Stephan Kessler Theories of Metaphor Revised λογος Stephan Kessler Theories of Metaphor Revised Theories of Metaphor Revised Against a Cognitive Theory of Metaphor: An Apology for Classical Metaphor by Stephan Kessler Second edition revised by Tim Ochser (†) Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de . Coverpicture: iStock.com/MATJAZ SLANIC c Copyright Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH 2018 All rights reserved. ISBN 978-3-8325-4701-1 Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH Comeniushof, Gubener Str. 47, 10243 Berlin Tel.: +49 (0)30 42 85 10 90 Fax: +49 (0)30 42 85 10 92 INTERNET: http://www.logos-verlag.de ... it is, rather, of the essence of our investigation that we do not seek to learn anything new by it. We want to understand something that is already in plain view. For this is what we seem in some sense not to understand. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, I, § 89 Content Preface to the Second Edition .................................................................................................. 9 1 The General Principles of IconicitY in Language ................................ 11 1.1 Metaphor, Polysemy, Homonymy. Iconic and Symbolic Thought ....................................................................................... 11 1.2 Functionality. Two Meanings. Visualizing .................................................................. 18 1.3 The Metaphor in Visual Media and Texts. Arbitrarity. Crossovers ................................................................................................... 22 1.4 Identification and Interpretation of Metaphor. Traditions in Research ................................................................................................... 28 2 Presuppositions of Metaphor .......................................................................... 31 2.1 The Model of Substitution. Predication vs Attribution. Position of Metaphor. Sem-Analysis ............................................................................ 31 2.2 Metaphor as Shortened Simile. The Context Marker................................................. 38 2.3 Metaphor as Idea, Intercultural Tool and in Translations ........................................ 41 3 The Evidence for Classical Metaphor ....................................................... 47 3.1 Double Sense Structure. Reference. Metaphor as an Exceptional Device ............................................................................. 47 3.2 Visualisation as Ideal Reference and Substitute for Experience .............................. 53 3.3 Consequences. The Critical Merit of Intention. The Model of Non-Literal or Transferred Meaning .................................................. 58 4 How Metaphor Fades AwaY ................................................................................ 69 4.1 A Question of the Semantic and Metaphorical Reservoir ........................................ 69 4.2 The Conventional Metaphor. Criteria. The Tricky Historical Background ............................................................................... 74 4.3 Searle’s Position ............................................................................................................... 84 4.4 Instead of a Summary: Metaphor as Conversational Implicature .................................................................... 88 5 The 20th CenturY Discovers Metaphor ..................................................... 91 5.1 The Theory of Interaction (Richards, Black) .............................................................. 91 Content 5.2 Criticism of Weinrich. His ‘Bildfeld’. From the Symbolic to the Indexical Type of Signs ..................................................... 108 5.3 Criticism of Conceptualism (Lakoff, Johnson) .......................................................... 118 5.4 More Questions for Conceptualism. Blending Theory (Fauconnier, Turner) ....... 126 Bibliographies and References .................................................................................................. 133 Diagrams and Tables ................................................................................................................. 144 Preface to the Second Edition This book deals with the theory of metaphors developed by Lakoff and Johnson, known as cognitive theory of metaphors or conceptualism. Their work follows in the footsteps of Max Black who, for his part, devised his theory from the work of Ivor Armstrong Richards. The ideas of Lakoff and Johnson are commonly alluded to in specialist literature on literary stud- ies, presumably because of the perspectives they offer in criticizing current ideologies. How- ever, Lakoff’s and Johnson’s notion of metaphor is not without problems when it comes to classical (rhetorical) metaphor. In order to show how conceptualism insufficiently deals with rhetorical metaphors, it is first necessary to have a clearer idea of classical metaphor itself. My theoretical sketch, there- fore, also includes a discursive criticism of the existing models of metaphor. By analysing the functioning of metaphor, we find evidence for metaphor as a pragmatic phenomenon of nat- ural languages. This evidence forms the beginning of my critique (chapters 3 and 4) and is followed by a critique of conceptualism itself (chapter 5). For further support I am obliged to range further afield (chapters 1 and 2) since metaphor affects our fundamental beliefs about human imagery and referentiality in language. I am extremely grateful to Angela Kessler who gave generously of her time to translate my initial manuscript into English. Her insights and suggestions saved me from copious blunders and inspired many improvements. For the second edition, I would like to thank all those who provided helpful corrections, especially Bettina Bergmann, Annica Tews, Elisabeth Schlier- icke, Headley Noel, Christopher Gray and Kay Nitsch. Tim Ochser was an incredible help with the final version — I would like to express my sincere gratitude for his input. Sadly, he is no longer around to appreciate the final result. Greifswald, Spring 2018 Stephan Kessler Chapter One The General Principles of Iconicity in Language Metaphor, Polysemy, Homonymy. Iconic and Symbolic Thought This book deals with a theoretical problem called imagery in literature. The problem is prob- ably as old as the hermeneutic preoccupation with texts, meaning it has existed since the ad- vent of theology and the earliest studies of literature. Admittedly, this is a rather vague ac- count of the history of scholarship on imagery, which encompasses the link between hermeneutics, language and art. The reader is therefore advised to read Gadamer’s more de- tailed history of hermeneutics (1990: 177–222; 2006: 172–214). Images in literature are gen- erally seen as a particular instance of language-based imagery. This is because they are recog- nised as part of a particular, aesthetically defined context (mostly within artistic texts, i.e. lit- erature). On the other hand, the more general phenomenon of imagery in language is char- acteristic of all texts since it forms an integral part of speech. Numerous authors (e.g. Hönigs- perger 1994) have attested to this fact. In this regard, everybody knows a posteriori about this topic. In the following passage: (1) In der Tat umschwirren Lobbyisten die Politiker wie die Motten das Licht. Die Strippenzieher aus Unter- nehmen, Verbänden, Gewerkschaften und PR-Agenturen haben die Bundeshauptstadt längst umzingelt. (Burmeister 2008) Transl.: Indeed lobbyists buzz around politicians like moths around the light. String-pullers from business, associations, unions and PR-agencies already have encircled the federal capital. The words in bold are not to be understood in their literal sense. They are, rather, an example of figurative language (a term which includes the metaphors we will be looking at). In such cases we often speak of a ‘picturesque’ style (Germ. bildlicher Wortgebrauch), which is a some- what misleading expression. This linguistic phenomenon does not create a real picture (Germ. bildlich) but is merely evocative of a picture (Germ. bildhaft). In other words, such language represents figures of thought (cf. Abrams 1999: 64–66). Although we are aware of the figurative meaning in example 1, it is commonly held that the literal, standard or original meaning of such statements is also pertinent: it has been ac- tivated, if only temporarily. Kurz (1988: 18) says, ‘When understanding a metaphor — while striving to grasp its meaning — we temporarily activate all the possible meanings and con- notations of all the participatory words, their various combinations and affective qualities.’1 Hülzer (1991: 50) argues in a similar vein. 1 Our translation; orig. in German: ‘Wir aktualisieren bei der Metapher – auf der Suche nach ihrem Sinn – wenigs- General Principles of Iconicity in Language Salim-Mohammad (2007: 42–43) aptly calls this ambiguity ‘polysemification’ (Germ. Po- lysemierung). Schumacher (1997: 23–24) has likewise compared polysemy with metaphors (i.e. imagery in language). However, what exactly is polysemy? Polysemy is often described as a gradual form of homonymy (and vice-versa). For instance, Lyons (1994: II, 550–569) argues that polysemy is needed to explain ‘the native speaker’s feeling’ of what is called ‘relatedness of meaning’ and ‘unrelatedness