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 Hermeneutic | Metaphor is a tool for interpretation, not a linguistic puzzle to solve. | Sheehan shifts focus from how metaphors work to how they are used to construct meaning through narratives (Sheehan, 1999, p. 47). |
| 🔄 Hermeneutic Circle | Interpretation 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 Use | Metaphors 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 Invention | Meaning is invented by interpreters based on prior experience and narrative context. | He shows that readers invent meanings for metaphors depending on their background, not extracting pre-encoded ideas (p. 48, p. 58). |
| 🎯 Perspective Shift | Metaphors reshape how we perceive and talk about reality by inviting different viewpoints. | Sheehan cites Burke and Rorty to argue that metaphors alter perspectives rather than merely decorate speech (p. 49). |
| 🧩 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-narratives | Deep-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 Semanticism | Criticism of the idea that metaphors function differently from literal language due to semantics. | Sheehan critiques traditional metaphor theories for their faith in semantic or cognitive causality, calling it unnecessary and misleading (p. 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 McCarthy | The 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 Melville | The 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. Eliot | Eliot’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 Morrison | The 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.