Month: April 2025

🔍 Discourse-Theoretical Approach to Metaphor

• 🧩 Metaphor must be understood within the broader framework of discourse, which encompasses language (text), cognition (comprehension), and communication (social interaction).

“Discourse can be treated as a congeries of three kinds of structures… language, cognition, and communication” (p. 115).
✳️

---

🎭 Three Functions of Metaphor

• 💬 Expressive function (linguistic): Metaphor serves as a formal device to concisely express what would otherwise be lengthy or indirect.

“‘Julia is the sun’ is formally much more pointed than the lengthy alternatives” (p. 119).
✍️

• 🧠 Transactional function (cognitive): Metaphor helps us relate and understand conceptual domains that are typically unrelated.

“Lovers are not often seen in terms of heavenly bodies, excusez le mot, but Shakespeare manages…” (p. 119).
🧠

• 🤝 Interactional function (communicative): Metaphors influence the flow and interpretation of communication, shaped by genre and social context.

“This force may be vivid or flat, surprising or banal… esthetically pleasing or displeasing” (p. 119).
📡

---

📖 Literary vs. Non-Literary Reading

• 🧾 Understanding metaphors is shaped by the type of discourse—literary or non-literary—and the attitude of reading the reader adopts.

“Understanding metaphor in a literary way may be highly influenced by the adoption of a literary attitude of reading” (p. 114).
🎭

• 🧠 A literary attitude activates Esthetic (E) and Polyvalence (P) conventions, focusing on multiple meanings and aesthetic value rather than factual clarity.

“The Esthetic convention… implies the suspension of criteria such as true/false… The Polyvalence convention induces subjectively satisfactory comprehension processes…” (p. 123).
🌀

---

🔁 Role of Analogical Processing

• 🔗 Analogy is central to metaphor comprehension in literature, where it is not just a problem-solving tool but a method of layered interpretation.

“The principle of analogy… is explosively exploited rather than restricted [in literature]” (p. 125).
🧪

• 🧙 Allegory is seen as extended metaphorical analogy, but not all literary metaphors are allegorical.

“Allegory… has two separate meanings rather than one… metaphor also may have more clearly or vaguely distinct meanings than one” (p. 130).
🔍

---

🧩 Polyvalence of Literary Metaphor

• 🎨 Literary metaphors tend to be polyvalent—open to multiple interpretations—due to vehicle elaboration and contextual layering.

“Polyvalence in literary metaphor may be due to… a series of vehicle interpretations” (p. 128).
🧷

• 🧠 This results in a richer, multidimensional understanding as readers extract overlapping or even conflicting meanings.

“Metaphors may be refunctionalized as literary signs… producing symbolism and other effects” (p. 130).
🔮

---

🧭 Identification, Comprehension, and Appreciation

• 📌 Steen proposes a three-part model of how metaphors are processed:
  1. Identification – Recognizing the presence of a metaphor
  2. Comprehension – Constructing meaning
  3. Appreciation – Valuing or evaluating the metaphor

“Identification of metaphor may be… metatextual elaboration… comprehension may lead to… alternative frames… appreciation may be part of polyvalent elaborations” (p. 134).
🔍🧠💖

---

🔄 Explicit vs. Implicit Processing

• 👀 Steen distinguishes between explicit and implicit versions of all three processes, arguing that literary reading fosters explicit awareness of metaphor.

“Explicit identification… a meta-statement concerning the perceived metaphorical nature…” (p. 136).
⚖️

• 📢 For example, explicit vehicle interpretation (recognizing and analyzing the metaphor’s source domain) is more likely in literary contexts.

“Experienced readers… emphasize vehicle interpretation… inexperienced readers tend to overlook this aspect” (p. 137).
🧭

---

🧪 Empirical and Cognitive Approach

• 🧬 Steen emphasizes the need for empirical testing of his hypotheses via cognitive psychology (e.g., think-aloud protocols) and interdisciplinary work.

“Such obstacles need not prevent us… from both formulating tentative programs of research…” (p. 139).
📊

• 🧑‍🔬 He encourages bridging gaps between psychological models of language comprehension and literary theory, advocating for discourse-based analysis.

“Many metaphors in literary texts need not be understood in a literary way… hence a general discourse theory is required…” (p. 139).
🧠🔗📚

🔍 Over-Theorization Without Empirical Evidence
While Steen emphasizes empirical methodology, the paper remains largely theoretical. Critics may argue that Steen falls short of offering actual data to validate his discourse-functional claims (Steen, 1989).

🧩 Ambiguity in Discourse Typology
The tripartite model of expressive, transactional, and interactional discourse functions may be seen as overlapping or too loosely defined, especially when applied across diverse literary genres.

⚖️ Lack of Engagement with Post-Structuralism
Steen’s cognitive approach is rooted in formalist and psychological models, which can appear reductive or incompatible with post-structuralist or deconstructive theories that resist fixed interpretation or “functions” of language.

🎭 Neglect of Cultural and Historical Context
Critics might argue that the model downplays the role of socio-historical context in shaping metaphorical meaning, focusing instead on cognitive processing as if it were universal and ahistorical.

🧠 Cognitive Bias and Reader Homogenization
The psychological framing assumes a somewhat uniform cognitive process across readers, which may ignore diverse interpretive communities or the variability of reader responses rooted in identity and context.

📚 Insufficient Focus on Non-Metaphorical Literary Devices
By centering metaphor, the paper potentially marginalizes other poetic and rhetorical strategies equally central to literary comprehension, such as irony, metonymy, or ambiguity.

🌀 Conflation of Literary Attitude and Literary Value
Steen’s reliance on the E and P conventions implies that readers can “switch on” a literary mode of reading. Critics may question whether such a clean switch exists, or whether this oversimplifies how texts are actually read and valued.

·  🔸 Metaphor as a Natural and Noble Act of Naming:
Drawing from Quintilian, Donoghue opens by stating that metaphor is a natural human gift:

“It is both a gift which Nature herself confers on us… [ensuring] that nothing goes without a name” (p.182) ✴
This framing treats metaphor not as a mere rhetorical flourish, but a fundamental linguistic and existential impulse.

·  🔸 Metaphor and the Liberty of the Mind:
Metaphor emerges from the freedom of the imagination, striving to give things their “proper names,” though often failing.

“The source of metaphor is the liberty of the mind among such words as there are” (p.184) ✴

·  🔸 Metaphor as Both Resource and Failure:
Metaphor reflects the inadequacies of language, and thus, its use becomes a noble but doomed attempt to make sense of a deficient world.

“Rhetoric… is a glorious failure, and the cry of metaphor is doomed” (p.184) ✴
“We cry out to change the world by giving things their proper names—but often we fail” (p.184) ✴

·  🔸 Allegory and Catachresis: Extensions of Metaphor:
Metaphor gives rise to allegory and to its extremes, catachresis—abused or “forced” metaphors that reveal linguistic limits.

“Allegory is its narrative form… Catachresis is the figure of its abuse” (p.185) ✴
“Something monstrous lurks in the most innocent of catachreses” – Paul de Man (p.185) ✴

·  🔸 Metaphor as Escape from Literal Reality:
According to Wallace Stevens (via Frye), the motive for metaphor is to escape the oppressive weight of objective reality, “the weight of primary noon.”

“The motive for metaphor, shrinking from / The weight of primary noon” – Stevens (p.186) ✴
“To defeat or evade the force of the world, it must resort to the imaginative capacity of the mind” (p.188) ✴

·  🔸 Interpretive Differences: Frye vs. Ransom:
Frye sees the metaphor as a bridge between mind and world; Ransom views it as a poetic solution to inexpressible moral feelings.

Frye: “The only genuine joy… is in those rare moments when you feel that… we are also a part of what we know” (p.187) ✴
Ransom: The metaphor avoids “the dreary searching of your own mind” (p.187) ✴

·  🔸 Stevens’s Hegelian Idealism and Artistic Desire:
Stevens’s poetic vision resonates with Hegel’s aesthetics, where art “lifts the inner and outer world into his spiritual consciousness.”

“The universal need for art… is man’s rational need to lift the inner and outer world into his spiritual consciousness” – Hegel (p.189) ✴

·  🔸 Art and Metaphor as Acts of Decreation:
Donoghue invokes Simone Weil and Picasso to show how metaphor contributes to a modern aesthetic of undoing the real, transforming or annihilating it.

“Modern reality is a reality of decreation” (p.191) ✴
“A poem is a horde of destructions” – Stevens (p.191) ✴

·  🔸 The Danger of Bad Metaphors:
Metaphors have the power to undermine themselves—a bad metaphor, Donoghue notes, can “murder” a good one.

“He must defy / The metaphor that murders metaphor” (p.191) ✴

·  🔸 Repetition, Association, and Stevens’s Reluctance to End:
Stevens’s poetry exhibits an additive and associative structure—where metaphors are strung together without clear hierarchy.

“One phrase is instructed to produce another by association” (p.192) ✴
“His sentences tend not to be decisive… he always sees a further possibility” (p.193) ✴

·  🔸 Shrinking from Fixity and Embracing Change:
Stevens shrinks from fixed truths, favoring the fluid, unstable states metaphor enables.

“A poet writes of twilight because he shrinks from noon-day” – Stevens (p.196) ✴

·  🔸 Resemblance as a Core Principle of Metaphor:
Stevens’s metaphors rely heavily on resemblance, which Donoghue critiques as too general to be philosophically sound.

“In some sense, all things resemble each other” – Stevens (p.198) ✴
“Similarity… is relative, variable and culture-dependent” – Nelson Goodman (p.199) ✴

·  🔸 Metaphor Intensifies Reality:
When it works, metaphor heightens our sense of reality, transforming the mundane into the sublime.

“It enhances the sense of reality, heightens it, intensifies it” (p.200) ✴
Example from Ecclesiastes: “The silver cord… the golden bowl… the wheel broken at the cistern” (p.200) ✴

·  🔸 Metaphor vs. Simile:
A metaphor demands total imaginative immersion, unlike simile which allows safe distance.

“A metaphor incurs resistance… and is indifferent to shame” (p.201) ✴

·  🔸 “X” as Final Resistance and Symbol of Limit:
Stevens’s “dominant X” represents the intractable world, the final, unchangeable reality metaphor fails to penetrate.

“Nothing in the poem defeats the final ‘X'” (p.206) ✴

·  🔸 No Final Word on Metaphor:
Donoghue concludes that Stevens’s relation to metaphor is inherently unstable. Each poetic mood shifts the meaning and function of metaphor.

“We can’t expect from Stevens a definitive statement about metaphor” (p.207) ✴
“In such seemings all things are. Metaphor… will do its transforming work another day” (p.207) ✴

• 🧠 Metaphor as Cognitive and Ontological Tool
  Donoghue elevates metaphor beyond ornamentation, presenting it as essential to how humans name, understand, and exist within the world.

“It ensures that nothing goes without a name” – Quintilian (p.182)

---

• 🌀 Poetic Language as Idealist Expression
  Stevens’s metaphoric thought aligns with Hegelian idealism, portraying metaphor as a spiritual act uniting inner consciousness and external reality.

“He woke in a metaphor: this was / A metamorphosis of paradise” (p.189)

---

• 🎨 Metaphor as Aesthetic Resistance
  Metaphor becomes a form of imaginative protest against oppressive, fixed realities—”the weight of primary noon.”

“The motive for metaphor, shrinking from / The weight of primary noon” (p.186)

---

• 🔧 Engagement with Classical Rhetorical Tradition
  Through references to Aristotle, Fontanier, and Quintilian, Donoghue reinterprets rhetorical devices like allegory, catachresis, and simile.

“Allegory is its narrative form… Catachresis is the figure of its abuse” (p.185)

---

• 🧩 The ‘X’ as Limit of Language and Metaphor
  The “dominant X” in Stevens’s poem marks the threshold where metaphor fails—where language can no longer transform reality.

“Nothing in the poem defeats the final ‘X'” (p.206)

---

• 🗣️ Rhetoric as Anthropological Necessity
  Donoghue, citing Blumenberg, reframes rhetoric not as persuasion but as an existential necessity driven by human lack and insufficiency.

“The axiom of all rhetoric is the principle of insufficient reason” (p.184)

---

• 📖 Validation of Radical and ‘Abused’ Metaphors
  Defending even bizarre metaphors like “bisqued mountain,” Donoghue legitimizes catachresis as a productive, imaginative force.

“To speak of ‘forced metaphor’ is not to degrade its manifestations” (p.185)

---

• 🔍 Critique of Resemblance as Metaphoric Ground
  Donoghue challenges Stevens’s assumption that resemblance is natural, invoking Nelson Goodman’s view that similarity is culturally constructed.

“Similarity… is relative, variable and culture-dependent” (p.199)

---

• 🧬 Metaphor as Creative Ontology
  Metaphor does not just reflect reality—it makes it. It is a poietic act that creates new ways of seeing and being.

“Metaphor creates a new reality from which the original appears to be unreal” (p.188)

---

• 📜 Interplay of Modernist Certainty and Postmodern Ambiguity
  Donoghue highlights Stevens’s shifting moods and refusal to settle on a singular metaphoric theory—an openness aligning with postmodern literary theory.

“We can’t expect from Stevens a definitive statement about metaphor” (p.207)

• 🧩 Overreliance on Stevens’s Poetic Authority
  Donoghue hinges much of his theory on Wallace Stevens, potentially narrowing metaphor’s scope across diverse literary traditions.
  ➤ Critics might argue that using one poet’s temperament to frame a general theory of metaphor limits its broader applicability.

---

• 🔄 Philosophical Inconsistency
  The essay oscillates between idealism and skepticism, invoking both Hegelian unity and postmodern ambiguity without fully reconciling the two.
  ➤ “We can’t expect from Stevens a definitive statement about metaphor” (p.207) may reflect this unresolved tension.

---

• 🎨 Romanticization of Metaphor
  Donoghue tends to elevate metaphor to near-mystical status, emphasizing its aesthetic and existential powers while underplaying its structural or political dimensions.
  ➤ This limits metaphor’s role in critical discourse, including feminist, postcolonial, or ideological critiques.

---

• 📏 Neglect of Formal and Linguistic Precision
  Critics may find Donoghue’s acceptance of vague terms like “resemblance” too generous, despite his citation of Nelson Goodman’s challenge to that notion.
  ➤ He critiques Stevens but doesn’t fully abandon slippery conceptual terrain, potentially undermining analytical rigor.

---

• 🧠 Underuse of Contemporary Linguistic Theory
  While Donoghue engages with classical and continental thought, he gives minimal attention to modern cognitive or conceptual metaphor theory (e.g., Lakoff & Johnson).
  ➤ This makes the work more philosophically poetic than practically linguistic or interdisciplinary.

---

• 🌐 Limited Cultural Range
  The examples and allusions are primarily Western, white, male, and canonical, raising concerns about inclusivity and broader relevance in global poetics.
  ➤ There’s little engagement with metaphor in non-Western traditions or contemporary marginalized voices.

🔍 Mental Metaphors Are Core to Abstract Thinking

“People think about abstract domains like time and goodness metaphorically. This tendency may be universal.” (Casasanto, p. 46)
🧠 Casasanto distinguishes mental metaphors (non-linguistic mappings) from linguistic metaphors, showing that humans often think metaphorically even without language (Casasanto & Bottini, 2014a) 🌐.

---

📚 Challenges to Universality and Fixity

“Yet the claims that basic mental metaphors are learned, universal, and fixed are all challenged by experimental data” (p. 47)
🧪 Studies show variability across languages, cultures, and individuals. For instance, newborns already show sensitivity to spatial-numerical mappings, suggesting innateness rather than learning (De Hevia et al., 2014) 👶.

---

🧭 Hierarchical Mental Metaphors Theory (HMMT)

“Even our most basic mental metaphors are constructed over multiple timescales, on the basis of multiple kinds of experience.” (p. 48)
🌱 HMMT proposes that metaphors exist in superordinate families—universal but flexible—shaped by ongoing cultural, linguistic, and bodily experiences. Different mappings from the same family can become dominant over time 🏗️.

---

🎵 Pitch as an Example of Language-Specific Variation

“Speakers of height languages…incorporate height information into pitch, whereas thickness-language speakers do the same with thickness.” (p. 51)
🎼 Dutch and Farsi speakers conceptualize pitch differently based on the metaphors common in their native language, and brief training in an unfamiliar metaphor can retrain mental mappings (Dolscheid et al., 2013) 🎧.

---

👶 Infants Show Both Height–Pitch and Thickness–Pitch Mappings

“Four-month-olds…are sensitive to two of the space–pitch metaphors that are found in languages like Dutch and Farsi.” (p. 53)
👶 Infants possess multiple potential mappings early in life. Language strengthens one metaphor over another, not by creating new ones, but by enhancing the activation frequency of existing ones 🔄.

---

🕓 Temporal Sequences Are Culturally Structured

“The direction in which events flow…varies systematically across cultures.” (p. 55)
📆 While sagittal time metaphors (past behind, future ahead) may be embodied, lateral metaphors (left–right) depend on orthographic experience. Mirror-reading even reverses mental timelines (Casasanto & Bottini, 2014b) 🔄🕰️.

---

👐 Emotional Valence Tied to Body Dominance

“Right-handers associate positive ideas with right space…left-handers show the opposite.” (p. 57)
💖 The spatial mapping of good vs. bad follows motor fluency. Right-handed people associate “good” with the right, while left-handed people do the opposite. This holds even against cultural conventions (Casasanto, 2009a) ↔️.

---

🧤 Motor Experience Can Reverse Valence Mappings

“Participants who had worn the right glove showed the opposite left-is-good bias.” (p. 58)
🧠 Temporary shifts in motor fluency, like wearing a glove on the dominant hand, can alter emotional metaphors in less than 15 minutes—proving their plasticity and dependence on physical experience 🕹️.

---

🔁 Mental Metaphors Are Flexible Yet Stable

“Dispreferred mappings are weakened but not lost and can be adopted quickly with new experience.” (p. 60)
🧬 Even “unused” metaphors persist in memory, enabling people to switch mappings when context shifts (e.g., new languages, scripts, tools). This dual stability and flexibility is a core insight of HMMT 🌍🧠.

---

🌐 Cognitive Diversity and Conceptual Plasticity

“By understanding how mental metaphors are shaped…we can better understand the origins of our thoughts.” (p. 60)
🌟 Casasanto concludes that mental metaphors are fundamental cognitive tools shaped by diverse experiences. Recognizing their variability enhances our understanding of thought, culture, and language as dynamic systems 🔄🌏.

📘 1. Expands Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)

🧩 “People think about abstract domains like time and goodness metaphorically. This tendency may be universal.” (p. 46)

• 🌐 Casasanto builds on Lakoff & Johnson’s Conceptual Metaphor Theory, which underpins much cognitive literary theory.
• He advances the theory by showing that metaphorical thinking is not static, but dynamically shaped by cultural, bodily, and linguistic experience.
• Contribution: Helps literary theorists analyze how metaphor use in texts reflects both universal and idiosyncratic cognitive patterns across cultures and individuals.

---

🧠 2. Introduces HMMT: A Dynamic Model of Meaning-Making

🪜 “Mental metaphors are constructed over multiple timescales… members of a superordinate family of mappings.” (p. 48)

• 🔄 The Hierarchical Mental Metaphors Theory (HMMT) introduces plasticity into metaphor use, challenging rigid linguistic determinism.
• Literary theorists can apply this to interpret reader-response variation and narrative structures influenced by readers’ embodied or cultural metaphor biases.
• Contribution: Supports reader-centered theories like Reception Theory by explaining why readers interpret metaphors differently.

---

✍️ 3. Reframes Embodied Literary Cognition

💡 “Mental metaphors can be fundamental to our understanding of abstract domains, yet at the same time remarkably flexible.” (p. 46)

• Casasanto’s findings back embodied cognition theories in literature (e.g., Scarry, Gibbs).
• They suggest that reading metaphors activates sensorimotor systems, explaining why metaphors feel viscerally meaningful in literary texts.
• Contribution: Strengthens Embodied Poetics and Neuroaesthetics, by grounding metaphor in bodily and cultural experience.

---

🌏 4. Offers Tools for Cross-Cultural Literary Analysis

🧭 “Mental metaphors can be language-specific, culture-specific, or body-specific…” (p. 48)

• Casasanto’s research on how language shapes metaphors (e.g., pitch as “high” vs. “thick”) aids Comparative Literature by providing a framework to study how metaphors operate differently in Farsi, Dutch, English, etc.
• Contribution: Supports Postcolonial Literary Theory and Transcultural Criticism by explaining metaphorical variability across linguistic boundaries.

---

📚 5. Revitalizes Structuralist & Post-Structuralist Concerns

🧬 “How can they be fundamental…if they can change in a matter of minutes?” (p. 48)

• HMMT challenges the idea of metaphors as fixed semiotic structures, offering a fluid, memory-network-based view.
• This bridges Structuralist attention to patterns with Post-Structuralist focus on instability and play of meaning.
• Contribution: Provides a cognitive underpinning for Derridean différance—mappings are in flux, not fully stable.

---

🗣️ 6. Provides Insight into Literary Language Evolution

💬 “Each time people use a linguistic metaphor, the corresponding mental metaphor is activated…” (p. 48)

• This explains how metaphorical language in literature evolves and reshapes cognition itself over time.
• Contribution: Offers Historical Poetics and Stylistics a model to track how metaphorical patterns in texts shape cultural cognition.

---

🧤 7. Validates Body-Specific Interpretive Frameworks

✋ “Right-handers associate ‘good’ with the right…left-handers show the opposite.” (p. 57)

• Literary scholars exploring disability studies, gendered embodiment, or queer theory gain from this perspective that bodily difference affects meaning construction.
• Contribution: Adds nuance to embodied literary approaches by introducing body-specific metaphor biases.

❗ 1. Ambiguity Between “Universal” and “Flexible”

Critics argue that the theory struggles to reconcile its claim of universal metaphor families with the radical variability observed across individuals and cultures.

• 🌍 If metaphors are universal (as claimed), why are they so easily reversible in minutes (e.g., with mirrored orthography)?
• ❓ The line between innate mappings and learned cultural variants is sometimes blurred in HMMT, leading to theoretical ambiguity.

---

🧪 2. Overreliance on Laboratory Evidence

Many of the cited experiments use artificial settings and brief interventions that may not reflect natural cognitive behavior in real-world contexts.

• 🧫 For example, spatial interference tasks with tones and shapes may oversimplify how people process metaphor in language, art, or literature.
• Critics suggest HMMT may not fully explain deep metaphorical reasoning in complex, real-life scenarios like literature or politics.

---

🧠 3. Neglects Social and Power Structures

While HMMT accounts for body, language, and culture, it underplays the role of ideology, power, and discourse in shaping metaphors.

• ⚖️ Critics from poststructuralist and postcolonial perspectives argue that metaphors are not just cognitive, but also political and rhetorical tools.
• HMMT lacks engagement with theories from Foucault, Butler, or Bourdieu regarding language, identity, and control.

---

📏 4. Limited Scope of Metaphor Domains

The theory focuses mostly on space-based metaphors (e.g., time, pitch, valence), ignoring rich metaphorical domains like morality, love, or nationhood.

• 💘 Metaphors like “love is war” or “the nation is a body” involve emotionally and socially charged concepts that go beyond space–domain mappings.
• HMMT’s hierarchy model might not apply cleanly to multi-domain metaphors or culturally embedded conceptual blends.

---

🔁 5. Circularity in Evidence and Explanation

Some scholars argue that HMMT explains metaphor flexibility by invoking metaphor flexibility, creating a tautology.

• 🔄 If all metaphor changes can be explained by metaphor competition, the theory may be unfalsifiable without more predictive power.
• The model risks retrospective explanation rather than offering testable forecasts of metaphor use across populations.

---

🔤 6. Language Bias in “Universal” Claims

Critics point out that most empirical studies cited (Dutch, English, Farsi) reflect Indo-European language systems, leaving global linguistic diversity underexplored.

• 🌐 No substantial data from tonal languages (e.g., Chinese), sign languages, or indigenous oral traditions.
• Claims of universality may be premature or Western-centric.

🔵 1.
Quotation:

“People think about abstract domains like time and goodness metaphorically. This tendency may be universal.”
Explanation:
This sets the foundation of the chapter, asserting that metaphor is not merely a linguistic device, but a cognitive universal shaping how humans understand complex, abstract domains through more tangible ones like space.

---

🟢 2.
Quotation:

“Mental metaphors are mappings between non-linguistic representations in a source domain and a target domain that is typically more abstract.”
Explanation:
Here, Casasanto distinguishes mental metaphors from linguistic metaphors, stressing that such mappings occur without language, in our internal thought processes.

---

🟣 3.
Quotation:

“The specific mappings that get used most frequently or automatically can vary across individuals and groups.”
Explanation:
This illustrates how individual experience, culture, and language can shape which mental metaphors dominate, despite their shared foundational structure.

---

🔴 4.
Quotation:

“Even our most basic mental metaphors are constructed over multiple timescales, on the basis of multiple kinds of experience.”
Explanation:
Casasanto argues against static universality, proposing that metaphor development is hierarchical and dynamic, adapting over time through layered experiential inputs.

---

🟡 5.
Quotation:

“Activating a mapping strengthens this source–target association and… weakens the competing source–target mappings in the same family.”
Explanation:
This reveals how competitive associative learning guides which metaphors become dominant, explaining both their entrenchment and malleability.

---

🟤 6.
Quotation:

“It may be a human universal to conceptualize these domains in terms of space… but the particulars… vary across groups.”
Explanation:
A critical point for cognitive diversity: while spatial metaphors may be universal scaffolds, their expression is culturally and bodily specific.

---

🔶 7.
Quotation:

“Speakers of thickness languages like Farsi come to rely on multidimensional spatial schemas more strongly than vertical spatial schemas.”
Explanation:
An empirical insight showing how language experience determines spatial representation in mental metaphors—an example of linguistic relativity at work.

---

🔷 8.
Quotation:

“Participants did not abandon a spatial mapping of time; rather they rapidly adopted a different mental timeline.”
Explanation:
Illustrates the flexibility of metaphorical thinking. Even entrenched metaphors can be reversed or replaced with new experience, often within minutes.

---

⚫ 9.
Quotation:

“The fluent region of space is good.”
Explanation:
From the theory of bodily relativity, this quote links motor fluency to valence, showing that bodily asymmetries shape ethical and emotional judgments.

---

⚪ 10.
Quotation:

“By seeking to understand common mechanisms… we can better understand the origins of our thoughts, the extent of cognitive diversity, and the dynamism of our mental lives.”
Explanation:
This concluding statement encapsulates the purpose of HMMT: to account for shared cognitive architecture while explaining its adaptive diversity.

🔵 1. Rejection of Metaphor as Mere Ornament

Black criticizes the belief that “addiction to metaphor is held to be illicit,” equating metaphorical expression with frivolity or unclear thinking (p. 273).
🔹 “To draw attention to a philosopher’s metaphors is to belittle him—like praising a logician for his beautiful handwriting” (p. 273).

---

🟡 2. The “Substitution View” of Metaphor Is Inadequate

This outdated view treats a metaphor as a coded or poetic stand-in for a literal equivalent.
🔸 “The meaning of [a metaphor], in its metaphorical occurrence, is just the literal meaning of [its replacement]” (p. 279).

---

🟢 3. Comparison View Also Falls Short

Metaphors are often falsely treated as elliptical similes: “Richard is a lion” becomes “Richard is like a lion (in being brave)” (p. 284).
🔹 “The metaphor creates the similarity rather than formulates a similarity antecedently existing” (p. 285).

---

🔴 4. Introduction of the “Interaction View”

Black’s main innovation: metaphors involve interaction between two subject systems—a “principal subject” and a “subsidiary subject.”
🔸 “A metaphorical statement has two distinct subjects—a ‘principal’ subject and a ‘subsidiary’ one” (p. 291).
🔸 “We can say that the principal subject is ‘seen through’ the metaphorical expression” (p. 288).

---

🟣 5. Metaphor as Conceptual Filter

Like looking through tinted glass: metaphor emphasizes, organizes, and suppresses aspects of the principal subject using the implications of the subsidiary.
🔹 “The metaphor selects, emphasizes, suppresses, and organizes features of the principal subject” (p. 292).
🔹 “The chess vocabulary filters and transforms: it not only selects, it brings forward aspects…that might not be seen at all” (p. 289).

---

🟤 6. “Associated Commonplaces” Are Central

Metaphors activate culturally shared assumptions or “commonplaces” about the metaphor’s vehicle.
🔸 “To call a man a ‘wolf’ is to evoke the wolf-system of related commonplaces” (p. 288).
🔸 These include ideas like “fierce,” “scavenger,” “hungry,” which shape perception of the man.

---

⚪ 7. Cognitive Value of Metaphor Surpasses Literal Paraphrase

Metaphors carry insights that paraphrase cannot match. Literal restatements lose the richness and nuance.
🔹 “The literal paraphrase inevitably says too much—and with the wrong emphasis” (p. 293).
🔹 “It fails to give the insight that the metaphor did” (p. 293).

---

🟥 8. Philosophical and Epistemic Importance of Metaphor

Far from decorative, metaphor is a tool for thought. Black defends its role in serious inquiry:
🔸 “A prohibition against their use would be a wilful and harmful restriction upon our powers of inquiry” (p. 294).

---

📌 Summary of the Interaction Theory in 7 Points (from p. 291–292)

1. Two distinct subjects: principal & subsidiary
2. Subjects are systems, not just terms
3. Meaning arises from the interaction of systems
4. These involve associated implications (commonplaces)
5. The metaphor organizes perception
6. Involves semantic shifts—sometimes metaphorical
7. No universal rule for what makes a metaphor effective

🔵 Interaction Theory of Metaphor as Cognitive Process
→ Black’s central claim is that metaphor is not just linguistic ornamentation, but a way of knowing, creating meaning by interaction between subjects.
📚 Structuralism / Cognitive Poetics
📝 “The meaning is a resultant of their interaction” (p. 286).
📝 “Metaphor… selects, emphasizes, suppresses, and organizes features…” (p. 292).
✅ This aligns with structuralist ideas that meaning emerges from relational systems, and anticipates cognitive theories that link language and thought.

---

🟣 Challenge to Substitution and Comparison Views
→ Black dismantles classical views of metaphor as merely decorative or rhetorical devices (substitutes or comparisons).
📚 Formalism / Classical Rhetoric (critique)
📝 “The metaphorical use of an expression consists… in other than its proper or normal sense” (p. 279).
✅ His rejection of the ornamental view reshapes metaphor as essential to discourse—not an optional flourish, but foundational.

---

🟢 Introduction of “Associated Commonplaces”
→ Metaphors draw on culturally embedded “commonplaces,” showing that meaning is socially constructed.
📚 Reader-Response Theory / Cultural Criticism
📝 “To call a man a ‘wolf’ is to evoke the wolf-system of related commonplaces” (p. 288).
✅ Meaning depends on the reader’s cultural background, positioning metaphor as interpretively flexible and subjective.

---

🔴 Metaphor as Semantic Innovation (Meaning Creation)
→ Metaphors don’t just reflect meaning—they create it, often producing insights unavailable in literal language.
📚 Deconstruction / Poststructuralism
📝 “It would be more illuminating… to say that the metaphor creates the similarity than to say that it formulates one” (p. 285).
✅ Undermines stable meaning, supporting poststructuralist ideas of fluid, shifting significations.

---

🟡 Critique of Rigid Semantics: Emphasis on Pragmatics
→ Meaning is context-bound, tied to speaker intent, tone, occasion, and cannot be dictated solely by linguistic rules.
📚 Pragmatics / Speech Act Theory
📝 “We must not expect the ‘rules of language’ to be of much help…” (p. 278).
📝 “Recognition and interpretation… may require attention to the particular circumstances of its utterance” (p. 277).
✅ Helps literary theorists see how language performs, not just represents, meaning.

---

🟤 Metaphor as Epistemological Lens
→ Like a lens or screen, metaphor highlights and conceals—framing perception.
📚 Phenomenology / Hermeneutics
📝 “The metaphor acts as a screen… seen through the metaphor” (p. 288).
✅ Reinforces Heideggerian or Gadamerian notions that language discloses the world, not neutrally reflects it.

---

🟠 Valuation of Metaphor in Philosophy and Literature
→ Argues that metaphor is not a fallacy or simplification but a philosophically legitimate tool for inquiry and reflection.
📚 Philosophy of Language / Literary Philosophy
📝 “Metaphors are dangerous—and perhaps especially so in philosophy. But a prohibition… would be a harmful restriction…” (p. 294).
✅ Elevates metaphor from literary fringe to central in philosophical analysis.

---

🟣 Bridging Literary Criticism and Analytic Philosophy
→ Black borrows from literary critics to address philosophers’ neglect of metaphor.
📚 Interdisciplinary Literary Theory
📝 “Since philosophers… have so neglected the subject, I must get what help I can from the literary critics” (p. 273).
✅ Encourages cross-disciplinary dialogue, anticipating literary philosophy and analytic aesthetics.

🔺 Vagueness in the “System of Associated Commonplaces”
Black relies heavily on culturally shared assumptions (commonplaces), but critics argue these are not clearly defined or universally shared, making interpretation subjective and unstable.
➡️ “The metaphor works by applying to the principal subject a system of ‘associated implications’…” (Black, 1955, p. 292)

🔻 Potential for Infinite Regress
Critics note that if metaphors themselves contain metaphorical implications (as Black suggests), each metaphor could contain layers of others, leading to an endless chain of interpretation.
➡️ “The primary metaphor…has been analyzed into a set of subordinate metaphors…” (p. 290)

⚠️ Underdeveloped Cognitive Framework
Black touches on the cognitive impact of metaphors but doesn’t fully explore their psychological or neurological processing, leaving a gap that later scholars (e.g., Lakoff & Johnson) attempted to fill.

🟠 Neglect of Audience Diversity
Black assumes a reader who shares cultural knowledge. But in multicultural or global contexts, the same metaphor can evoke vastly different associations, limiting the theory’s universality.
➡️ “A metaphor that works in one society may seem preposterous in another…” (p. 287)

🔹 Ambiguity Between Focus and Frame
While innovative, the distinction between “focus” and “frame” can be blurry in complex texts, making it difficult to apply consistently, especially in layered literary metaphors.
➡️ “Let us call the word ‘ploughed’ the focus of the metaphor, and the remainder of the sentence…the frame.” (p. 276)

🚫 Dismissal of Other Metaphor Types
Some critics argue that Black’s elevation of interaction metaphors inadvertently dismisses valid uses of substitution and comparison metaphors, especially in rhetorical or poetic traditions.

🟣 Not Empirically Testable
The theory is largely philosophical and interpretive, lacking empirical methods or linguistic models that could verify or falsify its claims in practice.

🔹 1. Bridging Cognition and Discourse in Metaphor Theory

• Contemporary metaphor theory attempts to reconcile the cognitive and discursive approaches to metaphor.
• Embodied metaphor is not just a mental construct, but also socially and communicatively emergent.
  👉 “Metaphor… as socially emergent cognition, not just as private concepts buried inside people’s heads.” (Gibbs 2014a: 34–38)

---

🔸 2. Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT): Foundation and Critiques

• CMT redefined metaphor as conceptual, not just linguistic, challenging the view of metaphor as decorative.
  👉 “Metaphor as a ubiquitous conceptual figure… part of the shared tacit knowledge of speakers.”
• Critics argue CMT is too static and fails to capture metaphor’s messy, contextual usage.
  👉 “Metaphor in language use [is] relatively more messy – or perhaps rather dramatically enriched.”

---

✅ 3. Role of Multimodality and Gesture

• Gesture and multimodal research connect cognition and discourse by studying metaphor across bodily, visual, and verbal channels.
• These findings support a view of metaphor as dynamic, embodied, and interactive.
  👉 “Communicative events are by default constituted by expressions from multiple semiotic channels.”

---

🌱 4. Primary vs. Complex Metaphors

• Primary metaphors are rooted in embodied experience (e.g., importance is size, affection is warmth).
  👉 “Primary metaphors… arise from bodily experience”
• Complex metaphors (e.g., life is a journey) are culturally shaped analogies that may be built from primary metaphors.
  👉 “Primary metaphors… motivate or constrain complex metaphors by providing deeply embodied point-wise connections.”

---

🧠 5. Multilevel Model of Metaphor

• Metaphor operates across multiple levels:
  1) Neurophysiology → 2) Cognition → 3) Discourse → 4) Language systems → 5) Culture → 6) Evolution.
• Language reflects cultural and bodily experience and distributes cognition across individuals and time.
  👉 “Culture can be seen as a potent, cumulative reservoir of resources for learning, problem solving, and reasoning.” (Theiner 2014)

---

🔁 6. Dynamic Systems and Distributed Cognition

• Social interaction creates emergent metaphorical meaning—beyond individual minds.
  👉 “The synergy emerging from individuals co-acting as a group… enslaves the behavior of individual actors.”
• Dynamic metaphor use depends on context, group interaction, and cultural embedding.

---

🎭 7. Metaphor in Real-Time Face-to-Face Interaction

• Metaphors evolve dynamically in discourse and are shaped by co-participants.
  👉 “The full functionality of a metaphor emerges from repeated occurrences of token expressions.”
• Example: Journey and bridge metaphors used during reconciliation dialogues show how deeply metaphors are tied to shared social narratives.

---

💬 8. Metaphor Activation: Dead or Alive?

• Some metaphors become “dead” or inactive in comprehension unless context revives them.
• However, primary (correlational) metaphors may remain mentally active even in conventional forms.
  👉 “Correlational metaphors never retire.” (Casasanto 2013)

---

🧪 9. Embodied Simulation Hypothesis

• The strongest claim: understanding metaphors involves re-enacting sensorimotor experiences (simulation).
  👉 “Metaphorical simulations may generally be less detailed and specific than simulations of literal, non-abstract meanings.”
• Still under debate due to mixed neurocognitive evidence.

---

🔍 10. Toward a Unified Theory

• The chapter calls for an integrative socio-cognitive model that merges the strengths of both traditions.
  👉 “Understanding what metaphor is requires a thorough understanding of what it does.”

🔄 Redefining Metaphor as Both Cognitive and Discursive

Hampe challenges the traditional literary view of metaphor as merely poetic or rhetorical.
🗨️ “Metaphor as part of thought, but as socially emergent cognition, not just as private concepts buried inside people’s heads.” (Hampe, p. 3)
✅ Contribution: Moves beyond metaphor as ornamentation, placing it at the core of conceptual and cultural cognition — relevant for analyzing metaphors in literature as cognitive and communal acts.

---

🧠 Advancing Embodied Approaches to Literary Language

The text links bodily experience to metaphor comprehension and production in both speech and writing.
🗨️ “Primary metaphors… constituted by conceptual correspondences that arise from bodily experience.” (p. 7)
✅ Contribution: Aligns literary metaphor with embodied cognition — supporting analysis of physicality, emotion, and sensorimotor grounding in figurative literary expressions.

---

🌐 Bridging Literary Discourse and Cognitive Science

The chapter invites interdisciplinary convergence, drawing literary scholars into socio-cognitive metaphor theory.
🗨️ “It is high time for metaphor theory to integrate the major insights yielded by these… complementary strands of inquiry.” (p. 3)
✅ Contribution: Reorients literary theory toward integrated cognitive-discursive models, expanding the scope of metaphor analysis in texts and cultural contexts.

---

🧩 Enriching Literary Interpretation with Multilevel Metaphor Analysis

Introduces a framework for metaphor at levels from language systems to evolution.
🗨️ “A model… ranging from the bodily foundations… to the evolutionary scale.” (p. 11)
✅ Contribution: Equips literary scholars with a multilevel toolkit to interpret metaphors dynamically—across character, narration, genre, and cultural tradition.

---

🧶 Introducing Dynamic and Contextual Metaphor Usage

Emphasizes how metaphors emerge and shift meaning within discourse events.
🗨️ “Patterns of metaphor… shift in meaning, depend on interaction and vary across genres.” (p. 6)
✅ Contribution: Grounds literary metaphor in real-time, socially interactive contexts—offering tools to analyze metaphor across scenes, dialogue, and reader response.

---

🧬 Highlighting the Cultural and Linguistic Embodiment of Figurative Language

Metaphors vary across languages and cultures but are shaped by shared bodily and linguistic experience.
🗨️ “Transparent metaphors… do not die because their original vehicles are so basic and universal to our experience.” (p. 10)
✅ Contribution: Enhances cross-cultural literary analysis by linking metaphor universals and variations to cultural embodiment and linguistic systems.

---

🌀 Complex Metaphor as Cultural Narrative Structure

Complex metaphors like life is a journey are seen as stable yet adaptable frames in literary and public discourse.
🗨️ “Enduring conceptual metaphors present ‘stabilities’ that ’emerge’ in bigger groups and over larger timescales.” (p. 15)
✅ Contribution: Supports narrative theory and cultural critique—analyzing how recurring metaphors scaffold ideologies, character arcs, and worldview in literature.

---

🖐️ Foregrounding Gesture and Performance in Metaphor Theory

Expands metaphor beyond verbal language to include multimodal and gestural dimensions.
🗨️ “Gestures… are produced as part of the cognitive processes that underlie thinking and speaking.” (p. 11)
✅ Contribution: Encourages performance-based literary criticism (e.g. drama, spoken word) to consider how metaphor is embodied and enacted in gesture and tone.

---

🧭 Modeling Metaphor as Emergent in Interactive Literary Discourse

Metaphors in conversation, including literature, are emergent, co-created, and situated.
🗨️ “Systematic metaphors… emerge from repeated occurrences over the course of a social interaction.” (p. 16)
✅ Contribution: Invites reinterpretation of dialogue, dramatic interaction, and reader-response as collaborative metaphorical meaning-making.

---

📚 Literature as a Site of Multimodal Metaphor Activation

Even conventional metaphors retain potential for reactivation, recontextualization, and embodiment.
🗨️ “The fact that a speaker uses a conventional metaphor… does not entail its source-domain content remains inactive.” (p. 20)
✅ Contribution: Empowers literary scholars to read layers of metaphorical depth, even in cliché or conventional metaphors, reinterpreting them as contextually reawakened.

🔍 Criticism Against Hampe’s Socio-Cognitive Model

• 🧭 Overcomplexity of Multilevel Integration
  The attempt to unify cognitive, discursive, cultural, and evolutionary scales into one dynamic model risks becoming too broad and unwieldy to be practically applicable or testable.
  (cf. pp. 10–12, “levels from neurophysiology to evolution”)
• 🧱 Unclear Operationalization of ‘Embodiment’
  While advocating for embodied cognition, the chapter does not clearly distinguish between different degrees or types of embodiment (e.g., neural vs. social). Critics may argue that the term is used too loosely.
  (cf. pp. 13–14, discussion of Casasanto’s and Soliman & Glenberg’s views)
• 🎭 Neglect of Literary and Aesthetic Metaphor
  The focus is on empirical and conversational data. Aesthetic, poetic, and literary metaphor is rarely engaged with, limiting the theory’s relevance to literary studies, despite its potential.
  (cf. general focus on discourse and gesture analysis, pp. 5–6, 16–18)
• 📉 Underestimates the Role of Individual Creativity
  The emphasis on group interaction and distributed cognition may downplay the role of individual metaphorical innovation and artistic agency in meaning-making.
  (cf. pp. 12–13, on “soft-assembled” group dynamics)
• 🎲 Empirical Evidence for Simulation Hypothesis Is Inconclusive
  While Hampe references Bergen and Gibbs’ metaphorical simulation hypothesis, neurological evidence remains mixed and far from conclusive, especially for abstract metaphors.
  (cf. pp. 20–21)
• 🔁 Bidirectionality Challenges CMT Assumptions
  The chapter accepts new findings showing bidirectional metaphor processing (e.g., warmth → affection and vice versa), but this contradicts earlier unidirectional CMT claims, creating a theoretical tension.
  (cf. pp. 9–10, Casasanto and Lakoff debates)
• 🌍 Western-Centric Embodiment Claims
  Although Hampe acknowledges cultural variation, the reliance on English and Indo-European examples may limit the universality of her claims about primary metaphors.
  (cf. pp. 14–15, e.g., knowing is seeing vs. hearing in Aboriginal languages)
• 🎯 Vague Causality Between Embodiment and Discourse
  While the chapter emphasizes interplay, it often fails to specify causal mechanisms — how exactly embodied schemas shape discourse and vice versa remains under-explained.

🔄 Rejection of Metaphor in Literature

• 🔹 Deleuze rejects metaphor as central to literary expression:

“The general rejection of metaphor that informs Deleuze’s work on literature can be more precisely defined as a theory of free indirect discourse” (Marks, 1997, p. 234).

• 🔹 Metaphor is seen as “disastrous for the study of language”, only a secondary effect of indirect discourse:

“Metaphors and metonymies are merely effects… they presuppose indirect discourse” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 76; quoted in Marks, 1997, p. 238).
🌈 (Theme: Against Representation)

---

🗣️ Free Indirect Discourse as a Literary Principle

• 🟣 Free indirect discourse is key to Deleuze’s literary philosophy:

“It is no longer metaphor… it is free indirect discourse” (Deleuze, 1986, p. 73; in Marks, 1997, p. 239).

• 🟣 It reflects the multiplicity of voices in literature, enabling a zone of indiscernibility between narrator and character:

“Literature is a matter of becomings… a zone of indiscernibility” (Marks, 1997, p. 234).
🌈 (Theme: Multiplicity & Enunciation)

---

🌍 American Literature as a Model

• 🟢 Deleuze privileges American literature for its experimental and deterritorialized character:

“Anglo-American literature is somehow ‘superior’… a literature of flight, rupture, deterritorialisation” (Marks, 1997, p. 235).

• 🟢 Writers like Whitman, Melville, and Kerouac illustrate the “line of flight” and “open road” ideology, resisting interpretation:

“Whitman’s essential message was the Open Road… the bravest doctrine man has ever proposed to himself” (Lawrence, 1964, quoted in Marks, 1997, p. 233).
🌈 (Theme: Deterritorialization & Experimentation)

---

🧠 The Impersonal Force of Literature

• 🔴 Writing becomes impersonal; the self is dissolved:

“Literature is characterised by ‘the force of the impersonal’” (Deleuze, 1993, p. 13; cited in Marks, 1997, p. 234).

• 🔴 Great writers are “symptomatologists,” revealing signs and flows rather than telling personal stories:

“They may themselves be physically frail… overwhelmed by the life that traverses them” (Marks, 1997, p. 234).
🌈 (Theme: Impersonality & Affects)

---

🌀 Characters without Identity

• 🟡 Characters like Bartleby and Nashe resist psychological or moral interpretation:

“Bartleby’s ‘I prefer not to’… hollows out a zone of indiscernibility” (Marks, 1997, p. 237).
“Nashe… remains obscure… describing Nashe’s enigmatic inner world” (Marks, 1997, p. 237).
🌈 (Theme: Subject Dissolution)

---

🎥 Application in Cinema

• 🔵 Deleuze extends free indirect discourse to cinema (e.g., Cinema 1 & 2):

“Cinema’s perpetual destiny… from objective perception to subjective perception” (Deleuze, 1986, p. 72; in Marks, 1997, p. 239).

• 🔵 Directors like Godard and Antonioni use free indirect discourse to displace the viewer’s position and create polyphonic narratives.
  🌈 (Theme: Media Crossovers)

---

🌿 Landscape, Percepts, and the Earth

• 🟢 Deleuze argues that art is geophilosophical, rooted in the earth, not metaphor:

“We are not in the world, we become with the world… everything is vision, becoming” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 169; in Marks, 1997, p. 243).

• 🟢 Lawrence and Melville show how landscapes “see” and affect the subject, dissolving individual consciousness:

“The landscape sees as much as the subject… the mind is a membrane” (Zourabichvili, 1996, cited in Marks, 1997, p. 243).
🌈 (Theme: Percepts & Territory)

---

📚 Polyphony and Democratic Expression

• 🟣 Literature allows the coexistence of voices, especially in American literature:

“Whitman is… a poet of polyphony” (Marks, 1997, p. 236).
“The novel contains… polyphonic, and plurivocal compounds” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, p. 188; in Marks, 1997, p. 239).
🌈 (Theme: Plurality & Minor Literature)

---

🌌 Affects and Percepts in Literary Creation

• 🔴 Literature creates percepts and affects, not metaphors:

“Percepts aren’t perceptions… affects aren’t feelings, they’re becomings” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1995, p. 137; in Marks, 1997, p. 241).

• 🔴 Melville and Kafka are cited as creators of perceptual intensities, not interpreters of meaning.
  🌈 (Theme: Becoming & Intensity)

🌀 Poststructuralism & Anti-Hermeneutics

• 🔸 Challenge to traditional interpretation and hermeneutics: Marks emphasizes Deleuze’s resistance to interpretation in favor of flows, becomings, and intensities, destabilizing meaning as fixed or representational.

“Abandon interpretation in favour of ‘fluxes’ or flows” (Marks, 1997, p. 234).

• 🔸 Marks positions Deleuze as part of a poststructuralist rejection of metaphor and symbol in favor of immanence and literal becoming.

“Metaphor… has no real significance… all language is indirect, or ‘oblique’” (Marks, 1997, p. 238).
🌈 (Contribution: Critiques metaphoric language and interpretive models)

---

🎭 Narratology / Voice Theory

• 🗣️ The paper significantly contributes to narrative theory through its analysis of free indirect discourse as central to literary enunciation.

“Free indirect discourse… blurs the distinction between narrator, character and author” (Marks, 1997, p. 239).

• 🗣️ This challenges classic narratology’s rigid distinctions between first-person/third-person or author/narrator/character, suggesting instead a polyvocal or plural mode of storytelling.

“All discourse is indirect… many voices in a voice, murmurings, speaking in tongues” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, quoted in Marks, 1997, p. 238).
🌈 (Contribution: Advances polyphonic and hybrid narrative theory)

---

🌍 Minor Literature / World Literature

• 🌐 The article develops Deleuze & Guattari’s concept of “minor literature”, showing how American literature functions as a destabilizing, experimental space.

“American literature is a minor literature ‘par excellence’… its fragmentary nature lends itself to collective statements” (Marks, 1997, p. 236).

• 🌐 By doing so, Marks contributes to the growing theoretical interest in non-canonical, transnational, and politically minor writing.

“American literature creates something schizophrenic from the neurosis of the Old World” (Marks, 1997, p. 236).
🌈 (Contribution: Reinforces minoritarian aesthetics and postcolonial resonance)

---

🧩 Affect Theory

• ❤️ Marks connects Deleuze’s theory of affects—intensities beyond emotion or cognition—with literary practices.

“Affects aren’t feelings… they’re becomings that spill over beyond whoever lives through them” (Marks, 1997, p. 241).

• ❤️ This influences the affective turn in literary theory, where emotion, sensation, and intensity replace interpretation and psychological realism.

“Literature creates percepts and affects, not metaphors” (Marks, 1997, p. 241).
🌈 (Contribution: Deepens affect theory’s engagement with literary form)

---

🌄 Ecocriticism / Geophilosophy

• 🌿 Marks shows how Deleuze’s geophilosophy proposes a new relationship between literature, subjectivity, and environment: the landscape sees.

“The landscape sees as much as the subject… the mind is a membrane rather than a searchlight” (Marks, 1997, p. 243).

• 🌿 This moves beyond anthropocentric readings to consider how geography, materiality, and affect form literature.

“Art is the Earth’s song… becoming is geographical” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994, cited in Marks, 1997, pp. 241–243).
🌈 (Contribution: Contributes to ecocritical, materialist approaches in literary theory)

---

🧠 Experimental Literary Form & Modernism/Postmodernism

• 📚 By exploring authors like Whitman, Melville, Kafka, Beckett, and Lawrence, Marks aligns Deleuze with the tradition of modernist and postmodern experimentation.

“Great writers… invent ways of living, of surviving, resisting, and freeing life” (Marks, 1997, p. 234).

• 📚 This supports a non-linear, fragmented understanding of literature where logic and character dissolve into flows and becomings.

“The American writer must write spontaneously in fragments, or ‘specimens’” (Marks, 1997, p. 236).
🌈 (Contribution: Links modernist experimentation with Deleuzian ontology)

---

🎬 Intermedial Theory / Cinema Studies

• 🎞️ Marks shows how Deleuze’s literary theory overlaps with cinematic theory, especially through Cinema 1 and Cinema 2.

“Cinema’s perpetual destiny is to make us move from an objective perception to a subjective perception” (Marks, 1997, p. 239).

• 🎞️ This contributes to intermedial studies, where literature, cinema, and art share aesthetic functions—e.g., the indirect discourse of the image.

“Free indirect discourse is an aesthetic cogito to which cinema is ideally suited” (Marks, 1997, p. 234).
🌈 (Contribution: Connects narrative techniques across media)

---

🧬 Materialism / Assemblage Theory

• 🧩 Marks presents literature not as symbolic but as a material assemblage of affects, language, subjectivity, and sensation.

“Speaking in tongues… the molecular assemblage of enunciation” (Marks, 1997, p. 238).

• 🧩 This reinforces non-representational theories of literature that align with new materialism and assemblage thought.
  🌈 (Contribution: Develops a non-human-centered, assemblage-based literary materialism)

⚖️ Philosophical Overreach

• 🧠 Too abstract for literary analysis: Critics may argue that Marks, by channeling Deleuze’s philosophy, often departs from grounded textual analysis, making the paper more philosophical than literary.

📍 Focuses more on Deleuze’s ontology than the works themselves.

---

📉 Marginalization of Metaphor

• 🔍 Neglects metaphor’s productive role: The paper follows Deleuze in rejecting metaphor wholesale, but this can be seen as reductive, especially when metaphor is a cornerstone of literary aesthetics.

📍 “Against metaphor” stance may ignore how metaphor generates complexity and ambiguity in literature.

---

📚 Selective Canon

• 📘 Overemphasis on Anglo-American and male writers: While celebrating “minor literature,” the essay paradoxically centers canonical white male authors (Melville, Whitman, Lawrence, etc.), overlooking more diverse minoritarian voices.

📍 Limited representation of gendered, racialized, or non-Western ‘minor’ literatures.

---

🌀 Ambiguity in Methodology

• 🧩 Conceptual slippage: Terms like becoming, assemblage, and percept are used evocatively but can feel vague or underdefined in a literary context, making application difficult for close reading.

📍 Lacks methodological clarity for literary critics unfamiliar with Deleuzian vocabulary.

---

📽️ Overextension into Cinema

• 🎬 Cinema analysis diverts from literary focus: The integration of Cinema 1 and Cinema 2 insights, while illuminating, might distract from the core argument about literature, creating a diffuse theoretical field.

📍 Blurs the boundary between literary and cinematic analysis, potentially weakening focus.

---

🧭 Directionless in Application

• 🔄 Non-linear, deterritorialized structure: Although this mirrors Deleuzian logic, the article’s structure can appear unanchored, making it challenging for readers seeking cohesive literary theory.

📍 May feel like a “rhizome” of ideas without clear critical payoff.

---

🧓 Lack of Contemporary Examples

• ⌛ Few modern or experimental texts beyond 20th-century canon: Despite theoretical openness, the essay focuses on earlier works (Melville, Beckett, etc.) and lacks strong engagement with contemporary or avant-garde literature post-1990s.

📍 Missed opportunity to apply Deleuze to newer postmodern or digital literature.

---

🤖 Inaccessibility

• 🧬 Heavy jargon and reliance on Deleuzian idiom: The density of Deleuzean terminology may alienate readers not already versed in poststructuralism or continental philosophy.

📍 Difficult for entry-level students or general literary scholars to engage with.

1. CDA’s Neglect of Metaphor

• While CDA has focused on structures like passivization and nominalisation, metaphor has been underexplored.

“Metaphor, on the other hand, has been largely neglected in mainstream CDA” (Hart, 2008, p. 91).

• Yet metaphor is central to how ideology and social reality are constructed.

“Metaphor is ‘central to critical discourse analysis since it is concerned with forming a coherent view of reality'” (Charteris-Black, 2004, p. 28, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).

---

🔹 2. Metaphors as Ideological Tools

• Metaphors shape our understanding and privilege certain perspectives.

“Metaphors are ideological… in so far as they ‘define in significant part what one takes as reality'” (Chilton & Lakoff, 1995, p. 56, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).

• They serve both the interpersonal and ideational functions of language.

“Metaphors also play an important role with regard to both the interpersonal and the ideational function of language” (Hart, 2008, p. 91).

---

🔹 3. Call for Cognitive Approaches in CDA

• CDA needs a cognitive dimension to explain how discourse produces social knowledge.

“Discourse is produced and interpreted by human individuals interacting with one another” (Chilton, 2005a, p. 23, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).

• Cognitive linguistics and CDA both deal with language, cognition, and culture, making the former suitable for metaphor analysis in CDA.

---

🔹 4. Critique of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)

Hart identifies three major incompatibilities between CMT and CDA:

a) Problem of Focus

• CMT is too abstract and introspective, relying on imagined examples.

“The data CMT presents… are often not attested but rather appeal to native speaker intuition” (Hart, 2008, p. 92).

b) Problem of Motivation

• CMT sees metaphor as an unconscious product of embodiment, ignoring speaker intention.

“Metaphors are ‘chosen by speakers to achieve particular communication goals'” (Charteris-Black, 2004, p. 247, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 93).

c) Problem of Relation

• CMT posits that linguistic expressions merely reflect internal thought structures, while CDA sees discourse as constructing thought.

“In CDA… linguistic representation in discourse can determine, to some extent, conceptual representation” (Hart, 2008, p. 94).

---

🔹 5. Introduction of Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT)

• CBT focuses on online meaning construction through multiple input spaces.

“Blending can ‘compose elements from the input spaces to provide relations that do not exist in the separate inputs'” (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p. 48, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 96).

• The blend is not just a reflection but a site of cognitive activity, where meaning, reasoning, and emotion coalesce.

“Blended spaces are ‘sites for central cognitive work: reasoning… drawing inferences… and developing emotions'” (Fauconnier & Turner, 1996, p. 115, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 97).

---

🔹 6. Selective Projection and Ideological Framing

• Not all knowledge is projected into the blend—what’s left out is often ideologically significant.

“Speakers may choose to recruit particular structure in order to promote a certain perceived reality” (Hart, 2008, p. 96).

---

🔹 7. Entrenchment and Social Cognition

• Frequent metaphorical blends become entrenched and shared socially, reinforcing dominant ideologies.

“Integration networks built up dynamically can become entrenched and available to be activated all at once” (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p. 103, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 97).

• Such entrenched blends function as social cognitions in Van Dijk’s model.

“Entrenched conceptual blending networks are precisely the mental representations and processes of group members” (Hart, 2008, p. 97).

---

🔹 8. Three Types of ‘Discourse’ and Metaphor’s Place

• Drawing from Foucault and Fairclough, Hart distinguishes:
  • Discourse (concrete): actual talk/text
  • Discourse (collective): sets of related statements
  • Discourse (abstract): systems of knowledge/practice
• Metaphors travel across all three:

“Synchronically, current conventional uses of metaphor reflect entrenched conceptual blending patterns…. Diachronically… they give rise to entrenched conceptual blending patterns” (Hart, 2008, p. 99).

---

🔹 9. Case Study: BNP Immigration Metaphors

• Hart analyses metaphors in the British National Party 2005 manifesto to show how metaphor supports racist and exclusionary discourse.

a) Immigration as Water

• ‘Flood of asylum seekers’ uses the topoi of number and danger, making immigrants seem overwhelming and threatening.

“The conceptualisation of an ongoing ‘flood of asylum seekers’ immediately warrants… restrictive immigration policy” (Hart, 2008, p. 100).

b) Nation as Container

• Britain is conceptualised as a full container, suggesting that no more immigration can be ‘absorbed’.

“Britain is full up…” (BNP quote, cited in Hart, 2008, p. 101).

c) Nation as House

• ‘Shut the door’ metaphor frames the nation as private property, evoking ownership and the right to exclude.

“Entry into which only takes place with the permission of the resident” (Hart, 2008, p. 101).

• These metaphors employ a referential strategy (us vs. them) and an evaluative strategy (threat, invasion, dilution).

---

🔹 10. Conclusion: Toward a Full Framework

• Hart’s approach, using CBT within sociocognitive CDA, enables the microlevel analysis of metaphors with ideological consequences.
• However, he acknowledges the need for quantitative analysis to identify widespread metaphorical patterns.

“A complete and lucid framework requires quantitative analysis across different discourse genres” (Hart, 2008, p. 102).

🔍 🧩 Bridging Linguistics and Literary Criticism

• Hart integrates cognitive linguistics with critical discourse analysis, offering literary theorists tools to unpack how metaphor constructs ideology in poetic and narrative texts.

“Metaphors are ideological… in so far as they ‘define in significant part what one takes as reality'” (Chilton & Lakoff, 1995, p. 56, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).

---

🧠 🌀 Expanding the Interpretive Scope of Metaphor

• Unlike classical metaphor theories focused on rhetorical ornamentation, Hart’s framework treats metaphor as a cognitive and discursive act—deepening literary analysis beyond figurative style.

“Metaphor is ‘central to critical discourse analysis since it is concerned with forming a coherent view of reality'” (Charteris-Black, 2004, p. 28, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).

---

📦 🧠 Applying Mental Space Theory to Literature

• Hart’s use of Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT) allows readers to visualize meaning construction in narrative or poetic metaphor, emphasizing how emergent structure reshapes understanding.

“The blend inherits partial structure… and has emergent structure of its own” (Fauconnier & Turner, 1996, p. 113, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 96).

---

🎭 🎯 Reframing Characterization and Plot in Ideological Terms

• His focus on metaphor as a referential and evaluative strategy can be extended to literature to analyze how characters, spaces, or actions are ideologically positioned.

“Referential strategies are used in discourse to represent… social actors… evaluative strategy is manifested in negative representation” (Hart, 2008, p. 99).

---

🏠 🌍 Nation and Identity Metaphors in Literary Texts

• Literary metaphors that depict the nation as a house, container, or bordered space can be critically re-examined using Hart’s framework for entrenched blending and emotional resonance.

“The nation is conceptualised as a private property… where policymakers have the right to refuse entry” (Hart, 2008, p. 101).

---

📚 📖 Contributes to Discourse Theory in Literature

• Hart’s distinction among discourse (concrete, collective, abstract) offers literary theorists a way to trace how texts interact with discursive formations, genres, and ideologies.

“Discourse (abstract) dictates the nature of discourse (concrete)… and vice versa” (Hart, 2008, p. 99).

---

💬 🧭 Enabling Socio-Political Literary Critique

• His model equips scholars to explore how metaphors shape political worldviews in literary texts, especially in postcolonial, migration, and nationalist narratives.

“Metaphors… contribute to a situation where they privilege one understanding of reality over others” (Chilton, 1996, p. 74, as cited in Hart, 2008, p. 91).

---

🧬 🎓 Grounding Literary Ideology in Cognitive Theory

• Hart shows how literary metaphors become socially entrenched and cognitively shared, which aligns with cultural memory studies and the role of entrenchment in interpretive communities.

“Entrenched conceptual blending networks are… the mental representations and processes of group members” (Hart, 2008, p. 97).

---

📈 📊 Toward Quantitative Literary Metaphor Studies

• Hart calls for blending qualitative and quantitative analysis of metaphor, paving the way for corpus-based literary criticism.

“A complete and lucid framework requires quantitative analysis… to determine which metaphors are used conventionally” (Hart, 2008, p. 102).

❗ ⚖️ Over-reliance on Cognitive Models

• While Hart successfully integrates Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT) with CDA, critics may argue that it over-intellectualizes discourse by framing metaphor primarily as a cognitive phenomenon, potentially neglecting material conditions and historical contexts.

---

❗ 🔬 Limited Empirical Validation

• Hart advocates for the cognitive entrenchment of metaphor through discourse, but offers limited empirical data to substantiate how often specific blends occur across genres or populations.

“A complete and lucid framework requires quantitative analysis…” (Hart, 2008, p. 102).

---

❗ 🚫 Dismissal of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)

• Some may view Hart’s critique of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) as overly rigid. While he treats CBT and CMT as “competing,” many linguists (e.g., Grady et al.) argue for their complementarity, not conflict.

---

❗ 📉 Reduction of Metaphor to Ideological Function

• Hart often ties metaphor directly to ideology and strategy (e.g., immigration discourse), which may risk simplifying metaphor’s poetic, emotional, or ambiguous functions, especially in literature or art.

---

❗ 🌍 Limited Cultural Flexibility

• The blending framework as presented is based mostly on Western political discourse (e.g., the British National Party). It may not be as adaptable across non-Western rhetorical traditions without significant modification.

---

❗ 🗺️ Under-theorization of Power Structures

• Although Hart discusses social cognition and inequality, his model doesn’t fully address macro-level power systems (e.g., capitalism, patriarchy) in the way traditional CDA (e.g., Fairclough, Wodak) does.

---

❗ 🧱 Highly Technical Jargon

• The heavy use of cognitive linguistics terminology (e.g., “mental space integration,” “vital relations,” “entrenchment”) may limit accessibility for scholars outside the field or from humanities/literary backgrounds.

---

❗ 📚 Singular Case Study Focus

• The BNP manifesto is the sole example in the paper’s application section, raising questions about generalizability. Critics might ask: Can this framework apply equally well to literature, film, or visual art?