Distinguishing primary and compound metaphors
Recall that Grady proposes that there are two types of conceptual metaphor: primary metaphor and compound metaphor. In this section, we examine how primary metaphor and compound metaphor are distinguished in Grady’s theory and how the two interact. This discussion is based on Grady’s (1997b) investigation of the conceptual metaphor THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS, originally proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). The following examples are used by Lakoff and Johnson as evidence for the metaphor:
Is that the foundation for your theory? The theory needs more support. The argument is shaky. We need some more facts or the argument will fall apart. We need to construct a strong argument for that. I haven’t figured out yet what the form of the argument will be. Here are some more facts to shore up the theory. We need to buttress the theory with solid arguments. The theory will stand or fall on the strength of that argument. The argument collapsed. They exploded his latest theory. We will show that theory to be without foundation. So far we have put together only the framework of the theory. (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 46)
According to Grady, THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS fails as an instance of primary metaphor according to three criteria, and must therefore be considered an example of compound metaphor. We consider each of these criteria below.
Association of complex domains
Primary metaphors are simple. As Grady (n.d. 5/30) puts it, ‘they refer to simple aspects or dimensions of subjective experience, not confined to any particular, rich domain, but crosscutting these domains; not associated with particular, rich, scenarios but inhering within broad categories of scenarios.’ In other words, primary metaphors relate two ‘simple’ concepts from distinct domains. In contrast, compound metaphors relate entire complex domains of experience, like THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS. Figure 9.1, in which the small circles represent distinct concepts, illustrates the idea that primary metaphors link distinct concepts from distinct domains rather than linking entire domains. Since both THEORIES and ARGUMENTS are relatively complex and rich in detail, they do not qualify as primary target and source concepts, respectively. A consequence of the view that primary source and target concepts are associated by virtue of experiential correlations arising from human physiology and a shared environment is that primary metaphors are likely to represent cross-linguistic universals. In contrast, because compound metaphors arise from more detailed and specific knowledge structure, they are more likely to be culture-dependent. This theory predicts that communities with a significantly different material culture from that of the West (for example, nomadic tent dwellers or cave-dwellers) would be unlikely to employ the metaphor THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS, but might instead structure the concept THEORIES in terms of some other culturally salient concept.
Poverty of mapping
Further evidence that the THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS metaphor does not qualify as a primary metaphor relates to what Grady calls poverty of mapping. Because primary metaphors relate to relatively simple knowledge structures – in other words, concepts rather than conceptual domains – they are expected to contain no mapping gaps. In other words, because a primary metaphor maps one single concept onto another, there is no part of either concept that is ‘missing’ from the mapping. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how primary source concepts like MOTION, FORCE and SIZE could be broken down into component parts in the first place.
In contrast, the compound metaphor THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS relies upon two complex conceptual domains, each of which can be can be broken down into component parts. For example, BUILDINGS have WINDOWS, TENANTS and RENT, among other associated concepts, yet these components fail to map onto the target concept, as the examples in (31) illustrate (Grady 1997b: 270).
The occurrence of ‘mapping gaps’ reveals that THEORIES and BUILDINGS do not qualify as the basic or simple concepts that are associated in primary metaphors.
Lack of clear experiential basis
Finally, as we have seen, Grady argues that primary metaphors emerge from a clear experiential basis. Clearly, the metaphorical association between THEO RIES and BUILDINGS lacks this experiential basis: we can hardly claim that theories and buildings are closely correlated with one another in our everyday experience of the world. Although we often discuss theories in buildings, buildings are only incidentally associated with theories: we might just as easily discuss theories outdoors, in a tent or on a boat.
In conclusion, since THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS lacks the characteristics of primary metaphor, Grady concludes that it represents an instance of compound metaphor. Grady suggests that this particular compound metaphor derives from the unification of two primary metaphors. This is illustrated in Figure 9.2.
According to Grady, this unification combines two independently motivated primary metaphors: PERSISTING IS REMAINING UPRIGHT and ORGANISATION IS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE. Their unification licenses the complex metaphor THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS. The salient characteristics of THEORIES are that they have relatively complex organisation, based on models, hypotheses, premises, evidence and conclusions. Moreover, a good theory is one that stands the test of time. Two salient characteristics associated with BUILDINGS are they remain upright for a long time and have complex physical structure. In other words, the salient characteristics that unite THEORIES and BUILDINGS are exactly those found as target and source in the two more foundational primary metaphors PERSISTING IS REMAINING UPRIGHT and ORGANISATION IS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE. Grady argues that we conceptualise THEORIES in terms of buildings because, in our culture, buildings are a particularly salient – indeed prototypical – form of physical structure that is both upright and complex in structure. Furthermore, Grady accounts for ‘mapping gaps’ on the basis that only salient parts of the physical structure of buildings are licensed to map onto the target: although we know that BUILDINGS have WINDOWS and OCCUPANTS, these do not perform a supporting function within the physical structure of the building and are therefore unlicensed to map onto the target. Table 9.3 lists the licensed map pings that Grady provides for the unified compound metaphor THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS, which might more generally be called AN ABSTRACT ORGANISED ENTITY IS AN UPRIGHT PHYSICAL OBJECT.
Finally, the ability to construct compound metaphors has been argued to facilitate the process of concept elaboration (Evans 2004a), an idea that we discussed in Chapter 3. According to this perspective, the nature and scope of concepts can be developed and extended through the conventional association between (lexical) concepts and imagery. In other words, when the concept THEORY is elaborated via mechanisms like conceptual metaphor, the conceptual metaphor serves as a vehicle for conceptual evolution (Musolff 2004). This explanation for why concepts like THEORY are associated with metaphor pro vides an alternative to the argument that it is the abstract nature of concepts that motivates metaphor.
