Systems of Interpretation and the Function of Metaphor

Abstract

Metaphor is the subject of a diverse literature (cf. Honeck & Hoffman, 1980; Ortony, 197913;Sacks, 1979) that often juxtaposes views from different areas of inquiry, attending little to their implications for other areas. These views frequently emphasize structural features of a delimited expression taken to be metaphorical, giving only secondary consideration to the functions, purposes, or uses of the expression. This paper reverses these practices by emphasizing the uses of metaphors in their social contexts. It is addressed to others seeking a general conception of metaphor not limited by the phenomena and ideas of a single area of inquiry.We assume that the significance of any linguistic expression, including metaphor, depends upon the context in which it is embedded (Burke, 1945; Jakobson, I 960; Kaplan, I 966; Werner and Kaplan, I 963 j . Among the aspects of context we consider are not only the symbolizer, the audience, and the setting, but also the purpose or function ofcommunication. We assume that all language, like non-verbal behavior (Sapir and Crocker, ~g p j , is instrumental. Assuming that different forms of speech develop to serve different functions, so that each form is best suited for certain uses (Werner and Kaplan, 1963), we attempt to understand the uses for which metaphors are particularly suited.Two problems need to be addressed for this attempt to succeed. The first is lack of consensus on how to define metaphor. Although many write as if metaphor were a single class that we all agree upon, closer attention reveals that the definitions used by different authors encompass different phenomena. Indeed, as Booth (1978) points out, "Metaphor has by now been defined in so many ways that there is no human expression, whether in language or any other medium, that would not be metaphoric in someone's definition" (p. 50). Ifwe 172 each refer to different phenomena with the term "metaphor," then it makes no sense to ask what functions "metaphor" serves as if this were a question about one phenomenon with a single answer possible.The second problem is "the tendency to think ofa particular use ofmetaphor and to base a general theory of metaphor on an examination of that usage" (Harries, 1978, p. 167). For instance, Fernandez (1972), relying on examples involving a competition between values, states that "we are generally inspired to metaphor for purposes ofadornment or disparagement. . . . We want to put down or put up" (p. 45). Black ( I 962), examining scientific models, develops the apparently different idea that "metaphorical thought is a distinctive mode of achieving insight" (p. 237). And so on. Some authors include disclaimers like Fernandez's (1972): "Lest our discussion evolve into an 'idee fixe' we had best remind ourselves that metaphor can serve a variety of functions . . . . I d o not pretend that what I want to say about metaphor here encompasses all these uses" (p. 48). With or without the disclaimer, most authors write as if their theories were adequate far beyond their examples. They...

The contribution of a discursive view to understanding and managing organizational change

“…Metaphors can offer new ways of looking at existing situations (Crider and Cirillo, 1991;Lakoff, 1990;Morgan, 1980Morgan, , 1983, while simultaneously acting as a bridge from a familiar to a new state (Pondy, 1983). The high latitude of interpretation afforded by metaphorical statements can help to accommodate the interpretations of organizational groups perceiving their interests to be mutually incompatible (Crider and Cirillo, 1991), and unstructured situations can be made more concrete and comprehensible through the use of metaphor (Sackmann, 1989). Researchers have shown that the metaphors used by organizational actors are empirically related to such areas as the extent and speed of organizational change (Oswick and Montgomery, 1999) or to aspects of organizational and national culture (Gibson and ZellmerBruhn, 2001).…”

Experimental Psycholinguistics and Figurative Language: Circa 1995

“…From this perspective, metaphor serves a function less easily expressed, or even inexpressible, in literal language (see Crider & Cirillo, 1989;Olson, 1988). Other functions of metaphor and other tropes have revolved around the social functions of figurative language use (see Crider & Cirillo, 1989;Furnham, 1987;Gerrig & Gibbs, 1988). From this perspective, figurative language serves to express socially relevant information such as intimacy, attributions, attitudes, and beliefs and may interact with metacognition about the vividness or persuasiveness of different types of messages.…”

“…Wheelwright (1962), Ortony (1975), and others have made the claim that at least some instances of metaphor can serve an expository function not served by literal language, especially when dealing with creative thought. From this perspective, metaphor serves a function less easily expressed, or even inexpressible, in literal language (see Crider & Cirillo, 1989;Olson, 1988). Other functions of metaphor and other tropes have revolved around the social functions of figurative language use (see Crider & Cirillo, 1989;Furnham, 1987;Gerrig & Gibbs, 1988).…”

Discourse and the study of organization: Toward a structurational perspective

“…Studies from an interpretive perspective have illustrated how language used as a symbolic process is central to the development and sustainment of shared meanings (Smircich, 1983) and a common identity for organizational members (Evered, 1983). The guiding motivation of the approach is to gain an in-depth understanding of the role of language in meaning construction processes and to this end researchers have explored such elements or configurations of discourse as stories (Martin & Powers, 1983;Boje, 1991;Hansen & Kahnweiler, 1993;Boyce, 1995), humor (Rodrigues & Collinson, 1995;Hatch, 1997), and metaphor (Crider & Cirillo, 1991;Tsoukas, 1991Tsoukas, , 1993Chilton & Ilyin, 1993).…”