2.6 NEW DEVELOPMENTS: INTERACTION .1 Introduction
2.6.2.2 Five principles
Max Black! summarises the five pillars, on which the Interaction Theory stands as follows. This is opposed to the traditional substitution and related theories:
" (1) A metaphorical statement has two distinct subjects, to be identified as the
"primary" subject and the "secondary" one.... The duality of reference is marked by the contrast between the metaphorical statement's focus (the word or words used non-literally) and the surrounding literalframe.
(2) The secondary subject is to be regarded as a system rather than an individual thing. (A revision of his previous viewpoint, which regarded both subjects as systems).
(3) The metaphor utterance works by "projecting upon" the primary subject a set of "associated implications, " comprised in the implicative complex, that are predicable of the secondary subject. (Black replaced the expression 'system
of associated commonplaces' with the label 'implicative complex' - AJB).
(4) The maker of a metaphorical statement selects, emphasizes, suppresses, and organizes features of the primary subject by applying to it statements isomorphic with the members ofthe secondary subject's implicative complex.
(5) In the context of a particular metaphorical statement, the two subjects
"interact" in the following ways:
(a) the presence of the primary subject incites the hearer to select some of the secondary subject's properties; and
(b) invites him to construct a parallel implication-complex that canfit the primary subject; and
(c) reciprocally induces parallel changes in the secondary subject.
IIn Black 1984:28,29, he presents a revision of the seven claims proposed in 1962:44
2.6.2.3 Application: an example
The development of the Interaction Theory is characterised by contributions by many exponents during the past century,I but also by a variety of terminology, sometimes very confusing for students and homilists for their study and exegetical efforts. The above five claims of the Interaction Theory are frequently explained by means of Black's (1968:39) much quoted (and by now fossilised) metaphorical example namely, 'Man is a wolf. For the sake of clarity and in order to explain the different terminology and the main elements of the theory, the example will be utilised in this study.
2.6.2.4 Two thoughts/ideas in one
Richard's (1936:93) definition of metaphor states that in metaphor we have "two thoughts of different things active together," and therefore metaphor always requires two ideas
"which co-operate in an inclusive meaning" (p1l9). To illustrate: in the expression 'Man is a wolf,' we generally recognise it as being metaphorical due to the metaphorical use of the word 'wolf in an otherwise literal remainder. Black (1968:28 and 39) terms the metaphorized word, 'wolf,' in the expression, the 'focus' of the metaphor, Richards (1936:96) prefers the term 'vehicle', Abraham (1975:22) calls it 'part', to denote the subsidiary subject mentioned in (1) above. "Man" in this metaphorical expression is the 'frame' (Black), 'tenor' (Richards), 'remainder' (Abraham), and denotes the principal subject. The expression describes, or focuses on, or wants to convey 'something' about man, but uses animal-language.
2.6.2.5 A sentence/utterance, not only a word
From this follows that metaphor is not merely a word but a sentence or utterance, which is context-dependent for the correct interpretation. Kittay (1987:22) correctly characterises the first basic features of the Interaction theory as the recognition that metaphor is a sentence, consisting of at least two components, and not only an isolated word. Riccoeur (1976:50) concludes: "So we should not really speak of the metaphorical use of a word,
I Mooij 1976:73 mentions W Stiihlin (1914) and K Biihler (1934) as early contributors before Richards (1936) and Black (1955). Riccoeur 1976:49 adds Monroe Beardsley, Colin Turbayne, and Philip Wheelwright. He nominates the work of Richards being "truly pioneering because it marks the overthrow oftraditional problematic. ..
but rather ofthe metaphorical utterance. The metaphor is the result ofthe tension between two terms in a metaphorical utterance. "
2.6.2.6 Interaction
The 'interplay' or 'interaction' between the focus (wolf) and the frame (man), which Richards (1936:94) describes as being "fundamentally a borrowing between and intercourse of thoughts, a transaction between two contexts ", causes a tension between two opposed interpretations of the utterance. The Riccoeurian interactionism holds that metaphor involves a non-conventional interpretation, because a conventional interpretation is ruled out by the context. In other words, a 'split reference' occurs, which creates a 'tension' demanding an alternative to the conventional interpretation.1 An attempt to interpret the expression literally creates a 'tension' (Riccoeur), an 'absurdity', a 'contradiction' (Black and Beardsley), a 'semantic impertinence' (Jean Cohen), a 'category mistake' (Ryle), and can only make sense if we apply a meaning or a 'metaphorical twist' (Beardsley's term, 1962:298ff).2
2.6.2.7 An implications-complex (or system of commonplaces)
The copula-verb 'is' in the utterance, relates, or actually identifies 'man', the primary (principal) subject, with a 'wolf, Le. the secondary (subsidiary) subject. In order to grasp the meaning of the expression, the reader should be familiar with "the implicative complex,,3 of the word 'wolf. The wolf-system comes into play with its "associated implications" (or related commonplaces) or ideas about a wolf and evokes characteristics such as: "he preys upon other animals, is fierce, hungry, engaged in constant struggle, a scavenger..., " hateful, alarming, etc (Black 1968:41-42). A competent reader will be able to identify the applicable characteristics from the wolf-system (called the wolf-system of implications) to construct a meaningful picture of man in terms of wolf-language.
1Indurkhya 1992:74, on Riccoeur's view.
2All mentioned in Riccoeur 1976:50,51.
3Black 1984:28, also called "the system ofassociated commonplaces" in Black 1968:40.
2.6.2.8Metaphoras a 'screen' or'filter'
The metaphor acts as a 'screen' or 'filter' and the wolf-system of associated commonplaces as gridlines on the screen or filter through which man is viewed according to projection of the implication-system. In the process, the "wolf metaphor suppresses some details, emphasizes others - in short, organizes our view of man. " To rephrase Black's example of his chesslbattle metaphor in terms of the wolf-metaphor: the wolf vocabulary ''jilters and transforms: not only selects, it brings forward aspects of" man
"that might not be seen at all through another medium. "(Black 1968:42).
Riccoeur (1994:212ff) in his discussion of the role of the image/icon concept in resemblance accepts Hester's contribution of the notion of 'seeing as,' which brings resemblance into play. Hester (1967:180), who holds an iconic theory of metaphor, defines 'seeing as' as follows: "Seeing as is an intuitive experience-act by which one selects from the quasi-sensory mass of imagery one has on reading metaphor the relevant aspects ofsuch imagery. "This emphasises the 'pictorial capacity of language,' especially through metaphor.
However, it also emphasises the fact that 'seeing as,' being half thought and half experience, is the intuitive relationship that keeps the sense (of the words) and image (of the metaphor) together. Riccoeur (1994:214) argues that the notion of 'seeing as' is complementing the interactionist's theories of 'fusion' (Richards), and 'tension' (Riccoeur), and 'interaction' (Black). "'Seeing X as Y' encompasses X is not Y'; seeing time as a beggar is, precisely, to know also that time is not a beggar. "(p215).
This interesting combination creates new possibilities, because one could say that Black's 'screen' or 'filter' can now be considered as a 'pictured' (with a beggar-image) 'screen' or 'filter', enabling one tosee 'time' as some aspects of the beggar-image. Through 'fusion' or 'interaction' of sense and imagery, the 'tension' is resolved, and a new meaning denoting 'what time is' in terms of the beggar-picture, is created. However, at the same time the 'is not' part is gradually suppressed, depending on the degree of comprehension of the metaphor.