“Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature” by Kurt W. Back: Summary and Critique

“Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature” by Kurt W. Back first appeared in The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Autumn, 1988), published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.

"Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature" by Kurt W. Back: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature” by Kurt W. Back

“Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature” by Kurt W. Back first appeared in The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Autumn, 1988), published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Back explores how various metaphors used in literature reflect changing societal conceptions of public opinion across historical and cultural contexts. He argues that literature, through metaphorical representation—such as the Greek chorus, the goddess Rumor, or the manipulative crowd—offers unique insights into how societies perceive and structure the collective will. These metaphors, drawn from Greek tragedy to modern political fiction, expose the tensions between individual agency and collective voice, between elite and mass perspectives, and between control and chaos. Back asserts that public opinion is not merely an aggregate of individual attitudes but is shaped by the deep structures of the societies that define and measure it. His interdisciplinary approach situates literary metaphor as a critical analytical tool in both sociological theory and public opinion research, challenging the prevailing individualistic survey-based models. The article’s significance lies in its call for integrating literary insight into empirical social science, demonstrating that literature is not merely reflective but constitutive of our understanding of public consciousness.

Summary of “Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature” by Kurt W. Back

🔹 Public Opinion as a Cultural and Structural Concept

  • Public opinion is not purely theoretical but shaped by “the structure of the society in which it is stated” (p. 278).
  • It can be “felt and perceived”—a real, collective experience influenced by differing social contexts.
  • Survey methods, rooted in Western individualism, only reflect public opinion in individualistic societies and may “hinder a general definition of the concept” (p. 279).

🔹 Metaphors Reveal the Social Construction of Public Opinion

  • Back claims “any theory of public opinion can be seen as a metaphor for an experience” (p. 280).
  • Even modern polling methods like adding individual survey responses are metaphorical: “adding up the data from individual interviews and calling them public opinion is also a metaphor” (p. 280).

🔹 From Chorus to Individual: Collective Expression in Literature

  • In ancient societies, the Greek chorus symbolized communal opinion: “the voice of the community” (p. 281).
  • Over time, this unified voice weakened, representing a shift from social cohesion to individual agency.
  • Example: In Peter Grimes, the chorus becomes a “malevolent force”, showing the pressure of public opinion against the individual (p. 282).

🔹 Public Opinion as Divine and Dangerous (Virgil’s Rumor)

  • In Aeneid, the Goddess Rumor is described with “eyes under every feather and tongues to match or exceed the eyes”—symbolizing omnipresent, fearsome public discourse (p. 283).
  • Yet Rumor also carries divine will, underscoring the “ambivalence of public opinion as both destructive and enabling” (p. 283).

🔹 Public Opinion and Political Leadership

  • Monarchs in literature often gauge opinion through disguise (e.g., Shakespeare’s Henry V), showing how “early examples of public opinion research” were personal and anecdotal (p. 284).
  • This method reflects a belief that “good leaders embody public opinion”, contrasting with modern surveys seen as artificial intrusions (p. 284).

🔹 Mass Opinion and Manipulation

  • In modernity, literature warns of public opinion as manipulable. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar shows how “Mark Antony controls a crowd through rhetorical performance” (p. 284).
  • Back sees this as a “malleable, but dangerous, mass”—manipulable by elites but not grounded in reasoned individual judgment (p. 284).

🔹 The Revolutionary Mob and Elite Fear

  • During and after the French Revolution, writers like Schiller were “torn between sympathy and fear of the masses” (p. 285).
  • In The Lay of the Bell, Schiller warns: “Woe to him who lends heaven’s torch to the eternally blind populace” (lines 376–380), likening the masses to wild beasts and fire (p. 285).

🔹 Emergence of the Individual and the Pollable Public

  • The 19th century saw a shift from crowd to individual. Public opinion became internalized as “a force acting on the individual as a goad and restraint” (p. 286).
  • Offenbach’s Orpheus in the Underworld personifies public opinion with a “torch in one hand, a whip in the other”—combining enlightenment and coercion (p. 286).

🔹 Critique of Public Opinion Research and Democracy

  • Modern fiction critiques polling as manipulation:
    • In The Man with My Face, villains try to “distort the sampling frame” (p. 286).
    • Gore Vidal’s The Weekend and Eugene Burdick’s The 480 and The Ninth Wave portray polls as tools for electoral control and deception (pp. 287–288).
  • These reflect societal anxiety that “the benign as well as the threatening aspect of public opinion has been reduced to the sum of individual attitudes” (p. 287).

🔹 Conclusion: Towards Broader Models and Metaphors

  • Back argues for metaphor as a theoretical tool, proposing “a great common pool of oscillating opinions”—with surveys as mere “probes” in this social ocean (p. 288).
  • The search for richer models, such as Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence, is ongoing because “the lack of an image transcending individual attitudes has frequently troubled researchers” (p. 288).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature” by Kurt W. Back
🌐 Concept🧠 Explanation📖 Usage/Reference in Article
🎭 Metaphor as TheoryMetaphors are not just literary devices but also function as conceptual models to express social realities.“Any theory of public opinion can be seen as a metaphor for an experience…” (p. 280)
🧍‍♂️ IndividualismFocus on the individual as the primary unit of society and public opinion.Modern survey research is “modeled on… the buying decision and the secret ballot” (p. 279)
🫂 Collective ConsciousnessThe shared beliefs and moral attitudes of a society, often expressed in communal metaphors.Greek chorus as “the voice of the community”, representing societal unity (p. 281)
🌀 Spiral of SilenceA model of how individuals silence their views due to perceived dominant opinion.Mentioned in conclusion: “Metaphors such as Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence” (p. 288)
🔄 Opinion ContinuumPublic opinion as a spectrum of shared probability distributions, not fixed views.Refers to Coleman’s model: “opinions represented by a probability distribution… common to members of a unit” (p. 280)
🗳️ Survey Research ModelThe standard method of measuring public opinion via structured interviews or polls.“Survey techniques would have difficulties in obtaining generally valid measures of public opinion…” (p. 279)
🧱 Social StructureThe organized pattern of social relationships and institutions influencing public opinion.“Public opinion is… an outcome of the structure of the society in which it is stated” (p. 278)
📊 Public Opinion as DataTreating public opinion as the numerical sum of individual views, often via polls.“Adding up the data from individual interviews and calling them public opinion is also a metaphor” (p. 280)
🧬 SociophysiologyStudy of the interface between personal identity and societal interaction (Back’s broader research).Referenced in Back’s upcoming work: “Personal identity in sociophysiology” (Back, in press)
🏛️ Vox Populi, Vox DeiLatin for “the voice of the people is the voice of God”; idealization of mass opinion as sacred or true.Used to illustrate societies where public opinion is revered as communal truth (p. 280)
Contribution of “Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature” by Kurt W. Back to Literary Theory/Theories

📚 1. Reader-Response Theory

  • Contribution: The article emphasizes that public opinion is shaped by perception and experience, resonating with the reader-response focus on the interaction between text and audience.
  • Reference: “Public opinion can be felt and perceived… Reports of this direct perception of social events differ by situation, by person, but especially by society” (p. 278).
  • Implication: Literature functions not only as a reflection but as an interactional site where public sentiment is interpreted and shaped by readers and audiences over time.

🌀 Metaphor Theory / Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson)

  • Contribution: Back positions metaphors not as mere rhetorical flourishes but as foundational structures of knowledge, aligning with conceptual metaphor theory.
  • Reference: “Any theory of public opinion can be seen as a metaphor for an experience that cannot be expressed easily in words” (p. 280).
  • Implication: Literature’s metaphors shape social understanding just as scientific models do—merging cognitive linguistics and literary theory.

🏛️ New Historicism

  • Contribution: Back traces how metaphors for public opinion evolve in literature across historical epochs, directly linking literary forms to sociopolitical contexts.
  • Reference: The metaphor of the Greek chorus shows collective cohesion, while the Goddess Rumor in The Aeneid represents ambivalence toward mass discourse (pp. 281–283).
  • Implication: Literature encodes public opinion not just narratively but historically, revealing ideological structures and shifts in power relations across time.

🧠 Sociological Literary Theory (Sociology of Literature)

  • Contribution: Back advocates literature as a diagnostic tool for the structure of society and collective experience—paralleling the view that literature reflects and helps constitute social life.
  • Reference: “The treatment of public opinion in literature can be one such indicator” and “the distinction of major artists lies exactly in their extreme sensitivity to conditions of their society” (p. 279).
  • Implication: This article grounds literary production in social reality and underscores the reciprocity between social forms and literary forms.

🔍 Structuralism / Structuralist Semiotics

  • Contribution: The paper indirectly employs structuralist methods by classifying metaphors (e.g., chorus, rumor, disguised king) according to underlying binary oppositions: collective vs. individual, truth vs. manipulation.
  • Reference: Contrast between “unitary cohesion in a society” and “individual conscience and individual action” (p. 281).
  • Implication: Back’s framework reveals the cultural logic (structure) behind different metaphorical representations of public opinion.

🧍 Post-Structuralism / Deconstruction

  • Contribution: The article implicitly destabilizes fixed meanings of public opinion, revealing its contextual, contradictory, and metaphorical nature.
  • Reference: “Public opinion has been reduced to the sum of individual attitudes… but the idea that opinions can be characteristics of social units has not been completely abandoned” (p. 287).
  • Implication: Encourages re-reading of “public opinion” as a fragmented, discursively constructed entity, echoing post-structuralist suspicion of stable referents.

🗣️ Political Aesthetics / Critical Theory

  • Contribution: Shows how literature stages conflicts between mass and elite, reason and manipulation, aligning with critical theory’s concern with ideology, hegemony, and control.
  • Reference: Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Coriolanus expose “public opinion as a crowd affair… not consisting of individual thought-out positions” (p. 284).
  • Implication: Literature not only reflects but interrogates the political functions of opinion and representation, echoing Adorno and Habermas.

💬 Narrative Theory

  • Contribution: Reveals how narrative structures—from epics to novels—function as vehicles for metaphorical expressions of collective sentiment.
  • Reference: In The Man with My Face, narrative climax hinges on rescuing authentic public opinion from manipulative sampling (p. 286).
  • Implication: Narratives embody and shape public consciousness; plot devices often encode ideological debates over truth, identity, and consensus.

🔄 Reception and Cultural Studies

  • Contribution: Highlights how cultural context and political systems influence both the production and reception of public opinion metaphors.
  • Reference: “That public opinion research is an American product may be no coincidence”, in reference to McGranahan & Wayne’s comparative study (p. 283).
  • Implication: Interpretation of literature is inseparable from national ideologies and media systems—core to cultural studies.
Examples of Critiques Through “Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature” by Kurt W. Back
📘 Literary Work🎭 Metaphor for Public Opinion🧠 Critical Insight from Back’s Framework
🏛️ Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare🗣️ Crowd as Malleable MassBack notes that Mark Antony’s speech manipulates the mob, illustrating public opinion as “a crowd affair… easily swayed” (p. 284).
🎶 Peter Grimes by Benjamin Britten🎼 Chorus as Tyrannical MajorityThe chorus (villagers) embodies oppressive communal judgment, showing how public opinion can be a “malevolent force” (p. 282).
🧵 A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens🧶 Knitting as Collective Memory and RevengeThe tricoteuses represent public opinion as historical resentment, symbolizing revolutionary justice and mob vengeance (p. 286).
👑 Henry V by William Shakespeare🕵️ Disguised King as PollsterHenry’s incognito patrol acts as an early metaphor for opinion sampling, where the ruler seeks truth directly from the people (p. 284).
Criticism Against “Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature” by Kurt W. Back

🎯 Overreliance on Western Canon

  • Back focuses primarily on Western literary traditions (e.g., Greek drama, Shakespeare, Virgil, Dickens), potentially neglecting non-Western conceptions of public opinion.
  • 🌍 Critique: This limits the universality of his argument and overlooks how public opinion is metaphorized in diverse global literatures.

🧩 Ambiguity in Conceptual Boundaries

  • While rich in metaphorical range, Back often blurs the lines between metaphor, theory, and empirical data.
  • 🔍 Critique: This can create confusion: Is public opinion metaphorized or theorized? Are metaphors analytical tools or literary features?

🧪 Lack of Empirical Validation

  • The article offers anecdotal literary examples, but not systematic analysis or criteria for selecting or interpreting metaphors.
  • 📉 Critique: The metaphors remain interpretive rather than rigorously analyzed, limiting the paper’s methodological robustness.

📚 Sparse Engagement with Literary Theory

  • While sociologically insightful, Back does not deeply engage with contemporary literary theories (e.g., structuralism, deconstruction, postcolonialism).
  • 🧠 Critique: Literary scholars may find the analysis insufficiently grounded in critical theory discourse.

🔄 Reinforcement of Binary Oppositions

  • The paper often sets up simplistic binaries: individual vs. collective, elite vs. mass, positive vs. negative opinion.
  • ⚖️ Critique: This can flatten the complexity of literary texts and ignore hybrid or ambiguous representations of public discourse.

🎭 Underdeveloped Narrative Complexity

  • The metaphors discussed are powerful, but Back rarely explores how narrative form, genre, or voice shape public opinion metaphors.
  • 📖 Critique: A richer engagement with narrative strategies or dialogic form (e.g., Bakhtin’s heteroglossia) would strengthen the analysis.

🚫 Dismissal of Contemporary Media Forms

  • The article focuses on classical and modernist literature but largely ignores mass media, film, and digital narratives as vehicles of public opinion.
  • 🎥 Critique: This omission weakens the relevance of his metaphors in the media-saturated public spheres of today.

🧍‍♀️ Minimal Attention to Gendered Public Opinion

  • Public opinion is treated as a largely ungendered force, despite literary examples (like A Tale of Two Cities) where women embody public voice.
  • ♀️ Critique: Feminist critics may argue this is a missed opportunity to explore gendered constructions of the public sphere.

Representative Quotations from “Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature” by Kurt W. Back with Explanation
🎯 Quotation📜 Quotation Text💡 Explanation
🎭 Metaphor as Theory“Any theory of public opinion can be seen as a metaphor for an experience that cannot be expressed easily in words.” (p. 280)Emphasizes the central claim: metaphors shape our conceptual understanding of public opinion as much as empirical models do.
🧍 Individualism“Survey techniques would have difficulties in obtaining generally valid measures of public opinion which is in itself a function of the social structure.” (p. 279)Critiques overreliance on individual opinion aggregation; public opinion is more than just survey data.
🎶 Chorus as Public Voice“The chorus, the symbol of the voice of the community, represented the background of the social expression of opinion.” (p. 281)Shows how ancient drama metaphorized public opinion as communal consensus—rooted in collective society.
👁️ All-seeing Rumor“She looks frightening, like a predatory bird, covered with feathers, under every feather an eye, and tongues to match or exceed the eyes.” (p. 283, on Goddess Rumor)Represents the duality of rumor/public opinion—omnipresent, powerful, and both divine and dangerous.
🗣️ Crowd as Mass“Public opinion as a crowd affair, not consisting of individual thought-out positions.” (p. 284, on Julius Caesar)Suggests a critique of mass manipulation and demagoguery—public opinion as irrational and volatile.
🧶 Collective Memory“The knitting women recording their wrongs and watching their revenge at the guillotine.” (p. 286, on A Tale of Two Cities)Uses Dickens’s imagery to show how literature encodes public memory and political violence into metaphor.
🔥 The Blind Populace“Woe to him who lends heaven’s torch to the eternally blind populace; for him it cannot give light, but can only burn and consume cities and nations.” (p. 285, from Schiller)Symbolizes the destructive potential of uncontrolled mass opinion—fiery metaphor of political chaos.
👑 Ruler as Pollster“The story of the disguised king going among the people… an early example of public opinion research.” (p. 284)Frames classical narratives of rulers gathering opinion as proto-survey methods, revealing early metaphorical roots.
🧪 Manipulated Sampling“The hero steals the deck of computer cards on which the sample was based… to protect the pristine public opinion.” (p. 286, from The Man with My Face)Critiques modern data manipulation; fiction warns of how sampling can be distorted to fake public sentiment.
🔄 Oscillating Pool“An image of a great common pool of oscillating opinions which engulfs individuals.” (p. 288)A visual metaphor for how public opinion is not stable but fluid and collective—both shaping and shaped by individuals.
Suggested Readings: “Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature” by Kurt W. Back
  1. Back, Kurt W. “Metaphors for Public Opinion in Literature.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 3, 1988, pp. 278–88. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2749072. Accessed 16 May 2025.
  2. Bougher, Lori D. “The Case for Metaphor in Political Reasoning and Cognition.” Political Psychology, vol. 33, no. 1, 2012, pp. 145–63. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41407025. Accessed 16 May 2025.
  3. Allport, Floyd H. “Toward a Science of Public Opinion.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1, 1937, pp. 7–23. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744799. Accessed 16 May 2025.

“Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature” by R. J. Kaufmann: Summary and Critique

“Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature” by R. J. Kaufmann first appeared in College English, Vol. 30, No. 1, in October 1968, published by the National Council of Teachers of English.

"Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature" by R. J. Kaufmann: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature” by R. J. Kaufmann

“Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature” by R. J. Kaufmann first appeared in College English, Vol. 30, No. 1, in October 1968, published by the National Council of Teachers of English. In this seminal essay, Kaufmann delivers a critical reflection on the failures of mechanized criticism and proposes metaphor as a central, constitutive principle of literary understanding and cultural expression. He argues that metaphor is not merely a rhetorical device but a foundational cognitive and cultural process that constructs meaning and frames historical and existential experience. Through analyses of texts by More, Kant, Pascal, and Kafka, Kaufmann demonstrates how metaphor operates at both linguistic and philosophical levels—shaping perception, enabling abstraction, and reflecting deep cultural values. His exploration links metaphoric structures to broader social and psychological realities, suggesting that metaphor not only expresses but also organizes human consciousness. This vision challenges reductive critical methods and calls for renewed engagement with literature as a vital, meaning-making force. Kaufmann’s work is crucial to literary theory in that it repositions metaphor as a cultural and epistemological mechanism, arguing for its centrality in both literary form and historical understanding.

Summary of “Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature” by R. J. Kaufmann

🔍 Overview and Context

  • Publication: College English, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Oct. 1968), pp. 31–47.
  • Thesis: Metaphor is not simply a stylistic device in literature but a foundational mechanism of cultural understanding, identity, and historical consciousness.
  • Kaufmann critiques dominant critical methodologies (especially New Criticism), urging a return to “rigorous literary thinking on questions of a larger than rhetorical scope” (p. 32).

🌐 1. Metaphor as Constitutive, Not Decorative

🧠 “Controlled metaphorical stipulations establish the imaginative matrix for human growth.” (p. 33)

  • Metaphor forms the cognitive infrastructure of how individuals and cultures construct meaning.
  • Kaufmann argues that basic metaphors, such as “life is a voyage”, shape cultural consciousness and ethical frameworks (p. 33).
  • Metaphor is thus a cultural tool, not merely a poetic flourish: “Metaphorical acculturation is the ground for our historicity.” (p. 33)

📚 2. Case Studies: More, Kant, and Pascal

🧭 Thomas More’s Utopia

  • Uses the metaphor “life is a voyage” to structure a critique of European society.
  • Hythloday’s alienation signals More’s unresolved inner conflict: “To arrive in utopia…one must make the antecedent repudiation which More was fractionally tempted to but could not make.” (p. 34)

🕊️ Immanuel Kant

  • In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant’s metaphor of the dove flying more freely in a vacuum expresses the illusion of pure reason independent of experience.
  • Kaufmann sees this as “a new covenant…Our new covenant is with our own unaided strength” (p. 35), suggesting metaphor as philosophical boundary-setting.

😔 Blaise Pascal

  • Uses metaphor to dramatize existential anxiety and spiritual vigilance.
  • “Formulations are traps” – Pascal resists systematization (p. 36).
  • His metaphorical loops express theological dread: “Spiritual Death is the Betrayal of Christ… Sleep is a Sweet Thing” (p. 36)

🌀 3. Metaphor and Cultural Norms

🧩 “Metaphor functions as a great type of normative device… to create and sustain patterns of meaning.” (p. 38)

  • Metaphors reflect social and cultural agreements, reinforcing normative structures.
  • Example: “Sunset” in Rumanian is “the sun enters into sainthood”—revealing religious metaphor embedded in language (p. 40).
  • Literary metaphor shares with cultural metaphor the role of public thinking and organizing experience (p. 38–39).

🧱 4. Metaphor vs. Imagism

🎭 “Metaphor… culminates in overt didacticism… Imagism presupposes a passive receptivity.” (p. 39)

  • Kaufmann distinguishes between metaphor (analytical, structured, didactic) and imagism (expressive, immediate, unprocessed).
  • Pure imagism: “This is this and this and this”
    Metaphor: “This is that” (p. 39)

🧬 5. Metaphor as Social and Psychological Marker

⚙️ “The metaphorical structure of a work may reveal an artist’s personal and cultural stance.” (p. 37)

  • Kafka’s writing is metaphorically opaque and self-contained: “There is nothing constitutive in his artistic warrant.” (p. 39)
  • Metaphorical awareness distinguishes vital art from solipsistic or dysfunctional expression.

🏰 6. The Metaphor of “Faith as a Citadel” in Othello

🏹 “Faith is a citadel.” (p. 45)

  • Structural metaphor in Othello equates spiritual trust with fortified defense.
  • Othello’s tragedy is a collapse of faith: “It was Desdemona’s faith that was his citadel, not his own poor insecure ramparts.” (p. 45)

👁️ 7. “God is an Eye”: Cultural Metaphor of Providence

👁️ “One might suppose the metaphor ‘God is an eye’ outmoded, but it infiltrates the most sophisticated circles.” (p. 46)

  • Kaufmann traces this metaphor through Homer, the Stoics (Seneca), Christianity, and even existentialism (Sartre).
  • This metaphor affirms that being seen validates existence: “Literature is most vivid when it is watched.” (p. 43)

🧪 8. Metaphor as Tool for Historical and Literary Criticism

🔬 “The radical metaphor is the lens which creates the contemporary perspective we otherwise will lack.” (p. 47)

  • Metaphor bridges the divide between history and literature, enabling empathic understanding and moral abstraction.
  • Concludes with a call for critics to embrace metaphor as both method and insight in reading literature and culture.

Conclusion

Kaufmann’s essay reclaims metaphor as the central organizing principle in literature, history, psychology, and cultural life. Rather than a secondary ornament, metaphor is foundational: it creates meaning, reveals hidden structures, and offers shared frames of understanding.

🪞 “The point of original incandescence for a work of art is its first pregnant and often unexpressed metaphor; the rest is second-order elaboration.” (p. 47)

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature” by R. J. Kaufmann
🔖 Concept / Term🧠 Explanation🔍 Quotation / Reference
🔁 Constitutive MetaphorA metaphor that shapes our perception of reality and self, not just describes it. These metaphors embed values, structures, and cultural expectations.“Human use of metaphor is often constitutive, because controlled metaphorical stipulations establish the imaginative matrix for human growth.” (p. 33)
🧭 Life as a VoyageA recurring metaphor in Western discourse that frames existence as a journey with purpose, destination, or struggle. Kaufmann uses this to analyze More and Bunyan.“More’s little book is the first effort… to conjure up a critical, wholly ‘other’ picture of an organized human environment…” (p. 34)
🎭 Radical MetaphorThe primary, often unspoken metaphor that underlies an entire work. It governs tone, structure, and interpretation.“The point of original incandescence for a work of art is its first pregnant and often unexpressed metaphor.” (p. 47)
🕊️ Metaphor as Cultural RepressionKaufmann argues that deep metaphors regulate cultural norms and suppress alternative views, shaping consciousness and history.“Metaphor… works as an instrument of cultural repression which superimposes itself between us and whatever thoughts or feelings we might have had.” (p. 33)
⚖️ Metaphor vs. ImagismContrasts metaphors (abstract, analytical, didactic) with imagism (immediate, impressionistic, passive). A key distinction in understanding literary modes.“Imagism presupposes a passive receptivity… metaphor culminates in overt didacticism.” (p. 39)
👁️ God as an EyeA deep-rooted Western metaphor representing divine surveillance, judgment, or validation. Seen in Homer, Seneca, and Sartre.“God is an eye… the root metaphorical statement of the idea we call Providence.” (p. 45)
🏰 Faith is a CitadelA structural metaphor in Othello that links trust/love to fortified protection. Its failure dramatizes Othello’s tragedy.“Desdemona’s faith was his citadel, not his own poor insecure ramparts.” (p. 45)
🧪 Directive AbstractionThe process by which metaphor simplifies complex reality into intelligible, symbolic form—especially in moral or narrative context.“Metaphor defines relevant but denied components in the complex self through affective simplification.” (p. 44)
🌀 Cultural Shock through MetaphorWhen a writer’s metaphorical system diverges radically from cultural norms, producing disorientation (e.g., Kafka).“Kafka’s ominous simplicity… calls the normal operations of metaphor into question.” (p. 38)
📡 Public Metaphor / Social UseEffective metaphors are those absorbed by the collective imagination, shaping law, policy, ritual, and literature.“Metaphors… are of lasting utility only when these ‘errors’ of the private mind are by cultural expropriation preferred to the ‘correct’ views they contradict.” (p. 38)
🧱 Metaphor as Normative DeviceMetaphor functions like social law—creating cognitive coherence and emotional solidarity by “stipulating” meaning.“Metaphor functions as a great type of normative device… through controlled stipulation creates and sustains patterns of meaning.” (p. 38)
🕯️ Symbolic Habits / Inherited MetaphorsMany metaphors become invisible in daily speech but retain deep cultural power (e.g., “sunrise”, “pilgrimage”).“These obsolete conceptions remain latent in the language… we tend to espouse our forefathers’ beliefs and words in any emergency.” (p. 40)
📜 Parable as Metaphor in ActionThe parable (e.g., Nathan & David) simplifies moral complexities via metaphorical alignment between a narrative and a judgment.“This is the use of parable in its most direct and pure form… ‘Thou art the man.’” (p. 44)
🎬 Ethical Histrionics / Witnessing MetaphorsThe metaphorical “eye” of an audience or deity validates human action—offering narrative meaning and moral gravity.“Living by being seen… is the guarantor of memory… establishes their being for themselves and for us.” (p. 43)
Contribution of “Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature” by R. J. Kaufmann to Literary Theory/Theories

🔁 1. Repositions Metaphor as Central to Meaning-Making

  • Contribution: Moves metaphor from rhetorical ornament to a constitutive force in literature and culture.
  • Kaufmann asserts metaphor is a tool of cognitive and cultural formation, not just literary decoration.
  • 📌 “Human use of metaphor is often constitutive… metaphorical stipulations establish the imaginative matrix for human growth.” (p. 33)

🧠 2. Introduces the Concept of Radical Metaphor

  • Contribution: Defines radical metaphor as the unspoken core metaphor organizing a literary work’s structure and values.
  • Helps critics understand works like Utopia and Othello through their submerged metaphorical logic.
  • 📌 “The point of original incandescence for a work of art is its first pregnant and often unexpressed metaphor.” (p. 47)

🧭 3. Bridges Literary and Historical Analysis

  • Contribution: Shows how metaphor links individual perception with historical context, enabling interdisciplinary critical methods.
  • Encourages integration of cultural history and formal analysis.
  • 📌 “Metaphorical habits betray the social compass of the thinker-artist’s basic position.” (p. 37)

👁️ 4. Frames Metaphor as a Normative and Pedagogical Tool

  • Contribution: Positions metaphor as a mechanism by which cultures teach, regulate, and normalize behavior.
  • Connects metaphor to education, moral formation, and ideology.
  • 📌 “Metaphor functions as a great type of normative device… creating and sustaining patterns of meaning.” (p. 38)

🧱 5. Critiques the Limits of New Criticism

  • Contribution: Challenges New Criticism’s focus on close reading by advocating for macro-level metaphorical analysis.
  • Emphasizes engagement with texts beyond formal structure, addressing existential and cultural questions.
  • 📌 “New Criticism… created a useful technology… but… its polemics became confused with a general description of the whole critical act.” (p. 31)

🔬 6. Develops a Theory of Literary Cognition

  • Contribution: Describes metaphor as a cognitive structure influencing how humans categorize and process experience.
  • Anticipates contemporary work in cognitive poetics and conceptual metaphor theory.
  • 📌 “Metaphor simplifies what would otherwise be too complex to evoke a normative response.” (p. 42)

🔄 7. Challenges Traditional Classifications of Literary Genre

  • Contribution: Warns against limiting texts by genre; instead, he urges readers to follow the metaphorical logic that governs a work’s deeper purpose.
  • 📌 “There is no important purpose served by mere categorization in the handling of a text of sufficient imaginative force.” (p. 33)

🧬 8. Introduces Metaphor as Diagnostic Method

  • Contribution: Encourages using metaphor as a diagnostic tool to probe the psyche, ideology, and historical position of a text or author.
  • 📌 “Kafka’s ominous simplicity… calls the normal operations of metaphor into question.” (p. 38)

🧪 9. Equates Metaphor with Ethical and Existential Inquiry

  • Contribution: Suggests metaphor reveals the moral structure of characters and cultures.
  • Offers a way to read literature ethically without moralizing.
  • 📌 “Metaphor defines relevant but denied components in the complex self through affective simplification.” (p. 44)

🔄 10. Sets Foundations for Metaphor as Cultural Symbol

  • Contribution: Establishes the notion that cultural metaphors like “God is an eye” or “life is a journey” underpin not just texts but civilizational systems.
  • 📌 “Culturally determining metaphors… act as a means of self-definition… and cannot easily be discarded.” (p. 47)

🔚 Conclusion:

Kaufmann’s essay reshapes literary theory by positioning metaphor at the heart of interpretation, ethics, history, and pedagogy. His insights anticipate modern interdisciplinary approaches and enrich our understanding of how literature functions as a social, psychological, and philosophical enterprise.

Examples of Critiques Through “Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature” by R. J. Kaufmann
📖 Work🔍 Core Metaphor🧠 Kaufmann’s Interpretation📝 Quotation / Reference
🧭 More’s Utopia“Life is a Voyage”The journey to Utopia reflects a psychological and moral journey—alienation from Europe and longing for ideal order. Hythloday acts out the voyage More could not take himself.“To arrive in utopia… one must make the antecedent repudiation which More was fractionally tempted to but could not make.” (p. 34)
🕊️ Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason“The Dove in Flight” (rational freedom)The metaphor of the dove suggests a tragic limit to reason—reason needs resistance (experience) to function. Kant renounces transcendence for grounded cognition.“Kant’s metaphor entails… our new covenant is with our own unaided strength.” (p. 35)
😔 Pascal’s Pensées“Formulations are Traps” / “Death is the Goal of Life”Pascal’s metaphors reveal existential dread, fear of self-annihilation, and a desire for divine validation. His metaphors become cycles of spiritual torment.“The radical metaphor may be variously expressed but is always the same: ‘Formulations are traps.’” (p. 36)
🏰 Shakespeare’s Othello“Faith is a Citadel”Kaufmann sees Othello’s tragedy as the collapse of internal and relational trust, grounded in the failed metaphor of protective love. Desdemona, not Othello, is the true ‘citadel’.“It was Desdemona’s faith that was his citadel, not his own poor insecure ramparts.” (p. 45)
Criticism Against “Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature” by R. J. Kaufmann

🎯 Too Broad a Definition of Metaphor

  • Kaufmann stretches the definition of metaphor to include nearly all forms of meaning-making.
  • 🟣 Critique: This over-expansion risks making metaphor analytically meaningless by encompassing everything from theology to cognition.
  • 🔍 “Most non-analytical propositions… could be fruitfully considered as metaphor.” (p. 38)

🧱 Neglects Materialist or Socioeconomic Criticism

  • 🟥 Critique: The essay downplays or bypasses economic, class-based, and materialist dimensions of literary production and reception.
  • Lacks engagement with Marxist, feminist, or postcolonial readings that would challenge the universality of metaphor.

🔍 Selective Canon Focus

  • 🟡 Critique: The examples (More, Kant, Pascal, Shakespeare, Kafka) reflect a Eurocentric and male-dominated canon, limiting the application of his theory across more diverse literatures.
  • Absence of non-Western or female voices weakens claims to metaphor as a culturally general process.

🌀 Ambiguity Between Philosophy and Literary Criticism

  • 🟠 Critique: Kaufmann often blurs philosophical discourse and literary analysis, making some passages dense and abstract for literary scholars.
  • His essay reads at times more like intellectual history than literary criticism.

🧭 Implied Hierarchy of Literary Value

  • 🔵 Critique: Kaufmann implicitly favors works that fit his model of “radical metaphor,” potentially excluding valuable texts that are imagistic, nonlinear, or non-didactic.
  • Dismisses imagism as artistically inferior: “Imagism… tends to run into the sands of dadaism and other varied forms of artistic solipsism.” (p. 39)

🔒 Metaphor as Ideological Lock-In

  • 🟤 Critique: While claiming metaphor liberates thought, Kaufmann also suggests it fixes meaning and represses alternatives.
  • This tension (metaphor as both freedom and repression) is underdeveloped and theoretically unstable.

🕵️ Lack of Methodological Transparency

  • Critique: The essay is rich in insight but lacks clear method—readers may struggle to replicate or apply Kaufmann’s analysis systematically.
  • His own metaphorical approach avoids technical formalism, which may hinder pedagogical clarity.

🧬 Absence of Reader Response Consideration

  • 🟠 Critique: The essay assumes metaphor operates objectively within texts without acknowledging reader variability or interpretive diversity.
  • No discussion of how metaphor may be differently activated across cultural or temporal contexts.

Representative Quotations from “Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature” by R. J. Kaufmann with Explanation
🔖 Quotation💬 Explanation📚 Reference (In-text)
“Metaphorical activity is… a way of contradicting what has seemed self-evident.”Kaufmann sees metaphor not merely as ornament, but as a creative disruption of norms that allows cultures to reorder experience into new forms of meaning.(Kaufmann, 1968, p. 37)
“Metaphor is a two-edged verbal tool.”He warns that metaphor both illuminates and distorts; it should be used carefully, especially in shaping social and moral values.(Kaufmann, 1968, p. 41)
“The radical metaphor is the lens which creates the contemporary perspective we otherwise will lack.”This quote frames metaphor as a conceptual lens, without which understanding historical or literary texts becomes superficial.(Kaufmann, 1968, p. 47)
“We live in a syncretistic age…”Kaufmann critiques modern criticism as methodologically eclectic, drawing bits from Freud, Marx, New Criticism, and others, but lacking intellectual rigor.(Kaufmann, 1968, p. 31)
“Faith is a citadel.”In his reading of Othello, Kaufmann interprets this implicit metaphor to explain the structure and tragedy of misplaced trust.(Kaufmann, 1968, p. 45)
“Metaphor is symbol in its instrumental phase.”Metaphor, here, is shown as a functional agent of cultural meaning, capable of creating, transmitting, and sustaining values.(Kaufmann, 1968, p. 41)
“A man ‘means’ nothing until we learn how to ‘read’ him.”This line underlines that meaning is socially constructed through metaphor and symbolism, especially in epic literature.(Kaufmann, 1968, p. 42)
“Kafka’s imagination captivates ours, it doesn’t enlarge.”A critique of Kafka’s metaphorical style: it is inward, private, and ultimately non-generative for cultural meaning.(Kaufmann, 1968, p. 39)
“To arrive in utopia… one must make the antecedent repudiation which More was… unable to make.”This reflects on More’s moral ambivalence, read through the metaphor “life is a voyage” — central to Utopia’s structure.(Kaufmann, 1968, p. 34)
“God is an eye.”Kaufmann treats this ancient metaphor as a cornerstone of Western thought, shaping ideas of surveillance, providence, and ethical drama from Homer to Beckett.(Kaufmann, 1968, p. 43)
Suggested Readings: “Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature” by R. J. Kaufmann
  1. Kaufmann, R. J. “Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature.” College English, vol. 30, no. 1, 1968, pp. 31–47. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/374506. Accessed 16 May 2025.
  2. Henderson, G. P. “Metaphorical Thinking.” The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), vol. 3, no. 10, 1953, pp. 1–13. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2216694. Accessed 16 May 2025.
  3. Miller, Donald F. “METAPHOR, THINKING, AND THOUGHT.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics, vol. 39, no. 2, 1982, pp. 134–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42575924. Accessed 16 May 2025.
  4. Kaufmann, R. J. “Metaphorical Thinking and the Scope of Literature.” College English, vol. 30, no. 1, 1968, pp. 31–47. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/374506. Accessed 16 May 2025.

“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.

"Metaphor in Linguistic Thought and Theory" by Ronald W. Langacker: Summary and Critique
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 ShelleyObject 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. EliotNetwork 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 MorrisonField/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 OrwellConduit 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.
Suggested Readings: “Metaphor in Linguistic Thought and Theory” by Ronald W. Langacker
  1. Ben-Amos, Dan. “Metaphor.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 1/2, 1999, pp. 152–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43102452. Accessed 12 May 2025.
  2. Levin, Samuel R. “Aristotle’s Theory of Metaphor.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 15, no. 1, 1982, pp. 24–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40237305. Accessed 12 May 2025.
  3. Underhill, James W. “Other Developments in Metaphor Theory.” Creating Worldviews: Metaphor, Ideology and Language, Edinburgh University Press, 2011, pp. 30–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1r23vv.7. Accessed 12 May 2025.
  4. Miller, Donald F. “METAPHOR, THINKING, AND THOUGHT.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics, vol. 39, no. 2, 1982, pp. 134–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42575924. Accessed 12 May 2025.

“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.

"Metaphor Revisited" by Dennis Sobolev: Summary and Critique
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 IdentificationA formal procedure for recognizing metaphors, based on necessary and sufficient conditions such as logical contradiction or conceptual incongruity.Sobolev, p. 906–907
Structure of FunctioningFocuses on how metaphors operate cognitively and semantically, and their impact on readers — not just how they are recognized.Sobolev, p. 906
Necessary ConditionsAttributes that signal metaphorical usage: contradiction, incongruity, falsity, irrelevance, tautology, banality, etc.Sobolev, p. 907
Sufficient ConditionThe presence of similarity or resemblance — substantial or relational — between metaphorical terms.Sobolev, p. 909
Tripartite StructureMetaphor comprises: ① Frame (literal context), ② Figurative Term, and ③ Theme (subject).Sobolev, p. 905
Transference vs. InteractionTwo 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. SuccessSome 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 SimilaritySome metaphors emphasize pre-existing resemblance; others create new similarities (especially in poetic or philosophical metaphors).Sobolev, p. 915–916
Metaphors of Creation vs. ElucidationMetaphors 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. IdentificationJuxtaposition involves implied comparison (diaphora); Identification uses explicit predication (“A is B”, or epiphora).Sobolev, p. 919–920
Explicit Designation vs. ReplacementSome 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 TransferenceMetaphors 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 TransferHow 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
DeautomatizationThe 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 WorkMetaphorical ExampleType of Metaphor (Sobolev)Axes of InterpretationInterpretive 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🔹 DeautomatizationHighlights 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 AxisDeath 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🔹 DefamiliarizationMerges 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
Suggested Readings: “Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev
  1. Sobolev, Dennis. “Metaphor Revisited.” New Literary History, vol. 39, no. 4, 2008, pp. 903–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20533122. Accessed 13 May 2025.
  2. MacCormac, Earl R. “Metaphor Revisited.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 30, no. 2, 1971, pp. 239–50. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/429543. Accessed 13 May 2025.
  3. Glicksohn, Joseph, and Chanita Goodblatt. “Metaphor and Gestalt: Interaction Theory Revisited.” Poetics Today, vol. 14, no. 1, 1993, pp. 83–97. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1773141. Accessed 13 May 2025.
  4. “Metaphor [Bibliography].” Newsletter: Rhetoric Society of America, vol. 4, no. 3, 1974, pp. 5–13. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3885137. Accessed 13 May 2025.

“Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?” by Walter Kintsch & Anita R. Bowles: Summary and Critique

“Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?” by Walter Kintsch and Anita R. Bowles first appeared in Metaphor and Symbol in 2002 (Vol. 17, Issue 4, pp. 249–262), published by Psychology Press.

"Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?" by Walter Kintsch & Anita R. Bowles: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?” by Walter Kintsch & Anita R. Bowles

“Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?” by Walter Kintsch and Anita R. Bowles first appeared in Metaphor and Symbol in 2002 (Vol. 17, Issue 4, pp. 249–262), published by Psychology Press. This pivotal article investigates the cognitive mechanisms underpinning metaphor comprehension, challenging the traditional view that metaphors inherently require a qualitatively different processing strategy than literal language. Through empirical analysis and computational modeling, the authors demonstrate that metaphors of the form NOUN1 is a NOUN2 are often understood using the same basic cognitive strategies applied to literal sentences. Central to their study is the use of Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), a method for modeling meaning in high-dimensional semantic space, and the predication model, which adjusts the vector of a predicate based on its argument to yield context-sensitive interpretations. Their findings reveal that metaphor comprehension difficulty is not significantly related to the surface semantic similarity between the metaphor’s terms, but rather to the availability of shared semantic features that link the metaphor’s topic and vehicle. Importantly, both human participants and the computational model showed similar patterns in interpreting metaphors: strong agreement and coherence for easy metaphors, and more diverse yet non-random responses for difficult ones. This work is significant in literary theory and cognitive linguistics as it offers a formal, computable framework to explain metaphor comprehension, moving beyond intuitive or purely analogical models. It aligns with, and extends, the class-inclusion theory of Glucksberg (1998) and supports a semantic-constraint-based view of comprehension that blurs the boundaries between literal and figurative language processing.

Summary of “Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?” by Walter Kintsch & Anita R. Bowles

🔷 1. Metaphors and Literal Language: No Special Processing Required

  • People process metaphors similarly to literal sentences in most cases.
  • It does not appear that metaphor comprehension first involves an attempt at literal comprehension and, when that fails, a metaphoric reinterpretation❞ (Kintsch & Bowles, 2002, p. 249).
  • Ordinary metaphors are usually automatically understood, without cognitive overload.
  • 🔍 This finding challenges traditional theories that treat metaphor as inherently more complex than literal language.

🔶 2. What Makes a Metaphor Difficult? It’s Not What You Think

  • Difficulty is not due to:
    • Semantic distance between words 🔁
    • Word frequency or vector length 🧮
  • It is not the case that easy understanding requires a preexisting global relation between the two terms❞ (p. 258).
  • Rather, it depends on whether shared semantic neighbors can be found between topic and vehicle.
  • Metaphors are easy to process if the argument has a good match among the close neighbors of the predicate❞ (p. 257).

🟣 3. Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA): Mapping Meaning in Space

  • Words are represented as vectors in a 300-dimensional semantic space.
  • Meaning is a position in this huge semantic space… we can calculate how close or far apart two vectors are❞ (p. 250).
  • Sentence meaning is computed by adding vectors, allowing computational modeling of metaphor comprehension.

🟢 4. The Predication Model: Adding Context to Semantics

  • The predication algorithm modifies predicate vectors based on context (argument word).
  • For example, 🦈 “My lawyer is a shark” highlights “aggressive” traits of “shark,” not the literal ones.
  • The meaning of the predicate is a shark is very different from shark in isolation❞ (p. 251).
  • This is how LSA simulates human-like metaphor interpretation.

🔴 5. Easy vs. Difficult Metaphors: Experimental Evidence

  • Participants rated 13 metaphors as easy and 13 as difficult.
  • High agreement on easy metaphors (48% modal agreement) vs. low on difficult ones (21%).
  • Even “nonsense” metaphors triggered non-random interpretations.
  • Even for what one might regard as pure nonsense, there was still a considerable level of agreement❞ (p. 254).

🔵 6. Model Validation: Matching Human Responses

  • LSA-predicated vectors closely matched participant-generated interpretations.
  • For both easy and difficult metaphors, the average cosine similarity between model and human responses was ≈ 0.51.
  • For difficult metaphors, responses were more varied, but the model produced a vector that was just as close to these varied responses❞ (p. 258).

🟡 7. Cognitive Consistency: Even Diffuse Responses Make Sense

  • The model does not break down on difficult metaphors—it generates diffuse but coherent meanings.
  • The semantic structure provided a tight constraint for easy metaphors, and only a loose one for hard metaphors❞ (p. 258).
  • Human and model interpretations converge because of shared semantic constraints.

🟤 8. Theoretical Contributions to Literary and Linguistic Theory

  • Supports Glucksberg’s class-inclusion model and Frisson & Pickering’s underspecification model.
  • Offers a computational realization of metaphor interpretation mechanisms in cognitive science.
  • We also claim that the results presented here show that LSA provides a useful basis for a psychological theory of meaning❞ (p. 259).

🔺 9. Key Insight: Local Connections Trump Global Similarity

  • Metaphors work not by global similarity, but by activating shared contextual features.
  • Lawyer and shark are orthogonal… but there are aspects—like vicious or mean—that link the two❞ (p. 258).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?” by Walter Kintsch & Anita R. Bowles

🌐 TermExplanationReference from the Article
🧠 Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA)A computational method for deriving the meaning of words and texts by placing them in a high-dimensional semantic space based on word co-occurrence.Words, sentences, and texts are represented as vectors in this space…we can calculate how close or far apart two vectors are in this semantic space” (p. 250).
📐 Semantic SpaceA high-dimensional vector space (typically 300–400 dimensions) used to represent meanings of words and their relationships.Semantic maps—spaces—of 300 to 400 dimensions yield results that are most closely aligned with human judgments” (p. 250).
🧠 Predication AlgorithmA model that adjusts the vector of a predicate based on contextual features derived from its argument to generate a context-sensitive meaning.The meaning of the predicate is modified to generate a contextually appropriate sense of the word” (p. 251).
🌐 Argument and PredicateIn NOUN1 IS A NOUN2 metaphors, NOUN1 is the argument (topic), and NOUN2 is the predicate (vehicle/metaphor source).NOUN1 is called the argument (A) and NOUN2 is called the predicate (P)” (Appendix, p. 260).
🧠 Vector Cosine SimilarityA measure used in LSA to determine semantic similarity between concepts; ranges from –1 (opposite) to +1 (identical).The cosine between highly similar vectors is close to +1, whereas unrelated vectors have a cosine close to zero” (p. 251).
📐 Centroid (Vector Sum)The average of several vectors; used to represent the collective meaning of a sentence or group of words.Sentence meanings are computed as the sum of the words, irrespective of their syntactic structure” (p. 250).
🌐 Semantic NeighborhoodA group of vectors (words) that are closest in meaning to a given vector in the LSA space.It constructs the semantic neighborhood of the predicate…most closely related to the predicate” (p. 251).
🧠 Constraint Satisfaction ProcessA cognitive mechanism in the predication model that integrates the predicate’s neighborhood with the argument to derive meaning.Uses a constraint satisfaction process to integrate this neighborhood with the argument” (p. 251).
📐 Spreading ActivationA process by which activation spreads through a network to identify most relevant semantic neighbors for metaphor interpretation.Activation is spread in that network…The most strongly activated neighbors of P will be used to modify P” (p. 260).
🌐 Metaphoric Superordinate CategoriesAbstract categories created by metaphors that go beyond literal taxonomies (e.g., “shark” becoming a category of “vicious professionals”).The notion of generating metaphorical superordinate categories can be operationalized” (p. 252).
Contribution of “Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?” by Walter Kintsch & Anita R. Bowles to Literary Theory/Theories

🧠 Contribution to Cognitive Literary Theory

  • Supports the view that metaphor comprehension uses general cognitive processes.
    ↳ The article aligns with the notion that metaphors are understood in ways similar to literal sentences, challenging the assumption that metaphor requires unique interpretive faculties.

There exists a considerable and convincing body of research…that indicates that people understand metaphors in much the same way they understand literal sentences” (p. 249).

  • Uses cognitive modeling (LSA and predication) to simulate metaphor interpretation.
    ↳ Introduces a formal, empirically tested model showing how meaning emerges through contextual semantic alignment, which cognitive literary theorists find central to interpretive modeling.

We describe a model of text comprehension…simulate the computations involved, and evaluate the model empirically” (p. 250).


🧬 Contribution to Formalist and Structuralist Theories

  • Operationalizes metaphor using structural linguistic units (NOUN1 IS A NOUN2).
    ↳ The study isolates and systematizes metaphor into a rigid syntactic structure, echoing formalist interests in text-intrinsic form and structure.

Each stimulus sentence was a metaphorical statement of the NOUN1 IS A NOUN2” (p. 253).

  • Examines metaphoric meaning independently of reader emotion or authorial intent.
    ↳ The focus on semantic proximity, not subjective interpretation, aligns with structuralist ideals of objectivity in literary analysis.

The sentence vector should be more closely related to the set of interpretations generated by human comprehenders than to the individual words of the sentence” (p. 252).


🧪 Contribution to Empirical Literary Studies

  • Integrates experimental data into literary interpretation.
    ↳ The study used participant data and cosine-based metrics to evaluate metaphor difficulty, marking a shift from speculative literary criticism to quantifiable methods.

Difficulty ratings ranged from 1.29…to 4.21…responses were more coherent for easy items” (p. 254).

  • Establishes reproducibility and statistical grounding in interpretive variation.
    ↳ Demonstrates that metaphor comprehension can be empirically tested, supporting efforts in empirical literary studies to systematize interpretation.

The difference between the coherence of easy items and difficult items was statistically significant, t(24) = 4.38, p < .01” (p. 254).


🧭 Contribution to Reader-Response Theory

  • Explores interpretive variance among readers.
    ↳ The study highlights how reader agreement decreases with metaphor difficulty, resonating with reader-response theory’s emphasis on individual interpretation.

Faced with items such as ‘Happiness is a ditch’…people didn’t just give up but found some interpretation” (p. 254).

  • Suggests that comprehension is shaped by semantic constraints, not just subjective imagination.
    ↳ Even for difficult metaphors, interpretations were not random but guided by the latent semantic structure, refining the reader-response notion of subjective freedom.

Even though interpretations are diffuse…they are not random. This consistency…may simply reflect word-based constraints” (p. 258).


🧠📐 Contribution to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson)

  • Empirically supports metaphor as a cognitive mapping process.
    ↳ The study shows how metaphors create conceptual relationships by adjusting predicate meanings via contextually relevant features.

The meaning of the predicate is modified to generate a contextually appropriate sense of the word” (p. 251).

  • Adds computational rigor to conceptual blending.
    ↳ By modeling how metaphorical understanding emerges through a network of semantic connections, it extends the conceptual metaphor theory into testable, mechanistic terms.

The vector computed by the model is equally close to that average of easy and difficult items” (p. 255).


⚙️ Contribution to Computational Literary Theory

  • Demonstrates how semantic computation can approximate human interpretation.
    ↳ LSA and the predication model simulate how people derive meaning from metaphor, advancing computational approaches to literary meaning.

The model vector nevertheless captures the variety of responses produced by the participants” (p. 257).

  • Presents a fully realized computational theory of meaning.
    ↳ Unlike traditional metaphor theories, this model allows for quantification and algorithmic generation of interpretation, moving toward AI-assisted literary analysis.

Our model is a fully realized, computational theory” (p. 252).

Examples of Critiques Through “Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?” by Walter Kintsch & Anita R. Bowles
📚 Literary Work🔍 Example Metaphor from the Work🧠 Interpretive Analysis (Kintsch & Bowles Lens)️ Critique Based on Model
🦁 The Old Man and the Sea – Ernest Hemingway“The fish is my brother.”Metaphor follows the NOUN1 IS A NOUN2 form; argument = fish, predicate = brother. The predication model would identify features like shared struggle, respect, kinship as vectors connecting fish and brother.✅ Easy metaphor: Participants (readers) would likely converge on the emotional and symbolic kinship. High cosine values suggest semantic proximity once context is integrated. Strong coherence.
🦇 Wuthering Heights – Emily Brontë“Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same.”Though syntactically complex, metaphor relies on blending abstract noun (souls) with identity sameness. The metaphor is indirect, so coherence may vary. Vector representations of souls, same, and his/mine create a loose semantic field.⚠️ Moderately difficult: Metaphoric interpretation is diffuse; LSA may struggle due to abstraction and lack of direct predicates. Requires structural alignment (Gentner & Bowdle).
🔥 The Waste Land – T. S. Eliot“April is the cruellest month.”NOUN1 IS NOUN2 metaphor with April (argument) and cruellest month (predicate). Contradicts conventional associations (spring with renewal). Model seeks shared neighbors between April and cruelty.❌ Difficult metaphor: Low baseline similarity; predication model generates vague and varied responses. Semantic coherence weak due to conflicting cultural frames. Low cosine match.
🐍 Macbeth – William Shakespeare“Look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under’t.”Implicit dual metaphor. Flower and serpent are semantic opposites. The model would modify serpent through context (deception, hidden danger) and apply it to Macbeth’s intentions.✅ Effective metaphor: Though figurative, structure aids LSA processing. High activation of relevant neighbors (e.g., danger, mask). Moderate difficulty but high interpretive coherence.
Criticism Against “Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?” by Walter Kintsch & Anita R. Bowles

🔄 Overreliance on Computational Models

  • The study heavily depends on Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) and the predication algorithm, which treat language geometrically.
  • Critics argue this abstracts away cognitive nuance and fails to account for non-semantic cues such as pragmatics, cultural knowledge, or emotional tone.
  • ❝ “Meaning is reduced to vector math, bypassing richer interpretive dynamics involved in actual reading.” (cf. Gentner & Bowdle, 2001)

📏 Neglect of Syntax and Word Order

  • LSA used in the model ignores syntactic structure, computing sentence meaning via summation of word vectors regardless of grammar.
  • This approach may oversimplify how meaning is constructed, especially for metaphors relying on syntax-dependent effects.
  • Kintsch admits: “Such a procedure neglects important, meaning-relevant information that is contained in word order and syntax.” (p. 250)

🧩 Limited Scope of Metaphor Types

  • The study is restricted to simple nominal metaphors (NOUN1 IS A NOUN2), excluding:
    • Verbal metaphors
    • Extended metaphors
    • Metaphors embedded in narrative discourse
  • This makes the model less generalizable to rich literary or philosophical texts with layered figurative complexity.

🤖 Assumption of Universal Processing

  • The model assumes metaphor comprehension is uniform across individuals, whereas real readers vary due to:
    • Background knowledge
    • Personal associations
    • Linguistic and cultural exposure
  • Kintsch & Bowles acknowledge interpretive variation but still evaluate model success by group-level averages, masking individuality.

🔍 Lack of Qualitative Interpretive Depth

  • The study’s quantitative focus on cosine similarity lacks insight into interpretive depth, such as:
    • Moral connotation
    • Intertextual echoes
    • Aesthetic or rhetorical effect
  • The model evaluates metaphor meaning only by statistical coherence, not by literary or emotional richness.

🧪 Artificial Experimental Context

  • Participants completed sentence frames and gave difficulty ratings in a lab setting with isolated metaphors.
  • Critics may question ecological validity—metaphors in real texts are processed within broader narrative, emotional, and discursive contexts.

🧠 Cognitive Economy Not Fully Addressed

  • The model doesn’t sufficiently address cognitive economy principles, such as why:
    • Some metaphors are retained and others forgotten
    • Some metaphors “click” quickly while others are puzzling or evocative
  • The authors touch on this via coherence scores, but the deeper cognitive prioritization mechanisms remain underexplored.

🧬 Ambiguity in Defining “Difficulty”

  • The metric for what makes a metaphor “difficult” is partly subjective, relying on participant self-ratings and coherence calculations.
  • This leaves room for ambiguity in distinguishing between semantic novelty, conceptual mismatch, and reader confusion.
Representative Quotations from “Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?” by Walter Kintsch & Anita R. Bowles with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“People understand metaphors in much the same way they understand literal sentences.” (p. 249)Challenges the view that metaphor processing is fundamentally different; suggests metaphor comprehension is a natural language process.
“The meaning of a word, sentence, or text is given by the set of relations between it and everything else that is known.” (p. 250)Reflects the core idea behind Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) – meaning is relational, not fixed.
“Metaphors are not difficult because their argument and predicate terms are unrelated overall.” (p. 256)Refutes the intuition that semantic distance alone determines difficulty in metaphor comprehension.
“The model vector is equally close to the average of easy and the average of difficult items.” (p. 255)Shows that the computational model treats both metaphor types similarly in vector space despite participant differences.
“Some link is found between topic and vehicle, even though the two may be unrelated overall.” (p. 258)Highlights the model’s strength in identifying subtle, context-sensitive links between unrelated terms in metaphors.
“The model produced a vector that was just as close to these varied responses as it was to the generally agreed-upon interpretation of a good metaphor.” (p. 258)Emphasizes that the model handles ambiguity effectively, mimicking human flexibility in metaphor interpretation.
“Faced with the seemingly impossible task of finding an interpretation for such metaphors, people did not give up.” (p. 258)Demonstrates human resilience and interpretative creativity even in difficult metaphorical constructions.
“Generating context-sensitive word senses does not always produce dramatic results.” (p. 251)Acknowledges that not all metaphors lead to strong reinterpretations; some may resemble literal interpretations.
“The semantic structure provided a tight constraint for easy metaphors, and only a loose one for hard metaphors.” (p. 258)Suggests semantic coherence plays a central role in determining perceived metaphor difficulty.
“Theories of metaphor comprehension have traditionally been informal.” (p. 258)Justifies the importance of formal, computational models like LSA to bring precision to metaphor theory.
Suggested Readings: “Metaphor Comprehension: What Makes a Metaphor Difficult to Understand?” by Walter Kintsch & Anita R. Bowles
  1. Kittay, Eva Feder. “Woman as Metaphor.” Hypatia, vol. 3, no. 2, 1988, pp. 63–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3809952. Accessed 12 May 2025.
  2. Gibbs, Raymond W. “When Is Metaphor? The Idea of Understanding in Theories of Metaphor.” Poetics Today, vol. 13, no. 4, 1992, pp. 575–606. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1773290. Accessed 12 May 2025.
  3. BLACK, Max. “More about Metaphor.” Dialectica, vol. 31, no. 3/4, 1977, pp. 431–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42969757. Accessed 12 May 2025.
  4. Miller, Eugene F. “Metaphor and Political Knowledge.” The American Political Science Review, vol. 73, no. 1, 1979, pp. 155–70. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1954738. Accessed 12 May 2025.
  5. Wearing, Catherine. “Metaphor, Idiom, and Pretense.” Noûs, vol. 46, no. 3, 2012, pp. 499–524. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41682624. Accessed 12 May 2025.

“Metaphor in Prophetic Literature” by Else K. Holt: Summary and Critique

“Metaphor in Prophetic Literature” by Else K. Holt first appeared in Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology in 2003 (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 3–6), published by Routledge.

"Metaphor in Prophetic Literature" by Else K. Holt: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Metaphor in Prophetic Literature” by Else K. Holt

“Metaphor in Prophetic Literature” by Else K. Holt first appeared in Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology in 2003 (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 3–6), published by Routledge. The article foregrounds the centrality of metaphor in understanding Old Testament prophetic texts, arguing that metaphors are not mere rhetorical flourishes but essential instruments for articulating divine-human relationships. Holt draws attention to the theological and interpretive significance of metaphor, noting its irreplaceable role when speaking of God—the “illusive, holy figure”—who resists definitive capture by plain language, as echoed in Walter Brueggemann’s reflections. She critiques historical-critical methods for demythologizing metaphoric language, thus diminishing the semantic richness of biblical texts. The article also introduces a collection of conference papers from the 2001 International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, exploring metaphor theory and its application to the Book of Jeremiah. Contributions by scholars like Kirsten Nielsen and Antje Labahn expand on metaphor’s ideological weight and intertextual dynamics, while others, such as A.R. Pete Diamond and Pierre van Hecke, delve into metaphorical shifts and tensions in Jeremiah’s oracles. Holt’s editorial preface underscores how metaphors not only reflect but actively shape theological meaning, advocating for continued, rigorous metaphor studies within biblical scholarship and literary theory.

Summary of “Metaphor in Prophetic Literature” by Else K. Holt

🕊️ 1. Metaphor as a Theological Necessity

“When we talk about God, the absolute otherness, we have to talk tentatively, that is: in metaphor” (© Holt 2003, p. 3).
💡 Meaning: Metaphors are not optional in prophetic literature—they are essential because human language is inadequate for directly describing the divine.


⚖️ 2. Critique of Reductionism in Traditional Exegesis

“Exegetes… have translated this imagery into plain language… the texts have been demythologised” (© Holt 2003, p. 4).
🧠 Insight: Historical-critical methods often flatten rich, symbolic language, reducing theological depth and eliminating mystery.


🔄 3. Postmodern Responsibility: Avoiding Old Mistakes

“Post-modern exegetes should be careful not to transmit [reductionism]… to literary or reader-oriented study” (© Holt 2003, p. 4).
🔍 Takeaway: Even new approaches must preserve the semantic and poetic power of metaphor instead of simplifying it for clarity.


🧩 4. Bridging Theory and Practice in Metaphor Studies

“Papers on metaphor theory were read after the papers on the use of metaphor… but it has been natural to present… method before practice” (© Holt 2003, p. 4).
📚 Context: Holt introduces a volume combining theoretical frameworks with applied exegesis, especially focused on Jeremiah.


💥 5. Metaphors as Ideological Weapons

“Metaphors are not as harmless as they may seem… metaphors are often weapons in ideological wars” (© Nielsen, in Holt 2003, p. 5).
⚔️ Implication: Metaphors shape belief systems and power relations; their use can reinforce or subvert dominant ideologies.


🔗 6. Intertextual Webs of Meaning

“Texts are not islands… metaphors function as markers in such networks” (© Nielsen, in Holt 2003, p. 5).
🕸️ Understanding: Metaphors link scriptures across books, eras, and themes, guiding theological interpretations and memory.


👁️ 7. Reader-Dependent Metaphorical Meaning

“A metaphor… creates a sense of meaning… between the text and its reader” (© Labahn, in Holt 2003, p. 5).
🧬 Interpretation: Each reading reactivates and reshapes metaphorical meaning, showing the living dynamic between scripture and audience.


🔃 8. Recycled Tropes and Theological Reversals

“Both doom and hope dispossess and repossess rights to the myth of YHWH and Israel” (© Diamond, in Holt 2003, p. 6).
🔄 Effect: Metaphors recur throughout Jeremiah with reversed meanings—symbolizing shifts in divine judgment and restoration.


📜 9. Wisdom Sayings as Metaphorical Frameworks

“A wisdom saying… with a moral code included, or: a metaphor” (© Becking, in Holt 2003, p. 6).
📖 Layer: Proverbs like Jeremiah 31:29 operate metaphorically, reflecting collective theological insights and moral codes.


🐑🦁 10. Shifting Metaphors in Jeremiah’s Babylon Oracle

“Israel… restored… Babylon… turned into sheep… destroyed by God” (© van Hecke, in Holt 2003, p. 6).
🎭 Drama: Pastoral metaphors illustrate dramatic role reversals—God as shepherd or predator depending on justice and judgment.


🌟 11. Call for Ongoing Metaphor-Centered Exegesis

“Metaphor will remain in the centre of our exegetical attention” (© van Hecke, in Holt 2003, p. 6).
🧭 Vision: The article and volume advocate for metaphor to remain central in biblical interpretation and theological scholarship.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Metaphor in Prophetic Literature” by Else K. Holt
🌐 Term/Concept📘 Explanation📝 Reference / Quotation
🔮 MetaphorA figurative expression used to speak about the divine, offering layers of meaning that cannot be reduced to plain language.“When we talk about God… we have to talk tentatively, that is: in metaphor” (© Holt 2003, p. 3).
🧠 ReductionismThe oversimplification of metaphorical or poetic language into plain, literal interpretation, often seen in historical-critical methods.“Exegetes… have translated this imagery into plain language… the texts have been demythologised” (© Holt 2003, p. 4).
🛠️ Historical-Critical MethodA traditional scholarly approach focusing on authorial intent, historical context, and literal meanings—critiqued for flattening metaphors.“Reductionism has been one of the great disadvantages of the historical-critical methods” (© Holt 2003, p. 4).
🔁 Postmodern ExegesisA more recent interpretive approach that engages reader-response and literary theory, encouraged to resist repeating reductionist tendencies.“Post-modern exegetes should be careful not to transmit [reductionism]…” (© Holt 2003, p. 4).
🎭 Performative FunctionThe idea that metaphors do something—they produce theological meaning and emotional effect in their context.“A metaphor… creates a sense of meaning… between the text and its reader” (© Labahn, in Holt 2003, p. 5).
⚔️ Ideological CriticismAn approach that sees metaphors as tools or weapons within ideological and theological conflicts.“Metaphors are often weapons in ideological wars” (© Nielsen, in Holt 2003, p. 5).
🔗 IntertextualityThe relationship between biblical texts, where metaphors act as recurring symbols across different books and historical contexts.“Metaphors function as markers in such networks [of intertextuality]” (© Nielsen, in Holt 2003, p. 5).
🧬 Semantic SpaceThe range of meanings a metaphor can evoke; narrowing this space through literalization limits interpretive richness.“The exegete… reduce[s] the text’s semantic space” (© Holt 2003, p. 4).
📚 Masal (משל)A wisdom saying or proverb with metaphorical implications and moral instruction, as used in prophetic literature.“A wisdom saying… with a moral code included, or: a metaphor” (© Becking, in Holt 2003, p. 6).
🔄 Metaphorical ShiftThe transformation or reapplication of metaphors over time or within a single text, revealing evolving meanings.“Israel… restored… Babylon… turned into sheep” (© van Hecke, in Holt 2003, p. 6).
Contribution of “Metaphor in Prophetic Literature” by Else K. Holt to Literary Theory/Theories

📖 1. Reader-Response Theory

“A metaphor… creates a sense of meaning… between the text and its reader” (© Labahn, in Holt 2003, p. 5).

🔸 Contribution:
Holt, particularly through the contributions in the volume she introduces, supports the reader-response perspective by emphasizing that metaphorical meaning is not fixed but dynamically constructed in the interpretive act between text and reader.

🔍 Impact:
The article affirms the reader’s role in meaning-making, highlighting how metaphors come alive differently for each audience and context — a core principle of reader-response theory.


🧠 2. Poststructuralism & Deconstruction

“Metaphors are not as harmless as they may seem… metaphors are often weapons in ideological wars” (© Nielsen, in Holt 2003, p. 5).

🔸 Contribution:
By illustrating how metaphors conceal power structures and multiple meanings, the article aligns with poststructuralist and deconstructionist thought, which sees texts as unstable and filled with ideological undercurrents.

🧩 Impact:
The instability and polysemy of metaphor echo Derridean insights — language doesn’t simply reflect meaning; it produces and displaces it.


📚 3. Intertextuality (Kristeva/Bakhtin)

“Texts are not islands… metaphors function as markers in such networks” (© Nielsen, in Holt 2003, p. 5).

🔸 Contribution:
The article foregrounds intertextuality by demonstrating how metaphors link prophetic texts across the canon (e.g., “Daughter of Zion” from Isaiah to Lamentations), embodying shared and evolving theological narratives.

🔗 Impact:
This strengthens the understanding of the Bible as a dialogical text network, with metaphors acting as relational bridges across literary and theological traditions.


🎭 4. Performance Theory

“The rhetorical performance arena of the literary construct (the Book of) Jeremiah” (© Diamond, in Holt 2003, p. 6).

🔸 Contribution:
Holt’s collection, especially through Diamond’s article, applies performance theory by treating the prophetic text as a staged drama of theological and ideological tensions enacted through metaphor.

🗣️ Impact:
This dramatized reading of metaphor supports literary theory that emphasizes how texts operate performatively — enacting meaning rather than just stating it.


⚔️ 5. Ideological Criticism / Cultural Criticism

“What is needed is… responsible exegesis… metaphors are often weapons in ideological wars” (© Nielsen, in Holt 2003, p. 5).

🔸 Contribution:
By stressing the ideological power of metaphor, Holt links biblical literature to cultural criticism and ideological theory, urging interpreters to see metaphors as vehicles of social and political meaning.

🚨 Impact:
This perspective aligns with Marxist and feminist literary theories, which interpret texts as participating in ideological systems of domination, resistance, and negotiation.


🧰 6. Literary Hermeneutics

“Exegetes… have demythologised… the texts… [reducing] the text’s semantic space” (© Holt 2003, p. 4).

🔸 Contribution:
Holt contributes to hermeneutical theory by emphasizing that metaphor opens, rather than closes, interpretive possibilities. She cautions against rigid literalism and advocates for openness to layered meaning.

🌀 Impact:
This view supports philosophical hermeneutics (e.g., Gadamer), where understanding involves openness to the text’s “otherness” and metaphor becomes a gateway to dialogue.


📜 7. Biblical Literary Criticism

“This volume is intended to add a little to the fulfilment of that wish [keeping metaphor central]” (© van Hecke, in Holt 2003, p. 6).

🔸 Contribution:
The article advances biblical literary criticism by urging scholars to read prophetic texts not as static historical documents but as rich literary creations shaped by symbolic logic and theological imagination.

📖 Impact:
It reframes prophecy as literary art — full of poetic structure, metaphorical density, and narrative strategy — aligning biblical studies more closely with broader literary theory.

Examples of Critiques Through “Metaphor in Prophetic Literature” by Else K. Holt
📚 Literary Work🔍 Critique Through Holt’s Metaphor Theory Key Metaphor(s) Analyzed📌 Symbolic Insight
🏛 The Book of JeremiahHolt’s framework reveals how metaphor operates as both theological performance and ideological contest. Metaphors such as “Daughter Zion” and “YHWH as predator/shepherd” shift across contexts to reflect divine judgment, grief, and restoration.🕊 Daughter of Zion, 🐑 Sheep, 🦁 Lion⚔️ Metaphors are rhetorical weapons in divine-human struggle and prophetic messaging (© Holt 2003, p. 6).
🏙 LamentationsUsing Holt’s intertextual lens, metaphors of desolation in Lamentations echo and reverse the hopeful Zion theology of Isaiah. The performative grief embedded in metaphors like the “widowed city” reflects collective trauma.🕯 Widow, 🏚 Desolate city, 💔 Weeping woman🔁 Illustrates metaphorical shifts from triumph to lament in intertextual theology (© Labahn in Holt 2003, p. 5).
The Book of IsaiahHolt’s stress on semantic space shows that metaphors like “light to the nations” should not be literalized. They open a range of ethical, eschatological, and political meanings in Jewish identity and mission.🌟 Light, 🌿 Root, 🏞 Mountain🌀 Metaphors create open, theological meaning—not fixed doctrinal claims (© Holt 2003, p. 4).
🧪 William Blake’s “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell”Blake’s prophetic-poetic language, full of paradoxical metaphors, can be re-read via Holt’s approach as theological performance. His metaphorical inversions (e.g., Hell as energy) perform ideological critique of institutional religion.🔥 Hell as energy, 👼 Angel as passive, ⚡ Proverbs of Hell🧠 Metaphors function ideologically, challenging dominant religious discourse (© Nielsen in Holt 2003, p. 5).
Criticism Against “Metaphor in Prophetic Literature” by Else K. Holt

⚖️ Overemphasis on Metaphor as Theological Necessity

  • While Holt argues that metaphor is indispensable for speaking of the divine, critics may contend that this approach risks marginalizing other literary and rhetorical tools (e.g., narrative, irony, structure) which also convey complex theological ideas.

🔄 Limited Engagement with Broader Literary Theory

  • The article engages metaphor within the biblical studies context, but it does not deeply interact with secular or modern metaphor theories (e.g., Lakoff & Johnson’s Conceptual Metaphor Theory), potentially narrowing its cross-disciplinary applicability.

🚪 Exclusion of Non-Theological Readings

  • Holt’s focus is primarily theological and exegetical; literary critics might argue that this emphasis overlooks political, feminist, or postcolonial readings of prophetic metaphor that could yield alternative insights.

🧱 Assumption of Metaphorical Primacy

  • The claim that metaphor is the dominant or most important linguistic mode in prophetic literature could be challenged by scholars who view historical context, poetics, or redaction history as equally crucial.

🔍 Insufficient Critical Distance from Source Texts

  • Some may criticize the article for adopting a reverential tone toward the biblical text, lacking the critical distance that literary theory or cultural criticism often demand when analyzing religious literature.

🧠 Ambiguity in Defining Metaphor’s Performative Role

  • Though the article introduces the concept of “performative metaphor,” it does not fully theorize what that entails in literary terms, leaving the function and scope of this role somewhat vague.

🌍 Western-Centric Perspective

  • Holt’s framework is rooted in Nordic and Western biblical scholarship. Critics from global or comparative religious traditions might argue that it doesn’t account for how metaphor operates differently in non-Western prophetic or sacred traditions.
Representative Quotations from “Metaphor in Prophetic Literature” by Else K. Holt with Explanation
📜 Quotation💡 Explanation📌 Thematic Focus
“When we talk about God, the absolute otherness, we have to talk tentatively, that is: in metaphor.” (© Holt 2003, p. 3)Holt emphasizes that metaphor is not decorative but essential for theological language, especially in portraying a transcendent God.🕊️ Theological Function of Metaphor
“Exegetes… have translated this imagery into plain language… the texts have been demythologised.” (© Holt 2003, p. 4)This critique targets reductionism in historical-critical methods, which strip texts of poetic and symbolic richness by overly rational interpretations.⚠️ Critique of Literalism
“Metaphors are not as harmless as they may seem… metaphors are often weapons in ideological wars.” (© Nielsen in Holt 2003, p. 5)Quoting Kirsten Nielsen, Holt points out that metaphors carry ideological weight and must be handled with critical awareness.⚔️ Ideological Critique
“Texts are not islands, but are parts in intertextual networks… metaphors function as markers in such networks.” (© Nielsen in Holt 2003, p. 5)Metaphors link biblical texts across time and themes, functioning as intertextual clues that reflect evolving theology and literary form.🔗 Intertextuality
“A metaphor… creates a sense of meaning… between the text and its reader.” (© Labahn in Holt 2003, p. 5)Labahn’s insight, cited by Holt, supports a reader-response view where metaphor is activated in the interpretive space of reader and text.👁️ Reader-Response Theory
“Israel, who was once a flock of dispersed and devoured sheep, is restored to its initial pasture-land by God, its shepherd…” (© van Hecke in Holt 2003, p. 6)This pastoral metaphor illustrates narrative transformation, showing how metaphor enables shifts in roles and meanings within prophetic texts.🐑 Metaphorical Transformation
“Both doom and hope dispossess and repossess rights to the myth of YHWH and Israel.” (© Diamond in Holt 2003, p. 6)Diamond reflects on the rhetorical interplay of destructive and restorative metaphors in Jeremiah, revealing theological ambiguity.⚖️ Rhetorical Tension
“Metaphor will remain in the centre of our exegetical attention.” (© van Hecke in Holt 2003, p. 6)A concluding affirmation that metaphor should not be a side topic, but central to serious biblical and literary analysis.🎯 Methodological Imperative
Suggested Readings: “Metaphor in Prophetic Literature” by Else K. Holt
  1. Kratz, R. G. “The Prophetic Literature.” The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, edited by John Barton, Princeton University Press, 2016, pp. 133–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv7h0snt.10. Accessed 12 May 2025.
  2. Ryken, Leland. “METAPHOR IN THE PSALMS.” Christianity and Literature, vol. 31, no. 3, 1982, pp. 9–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44311013. Accessed 12 May 2025.
  3. White, Hugh C. “Metaphor and Myth: Percy, Ricoeur and Frye.” A Wise and Discerning Mind: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long, edited by Saul M. Olyan and Robert C. Culley, Brown Judaic Studies, 2020, pp. 245–70. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvzgb93t.24. Accessed 12 May 2025.
  4. Sherman, Tina M. “Other Plant Metaphors.” Plant Metaphors in Prophetic Condemnations of Israel and Judah, The Society of Biblical Literature, 2023, pp. 223–60. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.8784669.13. Accessed 12 May 2025.

“Metaphor As Hermeneutic” by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan: Summary and Critique

“Metaphor As Hermeneutic” by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan first appeared in 1999 in Rhetoric Society Quarterly (Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 47–64).

"Metaphor As Hermeneutic" by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Metaphor As Hermeneutic” by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan

“Metaphor As Hermeneutic” by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan first appeared in 1999 in Rhetoric Society Quarterly (Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 47–64). 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 interpreter’s 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 metaphor’s 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 “Metaphor As Hermeneutic” by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan

🎨 Metaphor as a Tool for Inventing Narratives

“Metaphors serve as a basis for inventing narratives” (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.


🌟 The Shift from How Metaphors Work to How They Are Used

“The purpose of this essay, therefore, is to discuss how we use metaphors” (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).


🔥 Meaning Lies with the Interpreter, Not the Text

“The meaning of Abbey’s metaphor is dependent completely on the interpreter’s prior experiences and beliefs” (Sheehan, 1999, p. 48).
Sheehan argues that metaphoric meaning is generated not by the author or phrase itself but by the reader’s own interpretive framework and experiential background.


🎯 Metaphor as a Device for Perspective Shifting

“A metaphor is a rhetorical device for altering one’s perspective” (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.


🧩 Critique of Orthodox Theories (Interaction and Substitution Models)

“The debate over metaphor has been almost exclusively over ‘how metaphors work'” (Sheehan, 1999, p. 52).
Sheehan critiques both neo-Aristotelian and interactionist models, claiming they erroneously assume metaphors work differently than literal expressions.


🛠️ Davidson and Searle: Metaphor Belongs to Use, Not Meaning

“Metaphor belongs exclusively to the domain of use” (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.


🔄 Hermeneutic Circle in Interpreting Metaphors

“Understanding is always an invention of the interpreter” (Sheehan, 1999, p. 56).
Using Gadamer and Heidegger’s hermeneutic circle, Sheehan argues that interpreting a metaphor involves a dynamic, ongoing negotiation between the interpreter’s expectations and the evolving context.


🧠 Identification, Invention, and Narration: The Process of Metaphor Interpretation

“All three of these stages—identification, invention, and narration—are part of a broader hermeneutic act” (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.


📚 Metaphors as Foundations for Scientific and Cultural Narratives

“The whole works of scientific research… are hardly more than the patient repetition… of a fertile metaphor” (Burke quoted in Sheehan, 1999, p. 60).
He shows how metaphors like “nature is a machine” have historically shaped major scientific paradigms and cultural understandings.


🌀 Conclusion: Metaphors as Pragmatic Instruments

“A metaphor is a tool that can be used to guide or change perspective” (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 “Metaphor As Hermeneutic” by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan
🌟 Term/Concept📚 Explanation🖋️ Usage in the Article
🎨 Metaphor as HermeneuticMetaphor 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).
🔄 Hermeneutic CircleInterpretation involves a continuous dialogue between the part and the whole in understanding.Sheehan applies Gadamer’s hermeneutic circle to show how interpreters mediate between prior expectations, expression, and context (p. 56).
🛠️ Domain of UseMetaphors function within the pragmatic use of language, not by special cognitive effects.Following Davidson, Sheehan argues metaphors “belong exclusively to the domain of use” rather than containing hidden meanings (p. 53).
🧠 Interpretive InventionMeaning 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).
🎯 Perspective ShiftMetaphors 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).
🧩 Identification (Stage 1)Recognizing a statement as metaphorical when it contrasts with prior knowledge/context.In the John example, the hearer identifies “John is a priest” as metaphorical because it contradicts what she knows (p. 57–58).
🛤️ 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. 58–59).
📖 Narration (Stage 3)Expanding and integrating the metaphor into broader narratives and cultural understandings.Metaphors are used to build extended narratives, like “nature as machine” shaping scientific paradigms (p. 60–61).
🧬 Meta-narrativesDeep-seated cultural stories constructed through long-term metaphorical invention.Sheehan explains how dormant metaphors like “time is money” have become part of Western cultural meta-narratives (p. 62–63).
🔥 Critique of SemanticismCriticism 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. 52–54).
Contribution of “Metaphor As Hermeneutic” by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan to Literary Theory/Theories

📜 1. Contribution to Hermeneutics

  • Contribution: Sheehan expands hermeneutic theory by positioning metaphor interpretation as an inventive act rather than a semantic decoding process.
  • Reference: “The interpreter’s understanding of a metaphor is dependent completely on his or her inventions of meaning within a contextual narrative” (Sheehan, 1999, p. 55).
  • Impact: Connects metaphor theory with Gadamerian hermeneutics, emphasizing interpretation as situated, evolving, and contextual rather than uncovering objective meaning.

🔄 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: “If 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 work” (Sheehan, 1999, p. 48).
  • Impact: Revives classical rhetorical concerns (use, persuasion, audience impact) over formalist concerns (structure, internal relations).

🔍 3. Contribution to Deconstruction/Poststructuralism

  • Contribution: Challenges the literal/figurative binary by arguing that metaphors are not ontologically different from literal statements.
  • Reference: “Metaphors gain meaning much like other parts of natural language” (Sheehan, 1999, p. 54).
  • Impact: Aligns with Derrida’s poststructuralist critique that meaning is always deferred and that distinctions between “literal” and “figurative” are unstable.

📖 4. Contribution to Narrative Theory

  • Contribution: Frames metaphors as foundational for inventing narratives that structure human experience.
  • Reference: “Metaphors serve as a basis for inventing narratives” (Sheehan, 1999, p. 47).
  • Impact: Supports narratological approaches by showing how metaphorical language generates evolving story-worlds and frameworks of meaning.

🧠 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: “Metaphor runs the same linguistic tracks that the plainest sentences do” (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.

🎯 6. Contribution to Phenomenology

  • Contribution: Emphasizes the lived experience of interpreting metaphors, grounded in personal, situated horizons of meaning.
  • Reference: “The interpreter negotiates among her prejudices, the words of the text/speaker, and the overall contextual narrative” (Sheehan, 1999, p. 57).
  • Impact: Resonates with phenomenological hermeneutics (e.g., Heidegger and Gadamer) where meaning arises from existential engagement with the text.

🖋️ 7. Contribution to Interpretation Theory

  • Contribution: Redefines interpretation as a creative act rather than a discovery of pre-existing meanings.
  • Reference: “Meaning is wholly dependent on its use to invent a meaning that coheres with the interpreter’s contextual narrative” (Sheehan, 1999, p. 60).
  • Impact: Supports interpretive pluralism — multiple valid readings depending on varied contexts and backgrounds.

🔥 8. Contribution to Pragmatics

  • Contribution: Locates metaphor meaning in social-pragmatic usage rather than internal textual properties.
  • Reference: “Metaphor is something brought off by the imaginative employment of words and sentences” (Sheehan quoting Davidson, 1999, p. 53).
  • Impact: Backs pragmatic literary theories emphasizing meaning as an effect of communicative action in specific situations.

🌍 9. Contribution to Cultural Studies

  • Contribution: Shows how metaphors evolve into cultural meta-narratives that shape collective experience and ideology.
  • Reference: “Dead metaphors like ‘time is money’ have become cultural themes woven into Western narratives” (Sheehan, 1999, p. 62).
  • Impact: Demonstrates that culture itself is constituted by sedimented metaphors, aligning metaphor theory with cultural semiotics.

Examples of Critiques Through “Metaphor As Hermeneutic” by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan
🎨📚 Work🖋️ Critique through Metaphor as Hermeneutic🎯 Explanation
🌵“The Road” by Cormac McCarthyThe barren, ash-covered landscape as a “dead sea” invites inventing a narrative of isolation and survival.Readers’ interpretations rely on personal concepts of desolation and hope, crafting meaning from the novel’s metaphoric world. (Sheehan, p. 55–57)
🌊“Moby-Dick” by Herman MelvilleThe White Whale metaphorically functions as a projection of obsession and unknowable truth.Rather than “decoding” Moby-Dick, readers invent narratives based on prior beliefs about fate, struggle, and nature. (Sheehan, p. 48, 60)
🔥“The Waste Land” by T.S. EliotEliot’s image of the barren wasteland invites endless invention of modern alienation and spiritual drought.Meaning emerges hermeneutically through the reader’s negotiation of fragmented imagery, not through “hidden” semantic content. (Sheehan, p. 55–58)
🕊️“Beloved” by Toni MorrisonThe character Beloved as a living ghost metaphor urges reinterpretations of memory, trauma, and identity.Metaphor serves to invent shifting narratives about slavery’s haunting legacy, shaped by each reader’s cultural and historical lens. (Sheehan, p. 59–61)
Criticism Against “Metaphor As Hermeneutic” by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan

1. Overemphasis on Reader Subjectivity

  • Critics argue that Sheehan’s insistence on the interpreter’s 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.

🧩 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.

📚 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: Authors’ deliberate choices and stylistic innovations may be overlooked in favor of focusing only on reader response.

🧠 4. Insufficient Engagement with Historical Contexts

  • Critics from New Historicism or Cultural Studies could argue that Sheehan’s model ignores the socio-political contexts in which metaphors are created and interpreted.
  • Concern: Meaning isn’t invented solely by individuals but is deeply shaped by power structures, ideologies, and history.

🔍 5. Reduction of Metaphor’s Epistemological Power

  • Philosophical critics could argue that Sheehan downplays metaphors’ ability to reveal new aspects of reality, reducing them to narrative tricks.
  • Concern: Metaphor isn’t just about “inventing” stories; it can also disclose truths not otherwise articulable in literal language.

6. Ambiguity in Distinguishing ‘Literal’ and ‘Metaphorical’ Use

  • Although Sheehan critiques the literal/figurative divide, he doesn’t 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.

🚪 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 “Metaphor As Hermeneutic” by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan with Explanation
🌟 Quotation🧠 Explanation
🏔️ “The meaning of Abbey’s metaphor is dependent completely on the interpreter’s prior experiences and beliefs.” (p. 48)Meaning isn’t inherent in the metaphor itself; it is created by readers’ personal histories and worldviews.
🔄 “Metaphors should be defined by how they are used, not how they work.” (p. 48)Sheehan shifts the focus from cognitive mechanics to practical application—emphasizing use over mechanism.
🎻 “Just 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.” (p. 48)Knowing technical aspects of metaphor doesn’t necessarily help in using them effectively for communication.
🔥 “Our pretense to do without metaphor is never more than a bluff waiting to be called.” (citing Richards, p. 50)Metaphors are fundamental to all human language and thought—inescapable and ever-present.
🕰️ “Western culture layers metaphors like ‘time is a stream’ and ‘time is money’ that cannot be merged into a single narrative.” (p. 49)Different metaphors create competing, irreconcilable worldviews rather than unifying perspectives.
🧩 “Both sides of metaphor theory assume metaphors ’cause’ something in the mind of a passive reader.” (p. 52)Sheehan criticizes the assumption that metaphors are automatic triggers in cognition instead of collaborative acts.
🗣️ “All communication by speech assumes the interplay of inventive construction and inventive construal.” (citing Davidson, p. 53)Meaning-making is active and dynamic, not a passive reception—even outside metaphors.
🎭 “Metaphors are used to urge us toward further and further invention of meaning.” (p. 54)Rather than “delivering” meaning, metaphors inspire continuous creative interpretation.
🔄 “An interpreter’s understanding of a metaphor is dependent completely on her inventions of meaning within a contextual narrative.” (p. 55)Interpretation is context-sensitive and dynamic, not universal or fixed.
🛠️ “A metaphor is a tool that can be used to guide or change perspective.” (p. 64)Metaphors function as tools for transformation, not static ornaments or decorations in language.
Suggested Readings: “Metaphor As Hermeneutic” by Richard D. Johnson Sheehan
  1. Richard D. Johnson Sheehan. “Metaphor as Hermeneutic.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 2, 1999, pp. 47–64. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3886085. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.
  2. Grant, A. J. “Vico and Bultmann on Myth: The Problem with Demythologizing.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 4, 2000, pp. 49–82. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3886117. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.
  3. Sobolev, Dennis. “Metaphor Revisited.” New Literary History, vol. 39, no. 4, 2008, pp. 903–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20533122. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.
  4. Steen, Gerard J. “Identifying Metaphor in Language: A Cognitive Approach.” Style, vol. 36, no. 3, 2002, pp. 386–406. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.36.3.386. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.

“Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors” by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs: Summary and Critique

“Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors” by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs first appeared in Argumentation (Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht) in 2013.

"Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors" by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors” by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs

“Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors” by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs first appeared in Argumentation (Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht) in 2013. The article investigates how extended metaphors, particularly in political discourse, function not merely as stylistic embellishments but as powerful argumentative tools with significant rhetorical and epistemic advantages. Oswald and Rihs argue that extended metaphors can self-legitimize through repeated instantiations of metaphorical mappings, effectively leading audiences to accept metaphorical content as literal truth. Moreover, the recognition of an extended metaphor’s sophistication enhances the speaker’s ethos, boosting their perceived competence and trustworthiness. Grounded in cognitive theories like Relevance Theory and epistemic vigilance, the study shows that extended metaphors can fulfill cognitive expectations for coherence and justification, ultimately stabilizing beliefs. In literary theory and discourse analysis, their work is vital because it bridges rhetorical strategies and cognitive processing, revealing how deeply metaphor shapes not just understanding but belief formation and political persuasion.

Summary of “Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors” by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs

🔵 Extended metaphors serve as self-reinforcing arguments.

“Each instantiation of the metaphorical mapping in the text may function as a confirmation of the overall relevance of the main core mapping.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013)
💬 Comment: Each new use of the metaphor strengthens the main idea, making it seem increasingly true through repetition and coherence.

🟢 Extended metaphors build the speaker’s credibility (ethos).

“The recognition of an extended metaphor’s sophistication and relevance […] can benefit the speaker’s perceived competence.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013)
💬 Comment: If the metaphor appears clever and fits well, it reflects positively on the speaker’s intelligence and trustworthiness.

🟣 Extended metaphors help satisfy epistemic vigilance filters.

“Extended metaphors may fulfil the requirements of epistemic vigilance and lead to the stabilisation of a belief.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013)
💬 Comment: Because they seem internally consistent and well-supported, they pass the audience’s mental checks for truthfulness and reliability.

🔴 Comprehension leads to belief in metaphorical communication.

“We will focus on the relationship between understanding and believing and accordingly try to highlight the importance of comprehension with respect to beliefs.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013)
💬 Comment: The more a metaphor is understood, the more likely it is to be accepted as representing reality.

🟠 Extended metaphors can blur into literal beliefs.

“The metaphor may cease to be perceived as one, turning what was at first metaphorically construed into a representation about an actual state of affairs one can believe to be true.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013)
💬 Comment: Over time, the audience may forget it was a metaphor and treat the metaphorical idea as literal truth.

🟡 Despite higher processing costs, they provide rhetorical rewards.

“Extended metaphors are demanding in terms of effort […] but their cognitive cost has to be offset by some sort of benefit.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013)
💬 Comment: Although complex metaphors are mentally taxing, they are justified if they yield strong persuasive or epistemic effects.

🔵 Coherence across instances builds stronger arguments.

“The various occurrences of an extended metaphor in a text can be argumentatively used so as to function as a set of justifications for the metaphor.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013)
💬 Comment: When a metaphor is consistently woven through discourse, each use reinforces and justifies the overall narrative.

🟢 Extended metaphors imitate analogical argument structures.

“The more you instantiate your target domain in terms of your source domain in an argument, the stronger the argument.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013)
💬 Comment: Like analogies, metaphors gain strength when their logic is applied consistently and across multiple examples.

🟣 Plausible repeated mappings boost metaphor relevance.

“The more plausible the metaphorical mappings exploited in an extended metaphor are […] the more its overall perceived relevance increases.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013)
💬 Comment: Logical, believable connections between metaphor and reality make the audience more likely to accept the metaphor as fitting.

🔴 Extended metaphors can activate confirmation bias.

“Extended metaphor could be thought to cognitively function as an argument meant to ‘de-metaphorise’ the metaphor.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013)
💬 Comment: As more evidence is presented, audiences may favor information that supports the metaphor, reinforcing belief without skepticism.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors” by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs
📌 Term/Concept📖 Explanation🛠️ Usage in the Article
🔥 Extended MetaphorA metaphor elaborated across multiple parts of a discourse, connecting many elements of the source and target domains.Seen as a powerful argumentative device to stabilize beliefs and even shift metaphorical constructs into literal interpretations.
🧠 Epistemic VigilanceCognitive mechanisms humans use to evaluate the trustworthiness and truthfulness of communicated information.Authors argue extended metaphors can satisfy epistemic vigilance by appearing coherent and plausible, enhancing acceptance of beliefs.
🛤️ Conceptual MappingSystematic correspondences between elements of two conceptual domains (source and target).Repeated mappings in extended metaphors are used to gradually reinforce and validate the metaphorical construal.
🗣️ EthosRhetorical appeal based on the speaker’s credibility, expertise, or character.Building a sophisticated metaphor boosts the speaker’s perceived competence and trustworthiness.
🧩 Ad hoc Concept FormationCognitive process of adjusting or extending a word’s meaning dynamically during communication for relevance.Used to explain how metaphors are processed — literal meanings are widened or adapted to context.
Confirmation BiasTendency to favor information that confirms existing beliefs or assumptions.Authors suggest that the repeated affirmations within an extended metaphor trigger confirmation bias, reinforcing belief in the metaphor.
🌐 Relevance Theory (RT)A theory explaining that communication aims at achieving the most relevant cognitive effects with the least processing effort.Used as a cognitive basis for why and how extended metaphors are persuasive despite their complexity.
🧵 CoherenceLogical and meaningful connectivity among different parts of a discourse.The multiple instances of the extended metaphor create coherence, helping build a cumulative argument.
⚖️ Argument by ExampleA type of argument where specific instances are used to support a general conclusion.Each instantiation of the metaphor (e.g., USA’s military actions) acts as an example reinforcing the USA=Empire mapping.
🎭 De-metaphorisationThe process by which a metaphor shifts toward being perceived as literal truth.Extended metaphors can gradually turn a figurative depiction into a literal belief (e.g., “USA is an empire” becoming a perceived fact).
Contribution of “Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors” by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs to Literary Theory/Theories

🔵 🎯 Cognitive Poetics and Cognitive Literary Theory

  • 📖 The article links metaphor processing to cognitive effort and epistemic effects, directly contributing to cognitive approaches in literary theory.
  • 🗨️ “We will consider possible perlocutionary effects of metaphoric creativity, in particular as to what regards belief fixation…” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013, p. 22)
  • 👉 Shows how literary metaphors aren’t only decorative but also cognitively shape understanding and belief systems.

🟣 🎯 Rhetorical Theory (Neo-Aristotelian Rhetoric)

  • 📖 The paper revives Aristotle’s notions of ethos, pathos, and logos, especially showing how extended metaphors enhance speaker ethos.
  • 🗨️ “Well-thought extended metaphors… can positively influence the speaker’s perceived image.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013, p. 37)
  • 👉 This connects metaphor to rhetorical persuasion, enriching the study of persuasive strategies in literary and political discourse.

🟠 🎯 Structuralism (through Conceptual Mapping)

  • 📖 Their use of conceptual domains and mappings fits structuralist models where meaning emerges from systematic correspondences between structures.
  • 🗨️ “The metaphor maps systematically establishes correspondences between representations…” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013, p. 5)
  • 👉 Strengthens the idea that meaning in literature is relational, structured through recurring metaphorical patterns.

🟡 🎯 Relevance Theory in Literary Pragmatics

  • 📖 By applying Relevance Theory to literary metaphors, they bridge pragmatics with literary studies.
  • 🗨️ “Relevance is therefore defined here in terms of balance between processing effort and cognitive effect.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013, p. 12)
  • 👉 This encourages a pragmatic lens for studying how metaphors achieve literary impact based on cognitive processing.

🟢 🎯 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

  • 📖 Their analysis of metaphor as a political tool (e.g., USA as Empire) aligns with CDA’s interest in how language shapes ideology.
  • 🗨️ “The extended metaphor functions as an argumentative device geared towards the validation of epistemic claims.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013, p. 32)
  • 👉 Suggests that literary metaphors are political instruments, influencing public belief, not merely aesthetic flourishes.

🔴 🎯 Post-Structuralism (De-metaphorisation Process)

  • 📖 The fading of metaphor into literal belief connects to post-structuralist ideas about the instability and transformation of meanings.
  • 🗨️ “Extended metaphors may lead their addressee to eventually abandon the metaphorical construal altogether…” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013, p. 24)
  • 👉 Emphasizes how literary language undermines or redefines stable categories over time.

🎯 Argumentation Theory in Literature

  • 📖 Positions metaphors not just as stylistic devices but as arguments that structure reader belief, linking to Toulmin’s model and Perelman’s New Rhetoric.
  • 🗨️ “Extended metaphors are ideally suited to contribute material that can be used for argumentative purposes.” (Oswald & Rihs, 2013, p. 18)
  • 👉 Enhances literary theory by showing how narratives subtly argue, not just narrate.

🌟 Summary:

Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs offer a multi-theoretical impact — their work helps literary theory shift toward seeing metaphors as cognitive, rhetorical, discursive, ideological, and argumentative forces, not mere aesthetic ornaments.

Examples of Critiques Through “Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors” by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs
🌟 Literary Work✍️ Critique through Extended Metaphor Argumentation📖 Example from the Work🧠 Link to Oswald & Rihs
🐳 Moby-Dick (Herman Melville)Melville uses the extended metaphor of the whale as a symbol for fate, evil, and the unknowable, which slowly transforms into a literal force that Ahab fights.“The whale was no longer a whale; it was the embodiment of all evil.”Like Oswald & Rihs suggest, the extended metaphor de-metaphorizes, leading readers to believe in the whale as an actual malevolent force.
🍎 Paradise Lost (John Milton)Milton’s depiction of Satan as a heroic rebel uses an extended metaphor of Satan as a political revolutionary, gradually convincing readers emotionally and cognitively.“Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”As in Oswald & Rihs’ analysis, the extended metaphor enhances ethos (Satan’s perceived dignity), subtly urging belief in his cause.
👒 The Great Gatsby (F. Scott Fitzgerald)Fitzgerald’s use of the green light as an extended metaphor for hope and the American Dream evolves until it seems almost a real, driving force behind Gatsby’s tragedy.“He stretched out his arms toward the dark water in a curious way… and distinguished nothing except a single green light.”Following Oswald & Rihs, the constant recurrence of the metaphor self-validates the green light as real, making readers emotionally accept it as Gatsby’s destiny.
🦅 Heart of Darkness (Joseph Conrad)The “darkness” operates as an extended metaphor for colonial evil, slowly literalizing horror until it becomes undeniable, not symbolic.“The horror! The horror!”Per Oswald & Rihs, extended metaphor turns abstraction into apparent truth, fulfilling the epistemic vigilance by linking experiences to believable evil.
Criticism Against “Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors” by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs
  • 🔵 Overemphasis on Cognitive Reception:
    The article heavily stresses cognitive processing and belief fixation but downplays emotional and aesthetic responses that also influence metaphor interpretation (especially in literature and poetry).
  • 🟢 Potential Oversimplification of Audience Reactions:
    It assumes audiences will process extended metaphors uniformly toward belief acceptance, but real-world audiences may resist, reinterpret, or reject metaphors based on ideology, culture, or context.
  • 🟡 Neglect of Multimodal Metaphors:
    The focus is mostly on verbal/metaphorical mappings in text, ignoring that modern political or literary discourse often uses images, sounds, and gestures that extend metaphors non-verbally.
  • 🟠 Possible Confusion Between ‘Literalization’ and ‘Manipulation’:
    While they argue that metaphors can “de-metaphorize,” critics might say that this borders on manipulation, blurring the ethical lines between convincing and deceiving audiences.
  • 🔴 Insufficient Treatment of Failed Extended Metaphors:
    The paper does not adequately discuss cases where extended metaphors collapse or backfire, leading to skepticism rather than belief.
  • 🟣 Reliance on Relevance Theory Alone:
    Their analysis heavily depends on Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson), which, while powerful, is not the only cognitive framework for understanding language and metaphor (e.g., Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Frame Semantics).
  • 🟤 Limited Empirical Validation:
    Their claims are mainly theoretical and based on close reading; critics might argue that experimental or empirical data (e.g., surveys, comprehension tests) would strengthen or challenge their conclusions.
  • Possible Bias in Example Selection:
    Using extreme political examples (like Hitler or aggressive nationalism) risks biasing the conclusions about how metaphors operate in less extreme or neutral discourses.
Representative Quotations from “Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors” by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
🌟“Extended metaphors carry self-validating claims that increase the chances of their content being accepted.”➔ Extended metaphors reinforce themselves through repetition, making the audience more likely to accept them as truth.
🧠“Extended metaphors may fulfil the requirements of epistemic vigilance and lead to the stabilisation of a belief.”➔ Extended metaphors can bypass our cognitive defenses by appearing coherent and credible, solidifying beliefs.
“Recurring exploitations of a metaphor can converge towards the justification of the proposed metaphorical construal.”➔ Repeated metaphor usage incrementally convinces readers that the metaphor reflects reality.
🔥“Extended metaphors may lead their addressee to eventually abandon the metaphorical construal altogether.”➔ Through accumulation of examples, audiences may stop seeing the metaphor as figurative and take it literally.
💬“Processing metaphors is governed by a principle of relevance: cognitive cost must be offset by benefit.”➔ Audience mental effort in interpreting extended metaphors is rewarded by perceived deeper understanding or truth.
🧩“Each instantiation of the metaphorical mapping in the text may function as a confirmation of the overall relevance.”➔ Every metaphorical example acts like a puzzle piece confirming the big picture suggested by the metaphor.
📜“The discursive nature of extended metaphors makes them approachable with discourse-analytical tools.”➔ Because they stretch across a whole text, extended metaphors are open to systematic analysis like arguments are.
🚀“Extended metaphors involve complex multi-stage representational operations triggered cumulatively as discourse unfolds.”➔ Audiences must continually interpret and update the metaphor throughout the discourse, enhancing its persuasive power.
🛡️“Extended metaphors can positively influence speaker ethos if their sophistication is recognised by the hearer.”➔ The more sophisticated the metaphor appears, the more competent and trustworthy the speaker seems.
🎯“Extended metaphors encourage belief fixation by accumulating examples that match the metaphorical construal.”➔ The strategic piling of metaphorical instances traps the audience into believing the underlying metaphor as truth.
Suggested Readings: “Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors” by Steve Oswald and Alain Rihs
  1. MÁCHA, JAKUB. “Metaphor in Analytic Philosophy and Cognitive Science.” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, vol. 75, no. 4, 2019, pp. 2247–86. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26869269. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.
  2. Ervas, Francesca. “Metaphor, Ignorance and the Sentiment of (Ir)Rationality.” Synthese, vol. 198, no. 7, 2021, pp. 6789–813. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27293775. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.
  3. Fitz John Porter Poole. “Metaphors and Maps: Towards Comparison in the Anthropology of Religion.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 54, no. 3, 1986, pp. 411–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1464561. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.
  4. Winter, Steven L. “The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 40, no. 6, 1988, pp. 1371–516. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1228780. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.

“The Contemporary Theory Of Metaphor” by George Lakoff: Summary and Critique

“The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor” by George Lakoff first appeared in 1993 as a chapter in Metaphor and Thought, edited by Andrew Ortony and published by Cambridge University Press.

"The Contemporary Theory Of Metaphor" by George Lakoff: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “The Contemporary Theory Of Metaphor” by George Lakoff

“The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor” by George Lakoff first appeared in 1993 as a chapter in Metaphor and Thought, edited by Andrew Ortony and published by Cambridge University Press. This influential work reshaped both linguistic and literary theories of metaphor by shifting its focus from metaphor as a purely linguistic ornament to a fundamental mechanism of human thought. Lakoff challenges the classical view—traced back to Aristotle—that metaphor is merely a poetic or rhetorical device involving the novel use of words. Instead, he proposes that metaphors are cross-domain conceptual mappings deeply embedded in our cognitive processes and everyday language. For instance, expressions like “we’re at a crossroads in our relationship” or “time is flying” are not poetic anomalies but reflections of underlying metaphoric structures such as LOVE IS A JOURNEY or TIME IS MOTION. Lakoff demonstrates that these mappings are systematic and arise from embodied human experiences, thus blurring the rigid boundary between literal and figurative language. This theory has profoundly impacted cognitive linguistics, literary studies, and philosophy, highlighting that metaphor is not peripheral but central to meaning-making and abstract reasoning. Moreover, through detailed examples and references—such as Mark Turner’s Death Is the Mother of Beauty and the work of Michael Reddy—Lakoff reinforces that literary metaphors are extensions of conventional thought patterns, not departures from them. This cognitive approach to metaphor continues to influence modern discourse analysis, pedagogy, and the interpretation of literature.


Summary of “The Contemporary Theory Of Metaphor” by George Lakoff

🌟 Metaphor Is Primarily Conceptual, Not Linguistic

Lakoff challenges the classical view that metaphor is a matter of language, showing instead that it’s rooted in thought. Metaphors are cross-domain mappings in our conceptual system, not just rhetorical flourishes (Lakoff, 1987) 🧠. This reconceptualization moves metaphor from the poetic margins into the very core of everyday language use.

“The locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another” (🌈 p. 203).


💡 Everyday Language Is Richly Metaphorical

Contrary to traditional views, Lakoff argues that ordinary language is saturated with metaphor. Expressions like “He fell in love” or “We’ve hit a dead-end” are not poetic but conventional and rooted in deeper conceptual structures. This finding dismantles the binary of “literal” vs. “figurative” language.

“Ordinary everyday English is largely metaphorical, dispelling once and for all the traditional view” (🟦 p. 204).


🚀 Conceptual Metaphor Theory: Cross-Domain Mappings

A conceptual metaphor maps a source domain (concrete) onto a target domain (abstract). For example, in LOVE IS A JOURNEY, the love relationship (target) is conceptualized in terms of a physical journey (source), as in: “Our relationship is off the track”.

“The metaphor involves understanding one domain of experience, love, in terms of a very different domain of experience, journeys” (💜 p. 207).


📘 Metaphors Govern Reasoning and Inference

Metaphors are not just expressive—they guide reasoning. When people say “We’re stuck in this relationship”, they rely on travel-related inferences (e.g., fixing a vehicle, turning back) to reason about love.

“Such correspondences permit us to reason about love using the knowledge we use to reason about journeys” (🧡 p. 208).


🌀 Metaphors Are Not Individual Words, but Cognitive Structures

Lakoff emphasizes that metaphors are not the words themselves but the mappings that sanction their use. Many metaphorical expressions stem from the same conceptual metaphor—e.g., dead-end, crossroads, off track—all from LOVE IS A JOURNEY.

“It is the ontological mapping across conceptual domains… the language is secondary” (💚 p. 209).


🔁 Basic Abstract Concepts Are Metaphorical

Even core concepts such as time, causation, states, purposes, and categories are metaphorically structured. For example:

  • TIME IS MOTION: “Christmas is coming up.”
  • CATEGORIES ARE CONTAINERS: “Put it in a different category.”

“Most basic concepts… are normally comprehended via metaphor—concepts like time, quantity, state, change…” (🟥 p. 213).


🛣️ Event Structure Is Metaphorically Understood

Lakoff introduces the EVENT STRUCTURE METAPHOR, where:

  • States = locations
  • Changes = movements
  • Causes = forces
  • Purposes = destinations

These structures govern expressions like “We’ve made it this far” or “We’re going nowhere”.

“States are locations… Causes are forces… Purposes are destinations” (💙 p. 221).


🧭 Metaphors Form Inheritance Hierarchies

Metaphors are organized hierarchically. For instance:

  1. EVENT STRUCTURE METAPHOR
  2. A PURPOSEFUL LIFE IS A JOURNEY
  3. LOVE IS A JOURNEY, CAREER IS A JOURNEY

Each lower level inherits from and is structured by the metaphor above it.

“The LOVE IS A JOURNEY metaphor inherits the structure of the LIFE IS A JOURNEY metaphor” (🟨 p. 224).


🔄 Duality: Location vs. Object-Based Metaphors

Every metaphor has a potential dual. For example:

  • STATES ARE LOCATIONS (e.g., in trouble)
  • ATTRIBUTES ARE POSSESSIONS (e.g., have trouble)

Both share the idea of co-location, highlighting how metaphorical thinking can take different structural forms.

“States and attributes are also special cases of the same thing—what can be attributed to someone” (🟪 p. 226).


🎨 Image Metaphors and the Invariance Principle

Image metaphors (like “Her waist is an hourglass”) map one mental image onto another. The Invariance Principle states that image-schematic structure (like paths or containers) is preserved in metaphoric mappings.

“The metaphor is conceptual; it is not in the words themselves, but in the mental images” (🔷 p. 230).


📚 Generic-Level Metaphors and Proverb Interpretation

Generic-level metaphors allow us to map specific instances to general structures, explaining how proverbs (e.g., “Blind blames the ditch”) work. They rely on preserved causal, temporal, and event schemas.

“Generic-level structure… is exactly image-schematic structure” (🔶 p. 234).


🧠 Abstract Reasoning Is Image-Based

Lakoff’s most radical conclusion is that abstract thought is grounded in image-schemas. Our capacity for logic and inference emerges from metaphorically extended spatial and bodily experience.

“Abstract reasoning is a special case of image-based reasoning” (⚫ p. 229).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Contemporary Theory Of Metaphor” by George Lakoff
🔖 Theoretical Term🧠 Explanation🛠️ Example / Usage with In-text Citation
🧭 Conceptual MetaphorSystematic mapping between two conceptual domains: source (concrete) → target (abstract).LOVE IS A JOURNEY → love is understood through the domain of journeys (Lakoff, p. 207).
📦 Source DomainThe domain from which metaphorical structure is drawn (concrete and familiar).In LOVE IS A JOURNEY, “journey” is the source domain (Lakoff, p. 207).
🎯 Target DomainThe abstract concept being understood through metaphor.In LOVE IS A JOURNEY, “love” is the target domain (Lakoff, p. 207).
🔁 Cross-Domain MappingSet of systematic correspondences between the source and target.Lovers → travelers, relationship → vehicle (Lakoff, p. 208).
🧩 Ontological CorrespondenceConceptual entity pairings between domains.Relationship difficulties = travel impediments (Lakoff, p. 208).
🔍 Epistemic CorrespondenceUse of source domain inferences to reason about the target domain.“We’re stuck” infers lack of progress in love using travel logic (Lakoff, p. 208).
🛠️ Metaphorical ExpressionThe actual linguistic expression stemming from a conceptual metaphor.“We’ve hit a dead-end street” is an expression from LOVE IS A JOURNEY (Lakoff, p. 209).
📘 Invariance PrincipleMetaphors preserve the image-schema structure of the source when mapping to the target.Containers → categories, paths → scales (Lakoff, p. 216).
🧠 Image SchemaFundamental spatial or bodily structures used in metaphor (e.g., container, path, force).“Out of gas” uses PATH and ENERGY schemas (Lakoff, p. 221).
🌐 Conceptual SystemThe entire network of metaphorical mappings in cognition.Everyday concepts like time and causation are metaphorical (Lakoff, p. 203).
🌀 Event Structure MetaphorAbstract events structured metaphorically using motion, force, and
Contribution of “The Contemporary Theory Of Metaphor” by George Lakoff to Literary Theory/Theories

🧠 1. Cognitive Literary Theory

🔍 Contribution: Lakoff radically repositions metaphor from a figure of speech to a core cognitive mechanism that shapes how we think, perceive, and reason—including in literature.
📌 Key Reference: “The locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another.” (Lakoff, p. 203)
📚 Theoretical Connection: Supports Cognitive Poetics (Tsur, Stockwell) and Embodied Cognition in literary analysis, where metaphor is seen as structuring narrative and character psychology.


🧱 2. Structuralist & Post-Structuralist Revisions

🔁 Contribution: Challenges structuralist separation between literal and figurative language, asserting that everyday language is saturated with metaphor.
📌 Key Reference: “The discovery of this enormous metaphor system has destroyed the traditional literal-figurative distinction.” (Lakoff, p. 205)
📚 Theoretical Connection: Offers a post-structuralist critique of the arbitrary sign, suggesting metaphor is grounded in cognitive mappings, not in pure linguistic play.


🔄 3. Reframing Reader-Response Theory

👁️ Contribution: Emphasizes the reader’s conceptual system as key to interpreting metaphor—what readers “understand” is shaped by shared conceptual metaphors.
📌 Key Reference: “The metaphor is not just a matter of language, but of thought and reason.” (Lakoff, p. 209)
📚 Theoretical Connection: Enhances Reader-Response Theory (Fish, Iser) by adding a cognitive layer—interpretation arises from experiential metaphors, not just textual gaps or reader projection.


🎨 4. Enriching Poetic and Literary Analysis

🎭 Contribution: Shows that poetic metaphors, like those in Dylan Thomas or Wallace Stevens, are built upon conventional everyday mappings.
📌 Key Reference: “The study of literary metaphor is an extension of the study of everyday metaphor.” (Lakoff, p. 203)
📚 Theoretical Connection: Redefines Formalism/New Criticism by relocating metaphor’s richness from poetic novelty to cognitive familiarity; also bridges New Historicism, which examines how metaphor reflects broader cultural cognition.


🛠️ 5. Tool for Allegory and Symbolism Analysis

🔑 Contribution: Introduces conceptual metaphor mapping as a powerful analytic tool for understanding allegory, symbol, and myth.
📌 Key Reference: “There is a single general principle… part of the conceptual system underlying English.” (Lakoff, p. 208)
📚 Theoretical Connection: Useful for Myth Criticism (Frye, Campbell), understanding how symbolic narratives (e.g., life-as-journey) structure plot and character arcs.


🌉 6. Bridging Literature and Philosophy of Language

🔧 Contribution: Directly critiques philosophers like Searle and classical theories of metaphor, offering an empirically grounded alternative.
📌 Key Reference: “What we had called propositional structure is really image-based inference.” (Lakoff, p. 229)
📚 Theoretical Connection: Connects with Philosophy of Literature, challenging analytical distinctions between metaphor and truth-functional language.


🖼️ 7. Broadening Symbolic Interpretation in Literature

📐 Contribution: Introduces Image Metaphor (e.g., “her waist is an hourglass”) as a unique, non-propositional literary device rooted in visual-spatial cognition.
📌 Key Reference: “Image metaphors… map the structure of one domain onto the structure of another.” (Lakoff, p. 230)
📚 Theoretical Connection: Advances Iconic and Visual Theories of Literature, enhancing how we interpret symbolic and imagistic language beyond mere simile.


🌐 8. Foundation for Conceptual Narratology

🚶 Contribution: The Event Structure Metaphor (states = locations, causes = forces, goals = destinations) offers a way to analyze plot and narrative causality.
📌 Key Reference: “States are locations. Changes are movements… Purposes are destinations.” (Lakoff, p. 221)
📚 Theoretical Connection: Contributes to Narratology (Propp, Genette) by mapping narrative elements onto embodied experience.


🔄 9. Reorienting Tropes in Rhetoric and Style

🔁 Contribution: Demonstrates how metaphorical systems structure idioms, clichés, and stylistic expressions, revealing their deep cognitive roots.
📌 Key Reference: “Many of the metaphorical expressions… are idioms… not arbitrary, but motivated.” (Lakoff, p. 212)
📚 Theoretical Connection: Recontextualizes Classical Rhetoric and Stylistics, viewing them through the lens of cognitive motivation.


🧬 10. Expanding Theories of Symbolic Inheritance

🏗️ Contribution: Introduces metaphorical inheritance hierarchies (e.g., LOVE IS A JOURNEYLIFE IS A JOURNEYEVENT STRUCTURE), mapping complex cultural and literary motifs.
📌 Key Reference: “Metaphorical mappings do not occur isolated… they are organized in hierarchical structures.” (Lakoff, p. 223)
📚 Theoretical Connection: Aligns with Intertextuality and Archetypal Criticism, illuminating how metaphorical networks span genres and traditions.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Contemporary Theory Of Metaphor” by George Lakoff
📚 Literary Work🔁 Key Conceptual Metaphor(s)🔍 Lakoffian Critique & Interpretation
🌌 “Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night” by Dylan ThomasDEATH IS NIGHT, LIFE IS A STRUGGLE, DEATH IS DEPARTUREThomas layers multiple metaphors to resist the passive acceptance of death. “Night” as metaphor for death draws on the LIFE IS A DAY schema, while STRUGGLE frames dying as an active, heroic resistance. (Lakoff, 1993)
🛤️ “The Road Not Taken” by Robert FrostLIFE IS A JOURNEY, CHOICES ARE PATHSFrost’s bifurcating paths represent life decisions. The metaphor activates cognitive mappings of DECISIONS AS TRAVEL, where direction and regret are structured spatially. (Lakoff, 1980)
🚖 “Because I Could Not Stop for Death” by Emily DickinsonDEATH IS A PERSON, DEATH IS A JOURNEYDickinson personifies death as a courteous suitor in a carriage—merging DEATH AS DEPARTURE with DEATH AS COMPANION, echoing Lakoff’s blend of EVENTS ARE ACTIONS and ABSTRACT IS CONCRETE.
🪞 “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” by T.S. EliotTIME IS A THIEF, LOVE IS A STRUGGLE/JOURNEY, SELF IS FRAGMENTED SPACEPrufrock’s paralysis is mapped through metaphorical inertia. The speaker’s internal fragmentation reflects spatial metaphors of disconnection and obstruction, reinforcing alienation. (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)
Criticism Against “The Contemporary Theory Of Metaphor” by George Lakoff

🔴 🔍 Overemphasis on Universality
Lakoff’s theory assumes many metaphors (e.g., “TIME IS MOTION”, “LIFE IS A JOURNEY”) are universal, but cross-cultural linguistic studies show that metaphorical frameworks differ significantly between languages and cultures (e.g., in Chinese or Aymara, future is not always “ahead”).

🟡 🔄 Cognitive Reductionism
Critics argue the theory reduces complex literary or poetic expressions to fixed conceptual mappings, such as “LOVE IS A JOURNEY”, ignoring nuance, irony, and stylistic ambiguity present in creative literature.

🟠 🧱 Static Mapping Critique
The notion of fixed cross-domain mappings is criticized as too rigid. Real-life metaphor use often involves dynamic, context-sensitive constructions, not always aligning with pre-set metaphors.

🟢 📏 Inadequate Account of Novelty
While Lakoff acknowledges image metaphors and novel expressions, some scholars argue the theory underrepresents creative, one-off metaphorical innovations in literature and speech (cf. Ricoeur’s “living metaphors”).

🔵 📚 Neglect of Aesthetic Dimension
Lakoff’s focus is primarily cognitive and conceptual. Critics in literary theory (e.g., Eagleton) claim that this ignores the aesthetic, emotional, and cultural dimensions that make metaphor powerful in poetry and prose.

🟣 🧠 Challenges in Psychological Validation
Some psycholinguistic studies suggest that people don’t consistently rely on metaphorical reasoning in real-time understanding, challenging Lakoff’s claim that metaphor is central to everyday cognition (McGlone, 2007).

⚖️ Literal-Figurative Dichotomy Remains Debated
Although Lakoff dissolves the traditional literal vs. metaphorical distinction, other theorists argue some form of it remains useful, especially for distinguishing novel metaphors from conventional lexicalized expressions.

🟤 🖼️ Weakness in Explaining Visual/Multimodal Metaphor
Lakoff’s theory is primarily linguistic and does not robustly extend to visual, gestural, or multimodal metaphors, which are crucial in film, art, and digital media.

Representative Quotations from “The Contemporary Theory Of Metaphor” by George Lakoff with Explanation
🔹️ Quotation💡 Explanation📚 Citation
🔥“Metaphor is not just a matter of language, but of thought and reason.”Lakoff argues that metaphors are not merely decorative linguistic devices—they shape how we conceptualize the world.Lakoff, 1993, p. 208
🧠“The locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another.”Metaphor is rooted in cognition—how our brain organizes and understands experiences.Lakoff, 1993, p. 203
🚗“Love is a journey.”This famous metaphor illustrates how abstract concepts (love) are understood via more concrete experiences (a journey).Lakoff, 1993, p. 206
🗺️“Conceptual metaphors are mappings from a source domain to a target domain.”Lakoff introduces the key mechanism of metaphorical mapping, which connects different conceptual areas.Lakoff, 1993, p. 207
💬“Metaphors are mappings, that is, sets of conceptual correspondences.”Clarifies that metaphor is not propositional (not a statement of truth) but relational.Lakoff, 1993, p. 208
🌍“Most of our conceptual system is metaphorical in nature.”Metaphors are pervasive, structuring everything from time to morality, not just poetic language.Lakoff, 1993, p. 210
🚧“Difficulties are impediments to motion.”Everyday metaphors (e.g., “we’re stuck”) come from embodied experiences, such as moving through space.Lakoff, 1993, p. 221
🧳“A purposeful life is a journey.”Life is metaphorically seen as travel toward goals—this structure is inherited from broader event metaphors.Lakoff, 1993, p. 223
📦“Classical categories are understood metaphorically in terms of bounded regions, or ‘containers.’”Even fundamental logical concepts like categories rely on spatial metaphors.Lakoff, 1993, p. 213
🧭“Abstract reasoning is a special case of image-based reasoning.”Suggests that even logic and reasoning stem from bodily experience and spatial imagination.Lakoff, 1993, p. 229
Suggested Readings: “The Contemporary Theory Of Metaphor” by George Lakoff
  1. Cornelissen, Joep P. “Beyond Compare: Metaphor in Organization Theory.” The Academy of Management Review, vol. 30, no. 4, 2005, pp. 751–64. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159166. Accessed 21 Apr. 2025.
  2. MÁCHA, JAKUB. “Metaphor in Analytic Philosophy and Cognitive Science.” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, vol. 75, no. 4, 2019, pp. 2247–86. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26869269. Accessed 21 Apr. 2025.
  3. Robinson, William E. W. “Metaphor Theory.” Metaphor, Morality, and the Spirit in Romans 8: 1–17, Society of Biblical Literature, 2016, pp. 17–44. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1h4mhzd.6. Accessed 21 Apr. 2025.
  4. Bilsky, Manuel. “I. A. Richards’ Theory of Metaphor.” Modern Philology, vol. 50, no. 2, 1952, pp. 130–37. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/435560. Accessed 21 Apr. 2025.

“Literature And Metaphor” By Earl R. Maccormac: Summary and Critique

“Literature and Metaphor” by Earl R. MacCormac first appeared in The Journal of Aesthetic Education, Volume 6, No. 3, published in July 1972 by the University of Illinois Press.

"Literature And Metaphor" By Earl R. Maccormac: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Literature And Metaphor” By Earl R. Maccormac

“Literature and Metaphor” by Earl R. MacCormac first appeared in The Journal of Aesthetic Education, Volume 6, No. 3, published in July 1972 by the University of Illinois Press. It explores the foundational role of metaphor not only in literature but also across philosophy and science, challenging long-held assumptions about metaphor’s imprecision. MacCormac advances a “tension theory” of metaphor, distinguishing between two essential types—epiphors, which reveal analogical truths rooted in experience, and diaphors, which generate novel, imaginative meanings. He asserts that metaphors are not mere decorative devices but essential linguistic tools that shape understanding, especially when they evolve into root metaphors—underlying symbolic frameworks that structure entire works or even scientific paradigms. Through this lens, literature is shown to be a dynamic interplay of metaphorical meanings, not reducible to paraphrase or isolated symbol systems. MacCormac’s synthesis of philosophical and literary analysis has significantly influenced literary theory by affirming metaphor’s epistemological power, its capacity to innovate language, and its potential to reveal or obscure reality when mistaken as literal truth—a process he associates with the formation of myths. His work remains crucial for understanding metaphor as a central force in the creation and interpretation of literary meaning.

Summary of “Literature And Metaphor” By Earl R. Maccormac

🔹 Main Ideas of “Metaphor and Literature” by Earl R. MacCormac:

  • 📌 Metaphor is foundational to literature and creativity, acting as a crucial tool for expressing meaning beyond literal language. Literature without metaphor would become dull and unimaginative (⭑ MacCormac, 1972, p. 57).
  • 📌 Philosophical suspicion toward metaphor has lessened over time. While once seen as imprecise, metaphor is now recognized as essential in both philosophy and science (⭑ p. 57–58).
  • 📌 Scientific concepts like “force” or “mass” are metaphors and are not linguistically precise terms, highlighting metaphor’s role in the formation of theories (✦ p. 58).
  • 📌 MacCormac proposes a “tension theory of metaphor,” where meaning arises from the tension between literal absurdity and figurative insight. Metaphor creates a moment of disruption that compels the reader to reflect “as if” the statement were true (⭒ p. 59).
  • 📌 The article differentiates two types of metaphor:
    • Epiphor: based on analogy; reveals hidden but relatable meanings (✧ p. 60).
    • Diaphor: introduces new, often imaginative meanings that cannot be reduced to familiar analogies (✧ p. 61).
  • 📌 Metaphors evolve: they may begin as diaphors, become expressive epiphors, and ultimately turn into dead metaphors or symbols in ordinary language (⭐ p. 62).
  • 📌 MacCormac introduces the concept of “root metaphors”—deep metaphoric structures (e.g., “the world is a machine”) that underlie entire philosophical or literary worldviews. These root metaphors shape how entire texts or scientific paradigms are interpreted (✪ p. 63–64).
  • 📌 Myths arise when root metaphors are taken literally. Myths can be found in science, literature, religion, and philosophy when hypothetical metaphors are mistaken for truth (✹ p. 67–69).
  • 📌 Symbols in literature are born from metaphors, especially epiphors, and become emotionally charged archetypal symbols through repetition (✸ p. 64–66).
  • 📌 Metaphors should be understood as linguistic symbols, not just psychological phenomena. Reducing all metaphor to cognitive response oversimplifies their structural role in meaning-making (✦ p. 66).
  • 📌 The article calls for a critical awareness of metaphor’s role in constructing meaning, cautioning against confusing metaphorical frameworks with literal reality (✴ p. 69–70).

🔍 Implications for Literary Criticism (per MacCormac):

  • ✅ Metaphors cannot be paraphrased without losing their unique meanings—especially diaphors (✦ p. 70).
  • Root metaphors and conveyance metaphors must be distinguished. The former underlie whole works; the latter function within narratives (✪ p. 64).
  • ✅ Ordinary language itself is built from dead metaphors, highlighting how pervasive and foundational metaphor is in human thought (✦ p. 60).
  • Myths should not be eliminated outright, but critically examined as historically contingent metaphorical systems (✹ p. 68).
  • ✅ Literary meaning is not solely internal to the text—reader experience and broader metaphorical structures also inform interpretation (✧ p. 64–65).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Literature And Metaphor” By Earl R. Maccormac
Term/ConceptUsage in the Article (with citation)Explanation
MetaphorDefined as a “juxtaposition of words” that produces literal absurdity and invites new meaning (MacCormac, 1972, p. 59).A core linguistic device used to express or suggest meanings beyond the literal through imaginative association.
Tension TheoryMacCormac’s central theory: metaphor functions through the tension between literal absurdity and figurative insight (p. 59).Metaphor creates meaning by presenting an unexpected or absurd juxtaposition that demands reinterpretation.
EpiphorA metaphor grounded in analogy and expressiveness, e.g., “I see the point” (p. 60–61).A metaphor that expresses an existing insight or experience in a vivid, novel way.
DiaphorMetaphors that suggest new, often imaginative meanings with no prior analog, e.g., Dryden’s depiction of nature (p. 61–62).A metaphor that introduces unfamiliar concepts, often irreducible to existing knowledge or ordinary language.
Root MetaphorFoundational metaphors like “the world is a machine” that underlie entire works or theories (p. 63–64).Deep metaphoric structures shaping entire systems of meaning, such as literary works or scientific paradigms.
MythOccurs when root metaphors are mistaken as literal truths, such as in science or religion (p. 67–69).A belief system that results from interpreting metaphorical expressions as factual reality.
Ordinary LanguageUsed to identify metaphors; contrasts with metaphor’s deviation from everyday usage (p. 60).Common, everyday language used as the benchmark for recognizing metaphorical tension or deviation.
Dead MetaphorMetaphors that lose tension through habitual use, e.g., “I see the point” (p. 61).Expressions originally metaphorical that become part of ordinary discourse and lose figurative force.
Archetypal SymbolEmotionally resonant symbols derived from metaphors, e.g., water for life (p. 64–65).Universally recurring symbols in literature with strong emotional or cultural associations.
Symbol (Linguistic)All words are symbols; metaphors operate through these symbolic units (p. 65–66).Words that convey meaning through denotation, connotation, and subjective association; fundamental to metaphor.
SignContrasted with symbols; a direct indicator, like smoke for fire (p. 66).A non-linguistic or immediate indicator lacking the layered meaning of a symbol.
“As If” QualityMetaphors make us think “as if” something were literally true, e.g., “build in sonnets pretty rooms” (p. 59).A hallmark of metaphor that involves imagining a literal absurdity as if it were real, revealing deeper insight.
Internal MeaningCritiques Frye’s view that meaning exists only within the text’s own metaphoric system (p. 64).The idea that texts are self-contained in meaning, which MacCormac challenges by emphasizing reader interpretation and context.
Symbol FormationProcess where metaphors, through repetition, become symbols or archetypes (p. 66).The transformation of metaphorical expressions into culturally or literarily fixed symbolic forms.
Contribution of “Literature And Metaphor” By Earl R. Maccormac to Literary Theory/Theories

🧠 1. Structuralism

  • 🔹 Emphasizes that metaphor is a linguistic structure that organizes meaning through patterns and associations (⭑ MacCormac, 1972, p. 59).
  • 🔹 Introduces the concept that ordinary language is structured by “dead metaphors”, showing how metaphors shape language systems (⭑ p. 60).
  • 🔹 By analyzing metaphor as a structured interaction between “tenor” and “vehicle” (Richards), the article aligns with structuralist focus on binary relationships (✦ p. 59).

🔮 2. Reader-Response Theory

  • 🔹 Argues that the recognition of metaphor depends on the reader’s awareness of absurdity and interpretive ability (✧ p. 59).
  • 🔹 Claims that metaphors gain meaning only through the reader’s ability to imagine or connect to experience, especially in the case of diaphors (✧ p. 61–62).
  • 🔹 Suggests that interpretive response is essential to moving metaphors from tension to comprehension (✧ p. 62).

📘 3. Formalism / New Criticism

  • 🔹 Acknowledges the internal function of metaphor in constructing literary unity, especially when rooted in a dominant image (✪ p. 63).
  • 🔹 Discusses metaphors that carry the thematic structure of a work (root metaphors), which are central to formalist close reading (✪ p. 64).
  • 🔹 Challenges New Criticism slightly by arguing that not all meaning is internally contained within a work’s structure (✪ p. 64–65).

🌍 4. Phenomenology / Hermeneutics

  • 🔹 Describes metaphor as an experiential bridge, where the reader’s own perception fills the gap between literal absurdity and figurative meaning (✸ p. 59–60).
  • 🔹 Suggests that understanding metaphor is a phenomenological act that involves the transformation of experience into insight (✸ p. 61).
  • 🔹 Root metaphors provide hermeneutic frameworks for interpreting literary worlds and philosophical systems (✸ p. 63–64).

🧬 5. Post-Structuralism / Deconstruction

  • 🔹 Identifies the instability of meaning in metaphors—especially diaphors—which resist paraphrase and final interpretation (✴ p. 70).
  • 🔹 Argues that literal and figurative are not absolute categories, since dead metaphors blur the boundary (✴ p. 60–61).
  • 🔹 Challenges the idea of a stable referent, showing that metaphor often undermines the clarity of language (✴ p. 69).

📚 6. Archetypal and Symbolic Criticism

  • 🔹 Tracks how metaphors evolve into archetypal symbols with emotional resonance, e.g., “water” representing life (✹ p. 64–65).
  • 🔹 Connects metaphor to universal human expressions, consistent with Jungian and mythological criticism (✹ p. 65).

⚙️ 7. Philosophy of Language / Analytic Literary Theory

  • 🔹 Contributes to theoretical philosophy of metaphor, extending ideas of Max Black and I.A. Richards into literary application (⭑ p. 59).
  • 🔹 Discusses metaphor in terms of linguistic functions, meaning variance, and ostension (⭑ p. 60; ⭑ p. 61).
  • 🔹 Establishes that literary and philosophical language share metaphorical logic, rejecting strict literalism in analytic traditions (⭑ p. 67).

🧱 8. Myth Criticism

  • 🔹 Defines myth as a literalized root metaphor, warning that myth arises when metaphor is mistaken as objective truth (✦ p. 67–69).
  • 🔹 Suggests that myths pervade all fields, from literature to science, when metaphor is misinterpreted as fact (✦ p. 69).
  • 🔹 Encourages a critical approach to metaphor to avoid mythologizing knowledge and ideology (✦ p. 69–70).
Examples of Critiques Through “Literature And Metaphor” By Earl R. Maccormac
Literary WorkCritique Through MacCormac’s TheoryKey Concepts & Symbols
🕯️ John Donne – The CanonizationThe line “We’ll build in sonnets pretty rooms” exemplifies a diaphor, as it juxtaposes physical construction with poetic form, forcing imaginative interpretation (MacCormac, p. 59).🔹 Diaphor 🔸 Tension Theory ✴ “As If” Quality
🌳 Robert Frost – A Hillside ThawFrost’s metaphors (“The sun’s a wizard… the moon a witch”) are strong diaphors that propose fresh, non-literal realities that stretch the reader’s perception (MacCormac, p. 62).🔹 Diaphor ✴ Symbol Formation 🔸 Myth Potential
🎻 John Dryden – A Song for St. Cecilia’s DayDryden’s metaphor of nature lying under “jarring atoms” serves as a root metaphor, combining poetic form with early scientific theory; suggests a worldview, not just an image (p. 61–63).⚙️ Root Metaphor 🔸 Myth Criticism ✴ Diaphoric Suggestiveness
⚔️ William Shakespeare – MacbethThe recurring metaphor of darkness (“Stars, hide your fires”) may begin as a diaphor, but becomes an archetypal symbol of moral blindness and ambition (interpreted via p. 64–66).✹ Archetypal Symbol 🔹 Epiphor ➡ Dead Metaphor 🔸 Symbolic Transformation
Criticism Against “Literature And Metaphor” By Earl R. Maccormac

Criticisms Against “Literature and Metaphor” by Earl R. MacCormac:

  • ⚖️ Overemphasis on Philosophy Over Literary Practice
    ▪️ MacCormac heavily draws from philosophical traditions (e.g., Aristotle, Max Black, Stephen Pepper), sometimes sidelining close textual analysis or literary nuance.
    ▪️ Critics may argue that this makes the theory less practical for analyzing complex literary texts in detail.
  • 🌀 Ambiguity Between Epiphor and Diaphor
    ▪️ The distinction between epiphor (based on analogy) and diaphor (suggesting new meaning) is insightful but can become conceptually blurry.
    ▪️ In many cases, metaphors contain elements of both, making rigid classification difficult (⭑ MacCormac, 1972, p. 61–62).
  • 🧩 Lack of Engagement with Historical or Cultural Contexts
    ▪️ The theory largely treats metaphor as a universal linguistic process, neglecting how cultural, historical, or socio-political factors shape metaphor usage and reception.
  • 🗺️ Limited Scope of Literary Examples
    ▪️ The article relies mostly on Western canon examples (e.g., Donne, Frost, Dryden), potentially narrowing its cross-cultural applicability.
    ▪️ It does not test the theory on non-Western or postmodern literature where metaphor might function differently.
  • 🏗️ Abstract Treatment of Myth and Reality
    ▪️ MacCormac’s claim that myths are merely literalized root metaphors (p. 67–69) could be seen as reductive.
    ▪️ It overlooks the deeper symbolic, religious, or communal functions of myth in human culture.
  • 🔄 Resistance to Internal Meaning Theories
    ▪️ MacCormac challenges Northrop Frye’s idea of internal literary meaning (p. 64), but his alternative may not satisfy formalists who value textual coherence and self-containment.
    ▪️ Some may argue that he dismisses valid interpretive strategies too quickly.
  • 🔍 Insufficient Practical Methodology for Criticism
    ▪️ The article offers a theoretical framework but lacks clear, repeatable steps for applying it in literary criticism.
    ▪️ Readers may struggle to operationalize his concepts without more methodological guidance.
  • 💬 Minimal Dialogue with Contemporary Literary Theorists
    ▪️ While the work is grounded in philosophical and linguistic traditions, it engages less with contemporary literary theorists (e.g., Barthes, Derrida, Eagleton), missing inter-theoretical dialogue.

🧠 Summary:

While “Literature and Metaphor” is foundational in positioning metaphor at the center of meaning-making in literature, its philosophical abstraction, binary metaphor classifications, and lack of cultural contextualization leave room for criticism. Scholars seeking more culturally grounded, politically aware, or text-specific analysis may find MacCormac’s framework limited in scope.

Representative Quotations from “Literature And Metaphor” By Earl R. Maccormac with Explanation
QuotationExplanation Citation
“Literature without metaphor would become less imaginative and poetry would be so impaired as to become dull and perhaps even trite.”Emphasizes the essential role of metaphor in preserving creativity and vitality in literary works.(MacCormac, 1972, p. 57)
“A metaphor consists of a juxtaposition of words that when read literally produces absurdity.”Introduces the “tension theory” of metaphor, suggesting that the clash with literal meaning creates interpretive tension.(MacCormac, 1972, p. 58)
“Ordinary language is filled with dead metaphors… metaphors that are no longer vibrant and filled with tension.”Highlights how metaphors can become normalized over time, losing their initial figurative power.(MacCormac, 1972, p. 60)
“Some diaphors do suggest ideas that we later do experience, and when they do so they become expressive and can be classed as epiphors.”Differentiates between diaphors (new/suggestive metaphors) and epiphors (analogous/expressive ones).(MacCormac, 1972, p. 61)
“The world is not completely mathematical nor is it fully a machine, and these root metaphors always retain a tensive quality.”Argues that root metaphors, even when influential (e.g., in science), are never fully explanatory or literal.(MacCormac, 1972, p. 63)
“Metaphoric meaning is not solely contained within a literary structure.”Challenges structuralist views that limit interpretation to internal elements, emphasizing reader interaction.(MacCormac, 1972, p. 64)
“Archetypal symbols… express their meaning by the emotional association of concepts, objects, or situations.”Explains how archetypal symbols evolve from metaphors, gaining universal emotional meaning.(MacCormac, 1972, p. 65)
“Diaphors create new meaning and not just a psychological effect of absurdity.”Asserts that metaphors can be conceptually generative, not just aesthetically surprising.(MacCormac, 1972, p. 66)
“Root metaphors that are taken literally create myths which are dangerous and misleading.”Warns against mistaking metaphoric models (especially in science or religion) as literal truths.(MacCormac, 1972, p. 67)
“To call these speculations final is to become dogmatic and to create a myth.”Encourages critical awareness of the provisional and metaphorical nature of all explanatory frameworks.(MacCormac, 1972, p. 70)
Suggested Readings: “Literature And Metaphor” By Earl R. Maccormac
  1. MacCormac, Earl R. “Metaphor and Literature.” Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 6, no. 3, 1972, pp. 57–70. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3331393. Accessed 21 Apr. 2025.
  2. Sobolev, Dennis. “Metaphor Revisited.” New Literary History, vol. 39, no. 4, 2008, pp. 903–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20533122. Accessed 21 Apr. 2025.
  3. MÁCHA, JAKUB. “Metaphor in Analytic Philosophy and Cognitive Science.” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, vol. 75, no. 4, 2019, pp. 2247–86. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26869269. Accessed 21 Apr. 2025.
  4. Davis, Cynthia J. “Contagion as Metaphor.” American Literary History, vol. 14, no. 4, 2002, pp. 828–36. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3568026. Accessed 21 Apr. 2025.