2.4.1 Substitution theories
The Substitution theory, also called the literal theory, is commonly regarded as an inheritance from Aristotle and the rhetoric tradition, which dominated the scene until late in the eighteenth century and still appears in modem lexicons. According to Black (1968:31), the essence of a substitution view of metaphor is one "which holds that a metaphorical expression is used in place of some equivalent literal expression, ... " or "a word substituted for another on account of the Resemblance or Analogy between their significations." Thus, in the metaphoric expression, 'Richard is a lion (M),' the author could just as well have said 'Richard is brave (L),' but he substitutes M for L, and it is the reader's task 'to decipher the code or riddle.' The metaphoric expression (M) means nothing more than the literal expression (L), and only serves stylistic, decorative, and didactic purposes, in order to please, shock, surprise or teach the hearer. Soskice (1989:24,25) fonnu1ates this metaphorically correct in saying: "Metaphor has the virtue of clothing tired literal expression in new garb, or alleviating boredom, and, as Aquinas says, of being accessible to the uneducated, 'who are not ready to take intellectual things neat with nothing else. " Richards (1936:70) comments: "metaphor has been treated as a sort of happy extra trick with words, ...something in place occasionally but requiring unusual skill and caution. In brief, a grace or ornament or added power of language, not its constitutive form. " According to its proponents, a more advanced and justified use for substitution metaphors, is to fill the gaps in the literal vocabulary in cases where there are no literal equivalents available.
Evaluation
Evaluations of this theory generally comment on several points regarding the underlying theories of language, and meaning, reflected by the substitution theory. Soskice (1989:25) raises an important criticism against the theory by stating that
"its suggestion that the poet, scientist, or theologian, in using a metaphor, is doing no more than translating from a prior and literal understanding into an evocative formulation, runs counter to the experience of the maker of metaphor:
the latter realizes that the particularity ofa metaphorical description is not that it translates literal thought, but that the very thinking is undertaken in terms of the metaphor. What interests us in metaphor is precisely that we find in it an increment to understanding. "
For this researcher it is obvious that in their emphasis on metaphor as a language and meaning inventive device, critics tend to underplay the intentional and functional objectives of the maker of metaphors. Some metaphors, although not created by a simplistic process of substitution, are indeed radical, didactic, pedagogical, emotive, decorative, and deliberately applied by the author as such in order to shock, please, teach, comfort or impress the hearers. Gumpel (1984:259) in her proposal of a viable theory of metaphor places great emphasis on the intention of the author for the invention and grammatical formulation of metaphorical expressions. This is indeed applicable to Biblical authors and especially the prophets, who are commissioned to convey God's Word of judgement, call for repentance and salvation promises. Macky (1990:65,245) in his
analysis of Biblical metaphors, identify several performative functions such as to draw the attention, play on the affection, and stimulate the imagination of his hearers/readers by using metaphors.
2.4.2 Comparison theory
Black (1968:35) defines the comparison theory' as a view holding that "the characteristic transforming function involved in metaphor ... consists in the vresentation of the underlying analogy or similarity." He considers this theory as a special case of a
IAlso called 'Object-comparison theory' by Beardsley 1962:293.
'substitution view,' for it maintains that a metaphoric expression can be substituted by an equivalent literal comparison and therefore metaphor is viewed as nothing more than a condensed simile.! For example, 'Richard is a lion (M),' can be replaced with 'Richard is brave like a lion (L),' producing a definite and predetermined formula for the abstraction of the literal meaning (L), from the metaphorical expression (M), i.e. A is like B in the respect ofP.
Evaluation
Black (1968:37) formulates his objection to the substitution view as follows:
"We need the metaphor in just the cases when there can be no question as yet of the precision of scientific statement. Metaphorical statement is not a substitute for a formal comparison or any other kind of literal statement, but has its own distinctive
capacities and achievements. "
Regarding the important element of similarity in the metaphorical process, he emphasises that: "it would be more illuminating in some ofthese case to say that the metaphor creates the similarity than to say that it formulates some similarity antecedently existing."
Beardsley's complaint entails that such an application of comparison could limit the interpretation possibilities and produce an incorrect and incomplete explication of metaphor (1962:293ff).
Itseems plausible to this researcher that the concepts of analogy, similarity, comparison, resemblance, and the resultant associations play an important role in some way in the invention and interpretation of some metaphorical expressions. Our thought and understanding processes, through which we organise reality, operate partially on the principles of association and analogy, searching for comparisons and similarities. If our thought processes are fundamentally metaphorical as posed by Johnson, Lakoff, Turner,
IComparison views probably derive from Aristotle. See Black 1968:36n. The Iconic Signification theory of Paul Henle is viewed to be a modem version. See Beardsley 1962:296 and Black 1968:36.
and others,l these concepts must come into play in our experiencing and understanding of some realities in terms of another.
Indurkhya (1992: 1,2) in this regard, distinguishes between conventional metaphors, similarity-based metaphors and similarity-creating metaphors. He explains: "Similarity- based metaphors invite the reader to make a comparison between the source and the target, as the transference ofmeaning is based on some existing similarity between them. "
But in a similarity-based metaphor there exists a notable difference entailing that:
"there are no similarities between the source and the target when the metaphor is first encountered. Yet, after the metaphor is assimilated, (if it is assimilated at all,), (sic) there are similarities between the source and the target. Thus, the metaphor creates the similarities between the source and the target. "
In a similar way, Macky (1990:67) identifies comparison or similarity metaphors III Biblical literature as well as interaction (p63) and functional ornamental metaphors (P65).
Therefore, the relevant concepts will be used in this study where it seems to be applicable.
However, this will not be done in the context of a simplistic Comparison theory. Rather it will be used to denote the special cognitive process of analogy or association in the invention and interpretation of metaphor.