Metaphor is an ancient concept of literary theory, which has been considered in a rhetorical and poetic sense for over two thousand years in the West. In the 20th century, it gradually extended to the fields of philosophy, linguistics, cognitive science, and even natural science and computer science, evolving into a widely used theoretical conception. The 21st century has witnessed, both abroad and at home, the mushrooming of academic works related to metaphor, which continue to enrich its connotation and expand its outreach. In classical Chinese literary theory, there is no concept that corresponds exactly to metaphor either in categorical or semantic terms. The fact that the Chinese word “隐喻” (yinyu) was chosen as the counterpart of “metaphor” is yet another evidence of the exchange and fusion of literary theories between China and the West. Based on the above understanding, the following analysis starts from the origin of metaphor in the Western context and traces its evolution and dissemination in the Chinese literary discourse.
Western classical metaphor theory
Etymologically, the word “metaphor” in English is derived from the Greek word “metaphora,” which in turn originates from “meta”1 (meaning to connect, to span) and “pherein” (meaning to carry, to transport). The combination of the two constitutes the original literal meaning of the word metaphor, suggesting its metaphorical feature from its birth.
While in conceptual terms, metaphor has been primarily a concept of literary criticism -for the next two thousand years. The history of metaphor study over the past two thousand years is first and foremost a history of literary metaphor studies. In a nutshell, diachronically, the study of metaphor as a concept of literary criticism has a beginning, two threads, and three main stages in the West; and synchronically, the study of metaphor since the 20th century can be divided into three different aspects: rhetoric, text, and thinking.
The beginning and two lines of the study of metaphor
The study of metaphor originates from ancient Greek rhetoric. Aristotle is not the first theorist to study metaphor, but he is the first who systematically defines and interprets metaphor in his work Rhetoric and Poetics. His theory on metaphor, usually called comparison theory or the comparison theory of metaphor, has influenced the study of metaphor in the West significantly for more than two thousand years. Therefore, Aristotle’s theory should be considered as the beginning of metaphor study, in terms of both its systematic nature and profound influence.
Aristotle’s discussion of metaphor is mainly found in Chapters 21–25 of his Poetics and in Volume 3 of his Rhetoric. In Poetics, he classifies words into eight types: prevalent, foreign, a metaphor, embellished, made up, lengthened, shortened, altered. On this basis, he concludes “[a] metaphor is a carrying over of a word belonging to something else, from genus to species, from species to genus, from species to species, or by analogy” (Aristotle, 2006:52). He points out that metaphor is applicable to prose and poetry, especially iambic poems, and the mixed use of metaphors with other words avoids insipidness in style. Aristotle also emphasizes that:
While it is a great thing to use each of the forms mentioned in an appropriate way, as well as double and foreign word, much the greatest form of wording is the metaphorical. For this alone cannot be grasped from anyone else and is a sign of natural gifts, since to use metaphors well is to have insight into what is alike.
This idea is also emphasized in Rhetoric, in which Aristotle argues that metaphor stems from the similarity between things, a view that has been carried forward as the basic idea of comparison theory to this day. Aristotle’s theory on metaphor has been followed by numerous researchers, taking similarity as an important feature of metaphor between the tenor and the vehicle.
Aristotle mentions metaphor again when he discusses style in Chapter 22 of Poetics. He posits that the formation of style depends on the use of various unfamiliar words. “By unfamiliar I mean foreign, metaphoric, lengthened, and everything besides what is prevalent” (Aristotle, 2006:54–55). He particularly stresses the use of metaphor in a measured manner; if a poem is replete with metaphors, it is no longer a poem, but a riddle. In Rhetoric, Aristotle also highlights the significance of metaphor in prose and in shaping the narrative style, arguing that metaphor adds to the clarity of style (Aristotle, 2009:18), functioning inadvertently through the conversion of potential meanings and keeping the writing from being either plain narrative or pretentious expression. Additionally, Aristotle points out that everyone employs metaphor in their conversation, and although metaphor may bring things to life at the first use, the abuse of metaphor would lead to the loss of its expressive vitality. On these points, Aristotle has actually noticed the pervasiveness of metaphor in language, while also underlining the significance of metaphor for language development and literary creation.
Aristotle has not only initiated the study of metaphor, but proposed and elaborated on two main theoretical threads of metaphor study in Poetics and Rhetoric. This is largely a result of the divergent theoretical perspectives of his elaboration of the metaphor in the two works mentioned above. Aristotle argues that metaphor is widespread in both general discourse and literary expressions, and has different connotations and categories in rhetoric and poetics because of the differences between these two disciplines. . Although he has not drawn an obvious line between these differences, his delineation of the objects of study of poetics and rhetoric and their categories is sufficient to show the commonalities and disparities between metaphor in ordinary language and in literary language.
Aristotle first divides language art in terms of generality and particularity, distinguishing dialectical and rhetorical categories under general language arts, while special language arts were subsumed under separate disciplines, of which poetics was the discipline devoted to the study of literary language arts. In Poetics, Aristotle emphasizes that metaphor is a kind of meaning association based on similarity,, a substitution of words for other words; while in Rhetoric, he discusses the function of metaphor in language primarily in terms of rhetorical effect, and in particular, the role of metaphor in shaping language style.
Aristotle’s definition of poetics and rhetoric not only links closely the two disciplines from the beginning, but also clarifies their distinctions in theoretical discourse, research object, methodology, and purpose. Todorov argues that Aristotle’s study of semantic transferring in a language is carried out in the context of rhetoric, but his analysis of this phenomenon is within the realm of logic. Paul Rico says:
It is he who actually defined metaphor for the entire subsequent history of Western thought, on the basis of a semantics that takes the word or the name as its basic unit. Furthermore, his analysis is situated at the crossroads of two disciplines – rhetoric and poetics – with distinct goals: ‘persuasion’ in oral discourse and the mimêsis of human action in tragic poetry.
Despite the distinctions of these specific viewpoints, they all contain an identification with the relevance of the two disciplines of poetics and rhetoric, and take this relevance as a major premise for the study of metaphor. Later studies of metaphor tend to emphasize that Aristotle defines and addresses the concept of metaphor in the rhetorical sense, a tendency that may have been influenced by the linguistic turn, such as the inclusion of poetics in the theory of Jacobson et al.
Historical development of classical metaphor theory
The development of classical metaphor theory failed to break through the scope and depth of Aristotle’s research for a long time. From the ancient Roman period to the medieval ages, a theoretical path of metaphorical study was constructed.
In the ancient Roman period, the major theoretical view of metaphorical research was Substitution Theory, whose fundamental idea was that metaphorical meaning arose from the change of word meaning, and the substitution of words with each other produced metaphorical meaning. This point of view was also addressed in Cicero’s On the Sublime, Horatius’s The Art of Poetry, and other masterpieces. While Cicero regarded metaphor as a vital means to make speeches effective, Horatius deemed that metaphor should serve to better represent the true relationships in the language style and make it more appropriate. The Roman rhetorician Quintilian believed that as a kind of rhetoric, metaphor had the function of artistic refinement implying the power to transform a word from its original meaning to another. On this basis, Quintilian also distinguished four forms of metaphorical transformation. On account of his integrative research on many ideas and issues in rhetorical study, Hawkes called Quintilian a representative figure of metaphorical study of this period, believing that “Quintilian is rightly considered representative of the ideas about metaphor that had been accumulated by the rhetoricians that preceded him, and his considerable influence on theorists and artists in the Renaissance makes his account of great interest” (Hawkes, 2018:13).
Metaphor was seen as a simplified rhetorical alternative in Quintilian’s Substitution Theory, which, to some extent, reflected the trajectory of the development of classical rhetoric, that is, the transition of rhetoric discourse from speech form based on oral expression to a form based on word and text. Hence, the rhetorical forms and purposes such as eloquence and persuasion gradually gave way to the goal of decorative expression of language.
In the Middle Ages, Hebrew culture left the Bible with numerous metaphors for later literary creations. Exegesis in the theological and literary sense inspired contemporary hermeneutical study of metaphor; more importantly, the Hebrew cultural tradition, as a source of deep influence on Western literature outside the Greek tradition, established another historical development path for metaphorical research beyond Aristotle. Meanwhile, the study of metaphor in the rhetorical sense gradually retreated to the study of rhetoric during this period. British scholar Hawkes once pointed out that metaphorical research didn’t progress much in the Middle Ages.
The Middle Ages were not notable for the development of literary theory, but they showed an interest in the process of formalizing and prescription that derived from the classical approach to metaphor, though it had a different end in view.
Scholars in the Middle Ages highly praised The Rhetorica ad Herennium, which incorporated metaphor into decorative writing techniques and obsessed over the complexity and trivialities of rhetoric, including its definition, classification, and description. Compared to the Greek period, the medieval view of metaphor was more focused on collective experience, and mostly belonged to the interpretation of meaning within a theological framework.
The metaphorical study of the Renaissance period did not show obvious revival or substantial theoretical progress. The rhetorical theory of this period used rhetoric as the ornamentation of language, stressing the refinement and multiplicity of classifications; and the emphasis on the creativity of metaphor was gradually supplanted by a flaunting of ingenuity, the consequence of which was that literary creation became a game with merely a hollow form. Following the study of rhetoric as a practical art, classical rhetoric declined. As a part of it, metaphor therefore was on the stereotypical and flamboyant list of rhetoric.
Vico’s research on human poetic faculty is the most valuable part of the theoretical study of metaphor in the 17th century. He holds the view that metaphor has existed and played a prominent role in language ever since the birth of philosophy. Vico’s theoretical revelation and contribution to metaphorical research lies in the fact that his overall theoretical thinking of metaphor is different from previous literary and rhetorical study of it, which manifests his theoretical creation in the main trend of philosophy dominated by Cartesianism in the 17th and 18th centuries. Although Vico’s enormous influence on the exploration of human knowledge did not emerge until the 19th century, it is this theoretical thinking mode represented by him that foreshadowed and ushered in the new research direction of metaphor in the 20th century.
Nietzsche is another outstanding figure who connects classical metaphorical research with modern metaphor theory, having explored the relationship between rhetoric, language, and literature. Nietzsche believes that language is the result of human impulse to present and express feelings, and that literary works are often the most important object of study in rhetoric as a vehicle having the most affinity with language. In Nietzsche’s view, “The second form of the tropus is the metaphor. It does not produce new words, but gives a new meaning to them” (Gilman et al., 1989:23). The change of meaning in language is first derived from the shortage of expression, and then from people’s focus on linguistic modifiability. That is why metaphor is taken as the modifier of a language.
The rise of symbolism in the late 19th century is the last major link in the history of classical metaphor study. Empathy, one of the main expressive techniques of symbolism, is considered as a form of metaphor in contemporary metaphor theory. In addition, the poetic theory of symbolism has exerted a profound influence on the development of modernist literature in the 20th century and has served as a bridge connecting traditional metaphor theory and contemporary metaphorical research.
