
Introduction: âMetaphor As Hermeneuticâ by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan
âMetaphor As Hermeneuticâ by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan first appeared in 1999 in Rhetoric Society Quarterly (Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 47â64). In this influential essay, Sheehan challenges traditional semantic and cognitive theories of metaphor by proposing a rhetorical-hermeneutic perspective that focuses on how metaphors are used rather than how they work. Drawing from thinkers like Donald Davidson, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and I.A. Richards, Sheehan argues that metaphors serve not primarily to transfer meaning but to invite the invention of narratives through interpretation. Instead of treating metaphor as a deviation from literal language or as a cognitive interaction between schemas, Sheehan situates metaphor within the interpreterâs active, context-bound process of understanding, emphasizing stages of identification, invention, and narration. His work is significant in literary theory because it shifts attention from the internal mechanics of language to the social, interpretive acts that shape meaning, aligning metaphorical understanding closely with hermeneutic traditions. This reconceptualization not only redefines metaphorâs role in rhetoric and literature but also aligns with broader movements toward rhetorical and pragmatic views of language in late twentieth-century literary studies.
Summary of âMetaphor As Hermeneuticâ by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan
đ¨ Metaphor as a Tool for Inventing Narratives
âMetaphors serve as a basis for inventing narrativesâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 47).
Rather than viewing metaphors as mysterious cognitive mechanisms, Sheehan emphasizes that metaphors help create new ways of understanding and interpreting reality through narrative construction.
đ The Shift from How Metaphors Work to How They Are Used
âThe purpose of this essay, therefore, is to discuss how we use metaphorsâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 48).
Sheehan critiques the traditional semantic and cognitive approaches, insisting that metaphor theory should focus on use (rhetorical-pragmatic) instead of mechanism (semantic-linguistic).
đĽ Meaning Lies with the Interpreter, Not the Text
âThe meaning of Abbeyâs metaphor is dependent completely on the interpreterâs prior experiences and beliefsâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 48).
Sheehan argues that metaphoric meaning is generated not by the author or phrase itself but by the readerâs own interpretive framework and experiential background.
đŻ Metaphor as a Device for Perspective Shifting
âA metaphor is a rhetorical device for altering oneâs perspectiveâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 49).
Following thinkers like Burke and Rorty, Sheehan underlines how metaphors encourage audiences to reconceptualize phenomena from fresh angles, effectively changing how we experience the world.
đ§Š Critique of Orthodox Theories (Interaction and Substitution Models)
âThe debate over metaphor has been almost exclusively over âhow metaphors work'â (Sheehan, 1999, p. 52).
Sheehan critiques both neo-Aristotelian and interactionist models, claiming they erroneously assume metaphors work differently than literal expressions.
đ ď¸ Davidson and Searle: Metaphor Belongs to Use, Not Meaning
âMetaphor belongs exclusively to the domain of useâ (Sheehan quoting Davidson, 1999, p. 53).
Drawing on Davidson and Searle, Sheehan highlights that metaphors do not possess hidden meanings but function by creatively prompting new interpretations within normal linguistic usage.
đ Hermeneutic Circle in Interpreting Metaphors
âUnderstanding is always an invention of the interpreterâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 56).
Using Gadamer and Heideggerâs hermeneutic circle, Sheehan argues that interpreting a metaphor involves a dynamic, ongoing negotiation between the interpreterâs expectations and the evolving context.
đ§ Identification, Invention, and Narration: The Process of Metaphor Interpretation
âAll three of these stagesâidentification, invention, and narrationâare part of a broader hermeneutic actâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 57).
Sheehan introduces a three-stage model of metaphor use: first, recognizing the metaphor; second, inventing its meaning; and third, integrating it into a broader narrative.
đ Metaphors as Foundations for Scientific and Cultural Narratives
âThe whole works of scientific research⌠are hardly more than the patient repetition⌠of a fertile metaphorâ (Burke quoted in Sheehan, 1999, p. 60).
He shows how metaphors like ânature is a machineâ have historically shaped major scientific paradigms and cultural understandings.
đ Conclusion: Metaphors as Pragmatic Instruments
âA metaphor is a tool that can be used to guide or change perspectiveâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 64).
Ultimately, metaphors are valuable not for their semantic properties but for their rhetorical power to transform perception and meaning-making.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in âMetaphor As Hermeneuticâ by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan
đ Term/Concept | đ Explanation | đď¸ Usage in the Article |
đ¨ Metaphor as Hermeneutic | Metaphor is a tool for interpretation, not a linguistic puzzle to solve. | Sheehan shifts focus from how metaphors work to how they are used to construct meaning through narratives (Sheehan, 1999, p. 47). |
đ Hermeneutic Circle | Interpretation involves a continuous dialogue between the part and the whole in understanding. | Sheehan applies Gadamerâs hermeneutic circle to show how interpreters mediate between prior expectations, expression, and context (p. 56). |
đ ď¸ Domain of Use | Metaphors function within the pragmatic use of language, not by special cognitive effects. | Following Davidson, Sheehan argues metaphors âbelong exclusively to the domain of useâ rather than containing hidden meanings (p. 53). |
đ§ Interpretive Invention | Meaning is invented by interpreters based on prior experience and narrative context. | He shows that readers invent meanings for metaphors depending on their background, not extracting pre-encoded ideas (p. 48, p. 58). |
đŻ Perspective Shift | Metaphors reshape how we perceive and talk about reality by inviting different viewpoints. | Sheehan cites Burke and Rorty to argue that metaphors alter perspectives rather than merely decorate speech (p. 49). |
đ§Š Identification (Stage 1) | Recognizing a statement as metaphorical when it contrasts with prior knowledge/context. | In the John example, the hearer identifies âJohn is a priestâ as metaphorical because it contradicts what she knows (p. 57â58). |
đ¤ď¸ Invention (Stage 2) | Creating a coherent meaning by aligning the metaphor with the surrounding narrative. | After identification, interpreters invent a meaning to fit the metaphor within their narrative framework (p. 58â59). |
đ Narration (Stage 3) | Expanding and integrating the metaphor into broader narratives and cultural understandings. | Metaphors are used to build extended narratives, like ânature as machineâ shaping scientific paradigms (p. 60â61). |
đ§Ź Meta-narratives | Deep-seated cultural stories constructed through long-term metaphorical invention. | Sheehan explains how dormant metaphors like âtime is moneyâ have become part of Western cultural meta-narratives (p. 62â63). |
đĽ Critique of Semanticism | Criticism of the idea that metaphors function differently from literal language due to semantics. | Sheehan critiques traditional metaphor theories for their faith in semantic or cognitive causality, calling it unnecessary and misleading (p. 52â54). |
Contribution of âMetaphor As Hermeneuticâ by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan to Literary Theory/Theories
đ 1. Contribution to Hermeneutics
- Contribution: Sheehan expands hermeneutic theory by positioning metaphor interpretation as an inventive act rather than a semantic decoding process.
- Reference: âThe interpreterâs understanding of a metaphor is dependent completely on his or her inventions of meaning within a contextual narrativeâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 55).
- Impact: Connects metaphor theory with Gadamerian hermeneutics, emphasizing interpretation as situated, evolving, and contextual rather than uncovering objective meaning.
đ 2. Contribution to Rhetorical Theory
- Contribution: Reorients metaphor studies within rhetoric, focusing on how metaphors are used persuasively rather than on internal cognitive mechanisms.
- Reference: âIf rhetoric is primarily about how words are used to achieve particular ends, then a rhetorical view of metaphor should concern how people use them, not how they workâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 48).
- Impact: Revives classical rhetorical concerns (use, persuasion, audience impact) over formalist concerns (structure, internal relations).
đ 3. Contribution to Deconstruction/Poststructuralism
- Contribution: Challenges the literal/figurative binary by arguing that metaphors are not ontologically different from literal statements.
- Reference: âMetaphors gain meaning much like other parts of natural languageâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 54).
- Impact: Aligns with Derridaâs poststructuralist critique that meaning is always deferred and that distinctions between âliteralâ and âfigurativeâ are unstable.
đ 4. Contribution to Narrative Theory
- Contribution: Frames metaphors as foundational for inventing narratives that structure human experience.
- Reference: âMetaphors serve as a basis for inventing narrativesâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 47).
- Impact: Supports narratological approaches by showing how metaphorical language generates evolving story-worlds and frameworks of meaning.
đ§ 5. Contribution to Cognitive Linguistics (Critical)
- Contribution: Critiques and complicates cognitive theories (e.g., Lakoff and Johnson) by emphasizing the situated, contextual invention over universal cognitive mechanisms.
- Reference: âMetaphor runs the same linguistic tracks that the plainest sentences doâ (Sheehan quoting Davidson, 1999, p. 64).
- Impact: Shifts attention from hardwired cognition to interpretive negotiation, aligning metaphor use with rhetorical and social practices rather than universal cognitive operations.
đŻ 6. Contribution to Phenomenology
- Contribution: Emphasizes the lived experience of interpreting metaphors, grounded in personal, situated horizons of meaning.
- Reference: âThe interpreter negotiates among her prejudices, the words of the text/speaker, and the overall contextual narrativeâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 57).
- Impact: Resonates with phenomenological hermeneutics (e.g., Heidegger and Gadamer) where meaning arises from existential engagement with the text.
đď¸ 7. Contribution to Interpretation Theory
- Contribution: Redefines interpretation as a creative act rather than a discovery of pre-existing meanings.
- Reference: âMeaning is wholly dependent on its use to invent a meaning that coheres with the interpreterâs contextual narrativeâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 60).
- Impact: Supports interpretive pluralism â multiple valid readings depending on varied contexts and backgrounds.
đĽ 8. Contribution to Pragmatics
- Contribution: Locates metaphor meaning in social-pragmatic usage rather than internal textual properties.
- Reference: âMetaphor is something brought off by the imaginative employment of words and sentencesâ (Sheehan quoting Davidson, 1999, p. 53).
- Impact: Backs pragmatic literary theories emphasizing meaning as an effect of communicative action in specific situations.
đ 9. Contribution to Cultural Studies
- Contribution: Shows how metaphors evolve into cultural meta-narratives that shape collective experience and ideology.
- Reference: âDead metaphors like âtime is moneyâ have become cultural themes woven into Western narrativesâ (Sheehan, 1999, p. 62).
- Impact: Demonstrates that culture itself is constituted by sedimented metaphors, aligning metaphor theory with cultural semiotics.
Examples of Critiques Through âMetaphor As Hermeneuticâ by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan
đ¨ | đ Work | đď¸ Critique through Metaphor as Hermeneutic | đŻ Explanation |
đľ | âThe Roadâ by Cormac McCarthy | The barren, ash-covered landscape as a âdead seaâ invites inventing a narrative of isolation and survival. | Readersâ interpretations rely on personal concepts of desolation and hope, crafting meaning from the novelâs metaphoric world. (Sheehan, p. 55â57) |
đ | âMoby-Dickâ by Herman Melville | The White Whale metaphorically functions as a projection of obsession and unknowable truth. | Rather than âdecodingâ Moby-Dick, readers invent narratives based on prior beliefs about fate, struggle, and nature. (Sheehan, p. 48, 60) |
đĽ | âThe Waste Landâ by T.S. Eliot | Eliotâs image of the barren wasteland invites endless invention of modern alienation and spiritual drought. | Meaning emerges hermeneutically through the readerâs negotiation of fragmented imagery, not through âhiddenâ semantic content. (Sheehan, p. 55â58) |
đď¸ | âBelovedâ by Toni Morrison | The character Beloved as a living ghost metaphor urges reinterpretations of memory, trauma, and identity. | Metaphor serves to invent shifting narratives about slaveryâs haunting legacy, shaped by each readerâs cultural and historical lens. (Sheehan, p. 59â61) |
Criticism Against âMetaphor As Hermeneuticâ by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan
â 1. Overemphasis on Reader Subjectivity
- Critics argue that Sheehanâs insistence on the interpreterâs invention of meaning risks radical relativism, where any interpretation could be justified without constraint.
- Concern: Without any anchor, interpretations could become untethered from textual evidence or authorial intent.
đ§Š 2. Neglect of Cognitive Dimensions of Metaphor
- Cognitive linguists (like Lakoff and Johnson) might object that Sheehan underestimates the deep cognitive structures that make metaphors meaningful across cultures.
- Concern: Metaphor is not purely invented situationally; it also taps into shared conceptual systems.
đ 3. Undermining the Literary Craft of Metaphor
- By treating metaphors as mere tools for narrative invention, Sheehan risks flattening the artistry and specific craft of how metaphors are constructed by writers.
- Concern: Authorsâ deliberate choices and stylistic innovations may be overlooked in favor of focusing only on reader response.
đ§ 4. Insufficient Engagement with Historical Contexts
- Critics from New Historicism or Cultural Studies could argue that Sheehanâs model ignores the socio-political contexts in which metaphors are created and interpreted.
- Concern: Meaning isnât invented solely by individuals but is deeply shaped by power structures, ideologies, and history.
đ 5. Reduction of Metaphorâs Epistemological Power
- Philosophical critics could argue that Sheehan downplays metaphorsâ ability to reveal new aspects of reality, reducing them to narrative tricks.
- Concern: Metaphor isnât just about âinventingâ stories; it can also disclose truths not otherwise articulable in literal language.
⥠6. Ambiguity in Distinguishing âLiteralâ and âMetaphoricalâ Use
- Although Sheehan critiques the literal/figurative divide, he doesnât provide a clear methodology for distinguishing when a metaphor is being used metaphorically or literally.
- Concern: Readers may be left without guidance on how to responsibly identify and interpret metaphors.
đŞ 7. Closure Against Scientific and Linguistic Advances
- By largely rejecting semantic/cognitive models, Sheehan could be seen as closing the door to useful insights from neuroscience, psychology, and computational linguistics about metaphor.
- Concern: A hermeneutic-only view might isolate literary theory from interdisciplinary developments.
Representative Quotations from âMetaphor As Hermeneuticâ by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan with Explanation
đ Quotation | đ§ Explanation |
đď¸ âThe meaning of Abbeyâs metaphor is dependent completely on the interpreterâs prior experiences and beliefs.â (p. 48) | Meaning isnât inherent in the metaphor itself; it is created by readersâ personal histories and worldviews. |
đ âMetaphors should be defined by how they are used, not how they work.â (p. 48) | Sheehan shifts the focus from cognitive mechanics to practical applicationâemphasizing use over mechanism. |
đť âJust as studying the physics of a violin rarely makes someone a better musician, knowing how metaphors work rarely makes one a better writer or speaker.â (p. 48) | Knowing technical aspects of metaphor doesnât necessarily help in using them effectively for communication. |
đĽ âOur pretense to do without metaphor is never more than a bluff waiting to be called.â (citing Richards, p. 50) | Metaphors are fundamental to all human language and thoughtâinescapable and ever-present. |
đ°ď¸ âWestern culture layers metaphors like âtime is a streamâ and âtime is moneyâ that cannot be merged into a single narrative.â (p. 49) | Different metaphors create competing, irreconcilable worldviews rather than unifying perspectives. |
đ§Š âBoth sides of metaphor theory assume metaphors âcauseâ something in the mind of a passive reader.â (p. 52) | Sheehan criticizes the assumption that metaphors are automatic triggers in cognition instead of collaborative acts. |
đŁď¸ âAll communication by speech assumes the interplay of inventive construction and inventive construal.â (citing Davidson, p. 53) | Meaning-making is active and dynamic, not a passive receptionâeven outside metaphors. |
đ âMetaphors are used to urge us toward further and further invention of meaning.â (p. 54) | Rather than âdeliveringâ meaning, metaphors inspire continuous creative interpretation. |
đ âAn interpreterâs understanding of a metaphor is dependent completely on her inventions of meaning within a contextual narrative.â (p. 55) | Interpretation is context-sensitive and dynamic, not universal or fixed. |
đ ď¸ âA metaphor is a tool that can be used to guide or change perspective.â (p. 64) | Metaphors function as tools for transformation, not static ornaments or decorations in language. |
Suggested Readings: âMetaphor As Hermeneuticâ by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan
- Richard D. Johnson Sheehan. âMetaphor as Hermeneutic.â Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 2, 1999, pp. 47â64. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3886085. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.
- Grant, A. J. âVico and Bultmann on Myth: The Problem with Demythologizing.â Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 4, 2000, pp. 49â82. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3886117. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.
- Sobolev, Dennis. âMetaphor Revisited.â New Literary History, vol. 39, no. 4, 2008, pp. 903â29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20533122. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.
- Steen, Gerard J. âIdentifying Metaphor in Language: A Cognitive Approach.â Style, vol. 36, no. 3, 2002, pp. 386â406. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.36.3.386. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.