Metaphorically Speaking (review)

In Metaphorically speaking, Patti Nogales revisits the question that has troubled many philosophers, psychologists, and linguists: What is a metaphor? Armed with a conceptual approach and an empirical methodology, she seeks to answer it. Her introduction, ‘Why metaphor’ (1–8), lays out the problem as she sees it: To find an explanation for metaphor that accounts for the way we use and understand metaphoric language. She seeks to accomplish this through a formulation of metaphor as reconceptualization, which she explains as a prelinguistic process rather than a purely linguistic phenomenon. She then attempts to justify her analysis through a detailed evaluation and comparison of her own and other metaphor theories against a list of criteria she has developed for this purpose.

Ch. 1, ‘Metaphor as reconceptualization’ (9–40), sets out her assumptions and terminology and describes the specific components of her analysis of metaphor with respect to these assumptions and terms. She claims that metaphor at its base is not a matter of meaning but is conceptual and prelinguistic, based in the reformulation that takes place when the categories of our ‘naïve metaphysics’ (17) are challenged by nonconventional use of language categories. At the same time, metaphoric language is both semantic and pragmatic (in other words, linguistic in addition to prelinguistic) in that the content of ametaphoric utterance carries a meaning that is both determined by the words used and dependent on context.

Chs. 2–6 address various points of N’s argument, fleshing out and defending the analysis of metaphor she has claimed. Chs. 2 (41–61) and 3 (62–99) focus in turn on the history of metaphoric explanation in terms of traditional linguistics and the distinction between metaphor as meaning and metaphor as use. Chs. 4, 5, and 6 address metaphor as language use, focusing respectively on ‘Metaphor and lies’ (100–23), ‘Metaphor and irony’ (124–64), and ‘Metaphor and indirect speech acts’ (165–208). Ch. 7 (209–36) concludes with an evaluation of both her analysis of metaphor as reconception and other theories of metaphor in terms of their explanatory power with respect to a list of criteria she has drawn up throughout the book.

The gift of N’s analysis is its accessibility. Her terminology is familiar, her organization exemplary, and her explanation plainspoken and thorough with many examples. She makes use of concepts that have been dealt with by other linguists and cognitive scientists in a more technical fashion, and she brings them into the realm of everyday use. While her arguments consist, in large part, of ideas already introduced by other scholars, her method of presentation combines them in a reductive way that simplifies their expression and makes them more practically available to scholars outside or marginal to the field of linguistics. Concepts such as Gilles Fauconnier’s space blending (Mental spaces, Cambridge: MIT Press 1985) and George Lakoff’s account of categorization (Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) underlie her explanation of the way reconceptualization operates within language systems, but she approaches them in a way that highlights their basic and intuitive connection with language behavior. Her explanation of metaphor is thus very comfortable and in agreement with intuitions about metaphoric language use.

N’s methodical style of expression is, at times, an impediment to clarity. Her tendency to amply explain points sometimes extends to stating the obvious, and her preference for constructions such as ‘that is’ and ‘in other words’ can make her seem redundant. Furthermore, in an exception to her usually thorough explanation, the distinction between meaning and semantics as it applies to her differentiation of metaphoricity and metaphorical content is not always clear. Ultimately, however, N resolves these problems, clarifying her distinctions through the discussion as the book progresses. By the time she reaches her conclusion, she has brought the reader to those conclusions, too, led by her accessible, organized, and thorough explanatory style. While her analysis tends to reformulate other...