Genre and Metaphor Basic Draft

Genre and Metaphor 1

Genre and Metaphor

Eduard C. Hanganu

B.A., M.A., Linguistics

Lecturer in English, UE

Draft 3

Revised – November 24, 2014

© 2014


Abstract

This paper investigates four theoretical perspectives on the metaphor with their descriptions, and

definitions of the linguistic device: (1) the traditional model, in which the metaphor is defined as

a grammatical device, or figure of speech, and its role is limited to a decorative function, (2) the

interactive model, in which metaphor is a thought process—the result of a mental interaction that

occurs between the reader and the text, (3) the domain mapping model, in which the metaphor is

perceived as a lexical device, and the rhetorical effect comes from the mapping of lexical devices

which expand the meaning of words and expressions, and (4) the pragmatic model, which claims

that the metaphor is an implicature, and its meaning results from its propositional content and the

context of situation. Research data collected in the past four decades has narrowed the difference

between literal and non-literal in language, and has provided evidence which contradicts the idea

that the literal language is the norm while the non-literal language is the exception. Studies show

that the common spoken and written language is metaphorical, and only a small part is literal and

can be defined as non-figurative. Metaphors are not irregular and abnormal phenomena in human

communication, but the norm, and their functions are not limited to figures of speech, but expand

into multiple areas. Metaphors are language in action which provides ideational, intertextual, and

interpersonal contexts for discourse, generate new knowledge, and provide textual coherence and

cohesion through its grammatical structure within various genres, and contributing in this fashion

to the rhetorical effects of the discourse as intended by the writer and perceived by the reader.

Key words: language, text, context, form, structure, genre, metaphor, definition.


Genre and Metaphor

The traditional description of genre as a device used in the classification of texts included

the distinction between literal, and non-literal, or figurative language. Spoken or written words

and expressions thought to express their lexical or common meaning were considered literal,

while words and expressions thought to indicate a figurative sense were deemed to be non-literal,

and understood to have meanings which had to be discovered through textual interpretation. The

common perspective was also that literal language was the norm, while the figurative language

was the exception. Research performed in the past four decades on the literal and non-literal

aspects of the human language has collected data which shows that such a perspective does not

reflect language in use. While the traditional distinction between literal and non-literal language

has been confirmed to be still valid and useful, there is also ample evidence that the use of

figurative language is not rare, or uncommon, but the norm. Examination of various spoken and

written texts shows that figurative phenomena which occur during actual written or spoken

language use (Caballero, 2003, p. 146) indicate a rhetorical potential which becomes evident

within different genres, and reflects language in action. This paper examines definitions of the

metaphor based on four theoretical perspectives, explores the relationship between genre and

metaphor, and describes the rhetorical contribution which metaphors make to language within

different genres of written and spoken discourse.

Language and Metaphor

In his article, More about Metaphor, Black (1977) notes that a large number of scholars

are still considering metaphor an enigmatic phenomenon in human language. He states: "One

writer, who might be speaking for many, says 'Among the mysteries of human speech, metaphor

has remained one of the most baffling (Boyle, 257)" (p.434), and is quite surprised that such a


situation could continue to exist given the powerful evidence of the common and frequent

occurrence of metaphor in human language. In fact, metaphor use is so prevalent in the spoken

and written texts that its occurrence can be compared with the incidence of two of the most

mundane human activities, singing and dancing. None of these two activities could be deemed

obscure or deviant, and neither could metaphor (1977, p. 434).

The notion that metaphors are accidental, deviant, or improper phenomena in the human

language is an erroneous opinion based on two assumptions: (1) the standard use of language is

literal, and, (2) metaphorical language is unusual and problematic (Black, 1977, p. 435). On the

basis of these two assumptions about the occurrence of the literal and non-literal in language,

some scholars come to formulate simplistic or reductionist theories of language among which is

the Aristotelian perspective that metaphors do not introduce original meaning to discourse, and

therefore they could be replaced with literal translations (Black, 1977, p. 435).

Language research shows that metaphors are not simple rhetorical devices, but a central

area of the human mental processes. In fact, metaphors seem the common way in which the mind

formulates concepts and propositions because "metaphorical thought is one of our primary

modes of cognition, with complex conceptual metaphors organizing much of our knowledge and

guiding our behavior" (Blasko & Merski, 1998, p. 40). This knowledge of the works of the mind

is in disagreement with the traditional perspective on language, and its questionable assumptions

that thought and language are literal in essence, and that while literal language is understood

through a direct mental process, metaphorical language must go through two processing stages

until it is understood. This two-stage processing of the metaphorical expressions is required

because literal language is context-independent, and can be understood as it is, while non-literal

language is context-dependent, and needs to be interpreted through reference to co-text and


context of situation (Blasko & Merski, 1998, p. 40). Research in cognitive linguistics has shown

that the above assumptions are not true, and that in fact metaphorical language is as context

independent as literal language.

Traditional and non-traditional definitions of metaphor have been based on the four most

important theories of metaphor: (1) the substitution theory, with its special form, the comparison

view (Black, 1962, pp. 31, 35); (2) the interaction view of metaphor (Black, 1962, p. 38), (3) the

contemporary theory of metaphor (Lakoff, 2002, p. 257), and the pragmatic concept of metaphor

(Levinson, 1995, pl 147).

The substitution view is founded on the traditional distinction between the literal and the

non-literal in language (Black, 1962, p. 35), and within this paradigm the metaphor is defined as

"the word or expression having a distinctively metaphorical use within a literal frame," while its

function is to replace plain propositional content with figurative language (Black, 1962, p. 32).

The inference is that because "a metaphorical expression has a meaning that is some transform

[sic!] of its normal literal meaning" (p. 31), metaphors are words and expressions of a non-literal

nature which are intended to reformulate literal language (p. 31). Natural word order, inversion,

and semantic changes should therefore be understood as transformations of the source, literal

meaning of a word or expression, derivations of the default, or sense (p. 35) The comparison

view on metaphor, which is a subgroup of the substitution perspective, adds to the concept the

notion that such substitution occurs as a comparison, that is, as an expression of the similarities

between the literal and figurative terms of the comparison (Black, 1962, p. 35).

Common English language dictionaries define metaphor from the traditional substitution

perspective. For instance, The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1999), states

that the 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," while The Oxford English

Dictionary (1992), refers to the term as "the figure of speech in which a name or descriptive term

is transferred to some object different from, but analogous to, that to which it is properly

applicable." The Oxford English Dictionary (1992), therefore, seems to include metaphors

among figures of speech, or morpho-syntactic devices, as "any of the various ‘forms’ of

expression, deviating from the normal arrangement or use of words, which are adopted in order

to give beauty, variety, or force to a composition."

The second theoretical perspective on metaphor, known as the interaction view, comes

from the research that Black (1962) himself has performed and published on the topic (p. 38). In

his perspective, the main trouble with the traditional view on metaphor is the fact that metaphors

are seen as morpho-syntactic devices which perform their functions through grammatical forms

and syntactic structures (p. 28). The failure of the conventional model to present evidence about

how metaphors work is identifiable when one examines a sentence such as "The poor are the

negroes of Europe" with the traditional tools, as (1) the substitution view shows that an indirect

statement has been made about the poor, but it is not clear what that statement means, and (2) the

comparison view shows a parallel between the poor and the negroes, but the relation between the

terms appears to be missing again (Black, 1962, p. 38).

The solution to the dilemma seems to be somewhere else, and Black (1962) proposes that

Richards (1936) has found it in the idea that metaphors are not grammatical, but thought devices,

and occur in the mind of the language user. Richard believes that the two terms of the metaphor

interact with each other through an active cognitive process, and the metaphorical meaning is the

result of that thought interaction. This metaphorical meaning is not a simple conversion from the


literal source meaning to a figurative form and content, but a unique, richer meaning, that cannot

be a simple derivative of the basic, literal sense of the old words or expressions (pp. 38-39)

In his book, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, Richards (1936) abandons the false assumption

that the metaphor is a grammatical instrument, and defines it as a thought process, "a borrowing

between and intercourse of thoughts, a transaction between contexts" (p. 94) which occurs at the

junction of two ideas "which co-operate [sic!] in an inclusive meaning" (p. 119). Concerning the

manner in which metaphors work, Richards also affirms that a simple explanation of the thought

process that produces metaphor is "two thoughts of different things active together and supported

by a single word, or phrase, whose meaning is a resultant of their interaction" (cited in Black,

1962, p. 38).

Black (1962) continues Richards' (1936) persuasive argument, and comments that when

a sentence is categorized as "a case of metaphor," the implication is that "at least one word (here

the word "plowed") is being used metaphorically in the sentence" (p.27), and at the same time "at

least one of the remaining words is being used literally" (p. 28). Such literal-to-figurative bridges

provide the connection between the first term that is "the focus of the metaphor," and the second

term, "the remainder of the sentence in which that word occurs, the frame" (p. 28).From this new

theoretical perspective, then, metaphors are no more seen as grammatical structures, but rather as

semantic devices:

To call a sentence an instance of metaphor is to say something about its meaning, not

about its orthography, its phonetic pattern, or its grammatical form.1

(To use a well-

known distinction, "metaphor" must be classified as a term belonging to "semantics" and

not to "syntax"—or to any physical inquiry about language.). (Black, 1962, p. 28)


Black (1962) condenses his interaction view on metaphor as a seven-point claim in the

chapter entitled "Metaphor" of his book, Models and Metaphors. The points are: (1) metaphors

include two terms; (2) the terms are structures, not things; (3) metaphorical effects occur as

association implications from the second to the first term; (4) these inferences are affirmations

made concerning the second term; (5) the metaphors select, emphasize, suppress, and organize

the basic characteristics of the first term through implications that define the other term; 6) the

implication switch produces a meaning shift in the words which have a meaning related to the

metaphorical expression; (7) sometimes meaning shifts fail to generate metaphorical effects

(Black, 1962, pp. 44-45)

The past four decades of research on metaphor have produced data for a new theoretical

perspective which is based on an article entitled The Conduit Metaphor that was published for

the first time by Michael Reddy in the initial edition of the book Metaphor and Thought (1979),

and republished in 1990 in the second version of the same book (Lakoff, 2002, p. 257).The new

theoretical model, called "domain mapping," seems to have a lot in common with Black's (1962)

interactional model on metaphor, and it also contains some aspects the traditional model on the

metaphor.

Both Black's (1962) and Lakoff's (2002) theories reject the old separation between literal

and figurative language which was based on the erroneous idea that in metaphorical expressions

words are not used in their standard lexical sense, and that metaphorical language is a translation

of the literal text, and affirm the notion that metaphor is thought process and not a grammatical

device. Lakoff (2002) add to the argument the fact that these false ideas were not "merely taken

to be true, but came to be taken as definitional" (p. 260). The past decades of research provide


evidence that contradicts those traditional assumptions, and shows that language is, to a greater

degree than the researchers have expected, metaphorical in nature (Lakoff, 2002, p. 260).

In Lakoff's (2002) perspective, besides the notion that metaphors are "generalizations

governing poetic metaphorical expressions" that are part of the cognitive processes of the mind,

such phenomena are understood as "general mappings across conceptual domains" (Lakoff,

2002, p. 270). From an interpretation of metaphor that claimed that "the locus of metaphor" was

in the grammatical structure of the figure of speech, the conclusion was changed to affirm that

"the locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualize one mental

domain in terms of another" (Lakoff, 2002, p. 271). This domain mapping is found to be the

main mode of expression in language, and the most common concepts, such as causation, time,

change, and states are seen to be articulated in metaphorical expressions (2002, p. 273).

Lakoff (2002) emphasizes again the difference between the domain mapping model and

the traditional perspectives on metaphor about the distinction between literal and figurative, and

rejects the notion that arriving at a metaphorical expression requires the intermediate step of the

literal language, and that the conversion would require the application of some mathematical

decoder. He accepts that this might occur in certain situations, but maintains that "this is not in

general how metaphor works" (pp. 263-264).

Such an understanding of language and metaphor contradicts what had been accepted as

factual evidence about how language works. Lakoff (2002) mentions a few notions which have

been questioned and rejected in the past decades, and the first one is the traditional separation

between literal and non-literal which considered the metaphor "as a kind of figurative language"

(Lakoff, 2002, p. 276). Five other traditional false assumptions which described language

interaction among people are: (1) common language is literal, never figurative; (2) there is no


need for metaphor in language, as all subjects can be understood from literal formulations of our

thoughts; (3) true and false concepts can be applied only to literal language; (4) all lexical

definitions are literal; (5) grammar rules and concepts are all literal, and never figurative (Lakoff,

2002, p. 280)

But the traditional distinction between "literal" and "figurative" should not be discarded,

even though its theoretical basis had been established on wrong assumptions, because there are

notions that are not processed as metaphorical expressions in the mind, and Lakoff (2002) states

that "those concepts that are not comprehended via conceptual metaphor might be called literal"

(p. 259). There is also linguistic evidence of "an extensive range of nonmetaphorical concepts,"

affirms Lakoff, and the example he mentions is the sentence "The balloon went up" (2002, p.

263).

Recognition that the language we use in our normal discourse is seldom literal, and most

of the time metaphorical, and that we observe the world from a figurative perspective, becomes

also the basis for the surprising awareness that "our everyday behavior reflects our metaphorical

understanding of experience," and the basic distinction between literal and non-literal language

disappears (Lakoff, 2002, p. 275). From this viewpoint "the word metaphor has come to mean a

cross-domain mapping," and "metaphorical expression refers to a linguistic expression (a word,

phrase, or sentence that is the surface realization of such a cross-domain mapping" (2002, p.

275).

Concerning the propositional content of metaphor, Davidson (1978) had remarked that

"metaphors mean what the words, in their most literal interpretation mean, and nothing more”

(pp. 29-30). He had fought the idea that metaphors encode more meaning "in addition to [their]

literal sense or meaning," though he "agree[s] with the view that metaphors cannot paraphrased"


(p. 30), but he thinks that the reason for the failure to paraphrase metaphors is because "there is

nothing there to paraphrase” (p. 30). He denies the perspective that "in metaphor certain words

take on new or what are often called "extended’ meanings" (p. 32).

Black (1977), though, believes that metaphors are "realized in discourse, embodied in the

given 'text,' and need not be treated as a riddle" (p. 436), but that in such given context the focus

of the metaphor "obtains a new meaning, which is not quite its meaning in literal uses, not quite

the meaning which any literal substitute would have"(1962, p. 39). This happens because the

frame of the metaphor, or its second term, expands the meaning of the first term through lexical

addition of semantic features. The metaphorical effect on the reader is obtained when both the

old and the new meanings of the word are associated through a meaning switch (1962, p. 39).

Black (1962) compares the metaphor with a filter which sorts through the language user's

lexical information, and draws from there "not the standard dictionary meaning," but the "system

of associated commonplaces," in order to cause the metaphorical effect or "its intended meaning"

(p. 40). Lakoff (2002) uses similar language to describe the manner in which metaphors produce

their linguistic effects, and mentions a process of lexical "mapping." He notes that in the process

of meaning charting "metaphor involves understanding one domain of experience…in terms of a

very different domain of experience," and sees this mapping process in a mathematical sense, as

a transfer from the source domain (first term) to a target domain (second term) through lexical

links which he defines as "ontological correspondences" (p. 260).

Though Black (1962, 1977) does not use the same terms to explain how metaphors work,

there is a clear parallel between his perspective on the thought processes that cause the rhetorical

effects of the metaphor and Lakoff’s (2002) understanding of the same process. Black (1962)

refers to the focus of the metaphor to describe the first term in the structure (p. 28), while Lakoff


uses the phrase source domain (p.260) for the same term. Likewise, Black (1962) describes the

second term, or the literal, element in the same metaphor as the frame (p. 28) while Lakoff uses

the term target domain (p 260).The two different pairs of terms are used to describe the same

linguistic pattern, the thought process in which metaphorical meanings are "mapped" onto literal

meanings through a cerebral change in the direction of the thought during an associative incident

in a system of associated commonplaces (Black, 1962, p. 40), or, in a comparable expression,

across conceptual domains (Lakoff, 2002, p.257).

Levinson (1995) approaches metaphors from a pragmatic perspective, as an "exploitation

or flouting of the [Grice's] maxims" (p. 147). He introduces the matter with a comment on the

metaphor's historical background, remarks that the topic has been debated in language circles

since Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric, and then mentions the central nature of metaphor in literature

(poetry), and "indeed to a very large proportion of ordinary language usage, but also to realms as

diverse as the interpretation of dreams and the nature of models in scientific thought" (p. 147).

Levinson (1995) also remarks that the research on "metaphor or the tropes in general, is

plagued by divergent classifications and terminologies (see e.g. Levin, 1977: 89ff)" (p. 148), and

that, in fact, "semantic approaches fail to yield adequate accounts of the phenomena" (p. 148).

One of the theoretical perspectives that he examines is a version of the interaction model, which

has been advanced by Katz and Fodor (1963) using "the framework of semantic features" (1995,

p. 148). Their theoretical perspective is that lexical terms derive their meanings from clusters of

specific features, and from complex semantic networks (Levinson, 1995, pp. 148-149)

The essential nature of these theoretical models, comments Levinson, is that they will

"map features from one lexical item on to another" (p. 149), but their problems are that (1) the

limited feature-mapping processes do not express the illocutionary force of the metaphorical


expressions (p. 150); (2) the metaphorical force does not derive from the semantic features of the

metaphor, but is due to the referents of the metaphorical focus (p. 150); (3) some metaphors do

not indicate their "semantic anomaly within the sentence required to trigger the 'construal rules'

(rules for feature-transfer)" (p. 151).

Levinson (1995) then proceeds to examine the standard comparison model of metaphors

and notes that "the essential claim is that metaphors are derived from explicit similes" (p. 151).

He also remarks that Miller's (1984) personal position on metaphor is a variation on the standard

theoretical perspective because Miller separates metaphors into three groups: (1) nominal or

"comparison[s] between propositions" (Levinson, 1995, p. 152); (2) predicative, in which "the

interpreter has to reconstruct another predicate and another entity" and assemble two other

propositions which will be compared with each other, and (3) sentential, or that group "identified

by being irrelevant to the surrounding discourse when literally construed" (p. 153). These groups

of metaphors, according to Miller, cannot be decoded unless they are "converted into a complex

simile-like form – complex," according to rules written for each group (Levinson, 1995, p. 152)

The multiple problems which have plagued all the theories of metaphor examined before

have encouraged Levinson to propose that a pragmatic approach to metaphor definition might be

the most acceptable for the following reasons: (1) it will not be based on a semantic breakdown

of the metaphors; (2) semantics will bring in just the lexical sense or features of the metaphorical

expressions in use (1995, p. 156); (3) metaphor meaning will be derived from the propositional

content of the expressions, to which will be added the contextual features (Levinson, 1995, p.

156).

In answer to the critics who have claimed that such an approach will revive a separation

between literal and figurative usages of linguistic expressions, and that the outcome might be


that some literary genres will "find themselves treated as somehow bizarre or different from the

rest of language usage, " Levinson states that what he suggests is nothing more than a "division

of labor" between the semantic and pragmatic functions of a word or expression, something

which is not at all out of common, because as part of language the metaphor has a lexical sense,

and a pragmatic use, something which provides the metaphorical expressions with the rhetorical

force needed to perform as language in action (Levinson, 1995, p. 156).

Interpretation of metaphors as implicature proposes a "partial criterion for the recognition

of metaphor" (Levinson, 1995, p. 157), but does not provide an explanation for the progress from

"the recognition to the interpretation," so that a complete understanding of how metaphors work

would require insight into "(i) how metaphors are distinguished from other tropes, and crucially

(ii) how, once recognized, they are interpreted" (1995, p. 158). Such evidence is missing, though,

and therefore Levinson is compelled to acknowledge that "more concrete suggestions for a

pragmatic theory of metaphor simply do not, at the time of writing, exist" (p. 158), which leaves

the researcher with the confidence that for the time being the most adequate metaphor model for

the present remains still Lakoff's (2002) domain mapping interpretation (Levinson, 1995, p. 158;

Lakoff, 2002, p. 260). Levinson states, alluding to the above-mentioned model:

There is much in the existing literature on metaphor that could be drawn upon to give an

account of metaphor. Crucial, for example, seems to be the way in which what is

involved in metaphor is the mapping of one whole cognitive domain into another,

allowing the tracing out of multiple correspondence. For example, as Lakoff & Johnson

(1980) have pointed out, two domains of conceptual fields like politics and war, once put

into correspondence, productively produce all those familiar metaphors, dead and alive,

of the sort. (Levinson, 1995, p. 159)


More research is needed in order to make possible the construction of a theoretical model

on the metaphors which would provide an inclusive and believable account of the way metaphors

work. Such a theoretical model will also permit the formulation of a definition of metaphor that

will meet most, if not all, linguistic criteria. The results of the research performed so far, based

on the theoretical models available, make possible only an incomplete definition of the linguistic

phenomenon. Such a definition would have to include both what metaphors are not, and what

metaphors are or could be.

There is ample evidence to support the perspective that metaphors are not grammatical

devices, or morpho-syntactic language tools. As Black (1962, 1977) and Levinson (1995) have

stated, the substitution or comparison definitions of metaphors present severe difficulties. Black's

interaction view seems to come closer to the truth, and there is factual evidence that supports the

understanding that metaphors are not random and deviant language phenomena, but comprise the

most common and recurrent tools used in human language, much more so than the literal written

or spoken text.

Pragmatics has failed to present a credible account of metaphor as implicature, Levinson

(1995) has stated, due to the fact that it cannot explain the progress from metaphor recognition to

its interpretation, but has added evidence to the notion that metaphors are thought processes, and

that in the context of the discourse metaphorical language does acquire new, extended semantic

features, outside of the literal sense of the words in the expression, and impossible to "convert"

to a non-figurative, propositional text (Black, 1962, 1977), in opposition to Davidson's (1978)

argument that the meaning of metaphors is nothing more and nothing less than the literal version

of the semantic fragments' content.


The most acceptable account of the metaphorical phenomenon at the present seems to be

the perspective proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), which is known as the domain mapping

theoretical model. This perspective is similar to Black's interactive model on metaphor, but uses

advanced linguistic concepts for a definition of metaphor and for an explanation of the cognitive

processes which produce the metaphorical effects in the mind of the language user. Both models

introduce the notion of domains, and distinguish between the “literal” and the “figurative” terms

of a metaphor. Black names the first term of a metaphor focus, and the second term frame, while

Lakoff names the first metaphor term source domain, and the second term target domain. Black

(1962) and Lakoff (2002) concur that the metaphorical phenomenon takes place in the mind as a

transaction between two different language contexts (Richards, 1936; Black 1962), or a process

of domain mapping (Lakoff, 2002)—a lexical sense transfer that extends the meaning of the first

metaphor term into the figurative meaning of the second term, producing the metaphorical effect.

Metaphor Functions and Genre

In his discussion concerning the creative functions of the metaphors, Black (1977) makes

what he terms an "implausible contention," the claim that in discourse "a metaphorical statement

can sometimes generate new knowledge and insight, by changing relationships between the

things designated" (p. 451). He also adds that certain metaphors can "reveal connections without

making them" (p. 451). The aptitude of metaphors to produce "new knowledge and insight" is

shown in their effect on people's perception of the real world. In this sense Black (1977) thinks

that "some metaphors enable us to see aspects of reality that the metaphor's production helps to

constitute" (p. 454). Because humans perceive their world through their language filter, some

metaphors can produce a certain perspective of the world. Individuals then adopt the modified

perspective, and regard it as their real, factual world (Black, 1977, p. 454).


Black's (1977) remarks about the effects that metaphors have on our perceptions of the

real world are not a repetition of Whorf's (1940) long-abandoned viewpoint that "human beings

do not live in the objective world alone…but at the mercy of the particular language which has

become the medium of expression for their society" (as cited in Fasold, 1993, p. 50). Metaphors

do influence our perception of the world through their rhetorical effects on our imagination, and

introduce us to new knowledge through insights about our social context. The rhetorical effects

produced by metaphors are due to their active interaction with the reader. Davidson (1979) sees

metaphor as language in action, as an active agent, and affirms that the metaphorical effects are

the consequence of linguistic action because "metaphor belongs exclusively to language in use"

(p. 31). Booth (1978) adds to Davidson's perspective the notion that understanding metaphorical

communication cannot be done without a complete understanding of the context of discourse,

and that the cultural values of a society are determined by the qualities of its metaphors and the

critical abilities of those who examine and evaluate metaphorical language (p. 64).

In the research work on metaphors and their textual functions the scholar must be aware

that a limited and narrow definition of metaphor which would produce certain expectations about

morpho-syntactic forms or semantic content might be misleading. Blasko and Merski (1998)

performed research on haiku, and were amazed to learn that an unqualified rule in haiku writing

is to avoid figurative language such as adjectives and adverbs, and that the use of metaphor is

prohibited because "as Yasuda (1957) clearly stated: 'Metaphor is always an interference for the

haiku poet'" (p. 50). The perception of the haiku masters is that instead of enriching the content

and the artistic value of the poem, metaphors will instead damage the poem through a reduction

of its message and poetical qualities (Blasko & Merski, 1998, p. 40).


Given such restrictions imposed on haiku composition one might think that haiku should

be written as literal text. Some other instructions, though, teach that "in a good haiku, one sees

the juxtaposition of two dissimilar elements or images that should lead the reader to a new, vivid

insight or experience," and "this [juxtaposition] seems remarkably like a definition of metaphor,

and many haiku seem to have a clear metaphorical quality" (Blasko & Merski, 1998, p. 40). The

conclusion seems to be obvious: because metaphor is not a grammatical process or phenomenon,

but a thought process, standard morpho-syntactic forms are not required in order to produce the

metaphorical effect. The effect is obtained through the "juxtaposition of two dissimilar elements

or images," or what Lakoff (2002) would call a cross-domain concept mapping of concepts and

ideas.

The changed perspective on the functions of metaphors in language and literature means

that metaphors are no more seen as plain figures of speech that produce artistic effects (Blasko &

Merski, 1998, p. 41), but as language in action whose functions spread out into multiple domains

of human cognition, such as "arousal of insight, imagination, and emotion in literature, art, and

film" (pp. 41-42). The current emphasis on the mechanics of the metaphors needs to be replaced

with an effort to understand their rhetorical contributions to the texts. In his article, Metaphor as

Hermeneutic, Johnson-Sheehan (1999) affirms that the new approach requires also new methods

of interpretations, and mentions "a new direction based on hermeneutics," which is the art of text

interpretation (p.48). The purpose of his article is to demonstrate that metaphors can help create

narratives (Johnson-Sheehan, 1999, p. 48).

The narrative, as a genre, includes both structure and content, and Johnson-Sheehan sees

a direct relation between the generic structure, or genre, of a text, and its content, that is realized

through the use of propositional data embedded in the metaphors (1999, p. 48). The narrative as


genre contains a cluster of features, among which are: (1) development of a plot, characters, and

setting; (2) description of significant, interconnected events; (3) event occurrence (chronological,

flash-back or flash-forward); (4) use of description and dialogue for the construal of settings and

characters; (5) event staging through the active, vivid, and accurate verbal phrases; and (6) a

logical succession of events that moves to a conclusion ( (Pharr & Buscemi, 2005, pp. 174-176).

These generic features are defined through metaphorical expressions which achieve their

rhetorical aim, the recounting of a past or present event, and the inducing of recollections.

The effects which metaphorical expressions embedded in a certain generic structure have

on the rhetorical force of a text become evident when one perceives that a metaphor is a device

that causes someone to see something through an analogical process with something else, and to

look at things from unusual angles, that is, "to conceptualize something through an alternate lens,

from a different point of view" (Johnson-Sheehan, 1999, p. 48). Remarks Johnson-Sheehan:

As a master trope—a word that means "turn" in ancient Greek—a metaphor is a

rhetorical device for altering one's perspective. It is used to "turn" the way people think

and talk about some aspects of their lives. For example, Richard Rorty writes that a

metaphor "is a call to change one's language and one's life, rather than a proposal about

how to systematize either" (13). (1999, p. 48)

The above paragraph describes "metaphor in action," embedded in the social context, and

initiating substantive changes in the lives of people. The reevaluation of metaphor from a natural

figure of speech, which has the purpose to "decorate" language, to an agent of change means also

a change of theoretical perspective from an understanding of metaphor as a passive language tool

to an active social factor. Here metaphor and genre intersect, as both are described in comparable

terms. Black (1977) states that metaphors in context can produce knowledge and insight (p. 451),


change relationship between things (p. 451), produce a certain filtered "reality" in people's minds

(p. 454), and shape their perspectives. Davidson (1978) comments that metaphor value is a mark

of the quality of a certain culture (p. 62), while Blasko and Merski (1998) argue that metaphors

affect human cognition, and induce "insight, imagination, and emotion in literature, art, and film"

(pp. 41-42).

Miller (1984) approaches the same issues in her article titled Genre as Social Action. She

restates Davidson's (1978) point of view that a proper definition of metaphor should not focus on

propositional content or on grammatical form, but on the action it performs (p. 151), terms genre

a "typified rhetorical action" (p. 151), and affirms that generic structures "must involve [both]

situation and motive, because human action, whether symbolic or otherwise, is interpretable only

against a context of situation and through the attributing of motives" (p. 152). Research indicates

that, in a favorable context of situation, genres develop into structure language complexes which

produce explicit rhetorical effects; reorganize readers' knowledge, and restructure the perception

of the world (p. 153). Miller's (1984) conclusion is that,

What we learn when we learn a genre is not just a pattern of forms or even a method of

achieving our own ends. We learn, more importantly [sic!], what ends we may have: we

learn that we may eulogize, apologize, recommend one person to another, instruct

customers on behalf of a manufacturer, take on an official role, account for progress in

achieving goals. (p. 165)

The above paragraph shows how the two concepts, metaphor, and genre are described in

rather parallel terms as performing almost alike actions, though they are distinct linguistic items.

Their intersection and overlap area is in the rhetoric of discourse seen from the semiotic position,

because a theoretical perspective based in semiotics provides those principles needed to perform


discourse classification based on some prevalent factor such as "rhetorical substance (semantics),

forms (syntactics), or the rhetorical action the discourse performs (pragmatics)" (Miller, 1984, p.

152). In this context, rhetorical action, "which encompasses both substance and form," produces

rhetorical effects through the propositional content or substance of the metaphor, and the generic

structure, or form, of the discourse (Miller, 1984, p. 152). This blend between form and content

which produces action through the propositional content of the metaphor and the generic format

of the text occurs because the rhetorical structures which are foundational for genres incorporate

both the creative devices and the ideational content that must be incorporated within the context

of situation (Miller, 1984, p. 152). The consequence is that under these circumstances genre

becomes more than a formal grammatical device—a pragmatic, rhetorical, point of intersection

between intention and effect, an aspect of social action (Miller, 1984, p. 153).

The overlap between metaphor and a specific generic structure cannot happen at random,

Miller (1984) also affirms, because "a particular kind of fusion of substance and form is essential

to symbolic meaning" for two reasons: (1) form is the direct expression of the substance, and (2)

form supplies the "meta-information," which guides the reader's journey from one perception to

another, and gives rise to new knowledge (p. 159). Caballero (2003) identifies examples of such

language guidance process through genre and metaphor in the examination of building reviews,

and his conclusions are presented in the article entitled Metaphor and Genre: The Presence and

Role of Metaphor in the Building Review. The goal of his research is to examine the metaphors

used in building reviews with their grammatical instantiations, their loci in the generic structure

of the discourse, and the rhetorical functions which these metaphors were performing in the text

(2003, p. 145).


The main concepts which inform Caballero’s (2003) methodological approach are that

(1) metaphor is a fundamental factor in our perception of the world, and the understanding of our

own experience, and (2) metaphor is the environment of the most transactions and interactions

which occur in the human language (p. 145). During the past four decades, research had been

focused on understanding metaphor's purpose as a figure of speech in literature, but few studies

have been done on the importance of metaphor in the context of discourse (p. 145). Caballero

attempted to reduce that information gap, and to find data about "the cultural contexts in which

conceptual metaphors arise and support particular uses of languages" (2003, p. 146). In his

collection of lexical and grammatical data, Caballero's purpose was (1) to show "the rhetorical

potential of metaphor framing it within such a purposeful and typified activity as genre," and (2)

"to restore as the centre of attention the linguistic and textual aspect of metaphor as an

instrument of both cognition and communication" (2003, p. 146).

Data assembled on "the discourse management function of metaphor" demonstrates that

metaphors are essential in the "introducing, changing, or closing the topic discussed in a text,"

and "create lexical cohesion networks throughout text," producing linguistic structures for the

development of the discourse, and converting human experience into language code (Caballero,

2003, p. 147). The means through which the metaphor performs discourse structuring and

generates meaning are grammar (morpho-syntactic forms), placement in the syntactic strings,

and frequency of incidence. Such textual features create the rhetorical effect of language in

action. This process accounts for the perception of some researchers that metaphors filter our

view of the social context in which we live, and that in fact what we exist in a world designed

through language (Caballero, 2003, pp. 147-148).


Within this expanded theoretical framework, genre, while still a taxonomic mechanism,

becomes much more than that. Caballero (2003) cites Devitt's definition of genre which affirms

that "genre is patterns of relationships" of a syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic nature which are

recognized by writers in similar writing structures, and that have recognition and classification

functions in writing, and that "genre is truly, therefore, a maker of meaning (Devitt 1993: 580)

(as cited in Caballero, 2003, p. 148). The conclusion is that there is a sure connection between

genre and metaphor, as both can be depicted as language in action, as discourse shapers, and as

producers of textual meaning. The complex functions which metaphors assume place structural

and substantive limitations on them, and metaphors become context-dependent, objective, and

predictable (Caballero, 2003, p. 148)

The purpose of Caballero's (2003) research was to ascertain "the function of metaphor in

the [building review] genre," and to obtain statistical data which would show "whether metaphor

occurrence was influenced by and/or illustrated the rhetorical goals of the building review” (p.

154). Data collection approaches used in his research comprised "spotting metaphorical instances

within the rhetorical structure of the texts in the corpus," and then categorization of their

functions "in terms of the aforementioned descriptive or evaluative goals of the genre" (p.

154).In the examined text, "expressions were tagged as metaphorical when they illustrated any

domain incongruity in reference or attribution" (p.149). For a precise data collection, Caballero

classified all metaphors into "conceptual" and "image" (p. 149), and searched for functional

distinctions among them "in order to analyse [sic!] how metaphor may contribute to

accomplishing generic goals" within the context of the building review genre (2003, p. 154).

Data appraisal provides evidence that metaphors are fundamental elements of genre, and

that their roles as rhetorical agents are numerous. High numbers of metaphors "tend to cluster in


certain textual stretches, some of which are both concerned with introducing and summarizing a

topic, and closely related to the descriptive and evaluative purposes of the genre" (Caballero,

2003, p. 158). Furthermore, "image and conceptual metaphors fulfill… an informational function

in the genre," while the "conceptual metaphors also fulfill an ideational (informational) function

in the reviews, usually providing the lexical means to refer to certain building elements"

(Caballero, 2003, p. 159). These metaphorical functions are in direct relation to the functions of

the generic structures of different texts, and contribute to the rhetorical force of the discourse.

Caballero also concludes that "image and conceptual metaphors also fulfill the evaluative

rhetorical goal of the genre" (2003, p. 160).

His comments about the roles of metaphors as language in action are similar to Halliday's

(1985, pp. 11-12) discussion of the genre roles in human communication and interaction. There

is agreement among the two scholars that metaphors cover "ideational, textual, and interpersonal

needs…according to the specific demands of the discourse context under analysis," and also that

"referential and attributive needs are variously covered by metaphorically motivated jargon, and

by the diverse grammatical forms in which conceptual and image metaphors are instantiated." In

reference to the internal structure of the discourse, metaphors "also contribute to creating textual

cohesion through a number of patterns and frames created as the text unfolds" (Caballero, 2003,

p. 164).

Halliday (1985) has remarked that text and context must be seen as semiotic phenomena

which produce a complex socio-linguistic interconnection through which the reader obtains the

knowledge needed to "get from the situation to the text," or "make predictions about the kinds of

meanings that are being exchanged" (p. 12). He has also shown that a reader's knowledge comes

from the investigation of the "three features of the context of situation," as "these concepts serve


to interpret the social context of a text, the environment in which meanings are being exchanged"

(p. 12). The textual features described by Halliday are: (a) "the field of discourse," which "refers

to what is happening, to the nature of the social action that is taking place"; (b) "the tenor of

discourse," or the facts concerning "who is taking part, to the nature of the participants," and (c)

"the mode of discourse" or the characteristic which "refers to what part the language is playing,

what it is that the participants are expecting the language to do for them in that situation" (1985,

p. 12). He described language function as "a fundamental principle of language," and provided

evidence that the interaction between the language user and the language occurs on four levels,

(1) experiential, (2), interpersonal, (3) logical, and (4) textual (pp. 16-23), and declared that "all

these features—the semantic and grammatical balance between the lines, the thematic structure,

the rhythm and information focus, and the metric structure" contributed to textual meaning and

to the propositional and rhetorical message of the discourse (Halliday, 1985, p. 23).

In his research on metaphor use, Caballero (2003) confirms Halliday's (1985) conclusion

that language is functional, and provides evidence for the concept that metaphors are meaningful,

functional language devices, and that their content and grammatical structure are "covering the

ideational, textual, and interpersonal needs of the architects" who performed the reviews (p. 164)

because the metaphors provided the data about the context of situation and the transition process

from theoretical representations to material structures (p.151). The collected data has shown that

"the corpus yields numerous examples portraying buildings as malleable solids susceptible to

adopting different forms according to the architects' interventions upon them" (2003, p. 151).

Some lexical corpus examples offer a "vivid description of a spatial arrangement through

verbs nevertheless focusing on the architect's actions to achieve it" (Caballero, 2003, p.152).

Grammatical devices that achieve discourse coherence and cohesion through generic structures


are also used in figurative, metaphoric expressions, to obtain similar effects on the text, and the

result is language in social and rhetorical action, which is rendered through the socio-rhetorical

force of the text and its context (Caballero, 2003, p. 152).

Genre provides writers with "the freedom of constraints"—the limitations which produce

certain structures and contents identifiable in comparable texts, and make possible categorization

into various kinds of literature (Swales, 1990, p. 37). Genres are also the devices through which

meaning is transmitted during the process of social action performed through language (Halliday,

1985, p. 10), or "how things get done when language is used to accomplish them" (Martin, 1985,

p. 250 cited in Swales, 1990, p. 40). All these socio-linguistic actions executed through language

are accomplished in the complex figurative context that is produced by metaphorical expressions

which are an essential part of the content of the spoken and written language, and which mediate

the transmission of meaning in the complex process of language transaction and interaction. The

irreducible communication complex which includes the generic structures of language in use and

the propositional content of metaphors in action is what produces the rhetorical force of language

as a social force—the agent that has the power to "change one's language and one's life," to form

and change our understanding of the world in which we live (Sheehan-Johnson, 1999, p.48), and

to color our lives through the introduction of "insight, imagination, and emotion" into the context

of our existence ( Blasko & Merski, 1998, pp. 41-42).

Conclusion

Metaphors have been regarded for centuries as figures of speech or tropes, and their basic

role has been considered to be esthetic. Though this metaphorical function cannot be ignored, the

research in the past decades has provided evidence which contradicts the idea that metaphors are


mere figures of speech or substitutions of literal text. There is abundant evidence that indicates

that the distinction between literal and non-literal is not as clear as it was thought. Most of the

spoken and written language is figurative or metaphorical in nature. Metaphors are not just

passive morpho-syntactic appliances with mere grammatical functions in discourse, but cognitive

devices which produce their rhetorical effects through domain mapping. Metaphors are language

in action that work, within various generic structures to generate the propositional content, and

the rhetorical effects which define the message encoded in discourse. The generic features in the

discourse overlap those of metaphors, and the two linguistic machines work together to produce

various rhetorical effects, such as different new perceptions, and various emotions on the reader.

Metaphors are fundamental contributors to the rhetorical effects of a text, and their functions as

agents of textual and social change should be recognized and exploited.


References

Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Black, M. (1977). More about metaphor. Dialectica: International Review of Philosophy and

Knowledge, 31 (3), 431-457.

Blasko, D. G & Merski, D. W. (1998). Haiku poetry and metaphorical thought: An Invitation to

interdisciplinary study. Creativity Research Journal, 11 (1), 39-46.

Booth, W. C. (1978). Metaphor as rhetoric: The problem of evaluation. Critical Inquiry, 5 (1),

pp. 49-72.

Caballero, R. (2003). Metaphor and genre: The presence and role of metaphor in the building

review. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 145-167.

Davidson, D. (1978). What metaphors mean. In S. Sacks (Ed.), On metaphor (pp. 29-45).

Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Fasold, R. The sociolinguistics of language. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: aspects of language in a

social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Johnson-Sheehan (1999). Metaphor as hermeneutic. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 29 (2), 47-64.

Lakoff, G (2002). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and

thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 257-284). New York: Oxford University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (1995). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.

Pharr, D., & Buscemi S. V. (2005) Writing today: Contexts and options for the real world. New

York: McGraw-Hill.


Random House Webster’s unabridged dictionary. (1999). [CD-ROM]. New York: Random

House, Inc.

Reddy, M. J. (2002). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about

language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 211-257). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simpson, J. A. & Weiner, S. C. (Eds.). (1992). The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). [CD-

ROM]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings (8th printing).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Documents

Genre and Metaphor Basic Draft