"Metaphor is a phenomenon of predication, not denomination". This statement of Riccoeur (1994:50) represents in a nutshell an important difference between the traditional approach and modem views of metaphor. In addition the observation of the Lakoffian conceptual theory namely, that metaphor is the product of a cognitive process,1 clearly shows that the development in the theory of metaphor has progressed to an advanced, multi-dimensional linguistic and cognitive stage. However, the literature which deals with the subject, represents a great variety of viewpoints and theories, and produces much confusing and conflicting terminology. Thus, the question remains: How do the practicing minister and ordinary Bible student, identify metaphor in a literary context? One conclusion may be drawn when studying metaphor and that is that metaphor is a vital, versatile but open-ended linguistic phenomena as demonstrated and proved by the metaphorical word game of proponents in formulating their theories.
Gumpel (1984:2) refers to what she calls the 'Ingendahl Experiment'. This is based on Ingendahl's experiment using a group of individuals to identify the metaphorical words in a newspaper article. Only two out of the fifty-eight metaphors in the article could be identified by all participants. This is an indication of the difficulties and differences encountered when it comes to the identification of metaphor by the 'ordinary' language user, as well as the literary experts. Even among researchers, there are vast differences as to what should be considered as metaphor. For example, Ingendahllaments the outcome of his experiment, but Gumpel asks: "What does literary language have to do with a feuilletonistic write-up?" This question (an implied statement) is a clear indication that some regard metaphor as belonging to the poetic, literary sphere, and others as part of all language situations. Recognising metaphors and the proper analysis thereof2 is of vital importance in Biblical studies, exegesis, translation, and theologizing, in order to explore
IWhich Mac Connac 1985:4, assumes to be the human brain that acts as a computational device to generate metaphors.
2 See the comments by Griibe (1990:59) on the importance of skilled handling of poetic and narrative conventions; Newsom (1987: 199) on exegesis; Tracy (1979:89-104) on a better understanding of religion and liberation of theological concepts; Del Corm (1991:114ff.) and Majola (1993:34lff) on Bible translation.
the performative functions and inherent wealth of meanings accommodated III the phenomenon.
Loewen (1982:238ff) points out that "several kinds of 'meaning-stealing'" could be the result if a translator does not recognise a figure of speech. This is also in some regard applicable to the Bible reader and exegete disregarding or misunderstanding metaphor. He warns translators against the following:
(a) "The translation will sound like nonsense. "
(b) "The translation will confuse the readers and the hearers. "
(c) "The translation will be understood easily and quickly, but with a different meaning and sometimes even the wrong meaning. "
(d) "The local culture will tend to give the literal translation a very wrong meaning. "
Hermanson (1995:111ffand 1996:67-78), correctly observes "From literature consulted, it appears that although the writers have much to say about metaphor in the Bible, they have little,
if
anything, to say about how Hebrew metaphor may be recognised. " He lists and discusses six different characteristics highlighted by various researchers, which seems to be in compliance with the theory applied in their work namely:(1) "Metaphor affirms one thing 'to be' another. "
(2) "Hebrew metaphor is a simile without the comparative particle -.:!"
(3) "Metaphor is a literary genre. "
(4) "Metaphor is an individualflash ofimaginative insight. "
(5) "Metaphor is an unconscious synopsis of similar phenomena in the perceptible and imaginative spheres. "
(6) "Metaphor is understanding or experiencing one thing in terms ofanother. "
Soskice (1985: 15) stresses the importance of a working definition with basic properties in order to identify metaphors, and suggests the following: "metaphor is that figure ofspeech whereby we speak about one thing in terms which are seen to be suggestive of another. "
She argues that metaphor is a figure of speech and therefore a form of language use and not a mental event such as a process of imagination, perception, or an emotive response
(P16). Nor should metaphor be classified in grammatical categories such as noun, verb, or adjective, because it does not appear in one syntactic form only, but is distinguished by semantic and pragmatic criteria (ppI8,19). She concludes: "a metaphor is established as soon as it is clear that one thing is being spoken ofin terms that are suggestive ofanother and can be extended until this is no longer the case. " (p23).
Black (1984:25) opposes the notion of predetermined rules for identifying metaphors. He only offers the rule of 'violation' occurring in the metaphorical statement, but immediately adds: "there can be no rules for 'creatively' violating rules. And that is why there can be no dictionary of metaphors. " He emphatically states his viewpoint on this namely: "Any attempt to be more precise about identifying and individuating criteria for metaphorical statements will be embarrassed by different and even partially conflicting readings"
of the same metaphorical statement.
Riccoeur (1994:247) in his study of the creation of meaning in language, constantly uses the theory of 'tension' (or 'controversion') as guidance. To my mind, this is a close resemblance to the 'violation rule' of Black or even to Aristotle's 'deviation rule,' which could be used as an identifying characteristic of metaphor in statements and literature.
Riccoeur provides three applications of his notion of tension, namely:
(a) "tension within the statements: between tenor and vehicle, between focus and frame, between principal subject and secondary subject; (one might add, between
source and target domains - ajb).
(b) "tension between two interpretations: between a literal interpretation that perishes at the hands of semantic impertinence and a metaphorical interpretation whose sense emerges through non-sense;" (or tension between the understanding or meanings of two concepts - ajb).
(c) "tension in the relational function ofthe copula: between identity and difference in the interplay of resemblance. " (or tension in the syntactical construction, suggesting an experience of one in terms of the other - ajb).