p.87

16

Metaphorical Coherence

Specialized Aspects of a Concept

So far we have looked at the concept argument in enough detail to get a sense of its general overall structure. As is the case with many of our general concepts, the concept ar­gument has specialized aspects that are used in certain subcultures or in certain situations. We saw, for example, that in the academic world, legal world, etc., the concept argument is specialized to rational argument, which is distinguished from everyday, "irrational" argument. In rational argument the tactics are ideally restricted to stating premises, citing supporting evidence, and drawing logical conclusions. In practice, as we saw, the tactics of everyday argument (intimidation, appeal to authority, etc.) appear in actual "rational" argument in a disguised or refined form. These additional restrictions define rational argument as a specialized branch of the general concept argument. Moreover, the purpose of argument is further restricted in the case of rational argument. In the ideal case, the purpose of winning the argument is seen as serv­ing the higher purpose of understanding.

Within rational argument itself there is a further spe­cialization. Since written discourse rules out the dialogue inherent in two-party arguments, a special form of one-party argument has developed. Here speaking typically be­comes writing, and the author addresses himself, not to an actual adversary, but to a set of hypothetical adversaries or to actual adversaries who are not present to defend them­selves, counterattack, etc. What we have here is the spe­cialized Concept ONE-PARTY RATIONAL ARGUMENT.

p.90

to do with the goal of the argument, the fact that it must have a beginning, proceed in a linear fashion, and make progress in stages toward that goal. Here are some obvious instances of the metaphor:

AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY

We have set out to prove that bats are birds.

When we get to the next point, we shall see that philosophy is dead.

So far, we've seen that no current theories will work.

We will proceed in a step-by-step fashion.

Our goal is to show that hummingbirds are essential to mili­tary defense.

This observation points the way to an elegant solution.

We have arrived at a disturbing conclusion.

One thing we know about journeys is that a journey de­fines a path.

A JOURNEY DEFINES A PATH

He strayed from the path.

He's gone off in the wrong direction.

They're following us.

I'm lost.

Putting together an argument is a journey and a jour­ney DEFINES A PATH, we get:

AN ARGUMENT DEFINES A PATH

He strayed from the line of argument

Do you follow my argument?

Now we've gone off in the wrong direction again.

I'm lost.

You're going around in circles.

Moreover, paths are conceived of as surfaces (think of a carpet unrolling as you go along, thus creating a path behind you):

THE PATH OF A JOURNEY IS A SURFACE

We covered a lot of ground. He's on our trail.

p.91

He strayed off the trail.

We went back over the same trail.

Given that an argument defines a path and the path OF A JOURNEY IS A SURFACE, we get:

THE PATH OF AN ARGUMENT IS A SURFACE

We have already covered those points.

We have covered a lot of ground in our argument.

Let's go back over the argument again.

You're getting off the subject.

You're really onto something there.

We're well on our way to solving this problem.

Here we have a set of cases that fall under the metaphor an argument is a journey. What makes them systematic is a pair of metaphorical entailments that are based on two facts about journeys.

The facts about journeys:

A JOURNEY DEFINES A PATH THE PATH OF A JOURNEY IS A SURFACE

The metaphorical entailments:

AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY

 A JOURNEY DEFINES A PATH

Therefore, an argument defines a path

AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY

THE PATH OF A JOURNEY IS A SURFACE

   Therefore, the path of an argument is a surface

Here metaphorical entailments characterize the internal systematicity of the metaphor an argument is a journey, that is, they make coherent all the examples that fall under that metaphor.

Coherence between Two Aspects of a Single Concept

an argument is a journey is only one of the metaphors for arguments, the one we use to highlight or talk about the

p.92

goal, direction, or progress of an argument. When we want to talk about the content of an argument, we use the struc­turally complex metaphor an argument is a container. Containers can be viewed as defining a limited space (with a bounding surface, a center, and a periphery) and as holding a substance (which may vary in amount, and which may have a core located in the center). We use the argument is a container metaphor when we want to highlight any of these aspects of an argument.

AN ARGUMENT IS A CONTAINER

Your argument doesn't have much content.

That argument has holes in it.

You don't have much of an argument, but his objections have even less substance.

Your argument is vacuous.

I'm tired of your empty arguments.

You won't find that idea in his argument.

That conclusion falls out of my argument.

Your argument won't hold water.

Those points are central to the argument---the rest is periph­eral.

I still haven't gotten to the core of his argument.

Since the purposes of the journey and container metaphors are different, that is, since they are used to focus in detail on different aspects of an argument (goal and prog­ress versus content), we would not expect these metaphors to overlap completely. It is possible in some cases to focus jointly on both the journey (progress) and container (content) aspects of an argument. Thus we get certain mixed metaphors that display both of these aspects at once.

Overlap between journey and container metaphors:

At this point our argument doesn't have much content. In what we've done so far, we have provided the core of our argument.

If we keep going the way we're going, we'll.fit all the facts in.

What makes this overlap possible is that the journey and container metaphors have shared entailments. Both

p.93

metaphors allow us to distinguish the form of the argument from the content. In the journey metaphor, the path corre­sponds to the form of the argument and the ground covered corresponds to the content. When we are going around in circles, we may have a long path, but we don't cover much ground; that is, the argument doesn't have much content. In a good argument, however, each element of form is used to express some content. In the journey metaphor, the longer the path (the longer the argument), the more ground is cov­ered (the more content the argument has). In the con­tainer metaphor, the bounding surface of the container corresponds to the form of the argument, and what is in the container corresponds to the "content" of the argument. In a container that is designed and used most efficiently, all of the bounding surface is used to hold content. Ideally, the more surface there is (the longer the argument), the more substance there is in the container (the more content the argument has). As the path of the journey unfolds, more and more of the surface defined by that path is created, just as more and more of the surface of the container is created. The overlap between the two metaphors is the progressive creation of a surface. As the argument covers more ground (via the journey surface), it gets more content (via the container surface).

What characterizes this overlap is a shared entailment that arises in the following way.

A nonmetaphorical entailment about journeys:

As we make a journey, more of a path is created.

   A PATH IS A SURFACE._______________________________

Therefore, As we make a journey, more of a surface is created.

A metaphorical entailment about arguments (based on jour­neys):

AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY.

  As we make a journey, more of a surface is created.____

  Therefore, As we make an argument, more of a surface is created.

p.94

A metaphorical entailment about arguments (based on con­tainers):

AN ARGUMENT IS A CONTAINER.

As we make a container, more of a surface is created.         

Therefore, As we make an argument, more of a surface is created.

Here the two metaphorical entailments have the same con­clusion. This can be represented by the accompanying dia­gram.

AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY       AN ARGUMENT IS A CONTAINER

Other entailments

Other entailments

As we make an argu­ment, more of a surface is created.

As more of a surface is created, the argument covers more ground.

As more of a surface is created, the argument gets more content.

It is this overlap of entailments between the two metaphors that defines the coherence between them and provides the link between the amount of ground the argument covers and the amount of content it has. This is what allows them to "fit together," even though they are not completely con­sistent, that is, there is no "single image" that completely fits both metaphors. The surface of a container and the surface of the ground are both surfaces by virtue of com­mon topological properties. But our image of ground sur­face is very different than our images of various kinds of container surfaces. The abstract topological concept of a surface which forms the overlap between these two metaphors is not concrete enough to form an image. In general when metaphors are coherent but not consistent, we should not expect them to form consistent images.

   The difference between coherence and consistency is

p.95

crucial. Each metaphor focuses on one aspect of the con­cept argument: in this, each serves a single purpose. Moreover, each metaphor allows us to understand one as­pect of the concept in terms of a more clearly delineated concept, e.g., journey or container. The reason we need two metaphors is because there is no one metaphor that will do the jobthere is no one metaphor that will allow us to get a handle simultaneously on both the direction of the argument and the content of the argument. These two pur­poses cannot both be served at once by a single metaphor. And where the purposes won't mix, the metaphors won't mix. Thus we get instances of impermissible mixed metaphors resulting from the impossibility of a single clearly delineated metaphor that satisfies both purposes at once. For example, we can speak of the direction of the argument and of the content of the argument but not of the direction of the content of the argument nor of the content of the direction of the argument. Thus we do not get sen­tences like:

We can now follow the path of the core of the argument.

The content of the argument proceeds as follows.

The direction of his argument has no substance.

I am disturbed by the vacuous path of your argument.

The two metaphors would be consistent if there were a way to completely satisfy both purposes with one clearly delineated concept. Instead, what we get is coherence, where there is a partial satisfaction of both purposes. For instance, the journey metaphor highlights both direction and progress toward a goal. The container metaphor highlights the content with respect to its amount, density, centrality, and boundaries. The progress aspect of the journey metaphor and the amount aspect of the con­tainer metaphor can be highlighted simultaneously be­cause the amount increases as the argument progresses. And, as we saw, this results in permissible mixed metaphors.

p.96

So far we have looked at the coherences between two metaphorical structurings of the concept argument, and we have found the following:

---Metaphorical entailments play an essential role in linking all of the instances of a single metaphorical structuring of a concept (as in the various instances of the an argument is a journey metaphor).

---Metaphorical entailments also play an essential role in linking two different metaphorical structurings of a single concept (as in the journey and container metaphors for argument).

---A shared metaphorical entailment can establish a cross-metaphorical correspondence. For example, the shared entail­ment AS WE MAKE AN ARGUMENT, MORE OF A SURFACE IS created establishes a correspondence between the amount of ground covered in the argument (which is in the journey metaphor) and the amount of content in the argument (which is in the container metaphor).

---The various metaphorical structurings of a concept serve dif­ferent purposes by highlighting different aspects of the concept.

---Where there is an overlapping of purposes, there is an over­lapping of metaphors and hence a coherence between them. Permissible mixed metaphors fall into this overlap.

---In general, complete consistency across metaphors is rare; co­herence, on the other hand, is typical.