Teresa Dobrzyńska
Metaphor and Its Cultural
Background
Literary Studies in Poland 20, 55-67
Teresa D obrzyńsk a
M etaphor and Its Cultural Background
In his “ M etap h o r and C u ltiv ation o f In tim acy,” 1 Ted C ohen, m aking a plea for figuration and for its value which is independent o f w hether or n o t m etap h o r is a ttrib u te d a capability o f expressing true judgem ents, asks why people resort to co m m u nicatio n th ro ug h m etaphor. T he usual answ er to this question is th at m etap h o r is a m eans to express things which ca n n o t be readily expressed in the cursory language. M etap h o r enables a speaker to overcom e the c o d e ’s lim ited possibilities to articu late new ideas and notions, to “express w hat is inexpressible.” 2 O th er answ ers to the question m ention the sensual pow er o f m etap ho rical statem ents. U nlike speech which uses ab stra ct notions, m etaph orical statem ents are capable o f conjuring up an im age in the b ro a d est sense o f the w ord, for they conjure up visual, acoustic, tactile, olfactory, indeed gourm et sensations on perceiving the object referred to.
But C ohen suggested a different answ er, po in tin g at pragm atical reasons. People tend to use m etap h o rs, he said, essentially because m etap h o r enables the speaker and his p artn e r to establish close co n tact. T he adressee’s reaction to a m etap ho rical statem ent is, in this in terp re tatio n , a response to the invitation to jo in the gam e which the m etaphorical statem ent implies. O w ing to that co o p eratio n , C ohen argues, the sender and recipient o f the m essage set up a close com m unity , a circum stance which becom es p articu larly vivid in the
1 C r itic a l In q u iry, 5, A u t u m n 1978; [repr. in:] On M e ta p h o r, ed. by S. Sacks. C h i c a g o 1979.
2 Cf. A. P a i v i o , “P sy c h o lo g ic a l P ro ce ss es in the C o m p r e h e n s i o n o f M e t a p h o r , ” [in:] M e ta p h o r an d Thought, ed. by A. O rt o n y . C a m b r id g e 1979. p. 152.
case o f m etaphorical co m m unication when the reception o f the message is less au to m atic th a n otherw ise and requires som e effort a t in terp re ta tion.
In C o h e n ’s view, then, the purpose o f using a m etap h o r is to create a sense o f close com m unity in com m unication. This is also its m ain value. But is it really necessary to resort to m etap h o r in order to achieve this? W o u ld n ’t it do to use stan d ard com m unication codes, w ithout running the risk o f potentially u nco ntro llable m etap ho rical interpretation , one in which the sender’s intention may be m issed? Indeed, is it necessary to use w ords at all? W ou ld n’t it do ju st to be together, as h appens in a family, a social gathering, a religious cong regation? I am no t denying m e ta p h o r’s coop erativ e nature, which has been outlined generally by H. P. G rice,3 b ut I wish to expound a view which differs from C o h e n ’s and says th at the closeness o f sender and recipient is not the purpose b u t the con ditio n o f successful m etaphorical com m unication. By closeness I m ean sim ilar personal experience as well as a related cultural back grou nd, im plying fam ilia rity with the same n o tions and a sim ilar ap p ro ach to them , which in tu rn implies a sim ilar em otional attitude tow ards them .
To see to what extent closeness in this sense is a con ditio n for a sim ilar interp retatio n o f a m etap h o r by the m essage’s sender and recipient, let us stop for a while to take a close look at the m echanism o f m etapho r. M etap h o r is one type o f language use which only indirectly relies on the conventional m eaning o f coded signs. M etaphorical com m u nication occurs when the recipient actively jo in s the process which m akes him draw conclusions bo th from the message itself and from the situatio n in which it is uttered, as well as from all the relevant nonlinguistic knowledge. M etap h o r differs from o ther types o f figurative language use in th a t it is applied in a p redicate function. The reference o f a m etaphorical expression is know n by the context or situation in which it is used. Accordingly, m etap h o r can be phrased as a sentence. It is a sentence in which the p redicate is filled with no ready-m ade con tents bu t constitutes an in terp retative task for the recipient. In a m ost general description, then, the structure o f m etap hor can be presented by these sentence p a tte rn s;
* Cf. H. P. Gric e, “ Lo gi c and C o n v e r s a t i o n , ” [in:] The L o g ic o f G ram m ar, ed . by D . D a v id so n . G. H arm an , D i c k e n s o n 1975.
M e ta p h o r an d Its C u ltu ra l B a ck g ro u n d 57
X is so and so; X is ... The site o f the predicate in a m etaph or is not
empty, hut it is not filled with any concrete c o n te n ts—the given expression’s coded m ean in g — either. (In the form er case, there would be no way to co ntro l possibilities to fill th at site, while the latter case is an ordinary case o f coded com m unication.) In a m etap ho r, th at site is filled by an elem ent which indirectly leads a recipient tow ards the intended m eaning but which at the sam e tim e does not hand together with the rem aining p art o f the message or has no m eaningful link to the given situation. Since a m etaphorical predicate is referred to a given object o f a different order, because in norm al usage the predicate is no t suitable for th at object, a m etap h o r which has not been interpreted can be regarded as a m eaningless utterance. The irrelevance o f the m etaphorical predicate (in a given interp reta tion) can be presented using co n tra ste d sym bols; object X will be described using predicates belonging to the order Y o f things. U lti mately, depending on the syntactical structu re o f m etaphorical state m ents, m etap h o r represents surface structures o f the p attern s: X is Y;
X is y-like; X Ys (as verb); Y . . . (said ab o u t X), and so on.
The predicative elem ent in a m etap h o r is som etim es called (following R ichards) “vehicle” 4 or (following Black) m e ta p h o r’s “subsidiary subject.” 5
The m etaphorical vehicle (let us keep to this fairly w idespread designation o f the m etaphorical predicate) is used in a given m etap h o rical statem ent deliberately, for alth ough its coded m eaning is irrele vant in the given situation, it is the vehicle which leads the recipient tow ards the m eaning the sender has in m ind. The m e ta p h o r’s final m eaning is built o f p a rt o f the m eaning a n d /o r the co n n o tatio n o f the vehicle, and the m eaning is com posed o f those sem antic and connotative elem ents which are suitable in the given situation, fitting the given reference.
The usage and u n derstanding o f m etapho r, then, are conditional on u n d ersta n d in g the m eaning o f the given sign in its expanded form , along with its p ertinent con n o tatio n s. N ow this term , which is being used in different m eanings in linguistic studies, calls for an
4 Cf. I. A. R i c h a r d s , The P h ilo so p h y o f R h eto ric, Oxfo rd 1936.
5 Cf. M. B l a c k , “ M e t a p h o r , ” [in:] M o d e ls a n d M e ta p h o rs, Cor nell U niver si ty Press. 1962.
accurate definition here. I am using it in the m eaning given to it by Io rd an sk aia and M elchuk,6 who described co n n o tatio n s o f a given lexem as the set o f features the speakers attrib u te to th a t lexem ’s d en o tate and which are no t com prised by the inv ariant m eaning; along with the invariant m eaning, th at set o f features co nstitu tes an extended characteristic o f a definite lexical unit and is associated with it in peo p le’s minds. M any students o f language called for including con n o tatio n s, in this sense, in entries o f d iction aries.7 Iord anskaia and M elchuk, w ho devoted a special study to it, showed th at co n n o tatio n s are linked n o t so m uch with things as such but with the corresp ond in g lexems. A ccordingly, different designations o f one and the sam e thing may have different co n n o tatio n s; th e R ussian
osel (ass), for exam ple, has c o n n o tatio n s o f “stupidly s tu b b o rn ” while
the lexem ishak which denotes the sam e beast connotes the feature “hard -w o rk in g .” The afore-m entioned auth o rs poin ted o u t th at the co n n o tatio n s o f the w ord em brace characteristics o f things and p ro cesses which are no t always confirm ed in reality, fo r they are certain stereotypes abo u t objects covered by a given term rath er than being palpable features o f any given object. N o t each individual ass is stu b b o rn or stupid, bu t this circum stance will hardly affect the stereotype o f the ass or its co n n o tatio n s.
Io rd an sk aia and M elchuk m ade the im p o rtan t p o in t th a t am ong linguistic co n n o tatio n s there are som e th a t leave a trace in the given language’s derivative and phraseological system. F eatures conn o ted by the form ative foundation o f the w ord are im plicit in the invariant m eaning o f the derivative (e.g., the word wiatr, “w ind,” connotes changeability, which reaffirms the m eaning o f the Polish w ord wietrzni-
ca, “ giddy-head,” for which changeability is a feature by definition);
co n n o tatio n s o f one word change into a sem antic feature o f the phrase which includes this w ord (e.g., the word bone— dry as a bone). M etaphorical utterances which have established them selves as linguistic conventions bear ou t by their m eanings the existence o f a certain co n n o tatio n in the sam e w ord in the basic m eaning (e.g., the word
6 Cf. L. N. I o r d a n s k a i a , I. A. M e l c h u k , “ K o n n o ta t s i a v lin gvist ich esk oi s e m a n t ik e ,” W iener S la w istisch er A lm a n a ch , 6, 1980.
7 Cf., e.g., Y. D. A p r e s i a n , L e k sic h e sk a ia se m a n tik a . S in o n im ich esk ie sr e d s tv a
M e ta p h o r a n d Its C u ltu ra l B a c k g ro u n d 59
osel— 'ds a species—connotes “stupidly stu b b o rn ,” which develops into
a m etap h o r established as a linguistic con v en tio n : osel— “stupidly stub b o rn m an ”). All these co n n o tatio n s, which have their co u n terp arts in sem antic features o f o ther w ords or derivative expressions, were called “lexical co n n o ta tio n s” by Io rd an sk aia and M elchuk. The other conn o tatio n s, the status o f which is less objective as no t confirm ed in the language itself, were called “encyclopaedic c o n n o tatio n s.” They are recorded in p eo p le’s m em ories as chains o f associations linked with individual notion s and corresp o n d in g expressions. They m ake up w hat is called “know ledge o f the w orld,” em bracing various beliefs and opinions which are n o t necessarily true b u t which are largely shared by m em bers o f the given com m unity. T hat, as au th o rs o f studies on the in terp re tatio n o f texts are fond o f saying, is the “com m on w orld” o f the given group o f speakers. The range and shape o f th at w orld are determ ined b o th by psychophysical factors which are com m o n to all people as specim ens o f one species (whose basic existential experience is largely the sam e) and the specific cultural experience o f the given group. W ithin this latter kind o f experience, p artic ip a tio n in the reception o f texts produced by the given cu ltu re and absorbed by a large p ro p o rtio n o f society is one o f the m ost im p o rtan t factors.
T he associative features o f w ords presented generally h e re —their c o n n o ta tio n s —are used in m etaphorical statem en ts to obtain certain occasional m eanings. As said before, a m etaphorical statem ent m akes room for pro d u cin g a new m eaning, which does n o t yet exist in the language as a separate notion. T h at m eaning is b u ilt anew each tim e when the u ttera n ce is being subm itted to in terp re tatio n (with co nv entio nalized m etaphors being the one exception). The m aterial used to create the m etap ho rical m eaning are som e (not all) o f a w o rd ’s sem antic features along with the above-m entioned con no tative features o f words. T o forestall confusing this process o f in terp retatio n from objective in varian t m eanings coded in a language, I am going to speak ab o u t the in terp retatio n (as distinct from the m eaning) o f m etaphorical statem ents. A m etaphorical in terp retatio n m anifests itself through a certain hypothetical set o f features selected from the w o rd ’s sem antic and conn otative features which are suitable in the given reference. The se t’s b oundaries are actually open. In o rd er to interpret the m etap h o r, it is necessary to think at least o f one feature
picked from a num ber o f possible features. But m etaph ors in poetic texts are as a rule designed to cause a m uch b ro a d er resonance am ong the audience, a resonance which is based on long series o f conn oted features. In terp retatio n o f those m etaphors may change depending on the person involved, b u t on the whole it is determ ined by the w o rd ’s conn otativ e p otential.
T o clarify a bit the above interp retatio n o f m etaphors, let me describe interpretative operatio n s in the case o f m etaphorical utterance I presented in previous studies,8 using the possibly sim plest terms. I take the sentence p attern “X is V as the fo rm u la representing all types o f m etaphor. T he sentence represented by this form ula is incom prehensible in its literal m eaning, and may be recognized as a m etaphorical statem ent in which the position o f the predicate requires to be filled with co n ten ts on the g ro un d o f indirect inform ation, th at is, T’s characteristics. The follow ing is a com plete p resentation o f the in terp retatio n o f m etap ho r Y using the possibly sim plest m eaningful term s (in the way o f A n na W ierzbicka’s lingua
men tal is) :
X is ... In ord er to say w hat X is like, I am th in king abo ut T,
because one m ay say ab o u t X w hat has been said ab o u t Y
Let us now apply this interpretative p attern to a m etaphor which occurs in M aria Jasnorzew ska-P aw likow ska’s b rief poem called
Love.
8 C f. T. D o b r z y ń s k a : “ M eta fo ra a sp ó jn o ść tek stu ” (M eta p h o r and C o h e rence), [in:] T e k st i zdan ie, ed. by T. D o b rzy ń sk a , E. Janus, W rocław 1983;
M e ta fo ra , W rocław 1984; “ W arunki interpretacji w y p o w ied zi m e ta fo ry czn y ch ” (C o n d i
tio n s for the In terp retation o f M eta p h o rica l S tatem en ts), [in:] T eoria te k s tu , ed. by T. D o b rzy ń sk a . W rocław 1986. Y is y '. — ► X is ÿ . Y is y " . — ► X is y " . Y is y '" . — Y is y " " . — > X is y " " . etc. etc.
N ie w id ziałam cię ju ż od m iesiąca. I nic. Jestem m o że b led sza,
troch ę śp iąca, trochę bardziej m ilcząca, lecz w id ać m o żn a ży ć bez p ow ietrza.
M e ta p h o r a n d Its C u ltu ra l B a c k g ro u n d 61
(I have not seen you for a m o n t h . / S o w hat. P erhaps I am a bit pale. / a bit sleepy, a bit m ore silen t, j but it lo o k s p eo p le can live w ith o u t air.]
If you follow this te x t’s internal links and recall the title, you will see the poem is woven aro u n d the central m o tif o f “ I need your love as m uch as the air I b re ath e.” The w om an who is speaking finds with surprise she is still alive, despite not having seen her lover for a m onth (seeing in the sense o f meetings). M eeting her lover, his love for her, is as necessary for her as the air she breathes. So,
Y our love is for me ... In order to say what your love for me is like I am th inking ab o u t the air th at one breathes, because I can say abo u t your love w hat has been said ab o u t the air one breathes.
Air is breathed.
Air is indispensable for Y our love is indispensable
everybody to live (and so — >■ for me to live,
for me too).
Air is gaseous. —
Air is tran sp a ren t. —
Air, accordingly, is the vehicle o f the m etap h o r in this text. To com prehend the m eaning o f the m etaph or, it is necessary to invoke your elem entary know ledge o f a ir’s properties. Air can be attrib u ted the c o n n o tatio n “ indispensable for life.” This alone may suffice to co m prehen d the m e ta p h o r’s m eaning, but o f course cursory know ledge o f air em braces a full array o f properties we know about, say th at air is tran sp aren t, light, gaseous, and so on. But these properties are useless in the quoted m etaphor. They m ay be useful in o th er m etaph orical utterances som etim es leading to opposite m eanings to the one given to it by P aw likow ska-Jasnorzew ska. The colloquial Polish m etaphorical expression “Y ou are air to m e,” can be in terpreted to m ean “ I ignore you. F or me you d o n ’t even exist,” in which case the prop erty o f transparency (and so invisibility) is being taken advantage of.
The interpretative o perations the above form ula p u rp o rts to envi sage lead to a discovery o f the m etaphorical predicate we are looking for. But this can only be done when the recipient can invoke a num ber o f features o f the m etaphorical vehicle, th at is, when he or she com prehends the expression which perform s the p art o f vehicle for the m etap h o r and when he or she has at least partly fam iliar
with it. M etap h o rs the vehicle o f which is incom prehensible fo r the recipient ca n n o t possibly be interpreted. Let m e illustrate th is with an exam ple.9
Bo T s’uj-i, the C hinese poet, describing the p o u rin g o f wine into bowls says:
O p en in g the p itch er I p o u r o u t in to b o w ls Jasper ju ic e.
If, interpreting this text, we are able to co n strue the reference o f the w ords “ja sp e r ju ic e ” as wine from its b ro ad er con tex t, then we can create the m etapho rical utterance “W ine is jasper-juice-like.” (Incidentally, we have got to know the m eaning o f “ja s p e r” to know the poet ca n n o t possibly m ean juice being squeezed o u t o f jasp er rock.) Proceeding with the interpretation, we w ould pass on from the adjectival form o f “ja sp e r” to the co n n o tatio n o f the substantive “ja sp e r” . A Polish, as indeed any E uropean, reader should instantly see th a t he m ay n o t be able to guess the p o e t’s original intention for even if we are fam iliar with ja s p e r’s physical p ro p erties we do no t know w hat functions it played in C hinese culture, w hat value was attrib u ted to it, or w hat sym bolic m eaning if any it had. O ne can suppose th a t to u n d ersta n d the qu oted excerpt o f the C hinese poem it should suffice to recognize jasp er as a valuable m aterial. Wine, then, is perh ap s a precious enough liquid to m atch the price o f jasp er. This, apparently, finishes the in terp re tatio n o f the m etaph or.
However, the sinologist who com m ented on this lin e 10 did not stop at this point. H e m ade a small yet significant co rrection in the list o f pro perties co nnoted by jasp er which were used in m etap h o rical utterances in the C hinese literary trad itio n . A ccording to the com m entator, the features involved could have included “b eau tifu l,” “w onderful” etc., which held for wine. But there is m ore to that. It turned o u t th at the entire expression “ja sp e r ju ice” is a conventional periphrase m eaning a m agical drin k capab le o f p ro lon ging life the prod uction o f which was ascribed to revered m onks know ing the secrets. Jasper juice, accordingly, could be the co u n terp art o f the
9 C f. P u Sun-1 in , L is i chary. R a s s k a z y L ao C h zh a ia o ch u desakh , M o sk v a 1970, p. 345, n o te to p. 123 (the q u o ta tio n is a tra n sla tio n from R u ssia n ).
10 T he co m m e n ta r y to Pu S u n -lin ’s sto ries w as w ritten by the o u tsta n d in g R u ssian sin o lo g ist, acad em ician V. M. A lek se v ev . w h o a lso translated the stories.
M e ta p h o r an d Its C u ltu ra l B a c k g ro u n d 63
aqua vitae— the w ater o f life—o f E u rop ean m ythology. The G reek
nectar is perhaps even better a co u n terp art.
If we read the studied poetic line with this com m entary, the m etap h o r will assum e a different m eaning, for; wine will ap p ear to be a life-giving drin k desired as strongly as longevity and h ealth; its suprem e value results from its m agical pow er. But in ord er to interpret th a t m etap h o r it is necessary to know th at “jasp er ju ice” becam e a conventional designation o f a life-giving drink, th at is, the reader m ust have an intim ate know ledge o f certain sem iotic processes which had occurred in C hinese culture before the poem was written.
It is no t always necessary for the recipient to be equally active in interpreting m etaph orical statem ents. Som e m etaph ors are intended for the recipient to construe the sense on his own. The ro ad between the vehicle and its occasional m eaning in such expressions has first to be paved, and the recipient m ust review the vehicle’s sem antic and conno tative features and decide afterw ards which o f them may be relevant in the context. A t the other extrem e there are m etap h o rs the reception o f which is largely au to m atic: the figura tive m eanings o f such m etaphors have becom e conventions o f the language and so the recipient does no t have to look for them on his own bu t should, quite sim ply, be fam iliar with them . M any o f those m etaphors are predicate con structs in which the p a rt o f vehicle is played an expression with conventional allegorical or sym bolic m eaning. N am es o f beasts from the A esopian zodiac, which were used to designate hum an qualities, are good exam ples o f allego ries com m only used in m etaph orical utterances. W ithout elab oratin g on this point, let me only m ention th a t m etaph orical use can draw on results o f sem iotic processes tak in g place in the creation o f allegorical m eaning; and, conversely, m etaphorical statem ents, which invoke repeatedly the same or closely related co nn otative features, m ay signal a first stage o f the given w ord tu rn in g into a sym bol, a conventional allegorical sign.
C onv ention al m etaph ors are p ro d u c ts o f specific cultures. They em erge ou t o f texts circulated in a culture. The above-m entioned m etaphorical description o f hum an qualities with nam es o f beasts was ushered in by fables.
A nother source o f conventional m etap h o rs are stereotyped co m p a risons (e.g., hyperbolic m etapho rs such as “She is an angel!” derive
from com parative expression “she is as good as an an gel'’). Similarly, cursory stories and anecdotes gave rise to anto n o m asis, i.e. the figurative use o f a p ro p e r name. All expressions o f this kind have a definite m etaphorical m eaning, which only m ust be invoked, th at is, referred to an object which is the subject o f the utterance.
But this can n o t be done w ithout p artic ip a tin g in the culture concerned. You have got to be fam iliar with sem antic conventions holding in the given culture, and to a b ro a d e r extent th an what knowledge o f the language ordinarily implies, for you also need to know m eanings o f petrified m etaphorical expressions.
M etaphorical expressions having such specific m eanings hold in social groups which m ay be very large as well as very small. Som e times they com e to acquire m etaphorical m eanings only inside small groups o f people sharing a com m on body o f experiences an d com m un i cation behaviours, say a family, a circle o f friends, a w orking group on a certain jo b . But this kind o f com m unity m ay involved very large groups, too, extending beyond the b o u nd aries o f speech co m m u nities.
Let us look at the following excerpt from W isław a S zy m b o rsk a’s poem Large N u m b er:
N o n o m n is m oriar — p rzed w cz esn e strap ien ie. C zy jed n a k cała żyję i czy to w ystarcza. N ie w ystarczało nigd y, a tym bardziej teraz. W ybieram o d rzu cając, b o nie m a in n eg o sp o so b u , ale to, c o o d rzu ca m , liczeb n iejsze je st,
gęstsze, n atarczyw sze jest n iż k ied y k o lw iek .
K o sz tem n ieo p isa n y ch strat — w ierszyk , w estch n ien ie. N a gro m k ie p o w o ła n ia o d zy w a m się sz ep tem . Ile przem ilczam , teg o nie w y p o w iem .
M ysz u p o d n ó ż a m acierzystej góry.
Ż y cie trwa kilka z n a k ó w p azurkiem na piasku.
IN on o m n is m oriar — n o worry. / But, am I all a liv e? A n d , is that e n o u g h ? / I t never w as, and n o w less than ever. / I c h o o s e by rejectio n , for that's all I can d o. / But w hat I reject is larger, / is d enser, m ore p ersisten t than ever. / T h e price o f u n sp ea k a b le lo ss is a b rief p o em , a sigh. / T o sten to ria n in v o c a tio n s I rep ly in w hisper. / Just h o w m uch I c o n cea l I dare n o t say. / A m o u se at the fo o t o f its parent m o u n ta in . / L ife lasts ju st a few scratches o n sand.]
The m eaning o f this excerpt is being built in different ways; by startin g with a q u o tatio n which im parts to the w ords non om nis
moriar (I shall not altogether die) the im p ortan ce o f words uttered
M e ta p h o r and Its C u ltu ra l B a c k g ro u n d 65
in history; by dclexicalizing genetic m etap hors (stentorous invocations are being responded to with a w hisper); by infringing upon and transform ing idiom atic expressions (“ life lasts ju st a few scratches on sa n d ’'). There is no need for us to go any deeper into the sem antic fabric o f the quoted lines. Let me ju st point at the line ab ou t a m ouse “at the foot o f its p aren t m o u n ta in .” T h at lin e—in literal re ad in g —does not seem to fit well the preceding text. It m ust be construed as a m etaph or, and the in terp retatio n proceeds along a ready-m ade p attern know n from the trad itio n o f fable. To discover that interpretation, it suffices to recognize the qu oted line as a p a ra p h ra se o f the fabulous m o tif o f “a m ou ntain th a t gave b irth to a m ouse,” which is allegorical language to describe situations in which the result o f some actions turn s out to be negligible, despite grand declarations. This form ula has established itself as a proverb, and Szym borska uses it in self-irony. The q uo ted line, then, relies on w hat is a widely known sem antic convention. It lends itself easily to translation into m any languages, including all E uropean ones.
We have now discussed several aspects o f the intelligibility o f m etaphor. I have pointed out th at in ord er to interpret a m etap ho r we have got first to grasp the m eaning o f the vehicle in its entire body o f sem iotic links; we have got to realize its full m eaning and co n n o tatio n s; and where conventional m etap h o rs are involved it is necessary for the recipient also to know their petrified m eanings. But exactly how im p o rtan t conventional m etapho rs really are in their strongly determ ined m eanings is, in a way, a secondary question. W hat abou t interp retatio n s o f nonconventional m etap h o rs? In what way does the sender o f the m etaphorical u tterance co ntrol its m eaning? The sender is not keen on getting ju st any resonance at the receiving end, but on a specific one; since an utterance is addressed to an o th er individual, the speaker expects its reception to be convergent with the intended message. T hat expectation goes along with each type o f utteran ce and finds expression in that the speaker takes the sam e perspective as his re cip ien t.11 The same happens when a m etap h o r is used.
11 That the recip ien t's perspective m ust he recogn ized as prim ary and c o n stitu tiv e for verbal co m m u n ica tio n is a thesis put forw ard and d ev elo p ed by A. B o g u s ł a w s k i in his stu d ies: cf. for ex a m p le, “ S ło w o o tek ście i zd an iu " (A W ord on Text and S en te n c e), [in:] T ek st i zdanie.
But because o f the specific p attern o f m etaphorical meaning, the m atter is m ore involved in this case. The message is not being com m unicated directly. By using a m etaphorical vehicle th e sender m erely drops a hint ab o u t where the recipient should loo k for the m eaning, nam ely am ong the vehicle’s sem antic and co n n o ted features. An interpreter o f a message m ay well co nstrue the m ean ing o f a m e ta p h o r from o th er elem ents th an the sender wished. In conversa tion such an interp retative gap can easily be noticed and removed, but in perusal inadequate in terp retatio n often generates contradictions in co nstru ing the utterance, and this is a signal th a t th e adopted interpretative hypothesis requires reform ulation.
If he wants to forestall any significant gap in in terp reting a m etap hor by his p a rtn e r in an act o f verbal com m unication, the sender m ust take account o f those groups o f co nn otatio ns th at are borne out by other figurative m eanings, o r those which are confirm ed, as lexical co n n o tatio n s, in o th er derivative elem ents o f the language. So, certain stereotypes can be said to establish them selves, which justify the expectation o f a given resonance at the receiving end. I do no t m ean to say the m e ta p h o r’s m eaning should becom e fully determ ined, as is the case with conventional m etaphors. But very o fte n —whenever judgem ents and opinions ab o u t any given term are shared widely en o u g h —the m eaning o f a m etap h o r is m ore or less under con trol. If the speaker w ants his utterance to be intelli gible, he m ust take into account the con no tative stereotypes o f the w ords he is using and he m ust ad a p t the m eaning o f his m etap ho r to them .
There are certain utterances th a t d o not conform to this rule, specifically those which are intended to brin g out individual expression, closed within a herm etic w orld o f the sp eak er’s own fantasies and activating his intim ate areas o f associative links. Some kinds o f lyrical poetry is like this. Still, an overw helm ing m ajority o f texts is construed in such a way th a t the recip ien t’s in terp retatio n can roughly coincide with the sen d er’s intended m eaning, th at is, th at the sen der’s and the recip ien t’s respective readings o f the m etap h o r should not be m utually contradictory.
To conclude, m etaphorical com m unication is n aturally dependent on the cultu ral background o f p articip an ts in the act o f co m m un ica tion. C om m unication between them is possible when their respective knowledge relevant for the text involved is largely the same, and this
M e ta p h o r an d Its C u ltu ra l B a c k g ro u n d 67 happens when term s in the text fall into the sen der’s and the recipient’s com m on w orld and when the two attrib u te sim ilar conno- tative m eanings to term s used as figures o f speech. M etap h o r thus appears to be undeniably a culture-dependent p hen om enon, and it can only function in reliance on a sense o f closeness which results from a g ro u p ’s shared experience and developm ent.
And this is why I wish to challenge Ted C o h e n ’s opinion quoted a t the o u tset: a sense o f com m unity is not, as C ohen contends, the purp o se o f com m unication involving m etaph or, but its condition. U nless this con dition is m et, com m un ication can n o t be successful, or only ap parently so.*
T ransl. by Z y g m u n t N iera d a
* T he P olish text ap p ears in K o n o ta c ja , a c o lle c tio n o f essa y s ed. by J. B artm iń- sk i, L ublin. T h e q u e stio n s o u tlin ed in this text are d iscu ssed at length by the au th or in her b o o k M e ta fo r a (W ro cla w , 1984) in the series ca lled P o ety k a . Zarys E n cy k lo p ed y czn y , w here sh e gives a sy stem a tic e x p o sitio n o f m eta p h o rica l m ea n in g u n d erlin in g its pred icative and in d ete rm in a te nature. T h e au th or u n fo ld s her o w n view s against a b ack d rop o f m o d ern critical d isc u ssio n s and d isp u tes, with n u m ero u s references to earlier research w ork. She p resen ts the rela tio n sh ip b etw een m eta p h o r and verbal d e v ia tio n as interpreted by different critics. M eta p h o r p rop er (w hich is alive and n o v el) is d istin g u ish ed from gen etic lin g u istic m eta p h o r w hich is an elem en t o f the lin g u istic co d e. S tu d y in g m eta p h o rica l m ea n in g , the p r o c e ss o f its gen eration and in terp retation . D o b r z y ń s k a u ses sim p le se m a n tic e lem en ts w hich are the m eans A n n a W ierzbicka e m p lo y s in her sem an tic ex p la n a tio n s (cf. S em a n tic p rim itiv e s, Frankfurt 1972; L in gu a m e n ta lis, S y d n ey 1980, and several oth er stu d ies). H avin g d escrib ed the g en era tio n o f m eta p h o rica l m ea n in g a lo n g w ith p o ssib le lin gu istic form s o f figurative p red ica tio n D o b r z y ń s k a sh o w s the d ifferen ce b etw een m etap h or and such p h e n o m e n a as sy m b o l and a llegory, literal “m e ta p h o r -lik e ” ex p ressio n s in fairy tale and fa n ta stic fiction , or ex p ressio n s in v o k in g p h e n o m e n o lo g ic a l im ages (i.e. im ages stru ctu red o n ly by rules o f p ercep tio n and set free from under the c o n tr o l o f ration al k n o w led g e o f the w orld). She em p h a sizes th e c o n te x tu a l character o f m etap h or (a m o n g other th in gs, sh e sin g les o u t so m e d ifficulties in figurative c o m m u n ic a tio n in the to p o lo g ic a l asp ect, say in fairy tale, sc ien ce fiction and lyrical p oetry ). D o b r z y ń sk a then p resen ts threats to coh eren ce in m eta p h o rica l texts, with reference to the th e m a tic-rh em a tic d istin ctio n . She d em o n stra tes p o ssib ilities and lim i ta tio n s o f m eta p h o rica l c o m m u n ic a tio n ex te n d in g her d esc rip tio n over variou s c o m m u n ica tiv e situ a tio n s and p o in tin g at the cu ltural b a ck g ro u n d o f th o se p articipatin g in the act o f c o m m u n ic a tio n , that is, at their “c o m m o n k n o w le d g e .” The interpretative pattern D o b r z y ń sk a d e v e lo p s in the b o o k is su b seq u en tly used to study figurative ex p ressio n s o f different d egrees o f c o m p le x ity , ran gin g from everyd ay p la titu d es through to origin al m eta p h o rs to be fo u n d in lyrical p o etry , and intricate figures o f speech.
