After spending 1.5 years working on this project, my thesis is finally complete! This journey has been a really rewarding experience, and I am very excited to have the opportunity to share my work with you. I hope you enjoy what I have written, and can learn something from it!
P.S. Apologies for where the text is formatted weirdly. This is how the word document pasted into the blog post, and I do not know how to change it. This mainly occurs in Part II during my discussion of Aristotle. Apparently WordrPress does not like Aristotle’s theory of metaphor.
The Power and Purpose of Metaphor:
Making the Abstract Concrete and Visual
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
Honors in
Philosophy
Emily Callahan Perkins
Advisor, Eugen Baer March 28, 2013
I would like to dedicate my thesis to Dean Eugen Baer, who I have had the great pleasure of learning from and conversing with during my four years at Hobart and William Smith Colleges
And
To my father, who has always been there for me as both my personal editor and life coach. Without his endless guidance and support I know I would not be where I am today.
Introduction
The improvement of understanding is for two ends: first, our own increase of knowledge; secondly, to enable us to deliver that knowledge to others.
– John Locke
The traditional theory of metaphor, which has persisted for twenty-five hundred years in the philosophical and literary tradition, treats metaphor as irrelevant to fundamental questions about the nature of the world and knowledge of it, but these traditional views must be challenged. Today, we live in a society with a great degree of social organization, and we continually communicate abstractly through the use of facial expressions and bodily gestures, as well as through the use of tropes, non-literal verbal extensions, specifically metaphors. Metaphors are unavoidable because they are built right into our language. In fact, they may be humanity’s primary mode of mental operation.
This paper is broken into three main sections, each of which works through various philosophical theories to try and answer the question of why metaphors are cognitively important. The first section addresses human and language evolution, and explores possible theories of explanation for why humans use abstract language. When thinking about human communication it is easy to understand why the first humans would have developed a word for “water,” or “poison.” This terminology was necessary in order for human ancestors to identify tangible objects, fulfill basic needs and keep out of harm’s way. However, language development did not end here. This same system of symbols continued to evolve, due to the pressures that will be addressed below, and gave rise to a higher level of communication that articulates abstract and intangible thoughts and ideas. The big questions seeking an answer in this section are, “why did human communication not stop at the basic level?” and “what was the language system trying to keep up with?”
I argue that this cognitive shift occurred when humans began to develop a wider and deeper array of needs, an evolvement from less biological to more psychological needs. Social interaction is the pressure that selected for language, and when our ancestors began to use language, symbols were also created. These symbols set the whole process of language evolution in motion, and today, children automatically acquire a mastery of these abstract thinking skills. This paper supports the argument that children become linguistically and culturally competent members of their community through interactions with their caregivers and other members of their community. This shows that language is proven necessary to consciously perceive and understand how every single human experience plays a crucial role in defining one’s reality.
The second part of this paper develops the conclusion drawn in the first section, that metaphor is the foundation of our conceptual system. Metaphors are not merely stylistic, but are also cognitively important. Metaphors are pervasive in everyday life – not just in language, but in thought and action. The most important types of metaphors for understanding this concept are conceptual metaphors. Conceptual metaphors allow for us to understand and experience one thing in terms of another. A commonly seen conceptual metaphor is “argument is war”. This metaphor shapes our language in the way we view argument as a battle to be won. In debates, teams “attack” the weak points of their opponents’ arguments, and in the end one team “wins” and the other “loses”. These metaphors are not only prevalent in our language, but we perceive and act in accordance with them.
As section one points out, human language evolution has given rise to a language system that allows for humans to communicate about non-empirical concepts. Because of the close-knit relationship between metaphors and human cognition, people have the ability to communicate about abstract and intangible experiences. Metaphors facilitate the understanding of one conceptual domain, typically an abstract one, through expressions that relate to another, more familiar and tangible conceptual domain. For example, think of theories as buildings: we build a foundation for them, a framework, support them with strong arguments, hoping they will stand.
After gaining a higher understanding of how metaphors are important for the improvement of understanding at two ends – increasing our own knowledge and enabling us to deliver that knowledge to others – the paper moves into its third section. Here, the philosophy of education is introduced and theories about curriculum and the process of learning are explored. Metaphors are fundamental cognitive tools and become powerful and important when they shape and transform the classroom setting. When fitting, metaphor can successfully render the unfamiliar more familiar by helping to build ideas into structured wholes. It is in this sense that metaphor brings about learning.
It is important for educators to ask themselves, “What is education?” For example, is it centered on growth or production? One might argue that the best metaphor to use when thinking about education is “education is growth”, because this metaphor fosters the individuality and creativity of students. This is in contrast with “education is production”, which views students as mere objects being sent down an assembly line. This model results in educators playing a more passive role in students’ education, where teachers follow a structured curriculum and implement material that has already been set for the students to learn, rather than actively working to enhance their own curriculum, which could more effectively meet the individual needs of students.
The paper then moves on to explain how educators who have the best way to view the education system, can then strategize how to use metaphors in their teaching and learning environments. The usage of metaphor in the classroom can be a powerful pedagogical approach, specifically because metaphors help shape behavior. Curriculums which support and encourage the conscious usage of metaphors have been shown to enhance student learning through the increased retention of material by assisting with the understanding of complex ideas and topics. Metaphor allows for the teacher to convey a potentially unfamiliar concept by relating it to a concept all students are familiar with. This usage of metaphors as a teaching tool helps students recognize patterns and draw connections between ideas. When students are able to more easily comprehend the subject matter at hand, they can then pursue further interest and investigation of the subject matter. Metaphors in the classroom assist students of all socioeconomic backgrounds to succeed and grow as individuals. Students can better explain and understand themselves and those around them. Students can gain strategies to better reason, create, and explore in their surroundings. They can better perceive, interpret, and enhance their understanding of the unfamiliar.
The overall purpose of this paper is to stress how metaphors play a crucial role in influencing thought and shaping behavior. With a grasp of how the effective use of metaphors serves as an effective cognitive tool, we can develop strategies to change the education system to better nurture the growth of future generations.
Part I:
What is Language and Where Did it Come From?
Language is Culture. Culture is Language.
Introduction
Language is a key component of what it means to be human, and without an understanding of how human beings obtained language, it becomes impossible to explain and understand ourselves. Language evolution is part of human evolution, and it makes sense only if considered as a part of human evolution. “Language is what determines the meaning of words and signs and what combines them into meaningful wholes, wholes that add up to conversations, speeches, essays, epic poems, etc. Language goes beyond that even; it’s what makes your thoughts truly meaningful, what builds your ideas into structured wholes.”[1]
Niche Construction Theory
To begin to understand human language, it is important to ponder how humans have a communication system different from other animals. The main question to ask is: what selected for language? Different theories have been proposed, but one that seems plausible is the idea that our ancestor’s foraging strategies changed (Bickerton, p.155). Human ancestors were likely faced with two constraints: On the one hand, predators called for an increase in the size of foraging groups, for protection. However, foraging in large groups would have been less efficient for human ancestors because it would have been too hard to find enough food for everyone to eat in a relatively small area. This would have caused a strong selective pressure for them to break up into smaller groups. This adaptation would have caused language to develop out of a need for social control (Bickerton, p.159). Human ancestors had to develop a way to communicate with one another, and recruit members, to direct the group towards obtaining food.
This niche construction theory, the theory that recognizes animals themselves play a vital role to play in their own evolution, suggests how genes and behavior can change together (Bickerton, p.93). The animals modify their environments, and these modified environments select for further genetic variations in the animals (Bickerton, p.99). In the case of human beings, one of the main things gained over time is a large brain. Our need for language resulted in an increase in brain size (Bickerton, p.34). The first human ancestors, Australopithecines, had a brain size of about 400-550 cm3. Homo Habilis had a brain size of about 600-800cm3. The brain continued to increase in size, reaching a measurement of 800-1000cm3 in Homo Erectus and then 1100-1500cm3 in Homo Sapiens.[2] Brain size increased as the need for a more developed communication system grew. Simple gestures and speech sounds moved to the articulation of words, which resulted in the need for a larger and more specialized brain.
The human brain developed to be able to receive information from the senses, send it to be analyzed for identification, choose a course of action based on the analysis, and then send an order to execute that action (Bickterton, p.193). Language seems to have developed out of a means to “transcend our isolation and have some sort of connection with one another,” which was much simpler when communication was simply for survival. [3] Once humans were able to easily achieve basic needs (biological, physiological and safety) they began to develop greater needs, growth needs (cognitive, aesthetic, and self-actualization).
In order for humans to reach the greatest level of personal potential and self-fulfillment, a more specialized system of language – a system of language that allows for one to relate intangible ideas with tangible things became required. A more specialized system of language, a symbolic language, allows for humans to more readily communicate about non-empirical concepts (e.g. mental states). For example, humans came up with a word for ‘water’, or ‘lion’, words necessary to understand in order to fulfill basic human needs and keep out of harm’s way.
Language becomes more complicated when this same system of symbols is used to communicate abstract and intangible things people are experiencing. For example, what is ‘frustration,’ or ‘anger,’ or ‘love’? These sounds leave one’s mouth and hit another person’s ear, then travel through a byzantine conduit in their brain and through personal memories of love or lack of love, and are registered, and the listener responds to the speaker by saying she understands (Waking Life). But how can the speaker know these concepts have actually been understood? After all, they are just symbols. Much experience is intangible; so much of what is perceived cannot be expressed, and yet, when people communicate with one another a connection is felt, and each person believes she really understands another person’s unique emotions. Humans live for this feeling of ‘spiritual communion,’ even if it is transient (Waking Life).
Design Features of Human Communication
To better understand the complexity and uniqueness of human language, it helps to look at some of the communication system’s design features. Language has various design features that distinguish human communication from that of animals, which therein identifies how language experiences are embedded in a rich and intricate social context. Through an understanding of these complex features, one can see how the growth of human consciousness comes from human interaction with nature. Charles F. Hockett outlines sixteen features that characterize human language and distinguish human language from other animal communication systems. Even the most basic human languages contain all these features. It was Hockett’s belief that the first nine features are characteristics of communication held by all primates, and then the last seven features are what set human language apart from all other forms of communication. Below is a list of all sixteen features, followed by a brief explanation of what each feature is:
- Vocal-Auditory Channel: refers to how spoken language is produced in the vocal tract and is transmitted and heard as sound. This is in contrast to sign language, which is produced with the hands, and transmitted by light. The majority of human languages occur in the vocal-auditory channel as their basic mode of expression.
- Broadcast Transmission and Directional Reception: refers to the fact that the human language signal is sent out in all directions, while it is perceived in a limited direction.
- Rapid Fading: means the human language signal does not persist over time. The speech waveforms fade rapidly and cannot be heard after they have faded. This is why it is not possible to say “hello” and have someone hear it at a later point in time. Sounds can only be recreated at a later time through writing and audio-recording.
- Interchangeability: refers to the speaker’s ability to both receive and broadcast the same signal.
- Total Feedback: refers to an individual’s ability to hear and internalize a message he has sent.
- Semanticity: refers to the idea that speech sounds can be linked to specific meanings, a fundamental aspect of all communication systems.
- Arbitrariness: there is not necessarily a connection between the form of the signal and the thing being referred to.
- Discreteness: the basic units of speech can be categorized as belonging to distinct categories.
- Specialization: speech is produced for communication, not for some other function.
- Displacement: refers to the fact that once humans developed structural language, humans were able to think conceptually and abstractly.
- Productivity: refers to the human ability to create new messages through the combination of already-existing signs.
- Traditional Transmission: identifies the fact that all languages are learned in social groups. While humans are probably born with an ability to create language, language is something that must be learned from others. This is different from many animal communications where the animal is born knowing their entire system. For example, bees are born knowing how to dance, and some birds are born knowing their species particular bird-songs.
- Duality of Patterning: means the discrete parts of a language can be recombined in a systematic way to create new forms. For example, the English word “cat” is composed of the sounds [k], [æ], and [t], which are meaningless when they stand alone. However, they can be combined to form different words, such as “act” and “tacit,” which have distinct meanings. These individual sounds are called phonemes, and represent the lowest level in the hierarchy of speech organization. The various patterning of these speech sounds allow for the expression of a potentially infinite number of meaningful language sequences.[4]
- Prevarication: refers to a person’s ability to say things that are completely false, a deception that is not common among other animals
- Reflexiveness refers to humanity’s ability to communicate about communication.
- Learnability: refers to the ability for native speakers of one language to go out and learn how to speak another language. [5]
One can see from the above features that once humans developed structural language, humans were able to think conceptually and abstractly; humans were no longer trapped in the here and now. One unique and positive design feature of language is displacement; “humans can talk about something that is far removed in time or space from the setting in which the communication occurs” (Salzmann, p.35). For example, one can describe in great detail what happened on the day the Declaration of Independence was signed, even though this occurred more than 200 years ago. Humans also have the ability to talk about what they want to be doing twenty years from now, including where they wish to live or what job they want to have.
However, while the unique design features of language have their effectiveness, language also makes human communication and social relationships problematic. Another unique feature of human language is prevarication; a person has the ability to say things that are completely false, a deception that is not common among other animals (Salzmann, p.36). By the time children turn three-years-old, about 70% of them are capable of lying.[6] Then, by age four, their rate of lying will peak when they are told not to lie. Young children lie about their actions, but not about their feelings. At age ten, their lying is more sophisticated, and cheating becomes more common (Lying).
People lie mainly to dodge trouble, to make themselves look good, or to avoid discomfort to others; it is a means of preserving social relations. Think about the role of ‘white’ lies: people compliment friends or family members on their inedible cooking, praise colleagues’ weak and disorganized first drafts, and a doctor may tell a depressed patient he has a 50-50 chance of a long-term recovery when she is confident he will only live another eight months. While at times these lies may seem harmless, these situations allow one to see how language can change one’s life. Lying is perceived as morally wrong, and while perfect honesty may seem second best next to compassion, respect, and justice in certain situations, it must be remembered that, as Immanuel Kant states, all people are born with an “intrinsic worth.” Lying corrupts a human beings ability to make free, rational choices and lies rob others of their freedom to choose rationally; it robs people of their human dignity and autonomy. [7]
Again, it is reiterated that social interaction provided the pressure that selected for language, and when our ancestors began to use language, symbols were also created. These symbols set the whole process of language evolution in motion. As language evolved, the human brain became bigger and more specialized. With specialization came the ability to consciously perceive and understand how every single human experience plays a crucial role in defining one’s reality.
One must not be a passive observer in one’s own life, because in being passive, one is sleepwalking through her waking life; she is going to miss the majority of things the world has to offer, which when missed causes one to live a life without purpose. Everything one sees or hears in one’s surroundings is specific to the individual; how one chooses to focus her concentration is what creates a subjective perspective, and this perspective is what shapes each human being. “Our niche gave us language, language gave us intelligence, but only the wise use of that intelligence can keep us free and fully human” (Bickerton, p.249).
“Certain ways of speaking the same language may differentiate men from women, the young from the old, the poor from the rich, and the like” (Salzmann, p.244). Benjamin Lee Whorf set forth a double principle to further explain: the principle of linguistic determinism (the way one thinks determines the language one speaks), and linguistic relativity (differences among languages must therefore be reflected in the different worldviews of speakers) (Salzmann, p.54). Because the world can be seen through different lenses and interpreted in multiple ways, the people, gestures, and moments each individual experiences create one’s own reality.
Dell Hymes’ S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G Model
“Language makes us free as individuals but chains us socially.”[8] The social rules of language often force human beings to respond in certain ways. Dell Hymes’ mnemonic device, S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G (for setting and scene, participants, ends, act sequence, key, instrumentalities, norms and genre) helps us look at the complexity of speech events (e.g. interview, telephone inquiry, dialogue, confession to a priest, etc.). His model enforces the notion that to speak a language correctly, not only does one need to learn its vocabulary and grammar, but one also needs to learn the context in which words are used; speech does not occur in a vacuum, but within a specific context.
“Setting refers to the time and place of a speech act and, in general, to the physical circumstances.”[9] Settings will vary from one instance to the next, even if the events are the same kind, but the variation has culturally recognized limits (Salzmann, p.249). For example, asking a friend if he wants to go out for drinks after watching a baseball game on a Friday night is an appropriate invitation; however, inviting a friend to a bar during a church service is inappropriate. Hymes distinguishes between setting and scene by designating scene as the “psychological setting” (Hymes, pp.55-56). One can imagine the identical setting and participants, but completely different scenes: for example, the announcement of a co-workers pregnancy versus the announcement of a fatal accident in a conference room. Setting and scene demonstrate how the context of situation matters.
The next component, participants, includes not only the sender of a message and the receiver, but anyone who perceives the message (Salzmann, p.248). The characteristics of the participants: age, gender, ethnic affiliation, relationship among participants, social status, degree to which they are acquainted, and other factors influence communication (Salzmann, p.248). For example, the utterance, “There aren’t enough chairs” to one’s wife means ‘Wow! I am popular;’ but to a janitor it means, ‘Go get some more chairs’ (Clark, p.277). To understand meaning requires knowledge of social statuses, privileges and duties of both speaker and listener.
Ends, the next component, is purpose of communicative behavior. “An individual may make an offer or a request, threaten or plead, praise or blame, invite or prohibit some action, reveal or try to conceal something” (Salzmann, p.249). Often more times than not, one’s goal determines how one speaks and acts. For instance, if Jill wants Jack to attend a party with her, she might say to him, “Even Bob is going.” The presupposition is that if Bob is going, then everyone is going, and therefore the person being spoken to should go. The manipulation is held in the word, even (Clark, p.286). Other forms of indirect request are used in giving compliments, commands, and asking questions (Clark, p.279). The problem with indirect requests is that they are often misunderstood. If someone says, “would you mind closing the window,” one is not seeking a yes or no answer, but is rather asking the receiver to shut the window. Someone of a different culture may not understand similar discourse routines.
Act sequence refers to the form and order of an event. Religious ceremonies have a specific sequential order. For example, a typical Episcopal Church Service looks like this: when one enters the church, one is greeted by an usher and given a service bulletin; one then sits in a pew and waits for the service to begin; the service begins with everyone standing and singing a hymn (usually there will be a procession consisting of acolytes, the choir, and the clergy); the priest then begins with a collect (a special prayer); following the collect, everyone sits for the first reading, a psalm, and a second reading; then, everyone stands for a hymn, and the Gospel reading; next everyone sits for the priest’s sermon; after the sermon comes the Nicene Creed, prayers, confession, and the exchanging of peace; this is followed by the communion; after communion the celebrant and congregation say a prayer of thanksgiving, and everyone stands for a recessional hymn; then the service ends with a dismissal to which the congregation replies, “Thanks be to God”. Attention to sequential structure demonstrates how discourse is not a meaningless string of words, but rather is interactional, and has intentions and purpose.
Key, also sometimes called frame, refers to what the participants in a face-to-face interaction are doing when they speak (Sauzmann, p.254). “Acts otherwise the same as regards setting participants, message form, and the like may differ in key as, e.g., between mock [and] serious or perfunctory [and] painstaking” (Salzmann, p.252). When studying language discourse it is important to pay attention to who is directing the mood, and how the mood is being controlled. Some words carry strong, emotional and social values, and failure to recognize such connotations can lead to offensive misinterpretation.
Instrumentalities refers to agencies of speaking and consists both of channels (the transmission of speech: oral, written, telegraphic, semaphore, etc.) and forms of speech (Hymes, p.58, p.60). With regard to channels, one must further distinguish modes of use. Among the Ashanti, the acoustic channel is diverse: Twi is their verbal language, characterized by give distinctive tones; the ceremonial language priests and priestesses use is a sub-code that Ashanti laypeople cannot understand; the language of the ghosts, cooing noises, is intelligible only to unborn babies and toothless infants; drum code, horn code, and gong code are used to convey messages and signals; and whistling is recognized as being used by the forest fairies and monsters who instruct the Ashanti’s medicine men (Salzmann, p.250). How something is being said is part of what is said.
Norms refers to the social rules that govern the event and the participants’ actions and reaction. Norms vary from culture to culture, and within a single society. If the society is socially or ethnically diversified, not all members are likely to use the same rules of interaction and the same norms of interpretation (Salzmann, p.252). When norms are shared, there is less room for misinterpretation and tension among individuals. For example, in a study done at the University of Colorado among male students from Arabic-speaking countries and male students from the United States, Michael Watson and Theodore Graves found that “Arabs confronted each other more directly than Americans when conversing…They sat closer to each other…[and] were more likely to touch each other…They looked each other more squarely in the eye…and…conversed more loudly than Americans…Persons from the various Arab countries [appeared to] be more similar to each other than to any regional group of Americans” (Salzmann, p.254). Due to the fact that American communicative behavior is different than that of various Arab countries, misinterpretation leads to misunderstanding
Lastly, Genre refers to the type of speech act or event. Members of a speech community recognize genres as having beginnings, middles, and ends, and as being patterned. For example, the end of a joke is the punch line, often a pun – typically this is a stupid response by one of the characters showing that the character is lacking in some basic social knowledge or one in which the social meaning of an utterance is ignored and its literal meaning is taken instead (Clark, p.277). An old Beetle Bailey cartoon illustrates a clear example: Sarge says to Zero “The wastebasket is full.” Instead of emptying the basket, Zero responds “Even I can see that” (Clark, p.277). This demonstrates how words can be taken at face value rather than their intended interpretation.
For Hymes, speech cannot be separated from the sociological and cultural factors that help shape linguistic form and create meaning. Language becomes complicated when symbols are used to communicate abstract and intangible things people are experiencing.
Conclusion
Each person is the author of her own life; an author, when writing a piece of fiction, creates a narrative thread. Particular elements and techniques of writing lead the created characters to have certain experiences and commit certain acts. These narrative threads weave the characters’ individual world views (cultural norms) together and create the overall story. Does the author ever place herself in the story? The fact that the author stops to read her work before continuing on to further develop the plot line is enough evidence to say yes, the author is placing herself in this fictional life. These same techniques can be applied to one’s waking reality. The people, gestures, and moments an individual experiences on a daily basis make one’s life story and shape one’s language. The way one perceives and speaks about life and the way sequences of events play out works the same way an author perceives how his novel will develop. In both situations one is aware of reality because one has a consistent perspective.
Language shapes world view, and studying human beings becomes a great challenge because there is no fixed reality; language is abstract, not concrete. Because language is symbolic, it is open to multiple interpretations, and to challenge one’s language is often to challenge someone’s perceived reality and personal identity.
Metaphors not only shape human communication, but shape the way humans think and act. In Part II we will see how because the primary role of language is to express and communicate basic truths about the world, metaphors are proven to be necessary.
Part II:
Communication Beyond the Literal Level
Symbols carry a life-enhancing ability, and when one is tuned in to what these symbols have to offer, the symbol becomes “pregnant with meaning” and shapes one’s reality
~ Anthony Stevens, Ariadne’s Clue: a Guide to the Symbols of Humankind
Introduction
Human societies communicate abstractly through the use of facial expressions and bodily gestures, as well as through the use of tropes, non-literal verbal extensions. Metaphor (a literary figure of speech that uses a tangible object to represent some intangible quality of one idea, in terms of another) is a major trope humans perceive and act in accordance with. Humans have the ability to communicate about abstract and intangible experiences because there is such a close-knit relationship between metaphors and human cognition. Metaphors help to synchronize mind and body, which is necessary for the conceptualization of the real; metaphors are necessary to render the unfamiliar more familiar. This higher level of cognition and intelligence keeps us free and fully human.
Metaphors may actually be people’s primary mode of mental operation. Because the mind experiences the world through the body in which it resides, people cannot help but conceptualize the world in terms of body perceptions. For example, physical and emotional states are entities within a person: “He has a pain in his shoulder;” “My cold has gone from my head to my chest;” and “Her fears keep coming back.” [10] Metaphors create individual realities and therein shape human communication. Without metaphors humans would not be able to reason, create, and explore; Humans would lose full ability to perceive, interpret, and enhance understanding of the unfamiliar. Without metaphors human minds would remain empty vessels, and would be unable to survive.
In this second section of my project, I will first explain two different theories of metaphor. The first theory is Max Black’s; the second, Donald Davidson’s. After I have presented both metaphorical accounts, I will explain why I believe Black presents a better analysis of metaphor and the function it serves in human communication. Then, I will transition from here into a detailed explanation of how the mind and body, the physical and mental essences, work together to shape the way humans think and act. The discussion will begin with Kant’s epistemological concept of “schema,” which is his method for applying pure concepts (categories) to sense impressions. Through an understanding of Kant’s theory, we can understand the rules that guide the construction of perceived and imagined images. After looking at Kant’s rules that guide visual perception, this paper will examine psychologist George Kelly’s construct theory, a theory of human cognition, which states that people develop constructs as internal ideas of reality in order to understand the world around them. They are based on individual interpretations of individual observations and experiences. Kelly’s theory informs us of why we need to have a way to construct meaning of the world around us. After Kelly’s theory has been assessed, I will explain the evolution of metaphor. This will begin with looking at the first theory of metaphor, which was proposed by Aristotle. Then, the relationship between abstract concepts, and perception and action will be explained by looking at the accounts of metaphor set forward by Mark Johnson and George Lakoff. The analysis of this philosophic account will demonstrate how metaphor underlies every mode of thought. The analysis of these different areas of thought should help in showing the role and importance of metaphor in human communication.
Analysis of Black and Davidson
There are multiple theories of metaphor, both in analytic philosophy and continental philosophy. This first section of Part II analyzes how metaphor has become of interest in analytic philosophy, specifically, the philosophy of language. The reason for this interest in metaphor is because metaphor does not conform to accepted truth-conditional semantics, the conditions that determine whether or not a statement is true. One theory of metaphor, the comparison theory, asserts that the truth value of metaphor can be expressed by listing every respect in which the two terms being compared are alike. For example, John-Donne wrote in his famous work, “The Sun Rising,” “She is all states, and all princes, I.” If one interprets this line literally, then it is false and nonsensical. However, interpreted metaphorically, it is meaningful and may be true. This line demonstrates the speaker’s belief that he and his lover are richer than all states, kingdoms, and rulers in the entire world because of the love they share.[11] However, by using comparison theory to try and fully explain the function of a metaphor, metaphor is recast as simile; metaphor ends up acting as a substitute for a formal comparison, rather than being recognized for having distinctive capacities.[12]
This is the criticism other analytical philosophers have given. Two accounts worth analyzing are contemporary accounts of philosophers, Donald Davidson and Max Black. While both philosophers believe it is a mistake to try and find truth conditions of a metaphor, they disagree in terms of what metaphor means. First, I will look at Donald Davidson’s theory of metaphor. Then, I will shift gears, and look at Max Black’s theory of metaphor. Then, I will propose both Black’s criticism of Davidson’s theory and Davidson’s criticism of Black’s theory. After both metaphorical accounts and both sets of replies have been given, I will explain why I believe Black presents a better explanation of what metaphor means and the function it serves in human communication, but I will emphasize why I believe this metaphorical account is not the best explanation of the role metaphor plays in human communication.
Donald Davidson defines metaphor as “the dreamwork of language” and believes that like all dreamwork, its interpretation reflects as much on the interpreter as on the originator.[13] Davidson claims there is no manual for determining what a metaphor “means” or “says” because metaphor “implies a degree of artistic success” (Davidson, p.31). The main argument Davidson makes is that metaphors are strictly literal and nothing more. He believes it is false to say metaphor has, in addition to its literal sense or meaning, another sense or meaning (Davidson, p.32). He objects to the idea of metaphor being an added form of communication alongside ordinary communication, because he does not believe a metaphor holds special meaning (Davidson, p.32). Davidson does not deny the idea of metaphor serving a purpose in language. He recognizes how a metaphor can be used to emphasize a point, but a metaphor depends on the original, literal meaning of a word whether or not it depends on new or extended meaning (Davidson, p.34). He claims metaphor is simply a linguistic device used to help people make comparisons. He uses T.S. Eliot’s poem, “The Hippopotamus,” to show how while the church resembles a hippopotamus, “imitation is not meaning” (Davidson, p.41). Metaphor is just used to get a message across. This does not mean it carries some second figurative meaning; “metaphor says only what shows on its face” (Davidson, p.43). The words in Eliot’s poem do not have special meaning, a specific cognitive content (Davidson, p.46). In summary, a “dream or metaphor can, like a picture or a bump on the head, make us appreciate some fact – but not by standing for, or expressing, the fact” (Davidson, p.46).
Now, turning and looking at Max Black’s philosophy, Black also criticized the comparison theory of metaphor by stating that metaphors are too open-ended to be able to function as referring expressions, and so metaphors cannot be expressions that have truth conditions.[14] A theory of metaphor must include more than matching similar features between two concepts. Metaphor actually creates insight or new meaning. Black’s theory, the interactionist theory, asserts that at the heart of a metaphor is the interaction between its two subject terms, where the interaction provides the condition for a meaning which neither of the subject terms possesses independently of the metaphorical context. The primary subject in a metaphor is colored by a set of ‘associated implications’ normally predicated of the secondary subject (Ortony, p.28). From the number of possible meanings which could result, the primary subject sifts the qualities predicable of the secondary subject, letting through only those that fit. This interaction process Black terms an ‘implication-complex’, a system of associated implications shared by the linguistic community as well as an impulse of free meaning, free in that it is meaning which was unavailable prior to the metaphor’s introduction (Ortony, p. 28). Black holds the idea that metaphorical statements are not a substitute for a formal comparison, but rather they have their own distinctive capacities and achievements (Black, p.284).
Black claims his interactionist view is free from the defects of substitution and comparison views and offers some important insight into the uses and limitations of metaphor (Black, p.285). He states in order for the receiver of a message to understand the metaphor being communicated, one must be aware of the extension of meaning. Black gives the example of the statement, “Man is a wolf.” Here there are two subjects – the principal subject, man, and the subsidiary subject, wolf (Black, p.286-87). Now, what is not important is the standard dictionary definition of wolf. Rather, what is important is what Black refers to as the system of associated commonplaces (Black, p.287). Interpretation in the literal sense would force the speaker to accept a certain speech community’s set of standard beliefs about wolves, which would not allow the metaphor to have an effect on the listener (Black, p.287). In order for the metaphor to be effective, the commonplaces must be freely and readily evoked. In the example of “man is a wolf,” the wolf-system of related commonplaces is evoked, which organizes the hearer’s conception of man – fierce, dangerous, and aggressive. In summary, metaphor, in Black’s view, should not be thought of as reducible to a comparison between two things. Metaphors have the power of providing one with insight that a simple literal statement is unable to provide.
In response to Black’s interactionist theory of metaphor, Davidson thinks Black is wrong when he says, “The rules of our language determine that some expressions must count as metaphors” (Davidson, p.31). Davidson does not believe that our language contains any instructions for interpreting metaphors. Black claims that a metaphor makes us apply a system of commonplaces associated with the metaphorical word to the subject of the metaphor. Then, if paraphrase fails, it is not because the metaphor does not have cognitive content, but rather because the literal paraphrase fails to give the insight that the metaphor did (Davidson, p.44). Davidson does not understand how this can be right. He claims that if metaphor has a special cognitive content then it should not be so difficult to decode it; the metaphorical effect should not be weak (Davidson, p.44). In summary, Davidson does not disagree with the overall effects of metaphors, but rather with how metaphor is supposed to produce these effects. He does not believe metaphor has any kind of cognitive content. He finds Black’s view of metaphor working through other intermediaries to be a wrong interpretation. He thinks metaphors can help us appreciate some fact, but the metaphor itself does not express the fact (Davidson, p.46).
Black replies to Davidson’s account of metaphor, and states how he believes Davidson’s account can be reduced to the comparison theory.[15] Black claims that Davidson fails to explain how strong metaphors work to express and promote insight. While Davidson makes the point that he does not think extended metaphors can be complete, Black replies that he is not trying to claim that they are complete. Black does not disregard the fact that the interaction theory has weaknesses. In fact, he points out what he believes to be the theory’s chief weakness, which is the lack of clarification of what it means to say that in metaphor one thing is thought of as another thing (“How Metaphors Work,” p.142). Black recognizes that we lack an adequate account of metaphorical thought. However, he thinks we can come close to translation, and for this reason, he finds it wrong to reduce the meaning of metaphor to simile.
After looking at both Davidson’s and Black’s theories of metaphor, and looking at their replies to one another, I favor Black’s interaction theory over Davidson’s account of metaphor. I agree with Black that in thinking about metaphor, it is important to look at language and recognize there is a shift in meaning. Metaphors have some cognitive content, and therefore metaphors cannot be reduced to the literal level. Metaphors are often used when there is, in fact, no literal equivalent; they help “[plug] the gaps in a literal vocabulary” (Black, p.280). However, we are left without much clarification as to how metaphors work in this way. Black’s focus/frame explanation appears to make common sense, but yet we are unable to unpack the theory enough to explain how the focus directs which associated commonplaces are left to fall and which remain in the hearer’s “lens.”[16] It is important to acknowledge how metaphor gains its power through the effect it has upon the hearer by the speaker’s use.
Black’s theory proves to be a better account of metaphor than Davidson’s, but I do not believe Black’s interactionist theory is the best metaphorical account. If I had to state whose theory of metaphor I favor the most, I would say George Lakoff’s, because Lakoff’s account of metaphor, specifically his account of conceptual metaphor, demonstrates how humans perceive and act in accordance with metaphors. However, I do not want to dive into Lakoff’s full account of metaphor at this point, because I will discuss his theory later in this section. For now, it is only necessary to acknowledge that metaphors create individual realities, which shape human communication. Metaphors cannot be reduced to literal paraphrasing, because this is to dismiss their unique ability to express and promote insight. Without metaphors humans would not be able to reason, create, and explore. They would lose full ability to perceive, interpret, and enhance understanding of the unfamiliar. Without metaphors, human minds would remain empty vessels.
Synchronization of Mind and Body
Now, we need something more profound than Black’s interactionist theory to gain a greater understanding of how metaphors influence our thoughts and actions. Trying to understand material that is metaphysical in nature while we as humans exist as part of a seemingly empirical reality proves to be a struggle, but an understanding of Kant’s work can help. Immanuel Kant was among the most influential philosophers in the history of Western Philosophy who sought to answer some of the most fundamental metaphysical questions. His three fundamental questions were: “What can I know?” “What ought I to do?” and “What may I hope for?”[17] Kant believed that our knowledge is limited to mathematics and the science of the natural, empirical world. Kant’s basic problem was how to connect abstract concepts, the categories, with human knowledge, which was restricted by space and time. He needed a mechanism that would unify the categories with the empirical world, and he devised to this effect what is called the theory of transcendental schemata. [18] We can see in this theory the metaphysical foundation for a cognitive theory of metaphor.
It can be difficult to grasp the real meaning Kant intends to get across when analyzing his language and arguments, so in order to understand his schema theory, it is important to first give Kant’s conception of his critiques of metaphysics as a science, and then demonstrate how transcendental philosophy is the foundation of this critique, in that it provides an analysis of the nature and limits of human experience. It is from these two conceptions that Kant’s doctrine of schemata is developed.
Kant begins to explore his problem of defining knowledge by first describing certain claims as “a priori” (a claim that cannot be established by appeal to sensory observation or past experience, and a claim that is necessary and universal) and other claims as “a posteriori” (a knowledge claim based on the evidence of the senses, and hence is neither necessary nor universal).[19] An example of an a priori claim would be: “I am conscious of walking.” Such a claim needs to be proven by an a posteriori claim, a claim dependent on empirical evidence. The claim in this situation would be: “I am actually walking.” The proposition is proven in space and time by appealing to someone’s sensory experience of actually walking and not just being conscious of walking.
For Kant, the duality of these two claims marks the duality of the human situation. A priori claims without a posteriori confirmation remain noumena. A priori claims with a posteriori confirmation are phenomena. Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute our experience; noumena are the matters of pure consciousness, whose nature we do not really know. Phenomena and noumena are important concepts because for Kant, our knowledge can only come from sensory objects and our way of knowing objects, hence our knowledge is only of phenomenal objects; we cannot know anything of noumenal objects: “Without an object the concept has no sense and is completely empty of content, although it may still contain the logical function for making a concept from what data may come up” (Kant, A239).
Kant suggests that our conceptual thinking should be connected to sensory reality and that our sensuous experience should be subject to the organizing principles of the intellect. He claims that both understanding and sensibility are necessary for experience. These two faculties can yield objectively valid judgments of things only in conjunction with one another. It is in Kant’s chapter titled, “On the Schematism of the Concepts of the Understanding,” in his Critique of Pure Reason, where he explores how the conceptual framework of the categories is related to reality and how reality (as appearance) is organized and determined as the possible object of experience.
Kant lays a foundation for metaphorical theory by showing a connection between the categories and reality by means of the transcendental imagination. This type of representation, Kant’s schema theory, refers to rules the imagination follows to construct images. These images can be images we perceive, imagine, or remember. The schemata are thought to establish the homogeneity that is required between the categories and intuitions. It is through this process that we can ensure the categories have sense and significance. Think about this in terms of the analogy of a hand and a lump of clay. The hand represents the imagination; the lump of clay represents an image. How the hand shapes the clay, the rule that it follows in shaping the clay, is the schema.[20] The categories after having been “schematized” by the imagination are what apply here (Kant, B 179). Once schematized, concepts and sensory intuition share a common feature, which Kant calls homogeneity. All of our perceptions are composites of what is really there and what we expect to be there. By means of transcendental schemata, we experience a spatio-temporal world and the categories obtain an objective reality. For example, when it comes to time, the schema develops rules, that translate the concept of time into a forward moving line, and as I will later expand on with examples from Lakoff and Johnson, this form of representation can be credited with making human cognition possible.
If Kant’s theory can be called a metaphysical theory of cognitive constructivism, we can then explore the structure he laid out in more contemporary psychological empirical terms. Continuing with the exploration of human cognition, we now can turn and look at psychologist George Kelly (1905-1967), who developed a theory of personality known as personal construct psychology, which focuses on the ways in which individuals construct and reconstruct meanings of their lives.[21] Both the theory and its associated methods help to provide novel means of conceptualizing, assessing, and treating psychological difficulties, which are defined as ways in which one’s constructions failed to provide a meaningful framework for anticipating events or articulating with the perspectives of others.
At the base of Kelly’s theory is the image of the person-as-scientist, a view that emphasizes the human capacity for meaning making, agency, and ongoing revision of personal systems of knowing across time. This means individuals, like scientists, are seen as creatively formulating constructs about their lives in attempt to better understand and even predict them to a certain extent.[22] It is easy to become overwhelmed by life’s continual flow of events, and it is by breaking down the endless flow of experience into coherent units that allows people to determine similarities and differences of events in terms that are both personally significant and shared by relevant others.
Meaning becomes a matter of contrast – an individual attributes meaning to an event by not only recognizing what it is, but by differentiating it from what it is not (Bridges). For example, one can think about constructs such as ‘liberal vs. conservative,’ ‘pro-life vs. pro-choice,’ pro-death penalty vs. anti-death penalty.’ These constructs provide a basis for self-definition and social interaction (Bridges).
Personal Construct Theory also places a strong emphasis on emotional experiences. These experiences are understood as signals of actual or impending transitions in one’s fundamental constructs for anticipating the world (Bridges). For example, an individual may experience depressive symptoms when there is change in their core structure of identity, which could happen in a situation where one faced rejection from their peer group.
In thinking about this theory, we recognize the complexity of our language system. Our language system is a symbolic one, which allows for us to communicate about abstract and intangible ideas. It is not a simple, one layered, linear process. Humans, in addition to communicating at the literal level, have the ability to transmit signals by means other than spoken or written words. They achieve this non-verbal communication through the use of facial expressions and bodily gestures, as well as through non-literal verbal extensions with a logical component, called tropes (Salzmann, p.265). Human beings appear to unconsciously use these non-literal methods of communication. In many instances, it appears evident that the body communicates more strongly than the mind, without the mind even being aware of the body’s innate power over reason. Human societies need this form of communication in order to represent the ways things in the world are; communication in the non-literal sense is a process of rendering the unfamiliar more familiar.
There are various forms of non-verbal communication Some forms include: paralanguage, which refers to sounds that sometimes do not have a written form (e.g. uh-huh means Yes, or I am listening); kinesics, or body language (e.g. eye contact); proxemics, which refers to how humans organize space (e.g. the intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering); haptics, which refers to the sense of touch (e.g. in Spain, people greet each other with two kisses on the cheek); chronemics, which refers to time (e.g. when in a relationship to say, I love you); and artifacts, or communication with objects (e.g. jewelry, bumper stickers, food, etc.) (Salzmann, p.265).
To begin to understand this non-literal sense of communication it helps to first analyze the role kinesics plays in human societies. This powerful form of communication involves body language, and the way this is used to portray moods and emotions. “Ritualized gestures – the bow, the shrug, the smile, the wink, the military salute, the pointed finger, the thumbed nose, sticking out the tongue, and so on – are not really nonverbal communication, because such gestures are just a substitute for the verbal meanings that are associated with them” (Clark, p.57). However, there are many spontaneous gestures and actions that are unconscious, and communicate a great deal; sometimes what a person is saying unconsciously by his actions directly contradicts what he is saying consciously with his words (Clark, p.57). The best way to understand how this form of non-verbal communication works is to think about how body language is interpreted when one goes into an interview. There are various types of body movement one can conduct, which can portray a person as confident or insecure, enthusiastic or lazy. For example, something as simple as a handshake with an interviewer says a lot. A good firm hand shake is associated with an open-minded, less neurotic and shy personality in comparison to a weak handshake.[23] Words prove to not be the only way to effectively communicate; body movement has interpretative meaning as well.
Now, looking beyond body language, it is important to also look at the use of tropes in human societies. Tropes include: metaphor, a literary figure of speech that uses and image, story or tangible object to represent a less tangible object or some intangible quality or idea (e.g. Life as journey: some of us travel hopefully, others seem to have no direction, many lose their way); simile, a figure of speech that directly compares two different things, using the words like or as (e.g. life is like a box of chocolates – you never know what you are going to get); metonym, a figure of speech in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept (e.g. the White House stands for the President); synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a term denoting one thing is used to refer to a related thing (e.g. executives being referred to as suits), myth, a traditional or legendary story; and metamorphosis (abrupt change in an animal’s body structure through cell growth and differentiation).
While the other types of tropes play important roles in human communication, metaphors can be viewed as people’s primary mode of mental operation. This is because of the major role metaphor plays in human reason. “Reason is not disembodied, as the tradition has largely held, but arises from the nature of our brains, bodies, and bodily experience” and this reason is “not purely literal, but largely metaphorical and imaginative.”[24]
The Evolution of Metaphor: Aristotle to Lakoff and Johnson
To figure out how metaphor evolved into a concept with multiple interpretations, it is necessary now to look at the first theory of metaphor, which was proposed by Aristotle.
Aristotle first confronts the issue of metaphor in the Poetics. The use of a metaphor livens up language. Aristotle expresses his account of metaphor in the following way: “Metaphor is the application of an alien name by transference either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or by analogy, that is, proportion”[25] Aristotle uses metaphor as a generic term: his first two types of metaphors are in fact synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a term denoting one thing is used to refer to a related thing (e.g. executives being referred to as suits). His third type of metaphor appears to more closely resemble a metaphor that later theorists choose to represent. However, Aristotle shifts gears when he reaches the explanation of his fourth type of metaphor. It is in this fourth type where he explains what a metaphor enables us to know.
Here, Aristotle’s entire classification system of metaphor will be looked at in order to fully understand the origin of metaphor. Once the origin of metaphor is understood, there will then be an exploration of what Aristotle reveals about more general conceptions of rhetoric and language.
The first type of transfer, from genus to species, is expressed in the example, Here lies my ship, where standing is the genus that contains among it the species lying at anchor (Poetics, 1457b1).[26] A general class of thing is used to refer to a smaller, more specific class. This first type of account does not seem very acceptable because two things are being named ‘synonymous,’ when, in fact, a genus is not sufficient to define a species. Here is a clearer example. Think about using the word animal to stand in for man. It seems insufficient to use the word animal in place of man because one could use the word animal to stand in for horse, dog, tiger, monkey, etc. The metaphor is rhetorically acceptable, but not logically acceptable (Eco, p.92).
Aristotle’s second type of metaphor appears more logically sound, but from the stand point of natural language, it sounds unconvincing (Eco, p.91).The example Aristotle gives of this type of metaphor is, Verily ten thousand noble deeds hath Odysseus wrought (Poetics, 1457b). Here, ten thousand stands in place for the word, many. The phrase has a hyperbolic tone in that it clearly emphasizes that ten thousand is considered a large quantity in this instance of human actions. This is why the phrase should not be taken literally. The problem with this type of metaphor is the fact that there are instances where the particular term used for exaggeration in one instance is actually scarce in quantity in another. For example, think of the common phrase, “This bag weighs a ton!” In this instance, the word ton is being used to make the point that the bag is very heavy. However, if one was to say, “This elephant weighs a ton,” the word ton is actually a small amount, since adult elephants can weigh between six to eight tons. It is for this reason that this type of metaphor is logically correct, but rhetorically insipid (Eco, p.92).
In regards to the third type of transfer, Aristotle gives this two-fold example: Then he drew off his life with the bronze and Then with the bronze cup he cut the water (Poetics, 1457b). Another translation would, in the second case, have a bronze sword cutting the flow of blood, or life (Eco, p.92). Here there are two examples of a passage from species to species: drawing off and cutting are both cases of the more general phrase, taking away. This is the way in which metaphor is typically explained by theorists today. Features are being shared between two typically unrelated subjects.
Metaphor: Making the Abstract Concrete and Visual 