April 19, 2025 - English Studies

“Love (III)” by George Herbert: A Critical Analysis

“Love (III)” by George Herbert first appeared in 1633 as part of his posthumously published collection The Temple, a seminal work of English religious poetry.

Introduction: “Love (III)” by George Herbert

“Love (III)” by George Herbert first appeared in 1633 as part of his posthumously published collection The Temple, a seminal work of English religious poetry. This deeply intimate and theological poem reflects Herbert’s central themes of divine grace, spiritual humility, and the transformative power of God’s love. Its popularity stems from the tender yet profound dialogue between the speaker and the personified figure of Love, symbolizing God. The speaker, weighed down by guilt—“Guilty of dust and sin”—initially resists Love’s welcome, but is gradually drawn into acceptance through Love’s gentle insistence and grace. The line “Who made the eyes but I?” epitomizes Love’s forgiving nature, emphasizing that human flaws are not barriers to divine communion. Ultimately, the poem’s enduring resonance lies in its universal portrayal of unworthiness met with unconditional love, culminating in the symbolic act of communion: “So I did sit and eat.” This moment of spiritual surrender and divine hospitality encapsulates the poem’s power, making it a cornerstone of metaphysical poetry and devotional literature.

Text: “Love (III)” by George Herbert

Love bade me welcome. Yet my soul drew back

Guilty of dust and sin.

But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack

From my first entrance in,

Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,

If I lacked any thing.

A guest, I answered, worthy to be here:

Love said, You shall be he.

I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,

I cannot look on thee.

Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,

Who made the eyes but I?

Truth Lord, but I have marred them: let my shame

Go where it doth deserve.

And know you not, says Love, who bore the blame?

My dear, then I will serve.

You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:

So I did sit and eat.

Annotations: “Love (III)” by George Herbert

Line from the Poem	Annotation / Meaning	Literary Devices
Love bade me welcome.	Divine Love (God) invites the speaker in with warmth.	🧑‍🎤 Personification (Love as a being) 💒 Allegory (Love = God) 🤝 Hospitality Symbol
Yet my soul drew back / Guilty of dust and sin.	The speaker feels unworthy due to his sinful, mortal nature.	🌫️ Symbolism (dust = human frailty) ✝️ Biblical Allusion (Genesis) 😔 Tone: Shameful
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack / From my first entrance in,	Love notices the speaker’s reluctance to approach.	👀 Visual Imagery 🧑‍🎤 Personification ↩️ Enjambment
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning, / If I lacked any thing.	God gently draws closer, asking with kindness.	🍬 Tone: Sweet & Gentle 🗣️ Dialogue 🎁 Symbolism (grace)
A guest, I answered, worthy to be here:	The speaker believes he is an unworthy guest in God’s presence.	🏠 Metaphor (guest = soul before God) 🙇 Humility
Love said, You shall be he.	God affirms the speaker’s worth, despite his doubts.	🗣️ Dialogue 💖 Grace ✔️ Divine Affirmation
I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear, / I cannot look on thee.	The speaker’s guilt prevents him from meeting Love’s gaze.	❓ Rhetorical Question 😢 Tone: Contrite 🚫 Shame Symbol
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply, / Who made the eyes but I?	Love comforts the speaker, reminding him God made even the flawed.	🧑‍🎤 Personification 🙌 Symbolism (eyes = moral vision) 🗣️ Dialogue
Truth Lord, but I have marred them: let my shame / Go where it doth deserve.	The speaker admits he has misused his gifts and deserves shame.	🧎 Confession ⚖️ Justice vs. Mercy 😞 Tone: Submissive
And know you not, says Love, who bore the blame?	Love reminds the speaker that Christ bore the punishment for sin.	✝️ Biblical Allusion 🤝 Redemption Theme 🗣️ Dialogue
My dear, then I will serve.	The speaker accepts grace and offers his service to Love.	💫 Transformation 🙇 Spiritual Surrender 🤲 Tone: Devotional
You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:	God invites the speaker to partake in communion, symbolizing acceptance.	🍞 Eucharistic Symbolism 🛐 Divine Invitation 🗣️ Dialogue
So I did sit and eat.	The speaker accepts divine love fully—symbol of unity and peace.	🕊️ Resolution 🤝 Union with God 🍽️ Spiritual Nourishment

Literary And Poetic Devices: “Love (III)” by George Herbert

🔣 Device	🧾 Definition	✍️ Example from Poem	🔍 Explanation
💒 Allegory	A story or poem where characters and events represent abstract ideas.	Love bade me welcome.	Love personifies God, symbolizing divine invitation and grace.
✝️ Allusion (Biblical)	A reference to the Bible or religious texts.	Guilty of dust and sin	Refers to Genesis and the concept of original sin, highlighting human mortality.
⚖️ Antithesis	Contrasting ideas placed side by side.	Truth, Lord; but I have marred them	Contrasts divine truth with human failure, emphasizing guilt.
📢 Apostrophe	Direct address to someone absent, dead, or personified.	Ah my dear,	The speaker addresses Love (God) directly, showing intimacy.
🎵 Assonance	Repetition of vowel sounds in nearby words.	My dear, then I will serve.	The “ee”/”i” sounds create softness and enhance rhythm.
🧠 Conceit (Metaphysical)	An extended, complex metaphor used in metaphysical poetry.	Taste my meat	Hospitality metaphor symbolizes Communion, blending sacred with ordinary.
🗣️ Dialogue	Exchange between two voices or characters.	Love said, You shall be he.	The soul’s conversation with Love unfolds the spiritual journey.
↩️ Enjambment	Sentence or phrase continues beyond the line break.	Grow slack / From my first entrance in,	Adds flow and reflects hesitation or emotional pacing.
🍞 Eucharistic Symbolism	Symbolism referring to Holy Communion.	Taste my meat	Represents Christ’s body and spiritual nourishment.
🙇 Humility Theme	Emphasis on modesty and low self-worth.	A guest…worthy to be here	The speaker feels unworthy in the divine presence.
👀 Imagery (Visual)	Language that creates visual pictures.	Quick-eyed Love…took my hand	Vivid image of Love reaching out creates a humanized divine.
🌉 Metaphor	Comparison between two unlike things without using “like” or “as.”	A guest…worthy to be here	The soul as guest highlights the hospitality of grace.
❗ Paradox	A seemingly contradictory statement that reveals truth.	Who made the eyes but I?	Paradox that God made human flaws, yet still forgives them.
🧑‍🎤 Personification	Giving human qualities to non-human things or ideas.	Love bade me welcome	Love acts and speaks as a person, representing God’s grace.
❓ Rhetorical Question	A question asked for effect, not an actual answer.	I the unkind, ungrateful?	Expresses guilt and self-reproach, not seeking an answer.
🩸 Sacrifice Motif	Reference to Christ’s redemptive suffering.	Who bore the blame?	Echoes Christ’s sacrifice, relieving the speaker of guilt.
🔍 Self-examination	Reflecting on personal guilt, morality, or flaws.	But I have marred them	Speaker confronts his own spiritual shortcomings.
🧿 Symbolism	Use of concrete elements to represent abstract ideas.	Eyes, meat, guest, hand	Each object stands for spiritual truths like grace and communion.
🔄 Tone (Transformational)	The emotional shift or development in a poem.	From guilt → grace → peace	Emotional arc reflects the speaker’s spiritual transformation.
🔁 Volta (Turn)	A rhetorical or emotional shift in a poem.	Who bore the blame?	Marks a turning point from shame to acceptance.

Themes: “Love (III)” by George Herbert

1. 💒 Divine Grace and Acceptance: “Love (III)” by George Herbert centers around the profound theme of divine grace, where unconditional love from God overcomes the speaker’s deep sense of guilt. The poem opens with: “Love bade me welcome,” portraying Love (💒 symbolic of God) as a gracious host. Though the speaker draws back “Guilty of dust and sin” (✝️ Biblical Allusion), Love gently insists on his presence. The turning point comes with “And know you not…who bore the blame?”, referencing Christ’s atonement (🩸 Sacrifice Motif), reminding the speaker that his sin has already been redeemed. Grace replaces judgment, culminating in “So I did sit and eat,” a symbolic moment of Eucharistic acceptance (🍞). This theme highlights that God’s love is not based on merit but on mercy, making the poem a timeless expression of spiritual comfort.

2. 🙇 Humility and Unworthiness: “Love (III)” by George Herbert powerfully explores the theme of human humility in the face of divine holiness. From the outset, the speaker confesses his unworthiness: “A guest…worthy to be here.” His feelings of spiritual inferiority are captured in “I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear, I cannot look on thee.” These lines emphasize an inner conflict of guilt and inadequacy, as he admits he has “marred” the gifts given by God (🔍 Self-examination). Despite this, Love persists in kindness, a contrast that underscores the speaker’s sincere humility (🙇). His reluctance is not rooted in rebellion but in reverence, and it is precisely this humble posture that prepares him to receive grace. In the end, humility is not an obstacle, but a gateway to transformation and communion with the divine.

3. 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Hospitality and Communion: “Love (III)” by George Herbert employs the metaphor of hospitality to portray the act of divine welcome and spiritual nourishment. The poem draws on the imagery of a guest being invited to a feast: “You must sit down…and taste my meat.” This reflects the sacred Christian rite of Communion (🍞 Eucharistic Symbolism), where God hosts the soul at a spiritual table. The language of food and invitation carries deep theological weight, emphasizing intimacy, belonging, and unconditional acceptance. Though the speaker initially declines, his eventual response — “So I did sit and eat” — marks his participation in divine fellowship. In this scene, Love is not only forgiving but nurturing, offering sustenance that represents peace, unity, and salvation. 🧑‍🤝‍🧑

4. 🔄 Spiritual Transformation: “Love (III)” by George Herbert masterfully captures a journey of spiritual transformation, as the speaker moves from shame and hesitation to peace and acceptance. The tone (🔄) transitions from “my soul drew back” to “So I did sit and eat,” charting an inward evolution. The poem’s volta (🔁) is found in the question: “And know you not…who bore the blame?”—a reference to Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, which allows the speaker to let go of guilt. This moment reframes his relationship with God, allowing him to say: “Then I will serve.” The transformation is both spiritual and emotional — from self-loathing to trust, from fear to grace. Ultimately, the poem concludes not with resistance but with rest, symbolizing the peace that follows reconciliation. 🍽️

Literary Theories and “Love (III)” by George Herbert

📘 Literary Theory	🧠 Definition	✍️ Application to the Poem	📖 Example from the Poem
✝️ Theological Criticism	Examines religious themes, symbols, and spiritual messages, especially within Christian contexts.	The entire poem functions as a theological allegory where Love = God. It illustrates divine grace, forgiveness, and sacramental imagery, especially the Eucharist.	“And know you not…who bore the blame?” → reference to Christ’s atonement. 🍞 “Taste my meat” → Holy Communion symbolism.
🧠 Psychological Criticism	Explores internal conflicts, guilt, repression, and transformation of the psyche.	The speaker experiences a profound inner struggle between guilt and acceptance. The conversation with Love reveals a journey of spiritual healing and self-reconciliation.	“I the unkind, ungrateful?… I cannot look on thee.” → Indicates shame and inner conflict. ❤️ “So I did sit and eat.” → Acceptance of forgiveness and self-worth.
📜 Formalism / New Criticism	Focuses on the structure, language, tone, and imagery of the text itself, without outside context.	Emphasis on dialogue, paradox, symbolism, and structure. The shift in tone and tightly constructed form highlight the spiritual journey purely through poetic elements.	“Love bade me welcome… Yet my soul drew back” → Contrasting images of grace and guilt. 🌀 Use of metaphor, personification, and rhetorical question to convey meaning.
👥 Reader-Response Theory	Considers the reader’s role in creating meaning; how one’s personal beliefs and experiences shape interpretation.	Readers may relate differently: some see it as comforting, others may focus on the weight of sin or the beauty of grace. The poem invites emotional and spiritual introspection.	“You must sit down…and taste my meat.” → Readers may see this as gentle invitation or spiritual command, depending on their own beliefs.

Critical Questions about “Love (III)” by George Herbert

❓1. How does “Love (III)” by George Herbert represent the tension between divine grace and human guilt?

“Love (III)” by George Herbert captures the profound tension between a soul’s sense of unworthiness and the overwhelming generosity of divine grace. The speaker begins with “Love bade me welcome. Yet my soul drew back, / Guilty of dust and sin,” immediately establishing his reluctance to accept divine hospitality due to a deep awareness of personal sin. This internal struggle continues throughout the poem, as the speaker repeatedly questions his own worthiness: “A guest…worthy to be here?” and “I the unkind, ungrateful?” However, Love—representing God—responds with compassion and reassurance, culminating in the pivotal line: “And know you not…who bore the blame?” This moment, referencing Christ’s atonement, shifts the focus from guilt to grace. The final line, “So I did sit and eat,” signifies the soul’s surrender to divine love, illustrating that grace overcomes guilt not through merit, but through mercy.

❓2. In what ways does “Love (III)” by George Herbert use personification to deepen its spiritual message?

“Love (III)” by George Herbert employs personification as its central literary strategy, giving human characteristics to the abstract concept of divine love. From the first line—“Love bade me welcome”—Love is not simply a feeling or an idea but a living, speaking being, engaging in dialogue with the speaker. Love watches attentively (“quick-eyed Love”), speaks gently, smiles, takes the speaker’s hand, and finally offers him food. These human actions reflect God’s active, intimate involvement in the life of the believer. By embodying Love in such a tangible way, Herbert brings the spiritual reality of grace and forgiveness into an emotionally relatable context. This technique bridges the gap between abstract theology and personal experience, making divine love feel accessible, compassionate, and deeply human.

❓3. How does the structure of “Love (III)” by George Herbert support its spiritual themes?

“Love (III)” by George Herbert is carefully structured as a dialogue, alternating between the speaker and Love (God), which supports the poem’s spiritual themes of confession, grace, and reconciliation. The use of iambic pentameter and a regular rhyme scheme (ABABCC) lends a sense of harmony and order to the emotional turbulence expressed within. The structure also allows a progressive development in tone—from resistance and guilt to surrender and acceptance. For instance, the shift from “I cannot look on thee” to “So I did sit and eat” marks a clear emotional and spiritual journey. The symmetry of the stanzas mirrors the internal resolution of conflict, as the soul moves from isolation to union with the divine. Thus, the poem’s orderly form enhances its message: that grace brings spiritual clarity, balance, and peace.

❓4. What is the significance of the final line in “Love (III)” by George Herbert: “So I did sit and eat”?

“Love (III)” by George Herbert concludes with the profoundly simple yet symbolically rich line: “So I did sit and eat.” This statement marks the end of the speaker’s spiritual resistance and the beginning of acceptance and communion. It reflects the culmination of the poem’s emotional arc—from guilt and doubt to faith and trust. The act of sitting and eating echoes the Christian Eucharist (Holy Communion), symbolizing union with Christ and participation in divine life. What makes this final line so powerful is its understated tone; after such intense inner turmoil, the acceptance of grace is presented not as a grand revelation but as a quiet, peaceful act of trust. It affirms that God’s love requires only openness, not perfection, and that divine hospitality is always waiting to be received.

Literary Works Similar to “Love (III)” by George Herbert

✝️ “The Collar” by George Herbert
📌 Similarity: This poem also explores the tension between spiritual rebellion and divine calling. Like “Love (III)”, it ends in a moment of submission and grace, with God calling the speaker “Child” and the soul replying “My Lord.”
🔄 Theme: Spiritual struggle → surrender
🗣️ Style: Internal dialogue with a divine voice

🍞 “The Agony” by George Herbert
📌 Similarity: Focuses on Christ’s suffering and sacrificial love, echoing “Love (III)”’s reference to the Eucharist in “taste my meat.” Both poems emphasize atonement and spiritual communion.
🩸 Theme: Redemption through Christ’s pain
✝️ Symbolism: Eucharistic and Passion imagery

🙇 “Hymn to God, My God, in My Sickness” by John Donne
📌 Similarity: Reflects on mortality, divine will, and eternal peace. Like “Love (III)”, it ends with acceptance and calm, showing a soul at peace with God’s plan.
🕊️ Theme: Mortality, submission, trust in God
⚖️ Tone: Reflective and humble

💫 “A Dialogue of Self and Soul” by W.B. Yeats
📌 Similarity: Though more philosophical than devotional, this poem mirrors “Love (III)” in its dialogue form and exploration of inner conflict. The speaker wrestles with desire and eternal purpose, like Herbert’s soul confronting divine love.
🧩 Structure: Dual-voice introspection
⚔️ Theme: Conflict between earthly and eternal selves

Representative Quotations of “Love (III)” by George Herbert

📜 Quotation	🔍 Context	🧠 Theoretical Perspective	🔣 Idea
“Love bade me welcome.”	Opens the poem with personified Love (God) inviting the speaker.	Theological Criticism – God’s initiating grace.	💒 Divine Invitation
“Yet my soul drew back, / Guilty of dust and sin.”	Speaker instinctively withdraws due to shame.	Psychological Criticism – Internalized guilt and unworthiness.	🙇 Human Frailty
“Quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack…”	Love notices the speaker’s reluctance.	Reader-Response – Readers may relate to divine attentiveness.	👀 Divine Awareness
“A guest, I answered, worthy to be here:”	Speaker confesses he doesn’t feel worthy to be in Love’s presence.	Formalism – Reveals theme through metaphor of hospitality.	🏠 Spiritual Hospitality
“Love said, You shall be he.”	Love (God) affirms the speaker’s worth despite his guilt.	Theological Criticism – Emphasizes unconditional grace.	✔️ Affirmation
“I the unkind, ungrateful?”	Rhetorical question expressing the speaker’s remorse.	Psychological Criticism – Self-reproach and spiritual anxiety.	❓ Guilt & Shame
“Who made the eyes but I?”	Love challenges the speaker’s shame by reminding him of divine creation.	Theological Criticism – God accepts and understands human imperfection.	👁️ Creator Logic
“And know you not…who bore the blame?”	Refers to Christ’s atonement for sin.	Theological Criticism – Central Christian doctrine of substitutionary sacrifice.	✝️ Redemption
“Then I will serve.”	The speaker shifts from shame to readiness to serve Love.	Reader-Response – The moment of personal transformation.	🔄 Submission
“So I did sit and eat.”	Final acceptance of Love’s invitation, symbolic of communion.	Eucharistic Theology / Formalism – Physical action as spiritual union.	🍞 Communion

🧠 Theoretical Lenses Used:

Theological Criticism ✝️: Focuses on grace, redemption, divine themes.

Psychological Criticism 🧠: Explores guilt, shame, and internal conflict.
Reader-Response Theory 👥: Emphasizes the reader’s experience and reflection.
Formalism 📜: Analyzes structure, tone, and literary techniques.

“Metaphor And Literary Comprehension” By Gerard Steen: Summary and Critique

“Metaphor and Literary Comprehension” by Gerard Steen first appeared in Poetics, Volume 18, in 1989 (pp. 113–141, North-Holland).

Introduction: “Metaphor And Literary Comprehension” By Gerard Steen

“Metaphor and Literary Comprehension” by Gerard Steen first appeared in Poetics, Volume 18, in 1989 (pp. 113–141, North-Holland). Steen proposes a comprehensive discourse-theoretical framework for understanding metaphor in literary texts. He distinguishes three major functions of metaphor—expressive, transactional, and interactional—which align with the three dimensions of discourse: linguistic, cognitive, and communicative. A central concern of the essay is how the literary status of discourse alters the cognitive processing of metaphor. Steen contends that the reader’s literary attitude, shaped by socio-cultural conventions like the Esthetic (E) and Polyvalence (P) conventions, fundamentally transforms the way metaphors are identified, comprehended, and appreciated. He builds on models from cognitive psychology and literary theory (notably the Empirical Study of Literature, or ESL) to argue that metaphor understanding in literature is not merely a linguistic or stylistic feature but a dynamic cognitive event shaped by reading context and reader behavior. Importantly, Steen proposes testable hypotheses distinguishing implicit and explicit metaphor processing in readers, contributing to empirical literary research and bridging a gap between cognitive science and literary theory. His essay remains vital for scholars interested in metaphor, literary pragmatics, and discourse processing, asserting that metaphor in literature is both a site of cognitive richness and a reflection of deeper socio-cultural reading practices.

Summary of “Metaphor And Literary Comprehension” By Gerard Steen

🔍 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).
🧠🔗📚

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Metaphor And Literary Comprehension” By Gerard Steen

📘 Theoretical Term	📖 Explanation	📎 Reference from Article
Discourse Theory 🔀	A multi-dimensional approach to language involving linguistic (textual), cognitive, and communicative structures.	“All discourse can be treated as a congeries of three kinds of structures… language, cognition, and communication” (p. 115).
Expressive Function 🗣️	The linguistic function of metaphor as a compact and evocative form of formal expression.	“Language as a formal entity has only one function in discourse, i.e. an expressive one” (p. 117).
Transactional Function 🧠	The cognitive role of metaphor in creating conceptual links between unrelated domains.	“The direct connection… between two conceptual entities or domains…” (p. 119).
Interactional Function 🤝	The social/communicative impact of metaphor—how it shapes relationships and discourse tone.	“Its role in the domain of literary or non-literary communication” (p. 119).
E and P Conventions 🎨📚	Esthetic (E) and Polyvalence (P) reading conventions that frame literary interpretation.	“The Esthetic convention… The Polyvalence convention…” (p. 123).
Literary Attitude of Reading 🎭	A cognitive mode of reading marked by openness to metaphor, ambiguity, and deeper engagement.	“Understanding metaphor in a literary way… influenced by the adoption of a literary attitude of reading” (p. 114).
Analogical Processing 🔗	Reasoning strategy that draws comparisons between domains; essential for metaphor interpretation.	“The principle of analogy… is explosively exploited rather than restricted [in literature]” (p. 125).
Metaphorical Analogy 🔍	Analogical comparison between dissimilar domains that underpins metaphor formation.	“Metaphorical analogies do not involve terms from similar domains” (p. 126).
Allegory 🏛️	An extended metaphor or analogy with two structurally distinct yet connected layers of meaning.	“Allegory… has two separate meanings rather than one…” (p. 130).
Polyvalence 🌀	The literary feature where multiple interpretations of a metaphor (or text) coexist.	“Polyvalence in literary metaphor may be due to… a series of vehicle interpretations” (p. 128).
Vehicle Interpretation 🚗	Cognitive processing of the metaphor’s source domain to evoke layered or image-rich meanings.	“Vehicle interpretation… necessary to invoke the image aspect of the metaphor” (p. 127).
Focus Interpretation 🎯	Interpretation focused on the metaphor’s topic without extending to the vehicle/source domain.	“Metaphor in literature is characterized by explicit vehicle-interpretation…” (p. 127).
Explicit vs. Implicit Processing 👀🤔	Differentiates between conscious (explicit) and subconscious (implicit) identification, understanding, and judgment.	“Two cognitive types of identification… explicit and implicit…” (p. 136).
Identification, Comprehension, Appreciation 🔎🧩❤️	The three core cognitive steps in processing metaphor: recognizing, interpreting, and evaluating it.	“The three related processes… composing the cognitive function of metaphor” (p. 120, also p. 133).
Textual Surface Strategy 📜	A literary reading tactic focusing on formal features like style, diction, and metaphor for deeper meaning.	“Point of view, tone, diction, and style… metaphor should be included in this list” (p. 124).
Figurative Event ⏰	A fictional realization of metaphor within the text’s world, blending literal and figurative meaning.	“Turns a clock metaphor for God into a giant clock that is a real danger…” (p. 130).
Double Vision 👓	Simultaneous awareness of both literal and metaphorical meanings in a single expression.	“Double perception of floating on the waves and riding a horse” (p. 127).

Contribution of “Metaphor And Literary Comprehension” By Gerard Steen to Literary Theory/Theories

🔀 📚 Discourse Theory Expansion

Contribution: Steen integrates metaphor into a three-dimensional discourse model (language, cognition, communication), broadening literary theory beyond structuralist/textual confines.
Reference: “All discourse can be treated as a congeries of three kinds of structures… language, cognition, and communication” (p. 115).

Theory Link: Enriches Discourse Analysis and Text Linguistics in literature by aligning with Prague Structuralism and socio-cognitive frameworks.

🎭 🧠 Reader-Response Theory Enrichment

Contribution: Emphasizes reader’s active construction of meaning in metaphor interpretation, especially through the E and P conventions.

Reference: “Understanding metaphor in a literary way may be highly influenced by the adoption of a literary attitude of reading” (p. 114).
Theory Link: Deepens Reader-Response Criticism by introducing attitudinal variation in metaphor recognition and appreciation.

🌀 📖 Empirical Literary Studies (ESL) Advancement

Contribution: Positions metaphor within the Empirical Study of Literature (ESL), promoting testable hypotheses and reader-based research.
Reference: “The ESL theory of understanding literary texts… offers some opportunities… for locating metaphor in literary discourse” (p. 114).
Theory Link: Aligns with Siegfried Schmidt’s ESL framework and supports experimental psychology in literary studies.

🔗 💬 Cognitive Poetics and Stylistics

Contribution: Introduces analogical processing as central to literary metaphor interpretation, bridging psychology and poetics.
Reference: “Analogical processing… is responsible for the specifically literary comprehension of metaphor” (p. 114).

Theory Link: Builds on Cognitive Poetics, reinforcing metaphor as a tool for mental model construction and not just rhetorical flourish.

🔍 🎯 Structuralist vs. Post-Structuralist Dialogue

Contribution: While grounded in form (structure), Steen critiques pure formalism by emphasizing reader agency, function, and polyvalence.

Reference: “Not all metaphors in literature are understood in a literary way by definition…” (p. 139).
Theory Link: Offers a bridge between Structuralist poetics (e.g., Jakobson) and Post-Structuralist variability.

🤝 📜 Literary Pragmatics Integration

Contribution: Reframes metaphor as a pragmatic device influenced by social context, genre expectations, and communicative conventions.
Reference: “The social function of metaphor… is achieved by the adherence to general literary discourse conventions” (p. 132).
Theory Link: Strengthens Literary Pragmatics, connecting with work by Jonathan Culler and Van Peer.

👀 🧩 Reception Theory: Micro-Processes Focus

Contribution: Introduces granular distinctions—explicit vs. implicit identification, comprehension, and appreciation—in metaphor reception.
Reference: “We need to distinguish between the implicit and explicit identification… comprehension… appreciation” (p. 138).

Theory Link: Adds psychological nuance to Reception Theory by tracking real-time cognitive behavior during reading.

⚙️ 🔄 Methodological Contribution to Literary Theories

Contribution: Proposes a methodologically rigorous, interdisciplinary approach combining psycholinguistics, discourse theory, and empirical testing.

Reference: “Such obstacles need not prevent us… from formulating tentative programs of research” (p. 139).
Theory Link: Catalyzes a research-based turn in literary theory, moving beyond speculative criticism.

Examples of Critiques Through “Metaphor And Literary Comprehension” By Gerard Steen

📘 Literary Work	🧠 Steenian Critique Focus
🧝‍♂️ The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien	Metaphors like “the Ring” function as polyvalent literary signs. Through Steen’s E and P conventions, readers engage in analogical interpretation that uncovers layered moral, political, and existential meanings.
🐋 Moby-Dick by Herman Melville	The whale acts as a metaphorical domain inviting analogical reasoning. A literary attitude foregrounds its cognitive tension as both a natural being and metaphysical symbol, embodying Steen’s expressive and transactional discourse functions.
📜 The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot	Steen’s concept of vehicle interpretation explains the metaphor “I have measured out my life with coffee spoons” as a double-vision moment, fusing mundane imagery with existential despair.
🐎 The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway	The metaphor of the marlin and sea becomes allegorical under a literary attitude, aligning with Steen’s discourse theory. Holyoak’s analogical reading expands the struggle into metaphors of artistry, dignity, and mortality.

Criticism Against “Metaphor And Literary Comprehension” By Gerard Steen

🔍 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.

Representative Quotations from “Metaphor And Literary Comprehension” By Gerard Steen with Explanation

🔖 Quotation	📘 Explanation
🌟 “Three important functions of metaphor are distinguished: the expressive, the transactional and the interactional…” (p. 113)	This foundational classification anchors metaphor in discourse theory. Expressive refers to formal expression, transactional to cognition, and interactional to communicative impact.
💬 “The assumption of a difference between a linguistic and a cognitive side to metaphor is precisely why it is necessary to distinguish between three functions…” (p. 117)	Steen stresses the importance of separating metaphor’s linguistic form from its cognitive and social effects, allowing a multidimensional approach to metaphor analysis.
🔍 “Metaphor is a formal entity belonging to the domain of text… a potential formal stimulus on the behaviour of readers.” (p. 117)	This defines metaphor not only as a textual feature but as a stimulus for reader engagement, paving the way for empirical study.
🎭 “Literary comprehension is approached as a special and specific subtype of understanding metaphor in general…” (p. 118)	Steen positions literary reading as a specialized discourse behavior, shaped by cultural conventions like the Esthetic (E) and Polyvalence (P) conventions.
🧠 “Understanding metaphor in literature may be highly influenced by the adoption of a literary attitude of reading…” (p. 118)	This quotation highlights how reader attitude, shaped by context and genre, plays a critical role in how metaphors are processed in literary texts.
🧭 “We assume that the understanding of metaphor in literary texts is influenced by the adoption of a literary attitude of reading.” (p. 123)	The cognitive response to metaphor is not fixed but depends on whether readers approach the text literarily or non-literarily.
⚖️ “Explicit identification will be investigated as the attribution of a meta-statement concerning the perceived metaphorical nature…” (p. 136)	Steen emphasizes the difference between implicit and explicit recognition of metaphor, which helps empirically analyze how metaphors are processed.
🌀 “Polyvalence in literary metaphor may be due to a literary exploitation of the implications arising from a single metaphorical statement.” (p. 128)	Steen explains how multiple interpretations from one metaphor are a hallmark of literary reading, driven by the polyvalence convention.
🎨 “The polyvalent nature of literary meaning… is what makes literary allegory such a rich store of meaning…” (p. 127)	Allegory is shown to function like metaphor on a broader scale, allowing for multiple simultaneous interpretations in literary discourse.
🔬 “Empirical research in understanding metaphor in literary texts needs to be grounded in a discourse theory of metaphor.” (p. 139)	The closing argument affirms the essay’s goal: to bridge empirical study and literary theory via a systematic discourse-based framework.

Day: April 19, 2025