{"id":249,"date":"2013-03-01T13:11:18","date_gmt":"2013-03-01T21:11:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hub.wsu.edu\/andersen\/?p=249"},"modified":"2019-05-31T11:25:42","modified_gmt":"2019-05-31T18:25:42","slug":"metaphor-a-solid-argument","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hub.wsu.edu\/andersen\/2013\/03\/01\/metaphor-a-solid-argument\/","title":{"rendered":"Metaphor \u2013 A Solid Argument"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Katharine McDonald <\/strong><\/p>\n

Even in the most commonplace discourse, it is hardly possible to venture a few steps without treading on dozens of metaphors. \u2013 <\/em>Guy Deutscher<\/p>\n

In chapter 4 of his book The Unfolding of Language<\/em>, Guy Deutscher posits that the bulk of the words in human languages are metaphors.1 He proposes that the earliest human words described simple, solid concepts \u2013 particularly, parts of the body.1 From the location of body parts came descriptions of space: to be at the head<\/em> of an army means to be in front of it; to be in the heart<\/em> of something is to be located at its center.1
\nWith spatial concepts squared away, Deutscher says, humans were free to extend the meanings of our words to include concepts of time.1 Prepositions used to describe space \u2013 \u201cat<\/em> the door\u201d, \u201cwithin<\/em> the prison\u201d \u2013 became markers of time: \u201cat<\/em> noon\u201d, \u201cwithin<\/em> a year\u201d.1<\/p>\n

Finally, says Deutscher, these temporal terms acquired even more abstract meanings, and could be used to describe such things as causes and reasons.1 Therefore a meeting can be held at<\/em> the town square, at<\/em> one o\u2019clock, at<\/em> the request of the mayor \u2013 or in<\/em> the treehouse, in<\/em> an hour, in <\/em>secret.
\nIn order to convince us, Deutscher notes that nearly any word in any language can be traced to a simpler, more concrete predecessor.1 \u201cDiscover\u201d, for example, initially meant to remove the cover from something.1 Similarly, one does not literally tackle <\/em>a chore, devour<\/em> a book, or deflate<\/em> someone\u2019s ego.<\/p>\n

Another way to spot the prevalence of metaphors is to look for groups, or frameworks. Deutscher points out that there is often a link between conceptual domains, showing where the switch from concrete to abstract was made.1 Thoughts, for example, are discussed with the same terminology we use for food \u2013 Deutscher mentions sweet<\/em> dreams and trouble brewing<\/em>, and that one could digest<\/em> a half-baked<\/em> idea.1 This is the jump from concrete to abstract: time is discussed in terms of space, and thoughts are discussed in terms of food. \u201cWhen we hear a phrase like \u2018souffle of promises\u2019,\u201d says Deutscher, \u201cthe image does not sound so surprising, because it fits neatly into this familiar frame.\u201d1 Why do humans make this jump from concrete to abstract? Deutscher\u2019s answer is simple: \u201cMetaphor is the chief mechanism through which we can describe and even grasp abstraction.\u201d1 Humans create metaphors to extend our range of expression. Then we use them over and over, often until the original meaning is lost and forgotten.<\/p>\n

Deutscher\u2019s argument is a strong one. He is correct in stating that \u201cEven the most tedious prose is teeming with metaphors.\u201d1 For example, here is a word mentioned often in modern-day news: \u201ccandidate\u201d. The metaphorical nature of this word is not obvious; it does not immediately appear to describe anything. Some digging, however, reveals the story: in Rome, those seeking election to political office would often dye their robes dazzlingly white in order to stand out from the crowd.2 The Latin word for \u201cwhitened\u201d \u2013 candidatus<\/em> \u2013 slowly became synonymous with those running for office, thus passing on to us our modern word candidate<\/em>.3<\/p>\n

It reflects well on the metaphor theory that it holds for multiple languages. The Japanese \u201carigato\u201d, meaning \u201cthank you,\u201d derives from words meaning \u201cto be\u201d and \u201cdifficult\u201d.4 The original combination, \u201carigatashi\u201d, refers to something that is \u201cdifficult to be\u201d, therefore something that is rare and special \u2013 something for which one is grateful.5 Alternatively, it describes the state of the grateful person: so overwhelmed that they find it difficult to exist with the emotion inside them.4 The ubiquitousness of such metaphors complements Noam Chomsky\u2019s concept of universal grammar \u2013 that the human mind is designed to construct an infinite number of sentences from a finite number of rules.6 In this case, the rule is that concrete descriptors can be applied to abstract concepts. \u201cMetaphor,\u201d says Deutscher, \u201cis an indispensable element in the thought-processes of every one of us.\u201d1 He even suggests that the process of transforming nouns such as \u201cback\u201d into prepositions such as \u201cbehind\u201d is responsible for creating grammar in the first place, though he leaves the full explanation for another chapter.1<\/p>\n

The idea of Deutscher\u2019s that the transfer of meaning often occurs in specific frameworks also holds up. Along with \u201cideas are food\u201d, he mentions the common \u201cmore is up, less is down\u201d image, which originally came from such observations as rising water levels, but was transferred to describe such intangibles as productivity and self-esteem.1 Another example of a framework for transfer is found in descriptions of social approval. Popularity is often measured in terms of temperature \u2013 the more extreme the temperature, the more desired is the trait. While less concrete descriptors such as \u201crad\u201d, \u201cgroovy\u201d, and \u201ctubular\u201d fall by the wayside, \u201ccool\u201d is still a compliment, and it is desirable for one\u2019s physique or ideas to be considered \u201chot\u201d. It is not hard to imagine the term \u201cicy\u201d catching on, since it fits into the \u201cfamiliar frame\u201d of concepts.<\/p>\n

A similar concept framework for popularity is that of \u201cin\u201d and \u201cout\u201d. Many people desire to be \u201con the inside\u201d of a group, so as to be \u201cin on\u201d the group\u2019s plans and knowledge. To do so, they may take advantage of the style of dress, speech, or decoration that is currently \u201cin\u201d. Failure to do so might result in getting \u201ckicked out\u201d, becoming an \u201coutsider\u201d and remaining \u201cout of the loop.\u201d Again, these frameworks reinforce the idea of a universal grammar: concrete can be transferred to abstract in specific ways<\/em> that are common to all human beings. \u201cThe correspondences are by no means coincidental\u2026there is no known language where spatial terms are not also used to describe temporal relations.\u201d1<\/p>\n

The most convincing argument for the construction of language from metaphors is the fact that it can be observed. Take, for example, the current evolution of the word \u201clegit\u201d. Legit is short for legitimate, defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as: 1. being in compliance with the law, 2. being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards, 3. based on logical reasoning, 4. authentic or genuine, etc.7 The Indo-European ancestor is leg<\/em>, meaning to collect \u2013 a derivative is \u201cto speak\u201d, from which came the Latin lex<\/em> and leg-<\/em> , meaning \u201claw\u201d.7 Modern people have made a jump from that which is authentic and accepted (a legitimate perspective) and that which is lawful (a legitimate business), to that which they personally like and wish to endorse (\u201cthat is really legit<\/em>!\u201d). That which people think is legit<\/em> might not necessarily be lawful<\/em>, signifying a complete transfer of the meaning of the word \u2013 the continued evolution of a metaphor.<\/p>\n

Deutscher\u2019s seemingly radical idea \u2013 that all words come from simpler words \u2013 may actually have been around since the time of the Greek philosophers. This makes sense, because if it is true that all humans use metaphor, someone must certainly have discovered it earlier. Socrates in his discourse with Hermogenes analyzes the origin of words.8 He appears to agree with Deutscher that abstract words are descended from other, more concrete words. \u201cRemember,\u201d he says, \u201cthat we put in and pull out letters in words, and give names as we please and change the accents.\u201d8 As one example, Socrates suggests to Hermogenes that the word anthropos<\/em> (man) comes from anathron a opopen<\/em> (one who looks up at what he sees), and that the original phrase differentiated people, who \u201clook up at\u201d (consider) what they see, from animals, who do not ponder or consider things.8<\/p>\n

It makes sense that people should seek to explain abstract concepts with something a bit closer to home. Even today, when attempting to describe an unfamiliar experience, humans must compare it to something that is already understood. It stands to reason that the same burst of abstraction ability that allowed us to create the first simple words could then be used to turn concrete words into metaphors. The recurrence of Deutscher\u2019s framework pattern and the fact that most every word in existence has a traceable, concrete history confirm his idea that \u201cmetaphor is endemic within the structure of language\u201d.1<\/p>\n

References<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n