This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: erary theory. 28 Chapter I They criticize the fact that there is no clear delineation of what is novel
and particular for Lakoff – Turner’s approach and what is a widely accepted common knowledge within the discipline. Another related problem
is that the views criticized by the book’s authors are not clearly attributed
to anybody, so that misrepresentation and misinterpretation can occur,
which Jackendoff – Aaron believe was the case with Rorty (1979, 1989).
2.5. Metaphor from a functional perspective
Goatly (1997) creatively develops the idea of conceptual metaphors. He
calls their lexical realizations root analogies and plots a complex and detailed network of such analogies for the English language. This exhaustive list gives further support to Lakoff – Turner’s (1989) claim that poetic metaphor exploits conventional metaphor (or root analogies) through
novel rewording. Unlike Lakoff and his co-workers, though, Goatly gives
a careful consideration to a number of other approaches to metaphor.
This, however, may occasionally result in a certain terminological confusion. One such case is with the term simile and its relation to metaphor. In
the discussion of comparative view, it is stated that “metaphor can be best
viewed as an ellipsed version of a simile or comparison” (Goatly 1997:
118), while a few pages later “… [t]hese simile frameworks may be exploited for metaphoric purposes” (my underlining) (Goatly 1997: 184). Is
simile synonymous to metaphor or not? The answer to this question appears in passim (Goatly 1997: 231-238), where a distinction between literal similes, quasi-literal similes and metaphorical similes is introduced.
An undisputable contribution of Goatly to CMT is his attempt to
place it within a larger framework, that of Relevance Theory and the Hallidayan functional approach to language. Goatly believes that the live metaphor which increases processing effort remains relevant if we extend the
suggested levels of decoding, consisting of the knowledge of the language
system, the knowledge of the context (situation and co-text), and factual and
socio-cultural knowledge, by a fourth element: a description of an imaginary
state of affairs. His elaborated model (Goatly 1997: 147-148) allows not only
for a satisfactory interpretation of novel metaphors in discourse, but also for
the interpretation of texts in a variety of genres, including fiction, and may be
viewed as Phenomenalistic Metaphor for an actual state of affairs. Conceptual metaphor and its implications for discourse 29 Goatly (1997: 166) proposed as many as thirteen functions of
metaphors neatly subdivided into Halliday’s three metafunctions:
Lexical Gap-filling, Explanation/Modelling and Reconceptualization correspond to Halliday’s ideational metafunction. The next five functions
have a strong interpersonal element: Argument by Analogy seems partly
ideational, partly emotive; Cultivation of Intimacy, Humour and Games
certainly have a phatic element (…) The ideological function, too, is bo...
View Full Document