May 15, 2025 - English Studies

“Metaphor in Linguistic Thought and Theory” by Ronald W. Langacker: Summary and Critique

“Metaphor in Linguistic Thought and Theory” by Ronald W. Langacker first appeared in Cognitive Semantics, Volume 2 (2016), published by Koninklijke Brill NV. In this seminal article, Langacker argues that metaphor is not merely a stylistic or rhetorical device but a foundational and inescapable element of linguistic thought, theory formation, and conceptual modeling.

Introduction: “Metaphor in Linguistic Thought and Theory” by Ronald W. Langacker

“Metaphor in Linguistic Thought and Theory” by Ronald W. Langacker first appeared in Cognitive Semantics, Volume 2 (2016), published by Koninklijke Brill NV. In this seminal article, Langacker argues that metaphor is not merely a stylistic or rhetorical device but a foundational and inescapable element of linguistic thought, theory formation, and conceptual modeling. He critiques the pervasive, yet often unexamined, reliance on metaphor in linguistic discourse—from the container metaphor of lexicon to the computational metaphors of grammar and cognition. Drawing on cognitive linguistics, Langacker proposes that both formalist and functionalist frameworks are shaped by distinct metaphorical worldviews: the former favoring object-like, discrete metaphors, and the latter embracing more population-based, emergent structures. He dissects influential models such as the schema and exemplar approaches, ultimately concluding that their apparent opposition is largely metaphorical and not theoretically substantive. The article is important in literary theory and broader humanistic scholarship because it emphasizes the epistemic consequences of metaphorical thinking in the construction of scientific paradigms and critiques the illusion of objectivity that metaphor often conceals. It calls for increased vigilance in identifying and evaluating metaphors as conceptual tools that shape, limit, and potentially mislead theoretical understanding. Langacker’s nuanced, sometimes satirical prose reinforces his central message: that metaphor is both the engine and the hazard of theoretical insight.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Metaphor in Linguistic Thought and Theory” by Ronald W. Langacker

🌍 Metaphor Is Inescapable and Central to Linguistic Thought

Metaphor is not merely ornamental; it permeates all levels of linguistic theory—from terminology to worldviews.

“Metaphor is not just prevalent in linguistics but utterly pervasive, especially at the theoretical level” (© Langacker, 2016, p. 5).

Langacker satirizes the “moralistic” view of metaphor as sinful, suggesting its inevitability.

“Let him who is without metaphor cast the first stone” (© p. 4).

🧠 Cognitive Models Depend on Metaphoric Frameworks

Linguistic thinking draws from source domains like motion, space, genetics, and visual perception.

“Common metaphorical source domains are well represented: spatial motion, plants, genetic relationships…” (© p. 6).

Terms like “raising,” “tree,” “node,” “focus,” “field” are metaphorical yet deeply embedded in linguistic discourse.

“[W]e find the linguistic landscape to be littered with countless metaphoric terms…” (© p. 5).

🧱 Metaphorical Worldviews Shape Theoretical Divides

The formalist vs. functionalist divide is understood via isoglosses or dialect chains (discrete vs. continuous metaphors).

“A thick bundle of metaphoric isoglosses separates the two communities” (© p. 7).

Formalist metaphor: language is a machine or assembly line assembling discrete objects.

“Language was represented as a box labeled G… constructing step by step…” (© p. 8).

Functionalist metaphor: language as a population or network of interacting, emergent elements.

“They favor population metaphors… like people in a society” (© p. 9).

🔁 Metaphor as Double-Edged Sword: Tool and Threat

Metaphor can clarify but also confuse: it can lead to misleading questions, conceptual errors, and unproductive debates.

“Metaphor is seductive… it will lead us into temptation” (© p. 10).

Examples of misguided metaphors include viewing lexemes as containers and the lexicon as a physical store.

“The lexicon is a container for storing lexical items… which in turn are containers…” (© p. 11).

📦 Network vs. ☁️ Field Model: Not Truly Opposed

Network model (Lakoff, Langacker): meaning as interconnected nodes; Field model (Allwood, Zlatev): continuous range of uses.

“A continuous range of ‘meaning potential’… the union of individually or collectively remembered uses” (© p. 14).

Langacker shows these metaphors can coexist, e.g., using the mountain range metaphor.

“An element’s range of meanings [is like] a mountain range… peaks in a continuous expanse” (© p. 15).

🧰 Tools, Not Truths: The Proper Use of Metaphor

Metaphors should be treated as heuristics, not literal truths.

“We must try to be aware of the metaphors we are using, their limitations…” (© p. 16).

Multiple metaphors provide checks and balances, enhancing insight.

“Alternative metaphors make it easier to distinguish the target from its metaphorical construal” (© p. 27).

🧬 Schema vs. Exemplar Models: Apparent vs. Real Distinctions

Both models rely on usage-based knowledge, memory traces, and reinforcement of patterns.

“A schema is nothing more than a coarse-grained representation of occurring instances” (© p. 19).

The exemplar model (e.g., Pierrehumbert) stores individual token memories as “clouds”, but still shows schematicity.

“[A]n exemplar model… each category is represented in memory by a large cloud of remembered tokens” (© p. 17).

The differences are metaphorical, not substantive.

“There is no fundamental difference” between schemas and exemplar clusters (© p. 24).

⛰️ State-Space and Dynamic Landscape Metaphors

Langacker suggests visualizing meaning categories as landscapes with valleys (attractors) rather than boxes.

“We take the image of a mountain range and turn it upside down… a landscape with depressions” (© p. 26).

Both network and exemplar models fit within this dynamic attractor metaphor.

“The height of a peak—or the depth of a depression—corresponds to entrenchment…” (© p. 26).

🧭 Concluding Thoughts: Taming the Metaphoric Mind

Metaphor is inevitable, yet manageable with awareness, flexibility, and alternative framing.

“If we are never free of metaphor… we can at least operate at a lower level of confusion” (© p. 27).

Rather than being controlled by metaphor, scholars can use it judiciously as a guide.

“We are not just helpless prisoners of metaphor… it is a tool that we can use…” (© p. 27).

Contribution of “Metaphor in Linguistic Thought and Theory” by Ronald W. Langacker to Literary Theory/Theories

📚 1. Structuralism → Metaphor as Systemic Organizing Principle

Langacker challenges the structuralist notion of fixed systems with discrete parts (Saussurean linguistics), showing that metaphor pervades even “systematic” linguistic theory.

“The grammar of a language was thought of as a machine… where well-formed sentences were constructed step by step and given as ‘output’” (© p. 8).

This critique aligns with post-structuralist skepticism about neat structural binaries (e.g. langue/parole, signifier/signified).
✅ Contribution: Undermines structuralist rigidity by emphasizing metaphor’s creative and destabilizing role within linguistic systems.

🔁 2. Post-Structuralism / Deconstruction → Metaphor as Conceptual Instability

Langacker argues that metaphors, while helpful heuristics, are inherently unstable, misleading, and conflicting.

“We must try to be aware of the metaphors we are using, their limitations…” (© p. 16).

Similar to Derrida’s idea of différance, metaphors defer fixed meaning and introduce slippages.
✅ Contribution: Shows how linguistic theories themselves collapse under the weight of their own metaphors, revealing aporetic tensions within meaning-making structures.

🧠 3. Cognitive Literary Theory → Embodied Metaphor in Conceptual Understanding

Builds on Lakoff and Johnson’s idea of conceptual metaphor, reinforcing that thought is metaphorical at its core.

“It is part of the human condition that metaphor is inevitable…” (© p. 15).

Literary theory adopting a cognitive approach (e.g. Turner, Zunshine) gains support: literature relies on the same neural metaphor systems used in linguistic theory.
✅ Contribution: Confirms that literary metaphors are not just stylistic but grounded in cognitive mechanisms shared with scientific reasoning.

⚖️ 4. Reader-Response Theory → Interpretive Flexibility of Metaphor

Langacker’s discussion of metaphor generating different construals (e.g. networks vs. fields) parallels reader-response theory: meaning is contextual, flexible, and reader-shaped.

“It may be that each [metaphor] is efficacious within certain limits but gives a distorted view of the target when it stands alone…” (© p. 14).

Just as readers construct meaning through interaction with text, scholars construe meaning through metaphor.
✅ Contribution: Supports the active role of interpreters in constructing meaning via metaphor, echoing Stanley Fish and Louise Rosenblatt.

🎨 5. Rhetorical and Tropological Theories → Metaphor Beyond Ornamentation

Langacker rejects the notion of metaphor as merely decorative: it is a constitutive force in theoretical discourse.

“Metaphor is not just unavoidable but essential… a source of insight and creativity” (© p. 3).

Supports theorists like Paul de Man and Kenneth Burke, who argued that rhetoric (especially metaphor) shapes thought.
✅ Contribution: Aligns linguistic and literary theories in treating metaphor as foundational rather than supplemental.

🌀 6. Phenomenology & Hermeneutics → Metaphor as Lived, Embodied Experience

His emphasis on embodied cognition and usage-based linguistics echoes Merleau-Ponty’s and Gadamer’s phenomenological focus.

“The basic noun classes accommodate basic aspects of embodied experience” (© p. 9).

Interpretation is shaped not by abstract structures but by bodily, lived metaphorical understanding.
✅ Contribution: Strengthens literary hermeneutics by showing metaphor as experience-structured, not just symbolically derived.

🏗️ 7. Critical Discourse Theory → Ideological Power of Metaphor

Langacker reveals how theoretical language constructs social and ideological boundaries, e.g., formalist vs. functionalist metaphors create camps or dialect zones.

“A thick bundle of metaphoric isoglosses separates the two communities…” (© p. 7).

Echoes Foucault, Bourdieu, and Fairclough: discourse (and its metaphors) organizes knowledge and power.
✅ Contribution: Offers insight into how disciplinary ideologies are constructed, legitimated, and naturalized via metaphor.

🌐 8. Interdisciplinary Theory / Philosophy of Language → Language as Epistemological Tool

Demonstrates that metaphor is not a contamination of scientific objectivity, but a core epistemological tool.

“We normally have some independent knowledge… which we can use to check a metaphor’s appropriateness…” (© p. 27).

Bridges linguistics, cognitive science, and literary studies, much like Nelson Goodman or Rorty.
✅ Contribution: Advances cross-disciplinary understanding of metaphor as a mode of inquiry across sciences and humanities.

🧩 9. New Materialism / Complexity Theory → Emergence and Network Models

Describes language categories as emergent phenomena in networks, not fixed structures.

“Networks have numerous applications in cognitive and functional linguistics… [they] are accessed in different combinations” (© p. 10).

Aligns with new materialist and non-linear systems theory perspectives (e.g. Jane Bennett, Deleuze).
✅ Contribution: Reframes literary meaning as emergent, distributed, and dynamic, not centered or hierarchical.

Examples of Critiques Through “Metaphor in Linguistic Thought and Theory” by Ronald W. Langacker

📘 Literary Work	🧠 Langackerian Metaphor Framework	🔍 Critique via Langacker’s Theory
🧊 Frankenstein by Mary Shelley	Object Metaphor → Language and mind as modular “containers” (© pp. 8–9)	Victor’s scientific vision mirrors the formalist metaphor of language as a compartmentalized machine. The creature resists “categorical containment,” exposing the dangers of excessive modular metaphoric thinking. Langacker’s critique of object metaphors shows how emotional and ethical complexity is lost when thought is over-systematized.
🌿 The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot	Network and Population Metaphors → Lexical meaning as a web of usage-based nodes (© pp. 10–11)	Eliot’s fragmented narrative resists singular interpretation, akin to Langacker’s network model, where meaning emerges from interconnected yet shifting semantic nodes. The text thrives on polysemous resonance rather than fixed meaning, illustrating the power of metaphors that emphasize continuity and emergence.
🕸️ Beloved by Toni Morrison	Field/Cloud Metaphor → Semantic potential as diffuse and context-sensitive (© pp. 12–14, 22–24)	Morrison’s narrative of trauma reflects semantic cloudiness—not a network of discrete meanings, but an amorphous field of affect and memory. Langacker’s field metaphor helps explain how meanings cluster and shift, and how characters move through semantic valleys and peaks of remembrance.
🔨 1984 by George Orwell	Conduit Metaphor + Language-of-Thought Critique (© pp. 12–13)	Orwell’s Newspeak enacts the conduit metaphor, where words “contain” and transmit thought. Langacker warns this is misleading reification, as language does not store meaning in fixed units. Orwell’s dystopia reflects the danger of literalizing metaphor, a caution Langacker insists upon: metaphors must be used vigilantly or risk distorting cognition and ideology.

Criticism Against “Metaphor in Linguistic Thought and Theory” by Ronald W. Langacker

🎯 Overreliance on Metaphor as Cognitive Necessity

Langacker claims metaphor is inevitable and essential to theory-building, but this may undervalue formal, literal, and empirical models that aim for conceptual precision.
Critics may argue that such a stance blurs the boundary between analytical reasoning and rhetorical strategy, leading to potential epistemological relativism.

🔄 Self-Contradictory Treatment of Reification

Langacker criticizes reification (e.g., treating schemas or meanings as static entities) yet himself reifies schemas, networks, clouds, and fields through sustained metaphorical imagery.
This introduces an inconsistency: metaphor is described as both indispensable and misleading, which weakens the argument’s internal coherence.

🧩 Ambiguity in Model Distinctions (Schema vs. Exemplar)

While Langacker attempts to reconcile schema and exemplar models, some may find his resolution too conciliatory and conceptually blurred.
By proposing that “clouds” and “schemas” are ultimately the same, he dilutes the analytical utility of each model, flattening critical distinctions.

🌀 Philosophical Circularity in Metaphor Critique

Langacker critiques metaphors using other metaphors (e.g., object vs. population, cloud vs. mountain range), creating a kind of meta-metaphorical loop.
This may result in circular reasoning, where metaphor is both the problem and solution, offering no non-metaphorical ground for judgment.

📏 Lack of Operational Criteria for “Appropriateness”

The discussion frequently refers to metaphors being “more or less appropriate,” yet no clear metric or framework is provided to evaluate metaphorical adequacy.
This weakens the methodological rigor of the analysis and may limit its applicability across linguistic subfields or empirical studies.

🛠️ Underemphasis on Empirical Validation

The article offers philosophical reflection and theoretical comparison, but it lacks empirical data or experimental findings that could ground metaphor use in observable cognitive behavior.
This opens it to criticism from scholars favoring corpus-based, psycholinguistic, or experimental paradigms.

🔍 Inadequate Attention to Cross-Linguistic Diversity

While addressing metaphor in linguistic theory, Langacker focuses mostly on Anglophone linguistic traditions, ignoring cross-cultural metaphorical frameworks (e.g., in non-Indo-European languages).
This undermines claims about universality or inevitability of metaphor in linguistic cognition.

📚 Limited Engagement with Literary and Poetic Metaphor

Despite the rich analysis of theoretical metaphors, Langacker largely avoids addressing metaphor as it functions in literary, poetic, or socio-political discourse, which could offer richer contrast.
This may leave the metaphorical spectrum underexplored, especially regarding non-scientific genres.

Representative Quotations from “Metaphor in Linguistic Thought and Theory” by Ronald W. Langacker with Explanation

📌 Quotation	💡 Explanation
“🌀 Metaphor is not just unavoidable but essential to the enterprise, a source of insight and creativity.” (p. 3)	Langacker asserts that metaphor is a foundational mechanism in linguistic theorizing—not merely rhetorical, but constitutive of conceptual understanding.
“⚠️ All metaphors are inappropriate in some respect… They can lead to spurious questions, conceptual confusion, misconception of the target, and pointless arguments.” (p. 3)	Despite their usefulness, metaphors are inherently limited and can derail rigorous analysis if taken too literally.
“🏗️ It would not be entirely inappropriate to regard languages in their diachronic aspect as gigantic expression-compacting machines…” (p. 4)	This industrial metaphor illustrates how language evolution compresses, erodes, and simplifies expressions—warning of reductive conceptual habits.
“🧱 There was first the conception of language as a distinct mental ‘organ’… represented as a box labeled G…” (p. 8)	Langacker critiques the rigid ‘object metaphors’ of formalism that reify grammar into mechanistic, boxed systems.
“🌐 Functionalists steer a middle course… a mass-like population of discrete elements…” (p. 9)	Introduces a “population” metaphor contrasting formalist rigidity, highlighting how functionalist approaches embrace flexible linguistic categorization.
“🌄 We might distort things less by comparing an element’s range of meanings to a mountain range…” (p. 15)	This topographical metaphor models lexical meaning as a terrain of peaks (salient senses) and valleys (semantic ambiguity), favoring gradation over strict boundaries.
“🧠 Schemas are immanent in their instantiations… overlapping patterns of activity.” (p. 21)	Clarifies that schemas are not external constructs but internalized, dynamic, and emergent from language use itself.
“🌩️ Metaphor is seductive… it will lead us into temptation, down the path of iniquity, in the form of unrestrained metaphoric excess.” (p. 11)	A vivid, biblical warning: metaphor can become misleading theology if uncritically indulged, despite being cognitively unavoidable.
“🧰 Having alternative metaphors… makes them visible… keeps us from confusing the metaphorical construal from the target itself.” (p. 27)	Promotes critical metaphor awareness: using multiple metaphors reveals the constructed nature of theory and prevents dogmatism.
“🔁 If particles and waves happily co-exist as metaphors for light, why not networks and fields for lexical meaning?” (p. 14)	Advocates metaphorical pluralism—multiple metaphors can coexist and enrich theory, just as physics accepts wave-particle duality.

“Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev: Summary and Critique

“Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev first appeared in New Literary History, Volume 39, Number 4 (Autumn 2008), published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

Introduction: “Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev

“Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev first appeared in New Literary History, Volume 39, Number 4 (Autumn 2008), published by Johns Hopkins University Press. This article provides a far-reaching reassessment of metaphor in literature, challenging prevailing theoretical models by conceptualizing metaphor not as a unitary structure but as a multidimensional field organized along several independent analytical axes. Sobolev argues that previous scholarly approaches—ranging from structuralist, analytic, and cognitive traditions—have often failed to accommodate the heterogeneity and complex functioning of metaphor in literary discourse. Crucially, he distinguishes between the structure of identification (how metaphors are recognized) and the structure of functioning (how metaphors operate and produce meaning), asserting that the former cannot fully account for the cognitive or aesthetic impact of metaphors. Sobolev also introduces a tripartite model of metaphor consisting of the frame, the primary term, and the secondary term, enhancing existing dichotomies such as I. A. Richards’s “tenor and vehicle” or Max Black’s “focus and frame.” The essay maps metaphor’s diverse modalities across axes like interaction vs. transference, intelligible vs. perceptual similarity, creation vs. elucidation, and identification vs. juxtaposition, demonstrating that most metaphors combine functions in varying proportions rather than belonging to exclusive categories. By integrating insights from classical rhetoric, contemporary philosophy of language, and cognitive linguistics, Sobolev repositions metaphor as a dynamic epistemological tool central to cultural and literary synthesis. His work is pivotal for literary theory as it reveals the limitations of reductionist approaches and offers a richer, more nuanced conceptual framework for metaphorical discourse.

Summary of “Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev

🧠 Theoretical Significance of Metaphor

Metaphor remains central across disciplines, especially in literary theory despite shifts from structuralist to postmodern paradigms.

Structuralist models (like those of the Prague School and French structuralism) emphasized metaphor as a fundamental linguistic operation.

“Metaphor may serve as a good case study and thus as a model of the analysis of the operations of synthesis in general.” (p. 904)

🪞 Structure of Metaphor: Not Unified but Multidimensional

Metaphor is not a singular structure but a field of heterogeneous possibilities, organized along several independent axes.

“Metaphor… is not a single unified structure, but rather a field of heterogeneous possibilities… limited by border parameters.” (p. 904)

Sobolev challenges simplified models like tenor and vehicle (Richards) and focus/frame (Black), proposing a tripartite structure:
Frame – Primary Term – Secondary Term.

🔍 Identification vs Function

Two central questions:
1. Structure of Identification – How we recognize a metaphor.
2. Structure of Functioning – How metaphors operate and affect cognition and emotion.

“It is insufficient to know how metaphors are identified in order to explain the essence of their functioning.” (p. 906)

⚙️ Identification Conditions: Necessary & Sufficient

Sobolev presents 9 types of necessary conditions (logical contradiction, conceptual incongruity, etc.)
Sufficient condition: foregrounded similarity between terms.

“In a metaphor… a similarity between the terms… plays a central role in the production of meaning.” (p. 910)

📐 Axes of Metaphorical Analysis (12 Axes Model)

Sobolev introduces 12 axes, each describing different facets of metaphor:

🌈 1. Type of Interaction

From transference (simple projection of attributes) to foregrounding (interactive discovery of meaning).

“All empirical metaphors are situated along the axis… marked as ‘transference’ and ‘foregrounding’.” (p. 913)

🔁 2. Truth vs Success

Some metaphors can be true/false, others successful/unsuccessful in interpretation.

“’The mind has mountains’ is neither true nor false… but the interaction… is definitely successful.” (p. 914)

🔬 3. Type of Similarity

From given (pre-existing) to produced (created by the metaphor).

🧭 4. Purpose of Synthesis

From elucidation (illustrating known concepts) to creation (introducing new concepts, i.e., catachresis).

🧩 5. Form of Similarity

From objective grounding to cultural convention.

🔗 6. Modality of Similarity

From substantial (about objects) to relational (about relationships).

👁️ 7. Cognitive Mode

From intelligible to perceptible (whether metaphor requires visualization or not).

“Metaphors… stress theoretical or abstract analogies… whereas others focus on visual similarities.” (p. 919)

🤝 8. Configuration: Identification vs Juxtaposition

Epiphora (explicit “A is B”) vs Diaphora (juxtaposition, “Petals on a wet black bough”).

🧱 9. Dependence on Conceptual Systems

Metaphors may be linked to conceptual metaphors (e.g., LIFE IS A JOURNEY) or be entirely idiosyncratic.

“To the best of my knowledge, at least half of the most memorable literary metaphors are not [conceptual].” (p. 923)

🌐 10. Transference of Associated Field

Extent to which a metaphor transfers conceptual frameworks.

🚨 11. Degree of Deautomatization

How much the metaphor disrupts ordinary perception (cf. Shklovsky’s defamiliarization).

🔄 12. Symmetry of Predication

Is the metaphor reversible? (“Achilles is a lion” vs. “Lion is Achilles”).

“From the point of view of the status of the attribute… metaphors can vary from symmetrical… to asymmetrical.” (p. 926)

💬 Key Quotations with Citations

🟣 “It does not say and it does not hide, it intimates.” – Heraclitus, quoted by Davidson (p. 913)

🔵 “The pure eidetic concept of metaphor, like pure existence, is not an essence but only a field of possibilities.” (p. 927)

🟠 “Metaphor is a metaphor is a metaphor is a metaphor.” (p. 927)

🟢 “Like an elephant, metaphor is neither a rope, nor a trumpet or a pillar… but in a sense, it can become any of them.” (p. 927)

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev

🔹 Concept/Term	🧠 Explanation	📚 Reference
Structure of Identification	A formal procedure for recognizing metaphors, based on necessary and sufficient conditions such as logical contradiction or conceptual incongruity.	Sobolev, p. 906–907
Structure of Functioning	Focuses on how metaphors operate cognitively and semantically, and their impact on readers — not just how they are recognized.	Sobolev, p. 906
Necessary Conditions	Attributes that signal metaphorical usage: contradiction, incongruity, falsity, irrelevance, tautology, banality, etc.	Sobolev, p. 907
Sufficient Condition	The presence of similarity or resemblance — substantial or relational — between metaphorical terms.	Sobolev, p. 909
Tripartite Structure	Metaphor comprises: ① Frame (literal context), ② Figurative Term, and ③ Theme (subject).	Sobolev, p. 905
Transference vs. Interaction	Two metaphor types: ① Mechanical attribute transference (e.g. “Achilles is a lion”) vs. ② Interpretive interaction (e.g. “Bill is a barn door”).	Sobolev, p. 911–912
Truth vs. Success	Some metaphors are judged by truth conditions (e.g. “Achilles is a lion”), others by success of semantic resonance (e.g. “Mind has mountains”).	Sobolev, p. 913–914
Given vs. Produced Similarity	Some metaphors emphasize pre-existing resemblance; others create new similarities (especially in poetic or philosophical metaphors).	Sobolev, p. 915–916
Metaphors of Creation vs. Elucidation	Metaphors can either create new meaning (e.g. catachresis) or clarify existing concepts (e.g. “The president is a pig”).	Sobolev, p. 917
Metaphors of Juxtaposition vs. Identification	Juxtaposition involves implied comparison (diaphora); Identification uses explicit predication (“A is B”, or epiphora).	Sobolev, p. 919–920
Explicit Designation vs. Replacement	Some metaphors name the subject clearly (e.g. “Achilles is a lion”); others imply it obliquely (e.g. “Greek lion frightened the enemies”).	Sobolev, p. 921
Conceptual Transference	Metaphors may rely on broader cultural or cognitive schema (e.g. LIFE IS A JOURNEY); others are isolated.	Sobolev, p. 922–923
Degree of Associated Field Transfer	How much of the source concept’s traits are transferred (e.g. from journey to life); varies from full mapping to isolated traits.	Sobolev, p. 924
Deautomatization	The extent

Contribution of “Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev to Literary Theory/Theories

🔍 1. Structuralism & Post-Structuralism

Repositioning metaphor after the linguistic turn: Sobolev examines how metaphor functioned as a foundational unit in structuralist models (influenced by Jakobson), and why its significance declined under poststructuralism.

“Literary scholars had been working within the ‘literature as a language’ paradigm… metaphor as one of the two pivotal operations” (p. 903–904).

Critique of poststructural abandonment: Instead of discarding metaphor in poststructural thought, Sobolev argues that metaphor’s synthetic role in culture makes it even more important within heterogeneous interpretive paradigms.

“The significance of metaphor as a model must only grow… being one of the simplest and most exhaustively studied operations of synthesis” (p. 904).

🧠 2. Rhetorical Theory

Revives classical notions (e.g. Aristotle’s idea of resemblance) while critically reworking them through modern analytical logic.

“The sufficient condition… is similarity or resemblance” (p. 909).

Refines the dichotomy between tenor/vehicle (Richards) and focus/frame (Black) by introducing a tripartite model of metaphor (frame, figurative term, theme).

“This structure includes a ‘frame’… and a ‘theme’” (p. 905).

🧬 3. Cognitive Metaphor Theory

Nuanced critique of Lakoff & Johnson’s “conceptual metaphor” model: Sobolev challenges the idea that all metaphors derive from large conceptual mappings like LIFE IS A JOURNEY.

“Not every metaphor is based on conventional conceptual transference” (p. 923).

Introduces the degree of dependence on conceptual metaphors as one of several axes, making metaphor analysis more granular and context-specific.

“Most empirical metaphors are located somewhere in between” (p. 924).

🧪 4. Analytic Philosophy of Language

Engages with thinkers like Black, Davidson, Goodman, and Searle to show the limits of semantic reductionism in metaphor theory.

“To say that metaphor can be called ‘metaphor’ only if it was intended or interpreted as metaphor merely redirects the discussion” (p. 909).

Argues for pluralism over essentialism: metaphor is not reducible to a single model (e.g. interaction or resemblance), but is a field of structured variation.

“Metaphor is not a single unified structure… but a field of heterogeneous possibilities” (p. 905).

🎨 5. Poetics / Literary Stylistics

Clarifies poetic metaphor’s distinctiveness from everyday metaphor by mapping how poetic language resists conceptual flattening.

“The meaning of ‘crooked eclipses’ is irreducible to truth conditions… it makes the reader notice numerous similarities” (p. 914).

Introduces axes of metaphorical structure (e.g., interaction type, similarity type, conceptual scope), useful for stylistic and formal analysis of poetry (e.g., Hopkins, Shakespeare).

“Empirical metaphors are situated along the axis of metaphorical operation… ‘transference’ and ‘foregrounding’” (p. 913).

🌀 6. Hermeneutics

Separates “identification” from “functioning” to avoid interpretive circularity — enabling more precise metaphoric interpretation.

“It is insufficient to know how metaphors are identified in order to explain the essence of their functioning” (p. 906).

Expands hermeneutics of metaphor to include cultural competence, reader cognition, and semantic play across contexts.

“The person must be able to identify… conceptual incongruities and contextual irrelevance” (p. 910).

📏 7. Theory of Interpretation / Defamiliarization

Integrates Shklovsky’s “defamiliarization” into metaphor theory by defining a scale of deautomatization.

“Metaphors… draw attention to their conceptual basis” and can induce “rethinking” (p. 925).

Shows how even conventional metaphors (e.g., “he is gone”) can vary in deautomatizing power, especially in poetic use.

🧩 8. Semiotics and Pragmatics

Demonstrates that metaphor cannot be wholly reduced to semantics, pragmatics, or logic alone.

“Metaphors can be related to any and all of these spheres” (p. 908).

Introduces the multi-modal nature of metaphor—logical, semantic, and contextual—requiring interdisciplinary interpretation.

🧭 9. Typology and Classification

Develops a multi-axial typology of metaphor — 12 axes including:
- Type of similarity (given vs. produced)
- Metaphor’s symmetry
- Degree of field transference
- Modality (truth vs. success)

“Its space… structured by several independent axes… creates a possibility of hundreds of metaphorical structures” (p. 926).

Examples of Critiques Through “Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev

Literary Work	Metaphorical Example	Type of Metaphor (Sobolev)	Axes of Interpretation	Interpretive Significance
William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar	“Let slip the dogs of war”	🔁 Transference Metaphor	🔹 Transference vs. Interaction🔹 Truth/Falsity Axis🔹 Configuration (Epiphora)	Projects violence through animal metaphor; transposes aggression from warfare to bestial instinct, aligning with Sobolev’s notion of projecting “commonplaces.”
T. S. Eliot’s The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock	“I should have been a pair of ragged claws”	🔍 Foregrounding & Juxtaposition (Diaphora)	🔹 Perceptual vs. Intelligible Similarity🔹 Juxtaposition🔹 Deautomatization	Highlights alienation and inaction through abstract-physical clash; metaphor resists paraphrase, affirming Sobolev’s view of metaphor as semantic synthesis.
Emily Dickinson’s Because I could not stop for Death	“Because I could not stop for Death – He kindly stopped for me”	🔄 Catachresis & Identification Metaphor	🔹 Creation vs. Elucidation🔹 Conceptual Transference🔹 Symmetry Axis	Death personified as a courteous figure shows metaphor’s power to create abstract embodiment, consistent with Sobolev’s creation-based axis and interactional structure.
Sylvia Plath’s Lady Lazarus	“Out of the ash / I rise with my red hair”	🔥 Interaction-Based Mythical Metaphor	🔹 Given vs. Produced Similarity🔹 Transference of Associated Field🔹 Defamiliarization	Merges biblical, mythical, and modern imagery to reconstruct trauma and identity, showing metaphor’s cultural heterogeneity and high deautomatization, per Sobolev.

Criticism Against “Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev

🧩 Over-Systematization of Metaphor

Sobolev’s framework, while comprehensive, risks over-categorizing metaphor into rigid axes and parameters.
The multiplicity of axes (at least 12) may obscure rather than clarify how metaphors operate in real literary contexts.

❗ Critique: Literature’s metaphoric fluidity may not fit easily into such a formalized matrix of analysis.

🔁 Underrepresentation of Reader-Response

Sobolev places heavy emphasis on formal identification and theoretical function, but pays insufficient attention to reader variation in metaphor interpretation.

❗ Critique: Cognitive and affective responses of diverse readers are minimized in favor of structural analysis.

🤔 Ambiguity in Practical Application

Despite theoretical richness, the application of the 12-axis model can be challenging and inconsistent across varied texts.

❗ Critique: The model may be more useful as an abstract heuristic than a consistently applicable analytical tool in literary criticism.

🧠 Critique of Similarity as a “Sufficient Condition”

Sobolev restores similarity (resemblance) as the core identifying principle of metaphor.

Critics (e.g., Goodman, Davidson) argue this reinstates a problematic and reductive notion, especially when metaphor creates rather than reflects similarity.
❗ Critique: The assumption that similarity is always central can be questioned for novel or experimental metaphors.

🔄 Minimal Engagement with Postmodern and Deconstructive Theories

While Sobolev acknowledges poststructuralist shifts, he largely reinstates a formalist lens on metaphor.
❗ Critique: This neglects deconstructive insights on metaphor’s instability, undecidability, and rhetorical play (e.g., Derrida’s view of metaphor as différance).

🔍 Neglect of Non-Western and Cross-Cultural Metaphor Traditions

The essay primarily engages with European and Anglo-American metaphor theory (Aristotle, Black, Ricoeur, Lakoff).
❗ Critique: Fails to account for cross-cultural metaphor paradigms or literary traditions beyond the Western canon.

🧪 Scientific vs. Literary Metaphors Not Fully Resolved

Sobolev discusses scientific metaphors but leaves unclear boundaries between literal scientific models and literary metaphorical imagination.
❗ Critique: Risks conflating technical analogy with poetic metaphor, weakening analytical distinction.

🧵 Complexity May Undermine Usability

The high abstraction and technical vocabulary (e.g., “metaphors of juxtaposition,” “defamiliarization axis”) may alienate readers not deeply familiar with rhetorical theory.
❗ Critique: Could benefit from clearer integration of concrete literary examples earlier in the essay.

Representative Quotations from “Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev with Explanation

🔖 Quotation	💡 Explanation
“Metaphor… is not a single unified structure, but rather a field of heterogeneous possibilities.” (p. 904)	Sobolev redefines metaphor not as a fixed linguistic form but as a multiplicity of interacting structures, challenging essentialist views.
“There is an essential difference between these questions [identification vs. functioning], and the existence of an answer to the former does not guarantee that there must also exist an answer to the latter.” (p. 906)	Distinguishes between the structure of identification (how we recognize a metaphor) and the structure of functioning (how it operates), emphasizing the complexity of metaphor.
“The sufficient condition of the identification of metaphor has been widely known since Aristotle: this is ‘similarity’ or ‘resemblance.’” (p. 909)	Revisits and reaffirms Aristotle’s classical idea that metaphor depends on perceived similarity, pushing back against modern skepticism.
“Interaction between the terms is not symmetrical… it results in the foregrounding of certain attributes of the primary term.” (p. 913)	Challenges simplistic models by suggesting metaphor involves asymmetric cognitive projection—the secondary term reshapes how we perceive the primary one.
“Some metaphors can be true or false… others can only be successful or unsuccessful.” (p. 914)	Introduces the idea that metaphors should be evaluated not only on truth value but also on communicative success, drawing on Austin’s speech act theory.
“The mind has mountains” is neither true nor false… but the interaction between its terms is definitely successful.” (p. 915)	Uses poetic metaphor to demonstrate how successfulness, not literal truth, often defines metaphorical power.
“Metaphor always foregrounds similarity, although this

Day: May 15, 2025