Dianne Rae E. SiribanMA Comparative Literature95-23533

3rd Writing Assignment in Philo 295Philosophy of LanguageProfessor Ciracio SaysonOctober 23, 2006

The Metaphorical Transaction:The Complementary Theories of Searle and Davidson

Question: In your view, whose theory makes better sense of metaphor—Searle’s or Davidson’s? Defend your view.

Of course, it would seem commonsensical to side with Davidson. His arguments against

other theories of metaphors, such as those by John Searle and Max Black are attempts to save it

against reductionism and maintain the ineffable magic of metaphors. Needless to say, I agree

with the criticisms against the way literature is being taught in many schools today. A lot is lost

from the essence and potency of literature when teachers or the “literati” impose singular

paraphrases of a poems and parables; when they offer meanings but discount those volunteered

by others of “lower” stature. From experience, the discrepancy in these kinds of situations tends

to intensify as the gap between generations—that of the teacher and of the student—increases.

I have sat through countless literature classes during my undergraduate studies in creative

writing; and I have sat through many more for my masteral studies in comparative literature.

Before those, there had been elementary and high school. Now that I teach literature myself, I

don’t blame my students for their initial passivity and lack of enthusiasm in class. I actually

expect it; and to address this early reluctance, I try to do as some of my good professors did and

let stories and poems be mere whetting stones for our minds—to be able to generate insights

Page 1 of 6 / Siriban

more spontaneously, to develop critical thinking—instead of toughened oysters for us to crack to

be able to learn.

Nevertheless, I appreciate all the theories that I have read in class regarding metaphor. I

think that all these theories offer valuable insights that may lead to solutions to some of out

biggest problems today. For instance, the articulation of the metaphorical issue sheds light on

religious conflicts and debates regarding the meaning of biblical texts, particularly the teachings

of Jesus and his disciples.

In Martinich, Davidson states that “metaphors mean what the words in their most literal

interpretation mean, and nothing more” (430). I take this to mean that, for Davidson, the best

way to appreciate a metaphor is by understand them at the semantic level. That is to say, literally.

Consequently, the impressions and feelings that this understanding creates in us is the essence of

the metaphor. While Searle’s principles aim to get to the meaning (S is R) of a metaphor beyond

the literal level (S is P), Davidson asserts that what is important in metaphors is not meaning, but

rather the function. This function being what metaphor does, which is—to my understanding of

how they work in literature—to defamiliarize, lend new perspectives of the world, and give fresh

insights.

Furthermore, Davidson maintains that “an adequate metaphor must allow that the primary

or original meanings of the words remain active in their metaphorical setting.” Again, we should

take the metaphor literally first. A good example of such an approach to metaphor is the literal

interpretations of metaphors in the sitcom Ally McBeal. Visually, occasional scenes from the

episodes of this sitcom, are easily perceived as exaggerated, absurd and even surreal. A character

is shown melting like a lighted candle, another character chopping off the head of another

Page 2 of 6 / Siriban

person, and the like. Of course, these instances may also indicate that the story is told from a

subjective point of view; that of the overly imaginative Ally. Nevertheless, the shock of seeing

such images brings home the message much more effectively than explaining what metaphors

such as “looking daggers” or “dickhead” approximately mean (S is R).

I’m having difficulty coming up with examples of metaphors that people use in everyday,

mundane contexts. Perhaps this proves that the use of metaphor is truly deeply ingrained in our

communication practices. Perhaps an example that I can offer of how metaphor is used in the

practical world (meaning not in works of art, literature, film, etc.), is the use of the terms

“master” and “slave” to label computer hardware configurations, instead of using the usual 0 and

1. But this particular use of metaphor does point to a very identifiable meaning or interpretation.

For instance a “master” hardware devise precedes the functions of a slave or secondary device, a

configuration necessary especially when they share a common data and power cables.

While I agree with most of Davidson’s defense of the ineffable nature of metaphor, I disagree

with his statement that “a metaphor doesn’t say anything beyond its literal meaning (nor does its

maker say anything in using the metaphor beyond the literal.” He probably stated this without

considering other uses of language besides ordinary conversation, such as poetry and fiction. He

probably hadn’t considered systems of language other than verbal, such as the language of visual

arts, music and film.

I believe that when one writes or constructs utterances, especially in works of art, one

consciously chooses components of the language being used; the author or artist selects words,

colors, images, sounds, etc. to be able to articulate an expression metaphorically. There are

reasons behind the choices that an utterer of metaphors makes, mostly because in his/her

Page 3 of 6 / Siriban

judgment these linguistic or symbolic elements carry the intended message more precisely than

others. They best suit the purpose of expressing something beyond what may be merely

perceived literally.

For example, what makes the image of flowers and gardens in the following poem convey

impressions more vividly and effectively than, perhaps, images of old books on a dusty shelf, or

sad little puppies in a cage? And why do the images in the poem (garden, flowers, morning,

being buried, maiden) complement each other quite well and logically if it were not planned to

be so:

In the garden there strayedA beautiful maidAs fair as the flowers of the morn;The first hour of her lifeShe was made a man’s wife,And was buried before she was born.i

Images and symbolism in film are also carefully planned down to the smallest prop, to the

most subtle action or camera movement. True to the grammar of film, everything captured in a

frame is staged; every detail put in it is purposive. The camera is at all times directed deliberately

at a scene that is artificial or constructed for the purpose of being shot—a basic principle of

production design. During the production of a film that I directed, as an output for a film

workshop I joined earlier this year, my crew and I had to plan each scene in detail. We had to

i In The Garden, by an anonymous author. From Literature: Structure, sound and sense, 6th ed. (p. 650).

References:

1. Martinich, A.P. (1990). The philosophy of language, (2nd ed.). N.Y.: Oxford UP2. Makkai, Adam. (1972). Idiom structure in English. Paris: Mouton & Co.3. Goatly, Andrew. (1997). The language of metaphors. N.Y.: Routledge4. Lycan, William G. (ret. 9/7/2006). An Irenic idea about metaphor.

http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/Metaphor.htm5. “cabin fever” (april 2, 2003) Searle on the “interestingness” of metaphor. in Everything2.com.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1448829&lastnode_id=484706. Perrine, Lawrence & Arp, Thomas (eds.) (1993). Literature: Structure, sound and sense (6th edition).

N.Y.: Harcourt Brace

Page 4 of 6 / Siriban

find a way to represent the main characters’ personality and history by using subtle symbols such

as personal belongings and physical attributes. A measly collection of bottles, a scar on his face,

a lopsided, funny kind of walk are all intended to suggest the character’s oddness, and

consequently, his loneliness. The other character’s dress is purposively violet, a color that many

people in our culture ascribe to death or mourning.

In the case of reality TV, one still cannot really say that what one sees is reality. One has to

also consider that the camera is selective, and that whatever is seen on TV may be as apparent as

what is left out. A similar symbolic system operates in the creation of music. That is, when a

musician chooses a musical progression or key over another to convey happiness, melancholy,

anger or comedy in a composition. A musician friend told me that while major keys are light,

minor keys are dark and melancholy; augmented chords are mystical, and suspended chords hang

or serve as transitions. The consumer’s or receiver’s understanding of the different systems of

signification across different media, and the confrontation of meaning as intended by a text or the

producer of a text, is the whole point of media literacy.

I think that Davidson had focused exclusively on the “reader response” component of

metaphors and kind of brush aside the author’s active participation in the construction and

conveyance of metaphor. If I were to be asked to point out the weakest point in his argument, it

must be his assumption that metaphors are mainly the concern of the hearer/reader/receiver of

the metaphor, and not of its source or producer. For Davidson, metaphor is a matter of taste; but

when one comes to think of it, all texts are most likely deliberately constructed by an author,

artist, utterer, though his or her linguistic capabilities for conveying an idea or feeling. The more

sophisticated the capabilities of a producer, the more effective the metaphor produced. The

Page 5 of 6 / Siriban

problem here now is how much of the message is transmitted, received or understood. How

much of the “meaning” in the receiver coincides with that in the producer. These questions are

the same ones that transactional models of communication try to deal with.

Though at first, their theories seem to take opposing sides to the argument of metaphor

and meaning, it is somehow clear to me now that Searle and Davison are merely looking down

opposite sides of a telescope. As my classmate said, they are not totally incompatible. They

would actually make much more sense if Searle intended his principles not necessarily for

determining meaning for the sake of the receiver of the metaphor, but primarily to map out the

processes of metaphorical construction on the part of the utterer or producer of the text; and if

Davidson’s theory was meant to explain the function of metaphor, or to verbalize the

cognitive/mental processes of receivers of the metaphor.

I don’t know if I should end this paper this way, but it seemed so coincidental to receive

an email message that pokes fun at Melanie Marquez and her grammatical “boo-boos.” This has

been going around for quite some time already; she has even made money out of it from her

recent TV ad. It would pose no harm, I suppose, if we look at it from a different angle: what if

Melanie Marquez, contrary to what most people think, is actually a linguistic genius; a modernist

in the use of language? What if she was the first person to be able to reinvent the metaphor (and

all the other starlets—such as Angelina Jones and Maui Taylor—just followed suit)? What if she

indeed was able to take metaphor to a higher level? Will we all see now the sophistication of the

expressions “my brother is not a book” or “bahala na si batman sa inyo”?

Endnotes:

Page 6 of 6 / Siriban