Thema: comparative study of metaphor/metonymy metaphor: its definition, types and stylistic use

THEMA: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF METAPHOR/METONYMY

METAPHOR: ITS DEFINITION, TYPES AND STYLISTIC USE

1.Different definitions and types of metaphor. Metaphor in Literature and Language

Metaphor is a term that can mean a comparison of several objects, a rhetoric figure, a figure of speech, representation of one element using other one and all of this at the same time. There are different definitions of the term “metaphor”; one of them says that metaphor is a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance . Another definition of metaphor is a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity. According to Davidson, metaphor is the transference of the relation between one set of objects to another set for the purpose of brief explanation.

An aggregate metaphor (from the Greek: μεταφορά - metaphora, “a transfer”, in rhetoric “transference of a word to a new sense", from μεταφέρω - metaphero, "to carry over, to transfer”) is a language tool that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects. In the simplest case, this takes the form: “The [first subject] is a [second subject].” More generally, a metaphor is a rhetorical trope that describes a first subject as being or equal to a second subject in some way. Thus, the first subject can be economically described because implicit and explicit attributes from the second subject are used to enhance the description of the first. This device is known for usage in literature, especially in poetry, where with few words, emotions and associations from one context are associated with objects and entities in a different context.
Within the non rhetorical theory a metaphor is generally considered to be a concluded equation of terms that is more forceful and active than an analogy, although the two types of tropes are highly similar and often confused. One distinguishing characteristic is that the assertiveness of a metaphor calls into question the underlying category structure, whereas in a rhetorical analogy the comparative differences between the categories remain salient and acknowledged. Similarly, metaphors can be distinguished from other closely related rhetorical concepts such as metonymy, synecdoche, simile, allegory and parable.
The use of metaphor is a dynamic phenomenon which enables us to generate new meanings from old. This process can be illustrated with the phenomenon of metaphorical generalisation. The view that metaphor is a principal avenue by which language progresses is based on the perfectly reasonable assumptions that language has to start somehow, and its initial concerns would have been with items in a speaker’s immediate vicinity. A plausible origin myth is that the most primitive linguistic resources provided rudimentary verbal representations for solid sensible objects and for animal and (especially) human activities. Initially the resources of natural language would presumably have been fairly parsimonious. A problem consists in a question: how could the primitive linguistic resources, grounded in representations for sensible objects and expressions for basic activities, be extended to embrace the higher reaches of abstract thought that we now articulate through the rich resources of natural language. A fundamental mechanism for extending and refining language is metaphor.
We can consider the verb “run”. In its simplest and most basic sense it designates a human (and animal) activity. But through metaphorical extension it comes to be applied to objects which lie outside its basic reference class, such as rivers. The term began with a more limited scope or extension, and when talk first arose of rivers running it must have sounded bizarre. It might well have been objected, when the metaphor was green and fresh, that rivers cannot run: they have no legs. This is a banal example of so-called frozen (or dead) metaphor. Once metaphor freezes (or dies) it becomes an ordinary part of our literal vocabulary. So it comes about that rivers run, taps run and fences run, and they “run” in a way which has generalised the meaning of this expression.
When we speak of fences “running” around a boundary, for example, there is no suggestion of motion. The metaphor has generated a static sense of “running”. Running has acquired the sense of following a path. That has amplified one aspect of the original idea of running, and suppressed other elements. Running is a simple activity which involves putting one leg in front of the other in a certain systematic, sequential and rhythmic fashion. It is a basic activity, but one nevertheless with complicated aspects, and by abstracting certain elements of the activity we are able to produce a generalisation of the basic sense of the word.
Metaphorical extension in this way, starting from the modest beginnings of describing macroscopic objects and simple activities, forges and reshapes concepts and thereby modifies language so that it comes to embrace an ever wider and more complicated repertoire of referents and activities. This process or generalisation and abstraction is a plausible explanation of how it is that we are able to start off with a decidedly limited or restricted set of verbal resources and extend them further, and reshape and refine them, to cope with the ever more complicated world which these very resources help us to create.
Expressions surely must have a deep as well as a surface level. It is at the surface level that we recognize the falsehood of the metaphor, e.g. ‘Richard is a gorilla’. We apprehend immediately that this sentence is not literally true. Indeed if Kripke is right about the meaning of natural kind expressions, not only is Richard not a gorilla, he is necessarily not a gorilla. How can a necessarily false statement provide us with an interesting and possibly useful insight?
The answer presumably is that the words have complex structure, and this structure is revealed by the possibility of metaphorical use. Expressions may have a primary sense and a primary reference, but metaphorical use is able to activate secondary sense, and thereby generate a new extension for the expression. These subsidiary ideas and associations show that in addition to a primary sense and reference there is also a penumbra of additional associations or meanings. When the literal meaning is deactivated, because of the falsehood of the sentence, a switching happens and the secondary meanings latent in the penumbra are activated.
The penumbra of associated secondary meanings is extremely interesting. Suppose that Mabel is a gorilla in the local zoo. When we say that Mabel is a gorilla, the associated meanings do not intrude at all. But when we apply the description to the man Richard, something interesting happens. As soon as we apprehend that the description is literally false, which usually happens immediately and unconsciously, the expression becomes semantically charged with secondary meanings latent in the associated semantic penumbra. Metaphors work typically by activating these subsystems of associations described by Black, as a ‘system of associated commonplaces’.
Another interesting fact is that the associated commonplaces are often not literally true of the objects from which they are derived. To describe someone as a gorilla might be to suggest that they are large, clumsy, hairy, and perhaps unpleasantly fierce or aggressive. That is one possible interpretation of this metaphorical description. But, thanks to ethnologists such as Dian Fossey, we know that gorillas in fact are quite gentle creatures, and by no means clumsy. What is important for the effectiveness of the metaphor is not what is true about gorillas, but rather the associated conceptions, or misconceptions, about gorillas.
These commonplaces or associations have a habit of hanging around, even after the literal meaning has changed. To be in a political wilderness is not to be in a pristine, unspoiled place of great natural beauty. Even a person who knows what gorillas are really like, may use and understand that word metaphorically in a way which respects not the actual characteristics of gorillas, but the common prejudices that are associated with them.
There are, in short, commonplaces or connotations associated with a large number of expressions, and this constellation of associated ideas provides the semantic charge which explodes when the expression is used metaphorically.
Types of metaphor
Metaphor can be classified in a range of different ways, based on various criteria. As for the types of metaphor scientist came to agreement to divide it into two groups: common and uncommon. Each group consists of subtypes.
Common Metaphors:
An extended metaphor is one that sets up a principal subject with several subsidiary subjects or comparisons. For example:
‘Uncle Adrian lives too much with bones. The sight of red blood goes to his head.’ [16, p. 111].
In this example, the phrase 'red blood' means the priest's young nephews, and they are opposed to well-behaved parishioners and other priests of the parish, who are implied by the bones.
A mixed metaphor is one that leaps, in the course of a figure, to a second identification inconsistent with the first one. Example:
‘Clinton stepped up to the plate and grabbed the bull by the horn.’
Here, baseball and the activities of a cowboy are implied.
A dead metaphor is one in which the sense of a transferred image is not present. Example:
"to grasp a concept" or "to gather you've understood."
Both of these phrases use a physical action as a metaphor for understanding (itself a metaphor), but in none of these cases do most speakers of English actually visualize the physical action.
Dead metaphors, by definition, normally go unnoticed. Some people make a distinction between a "dead metaphor" whose origin most speakers are entirely unaware of (such as "to understand" meaning to get underneath a concept), and a dormant metaphor, whose metaphorical character people are aware of but rarely think about (such as "to break the ice"). Others, however, use dead metaphor for both of these concepts, and use it more generally as a way of describing metaphorical cliché.
An absolute metaphor or paralogical metaphor is one in which there is no ground. In other words, the vehicle and the tenor seem to have nothing in common. For example:
‘The duck is an onion.’
If it is a metaphor, which is in doubt, it is a far out metaphor. The absolute metaphor is not making an obvious comparison. Indeed, there is no apparent connection between the things being compared. This is just another way of saying that there is no common ground between the vehicle and the tenor.
Without this common ground, it only makes sense to use an absolute metaphor in a poetic way. At best, an absolute metaphor that resonates with some readers may feel like a non-sequester, or just plain goofy, to other readers.
Uncommon Metaphors:
An active metaphor is one that is not commonly used, and has therefore not become a cliché. An active metaphor is sometimes also called a live metaphor. A metaphor has become a cliché because it is apt, and useful; therefore, over time, much used. It’s hard to avoid clichés when creating metaphors. Sometimes it is even good to use a clichéd metaphor because your readers will know exactly what you mean. For instance:
“It's been a purple dinosaur of a day”.
A complex metaphor is one which mounts one identification on another. Example:
"That throws some light on the question."
Throwing light is a metaphor and there is no actual light.
A compound or loose metaphor is one that catches the mind with several points of similarity. Example:
"He has the wild stag's foot."
This phrase suggests grace and speed as well as daring
An implicit metaphor is one in which the tenor is not specified but implied. Example:
"Shut your trap!"
Here, the mouth of the listener is the unspecified tenor.
A simple or tight metaphor is one in which there is but one point of resemblance between the tenor and the vehicle. Example:
"Cool it".
In this example, the vehicle, "cool", is a temperature and nothing else, so the tenor, "it", can only be grounded to the vehicle by one attribute.
A root metaphor is the underlying association that shapes an individual's understanding of a situation. The examples would be the understanding of life as a dangerous journey, seeing life as a hard test, or thinking of life as a good party. A root metaphor is different from the previous types of metaphor in that it is not necessarily an explicit device in language, but a fundamental, often unconscious, assumption. Religion is considered the most common source of root metaphors, since birth, marriage, death and other universal life experiences can convey a very different meaning to different people, based on their level or type of religious adherence. For example, some religions see life as a single arrow pointing toward a future endpoint. Others see it as part of an endlessly repeating cycle. An individual's political affiliations are another source of root metaphors. In the United States, both conservatives and liberals assume that the nation is a family. However, as George Lakoff has shown, in Moral Politics, they have very different ideas about what a family is and how it should function. Conservatives believe in a "strict father" type of family, and liberals see the family as a nurturing and educating social institution.