1.3Metaphor and Simile

“A newly-discovered metaphor shines like a jewel in a drab vocabulary.”

(Sir Ernest Gowers, The Complete Plain Words)

“Things are best of all learned by simile.”

(G. Belinsky, Russian specialist in literature)

The interaction or interplay between the primary dictionary meaning and a meaning which is imposed on the word by a micro-context may be maintained along different lines. One line is when the author identifies two objects which have nothing in common, but in which he subjectively sees a function, or a property, or a feature, or a quality that may make the reader perceive these two objects as identical. And the stylistic device based on this principle of identifying two objects is called metaphor. (I.R.Galperin, 1981:139)

“I was staring directly in front of me, at the back of the driver’s neck, which was a relief map of boil scars”. (J.D. Salinger)

In the above extract from “The Catcher In The Rye” we see Salinger use of metaphor. Here we are convinced that the writer really puts two absolutely different objects together, and thus, the reader perceives the back of the driver’s neck and a relief map of boil scars as identical, though they have nothing in common.

Let’s review some other examples of metaphor and discuss them.

“Geneva, mother of the Red Cross, hostess of humanitarian congresses for the civilizing of warfare!” (J. Reed)

Autumn comes

And trees are shedding their leaves,

And Mother Nature blushes

Before disrobing. (N. West)

In both examples above we have the word “mother” which is used metaphorically. In each of them it is obvious that the authors applied to personification. Mother is considered the start of all, so, Geneva, being the home of the Red Cross, is called its mother, hostess. As to “Mother Nature”, the author compares the reddened surrounding with an ashamed woman, who is going to take off her clothes.

The term metaphor etymologically means transference of some quality from one object to another. It is widely used to designate the process in which a word acquires a derivative mean­ing. It should be noted that metaphors like all stylistic devices tend to have a time of vigor, after which they loose their force and freshness through overuse and “die”. And language as such is regarded as a dictionary of dead or faded metaphors. (I.R.Galperin, 1981:140)

Metaphors, like all stylistic devices, can be classified according to their degree of unexpectedness. Thus metaphors which are absolutely unexpected, i.e. are quite unpredictable, are called genuine metaphors. Those which are commonly used in speech and, therefore, are sometimes even fixed in dictionaries as expressive means of language are trite metaphors, or dead metaphors. Their predictability therefore is appar­ent. Genuine metaphors are regarded as belonging to language-in-action, i. e. speech metaphors; trite metaphors belong to the language-as-a-system, i.e. language proper, and are usually fixed in dictionaries as units of the language. (I.R.Galperin, 1981:141)

An example of a trite metaphor may be seen in the following sentence:

“The Queen is the head of the state”.

The word head is already fixed in dictionaries with this meaning of leader.

Sometimes the metaphoric use of a word begins to affect the source mean­ing, i.e. the meaning from which the metaphor is derived, with the result that the target meaning, that is, the metaphor itself, takes the upper hand and may even oust the source meaning. In this case, we speak of dead metaphors. For example, conclusion and solution were once metaphorical : Latin concludere- to shut up, solvere- to unfasten. (S.K. Gasparian, A. I. Matevosian, 2011:152)

Genuine metaphors are mostly to be found in poetry and emotive prose. Trite metaphors are generally used as expressive means in newspa­per articles, in oratorical style and even in scientific language. The use of trite metaphors should not be regarded as a drawback of style. They help the writer to enliven his work and even make the meaning more con­crete.

There is constant interaction between genuine and trite metaphors. Genuine metaphors, if they are good and can stand the test of time, may, through frequent repetition, become trite and consequently easily predictable. Trite metaphors may regain their fresh­ness through the process of prolongation of the metaphor.

“Mr. Pickwick bottled up his vengeance and corked it down.” (Ch. Dickens)

The verb " to bottle up " is explained as " to keep in check", to conceal, to restrain, to repress. So the metaphor can be hardly felt. But it is revived by the direct meaning of the verb "to cork down". Thus, we have sustained or prolonged metaphor here.

The constant use of a metaphor gradually leads to the breaking up of the primary meaning. The metaphoric use of the word begins to affect the dictionary meaning, adding to it fresh connotations or shades of meaning. But this influence, however strong it may be, will never reach the degree where the dictionary meaning entirely disappears. If it did, we should have no stylistic device. It is a law of stylistics that in a sty­listic device the stability of the dictionary meaning is always retained, no matter how great the influence of the contextual meaning may be.

As to simile, it is a figure of speech which consists in an explicit likening of one thing to another on the basis of a common feature. (S.K. Gasparian, A. I. Matevosian, 2011:159) It is an explicit comparison( while metaphor is an implicit one) recognizable by the use of the words ‘like’, ‘as’, ‘as if’, ‘as though’, ‘as…as’. It is used both in prose and verse.

“Her emotions were always as unstable as the light winds of April”. (S. Maugham)

“Fate is not an eagle, it creeps like a rat”. (E. Brönte)

“Her hand in mine was like a small wet flame which I could neither hold nor throw away”. (L.Lee)

It is of utmost importance to differentiate between a common comparison and a simile. I. R. Galperin states: “Ordinary comparison and simile must not be confused. They represent two diverse processes. Comparison means weighing two objects belonging to one class of things with the purpose of establishing the degree of their sameness or difference. To use a simile is to characterize one object by bringing it into contact with an­other object belonging to an entirely different class of things. Comparison takes into consideration all the properties of the two objects, stressing the one that is compared. Simile excludes all the properties of the two ob­jects except one which is made common to them.” (I.R. Galperin,1981:167)

To be more exact, let’s bring an example where we have an ordinary comparison and compare it to a simile.

“The eyes of this baby are blue like his mother’s eyes”.

Here there is nothing unusual to consider it a simile but in:

“Her eyes are blue like the eyes of the Sea playing under the sun”;

we have a simile, as her eyes’ color is compared with that of the sea’s, but it is well-known that the latter cannot have eyes.

Similes forcibly set one object against another regardless of the fact that they may be completely alien to each other. And without our being aware of it, the simile gives rise to a new understanding of the object characterizing as well as of the object characterized.

The properties of an object may be viewed from different angles, for example, its state, actions, manners, etc. Accordingly, similes may be based on adjective-attributes, adverb-modifiers, verb-predicates, etc.

Similes may suggest analogies in the character of actions performed. In this case the two members of the structural design of the simile will resemble each other through the actions they perform. In the English language there is a long list of hackneyed similes point­ing out the analogy between the various qualities, states or actions of a human being and the animals supposed to be the bearers of the given quality, etc,, for example:

treacherous as a snake, sly as a fox, busy as a bee, industrious as an -ant, blind as a bat, faithful as a dog, to work like a horse, to be led like a sheep, to fly like a bird, to swim like a duck, stubborn as a mule, hungry as a bear, thirsty as a camel, to act like a puppy, playful as a kitten, vain (proud) as a peacock, slow as a tortoise and many others of the same type.

These combinations, however, have ceased to be genuine similes and have become clichés in which the second component has be­come merely an adverbial intensifier. Its logical meaning is only vaguely perceived.

Very often simile and metaphor are confused; there happen such examples which cannot be identified from the linguostylistic point of view, i.e. the readers are not able to find out whether they came across a simile or a metaphor. So, we must draw a distinct line between these two concepts. First of all, we limited these devices as a trope and a figure of speech. Metaphor, based on transfer of meaning, metalinguistically refers to the tropes, which are identified as “figurative use of words aimed at introducing expressiveness into speech” ( О.С. Ахманова, 1969:481). Simile, in which all the words are used in their direct meaning, refers to the figures of speech, “those unusual arrangement of words, those syntactic constructions which are aimed at enhancing the expressiveness of the utterance”( О.С. Ахманова, 1969:492).

As to A. Ortony, the difference between metaphor and simile, traditionally overlooked as distinction between an implicit likening (metaphor) and explicit likening ( simile) of things, bears deeper character ( A. Ortony, 1980:78).

W. B. Stanford sees the difference between simile and metaphor in the fact that in metaphor the word meaning broadens, while in simile no transfer of meaning takes place and all the words are used in their “normal” meaning. He refers metaphor to the language, and simile- to speech, thus concluding that metaphor logically refers to the tropes, and simile- to the figures of speech (W.B. Stanford, 1936).

Still, if we essentially examine these phenomena, we’ll see that they have a lot in common. Maybe this fact serves as a basis to consider simile as a type of metaphor. This consideration may be found not only in ancient rhetorical works, but also in some up to date works of stylistics ( Античние риторики, 1978:251, К.А. Аллендорф, 1965, D. James, 1968, etc.).

Such an approach may be considered entirely justified if we take it only from the logical point of view. It is a well-known fact that both metaphor and simile are based on comparison of two notions, thus being the manifestations of one and the same phenomenon. Yet, the results of comparison in each case are peculiar; the same logical process gets different linguistic expressions. If in metaphor the comparison of two notions brings to the transfer of meaning, in case of simile, words do not bear any semantic changes ( С.К. Гаспарян, 2000:44).

One of the most important aspects of linguistic study of simile is the contrast of metaphor and metonymy. The functional-communicative study of it has revealed the possibility of differentiating between metonymic simile and metaphoric simile( С.К. Гаспарян, 2000:62-75). Their main difference relies on the following: comparison in metonymic simile is based on the physical characteristics of the objects compared (С.К. Гаспарян, 2000:64) , while in metaphoric simile comparison is based on inner characteristic features of them (С.К. Гаспарян, 2000:65).

The most outstanding research on this theme belongs to the pen of R. Jacobson. In his work Jacobson consider metonymy and metaphor as inner and physical relations of similarity or difference, condensed in them (R. Jacobson, 1990).

According to his theory two types of speech are explained. In one case the speaker is in difficulty of finding words having contrary meanings instead of the ones at his disposal ( e.g. “bubbly” or “ginger-pop” instead “champagne”). It is easier for him to find relations of adjacent ( e.g. “bottle” or “hang-over” ), i.e. he grasps only metonymic relations. In the second case, on the contrary, the speaker can only transfer words sharing something in common and differing in meaning.

Let’s have a look at several examples of metonymic and metaphoric similes and discuss them.

“The city unwrinkles like an old tortoise and peers about it”. (L. Durrell)

Here we have a metaphoric simile, as the author compares the slow change in the city with the slow movements of an old tortoise.

“Now solitaries begin to pass, one, two, three. The light grows and waxes, turning now from red to green. The clouds themselves are moving to reveal enormous cavities of sky. They peel the morning like a fruit”. (L. Durrell)

We see a metonymic simile in the sentence “They peel the morning like a fruit”. The author meant the revelation of the morning view, which he compared to the peeling of a fruit.

“I tried to look stern but forgiving, like one of the less humorous Saints one sees in icons”. (D.H. Lawrence)

This is an example of a metonymic simile. It deals with inner characteristic features of the Saints. It may be seen through bare eye contact, i.e. by behavior or manners, but it describes inner side of them.

To see a world in a grain of sand

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand

And eternity in an hour. (W. Blake)

In this little poem by Blake we find the author’s attitude towards time and space, and beauty.

He applied to metonymic simile to express his concept of time, life and the beautiful. He “limited” infinity putting it into the human palm of hand, and eternity- having condensed in just an hour.

Summarizing what is said above, we should stress the beauty and the importance of metaphor and simile in fiction and poetry. They make our speech beautiful, more understandable and more communicative.

Chapter 2