Comparison theory of metaphor

Because rhetoric has been a field of human enquiry for over 2 millennia, it is not surprising that any serious study of metaphor is almost obliged to start with the works of Aristotle (Poetics, Rhetoric, Topica). Aristotle was interested in the relationship of metaphor to language and role of metaphor in communication. He believed metaphors to be implicit comparisons, based on principles of analogy. It is what is known nowadays as a comparison theory of metaphor.

How metaphorical statement work

Let us turn to the following example that is illustrative of the comparison theory view on metaphor comprehension.

Encyclopedias are gold mines.

Here, some characteristic properties of the vehicle are to be applied to the tenor or to the subject concept^. Trying to find such characteristics of the mine that suit the given context, we can find only one – such as containing something of value that may be dug out – other characteristics (such as e.g. being underground) do not fit this particular context. That means that encyclopedias are sources of valuable information, which we can get.

According to the supporters of the theory “when no schema can be found, which makes a good fit between the tenor and the vehicle, we are simply unable to interpret the meaning “ [99].

Interaction theory of metaphor.

The origin of this theory is found in the works of Richards. Richards not only proposed a set of useful terms for talking about metaphors (the “topic” or “tenor”, the “vehicle” and the “ground” (what the tenor and the vehicle have in common), he also proposed a theory about how the function which was called the “tensive” view and emphasized the conceptual incompatibility, the tension between the terms (the topic and the vehicle) [92].

Semantic interaction theory claims that metaphor involves interaction between two semantic components, that of the expression used metaphorically and that of the surrounding literal context.

How metaphor works

M.Black explains it analyzing the sentence Marriage is a zero sum game. In this sentence he reconstructs the following implication-complex: a “game” is a contest, between two opponents, in which one player can win only at the expense of the other. Thus, understanding of the analyzed sentence depends crucially upon the interpretations given to “contest”, “opponents”, and especially to “winning”. The interpretation may be the following: A marriage is a sustained struggle, between two contestants, in which the rewards (power? money? satisfaction?) of one contestant are gained only at the other’s expense. So here the “projected” propositions can be taken literally regardless what one thinks of their plausibility. And the relations between the meanings of the tenor and the vehicle can be classified as those of a) identity, b)extension, c)similarity, d)analogy, or e) what might be called “metaphorical coupling” (where, as often happens the original metaphor implicate subordinate metaphors) [11].

The mechanism of metaphor explained above can help us to grasp the principles of semantic change because it has its origin in metaphor or some other figures of speech. In general figurative language is one of the most productive forces of linguistic change. In English for example the same morphemes can express both partial and temporal relations: at 3:00 – at the corner of the street, within an hour, throughout the year, before Monday, toward the end of the month and so on.

One more relevant example is our talk about mind. Here we use spatial model to talk about things which are not spatial in their character. We have things “in” our minds, “on” our minds, “in the back corners of” our minds. We “put things out of” our minds, things “pass through” our minds, we call things “to mind” and so on [99].

The way semantic change is supposed to work can be modeled tracing the process of language acquisition. If the term “open” is learned by a child in the context of (say) a child’s mouth being open, and then it is applied to a door or a window, the child will appear merely to be demonstrating an understanding of the term. On the other hand, if the child uses the term “open” to mean “turn on” (as with a television set or a light) the child will be perceived as having produced a metaphor. Yet the process of applying words to situations is much the same in the two cases – namely that of finding the best word or concept to communicate the idea in the mind [99].