“Sanitized for your protection” on the hygiene of metaphors

Steve Whitson University of Pittsburgh

Abstract

The metaphor has gained much importance as of late. No longer simply a decorative feature of discourse, the trope has obtained an epistemological and ontological dimension. No longer merely a figural flourish of prose, the metaphor has acquired an important role in the study of human understanding. Hence, thanks to theoretical rehabilitation and philosophical reconsideration, metaphorical analysis has become an important and popular pursuit for many disciplines--philosophy, literary theory, linguistics, rhetoric, et al.2 While the insights generated and the discoveries made by metaphorical analysis are significant and worthy of much study, we will take as our point of departure the limits of such critical inquiry. This essay offers another perspective, a sort of theoretical intervention which examines from another angle the study of discourse. Rhetorical theory, it will be reasoned, benefits from a perspective which considers the metonymical features of discourse. As such, the comparative advantages of either metaphorical or metonymical analysis are not measured by which one is true, but rather by which one is most useful for a given project. Simply put, a metonymical perspective can recognize and explain a terrain outside the scope of metaphorical analysis. The change we consider in this essay does not render useless or inadequate previous explanations, but rather opens a space or a zone from which to critically evaluate what has been previously overlooked. As noted, the popularity and importance of the metaphor has never been greater. Whether it be conceived as function, cluster, or nature, the research has sought, and continues to seek, the habitation of the metaphor within all symbolic discourse. Indeed, it may be safe to assume that the study of metaphors remains an important and integral component of contemporary rhetorical theory. As a result of theoretician diligence and persistence, a wide array of techniques exist for the study of metaphors within discourse. For examples of such metaphorical research we turn briefly to the work of I.A. Richards, Max Black, Edwin Black, and Paul Ricoeur. Perhaps no one should figure more prominently than I.A. Richards in the reappraisal of the trope. Using the metaphor, his New Rhetoric, seeks to recover meaning, to stabilize and neutralize the somewhat figural moments of discourse.

Journal
Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Published
1989-06-01
DOI
10.1080/02773948909390852
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  2. Rhetoric Review

References (24)

  1. Genettae, Gerard. 1982.Figures of Literary Discourse114New York
  2. On Metaphor
  3. Richards, L.A. 1965.The Philosophy of Rhetoric3New York
  4. Blindness and Insight
  5. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy
Show all 24 →
  1. 10.1080/00335637009382992
  2. Ricoeur, Paul. 1977.The Rule of MetaphorEdited by: Czemy, Robert. 7Toronto
  3. Ricoeur, Paul. 1975.La metaphore vive18Paris
  4. Kurzweil, Edith. 1980.The Age of Structuralism89New York
  5. On Metaphor
  6. Jakobson, Roman and Halle, Morris. 1956.Fundamentals of Language55–82. The Hague
  7. European Literary Theory and Practice
  8. Rhetoric and Philosophy in Conflict
  9. Boundary
  10. 10.1080/00335638809383834
  11. 10.1080/00335638009383502
  12. Quarterly Journal of Speech
  13. Quarterly Journal of Speech
  14. Derrida, Jacques. 1982.Margins of PhilosophyEdited by: Bass, Alan. 219Chicago
  15. Krunick, Mark. 1983.Displacement: Derrida and After23Bloomington
  16. Discours, figure
  17. Carrol, David, ed. 1987.Paraesthetics38New York
  18. Spacings of Reason and Imagination
  19. Boundary