The Role of Metaphor in Expressing Emotions
Part I: Introduction
1 Rationale
Metaphor, based on the association of similarity, is one of the two basic types of semantic transference that have been an interest for many linguistic researchers. Galperin ( 1981: 139-40) states that the term ‘metaphor’ can be understood as the transference of some quality from one object to another. Metaphor is widely used to designate the process in which a word acquires a derivative meaning.
In theory, there are at least three communicative functions that metaphor might serve (Ortony 1975). First, they might allow one to express that which is difficult or impossible to express if one is restricted to literal uses of language. Evidence for this "inexpressibility" claim would constitute encouraging support for the necessity-of-metaphors view. A second possible function of metaphors is that they may constitute a particularly compact means of communication. Although conscious experience is continuous in form, the linguistic system we use to talk about it is comprised of discrete elements (lexical items). Unlike more literal forms of language, metaphor may enable us to convey a great deal of information in a succinct manner by obviating the need to isolate the predicates to be expressed into their corresponding lexical representations. Finally, metaphors may help capture the vividness of phenomenal experience. If metaphors convey chunks of information rather than discrete units, they can paint a richer and more detailed picture of our subjective experience than might be expressed by literal language. This we call the " 'vividness" claim.
In this paper we are interested in the first and last of these possible functions. Thus, we need to examine a discourse domain for which a prima facie case can be made for supposing that literal language will often be inadequate and which lends itself to variations in vividness. There doubtless are many such domains. The one that we selected was that of internal states, in particular,
1 Rationale
Metaphor, based on the association of similarity, is one of the two basic types of semantic transference that have been an interest for many linguistic researchers. Galperin ( 1981: 139-40) states that the term ‘metaphor’ can be understood as the transference of some quality from one object to another. Metaphor is widely used to designate the process in which a word acquires a derivative meaning.
In theory, there are at least three communicative functions that metaphor might serve (Ortony 1975). First, they might allow one to express that which is difficult or impossible to express if one is restricted to literal uses of language. Evidence for this "inexpressibility" claim would constitute encouraging support for the necessity-of-metaphors view. A second possible function of metaphors is that they may constitute a particularly compact means of communication. Although conscious experience is continuous in form, the linguistic system we use to talk about it is comprised of discrete elements (lexical items). Unlike more literal forms of language, metaphor may enable us to convey a great deal of information in a succinct manner by obviating the need to isolate the predicates to be expressed into their corresponding lexical representations. Finally, metaphors may help capture the vividness of phenomenal experience. If metaphors convey chunks of information rather than discrete units, they can paint a richer and more detailed picture of our subjective experience than might be expressed by literal language. This we call the " 'vividness" claim.
In this paper we are interested in the first and last of these possible functions. Thus, we need to examine a discourse domain for which a prima facie case can be made for supposing that literal language will often be inadequate and which lends itself to variations in vividness. There doubtless are many such domains. The one that we selected was that of internal states, in particular,
References: Arnold, Magda. 1960. Emotion and Personality. New York: Columbia University Press. Averill, James. 1982. Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion. New York: Springer- Verlag. Broad, C. D. 1971. "Emotion and Sentiment." In Critical Essays in Moral Theory. London: Allen & Unwin. Broad, C. D. 1971[1954]. “Emotion and Sentiment.” In Critical Essays in Moral Theory. London: Allen & Unwin. Damasio, Antonio. 1994. Descartes ' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: G.P. Putnam 's Sons. Damasio, Antonio. 1999. The Feeling of what Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace and Co. D 'Arms, J., and D. Jacobson. 1993. "Expressivism, Morality, and the Emotions." Ethics 104:739-63. Deigh, John. 1994. "Cognitivism in the Theory of Emotions." Ethics 104:824-54. DeLancey, Craig. 2001. Passionate Engines: What Emotions Reveal About Mind and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ekman, Paul. 1972. Emotions in the Human Face. New York: Pergamon Press. Elster, Jon. 1999. Alchemies of the Mind: Rationality and the Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, Dylan. 2001. Emotions: The Science of Sentiment. Oxford: Oxford University Press Evans, Dylan Fowler, A. 1982. Kinds of Literature, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Goldie, Peter, (ed.). 2002. Understanding Emotions. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Goldie, Peter. 2000. The Emotions: A Philosophical Exploration. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gordon, Robert. 1987. The Structure of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greenspan, Patricia. 1988. Emotions and Reasons: an Inquiry into Emotional Justification. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall. Griffiths, Paul. 1997. What Emotions Really Are: The Problem of Psychological Categories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development Halliday, M Halliday, M. A. K. 2004. “On grammar as the driving force from primary to higher Halliday, M Halliday, M. A. K., J. Gibbons, and H. Nicholas. 1990. Learning, Keeping, and Halliday, M.A.K Halliday, M.AK. 1998. Things and relations. In: J.R. Martin & Robert Veel ,Reading Hanvey, R Harre, Rom. 1986. The Social Construction of Emotions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Hasan, R Hasan, R. 1996a. “Literacy, everyday talk and society”, in Hasan, R. and G. Williams Hasan, R Hasan, R. and C. Cloran. 1990. “A sociolinguistic study of everyday talk between Hasan, R Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, Emotion and Will. London; New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul; Humanities Press. Kraut, Robert. 1986. "Love De Re". Midwest Studies in Philosophy 10:413-30. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George & Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Lazarus, Richard Levenson, Robert W. 1999. "The Intrapersonal Function of Emotion." Cognition and Emotion 13:481-504. Lyons, William. 1980. Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Magai, Carol and Haviland-Jones, Jeannette. 2002. The Hidden Genius of Emotions: Lifespan Transformations of Personality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marchan, V. and E. BATES. 1994. “Continuity in lexical and morphological Marks, Joel Marr, David. 1982. Vision. San Francisco: Freeman. Matthews, Gerald and Adrian Wells. 1994. Attention and Emotion: a Clinical Perspective Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Matthiessen, C MELROSE, R. 1995. The Communicative Syllabus, London and New York, Pinter