“Metaphor Revisited” by Dennis Sobolev: Summary and Critique

🔹 1. Purpose and Context of the Article

• Sobolev aims to rethink the theory of metaphor in light of postmodern criticism and cognitive science.
• Challenges the idea that metaphor has a unified structure, suggesting instead a field of heterogeneous possibilities.
• Responds to the inadequacy of classical models (like I.A. Richards and Max Black) in addressing metaphor’s multidimensional operation in contemporary discourse.

---

🔹 2. Critique of Traditional Metaphor Theories

• I.A. Richards (Tenor and Vehicle):
  • Sobolev notes its binary simplicity but criticizes its lack of structural dynamism.
• Max Black (Focus and Frame):
  • Acknowledges the interaction theory but finds it overly tied to rhetorical logic and insufficiently open to cultural and cognitive variables.
• Both models rely on the assumption that metaphor functions according to stable relations, which Sobolev disputes.

---

🔹 3. Key Theoretical Distinctions Introduced

• Structure of Identification vs. Structure of Functioning:
  • Identification: How metaphor is recognized or detected in discourse.
  • Functioning: How metaphor operates, shapes meaning, and evokes response.
  • Important because recognition does not guarantee understanding or appreciation of the metaphor’s impact.
• This dual distinction allows Sobolev to separate form from effect, enabling a more flexible model.

---

🔹 4. Proposal of a Tripartite Structure

• Moves beyond the binary of “tenor–vehicle” or “focus–frame”.
• Suggests three components in metaphor:
  • Frame: The contextual or grammatical setting.
  • Primary Term: The central or familiar referent.
  • Secondary Term: The novel or metaphorical concept applied to the primary.
• This structure enables a better mapping of metaphorical tension and interplay across layers.

---

🔹 5. Multidimensional Axes of Metaphor

Sobolev proposes metaphor should be examined along several independent but interacting dimensions:

• Axis of Similarity:
  • Whether similarity is given (pre-existing) or created (through metaphor).
• Axis of Function:
  • Is the metaphor used for elucidation (clarifying existing concepts) or creation (generating new understanding)?
• Axis of Modality:
  • Evaluated in terms of truth/falsity (propositional logic) or success/failure (performative effect).
• Axis of Conceptual Transference:
  • Degree to which new concepts are transferred or transformed through metaphor.

These axes form the core of his analytical framework, enabling plural interpretations.

---

🔹 6. Epistemological and Aesthetic Implications

• Sobolev asserts that metaphor is not simply a decorative element or a cognitive shortcut.
• It is a mode of knowledge generation, especially in art and literature.
• Metaphors cannot be paraphrased without loss of meaning due to their complex multidimensional operation.

---

🔹 7. Cultural and Contextual Flexibility

• Metaphor operates differently across:
  • Disciplines (literature, science, politics).
  • Cultures (Western vs. non-Western conceptual traditions).
  • Mediums (spoken, written, visual).
• Sobolev’s model allows for metaphor variability without collapsing into relativism.

---

🔹 8. Integration with Poststructuralism and Cognitive Linguistics

• While poststructuralists view metaphor as indeterminate and unstable, Sobolev argues this does not negate structured analysis.
• Embraces Lakoff and Johnson’s idea of conceptual metaphors but adds nuanced structural depth.
• Incorporates insights from cognitive linguistics, while remaining committed to aesthetic and literary specificity.

---

🔹 9. Contribution to Literary Theory

• Provides a synthesis between rhetorical, cognitive, and aesthetic perspectives.
• Reframes metaphor as an open system with cultural embeddedness.
• Offers tools for analyzing metaphor in literature, theory, philosophy, and communication.

---

🔹 10. Conclusion and Future Directions

• Metaphor must be seen as a flexible, multi-dimensional structure rather than a fixed linguistic entity.
• Encourages scholars to move beyond dualisms and embrace models that reflect the plurality of metaphorical thought.
• The model sets the stage for further interdisciplinary research, especially in digital, cross-cultural, and AI applications of metaphor.

📘 1. Structuralism and Poststructuralism

• Challenge to Structuralist Simplicity
  • Sobolev critiques binary metaphor models (e.g., Richards’ tenor/vehicle), arguing they oversimplify metaphor’s complexity (p. 904–906).
  • Suggests that metaphor cannot be captured by a single system of relational equivalence.
• Revision of Poststructuralist Relativism
  • While poststructuralism emphasizes the instability of meaning, Sobolev offers a middle ground: a structured yet non-unified field (p. 924).
  • He supports poststructuralist insight into multiplicity but proposes a model where metaphor has functional axes that remain analyzable.

---

🧠 2. Cognitive Literary Theory

• Integration with Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)
  • Sobolev builds on Lakoff & Johnson but critiques their model for being overly universal and schematic (p. 909–910).
  • Introduces axes like modality and conceptual transference to address metaphor’s aesthetic and rhetorical variability, especially in literature (p. 922).
• Contribution: Multi-Dimensional Cognition of Metaphor
  • Proposes a model that can be flexibly applied to poetic, philosophical, and everyday discourse, accommodating both thought and feeling (p. 915–918).

---

🧬 3. Rhetorical Theory / Classical Rhetoric

• Beyond Persuasion
  • Rejects metaphor as purely rhetorical decoration or a tool of persuasion (Aristotelian view) (p. 905).
  • Emphasizes metaphor’s role in world-construction and knowledge-making, especially in literary texts.
• Contribution: Expanding Function
  • By distinguishing between identification and functioning, Sobolev gives literary metaphor epistemic and creative functions, not just persuasive ones (p. 906).

---

🖼️ 4. Aesthetic Theory

• Metaphor as Artistic Structure
  • Asserts that metaphor’s aesthetic power lies in its resistance to paraphrase—a direct engagement with New Criticism and aesthetic formalism (p. 926).
  • Literary metaphor cannot be reduced to logical propositions; it functions affectively and aesthetically.
• Contribution: Articulation of Irreducibility
  • Positions metaphor as an irreducible site of experience and ambiguity, essential for literary beauty and innovation (p. 926–927).

---

🌍 5. Cultural Poetics / New Historicism

• Cultural Variability of Metaphoric Logic
  • Recognizes that metaphors operate differently across cultures, epochs, and genres (p. 923).
  • Moves away from static universal models toward culturally embedded metaphoric fields.
• Contribution: Historicized Flexibility
  • Suggests metaphor analysis must be context-sensitive, aligning with New Historicism’s attention to historical and discursive specificity.

---

📚 6. Literary Hermeneutics / Phenomenology

• Metaphor as Interpretive Event
  • Metaphor is not just a structure but a phenomenological experience—the reader’s interaction with metaphor shapes understanding (p. 920–921).
• Contribution: Dynamic Reader Engagement
  • Echoes hermeneutic thinkers like Paul Ricoeur in proposing metaphor as a fusion of horizons between the reader’s world and the metaphor’s world.

---

🔄 7. Interdisciplinary Theory (Philosophy–Literature Interface)

• Metaphor as Philosophical Tool
  • Bridges literary theory and philosophy of language—metaphor is a way of thinking, not just describing (p. 908–909).
  • Engages with thinkers like Nietzsche and Derrida, while offering a more structured model for analysis.
• Contribution: Theory Hybridization
  • Proposes a theoretical framework useful across literature, philosophy, and cognitive science, reinforcing metaphor’s interdisciplinary centrality.

⚖️ 1. Ambiguity in the “Field” Model

• While Sobolev aims to escape rigid binary models, his proposal of a “field of heterogeneous possibilities” may be too abstract or diffuse for empirical application.
• Critics may argue that it lacks operational clarity, especially for researchers seeking concrete analytic tools.
• The multiplicity of parameters (similarity, modality, function, transference) may overwhelm or dilute explanatory precision.

---

🧪 2. Limited Empirical Validation

• Sobolev’s model is highly theoretical, with minimal empirical testing or examples drawn from systematic data.
• Cognitive linguists may criticize the lack of experimental or corpus-based evidence supporting the axes of metaphor proposed.
• It remains unclear how reliably different readers or researchers would identify or rate the values along Sobolev’s metaphor axes.

---

🔄 3. Overcomplication of Metaphor Structure

• The tripartite structure (Frame, Primary Term, Secondary Term) could be seen as a repackaging of existing binary models, adding complexity without clear interpretive advantage.
• Critics may question whether the “frame” is a truly necessary third element, or if it overlaps with grammatical or contextual analysis already covered in classical rhetoric.

---

🧩 4. Underdeveloped Cultural Specificity

• Though Sobolev claims that metaphors vary across cultures and epochs, he does not develop a cross-cultural comparative analysis.
• There is little discussion of non-Western metaphor traditions, oral storytelling, or indigenous cognitive models.
• Critics may argue that the cultural embeddedness he invokes is asserted rather than demonstrated.

---

📉 5. Lack of Engagement with Recent Cognitive Theories

• While Sobolev references Lakoff and Johnson, his engagement stops short of integrating or extending more recent developments in embodied cognition, neural metaphor processing, or blending theory.
• Scholars in cognitive poetics or psycholinguistics may find his approach theoretically elegant but scientifically shallow.

---

🖼️ 6. Neglect of Visual/Multimodal Metaphor

• The article focuses almost entirely on verbal/textual metaphor, leaving out metaphorical thinking in visual media, film, or digital interfaces.
• This omission may limit the relevance of his model in contemporary multimodal literary and cultural studies.

---

🤝 7. Weak Intertextual Anchoring

• Though Sobolev references major figures (Richards, Black, Lakoff), he does not robustly situate his argument in dialogue with literary theorists like Paul Ricoeur, Harold Bloom, or even Derrida.
• Critics may see this as a missed opportunity to deepen philosophical and literary grounding.

---

🔄 8. Tension Between Flexibility and Structure

• Sobolev’s attempt to merge structure with flexibility may be internally contradictory.
• The model might lack falsifiability—if any metaphor can fit somewhere within the multidimensional field, then theory becomes too adaptable to be critically tested.