Łukasz Talaga

The book „The World of Omnipresent Metaphor” takes one through the vast and fascinating realm
of metaphor. As it is stressed already in the introduction, the book does not constitute a systematic
presentation of the matter. The author has concentrated upon only some of the issues that figurative
language brings with itself, precisely upon the ones that are deemed significant from the linguistic
standpoint, although the author is keen on remarking that metaphor is not a linguistic phenomenon
exclusively, but also e.g. a philosophic question. The book also aims at showing how metaphor was
perceived in the past and how it is seen currently, sketching out the route that reflection on metaphor has
covered from ancient times until the present day. The book, however, is focused mainly on the historical
factor, thus not stressing that much the current views on metaphor.
The journey starts from the very roots, namely from Aristotle and his views on ancient rhetoric.
Aristotle’s views on metaphor proved very vital in the course of reflection upon it. They were so vital
that for many centuries afterwards they still were believed to be the correct and natural ones. Aristotle’s
approach serves as a role model for later reflection on metaphor. Aristotle in his works Rhetoric and
Poetics was much concerned with art, understood as imitation of reality. Language was then a part of
art, and it was a tool for cognizance of the universe, and-what is more important- for presenting reality,
imitating it (mimesis). One of the artistic devices used to imitating reality was metaphor. Metaphor has
been in use in rhetoric acts, as a manner of persuasion. It had to be, though, in conformity with the
decorum (appropriateness) rule, which came down to agreeing of both topic and style, hence it need
have been used in no small measure carefully. The Greek philosopher also provided “substitution” and
“comparison” views on metaphor. The former sees metaphor as transferring the name from one thing to
another. Thus, metaphor does not involve creating a new sense and meaning in the utterance, being
merely a substitution of the name. What you say is not determined by how you say it. According to
Aristotle, metaphor might be used in rhetoric speech to persuade or to enrich our language and make it
stand out. The latter view has it that metaphor is a shortened comparison, which bestows comparandum
(i.e. what you compare) with some qualities of comparans (i.e. what is being compared to) . This
chapter mentions also usage of two devices akin to metaphor: metonymy and synecdoche. In essence,
Chapter 2 shows that Aristotle and his classical rhetoric saw metaphor as a rhetoric figure used to name
things, which adds a figurative meaning to meaning of a given name, apart from the literal one.
Chapter 3: Plato, Vico and the Tradition of Romanticism offers us the romantic understanding of
the matters of language. That view includes works of two figures: Johann Gottfried Herder and
Giambattista Vico. The first gentleman claimed that language is the outcome of social development of
the humans, and that it is connected with metaphorical thinking. The latter perceived language as a way
for transferring our observations and sensations into reality. Subjective sensations were then seen as the
key for describing the world around us. Romantic philosophers also found poetic language (including
metaphor) superior to everyday speech.
The next chapter brings a milestone in the perception of metaphor. In Chapter 4: Ivor Armstrong
Richards; “The Philosophy of Rhetoric” we take a leap from ancient times to the 1930s, when I.A.
Richards came up with his revolutionary theory of metaphor. What could have been so innovative in his
approach? Richards broke off with the above-mentioned classical view on metaphor proposed by
Aristotle. Classical rhetoric regarded metaphor as nothing more than a device which was meant to
substitute one word for another. This narrowed metaphor to an issue of words as such exclusively.
Meanwhile, Richards saw metaphor as a problem of larger structures. He argued that a word will not
carry a metaphorical meaning unless included in a larger phrase. Putting it another way, a word analysed
in isolation may have only its literal meaning, and will gain metaphorical sense when we use it so as to
state something of a person or an object. Richards’ contribution to the view on metaphor was
transferring its issues from word semantics to sentence semantics. He stated that metaphor is not a
question of labelling, but of creating a new sense. Richards’ theory was to a certain extent inspired by
structuralism, embodied in the works of Ferdinand de Saussure. Saussure distinguished langue- an
abstract system of linguistic knowledge and competence, and parole- the actual realisation of langue , as
being complementary to each other, though opposing. Another point introduced by Saussure was that of
meaning. Ancient rhetoric presented meaning as an invariable and intrinsic feature ascribed to a
linguistic unit (a word) . Saussure viewed the meaning of a word in terms of its usage. In other words,
the meaning of a word can be seen as interaction and the common denominator of all its proper usages
and contexts.
In his “interaction” theory of metaphor, Richards includes two major terms applicable to the
words being the “ingredients” of metaphor: tenor as what is stated about and vehicle being what you use
to state about the tenor. In this respect, metaphor is conceived not so much as relation between two
words, as peculiar tension between two possible interpretations of an expression as created by both tenor
and vehicle. Metaphor is the interaction and coexistence between the literal meaning represented by the
tenor, and the metaphorical one triggered by combining it with the vehicle. What is also significant here
is our interpretation of that interaction.
Chapter 5: Max Black and the Contemporary Version of the Interaction Theory draws our
attention to quite an important aspect of figurative language, which makes one of the paradoxes
concerning metaphor. Namely, metaphor consists of standard elements of a lexicon, put together in
compliance with standard code. In effect, we are given a non-standard “product”- metaphor. The chapter
sketches some restrictions so as to the methods of creating and using metaphorical expressions, as not
all the metaphors that emerge are acceptable widely. Each speaker of a language may make use of
words as he or she likes, however in conformity to the linguistic rules, usage of the words, context,
purpose of utterance and- most of all- to whether the receiver of a given utterance would accept our
expression as metaphor, not as an absurd.
In Chapter 5 we also get the viewpoint of Max Black, who picked the interaction theory of I.A.
Richards. Black followed Richards in recognising above-named tenor (the main topic) and vehicle (the
supplementary topic) . Black did add some novelties as well, like some new terminology. He recognised
focus as the word used with a metaphorical meaning, and frame as the literal context. He also introduced
terms emphasis to refer to that aspect of metaphor which makes it comprehensible and accurate, and
resonance to the potency of metaphor to be interpreted in many ways.
The most important innovation in Black’s theory was so-called implicative complex, i.e. a system
of implications that we can get from analysing the supplementary topic of a metaphor. The meaning(s)
of a metaphor can be now revealed by putting those implications on the main topic. This is the
interaction dimension in Black’s approach.
In Chapter 6 we get acquainted with the theory of George Miller. His theory is worth noticing as
being one of few theories continuing the classical ancient approach. This time, we get an insight into the
theory from the psychological viewpoint. Miller comes up with a suggestion that interpreting a text
input creates certain images in our minds. Human mind also exploits some “models of the world” that
we bear in our minds. When reading a text, we select some models and narrow our choice as we go
through consecutive sentences. Such comprehension of a text, being a common ground for creating
images and selecting suitable models of reality was called by Miller the “text sense synthesis” . We
need stress here that models of the world as presented in the text will not always agree with the reality-
in other words, something true in the real world may not be true in the actual text. The receiver of such
constructed text is true as in the world model from the text. Finding some analogies between the model
and the reality involves the ancient notion of metaphor as a shortened comparison.
Miller distinguished three types of metaphor: nominal metaphor, predicative metaphor and
sentential metaphor.
According to Miller, any new element in the text is ascribed to an existing cognitive structure in
our mind. Comparisons are here the intermediaries between structures and metaphors.
The next chapter: Roman Jakobson reveals yet another approach to the problem of metaphor and
metonymy. According to Jakobson, each linguistic unit is connected with other units that may be
possibly used instead of it in the actual utterance (as we have to make some decisions as for the words
we use while we construct utterances). Jakobson distinguishes paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations
of sense. Paradigmatic relation is the process of selecting appropriate words, which then are put together
into a larger structure in accordance with the syntagmatic relation of sense.
Jakobson made some research on people with neurological disturbances. It turned out that they
had problems in dealing with either paradigmatic or syntagmatic relations. As these two relations may
be described in terms of metaphor and metonymy the most accurately, it was proved that neurological
illnesses affecting human brain have an effect upon using metaphor and metonymy.
In chapter 8: John Searle and Speech Act Theory we go on to something yet new. J.L. Austin
proposes that when we utter a sentence, we perform an act. In some cases, we perform an activity apart
from simple uttering. So –called “speech act theory” presents each sentence as consisting of three
separate acts, connected with each other. These are: locutionary act- uttering a certain sentence,
illocutionary act- “performing” a certain activity with that locutionary act, and finally, perlocutionary
act, which comes down to provoking a certain effect on the receiver of the utterance as planned.
Such division brought with it a totally novel look on the sentences and utterances. Sentences were
meant to be a semantic abstract creation, whereas an utterance, which is the realisation of the sentence
(i.e. saying it), gains some meaning on the basis of that sentence (not necessarily agreeing to what we
see in the sentence). The next division concerning that possible divergence distinguishes direct and
indirect speech acts. The former ones reveal a direct link between the locutionary act and so-called
“illocutionary force” . Meanwhile, the latter ones show no clear or not complete agreement between the
locutionary act and illocutionary force. In this case, we face a paradox- when using indirect speech acts,
the speaker conveys a different meaning from that which can be inferred from the sentence ascribed to
the utterance. The thing is how it is possible that we understand clearly what the speaker means even
when performing an indirect speech act.
According to Searle, only an utterance can have a metaphorical meaning. It is wrong to speak
about two meaning of a sentence, as a sentence is only an abstract thing created by means of syntax.
When we ask about metaphorical meaning, we may only ask about the meaning of the utterance and the
actual purpose of uttering it. Needless to say, only indirect speech acts may involve a figurative
meaning.
 In the light of that reflections, a person will not have any problems interpreting so-called literal
utterance. However, literal sentence has to be supported by a series of assumptions and presuppositions
based on our everyday knowledge, which in most cases is considered casual. The literal meaning of a
sentence defines some conditions of authenticity, which we may interpret only from our general
knowledge and context, not from the semantic properties of a sentence.
As for metaphor, Searle criticises both theory of metaphor as a shortened comparison and the
interaction theory. Searle argues that the two are wrong in that the presuppose the change in meaning of
at least one element of a metaphor. This is a result of lack of distinction between the code meaning of a
sentence and the intentional meaning as conveyed by the sender. Metaphorical speaking does not
involve changing the meaning of a word, but giving it a new sense as intended by the speaker. Searle
believes that metpahor cannot be identified with comparison, as the two have different, distinct
conditions of authenticity.
Searle's own understanding of metaphor in a sense comes down to the question: “In what way
does one thing remind us of another?” He thinks that two major features of metaphor are restrictiveness
and regularity- not every way in which one thing reminds us of another can be recognised as a
metaphor, and if we speak of metaphors, they need be comprehensible on the basis of common
knowledge of the speaker and the receiver. Searle relies on interpretation of a metaphor from the
viewpoint of the receiver. Searle also proposes a few steps in the process of interpretation, which help
distinguish literal speech from metaphorical speech.
Chapter 9: Herbert Paul Grice: Conversational Implicatures displays a considerable contribution
to the development of pragmatics introduced by H.P. Grice. His theory concerns how people use
language in conversations. Grice observed that our everyday speech exchange relies a lot on some
general rules which cannot be denied so as to communicate efficiently. Grice formulated so-called
cooperative principle and four maxims: (of quantity, quality, manner and relevance) which, in his
opinion, simplify the conversation and make it the most efficient possible. These rules shall be treated as
an agreement that may be violated. Breaching one of these rules imposes on the other interlocutor
interpreting the proper sense of the utterance by means of inferring so- called conversational
implicatures. In this respect, metaphorical speaking is conscious breaching the maximes as well as the
cooperative principle.
Grice stresses the pragmatic aspect of metaphor, which will not find metaphor as a semantic
content. Theories of metaphor should rather aim at explaining the paradox- how does it occur that the
receiver hears an utterance P and understands it smoothly as R. A sentence is seen as a purely semantic
content, an abstract thing, whereas pragmatics will account for interpreting the actual utterance. Besides,
Grice, following his predecessors, puts a strong emphasis on the role of the receiver in explaining the
meaning of utterances.
Chapter 10 reveals that ascribing metaphor to pragmatics is not so obvious as it may seem. Take
the example of reported speech, where- when we would like to discover the metaphorical meaning of a
reported utterance, we need to know the metaphorical meaning included in the direcet utterance. Of
course, the metaphor in the reported utterance would be the same as in the direct one. Thus it may be
concluded that the metaphorical meaning is not the meaning as intended by the speaker, but a constant
element already included in the sentence (remember the distinctions: sentence- utterance, langue-
parole) . So metaphor is here the very matter of langue , not parole. And that in turn stands in
opposition with the views presented earlier on the way by the author. Having that in mind, some
philosophers and linguists sought to find a model of text analysis omitting the role of both sender and
receiver and focusing only on the semantic aspect of a sentence. They also found so-called
componential analysis, which formalises the interaction theory implemented by Richards in a semantic
way. In this respect, for an utterance to be acceptable, all components in a given phrase need agree to
each other semantically. Here, metaphors are interpreted in the same way as for the literal utterance- it is
about choosing the most suitable, resulting from the context, meaning of each word in the phrase.
Chapter 11 goes on to cover yet another aspect of the matter. The chapter touches the utmost
important issues of denotation and connotation. These terms cast a light of distinction on the definition
of a word and its contextual meaning, its content. These terms shall be looked into with a regard to the
cultural aspect, as denotations will be all the same, yet connotations, as being the whole of associations
around a given word, are bound to vary between different cultures, and rely a great deal on common
background knowledge. Also metaphors can sometimes be understood fully only within a certain culture
or community. The author draws our attention to a very important thing- that metaphorical language on
the one hand employs our general knowledge of world, and on the other hand the knowledge of the
language used in certain speech communities. The chapter mentions also such phenomena as catachresis
and synesthesia. The former one is a kind of metaphor, involving transferring the name of an object or
activity to another, which as yet hasn’t had its own proper name (so this is metaphor understood in the
original sense, the one of Aristotle). The latter involves transferring words describing sensorial
experiences from one to another, e.g. from tactile to olfactory.
The last two chapters present a considerable shift in perceiving metaphor. Metaphor begins here to
be seen not so much as a linguistic subject as the issue of human mind and perception of the world.
According to M. Reddy, communication is conveying meanings included in words. Communication is
conceived as a process of sending meaning. Reddy enclosed his understanding of metaphor (conduit
metaphor) in such words: “Ideas (meanings) are objects, linguistic expressions are containers,
communication is sending” . Sending concerns these containers with objects to the receiver to open it
and figure out the meaning. G. Lakoff and M. Johnson come up with coginitive linguistics and the
notion of conceptual metaphor. They were interested not so much in concrete metaphorical expressions
as in metaphorical thinking and outlook. They claimed that if language is the creation of people, it is a
reflection of their way of thinking and conceptualisation of the world. Cognitive lingustics assumes that
humans conceptualise reality in terms of so-called “conceptual metaphors” (e.g. “time is money” ) ,
which are internally consistent and constitute a system of thought. There is also mentioned the use of so-
called ontological metaphors, which conceptualise images, feelings, actions etc. in form of objects. In
this way, the author manages to present that the world we live in is really the world of omnipresent
metaphor.