Metaphor as Two-way Synecdoche: A Critical Assessment
Toshio Ohori & Bo Sen (University of Tokyo)
Within cognitive linguistics, metaphor is generally analyzed in terms of structural mapping.
An alternative account, proposed by Glucksberg and his colleagues (e.g. Glucksberg and Keyser
1990; Glucksberg 2008), is to analyze metaphor as a case of category extension. For example, sharkin (1) is understood as referring to the generalized SHARK, i.e. a larger class of organisms that arevicious, aggressive, merciless, etc. (Glucksberg 2008: 71). Then my lawyer is taken to be an instanceof this extended ad-hoc category.
(1) My lawyer is a shark.
Following traditional rhetoric, these operations may be labeled “two-way synecdoche” (Group µ1970). The purpose of this paper is to critically reexamine this theory (cf. Mori 2006 for insightfuldiscussion), focusing on event structure metaphors (see for example Lakoff 1990).
First, consider the following example involving the metaphor EVENTS ARE ACTIONS,
which is responsible for encoding winter as the agent of the sentence.
(2) Winter kept us immobile.
Here, the two-way synecdoche theory would assert that a new category is created from ACTION
through the elimination of some of its attributes. In (1), even though attributes such as ‘can swim’,‘has fins’, ‘has gills’, etc. are left out, sufficiently rich attributes remain. However, if we attempt tocreate a generalized category from the concept of ACTION, for example by leaving out the AGENT
component, the resulting category would be rather vacuous and no relevant attribute will remain
which would enable a metaphorical characterization of EVENT. A more adequate analysis is toassume that one understands (2) by (fictively) superimposing the AGENT component of the image
schema of ACTION on the EVENT category.
Second, the following examples involve the generic-level metaphor TIME IS SPACE. Morespecifically, (3) is an instantiation of EXPECTED PROGRESS IS A TRAVEL SCHEDULE, and(4) is an instantiation of TIME IS A MOVING OBJECT.
(3) We are behind the schedule.
(4) The judgment day is coming soon.
In (1), since there remain certain attributes which make up the generalized SHARK after theelimination of some, the sentence may be seen as an instance of loose talk. But for event structure
metaphors such as TIME IS SPACE, a loose talk interpretation is not plausible. This intuition is inpart supported by the difficulty of using hedging expressions with (3) and (4).
(1’) My lawyer is a kind of shark.
(3’) We are kind of behind the schedule.
(4’) The judgment day is sort of coming soon.

(1”) Loosely speaking, my lawyer is a shark.
(3”) ?Loosely speaking, we are behind the schedule.
(4”) ?Loosely speaking, the judgment day is coming soon.
While (3’)-(4’) and (3”)-(4”) are barely acceptable, the hedging expressions are not applied to theplausibility of the metaphorical comparison per se as in (1’) and (1”), but to the correctness of theassertions being made.
An interesting point that emerges from this analysis is that, contrary to the statement ofGentner and Bowdle (2008: 117) “if the same abstraction is derived repeatedly in the context of thebase, it may become conventionally associated with that term and may eventually lexicalized as asecondary meaning of the base term” (emphasis added), the event structure metaphors, especiallymost fundamental ones, are an abstraction from the outset and consequently the basis for comparison
is difficult to find.
From the above discussions, two conclusions can be drawn. First, the two-way synecdochetheory can be applied most successfully to cases that involve relatively concrete objects with richenough attributes, leaving room for loose talk. Event structure metaphors that involve highly generaland abstract concepts are not amenable to this analysis. Second, the experiential grounding for event
structures should be sought in the embodied synchronization of two domains (for example TIMEand SPACE) in the real world, as has been argued by conceptual metaphor theorists (Lakoff 1990;Grady 1997), rather than in the comparison and extraction of attributes.
References
Evans, Vyvyan (2010). Figurative language understanding in LCCM theory. Cognitive Linguistics,
21, 601–662.
Gentner, Deidre and Brian Bowdle (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. In Gibbs, Raymond W.,
Jr. (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. 109-128. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Glucksberg, Sam (2008). How metaphors create categories -- quickly. In Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr.
(Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. 67-83. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Glucksberg, Sam and B. Keyser (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond
similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3-18.
Grady, Joseph (1997). Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California.
Group µ (1970). Rhétorique Générale. Paris: Larousse.
Lakoff, George (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?
Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39-74.
Mori, Yuichi (2006). In’yu, Teeyu, Gyakuin’yu (Metaphors, synecdoches, and counter-metaphors).
In Kusumi, Takashi (Ed.), Metaphor Kenkyuu no Saizensen (Frontiers of metaphor research).
159-175. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Utsumi, Akira and Maki Sakamoto (2011). Indirect categorization as a process of predicative
metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 299-313.