PART I: GROUNDWORK
3. Metaphor as Perspective
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
30
knowledge. The framing effect as explained by Moran will be useful in our appreciation of archery as a metaphor in Confucian and Aristotelian ethical discourse.
By far, however, it is Josef Stern who offers a thorough and systematic account of “knowledge by metaphor”.36 One simple enough defense which he gives is the fact that we do judge metaphors to be true or false. We may, for example, be optimistic about humanity and disagree with Hobbes that “man is wolf to man”. This shows that propositional or not, metaphors do make claims which we may accept or reject. We can say then along with Stern that “utterances of sentences containing metaphors are truth-valued, express propositions, and can be used to make assertions” (Stern 2000, 24; also 132). Stern further faults Davidson for setting literal paraphrasability – that is, the possibility of translating metaphoric meaning into propositional terms – as condition for the cognitive status of metaphors (Stern 2000, 189, 266). He argues poignantly that while knowledge by metaphor is “not propositional, not said but shown, the information conveyed by the character of the metaphor, like that conveyed by a picture or image, is still knowledge” (Stern 2001, 223). Stern offers intricate ways of explaining in linguistic terms what is cognitive about metaphor, although I shall not go into it.37 For now, let us further examine what it is that metaphors express beyond the literal words that instantiate them.
3. Metaphor as Perspective
Given that it is possible to distinguish between the literal and the metaphoric meanings of a single metaphoric statement, when we focus on the metaphoric meaning, we notice that it is not easy to spell it out in simple words, in other words, that it is not – at least not entirely – paraphrasable. What we wish to do now is to try to articulate what metaphoric knowledge consists in. Again, different authors use different words to express what metaphors convey.
Faced with the question about whether or not metaphors are paraphrasable, Searle considers how, when we do try to translate metaphors into ordinary speech –
36 The phrase is coined by Stern, who distinguishes between the somewhat propositional “content” of a metaphor and its metaphoric “character” (i.e., “knowledge by metaphor”). The latter he defines as follows: “a metaphorical use or interpretation of language can convey a kind of information, or bear cognitive significance, above and beyond what we might all agree is what it says (…) as information of this kind, conveyed specifically by the metaphorical mode of expression of a word interpreted metaphorically, I shall call our ‘knowledge by metaphor’”, Stern 2001, 188.
37 Stern develops his defense of metaphoric cognition in a two-fold manner: first, by distinguishing between metaphor content and metaphor character (roughly corresponding to the propositional assertion of metaphor which is discursive in nature, and the non-propositional meaning which it displays); and, second, by explicating metaphors as demonstratives. Demonstratives like “I” and “you”
are cognitive terms in sentences where they are uttered. What they mean, however, vary significantly according to the context of their utterance, see Stern 2000, 77-104.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
31
e.g., translating “Sally is a block of ice” as “Sally is an extremely unemotional and unresponsive person” – we inevitably feel that “the paraphrase is somehow inadequate, that something is lost”. Further, the better the metaphor is, “our sense of the inadequacy of the paraphrase becomes even more acute” (Searle 1979, 82).
Later, he concludes that “it is often the case that we use metaphor precisely because there is no literal expression that expresses exactly what we mean (…) The expressive power that we feel is part of good metaphors is largely a matter of two features. The hearer has to figure out what the speaker means (by) going through another and related semantic content from the one which is communicated(:) metaphor gives us two ideas for one” (Searle 1979, 115-116). So what is that “other semantic content”, that “second idea” which is distinct but related to the literal one?
Authors designate it as a “pictorial”, “imagistic”, or “iconic” element (Davidson 1978, 47; Ricouer 1978, 154; Miller in Ortony 1979, 204; Hiraga 2005, 30), “a visual dimension” that displays rather than describes, a non-discursive representation (Stern 2000, 155, 290, 293).38 Expressions like “Juliet is the sun” or “Sally is a block of ice” sound more graphic and vivid than literal equivalents (given that there are literal equivalents) precisely because of this component of metaphor that we are presently examining. The same authors warn us, however, that this element of metaphor need not correspond to concrete images or a mental picture (Moran 1989 112; Ricouer 1978, 149), for some metaphors are, in fact, more abstract than others.
Compare, for example, “Juliet is the sun” with “love is a journey”: the second example evokes a more abstract concept, for while we only know one, concrete sun, journeys are innumerable and take place in many different ways, short or long haul, by land, air or sea.
In a given metaphor, the pictorial dimension associated with the concrete, source field is used to convey something about the remote term. Normally, the concrete term is able to do so because it exemplifies what the speaker of the metaphor wants to make us see or notice about the remote term. When Romeo chooses the word “sun” to refer to his beloved, he is in effect inviting us to see Juliet in terms of something which the sun conventionally exemplifies. Romeo could have chosen other phenomena similar to the sun, like stars or fire, but perhaps the metaphor would have been less striking since neither stars (which are numerous) nor fire (which is of practical use and often associated with disaster) exemplify the lover’s esteem for his beloved: the singleness of devotion, the awe, and whatever else
38 Han dynatsy scholar Wang Bi (王弼) may have much to contribute to metaphor study with his insights about how images, ideas and texts work together, cf. Zhouyi lüeli, section Ming tuan 明彖.
However, since Wang Bi writes with specific regard to the Zhouyi, which is a classic sui generis, bringing his insights in relation to present study would require caution and more expertise.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
32
invoking the sun may call to mind about Juliet.39 The sun simply does a better job at representing what Romeo feels as a lover than stars and fire could.
Taking a step further, the pictorial dimension of a given metaphor is, in the end, a perspective which the author invites us to take in thinking of something. To see Juliet as the sun has us view Juliet from an aspect similar to and exemplified by the sun. In my opinion, this alteration of attention can constitute an increment of knowledge of things depending on what we are led to discover or how much we were previously familiar with the terms involved. I obviously take a cognitive view of metaphor in writing this thesis, and find myself in agreement with authors who argue that knowledge by metaphor, though not easily paraphrasable, can still be at least partially paraphrased and that, moreover, what cannot be stated propositionally need not be dismissed as nebulous inspirations or sheer poetic effects. The perspectives that metaphors – particularly good, strong ones as I believe the archery metaphor is in ethics – introduce us to about their subject possess a logic and structure that is possible and beneficial to trace. Articulating these aspects can lead to invaluable knowledge about the theme. In the chapters where I zero in on archery metaphors in Confucius and Aristotle, I shall use simple diagrams to outline the source and target domains, shared attributes and likely associations of metaphoric expressions inspired by archery.
Scholars who speak of metaphors as perspectives are willing to defend a strong cognitive position because they are mindful of what aspectival thinking, or “seeing as”, involves (Stern 2000, 289; also, Ricouer 1978, 143, etc.). When we say that a metaphor makes us see A as B, what happens in effect is a projection of a model or schema from the source domain B to the target domain A, with the former usually being more concrete, tangible or familiar than the target domain.40 The matter is important because it helps to explain how metaphors seem able to convey things not only more dramatically but also more holistically or completely. A single, good metaphor can communicate much at a single glance, analogous to how “a picture
39 Earlier, I had interpreted the same metaphor differently: that Juliet is all-important to Romeo and is his source of light and warmth. Two interesting things come to light: first, that metaphors do
“summarize a whole lot of information” (Miller in Ortony 1979, 204) than mere words are able to;
second, that they are also susceptible to misinterpretation and over-reading. More on this when we discuss metaphor interpretation.
40 This is generally the case. However, there are examples of equally effective metaphors wherein a more abstract term enlightens on a tangible, commonplace reality, e.g., Joyce Kilmer’s “I think I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree.” It seems from this that what is crucial to metaphoric efficacy is whether or not the word used metaphorically exemplifies the aspect which the author wants us to notice about his subject. In the example just given, a “poem” represents an artistic creation with parts beautifully arranged in relation to each other, producing a harmonious whole. Trees are naturally so, but since we may have gotten accustomed to thinking of them in terms of the fruits they yield, or the shade they offer, or as wild growths in a field or forest, the metaphoric verse then invites us to contemplate how a tree is beautiful and harmonious like a piece of art.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
33
paints a thousand words”.41 In the succeeding section, I shall delve into the aspectival function of metaphor which will bring us further into the cognitive content, structure and ramifications of metaphor.