Talk:Metaphor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Metaphor as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Aesthetics

	Metaphor is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Literature Portal
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Typo 2 A Question 3 Current comments 4 Old comments 5 Another Question 6 Extra info 7 Infer v. Imply 8 Slightly aggressive revert 9 Is "strike while the iron ... " a mixed metaphor? 10 Synecdochic Metaphor? 11 Perspectives on metaphor and simile 12 Metaphor question 13 Lead Section 14 Metaphors aren't a subset of (or a form of) an analogy 15 External References 16 Vandalism 17 TURGIDITY? 18 Lead section confusing 19 Apparant bias 20 Is wikipedia useful to explain metaphor and related notions? (Perhaps not?) 21 the introductory section is too long 22 Hey

[edit] Typo

Note: on the main page, first paragraph, it reads; "A metaphor is commonly confused with a smile which compares..." the word "simile" appears as "smile" (missing the "i" after the "s." Upon trying to edit the page, the word appears as it should: "simile." Can someone fix this? Philo sophisticate 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Philo_sophisticate Philo sophisticate 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed at the were trying to fix the problem (resulting in the inconsistency you saw). All is well. 60.241.193.143 02:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Question

--70.236.31.109 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

--70.236.31.109 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)In John Crowe Ransom's "Bells for John Whiteside's Daughter," is the phrase "her wars" considered a metaphor? if so what type? it seems border line to me.

---

..."Her wars were bruited in our high window. We looked among orchard trees and beyond Where she took arms against her shadow, Or harried unto the pond..." this means that people in our class are GAY!

--My opinion-- A short answer would be that "war" is a living metaphor, ensured life by the later reference to "arms", which are parts of a greater metaphor system. In her imagination, her stick is a sword, no matter how dull, flaccid or ineffective. She can advance or retreat, disarm or call a truce. It is this extendability of the figurative meaning that is the hallmark of metaphors.

--My opinion--

Falderal

"A Bag Of Peanuts"... ....really? I'd like to see a citation for the use of this metaphor throughout history. The assertion seems a bit arbitrary. 69.49.44.11 17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current comments

Following Bill Thayer's last edit to the article (20:35, 11 July 2005 Bill Thayer m (outright link spam this time....)), I've looked through the remaining "External links" and removed them all. It's not the purpose of of Wikipedia to link to the rest of the web. External links should be used for authoritative sources or sources from which significant content was taken. Wikipedia does not exist to increase other pages' click count. Mattisgoo 10:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Re-added area for external links. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not; "Wikipedia is not a repository of links, images or media files". It reads:

  Wikipedia articles are not:

1) Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. [My bold]

Provided that the link is direct, relevant and its content not redundant, the link is in keeping with policy. Furthermore, Wikipedia aims at being concise, thus cannot offer material written for all levels or styles of learning, nor supply endless examples of every kind. This is precisely what external links can and should address.

Where a link is purely self-promotional, or secretes its information behind pop-ups, registrations or other invasive tactics, it is not offering the material in a direct and accessible fashion in keeping with the spirit of Open Source material, and is therefore clearly unsuited.

Falderal 01:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that you did a very fantastic job on this artical. There may be spelling problems and even the matter of punctuation, but in this artical that doesn't matter. People may question my opinion but that does not matter you did ca wonderful job jkadn nobody should question it!--71.84.166.15 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) There are few words to describe the way I feel about this artical and I feel that if it must be critsized, the people that choose to be the critics please do be kind in your words and remember that everyones word and or words should always count because every single person down to the last dead beat counts and they all have something to say. I know I don't knwo anything about you but if you take what I say seriously I know that you must be half desent as you sound. I can not in why I think this artical is so extremely mind blowing but i can not stop thinking that you must have put some thought into it and that is all I jave to say....... for now

Whoah, glad you didn't write the article! :). The article is really really cool. MotherFunctor 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old comments

The remaining comments predate a major revision to the article and are no longer relevant.

---

Can I add an funky comment at the end to the effect that today in Greece, the large lorries with "Metafora" written on the side belong to moving companies? i love wikipedia...its hot

csg

---

Neither Stevie Wonder nor Elton John coined the phrases with which they were credited. I also tried to standardize the examples in the form of "figure given" = "thing meant." Rewrote "ship of state" example. Jstanley01

---

The expression "(something) is like pulling hen's teeth" is factually incorrect. The correct expression was coined during the days when people lived on farms and were more familiar with hens that were still alive and wearing feathers. The correct expression is that "(something) is as rare as hens' teeth." The force of this quaint simile derives from the fact that hens have no teeth. Jstanley01

---

The first sentence read:

"Broadly speaking, all figurative language can be called metaphorical"

Certainly, all figurative language "can be called metaphorical." The question is, should all of it be called metaphorical. In point of fact, this statement is not true, and here is an example for you, alliteration is no figure new, but calling it "metaphorical" will not do (Hey, don't I know it! I ain't no gosh darn poet!)

Other not-at-all-metaphorical figures include Polyptoton, Asyndeton, Antanaclasis, Pleonasm, Hyperbole, Parembole, and perhaps even Heterosis, Antimereia, Antiptosis, Hypallage, and Hediadys. And how "metaphorical" figures such as Synecdoche and Metonymy may be is debatable.

I've rearranged things a bit, and replaced this sentence with:

"There are broad categories of figurative language which are classified as metaphorical"

Jstanley01

---

From the article:

Those interested in further exploration might consider Julian Jaynes, "The Origins of Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind."

Oh no, they shouldn't.

---

The line about metaphor being "dangerous to understanding" seems a bit off to me -- at least not NPOV. Metaphor is at the root (both etymologically and literally) of understanding, IMHO. What do other people think? I didn't want to remove something without any concensus or discussion -- perhaps we could rephrase?

Well, there are some people who think we should never use the word is because it implies that one thing can be identical to another.

That said, the point here seems to have been carefully made. All figures of speech are falsifications at some level and the questioned sentence underlines that. If I say that the universe is a balloon being constantly inflated, that all the points on it keep their relative positions while the whole is being vastly expanded, how can I stop someone from thinking that the universe might pop someday? Ortolan88

Well, it might pop... ;-) I'm with User:Thomas Mills Hinkle on this one: metaphors are a very important part of language. (BTW, you can sign your name on these pages with a sequence of 3 "~" characters). Whether the mistake of taking a metaphor literally is the fault of the listener or the speaker would be an interesting debate. Other European languages tend to use metaphor much more in everyday speech -- I've often noticed that speakers of French and Italian use more metaphorical expressions even when speaking in English. -- Tarquin

Yes, metaphors are basic to much understanding, but most basic to all understanding via language is the much-maligned concept of literality. When I point at something and tell a two-year-old "that is a car," I don't mean that the word "car" is identical with what I am pointing at. Rather, I am educating the two-year-old about the word the English language uses to symbolize the thing I am pointing at. Mark my words, developmental psychology, one of these days, is going to kick revisionist linguistics right in its arse. Jstanley01

---

For now, I've removed this from the article:

Metaphor literally means to bring across, to transfer attributes of one thing to another.

As a claim about "literal meaning" (a very debatable notion, which should probably be avoided in the first paragraph), I think this is complete hogwash. It may be plausible as a claim about the word's etymology, but, if so, it must be stated as such, ideally indicating the languages from which it is derived. I'm not sure this makes for an accurate etymological claim either, however; I just checked the OED, and though does list "to transfer" as the meaning of one of the Greek verbs that "metaphor" originated from, it does not mention transferring "across", nor does it specify that "attributes" are what are to be transfered. If anyone is comfortable with etymological issues, I'd love to get something like this put back into the article. --Ryguasu 07:16 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Well, the OED and Webster's Third simply say that metaphor is from a Greek word meaning "transfer". Origins by Eric Partridge says the two components mean "carry beyond" and Skeat's Dictionary of English Etymology says the two components mean "change" and "bear". Fowler's Concise Oxford Dictionary says meta means "with, after, with implication of 'change'". I would write something like this:

Originally, metaphor was a Greek word meaning "transfer". The Greek etymology is from meta, implying "a change" and pherein meaning "to bear, or carry". Thus, the word metaphor itself has a metaphorical meaning in English, "a transfer of meaning from one thing to another".

BTW, I think it was likely I who originally wrote metaphor was to "bring across." I'm guessing this came from the "transfer" meaning -- transfer coming from bringing (fer) across (trans). Tom

Hearing no objection, I will put this in the article.

The whole bit about metaphors being false, etc., while perhaps philosophically true, is linguistically meaningless, as many, many etymologies reveal that common words are indeed figures of speech in their origin, as with metaphor itself. For the consideration of the rabble, the word consideration comes from words meaning "with the stars", and rabble means "to make a noise". Ortolan88

Just because the meanings of words evolve does not erase the difference between the literal and the figurative in the way human beings use language. An original metaphor makes an unexpected and fresh connection, perhaps a connection never seen before, by playing the literal understanding of something off against something else that must be understood, not literally, but figuratively, thereby giving new insight into the literal.

If the once-original metaphor then becomes so ubiquitous that, by common usage, it becomes a word in its own right, with the formerly-figurative meaning now being attributed as literal -- well, that's one of the ways languages develop. It happens a lot. That's why "many, many etymologies reveal that common words are indeed figures of speech in their origin." Usages change. Languages evolve. Fresh insights become so appropos in so many ways, that they come to be thought of as literal. The example in the article of the word "understanding" is a case in point. I doubt, however, that "sunshine" will ever be redefined as "girlfriend." Jstanley01

I'm not so sure. The word "honey" now means girl/boyfriend. "Ever" is quite a long time, if you use it literally...four, five hundred years from now, a kid might say "she's my sunshine" and not realize where the word comes from. It might take some cross-polination from old-time music into hip-hop for that to happen, though.--Joel 23:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm removing the following, rather empty editorial remark:

As a subject, metaphor is as complex and deep as one likes.

Also, I've rephrased this passage

In metaphor, one thing is treated as if it were another, "Life is but a dream". By contrast, a simile compares one thing to another, "Getting money from him is like pulling hen's teeth".

I think the implication that metaphors are never "comparisons" is faulty. I don't know if the opposite claim that metaphors are always comparisons is perfect either, though.

--Ryguasu 07:52 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

A metaphor is an assertion of similarity predicated on difference, as such I would say it is always a comparison. If one this is (mis)taken for another then that is not a metaphor. Hyacinth 01:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"A metaphor is an assertion of similarity predicated on difference..." INTERESTING!

Metaphors definitely make comparisons. Remember, metaphor is a figure of speech. Hence, by definition, no metaphor is meant to be taken literally. Metaphor is a rhetorical device which is purposefully counter-to-fact in order to draw a comparison between disparate things in the reader or listener's mind.

Similes and metaphors both make such comparisons, but a metaphor's comparison is the stronger of the two. A third, rarely recognized figure of speech, hypocatastasis, is stronger yet. (See EW Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in the Bible.)

SIMILE: "He eats like a dog."

METAPHOR: "He is a dog, the way he eats."

HYPOCATASTASIS: "Look at the dog eat."

Technically speaking, simile makes a comparison by resemblance, metaphor makes a comparison by (counter-to-fact) representation, and hypocatastasis makes a comparison by (counter-to-fact) identification. Jstanley01 02:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the tips (and changes) on style. RKeller

---

It has been mentioned that the word "literally" is now widely used to mean "metaphorically", which is the exact opposite of its real meaning. For example, someone might say "I literally died when I saw him." Well, if they literally died, how come they're still around to say that? Am I the only one annoyed by this decline of language? 193.167.132.66 13:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly not decline of language (a mythical concept if ever there was one). It is simply an example of hyperbole or irony. If literally everyone literally spoke literally, then the world would literally be a dull place. macgruder

For what it's worth, "literal" is itself a sort of metaphor -- "literal" literally means "to the letter" (from litera). We have the metaphor translated directly in English as well in the phrase "the letter of the law." Of course, if you were to actually read "to the letter", language would quickly become nonsensical (try reading this sentence one letter at a time!). Tom

[edit] Another Question

In Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game" is "his (the generals) smile showed red lips and pointed teeth." a metaphor. My teacher says it is. I don't see how. There is no comparison. What is being descibed and what is it being comapared to.

Well, it is figurative speech on many levels. For his smile to show something, for instance, is personification. Also, it's hyperbole, because his lips were probably visible even before he smiled. But I believe that the character's teeth are not literally pointed. Putting that aside, I think that the metaphor your teacher refers to is not in the language itself, but in the images it evokes. What do you think of when you imagine pointed teeth?--Joel 23:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extra info

I've added the two paragraphs, one is a general definition of metaphor, the other identifies two people strongly associated with metaphor. There's at present no section suitable for this information, nor is it really adequate to delete on the basis its mentioned in the therapeutic metaphor article; its general to all metaphor rather than one specialist type.

I've reinserted this info in the introduction; if anyone can create a suitable section for definitions and developers (as opposed to "types of metaphor") it would be good. But it definitely belongs in this article too.

FT2 10:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

My arguments for removing these were: they are not really "above the line" material; not fitting-in elsewhere is a poor reason to put information at the top of the article. Secondly, (with the exception of Lakoff) they are related to therapeutic metaphor, which is not really the same thing as linguistic metaphor. Specifically, I think that the quote from Kopp is insuccinct and a very poor description of literary metaphor.

Also, in terms of style, what is above the line should reflect a summary of subject and the article. These paragraphs are better described as comment which just didn't fit within the structure of the article.

To respect your wishes, I'll leave it in for now, but I'm going to quietly think about a better way of making appropriate sections for discussing literary versus non-literary metaphor, as well as a section for analysis and development.

I'm not trying to be rude or personal about this but I am strongly interested in protecting a sense of structure and style within the article and resisting it becoming a set of quotes and factoids.

Mattisgoo 00:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It wasn;t a revert to force a viewpoint, more simply (as stated) a sense that you are right about one of the 3 being best left under "therapeutic metaphor" and not knowing quite what to do with the other 2 which seemed general and important. I think you're on the right track, and will watch how it goes, when you think you have a better way to handle those 2, go ahead and try it. FT2 01:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've implemented the restructure. There are now three main categories: Analysis, Literary, Cognitive. This should allow for for further inclusion of material in logical places. I am happy now that the form should allow more to be squeezed into sensible places. Bits which I haven't yet done well: the introduction under Analysis and Classification (should be a better, plain language explanation of metaphors -- actually, I'm not super-happy with the title of this section) and the section on Metaphors in literature and language (this section is disconnected and rubbish but it should show history, and creative and informative uses of metaphor). If no one fixes it before me, I'll fix these sections eventually. In terms of style, I'm worried that the article introduction doesn't flow into the section on Metaphor and Simile well. This is why I want the Analysis introduction to be better written but I'm going to leave it for now since I need to come back and try reading it when fresh. Mattisgoo 08:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work! No complaints, in principle its cleaner than it was before. I've had a go at two edits your work suggested 1/ how metaphor is exploited in literature (to match how it's exploited in therapy) in the intro, and 2/ the 1st section which you felt didnt flow well yet. FT2 21:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I like, especially the new section names Aspects of Metaphor and Scope and Definition. I know these don't represent any main text change but I think they really help the "reader orientation at a glance" of the article. Now I just need to fix the "Metaphors in literature and language" section. It deserves some proper research and some fully developed writing rather than the collection of disconnected trivia that is it's current state. May take a week or so to get to this, but I'll do it :-) Mattisgoo 09:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see a collaborative quality article forming. The other article Im working on is being hit by a team of heavy duty POV suppressors. I'm documenting the issues, then it's going to arbcom most likely unless they finally listen to the mediator.... sad eh?

By the way, "Aspects of" and "Overview" are VERY useful sections, I use them a lot... FT2 20:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infer v. Imply

"Through this description it is inferred that the first object has some of the qualities of the second." Should it not rather be "Through this description one may infer that the first object has some of the qualities of the second." ?

a metaphor in and of itself implies that the first object has qualities of the second; the person reading/listening to the metaphor infers that implication. the latter rewording makes that perhaps a bit more explicit. i bring this up simply because the current sentence is ambiguous, in that you could substitute 'implied' in it just as easily. Anastrophe 00:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. I have substituted "implied" for "inferred" as suggested. Thanks. Mattisgoo 23:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly aggressive revert

Over the course of a few edits between my last revert on 1 Dec and end of 2 Dec, the opening paragraph was made quite hideous. I have reverted the whole lot.

Some of this was the fault of a vandal who inserted some rubbish in the opening paragraph, possibly to distract from the insertion of his male member lower down. Another unregistered user made some edits related to therapeutic metaphor that I've also chosen to remove.

I know this is a rude thing to do, so I'll try to explain as this:

• trust in unregistered users is typically low
• the additional material made the opening paragraphs very hard to read
• discussion of therapeutic metaphor that does not appear on the page therapeutic metaphor does not belong in the introductory section on metaphor
• the discussion of process metaphor was confusing and supported with neither further explanation or examples

Please read and remember these comments before re-adding any of this content. Mattisgoo 23:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is "strike while the iron ... " a mixed metaphor?

AFAIK, "Strike while the iron is in the fire" refers to the ironsmiths practice of shaping iron that has been softened by heating on fire (or that is still in the close proximity or inside fire). There is thus no other metaphore or "vehicle" involved other than that of the ironsmith striking iron softened by fire. This should be not called a mixed metaphor. I have tried to express this in my edit of the main text in a way that allows for further comment or thought by the reader. Iani 13:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've re-edited the section. The goal of the examples is to be clear, so anything potentially confusing should simply be removed, unless it provides some particular illumination. The example was a bit of a strange one -- there are two idioms -- "strike while the iron is hot" and "having an iron in the fire" (or, more normally, having "too many irons in the fire"). The example was an example of mixing up a couple of common idioms, but it was just weird -- not really a mixed metaphor.

[edit] Synecdochic Metaphor?

The following was recently added:

A synechdoche or synecdochic metaphor is one in which a small part represents the whole. For example "a pair of ragged claws" represents the entire crab in Eliot's Love Song of J. Alfred Prufock. Describing the crab in this way gives it the attributes of sharpness and savagery normally associated with claws.

I'm a bit puzzled by this. I think of metaphor as distinct from synecdoche. A metaphor is where you bring two unrelated things together; a synecdoche is where you pick one part of something to stand for the whole. Thus, I'd consider synecdoche a branch of metonymy (where already related words or concepts are used, one in exchange for another) rather than a branch of metaphor (where unrelated words or concepts are brought together). I would agree that many synecdoches and metonymys have metaphoric aspects to them -- that is, like metaphor, they aim to transfer attributes of A to B, but it seems weird to call "synecdoche" a subclass of metaphor. Not all synecdoches are metaphors, just a subset.

I'll edit the page a bit (so that it no longer claims all synecdoches are metphors) but maybe this should just be removed. Tom

I didn't add the initial line on synechdoche but I did move it to its current position. Initially, I thought as you do, Tom. For example, a synechdoche like "wheels" to describe a car, or "skirt" to describe a woman is not really a metaphor (since no attempt is made to infer that the whole reflects the attributes of the part). However, the example given to describe it in this case does have metaphoric properties. I agree that it's borderline for inclusion. Maybe we'll let this stand as a request for further comment. Stay or go? Mattisgoo 03:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perspectives on metaphor and simile

After I admittedly took over the "metaphor and simile" section, Tom asked me to contribute to the talk page. He thought my perspective - that metaphor and simile are essentially different - could be integrated into the article, but probably not without discussion. So I'm here to dicuss.

I admit my edit was a tad rash. While preparing a lecture on master tropes for my students (I'm an advanced graduate student in the Rhetoric Department at UC Berkeley), I checked wikipedia and was rather taken aback at the assertions I found. The author had claimed that metaphor and simile could virutally always be exchanged while preserving the same meaning, and that the more one knows about tropes and figurative language, the more one realizes simile and metaphor are basically the same. The first claim I found incredible, the second claim I found irritating (er, hence my hasty edit). I do think it is an interesting feature of our comfort in figurative language, that one could be led to assert such things, but as a symptom of uncritical distance from the phenomenon of trope, I do think it requires rethinking.

I haven't included formal citations in my edit, mostly because I wasn't sure if they were necessary. Over the years teaching rhetorical analysis, that is how I have come to explain the difference between metaphor and simile, and discuss the curious phenomena that is metaphor. I'd like to think most of what I said stands to reason, upon reflection.

But if people would like me to provide citations for specific claims, I'd be happy to try. --Jenny 02:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The old section (which irritated you) was partly written by me, and then fleshed out with much more precision and citation over time with work by others. The style of it was (I admit) a bit reactionary (my fault), so I think it can definitely be toned down, and it seems like you've added some useful material. However, I still don't buy that the difference between simile and metaphor is more fundamental that the similarity. I wonder, for example, if the difference carries strongly into other languages, since it depends so much on the particularities of English syntax (the "__ is like a ___" surely doesn't translate straightforwardly into all languages). Also, since certain kinds of metaphors involving verbs _must_ be expressed as similes ("He runs like the wind"), it seems doubtful to me that similes are really a different type of trope than a metaphor.

Could you elaborate on why you find it "incredible" to claim that metaphor and simile can virtually always be exchanged while maintaining the same meaning? In specific, can you find some counter-examples? In the mean-time, I'll see if I can take a stab at re-editing the section to recover the lost material while incorporating what you've added and (hopefully) removing the tone that you find irritating.

As to what's currently written -- I was interested in your analysis of the multi-dimensionality of metaphors, but I think it applies perfectly well to similes as well. "Juliet is like the sun" is just as ambiguous (if conventional) as "Juliet is the sun" -- of course, "Juliet is the sun" could be taken literally in the right context, but in the context of love-speech, there isn't any ambiguity about the literalness of the statement (we know it's a comparison, not an assertion of identity -- we may suspect that the "like" has simply been elided).

The ambiguity of similes (nearly identical to that of their equivalent metaphors) is clear when you realize that the common joke structure, "A is like a B; he/she/it... (explain the simile in a counterintuitive way)", depends on the ambiguity. This is used, for example, in a magnetic fields song -- "When I'm with you girl, it's like I'm on the moon; I can hardly breathe but I feel lighter". That said, this example does get us closer to a real difference between simile in metaphor (which I think is a subtle difference in English usage and the expectations we set up by using one figure or the other). In this case, the reason a simile is used rather than a metaphor is simply that a simile calls attention to the act of comparison, therefore setting the listener up for the counterintuitive punchline, whereas if he had said, "When I'm with you girl, I'm on the moon; I can hardly breathe but I feel lighter", we would wonder if the joke was that he was literally on the moon, or if he was going to continue to extend the metaphor in some kind of serious way.

All of this said, I guess I would still prefer to explain simile as a *type* of metaphor, while noting that this is sometimes contested and that some teachers strongly insist on the difference (requiring a very odd definition of metaphor as "any metaphor that is not a simile" or perhaps "any metaphor that does not call attention to itself"). I would then prefer to write about the differences in usage and expectation set up by similes and metaphors -- that similes often feel more trivial, for example -- while noting that you can do nearly anything you can do with a metaphor with a simile and viceversa without substantial changes in meaning (and happily noting a few counterexamples where we can find them) Tom

Actually Tom, I agree with much of what you say. The case I try to make in the current edit is indeed too strong, or at least, ignores dissent. I really must thank you for your patience in handling my (again, admitedly) unilateral take-over. For example, I agree that the case for multi-valent interpretations of metaphors can apply just as well to simile, so if you want to restructre the section to give that point more force, that seems fine.

Otherwise, I'm considering what it would mean to claim that metaphor and simile are basically the same trope, however, and I hope my response will clarify my ultimate position. You say: "you can do nearly anything you can do with a metaphor with a simile and viceversa without substantial changes in meaning (and happily noting a few counterexamples where we can find them)."

Here's my problem with that. From that premise (that metaphor and simile would usually be paraphrased the same), you seem to want to conclude that metaphor and simile are essentially the same trope. In other words, you are arguing that since metaphor and simile are both calls to comparison, they are essentially the same trope.

My objection isn't so much that there are counterexamples. I think there are, but I have a much deeper objection to equivocating metaphors and similes. I might even agree that they both "call" for a comparison, but they do this in quite radically different ways. Have I failed to impress upon you the strict semantic difference between a metaphor and a simile? You must let me persuade you that this is a fascinating and subtle but radical point about the phenomenon of speech and understanding. A simile expresses something always trivially true (x is like y). A metaphor expresses something always patently false (x is y, or xy). I don't think this point looses force against relativisitic consideration of English syntax, because a simile by definition is a likening, whereas a metaphor by definition is the identification of one thing to another. Syntax is what decides which we're dealing with, in so far as syntax helps set up the semantic difference.

The problem with my article is that I try to deny your conclusion (metaphor and simile are the same) by tackling your claim that we would often paraphrase metaphor and simile the same. To deny your conclusion that metaphor and simile can be equivocated, I must argue more for the unique semantic and interpretive phenomena that is metaphor. What I find "incredible" about claiming metaphors and similes can always be exchanged while preserving meaning, has more to do with this (and a legacy of philosophical argument about what meaning is).

Others have made that argument, and here is where I should probably defer to better authority. What if I produce a brief - one paragraph - summary of Donald Davidson's seminal argument in "What Metaphors Mean"? I would want to get back to you on that, because Davidson's argument is very much worth getting exactly right. But off the top of my head, I can put it like this:

Davison argues against the camp that asserts metaphors say one thing and "mean" another. Metaphors mean exactly what they say, and nothing else: something patently false. Of course, we somehow walk away with another meaning. What makes something a metaphor is this unique suspension of (otherwise) literal meaning, as we ponder what other literal (but not as false!) paraphrases are elicited. Hence paraphrasing a metaphor is always this paradoxical operating within conflicting truth-values. A metaphor announces something false which we then make true (again, unlike a simile).

In our case: I agree with you that the context of being a love-speech constrains our interpretation of "Juliet is the Sun", so perhaps I should clarify that my point there was not about whether we know that a metaphor is "meant" to be comparing versus asserting an identity. What makes metaphor the phenomena that it is, is that we always take it ironically: the literal meaning is preserved yet suspended while we simultaneously consider a non-literal, paraphrased meaning. As readers (and hearers), we don't normally fail to notice when we've encountered a metaphor (except in the case of "dead" metaphor, which - I tried to argue - transposing into simile can help awaken!!), but that doesn't mean the metaphor announces its intention to not be taken literally as an identity. A metaphor is always bound to its semantic dimension: it is always an assertion of identity. Precisely what is interesting about metaphors is that we fly right by the literal meaning, something we never have to do with a simile (incidentally, I really liked your point about jokes, expectations, and simile, and I'd love to see it in the article). The problem with claiming a metaphor is just a call for comparison, is that you miss the sense in which in order to not be taken as nonsense, we must always (and are very, perhaps too good at) accept the literal meaning of a metaphor even as we ponder its paraphrase.

Hence, metaphors have a paradoxical power similes never have. Am I compelling you or anyone, at all? I'll get to work refreshing myself with Davidson's argument. My students are in for the master-trope lecture of a lifetime next week! Warm regards, and much thanks for indulging the length of my reply, --Jenny 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jenny -- I do see your point; it's just that I only partly agree with it. I think part of the problem here is that I think in this back-n-forth you are thinking like a philosopher and I am thinking a bit more like a linguist (not that I am a linguist, just that I've just finished reading a pile of linguistics books and it's been ages since I read philosophy). For the purpose of philosophical arguments about the power of language, metaphor is very interesting indeed, and simile is less so -- because metaphor, after all, seems to "mean" something false, as you say. But that's only given a relatively mechanistic theory of meaning.

But I think meaning is more fluid and less one-way logic-bound than you suppose. I imagine that what happens with dead metaphors is that rather than referencing the literal meaning, many of us start to store second (or third, or fourth) unrelated (metaphorical) meanings for words (or entire phrases) rather than seeing the old metaphor at all. In some cases, the concrete meaning is still active in the language, so we don't lose the metaphor entirely ("Chill"), we just don't think about it much. In other cases, the concrete meaning is gone or mostly gone from active language, so we just have the metaphorical meaning registered and have lost the metaphor entirely ("ruminate").

I imagine that in all cases of commonly used metaphors, part of what we do is store new "meanings" or new "usages" of words when we hear them used metaphorically -- we learn that a word (or perhaps a class of words) can be used in another context (brilliant, a shining intellect, a star); for that reason, I don't believe that metaphor necessarily makes my brain see something false first, then activate an interpretive mecahnism to make sense of the metaphor. Rather, I believe my brain is constantly operating with a more sophisticated sense of both word-meaning and sentence-meaning, such that many metaphors are handled without ever "accept[ing] the literal meaning of the metaphor," though if the literal meaning is active as well, it may at least be triggered up as an association as I listen. Of course, some metaphors may work exactly as you say -- with the brain seeing the impossible or illogical literal meaning, picking out the metaphorical association, and moving forward -- but I imagine that's the minority of metaphorical language. That is, I imagine the degree to which we "accept" (or even think of) the literal meaning first is proportional to the degree to which the metaphor is unfamiliar; and of course we likely use unfamiliar metaphors less frequently for the very reason that we might confuse our listeners.

I suppose the crucial question for Davison is what he means by "mean". If I think about meaning in a mechanical sort of way, then of course "is" is very very different than "is like" -- most computer languages have a simple way to say "is" but would have hard time implementing anything like "is like." But if I have the sophistication of the human mind to work with (which I must if metaphors are to be anything but nonsense), then I don't know that there is so much difference -- given the frequency metaphor is used with, it's not unlikely that one of the many sub-meanings of "to be" stored in the mind is something like this: "is similar to; shares attributes in common with" which would all but obliterate the difference (except that of course, in addition to meaning, our mind registers all kinds of differences between the common usages, implications, etc. of the two figures...) This last point is overly simplistic of course, since metaphor can work perfectly well without using "to be", but I think you get the general idea -- I'm suggesting that metaphor and simile work very similarly for speaker and listener by calling up different aspects of meaning: the better (or more conventional) the overlap between concrete and figurative (or the clearer the context), the easier it is for a user just to ignore the literal meaning and register (or learn) the figurative meanings; the smaller the overlap or more unusual the comparison, the more the user actually has to think about the metaphor, but this can happen whether the speaker calls attention to it ("is like a") or not ("is").

Well, this is turning out to be quite a long-winded (but enjoyable) exchange. If the Davison essay is freely available anywhere online, please do point me toward it! Tom

Another note to say I did go ahead and do a major rewrite of the section -- I started with the old version and tried to reorganize so that information flowed together (for example, I moved all examples of differences in practice to one section, where they had been spread out). I started with the old beginning because I think the straightforward definition is the clearest/easiest, and then moved onto include your definition ("trivially true" vs. "patently false") and then finally to enumerate specific use cases where the difference can matter. I also tried to edit for style toward something like NPOV, taking out some of the more irritating of the previous version's claims and also toning down some of the sections Jenny wrote (I don't think we need to begin by saying "often conflated" as if that were such a terrible error). Hopefully this will work as a first crack and with some more work we will have a thorough, clear little section. Tom

Tom, Once again, I am pleased to find agreement (more on that lastly). The bones of our contention are, I believe, philosophical, and the result is that we want to talk a bit differently. For the purposes of Wikipedia's "metaphor and simile" section, I think I should basically capitulate, except for a couple little things (which I may attempt edits of, but feel free to veto me):

Well, there is no veto on the wikipedia :) But I think we're in agreement at this point... (see my recent edits and let me know if you agree).

I'm not sure about differences between metaphor and simile being introduced as a pedagogical distinction (if only that were true!). Also, do you really want to say it is a historical "fact" that they have been used synonomously? Do you just mean, one can find rhetorical handbooks that use them interchangeably? (who are these authors??) I would think the thing to say is that, in some contexts, metaphor and simile are equivocated because they both invite comparisons, but otherwise they aren't synonyms, and for many literary theorists and philosophers, their distinction is very important.

I've removed the history of use claims until I can find some examples -- knowing myself, I'm assuming my original source was the example quotes provided by the OED. Looking back through them again, I find "simile" in a number of meanings, used for "comparisons", but it is not crystal clear that the author doesn't have some distinction in mind. As to the way it is introduced, I did my best to tone it down, but I liked the part about the commonplace "not knowing the difference between similes and metaphors", and couldn't find a nice way to keep it without keeping the intro something like what it had been -- that said, just because I can't bring myself to edit it out doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

Last, in the Corbett example, are you citing more or less directly when you note that "His posture was a question mark" has a second interpretation? If not, then I'd like to know why you were unhappy with my editing such into "at least a second interpretation." Whether it's you or Corbett, I wonder about insisting that we can so limit the interpretive possibilities here. For example, in addition to wondering what prompted the posture, a third take on "his posture is a question mark" might be: we're stumped trying to read his posture. Or a fourth: we're firm on a reading of the posture, but find it innapropriate or impertinent. Depending on context, those or additional readings might be available.

Just an oversight in copying and pasting -- I've put back your edit. The original citation wasn't mine, so I don't know.

We haven't considered when and why metaphors can fail to come off...

Not sure what you mean here, but this is probably something that is expanded on (or should be) elsewhere in the article.

But that returns us to your and my exchange! Please know I've really enjoyed being taken to task over this. Since we are (or better, I am) really stretching the pragmatics of this venue, though, let me make a brief reply for the sake posterity: Actually, I'm the last person to espouse a "mechanistic" theory of meaning, if I understand you. On the contrary, I think what follows from my position is precisely recognition, with you, that our understanding of language is radically fluid. But, not meaning, because that fluidity depends on the background of conventional semantics and how we distinguish literal from figurative language. It's actually because I'm preoccupied with how metaphor is a locus for such creative fluidity, that I agree with Davidson's argument that metaphors have no special or hidden meaning besides their literal meaning: the work of understanding a metaphor is imaginative work, which stands in ironic tension with a metaphor's literal meaning. Here I strongly agree with you that our minds make these analogical and metaphorical leaps through language very, very readily. As such, it's our imagination - not the words or sentences - which are fluid. Meaning isn't fluid, discursive thought and our ability to invent comparisons in language is.

Ah -- we agree up to "Meaning isn't fluid." Look at how quickly new words are taken into the language, or new senses of old words (I was shocked to find out from students what "hit" now means to them, for example). Meaning is on the one hand very rigid (you can't make up random new words or no one will talk to you) and on the other hand very susceptible to change within a language community (just looking at the way you used "pragmatics" in that last paragraph told me something about your current language community!). When these changes originate, they may take "analogical and metaphorical leaps", but as they are used, I believe they come to acquire new rote meanings, which we see when we see old metaphorical meanings extended in ways that would be illogical or impossible if the literal meaning were still in mind.

That being as it may, I can give countenance to your ultimate position that "metaphor and simile work very similarly for speakers and listeners by calling up different aspects of meaning." I must remind myself, this is wikipedia, not seminar on Metaphor and Thought. Yet.

I don't think the Davidson article is freely available online as it's still copyrighted, but if your school library has JSTOR access, you can download it. In print you can find it in Davidson's Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, and in various other edited collections. Or, if you give me your school's address, I will happily mail you a copy, compliments of the Department of Rhetoric. Best, --Jenny 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer -- I'll leave a note on your talk page! This has been fun! Please feel free to keep correcting other things in the entry! Tom

I just ran across this article and discussion today, and I must say, I've enjoyed reading through the debate here. Just to throw in my two cents about the "Juliet is the sun" metaphor: If Shakespeare had instead put the words "Juliet is like the sun" into Romeo's mouth, the line would have had a completely different effect. It would have implicitly acknowledged that Juliet and The Sun (an otherwise unique entity) coexist...sure, Juliet is like the sun, she's bright and beautiful and all; but there's the real one over there. The implication: If you lose Juliet, it's not that big a deal - you still have the sun. "Juliet is the sun" claims that Juliet and the sun are the same entity. In this scenario, Romeo is completely dependent on Juliet for his warmth and life. If she "burns out", his world will turn cold and he will die - there is no backup real sun. Applejuicefool 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metaphor question

is, Luke Will and his gang are a dying breed. They need a cause like this to pump blood back to dying bodies, a metaphor.

do you know of any metaphors in a gathering of old men by ernest gaines

[edit] Lead Section

The lead section got rewritten. My impression is that the quality of writing and coherence of the article took a hit -- the lead section is supposed to be compact; the new section is rambling. The rewrite also did an incomplete and inaccurate job addressing issues already discussed in depth elsewhere in the article (such as metaphor and simile). I've reverted this whole section (a *bold* edit, perhaps). I realize, though, that perhaps some of the material in that section is worth preserving (most likely by moving it to other sections of the article where it will be more fitting). Below I'll include the full text of those parts I think might be worth incorporating elsewhere in the article Tom

While an explicit or implicit comparison underlies every figure of speech (or it would be incomprehensible), metaphor additionally involves a theatrical suspension of disbelief, in which the first thing becomes the second thing. That is, the identity of the first is transferred to the second ("transference" being the meaning of the word 'metaphor'). This transfer of identity is not meant to be taken literally, but it is meant to be taken seriously (hence, the need for suspension of disbelief), whereas simile is not meant to be taken either literally or seriously.

Thus, when one speaks of "the four corners of the earth," in which the geometric identity of the square is transfered to spherical shape of the planet, one is not meant to take that as a literal statement that the earth is square, with four literal corners - we know that is not true. But one is meant to take the statement seriously as an application of geometric theory to the real surface of the planet; and it is a tremendous aid to navigation that we can metaphorically conceive of the earth's surface in any number of geometric forms that make it that much easier for us to negotiate movement from one place to another.

Some metaphors are highly sophisticated and theatrical, as in the classic Ojibwa legend of the hunter who, over years of seeking the moose, himself becomes the moose. Note that he does not merely become like the moose, but the legend is that he actually becomes the moose - in the same way that actors are said to "become" the characters they play. Or as modern hunters would say, he finally learns how to think as the moose (animal) thinks, instead of thinking as a hunter (human) thinks.

Similarly, Shakespeare's statement, "All the world's a stage" is not a simile that says the world is like a stage, but it is a metaphor in which the world is (or has become) a stage. Likewise, the metaphor "a sea of troubles" is not meant to be taken literally, but the troubles are certainly meant to be taken seriously, or there wouldn't be a "sea" of them.

Other metaphors are less sophisticated, which makes suspension of disbelief harder to achieve. But as they are often statements of compliment or flattery that aren't meant to be taken too seriously, failure to suspend disbelief does not present a particular problem. These metaphors are often used in songs, such as "You are the sunshine of my life," by Stevie Wonder, and the similarly titled folk song "You are my sunshine."

Metaphor, as a rhetorical device, is a form of analogy, closely related to such other rhetorical concepts as comparison, simile, allegory and parable.

[edit] Metaphors aren't a subset of (or a form of) an analogy

I just explicated the relationship between metaphor and analogy within rhetoric a bit, as the current form of the article was vague and somewhat misleading--and not to mention that rhetorical analogy gets just a tiny mention in the wikipedia analogy entry. I also replaced the vague phrase "is closely related to other tropes" with pointers to how metaphor is distinguished from other tropes such as metonymy, sytnecdoche, parable, allegory and so on. I deleted the 'comparison' trope from this list because (a) it isn't really a trope per se and (b) the wikipedia entry is vague and not helpful. --Wikivangelist 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is confusing, since metaphor is listed as a type of analogy on the analogy page. 134.10.125.234 23:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External References

Renton's Metaphors http://users.bigpond.net.au/renton/mac.htm (an annotated dictionary of 4000 metaphors)

Every Man and his Dog use Metaphors http://users.bigpond.net.au/renton/206.htm (examples)

124.191.242.89 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There have been five vandalisms on this page today (3 May 2007), primarily by unregistered users, and a number of vandalisms in the previous week or two. At what point do we ask for the page to be protected? --zandperl 02:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TURGIDITY?

Good morning. I am a brand-new signee so I feel very uneasy about a generalized & unavoidably negative comment on this page (and I feel constrained to make a similar comment on the page for "irony"). I have really grown to appreciate WIK (and its volunteer editors) just recently and will search now for a way to contribute (sic) in a positive way. For now, however, I feel I need to note that after reading both pages (metaphor/simile) and (irony), I was somewhat put-off by what I felt was an excessively 'technical' or 'academic' language. I realize that a great deal of this verbiage is also one of the signal stengths of WIK (as is the wonderful practice of sourcing everything); but I must say I was struck by what I perceived to be overly-technical, even turgid, language. Ultimately of course this is a matter of balance: certainly 'academic' or 'technical' language is one of WIK's strengths; my immediate reaction is that it seems to be a bit overdone. Again: I am a complete WIK novice, but I also recognize the value, at times, of a novitiates' inately objective (sic) reaction, and I hope this comment may be useful. Just an observation. Best wishes. Jb1226 09:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section confusing

The lead section, especially the end, is confusing and refers to things that aren't there. For example:

"The metaphor is sometimes further analyzed in terms of the ground and the tension. The ground consists of the similarities between the tenor and the vehicle. The tension of the metaphor consists of the dissimilarities between the tenor and the vehicle. In the above example, 'the ground begins to be elucidated from the third line: "They have their exits and their entrances." In the play, Shakespeare continues this metaphor for another twenty lines beyond what is shown here — making it a good example of an extended metaphor."

Where is the "above example"??? And why is this even in the lead, shouldn't it be in the body?

134.10.125.234 23:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What is Oriental Metaphor? Somebody could give some examples for that?

124.6.181.215 14:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)LOVE IT I CHANGE THE SPELLING BECAUSE IT IS WRONG!!!!!!

[edit] Apparant bias

The metaphor "Thomas Carmichael is a beast" appears to be biased because it is insulting. 216.179.127.170 13:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I already removed it before I read your comment. It's been there just a few days, and people have changed the name several times. Well, it's gone now. -- Why Not A Duck 17:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is wikipedia useful to explain metaphor and related notions? (Perhaps not?)

Check the standard dictionaries, etc., and you will see that notions like:

metaphor, simile, juxtaposition, kenning

or

allegory, personification, antropomorhism, metaphor

are explained in a messy way, which does not provide much of any understanding. There are certainly interesting research papers on each of the mentioned notions, but no clear cut global understanding. Thus while other encyclopedias would be able to cope with this problem, granted that there would be someone who could logically define and explain these notions, wikipedia at this time cannot, because it constrains itself (by its rules) to reproducing the existing lack of understanding.

OK, what now? I guess – nothing. -- Wlod 09:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the introductory section is too long

I believe the part before the contents list needs to be split up into sections, which are categorized under the contents list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihafez (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

metaphor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.144.61 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Metaphors are confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.86.155 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

What is up I'm like so borde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.91.252 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)