Comparison

When metaphor was not considered to be a mere decorative element –when metaphor was seen already from a linguistic point of view, as having a function of its own – the notion of metaphor as comparison was born. This was related to the growing notion in which the motivation of the substitution process became more important. The understanding of metaphor as a comparison continued to regard it as a rephraseable unit, but instead put the emphasis on the relationship of the word meanings that were not used and the (metaphorical) word used

instead of it. This was an implicit comparison. This means that the motivation for

the metaphor is the likeness (similarity) of the things compared, seeing

something AS something else. Furthermore, the use of metaphor is not intended to provide new information. From this perspective, the importance of analogy is emphasized. Here metaphor is different from a simile only in that it does not include the word “like” (for example, Elovaara 1992.)

This, together with understanding metaphor as a substitution, is the way the term metaphor is understood in everyday language. These understandings emphasize metaphor as a figure of speech. They assume that meaning is basically literal, and that metaphorical usages deviate from this.

However, some scholars doubt whether it really is possible to make the difference between substitution and comparison theories on metaphor. I also argue that it is not possible to distinguish the two. To support this claim, I take a closer look at the views on metaphor presented by Aristotle and interpreted by others in 5.1.2.1.

5.1.2.1. How Aristotle understood metaphor¹⁵

Aristotle is considered the classic of early metaphor research, and to this day metaphor research seems to consider it obligatory to start by referring to

Aristotle. What Aristotle actually wrote about metaphor has, however, been often misinterpreted and these misunderstandings have been reproduced over and over again without checking what Aristotle really wrote about metaphor and in which context we should understand it (see Mahon 1999.) Aristotle calls all figurative expressions metaphors.

Aristotle deals with metaphor in two of his works – in “Poetics” and

“Rhetorics”. It has not always been remembered what the context of these works is. “Poetics” has been written on how the writers of tragedy and epic should use language, and this does not refer to language use on a more general level. This work is also a commentary on the ongoing discussion on poetics by the

contemporaries of Aristotle. In addition, “Rhetorics” has to be understood in the context of the important role that the art of speaking convincingly had in the Greek society of the time.

15 The interpretation I give of Aristotle is, besides the close reading of the passages in question (Aristoteles 1982, 1997), based on the information provided in the explanations given in [Aristoteles

Should we see Aristotle as a representative of the substitution view or the comparison view? He has traditionally been mentioned as a representative of the substitution view, but if we correct the misunderstandings of what he really said, is there any such evidence left that would really make us place him into that category? Many supporters of the cognitive metaphor theories have put all these theories together and have called them all comparison theories.

What Aristotle says about metaphor includes what metaphor is, how metaphor evolves (or is actively created), how metaphor is used, and what kind of functions using metaphor can have in different kinds of texts. Aristotle understands metaphor as having four different types, in which transfer can happen either from genus to species, from species to genus, from species to species, or by analogy. Paying attention to this kind of transfer, replacing something with something, makes Aristotle a representative of the substitution view, but similarity or analogy as the basis of the transfer makes him a

representative of the comparison view on metaphor. Reading “Rhetorics” gives a basis for understanding Aristotle to be a representative of the comparison view.

Aristotle considers comparisons (similes) also as metaphors, only without the explaining words. According to Aristotle, the use of comparisons faces the same kind of constraints as the use of metaphors. The same goes, to some extent, for puzzles, riddles, and proverbs.

When Aristotle speaks (in “Poetics”) about using metaphors, about the difference between ordinary and unusual (among them metaphorical) words, he links the usage of unusual words to the requirements of good style. For Aristotle, every word is either current, strange, metaphorical, ornamental, newly-coined, lengthened, contracted or altered. He gives advice that, for instance, using too many infrequent or otherwise strange words is bad style, but nevertheless advocates the use of metaphors. Aristotle sees coining new, well-thought-out metaphors as a skill that poets need and relates this skill to the ability (at best of a genius) to notice resemblances and make use of them in coining new metaphors that are lucid and consequently easy to understand.

Aristotle lists several functions for using metaphor: beauty (decoration), illustration, self-expression, and learning new things. Aristotle deals with the way metaphors should be coined and the kind of comparisons they should be based on. Metaphors are, in the opinion of Aristotle, the prose writers’ best resource and they should therefore pay very careful attention to the way in which they coin them. Aristotle thinks that metaphors should be formed, firstly, of notions

that are related, but not in too obvious a way, and, secondly, of words that have beautiful sounds. In “Rhetorics” Aristotle refers to what he has already said about metaphor in “Poetics”, and considers metaphors from the viewpoint of the

expressivity of poets, prose writers, and speakers. This already comes closer to the understanding that sees metaphor as a phenomenon of language.

Why metaphors are used is, for Aristotle, a question of appropriate style.

In other words, not only do metaphors suit some styles better than others; they are also important features of different styles, and therefore need to be different to suit different forms of language. The appropriateness of certain kinds of metaphors is, in this way, a substantial part of what makes language use good and appropriate. In an often-cited part of “Poetics” Aristotle notes that:

It is a great matter to observe propriety in these several modes of expression, as also in compound words, strange (or rare) words, and so forth. But the greatest thing by far is to have a command of metaphor. This alone cannot be imparted by another; it is the mark of genius, for to make good metaphors implies an eye for resemblances.

This is also important theoretically, as it makes an explicit connection between the talent of seeing resemblances and making good metaphors. It does not, as is often mistakenly claimed, assume that only geniuses are able to use metaphor.

Instead, it merely states that the command of metaphor is more important for professional language users. Although Aristotle concentrates on literary issues, he also mentions that everyone uses metaphors in conversation. This indicates that Aristotle did, in fact, understand metaphor as a linguistic phenomenon that extended farther than merely poems or prose. Aristotle also lists other things having to do with the style appropriate for different uses, and makes remarks on how the creators of different text genres are to use metaphor. Metaphors that are badly suited can, in the opinion of Aristotle, cause bad style or less convincing speech.

To sum up, Aristotle saw metaphor as a rhetorical element used by skilful orators for convincing the audience, and as an element of poetics that requires great mastery. This does not mean that Aristotle did not pay attention to the connection between metaphor and thinking, or that he failed to recognize metaphor as a wide phenomenon in language.

From the viewpoint of later metaphor theories, the position Aristotle took on metaphors is outdated, especially since it considers metaphor to be merely a phenomenon of language. On the other hand, since Aristotle clearly understands

the connection between thinking and metaphor, this “handicap” can also be understood as a result of what he was concentrating on in the writings in which metaphor is mentioned. There was no “metaphor theory” at the time, and even bringing up subjects like this was remarkable. Moreover, what is even more remarkable is the way the topics brought up by Aristotle, namely defining metaphor, considering its laws of usage, pondering over the difference between the metaphorical usages of language and other deviations from the “literal meaning”, dealing with the coinage of metaphor and thinking over the power metaphor can have over us, have since survived as central issues of metaphor studies of different kinds. Taking this into consideration, one can only admire Aristotle’s sophistication as a precursor of modern metaphor theory. For this reason, it is no wonder Aristotle has remained the true classic of metaphor research, constantly cited to this day.