUCT, instantiated by the sentences in (26) (a-c):

(26) a. He bought a Ford.
b. He’s got a Picasso in his den.
c. I hate to read Heidegger.

The next pattern is OBJECT USED FOR USER, instantiated by the sentences in (27) (a-c):

(27) a. The sax has the flu today.
b. The gun he hired wanted fifty grand.
c. The buses are on strike.

Another pattern involves the metonymy CONTROLLER FOR THE CONTROLLED, instantiated by the sentences in (28) (a-c):

(28) a. Nixon bombed Hanoi.
b. Napoleon lost at Waterloo.
c. A Mercedes rear-ended me.

The next pattern is INSTITUTION FOR THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE, instantiated by the sentences in (29) (a-c):

(29) a. You’ll never get the university to agree to that.
b. The Army wants to reinstitute the draft.
c. The Senate thinks abortion is immoral.

Another pattern involves the metonymy THE PLACE FOR THE INSTITUTION, instantiated by the sentences in (30) (a-c):

(30) a. The White House isn’t saying anything.
b. Washington is insensitive to the needs of the people.
c. Wall Street is in a panic.

The next pattern is THE PLACE FOR THE EVENT, instantiated by the sentences in (31) (a-c):

(31) a. Watergate changed our politics.
b. It’s been Grand Central Station here all day.
c. Let’s not let Thailand become another Vietnam.

Yet, with the development of cognitive linguistics and increased number of scholars investigating language use from that point of view, even more systematically recurring patterns were found. According to Nerlich (205:111) Norrick lists as many as 18 metonymic principles in his typology, although it needs to be noted that he includes there also synecdoches. Norrick groups his metonymic principles into six groups. The first of these is cause – effect, which has four variants:

I. Cause – effect
1. Cause – effect
2. Producer – product
3. Natural source – natural product
4. Instrument – product

Norrick’s second group labeled “Acts and major participants” this group also consists of four variants:

II. Acts and major participants
1. Object – act
2. Instrument – act
3. Agent – act
4. agent – instrument

Norrick’s third group consists of the prototypical metonymy is part-whole relationship, which is broken down into three classes:

III. Part – whole
1. Part – whole
2. Act – complex act
3. Central factor – institution

Norrick’s group four reflects the widespread container-content relations. Norrick lists three variants as instantiations of these categories:

IV. Container – content
1. Container – content
2. Locality – occupant
3. Costume – wearer

The fifth metonymic group that Norrick describes relates classes of ‘Experience to convention’:

V. Experience – convention
1. Experience – convention
2. Manifestation – definition

The final metonymical group described by Norrick centers around the notion of a Possessor and a Possession. Norrick specifies two varieties for this group:

VI. Possessor – possession
1. Possessor – possession
2. Office holder – office

The increased interest in cognitive linguistics and in metonymy resulted in further advances in the development of new, ingenious theories. And thus there are now two different views concerning the nature of metonymies. Certain linguists (such as Seto for example) claim that a metonymy is basically a pragmatic and referential phenomenon, while others, including Kovesces and Radden suggest that it is connected with human conceptualization and cognitive processes (Nerlich, 2005:109).
In addition to the main trends in cognitive linguistics mentioned above there are also other theories, such as, for instance, Warren’s distinction between referential metonymy and propositional metonymy. According to Warren, the former type is reference-based, as in the case of container-content, or cause and effect relations, while the latter is based on the antecedent-consequent relation. An example of referential metonymy is “The bathtub is running over” and an example of propositional metonymy: “It won’t happen while I still breathe.” (Nerlich, 2005:111) Even so, it is in most cases a lot easier to distinguish between types of metonymies than to distinguish a metaphor from a metonymy.

How metaphors work

admin — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:25:20 +0000

According to Lakoff a metaphor involves the mapping of a source domain, or some of its elements, to a target domain, which often follows the pattern TARGET-DOMAIN IS SOURCE-DOMAIN, or TARGET-DOMAIN AS SOURCE DOMAIN (1993:207). To make it more clear, an exemplary mapping of the metaphor ‘love is a journey’ is provided, where the lovers represent passengers, their love is the means of transport, the welfare of the relationship equals the destination of the journey and possible feuds between partners are like obstacles on the road. What is more, Lakoff suggests that “The metaphor is not just a matter of language, but of thought and reason. The language is secondary” ( Lakoff, 1993:208). Such metaphors and mappings of one domain onto another, as he goes on to say, are schematic and constitute a rigid component of our comprehension and perception of certain concepts, which explains why language users are able to make sense of various linguistic representations of one conceptual metaphor.
Before mappings are described in more detail a few words need to be said about the nature of domains. According to Taylor (2002:439) a domain is configuration of knowledge important to the characterization of the meaning of a semantic unit. Moreover, as he points out, depending on their complexity domains might be simple, or, as he calls them, ‘basic’ which refer to concepts such as colors, space and time. Those are called basic as they cannot be reduced to any other simpler conceptions, while the complex domains include, for example, typical event scenarios, social practices or rules of a game.
In mappings, the linguistic items in both source and target domains are on the superordinate level of meaning, rather than on the basic level. Even if it were possible to find metaphors which are conceptualized at the basic level, they are not numerous and are all included in one wider hypernym, therefore, it is assumed that the superordinate categories are mapped and the subordinate ones are only their specific instances. In the studies aimed at falsifying this theory it has been found that the linguistic evidence supports this hypothesis, thus it seems to be correct. What is more, it is now claimed that the reason why the superordinate categories are mapped is that they increase the chances of mapping “rich conceptual structures in the source domains onto the target domain, since it permits many basic level instances, each of which is information rich” (Lakoff, 1993:212).
A thorough insight into the ways mappings occur led to certain interesting conclusions as to how mappings are restricted. That is to say, there are certain abstract concepts which, when they are expressed metaphorically, never take advantage of some source domains, but always revolve around a fixed number of possible references. The recognition of such limitations led Lakoff to formulate what he called the invariance principle: “metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive topology (that is, the image schema structure) of the source domain, in a way consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain” (Lakoff, 1993:213). According to the author of this definition it is the structure of the target domain that confines the possibilities for mappings. Thus, for example, death is always depicted as a devourer, destroyer or reaper, but never as a gardener, shopkeeper, or writer. What is more, Lakoff claims that the inherent construction of the target domain inevitably restrains what can be mapped, which explains why it is possible to give somebody a kiss without him having it afterwards. Similarly, we can give someone a break, or a kick, yet it is well known that such things can be given, but not possessed (Green, Evans, 2006:302; Lakoff, 1993:216).
Lakoff in his theory of mapping one domain onto another focused on the conventionalized language use, that is metaphors which are apparent in everyday speech of language users who oftentimes are not aware of using metaphorical expressions. Adopting a slightly different approach to the matter of metaphors Turner in collaboration with Fauconnier formulated a “conceptual blending theory”. Their conceptual blending theory accounts for spontaneous mental processes which result in brief and innovative metaphorical phrases. In fact, it is very similar to Lakoff’s theory apart from the terminology used in its explanation and supposed application in genuine communication (Coulson, 2005:34, Taylor, 2002:189).
In conceptual blending theory there are no domains to be mapped, but there are mental spaces which can be thought of as impermanent containers of crucial information about a topic in question (domain). These mental spaces consist of elements representing meaningful linguistic units and frames which represent relationships between them. Mappings in conceptual blending theory are abstract correspondences among elements in different mental spaces. Also cultural models are of great importance in this view as they are associated with the socially significant topics (Taylor, 2002:189).
The entire conceptual blending theory revolves around the notion of a conceptual integration network which explains how those innovative and short-lived metaphorical expressions are created. In the network there are numerous mental spaces in which the processes of blending take place. The network has two or more input spaces which are “structured by information from discrete cognitive domains” (Taylor, 2002:190). There is also a generic space containing the selection of aspects shared by the inputs, and the last one is the blended space which “contains selected aspects of structure from each input space along with any emergent structure that arises out of the imaginative processes of blending” (Taylor, 2002:190).
This theory clarifies how it happens that metaphorical expressions often have meanings or implications which cannot be traced back to the source or the target domain. Taylor (2002:192) provides the exemplary sentence “That surgeon is a butcher” to show that the metaphor used states that the surgeon is incompetent in spite of the fact that the word butcher itself does not have such implication. Therefore it seems that apart from the professions there is something more that is beingmapped. There is the mapping between surgeon and butcher and the patient and a dead animal, together with a scalpel and a cleaver. In order to make it as transparent as possible a table illustrating the mental spaces in the surgeon as butcher blend is provided (Taylor, 2002:193):

The above table shows the role of particular spaces, how the blending occurs and what is the most significant in it. Therefore, it is the butcher’s goal and tool that are more important in this case than the butcher himself. This shows how selective the blends are and how much information that is not overtly expressed in the sentence is important for its comprehension. pdf

Dead Metaphors

admin — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:14:03 +0000

Metaphorical expressions are and have always been present not only in human cognition, but also in language. Some of them are difficult to perceive because of their inconspicuous nature, or usage, as the realization of the metaphor LIFE IS A CONTAINER ‘I’ve had a full life’, for example. Other metaphors are easily recognizable to the majority of language users as ‘My wife whose hair is a brush fire’, for instance.
Linguists concerned with metaphors describe them in numerous ways. Apart from the classification presented by Lakoff and Johnson, there is another generally accepted taxonomy. Depending on the degree of conventionality of use and whether the expression is to be found in a dictionary, or is utterly novel, scholars distinguish between dead, inactive and active metaphors. Dead metaphors are those expressions which were frequently used for a long time and therefore they are no longer perceived as being metaphorical. In many cases, dead metaphors have dictionary entries and are also known as idioms. For example the expression ‘red herring’ is nowadays used only metaphorically to denote a distraction and it does not have a corresponding literal meaning. The phrase used to have a much more literal, and highly specific meaning, but, as it is hard to imagine what that would be as used in its original meaning, it is clearly a dead metaphor. Other examples of dead metaphors might include ‘to deliver a speech’, ‘some grounds for complaint’, ‘eye of a needle’, or ‘windfall’ (Goatly, 1997:33).
Inactive metaphors are those expressions which have metaphorical meaning, but also whose meaning can be tracked to its roots. Thus, they might be ambiguous and have, in fact, multiple meanings. In inactive metaphors, the Topic may be relatively fixed by convention, or by another meaning of a given word. Some examples of inactive metaphors might include: ‘deep financial cuts’, ‘fox’ to denote a cunning person instead of a dog-like animal with reddish-brown fur, or ‘crane’ meaning a tall machine used by builders for lifting heavy things, which is similar to a tall water bird from which the name derives (Goatly, 1997:33).
Active metaphors are in many cases those expressions which are not a part of the lexicon. They are dependent on the context, they are to a large extent not predictable and they have no fixed meaning. Andrew Goatly (Goatly, 1997:34) has juxtaposed dead, inactive and active metaphors in a very clear way that explains all the differences between the types of metaphors.
It needs to be added that all the types of metaphors with which literary scholars are in most cases concerned and which can be found in Lakoff and Johnson’s classification are active metaphors. they are certainly, therefore, a crucial part of a speaker’s knowledge of his own language and therefore are a part of his mental lexicon. PDF

Classification of metaphors by Lakoff and Johnson

admin — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:00:56 +0000

A change in the perception of metaphors by linguists, psychologists, literary studies researchers and even dictionary publishers and language course books writers was noticeable after the publication of ‘Metaphors we live by’ written by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. This inconspicuous-looking book published in 1980 turned out to be a milestone in cognitive linguistics and in the analysis of metaphors, and their use and importance for both linguists and ordinary language users. Many of the theories presented by these two linguists are still acknowledged as either valid or a breakthrough which enabled further advance in the study of metaphors.
The book presents a thorough taxonomy of metaphors with numerous examples of their use in ordinary, everyday language and in the language of science. However, as the authors prove, the use of metaphors is not only normal in casual speech, but is embedded in the very way people perceive, think about, and therefore describe the world (Kalisz, 2001:95-99). Throughout the book, its authors provide evidence that metaphors are inherent in our lives and as Lakoff and Johnson state the case:
“metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature”. (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:3).
In addition to that, the authors claim that most of people’s cognitive processes are to some extent metaphorical.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) began to formulate their conceptual metaphor theory by developing ideas they drew from Reddy’s conduit metaphor which describes human communication (Reddy, 1979, 1993). In that metaphor, ideas are objects, words are containers and the entire communication process is seen as sending the ideas in the words to the addressee who can get the ideas out of the words. Such conduit metaphors which are present in the English language include:
(1) a. IDEAS {OR MEANINGS} ARE OBJECTS
b. LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS ARE CONTAINERS
c. COMMUNICATION IS SENDING.

It has been estimated that about seventy percent of the expressions used to talk about language make use of such metaphors. This can be seen in the examples of the following phrases which embody the conduit metaphor:
(2) a. It’s hard to get that idea across to him.
b. I gave you that idea.
c. Your words seem hollow.
d. His words carry little meaning
e. The sentence is without meaning.
f. Try to pack more thought into fewer words. (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:11)
As Lakoff and Johnson point out, most such phrases reflect an ordinary way of talking about human communication and therefore it might be difficult to realize that certain metaphors are indeed present there (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:11). However, these linguists argue that the CONDUIT metaphor is not a sufficient explanation of many other expressions found in everyday language. Such a metaphor in which one concept is structured in terms of another is called a structural metaphor and is the first one in the compilation presented by the linguists.
Orientational metaphors according to the authors of Metaphors We Live By do not structure one concept in terms of another, but rather organize entire systems of concepts with respect to each other. The name orientational metaphor is connected with the fact that such metaphors have something to do with spatial orientation in most cases, including image schemas such as central-peripheral, in-out, front-back, up-down, and others (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:14). Such metaphors in human languages are natural due to the physical and cultural orientation of people, thus “such metaphorical orientations are not arbitrary” (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:14). Numerous metaphors and expressions exemplifying the implementation of orientational metaphors in everyday language are provided in their classification. A very common one is given in (3):

(3) HAPPY IS UP; SAD IS DOWN:

a. I’m feeling up.
b. That boosted my spirits.
c. My spirits rose.
d. Thinking about her gives me a lift.
e. I’m feeling down.
f. He’s really low these days.

The physical basis for such a metaphor as that in (3) is connected with the posture one adopts with changing emotional states: an upright posture is associated with good mood and happiness, while a dropping posture is connected with bad mood and sadness.

(4) CONSCIOUS IS UP; UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN

a. Get up.
b. Wake up.
c. He rises early in the morning.
d. He’s under hypnosis.
e. He sank into coma.
f. He fell asleep.

According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980:15) this metaphor relates to the fact that when humans are asleep they are lying down and that they stand up when they are awaken.

(5) MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN

a. My income rose last year.
b. His income fell last year.
c. He is underage.
d. If you’re too hot, turn the heat down.

e. The number of books printed each year keeps going up.
The basis for this metaphor is the observation that adding more substance to a container raises the level the substance reaches in the container.

(6) GOOD IS UP; BAD IS DOWN

a. Things are looking up.
b. Things are at an all-time low.
c. He does high-quality work.

d. We hit a peak last year, but it’s been downhill ever since.
As the authors put it, the “physical basis for personal well-being: Happiness, health, life, and control – the things that principally characterize what is good for a person – are all UP” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:16).

Many more examples of orientational metaphors and phrases which exemplify their realization in language are provided in this book. Its authors argue that the majority of our basic concepts are organized with the use of some spatially-based metaphors. In addition to that, the high degree of systematicity of such metaphors suggests that they are not being used arbitrarily, but are deeply entrenched in our experience of spatial orientations (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:18).
The next type of metaphor thoroughly described and defined by Lakoff and Johnson consist of Entity and Substance Metaphors, also known as Ontological Metaphors. Those metaphors are connected with our experiences with physical objects, including our bodies. The most usual case of ontological metaphors is related to the perception of ideas, events, emotions and activities as substances, or concrete entities. Ontological metaphors are said to have many purposes and that is why they themselves are varied. One type of ontological metaphor is viewing an abstract notion as an entity:

(7) INFLATION IS AN ENTITY

a. We need to combat inflation.
b. Inflation makes me sick.
c. Inflation is backing us into corner.
d. Inflation is lowering our standard of living.

(8) THE MIND IS A MACHINE

a. My mind just isn’t operating today.
b. I’m a little rusty today.

c. We’ve been working on this problem all day and now we’re running out of steam.

The use of such a metaphor to describe an abstract concept enables us to identify some of its aspects, quantify it, and act accordingly. Yet, that is not the sole purpose of ontological metaphors as they can also fulfill other functions, such as referring, quantifying, identifying aspects of a situation, identifying causes, and others (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:26). Lakoff and Johnson claim that “the range of ontological metaphors that we use for such purposes is enormous” (1980:26) yet only just a few examples should be enough to illustrate the concept:
Sentences (9) (a-c) illustrate ontological metaphors that are used to refer to situations and events.
(9) a. The honor of our country is at stake in this war.
b. The middle class is a powerful silent force in American politics.
c. That was a beautiful catch.
Sentences (10) (a-c) illustrate the use of ontological metaphor to quantify qualities, situations and events.
(10) a. It will take a lot of patience to finish this book.
b. There is so much hatred in the world.
c. You’ve got too much hostility in you.
In turn, sentences (11) (a-c) illustrate a set of metaphors that identify causes.
(11) a. The pressure of his responsibilities caused his breakdown.
b. The brutality of war dehumanizes us all.
c. His emotional health has deteriorated recently.

What is more, several different kinds of ontological metaphors can be distinguished, such as the container metaphor, the entity metaphor and the substance metaphor. Container metaphors are those which represent certain concepts as having an inside and on outside and are construed as being able to hold something else, as for instance the metaphors given in sentences (12) (a-e) (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:50,51):

(12) LIFE IS A CONTAINER

a. I’ve had a full life.
b. Life is empty for him.
c. There’s not much left for him in life.
d. Her life is crammed with activities.
e. Get the most out of life.

In addition, sentences (13) (a-e) present a variety of instantions of the high level ontological metaphor THE EYES ARE CONTAINERS FOR EMOTIONS:
(13) EYES ARE CONTAINERS FOR THE EMOTIONS

a. I could see the fear in his eyes.
b. His eyes were filled with anger.
c. There was passion in her eyes.
d. His eyes displayed his compassion.
e. She couldn’t get the fear out of her eyes.

The next type of ontological metaphors namely entity metaphors are those which represent abstractions as concrete physical objects. An exemplary entity metaphor and its linguistic realization is given in (14) (a-d) (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:28).

(14) THE MIND IS A BRITTLE OBJECT

a. Her ego is very fragile.
b. I’m going to pieces.
c. His mind snapped.

d. You have to handle him with care since his wife’s death.

What is interesting is the fact that Lakoff and Johnson consider personification as a type of entity metaphor. They point out that this is not only a literary stylistic device, but is also our everyday way of perceiving and talking about certain concepts. Among the examples of casual use of personification are the expressions given in (15) (a-c) (Lakoff, Johnson, 1980:33):

(15) a. Life has cheated me.
b. This fact argues against the standard theories.

c. His religion tells him that he cannot drink fine French wines.

The substance metaphor is the kind of metaphor in which an abstract entity such as idea, emotion, event or activity is represented as a solid material (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:31, Internet source 1). Typical examples are given in (16) (a-c).
(16) a. There was a lot of good running in the race.
b. I couldn’t do much sprinting until the end.
c. How much window-washing did you do?

As Kalisz (2001) suggests there is often very little difference between ontological and structural metaphors. What is more, he claims that ontological metaphors are based on structurally uncomplicated and simple physical notions, for example INFLATION IS AN ENTITY, as in ‘Inflation is backing us into corner’, while structural metaphors stand for more complex domains, for instance ARGUMENT IS A BUILDING as in ‘We’ve got a foundation for the argument, now we need a solid framework’ (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980:99). Buildings are made up of foundations, require projects and other important factors, all of which are transferred to argumentation in this structural metaphor. Moreover, Kalisz argues that differentiating an ontological metaphor from a structural metaphor is more a matter of, as he puts it, ‘quantity’ than ‘quality’ (Kalisz, 2001:97). He goes on to say that since it is the degree of complexity of the metaphorical expression that is a crucial factor in differentiating its type, it is not always possible to put a rigid border between the two and thus be able to make a decision about which kind of metaphor a particular expression represents.
George Lakoff, the co-author of the above mentioned typology of metaphors, a few years after publishing Metaphors We Live By, wrote another book devoted to the description of metaphor use, this time in collaboration with Mark Turner. In their book entitled More than Cool Reason these authors added one more type of metaphor to supplement and complete the classification. As they point out, it is not only the mapping of concepts, or conceptual structures that enable creating metaphors, but also the mapping of images. Metaphors which map images are simply called image metaphors. According to Lakoff and Turner (1989:90) the only difference between image metaphor and all the other kinds of metaphors is that they do not map concepts on other concepts, but map ‘the structure of one domain onto the structure of another’ (Lakoff, Turner, 1989:90).
Similar to a conceptual metaphor, an image metaphor has its source in human cognition and the linguistic implementation of this kind of metaphor is only the representation of the way people perceive the world and think about it. Yet, in the case of image metaphors, the mapping of one domain onto the other might be slightly more complex, as, according to linguists, the mapped image structure includes both attribute structures and part-whole structure. Attribute structures include, for example, physical shape, color, or curvature, whereas part-whole relations are those of relation of a roof to the whole house, for instance (Lakoff and Turner, 1989:90). In most cases of the usages of image metaphors, it is not stated precisely which part of the source image is to be mapped onto the target image, yet that is automatically inferred by language users.
What is more, Lakoff and Turner make an important distinction between image metaphors and image-schema metaphors. As the authors put it:
“Image-metaphors map rich mental images onto other rich mental images. They are one-shot metaphors, relating one rich image with one other rich image. Image-schemas, as their name suggests, are not rich mental images; they are instead very general structures, like bounded regions, paths, centers” (Lakoff and Turner, 1989:99).
The authors provide several examples of both image metaphors, and image-schema metaphors. The use of image metaphors is exemplified by the poem entitled “Free Union”.
(17) My wife whose hair is a brush fire
Whose thoughts are summer lightening
Whose waist is an hourglass
Whose waist is the waist of an otter caught in the teeth of a tiger
Whose mouth is a bright cockade with the fragrance of a star of the first magnitude
Whose teeth leave prints like the tracks of white mice over snow
Whose tongue is made out of amber and polished glass
Whose tongue is a stabbed wafer. (Lakoff and Turner, 1989:90).
Metaphors in this poem are clearly visible, yet the author leaves to the readers’ imagination many important facts only implied in the writing, such as the color of the wife’s hair, or the overall shape of her waist. Such inferences can only be made by mapping images of burning bushes onto hair, and confronting the image of an hourglass with the image of a woman’s waist.
In order to show a contrast between an image metaphor and an image-schema metaphor, examples of the latter are also provided. These include high level ontological metaphors such as LIFE IS A FLAME, or STATES ARE LOCATIONS, whose linguistic realizations include, for example, expressions such as pass out, tune out, snuff out (Lakoff and Turner, 1989:97).

The Aristotelian definition of metaphor

admin — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:57:27 +0000

The first attempts to describe the purposefulness of the use of metaphors, how their appropriate usages ought to look like, and. above all. what a metaphor indeed is were made by the great ancient philosopher Aristotle. In view of the contemporary theories concerning metaphors, Aristotle has frequently been criticized for confining the use of metaphors to writing and ascribing them only a decorative function. Moreover, it was assumed that the thinker claimed that only extraordinarily intelligent people are able to use metaphors in an appropriate and creative fashion. While it is true that Aristotle claimed that metaphors often occur in literature and fulfill ornamental functions, he also maintained that they are equally frequently present in casual conversations. The fact is that the ancient scholar raised that issue in two of his numerous works, namely “Poetics” and “Rhetoric” and as the titles suggest he described manners of using various metaphors as well as their use both in literature, with the emphasis put on poetry, and everyday casual conversations (Mahom, 1999:70).
In “Poetics” the philosopher defines metaphor as “the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is, proportion” (Mahom, 1999:71) and states that the most appealing writing style is the one characterized by the use of metaphors. Even so, he claims that too frequent use of this figure of speech would obfuscate the gist of writing, therefore, it ought to be used in moderation. What is more, in the same work he suggests that only people gifted with genuine genius are able to invent utterly new and unique metaphors.
However, in that work, Aristotle brought up the topic of metaphors only in the context of Greek literature as it was used by poets and dramatists at that time. Mahom points out that the philosopher didn’t mean by this statement that only writers use metaphors, but that their means of coinage and usage of metaphors is extraordinary in comparison with the common, everyday use by regular people. The more general views held by Aristotle, ones that concern also the use of metaphors by common language users, can be found in his book entitled Rhetoric (Mahom, 1999:71).
Only after becoming acquainted with both of those works of Aristotle should a more comprehensive view of philosopher’s ideas be held, that is one which includes both his notions about metaphors in relation to literature, as well as in relation to the common use of language. In Rhetoric the author writes about the figures of speech that are characteristic to writing. He also suggests that certain types of metaphors need to be used in casual discourse, owing to the fact that it is often thanks to them that we can comprehend certain complex, or abstract concepts. Supporting his claims by giving examples from the public speeches of politicians, Aristotle states that “We learn above all from metaphors” (Mahom, 1999:74) as they make it easy for people to understand difficult or abstract ideas. In addition to that, he emphasizes that pedagogical value by saying that metaphors not only teach us, but that they do it in a pleasing and interesting way.
Additionally, Mahom claims that it was due to the failure to carefully examine both works of the philosopher that scholars too hastily criticized Aristotle’s views, while ascribing to him ideas which he did not acknowledge. It is true that Aristotle wrote that a real genius is needed to master a good command of metaphors. However, at that point, he meant their use in literature, for solely aesthetic purposes and not their use in common everyday speech, for which, as he thought, metaphors are indispensable. Therefore, it would not be unjustified to claim that, in fact, Aristotle’s views on metaphors were more similar to contemporary ones than to those which were ascribed to him until the second half of the XX century.
To put it chronologically, before the present-day theories are accounted for, some of the mistaken premises of the classical view will be clarified. First of all, it was by and large assumed that ordinary, every-day language was utterly deprived of any metaphorical expressions and that metaphors took advantage of mechanisms beyond the scope of casual speech. This meant that metaphors were seen only as a purely linguistic phenomenon, a figure of speech characteristic only of the literary language. Furthermore, as if Aristotle’s ideas expressed in Rhetoric were ignored, subsequent scholars claimed that whatever the issue is, no matter whether abstract or concrete, it could be apprehended virtually without the use of metaphors. In contrast to the classical assumption, cognitive linguistics holds the view that metaphors not only fulfill decorative functions and make discourse more interesting, but are embedded in the very way people think about, and conceptualize the world (Lakoff, 1993:204).
Because casual language is not metaphor-free, and most certainly literary language is not characterized only by metaphorical expressions, but other figures of speech, as well as by regular phrases, it needs to be set out clearly how one can recognize a metaphor. It is claimed that when people speak of abstract concepts such as time, God, morality or emotions they naturally take advantage of metaphors. Lakoff suggests that “those concepts that are not comprehended via conceptual metaphor might be called “literal” (Lakoff, 1993:205).
Since the notion of metaphors as a poetic figure of speech has been discussed by literary studies researchers for centuries it is mainly the relatively new view on the use of metaphors in casual language that will be touched upon in the following section. What is more, the ornamental function of metaphors in writing seems to be the most vital feature distinguishing their use in literature from everyday usage. This means that the theories that focus on the ordinary employment of metaphors are also applicable to literary studies and ought to aid their understanding. The significance of the use of metaphor in literature will therefore be covered in a further chapter of the present work.
While the perception of Aristotle’s theories concerning metaphors has clearly changed with time, his definition of metaphors, although still valid for some scholars, has been either developed or transformed into another theory. Aristotle’s successors were not unanimous in their opinions concerning metaphors and their use in literary, scientific and everyday language. For instance John Lock, a famous seventeenth century English philosopher most often associated with British empiricism, claimed in his work entitled ‘Essay concerning human understanding’ that metaphors ought not to be used in philosophical inquiry (Arseneault, 2005:40). Similarly Locke’s contemporary, namely Thomas Hobbes, in his work entitled ‘Leviathan’ condemned the use of metaphors in the language of philosophy, since as he put it “metaphors, and senseless and ambiguous words, are like ignes fatui; and reasoning upon them, is wandering amongst innumerable absurdities” (Chilton, 2005:63).
Alternatively, other equally great and well known philosophers such as the eighteenth century Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his contemporary Friedrich Nietzsche, both disagreed with the criticism of metaphors. In fact both of them not only defended the use of metaphorical phrases, but also claimed that they fulfill creative and ornamental functions better than other figures of speech (Arseneault, 2005:40). As the above examples show, philosophers differ in their understanding of the value of metaphors in our daily lives. Moreover, various scholars also disagree about what types of expressions should be considered a metaphor. Because of this, several different approaches to the analysis of metaphor have been adopted. Some theorists in their view of metaphor agree that their focus should be on live metaphors, that is metaphors with many possible interpretations, while others concentrate on metaphors with a more fixed meaning, that is lexicalized metaphors, also referred to as dead metaphors. The distinction between “live” and “dead” metaphors is a matter of degree. In addition, there are still other researchers who first and foremost focus on the forms and functions of metaphors (Arseneault, 2005:42)

Theories of metaphor

admin — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:53:51 +0000

For centuries metaphors have been perceived merely as ornaments in literature used for rhetorical and poetic purposes. Therefore apart from scholars dealing with literature studies hardly anybody had been occupied with examining their use and purpose. Only in the second half of the XX century did the situation change. It became clear then that metaphors are more important to language users than it had previously been thought (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). The traditional view of metaphors, as it came to be named, is that they are characteristic to literature and are only embellishments. This is ascribed to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who was the first one to define metaphors and their usage. And, although his definition has been acknowledged as valid for centuries, it was thought that according to him metaphors were peculiar to literature and not to everyday communication.
Since Aristotle’s times, representatives of various branches of science have become more and more interested in metaphors. Nowadays, not only philosophers and literary studies researchers deal with it, but also linguists, psychologists, anthropologists and representatives of relatively new branches of science such as cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics. Therefore, depending on the particular specialization of a scholar, different approaches to describing metaphors have been taken and various results achieved. Yet, according to Arseneault, the majority of scholars dealing with metaphors agree that “metaphor is essentially nonstandard and deviates either semantically or pragmatically from ordinary literal language” (Arseneault, 2005:40).
However, psychological research conducted since 1970s showed that metaphors are omnipresent in everyday discourse. Moreover, they are in most cases easily understood and produced. The way in which people comprehend metaphors has also been analyzed from various angles. According to one theory, in order for metaphor to be correctly interpreted, the addressee of the message has to follow several steps: “(1) analyze the literal meaning of an entire expression, (2) compare this literal meaning to the context, (3) if the literal meaning is appropriate, then stop, otherwise (4) derive an alternative meaning that makes the speaker’s/writer’s utterance sensible in the context” (Gibbs, 2005:45).
Nevertheless, this theory has been successfully challenged by psychologists and psycholinguists as it suggests that additional cognitive effort is needed in order to comprehend metaphors. This would also require more time to digest it. On the contrary numerous research results show that perception and comprehension of metaphors does not require any more time than understanding statements deprived of any metaphorical expressions (Gibbs, 2005:45).
The studies on the frequency of use of metaphors revealed that they are not only used on a regular basis in everyday discourse, but they are surprisingly often used in political speeches. Thus, scholars focused also on this particular type of discourse and came to a conclusion that it is extremely susceptible to metaphor use and that the most basic vocabulary used in politics derives metaphorically from spatial concepts in general and from the front-back and up-down image schemas in particular. Moreover, recent trends in the analysis of political metaphor focus both on historical speeches and present ones and the evidence suggests that metaphorical expressions were with equal frequency used in the past. (Chilton, 2005:63).