From Metaphor To Reference

Shi Jing (the Book of songs) teems with metaphorical expressions, while Confucius has revealed some fundamental functions of metaphor. However, the systematical study of metaphor starts in ancient Greece. Plato, as a master hand at metaphorical thinking, and as a professed enemy to poets who are endowed with the same talent, leaves a two-fold influence on later metaphor researches. Similarly, Aristotle, by his description of metaphors as "the mark of genius", and as "the seasoning of meat", keeps going on a heated discussion by opposing scholarships up to the present time. Nonetheless, it is from Aristotle that the analytic tradition of metaphor studies begins, his classic definition of metaphor being referred to frequently even today.Modern probing into the nature of metaphor is driven by the "symbol grounding problem"-how symbols are related to their contexts, mental and physical alike. The so-called cognitive approach aims precisely at the discovery of "how metaphors establish mappings between concepts from different domains". Black's Interaction Model, Ortony's Salience-Imbalance Hypothesis, Lakoff's Cross-Domain Mapping View, Glucksberg's Class-Inclusion Theory, and many others all have had the effect of bringing the truth closer to us. But the problem is they do not tell the whole story consistently and coherently. This realization motivates the author's endeavor, a theoretical exploration in which "the origin of things" is put up as the target.One of the implied tenets for metaphor studies is that metaphor research shall begin with linguistic realities, but this tenet, as the author believes it, is inadequate. This accounts for the author's employment of wordplay as the tool to anatomize what is involved in the formula of A IS B, and the result is the S/D principles: when dissimilarities between two things are significantly salient, we tend to look for their similarities;conversely, when similarities between two things are significantly salient, we tend to look for their dissimilarities. With these two principles, the author argues, a real entity can be converted into a conceptual entity.However, for the argument to achieve its validity, the S/D principles have to be "grounded" first too. Various theories of categorization such as Classical View, PrototypeView, Exemplar View, and Theory-Based View are, for that matter, evaluated. But unexpectedly, little help has been found. These theories are against one another occasionally, just like those of metaphor. The same bewilderment is in the way when theories of conceptualization are appealed to. It is only when a distinction between category and concept is drawn, and when a more recent biological approach to categorization is adopted that the two principles finally obtain a safe "landing".The identification of the significance of "attributive concepts" (e.g. rounded, young, cool, etc.) is then in order. Keller's narration of her own sudden awakening to language is recounted and analyzed, with which comes the notion of "conceptual matrix". A conceptual matrix is defined as the interface between a biological category and a psychological concept. After a revisit to the S/D principles, which brings "causal reasoning" and "cognitive economy" into the focus, the author points out that the formula of A IS B is by no means something human beings can make do without;in fact, it is probably the only way available to cover the distance between a biological category and a psychological concept, and further to step into the conceptual world from the real world.To theorize what has been attained, four terms "frame", "referent", "target" and "focus" are borrowed from philosophers, linguists, and psychologists working in cognitive traditions to build up what is to be called "the reference theory". The central position is: any cognitive processing of an entity (A) is to be performed with reference to another (B). To illustrate how the theory might be working, another two modes of reference are discussed.The referential theory of meaning stays in harmony with its criticism in our framework;the knotty relationship between what is literal and what is metaphorical does not constitute problems of any kind for us either;the awkward question as to whether a pig can initiate a cross-domain mapping or not, which might place Lakoff in a dilemma, proves to be a powerful testimony to the effectiveness of our view: Reference as a cognitive mechanism may be something peculiar to the humanity.