Why do language users sometimes use figures of speech - Essay Example

?Why do language users sometimes use figures of speech? Discuss with respect to both psychological and conversation analytic research Introduction The use of figures of speech by language users can reflect a series of different intentions and goals. Most commonly, figures are speech are employed in order to avoid showing clearly the actual intentions or views in regard to a particular event; it is also possible that the conditions are not favourable for expressing the personal perceptions on the issue under discussion. In such cases, figures of speech help avoiding problems or conflicts of various forms. However, the use of figures of speech is not always justified – or desired. Under such terms, their engagement needs to be clearly and adequately explained. In the field of psychology, the science that deals with the evaluation of human behaviour, a series of theoretical models and approaches has been developed in regard to the use of figures of speech in daily human activities. These theories are presented in current paper aiming to explain the reasons for which language users prefer the figures of speech. The psychological and conversation analytic research frameworks are used for developing the above task. It is concluded that the use of speech is often unavoidable; however, the circumstances of their use need to be evaluated each time taking into consideration the actual social conditions but also the personal characteristics and perceptions of the language user. The potential use of figures of speech with no particular goal, just as a common practice (habit) should be also taken into consideration when examining their role in conversations developed daily across various human activities. In any case, the use of figures of speech cannot be considered as having the power to cause turbulences or oppositions; on the contrary, it is more likely to have a positive influence in regard to the limitation of social conflicts. This aspect of figures of speech is strongly emphasized in the literature published in the particular field – as these studies are analytically presented below. The findings of empirical research developed in this area have been also employed in this study aiming to offer a clearer view on the issues under discussion. 2. Metaphors – role and forms Theorists and researchers have used different approaches in order to explain the role and the functions of metaphors in everyday language. In order to understand and appropriately evaluate these views, it would be necessary to refer primarily to the context of metaphor in general, i.e. to describe its characteristics as a figure of speech. Lakoff and Johnson note that ‘the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another’ (Lakoff and Johnson 5). The flexibility of metaphors, i.e. their characteristic to be open to different interpretations has been considered as one of the main reasons for their extensive study by theorists and researchers worldwide (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 103). On the other hand, the following question might appear: why metaphors are so important for the academic research? In fact, there are many different figures of speech, which could be available for analysis, but only metaphors have been examined in detailed making also use of concepts applicable on other sciences – such as the cognitive discourse analysis used for the development of academic research. The answer to the above question would be as follows: a metaphor is not a common figure of speech; it can be used ‘both in poetry and the everyday communication’ (Bowdle and Gentner 193); moreover, it can reveal the personal views/ perceptions of the person involved in its interpretation, a fact which is valuable in the psychological research field. In accordance with Kock (2010) metaphors are likely to highly appear in everyday language; moreover, their appearance is related to the need for using ‘a common point of reference’ (Kock 364) in order to indicate the key aspects of a issue to which the conversation refers. The above view leads to the assumption that the metaphors are just a form of speech with no power to indicate specific aspects of human behaviour or intentions. This view, although it is accepted reflecting one of the functions of metaphors in everyday language, it should be criticized at the level that it can lead to the under-estimation of the other aspects of the role of metaphors as an important figure of speech. The above assumption is verified by the fact that metaphors have been extensively used in psychology for describing social phenomena but also for evaluating the response of individual to various social events. The involvement of metaphors in the development of psychology-related tasks and evaluations is emphasized in the study of Olds (145) where reference is made to the use of metaphors in the following domains of psychology: ‘motivation (McReynolds 1990), emotion (Averill 1990), cognition (Hoffman) and abnormal behaviour (Sarbin 1990)’ (Olds 145). Ortony (327) explained the employment of metaphors in psychology; in their study, reference is made specifically to the experiment of Paivio and Clark in which the interpretation of metaphors was used as the main tool for evaluating the responses of participants (Ortony 327). In the context of the above experiment, Paivio and Clark tested the speed of response of participants in regard to the interpretation of metaphors; moreover, they tested the order of thoughts when the interpretation of a metaphor is combined with the understanding and the evaluation of other conceptual frameworks. It has been proved that the time of response of individuals in regard to the understanding of metaphors is differentiated; moreover, the order in which individual can process a metaphor – when other conceptual frameworks need also to be analyzed – is not standardized. Other individuals tend to focus primarily on the metaphor and then on the other objects/ events under interpretation; for others, the order of processing of conceptual frameworks, including the metaphors is hierarchical, which means that the time of appearance of each conceptual framework is the criterion on which its turn in the conceptualization process will be based (Ortony 327). The evaluation of the role of metaphors in the everyday language has led to the following important finding: not all people share the same view in regard to the role and the value of metaphor as a figure of speech. Lakoff and Johnson (1979) noted that ‘for most people, metaphor is rather a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language’ (Lakoff and Johnson 3). Of course, the above view cannot lead to the limitation of the role of metaphor in the everyday language even if people in different social environments perceive the value of this figure of speech differently. On the other hand, the study of Johnson (33) set an important question: which would be the priorities of researchers when trying to evaluate the role of metaphors in current social environment? It is noted that when such task has to be developed, then it is necessary that emphasis is given on the following two issues: a) the conditions under which metaphors entered a particular culture – i.e. they were developed gradually based on the existing language patterns or they were the result of the intervention of foreign culture and traditions in the local language system? B) The actual use of metaphors in the everyday language; in other words, effort should be made in order to understand the terms under which metaphors are likely to be employed by language users, i.e. whether their use is an issue of social culture or it is part of the language system of the particular social framework/ environment? From another point of view, when having to evaluate the role of metaphors in a particular social context, it would be necessary to make clear in advance whether emphasis is going to be given on ‘metaphors in language or metaphors in thought’ (Low and Cameron 12). 3. Psychological and conversation analytic research on metaphors A series of psychological research methods has been used in the explanation and the evaluation of metaphors; conversation is one of the frameworks employed in the particular activity. The relationship between the conversation and the metaphors can be used for explain the involvement of conversation in the evaluation of the role of metaphor in everyday language. In accordance with Low and Cameron (12) ‘language forms cannot be evaluated independently from language – in – use’; in fact, the latter reflects the former – even if differentiations may developed because of the intervention of specific social conditions (lack of adequate knowledge on language forms and role). In accordance with the above view, metaphors, as parts of the language – in – use can be explained using the conversation – during which language forms have to be engaged for expressing personal views or events. However, at this point the following issue needs to be highlighted: conversation is not always based on typical language forms; this means that if conversation is used for the evaluation of metaphors it is possible that the assumptions made would lack of credibility. The above risk would be limited through the following practice: if the conversation used for interpreting metaphors would be developed using specific rules – set by a professional involved in psychology research – then, the credibility of the findings could be secured. Different criteria are likely to be used by theorists when having to evaluate the role of metaphors using appropriate psychological and conversational analysis. For example, Sidnell (2) which examined the context of metaphors using the conversation analytic research, came to the following conclusion: the observation and the study of metaphors in daily conversation can lead to the assumption that metaphors, as other language forms, are used by the language users primarily for expressing personal thoughts and perceptions (Sidnell 2). In the above context, metaphors are considered to be a means for expressing ‘the atomistic and individualistic trends of our society’ (Sidnell 2) – as these trends can be also involved in everyday conversations, i.e. as they can be reflected in speech – apart from their expression through the actions of each individual. In the context of the psychological analysis, metaphors are likely to be used in order to understand the perceptions/thoughts of the language users. Compared to the Conversational Analysis, the Psychological Analysis techniques used for the evaluation of metaphors can lead to broader and more generic views covering different areas of interest. An indicative example is presented in the study of Ang and Lim (2006) where reference is made to the potential use of metaphors in advertising campaigns (Ang and Lim 39). In accordance with the above researchers, such use of metaphors is expected to have different goals, compared to those set by individuals when using the specific figure of speech. For instance, it is explained that the use of metaphors in adverting campaigns can reveal the potential willingness of the marketers/ firms ‘to expand the dimensional thinking of consumers’ (Ang and Lim 39), meaning probably that specific impressions on products/ services are promoted by the planners of these products/ services. However, it is also noted that the public does not, at least not always, welcome the use of metaphors for commercial purposes. Towards this direction, it has been proved that ‘brands using metaphors in ads are more sophisticated but less sincere and competent that those using literal headlines or pictures’ (Ang and Lim 39). The relationship between the metaphors and the psychological analysis can be also identified in the study of Kearns (1987); the above study refers to the role of the metaphor in the changing the criteria used when evaluating various social messages, a process which has been characterized by Kearns as ‘humanizing of the mind’ (Kearns 115). It is explained by the above researcher that the specific process is quite long – its roots can be identified in 1600s (Kearns 115). The way in which metaphors can support the achievement of the above goal (humanizing of the mind) is explained as follows: when a metaphor is used, its evaluation requires the participation of the mind; at the next level, the assumptions developed – regarding the actual meaning and the goal of the metaphor reflect the following facts: a) the ability of the person involved to respond effectively to a complex mind activity, b) the criteria used by that person for evaluating the metaphor (the influences of the social environment, if existed, could be clearly identified) and c) the effort made by the particular person for completing this task (i.e. the interpretation of the metaphor). Through the above process, the perceptions, but also the feelings of an individual, can be activated – and expressed, in the final phase of the specific initiative. It is in this context that the role of metaphor as a tool/ means for humanizing the mind can be understood. A similar approach can be identified in the study of Prevignano & Thibault (2003); the above researchers used the Conversational Analysis technique in order to identify the reasons for the use of metaphors in everyday language. Their research revealed that ‘the individualistic characteristics of each conversation are likely to be significant’ (Prevignano & Thibault 9). This finding leads to the assumption that the use of metaphors in each conversation is not based on standard criteria – even if similarities can be identified in the types or forms of metaphors chosen. For instance, even through using metaphor through the same means, a picture, it is still possible that different messages are sent but also that different reasons exist for the particular initiative. On the other hand, Barcelona (24) notes that metaphor is an indispensable part of conversation – no matter the conditions in which the conversation is developed. This is an assumption based on the relevant view of Ponterotto who emphasized on the importance of metaphor for the construction of conversation (Ponterotto in Barcelona 24); another implication of the above role of metaphor, in accordance with Ponterotto, is its extensive use ‘as a fundamental part of cognitive theories of discourse’ (Barcelona 24). Moreover, it is made clear that metaphor is likely to have a particular role in conversation: to support ‘the achievement of knowledge integration and information management’ (Barcelona 24), two terms, which are quite important for the successful development of conversation. In fact, it is noted that the role of the metaphor in the development of conversation is expected to take specific forms: the introduction of the main theme of the conversation – meaning that through the metaphor it is quite possible that the issue on which the conversation will be based may be introduced (Barcelona 24). At the next level, the above fact can be used for identified the following characteristics of metaphor: ‘brevity, conciseness and flexibility’ (Ponterotto in Barcelona 24). It should be noted that through the above view no limitations are set in regard to the conditions or the structure of the conversation involved; metaphor is expected to have the power to influence the quality and the development of conversation even if the latter is not based on formal language forms or it is not related to specific events/ social conditions. The role of metaphor as key part of conversation is also emphasized in the study of Drew and Holt (495) where it is made clear that in everyday conversations, the use of figures of speech is a common phenomenon. Moreover, it is explained that the use of figures of speech is often an automatic response, i.e. no prior thought on the use of such language forms may exists. On the other hand, Drew and Holt (496) introduce the following approach for explaining the use ‘of figurative expressions in speech’ (Drew and Holt 498): these expressions should be regarded as a reflection of the existing social practices – in regard to the development of conversation – and not necessarily of the educational background or the personal perceptions of the speaker. 4. Conclusion The examination of the studies focusing on the role of metaphors revealed a series of important facts: a) metaphors have, by their nature, many different functions; they can be used ‘both in mass communication and in the everyday linguistic exchanges’ (Ottati, Rhoads and Greasser 688), b) the role of metaphors is not perceived with the same criteria by people in different social frameworks; there are people who consider metaphor as an informal figure of speech, appropriate only under certain conditions while other think that metaphor are a necessary part of everyday language and c) the actual range of functions of metaphors is not fully clear to all people. They are the above facts that are likely to influence the use of metaphors in everyday language. Most important, it has been proved that metaphors have an important difference compared to the other figures of speech: they can be used as tools for evaluating the psychological aspects of human behaviour. In the above context, metaphors could be characterized not just a sophisticated way of expressing personal views or promoting particular messages but rather a necessary element of everyday conversation –following the relevant view of Ortony that ‘metaphors are necessary, not just nice’ (Ortony 45). References Barcelona, A. (2003). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective. Walter de Gruyter. Bowdle, B. & Gentner, D. (2005). The Career of Metaphor. Psychological Review, Vol. 112, No. 1, pp. 193–216. Drew, P. & Holt, E. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society 27, 495–522 Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: Beyond Similarity, Psychological Review, Vol. 97, No. 1, pp. 3-18. Hoon, S. & Lim, C. (2006) The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, vol. 35, no. 2 (Summer 2006), pp. 39–53. Johnson, M. (1981). Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kearns, M. (1987), Metaphors and the Humanizing of the Mind. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 115-138. Kock, N. (2010). Evolutionary Psychology and Information Systems Research: A New Approach to Studying the Effects of Modern Technologies on Human Behavior. New York: Springer. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1979) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Low, G. & Cameron, L. (1999). Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olds, L. (1992). Metaphors of interrelatedness: toward a systems theory of psychology. New York: SUNY Press. Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ottati, V., Rhoads, S. & Graesser, A. (1999). The Effect of Metaphor on Processing Style in a Persuasion Task: A Motivational Resonance Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 4, pp. 688-697. Prevignano, C. & Thibault, P. (2003). Discussing conversation analysis: the work of Emanuel A. Schegloff. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. John Wiley and Sons. Read More