For centuries, the use of metaphor has attracted more interest than any other traditionally recognized figures of speech (Hills, 2016). Aristotle is thought to be one of the original logicians to consider the concept of metaphor. His work is now known as the Traditional View (Wood, 2017). However, in the days of Aristotle, figurative redeployment of words counted as metaphor, and he recognized four different types of metaphors, including (a) term transferred from genus to species, (b) transference from species to genus, (c) transference from one species to another, and (d) analogy (Levin, 1982). He first broached the topic of metaphor in his works titled Rhetoric and Poetics. He defined metaphor in Poetics as follows:
Metaphor consists in giving the thing a name that belongs to something else; the transference being either from genus to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or on grounds of analogy. That from genus to species i.e. exemplified in âHere stands my shipâ; for lying at anchor is the âstandingâ of a particular kind of thing. That from species to genus in âTruly ten thousand good deeds has Ulysses wroughtâ, where âten thousandâ, which is a particular large number, is put in place of the generic âa large numberâ. That from species to species in âDrawing the life with the bronzeâ, and in âSevering with the enduring bronzeâ; where the poet uses âdrawâ in the sense of âseverâ and âseverâ in that of âdrawâ, both words meaning to âtake awayâ something. That from analogy is possible whenever there are four terms so related that the second (B) is to the first (A), as the fourth (D) to the third (C); for one may then metaphorically put B in lieu of D, and D in lieu of B. (Aristotle, 350BC-b, 21)
Can the use of words actually have an impact on the outcome or interpretation of the content? Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2011) sought to uncover if metaphors were âjust fancy ways of talking, or do they have real consequences for how people reason about complex social issuesâ (p. 1). According to Thibodeau, Hendricks, and Boroditsky (2017), âmetaphorical language is understood quickly, easily, and automaticallyâ (p. 854). The scholars used several examples to demonstrate the power of metaphorical language, including the expectation that one person âwas seen as more of a genius⊠when his ideas were described as light bulbs instead of seedsâ (p. 852). Another example involved approval rates of reform when crime was described as a virus instead of a beast. And thirdly, using words to personify changes (climbing, slipping) in stock prices, rather than objectifying them (increasing, decreasing), makes people more likely to think recent price trajectories will continue in the future. In one of their studies, Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2011) conducted five experiments, where participants were presented with a short paragraph about crime in a fictitious city. The paragraphs differed slightly between the groups with verbiage of crime-as-virus or crime-as-beast. The researchers found that âeven the subtlest insinuation of a metaphor can have a powerful influence over how people attempt to solve social problems like crime and how they gather information to make âwell-informedâ decisionsâ (p. 1).
Using metaphor in rhetoric is one of the âmost powerful tools in the⊠toolboxâ (Burkley, 2017). The use of metaphor adds texture and beauty to dialogue that may otherwise be dry or difficult to understand. As examples, Burkley (2017) provided the following three metaphors: (a) all the world is a stage, (b) love is a battlefield, and (c) life is like a box of chocolates. Each metaphor takes a simple, concrete, and well-understood idea and compares it to an abstract impression. Ultimately, the goal is to improve comprehension allowing the audience to see something old in a new and vivid way.
Metaphor is described as âa figure of speech that makes a comparison between two things that are basically dissimilarâ, describing one thing in terms of another (Damrosch & Keach, 1985, p. 990). It is comparative, going beyond a mere descriptive adjective to describe one object as having the characteristics of a second object. Unlike a simile, metaphor âdoes not use connective words such as âlikeâ, âasâ, or âresemblesâ in making the comparisonâ (p. 990). Metaphors use language to invoke imagery to provide comprehension of an event, a situation, or even an organization. Malotki (1983) describes the importance of metaphor within language as follows:
Man, in confronting reality, faces a kaleidoscope of phenomena ranging from the natural to the man-made, to the imaginary, to the totally abstract. Comprehension of such broad inventory of reality and non-reality requires language, the tool that permits man to take verbal stock of objective and subjective experiences alike. In manâs ongoing endeavor to conceptualize and verbalize a world that can never be fully known, language is the vital intermediary. Language provides a repertoire of coping mechanisms, of which metaphor is one of the most powerful and useful. (p. 13)
The use of metaphor as a part of language is longstanding and can be seen with Egyptian hieroglyphics (Trim, 2007), where the bullâs head signified rage. The Egyptian word ka was frequently used for bull, and Ka-Nakht was the mighty bull. The hieroglyphic for an angry rampaging bull (Ka-Nakht) has the head twisted to the side signifying rage (Rice, 2014). This metaphor for rage is seen in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Jordan, the Arabian Gulf, and even in south-western Europe cave paintings. This metaphor is still understood today as denoting rage or aggression. The Charging Bull, the well-known sculpture which stands outside of the New York Stock Exchange, was created by Arturo Di Modica in 1989 to demonstrate the strength and power of Americans. However, it has also been interpreted as anger or aggression. âThe Bullâs head is lowered, its nostrils flare, and its wickedly long, sharp horns are ready to gore; itâs an angry, dangerous beast. The muscular body twists to one side, and the tail is curved like a lash; the Bull is also energetic and in motionâ (Durante, 2007, p. 30).
Metaphor is utilized within Scripture. 1 Peter 5 compares the enemy to a lion, who prowls around seeking someone to devour. The Bible has been compared to physical light, evoking an image of enlightenment. âThy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my pathâ (Psalm 119:105, King James Version). This metaphor allows the reader to understand that reading the Bible will bring clarity and light in their daily journey.
The strongest Scriptural metaphor is that of a shepherd. The ancient Israelites were a semi-nomadic group and had many shepherds amongst their leaders, including Abraham, Moses, Jacob, the prophet Amos, and King David. The understanding of what a shepherd did, caring for sheep, leading sheep, healing sheep, and correcting the path of sheep was intuitive to all Israelites. Ezekiel 34 speaks to selfish âshepherdsâ who were taking care of themselves over their âsheepâ. The metaphor was used to point out how the rulers at that time used the government for their own ends as opposed to the people:
The use of metaphor in the Old Testament then provides imagery of God caring for His people (The Lord is my shepherd, Psalm 23), and for Jesus as the good shepherd in John 10:1â21, where Jesus will die for the salvation of mankind: âI came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheepâ (John 10:10bâ11, ESV).The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. (Ezekiel 34:4, English Standard Version)
âMetaphors, like epithets, must be fitting, which means that they must fairly correspond to the thing signified; failing this, their inappropriateness will be conspicuousâ (Aristotle, 350BC-a, p. 154). Oswick, Keenoy, and Grant (2002) listed several uses of metaphors, including objectives, such as to (a) provide literal meanings, (b) provide a point of comparison, (c) create an image, (d) create an intersection of ideas, and/or (e) bolster existing knowledge (p. 296). The researchers posited that the use of metaphors tends to focus more on similarities and less on differences to enrich critical analysis (p. 301). Cornelissen (2005) argued that metaphors offer creative and emergent ideas that lead to new theoretical constructs in organizational leadership. Metaphors lead to heightened discernment to capture new insights that otherwise are left unnoticed.
In similar fashion to Aristotleâs views on metaphor, Gazendam (1993) ...