Tag: Theory Article Summaries

🌍 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).

🎯 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.

🧠 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)

🔍 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).

🧩 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.

🔷 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).

🧠 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).

🔄 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.

🕊️ 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.

📖 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.

⚖️ 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.

🎨 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.

📜 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.

❗ 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.

🔵 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.

🔵 🎯 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.

🌟 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).

🧠 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 JOURNEY ← LIFE IS A JOURNEY ← EVENT 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.

🔴 🔍 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.

🔹 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).

🧠 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).

❗ 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.

🔍 Discourse-Theoretical Approach to Metaphor

• 🧩 Metaphor must be understood within the broader framework of discourse, which encompasses language (text), cognition (comprehension), and communication (social interaction).

“Discourse can be treated as a congeries of three kinds of structures… language, cognition, and communication” (p. 115).
✳️

🎭 Three Functions of Metaphor

• 💬 Expressive function (linguistic): Metaphor serves as a formal device to concisely express what would otherwise be lengthy or indirect.

“‘Julia is the sun’ is formally much more pointed than the lengthy alternatives” (p. 119).
✍️

• 🧠 Transactional function (cognitive): Metaphor helps us relate and understand conceptual domains that are typically unrelated.

“Lovers are not often seen in terms of heavenly bodies, excusez le mot, but Shakespeare manages…” (p. 119).
🧠

• 🤝 Interactional function (communicative): Metaphors influence the flow and interpretation of communication, shaped by genre and social context.

“This force may be vivid or flat, surprising or banal… esthetically pleasing or displeasing” (p. 119).
📡

📖 Literary vs. Non-Literary Reading

• 🧾 Understanding metaphors is shaped by the type of discourse—literary or non-literary—and the attitude of reading the reader adopts.

“Understanding metaphor in a literary way may be highly influenced by the adoption of a literary attitude of reading” (p. 114).
🎭

• 🧠 A literary attitude activates Esthetic (E) and Polyvalence (P) conventions, focusing on multiple meanings and aesthetic value rather than factual clarity.

“The Esthetic convention… implies the suspension of criteria such as true/false… The Polyvalence convention induces subjectively satisfactory comprehension processes…” (p. 123).
🌀

🔁 Role of Analogical Processing

• 🔗 Analogy is central to metaphor comprehension in literature, where it is not just a problem-solving tool but a method of layered interpretation.

“The principle of analogy… is explosively exploited rather than restricted [in literature]” (p. 125).
🧪

• 🧙 Allegory is seen as extended metaphorical analogy, but not all literary metaphors are allegorical.

“Allegory… has two separate meanings rather than one… metaphor also may have more clearly or vaguely distinct meanings than one” (p. 130).
🔍

🧩 Polyvalence of Literary Metaphor

• 🎨 Literary metaphors tend to be polyvalent—open to multiple interpretations—due to vehicle elaboration and contextual layering.

“Polyvalence in literary metaphor may be due to… a series of vehicle interpretations” (p. 128).
🧷

• 🧠 This results in a richer, multidimensional understanding as readers extract overlapping or even conflicting meanings.

“Metaphors may be refunctionalized as literary signs… producing symbolism and other effects” (p. 130).
🔮

🧭 Identification, Comprehension, and Appreciation

• 📌 Steen proposes a three-part model of how metaphors are processed:
  1. Identification – Recognizing the presence of a metaphor
  2. Comprehension – Constructing meaning
  3. Appreciation – Valuing or evaluating the metaphor

“Identification of metaphor may be… metatextual elaboration… comprehension may lead to… alternative frames… appreciation may be part of polyvalent elaborations” (p. 134).
🔍🧠💖

🔄 Explicit vs. Implicit Processing

• 👀 Steen distinguishes between explicit and implicit versions of all three processes, arguing that literary reading fosters explicit awareness of metaphor.

“Explicit identification… a meta-statement concerning the perceived metaphorical nature…” (p. 136).
⚖️

• 📢 For example, explicit vehicle interpretation (recognizing and analyzing the metaphor’s source domain) is more likely in literary contexts.

“Experienced readers… emphasize vehicle interpretation… inexperienced readers tend to overlook this aspect” (p. 137).
🧭

🧪 Empirical and Cognitive Approach

• 🧬 Steen emphasizes the need for empirical testing of his hypotheses via cognitive psychology (e.g., think-aloud protocols) and interdisciplinary work.

“Such obstacles need not prevent us… from both formulating tentative programs of research…” (p. 139).
📊

• 🧑‍🔬 He encourages bridging gaps between psychological models of language comprehension and literary theory, advocating for discourse-based analysis.

“Many metaphors in literary texts need not be understood in a literary way… hence a general discourse theory is required…” (p. 139).
🧠🔗📚

🔍 Over-Theorization Without Empirical Evidence
While Steen emphasizes empirical methodology, the paper remains largely theoretical. Critics may argue that Steen falls short of offering actual data to validate his discourse-functional claims (Steen, 1989).

🧩 Ambiguity in Discourse Typology
The tripartite model of expressive, transactional, and interactional discourse functions may be seen as overlapping or too loosely defined, especially when applied across diverse literary genres.

⚖️ Lack of Engagement with Post-Structuralism
Steen’s cognitive approach is rooted in formalist and psychological models, which can appear reductive or incompatible with post-structuralist or deconstructive theories that resist fixed interpretation or “functions” of language.

🎭 Neglect of Cultural and Historical Context
Critics might argue that the model downplays the role of socio-historical context in shaping metaphorical meaning, focusing instead on cognitive processing as if it were universal and ahistorical.

🧠 Cognitive Bias and Reader Homogenization
The psychological framing assumes a somewhat uniform cognitive process across readers, which may ignore diverse interpretive communities or the variability of reader responses rooted in identity and context.

📚 Insufficient Focus on Non-Metaphorical Literary Devices
By centering metaphor, the paper potentially marginalizes other poetic and rhetorical strategies equally central to literary comprehension, such as irony, metonymy, or ambiguity.

🌀 Conflation of Literary Attitude and Literary Value
Steen’s reliance on the E and P conventions implies that readers can “switch on” a literary mode of reading. Critics may question whether such a clean switch exists, or whether this oversimplifies how texts are actually read and valued.

·  🔸 Metaphor as a Natural and Noble Act of Naming:
Drawing from Quintilian, Donoghue opens by stating that metaphor is a natural human gift:

“It is both a gift which Nature herself confers on us… [ensuring] that nothing goes without a name” (p.182) ✴
This framing treats metaphor not as a mere rhetorical flourish, but a fundamental linguistic and existential impulse.

·  🔸 Metaphor and the Liberty of the Mind:
Metaphor emerges from the freedom of the imagination, striving to give things their “proper names,” though often failing.

“The source of metaphor is the liberty of the mind among such words as there are” (p.184) ✴

·  🔸 Metaphor as Both Resource and Failure:
Metaphor reflects the inadequacies of language, and thus, its use becomes a noble but doomed attempt to make sense of a deficient world.

“Rhetoric… is a glorious failure, and the cry of metaphor is doomed” (p.184) ✴
“We cry out to change the world by giving things their proper names—but often we fail” (p.184) ✴

·  🔸 Allegory and Catachresis: Extensions of Metaphor:
Metaphor gives rise to allegory and to its extremes, catachresis—abused or “forced” metaphors that reveal linguistic limits.

“Allegory is its narrative form… Catachresis is the figure of its abuse” (p.185) ✴
“Something monstrous lurks in the most innocent of catachreses” – Paul de Man (p.185) ✴

·  🔸 Metaphor as Escape from Literal Reality:
According to Wallace Stevens (via Frye), the motive for metaphor is to escape the oppressive weight of objective reality, “the weight of primary noon.”

“The motive for metaphor, shrinking from / The weight of primary noon” – Stevens (p.186) ✴
“To defeat or evade the force of the world, it must resort to the imaginative capacity of the mind” (p.188) ✴

·  🔸 Interpretive Differences: Frye vs. Ransom:
Frye sees the metaphor as a bridge between mind and world; Ransom views it as a poetic solution to inexpressible moral feelings.

Frye: “The only genuine joy… is in those rare moments when you feel that… we are also a part of what we know” (p.187) ✴
Ransom: The metaphor avoids “the dreary searching of your own mind” (p.187) ✴

·  🔸 Stevens’s Hegelian Idealism and Artistic Desire:
Stevens’s poetic vision resonates with Hegel’s aesthetics, where art “lifts the inner and outer world into his spiritual consciousness.”

“The universal need for art… is man’s rational need to lift the inner and outer world into his spiritual consciousness” – Hegel (p.189) ✴

·  🔸 Art and Metaphor as Acts of Decreation:
Donoghue invokes Simone Weil and Picasso to show how metaphor contributes to a modern aesthetic of undoing the real, transforming or annihilating it.

“Modern reality is a reality of decreation” (p.191) ✴
“A poem is a horde of destructions” – Stevens (p.191) ✴

·  🔸 The Danger of Bad Metaphors:
Metaphors have the power to undermine themselves—a bad metaphor, Donoghue notes, can “murder” a good one.

“He must defy / The metaphor that murders metaphor” (p.191) ✴

·  🔸 Repetition, Association, and Stevens’s Reluctance to End:
Stevens’s poetry exhibits an additive and associative structure—where metaphors are strung together without clear hierarchy.

“One phrase is instructed to produce another by association” (p.192) ✴
“His sentences tend not to be decisive… he always sees a further possibility” (p.193) ✴

·  🔸 Shrinking from Fixity and Embracing Change:
Stevens shrinks from fixed truths, favoring the fluid, unstable states metaphor enables.

“A poet writes of twilight because he shrinks from noon-day” – Stevens (p.196) ✴

·  🔸 Resemblance as a Core Principle of Metaphor:
Stevens’s metaphors rely heavily on resemblance, which Donoghue critiques as too general to be philosophically sound.

“In some sense, all things resemble each other” – Stevens (p.198) ✴
“Similarity… is relative, variable and culture-dependent” – Nelson Goodman (p.199) ✴

·  🔸 Metaphor Intensifies Reality:
When it works, metaphor heightens our sense of reality, transforming the mundane into the sublime.

“It enhances the sense of reality, heightens it, intensifies it” (p.200) ✴
Example from Ecclesiastes: “The silver cord… the golden bowl… the wheel broken at the cistern” (p.200) ✴

·  🔸 Metaphor vs. Simile:
A metaphor demands total imaginative immersion, unlike simile which allows safe distance.

“A metaphor incurs resistance… and is indifferent to shame” (p.201) ✴

·  🔸 “X” as Final Resistance and Symbol of Limit:
Stevens’s “dominant X” represents the intractable world, the final, unchangeable reality metaphor fails to penetrate.

“Nothing in the poem defeats the final ‘X'” (p.206) ✴

·  🔸 No Final Word on Metaphor:
Donoghue concludes that Stevens’s relation to metaphor is inherently unstable. Each poetic mood shifts the meaning and function of metaphor.

“We can’t expect from Stevens a definitive statement about metaphor” (p.207) ✴
“In such seemings all things are. Metaphor… will do its transforming work another day” (p.207) ✴

• 🧠 Metaphor as Cognitive and Ontological Tool
  Donoghue elevates metaphor beyond ornamentation, presenting it as essential to how humans name, understand, and exist within the world.

“It ensures that nothing goes without a name” – Quintilian (p.182)

• 🌀 Poetic Language as Idealist Expression
  Stevens’s metaphoric thought aligns with Hegelian idealism, portraying metaphor as a spiritual act uniting inner consciousness and external reality.

“He woke in a metaphor: this was / A metamorphosis of paradise” (p.189)

• 🎨 Metaphor as Aesthetic Resistance
  Metaphor becomes a form of imaginative protest against oppressive, fixed realities—”the weight of primary noon.”

“The motive for metaphor, shrinking from / The weight of primary noon” (p.186)

• 🔧 Engagement with Classical Rhetorical Tradition
  Through references to Aristotle, Fontanier, and Quintilian, Donoghue reinterprets rhetorical devices like allegory, catachresis, and simile.

“Allegory is its narrative form… Catachresis is the figure of its abuse” (p.185)

• 🧩 The ‘X’ as Limit of Language and Metaphor
  The “dominant X” in Stevens’s poem marks the threshold where metaphor fails—where language can no longer transform reality.

“Nothing in the poem defeats the final ‘X'” (p.206)

• 🗣️ Rhetoric as Anthropological Necessity
  Donoghue, citing Blumenberg, reframes rhetoric not as persuasion but as an existential necessity driven by human lack and insufficiency.

“The axiom of all rhetoric is the principle of insufficient reason” (p.184)

• 📖 Validation of Radical and ‘Abused’ Metaphors
  Defending even bizarre metaphors like “bisqued mountain,” Donoghue legitimizes catachresis as a productive, imaginative force.

“To speak of ‘forced metaphor’ is not to degrade its manifestations” (p.185)

• 🔍 Critique of Resemblance as Metaphoric Ground
  Donoghue challenges Stevens’s assumption that resemblance is natural, invoking Nelson Goodman’s view that similarity is culturally constructed.

“Similarity… is relative, variable and culture-dependent” (p.199)

• 🧬 Metaphor as Creative Ontology
  Metaphor does not just reflect reality—it makes it. It is a poietic act that creates new ways of seeing and being.

“Metaphor creates a new reality from which the original appears to be unreal” (p.188)

• 📜 Interplay of Modernist Certainty and Postmodern Ambiguity
  Donoghue highlights Stevens’s shifting moods and refusal to settle on a singular metaphoric theory—an openness aligning with postmodern literary theory.

“We can’t expect from Stevens a definitive statement about metaphor” (p.207)

• 🧩 Overreliance on Stevens’s Poetic Authority
  Donoghue hinges much of his theory on Wallace Stevens, potentially narrowing metaphor’s scope across diverse literary traditions.
  ➤ Critics might argue that using one poet’s temperament to frame a general theory of metaphor limits its broader applicability.

• 🔄 Philosophical Inconsistency
  The essay oscillates between idealism and skepticism, invoking both Hegelian unity and postmodern ambiguity without fully reconciling the two.
  ➤ “We can’t expect from Stevens a definitive statement about metaphor” (p.207) may reflect this unresolved tension.

• 🎨 Romanticization of Metaphor
  Donoghue tends to elevate metaphor to near-mystical status, emphasizing its aesthetic and existential powers while underplaying its structural or political dimensions.
  ➤ This limits metaphor’s role in critical discourse, including feminist, postcolonial, or ideological critiques.

• 📏 Neglect of Formal and Linguistic Precision
  Critics may find Donoghue’s acceptance of vague terms like “resemblance” too generous, despite his citation of Nelson Goodman’s challenge to that notion.
  ➤ He critiques Stevens but doesn’t fully abandon slippery conceptual terrain, potentially undermining analytical rigor.

• 🧠 Underuse of Contemporary Linguistic Theory
  While Donoghue engages with classical and continental thought, he gives minimal attention to modern cognitive or conceptual metaphor theory (e.g., Lakoff & Johnson).
  ➤ This makes the work more philosophically poetic than practically linguistic or interdisciplinary.

• 🌐 Limited Cultural Range
  The examples and allusions are primarily Western, white, male, and canonical, raising concerns about inclusivity and broader relevance in global poetics.
  ➤ There’s little engagement with metaphor in non-Western traditions or contemporary marginalized voices.