us think and operate in terms of. Container Metaphors Land Areas We are physical beings,bounded and set off from the rest of the world by the surface of our skins,and we experience the rest of the world as outside us.Each of us is a container,with a bounding surface and an in-out orientation.We project our own in-out orientation onto other physical objects that are bounded by surfaces.Thus we also view them as containers with an inside and an outside.Rooms and houses are obvious containers.Moving from room to room is moving from one container to another,that is,moving out of one room and into another.We even give solid objects this orientation,as when we break a rock open to see what's inside it.We impose this orientation on our natural environment as well.A clearing in the woods is seen as having a bounding surface,and we can view ourselves as being in the clearing or out of the clearing,in the woods or out ofthe woods.A clearing in the woods has something we can perceive as a natural boundary-the fuzzy area where the trees more or less stop and the clearing more or less begins.But even where there is no natural physical boundary that can be viewed as defining a container,we impose boundaries-marking off territory so that it has an inside and a bounding surface-whether a wall,a fence,or an abstract line or plane.There are few human instincts more basic than territoriality.And such defining of a territory,putting a boundary around it,is an act of quantification. (30) Bounded objects,whether human beings,rocks,or land areas,have sizes.This allows them to be quantified in terms of the amount of substance they contain.Kansas,for example,is a bounded area a CONTAINER-which is why we can say,"There's a lot of land in Kansas." Substances can themselves be viewed as containers.Take a tub of water,for example. When you get into the tub,you get into the water.Both the tub and the water are viewed as containers,but of different sorts.The tub is a CONTAINER OBJECT,while the water is a CONTAINER SUB-STANCE. The Visual Field We conceptualize our visual field as a container and conceptualize what we see as being inside it.Even the term "visual field"suggests this.The metaphor is a natural one that emerges from the fact that,when you look at some territory (land,floor space,etc.),your field of vision defines a boundary of the territory,namely,the part that you can see.Given that a bounded physical space is a CONTAINER and that our field of vision correlates with that bounded physical space,the metaphorical concept VISUAL FIELDS ARE CONTAINERS emerges naturally.Thus we can say: The ship is coming into view. I have him in sight. I can t see him-the tree is in the way.He s out of sight now. That's in the center of my field of vision.There s nothing in sight
us think and operate in terms of. Container Metaphors Land Areas We are physical beings, bounded and set off from the rest of the world by the surface of our skins, and we experience the rest of the world as outside us. Each of us is a container, with a bounding surface and an in-out orientation. We project our own in-out orientation onto other physical objects that are bounded by surfaces. Thus we also view them as containers with an inside and an outside. Rooms and houses are obvious containers. Moving from room to room is moving from one container to another, that is, moving out of one room and into another. We even give solid objects this orientation, as when we break a rock open to see what's inside it. We impose this orientation on our natural environment as well. A clearing in the woods is seen as having a bounding surface, and we can view ourselves as being in the clearing or out of the clearing, in the woods or out of the woods. A clearing in the woods has something we can perceive as a natural boundary—the fuzzy area where the trees more or less stop and the clearing more or less begins. But even where there is no natural physical boundary that can be viewed as defining a container, we impose boundaries—marking off territory so that it has an inside and a bounding surface—whether a wall, a fence, or an abstract line or plane. There are few human instincts more basic than territoriality. And such defining of a territory, putting a boundary around it, is an act of quantification. ((30)) Bounded objects, whether human beings, rocks, or land areas, have sizes. This allows them to be quantified in terms of the amount of substance they contain. Kansas, for example, is a bounded area— a CONTAINER—which is why we can say, "There's a lot of land in Kansas." Substances can themselves be viewed as containers. Take a tub of water, for example. When you get into the tub, you get into the water. Both the tub and the water are viewed as containers, but of different sorts. The tub is a CONTAINER OBJECT, while the water is a CONTAINER SUB-STANCE. The Visual Field We conceptualize our visual field as a container and conceptualize what we see as being inside it. Even the term "visual field" suggests this. The metaphor is a natural one that emerges from the fact that, when you look at some territory (land, floor space, etc.), your field of vision defines a boundary of the territory, namely, the part that you can see. Given that a bounded physical space is a CONTAINER and that our field of vision correlates with that bounded physical space, the metaphorical concept VISUAL FIELDS ARE CONTAINERS emerges naturally. Thus we can say: The ship is coming into view. I have him in sight. I can' t see him—the tree is in the way. He' s out of sight now. That's in the center of my field of vision. There' s nothing in sight
I can't get all of the ships in sight at once. Events,Actions,Activities,and States We use ontological metaphors to comprehend events,actions,activities,and states.Events and actions are conceptualized metaphorically as objects,activities as sub-stances,states as containers.A race,for example,is an event,which is viewed as a discrete entity.The race exists (31) in space and time,and it has well-defined boundaries. Hence we view it as a CoNTAINER OBJECT,having in it participants(which are objects),events like the start and finish(which are metaphorical objects),and the activity of running(which is a metaphorical substance).Thus we can say of a race: Are you in the race on Sunday?(race as coNTAINER OBJECT)Are you going to the race?(race as OBJECT) Did you see the race?(race as oBJECT) The finish ofthe race was really exciting.(finish as EVENT OBJECT WIthin CONTAINER OBJECT) There was a lot of good running in the race.(running as a SUBSTANCE In a CONTAINER) I couldn't do much sprinting until the end.(sprinting as SUBSTANCE) Halfway into the race,I ran out of energy.(race as coN- TAINER OBJECT He's out ofthe race now.(race as CoNTAINER OBJECT Activities in general are viewed metaphorically as suB- STANCES and therefore as coNTAINERS: In washing the window,I splashed water all over the floor.How did Jerry get out of washing the windows? Outside of washing the windows,what else did you do?Hoer much window-washing did you do? How did you get into window-washing as a profession?He's immersed in washing the windows right now. Thus,activities are viewed as containers for the actions and other activities that make them up.They are also viewed as containers for the energy and materials required for them and for their by-products, which may be viewed as in them or as emerging from them: I put a lot of energy into washing the windows. I get a lot of satisfaction out of washing windows.There is a lot of satisfaction in washing windows. Various kinds of states may also be conceptualized as containers.Thus we have examples like these:
I can't get all of the ships in sight at once. Events, Actions, Activities, and States We use ontological metaphors to comprehend events, actions, activities, and states. Events and actions are conceptualized metaphorically as objects, activities as sub-stances, states as containers. A race, for example, is an event, which is viewed as a discrete entity. The race exists ((31)) in space and time, and it has well-defined boundaries. Hence we view it as a CONTAINER OBJECT, having in it participants (which are objects), events like the start and finish (which are metaphorical objects), and the activity of running (which is a metaphorical substance). Thus we can say of a race: Are you in the race on Sunday? (race as CONTAINER OBJECT) Are you going to the race? (race as OBJECT) Did you see the race? (race as OBJECT) The finish of the race was really exciting. (finish as EVENT OBJECT within CONTAINER OBJECT) There was a lot of good running in the race. (running as a SUBSTANCE in a CONTAINER) I couldn't do much sprinting until the end. (sprinting as SUBSTANCE) Halfway into the race, I ran out of energy. (race as CONTAINER OBJECT) He' s out of the race now. (race as CONTAINER OBJECT) Activities in general are viewed metaphorically as SUBSTANCES and therefore as CONTAINERS: In washing the window, I splashed water all over the floor. How did Jerry get out of washing the windows? Outside of washing the windows, what else did you do? Hoer much window-washing did you do? How did you get into window-washing as a profession? He's immersed in washing the windows right now. Thus, activities are viewed as containers for the actions and other activities that make them up. They are also viewed as containers for the energy and materials required for them and for their by-products, which may be viewed as in them or as emerging from them: I put a lot of energy into washing the windows. I get a lot of satisfaction out of washing windows. There is a lot of satisfaction in washing windows. Various kinds of states may also be conceptualized as containers. Thus we have examples like these:
(32) He's in love. Were out of trouble now.He's coming out of the coma.I'm slowly getting into shape.He entered a state of euphoria.He el/into a depression. He finally emerged from the catatonic state he had been in since the end of finals week. (33) 7.Personification Perhaps the most obvious ontological metaphors are those where the physical object is further specified as being a person.This allows us to comprehend a wide variety of experiences with nonhuman entities in terms of human motivations,characteristics,and activities.Here are some examples: His theory explained to me the behavior of chickens raised in factories. This fact argues against the standard theories. Life has cheated me. Inflation is eating up our profits. His religion tells him that he cannot drink fine French wines.The Michelson-Morley experiment gave birth to a new physical theory. Cancer finally caught up with him. In each of these cases we are seeing something nonhuman as human.But personification is not a single unified general process.Each personification differs in terms of the aspects of people that are picked out.Consider these examples. Inflation has attacked the foundation of our economy.Inflation has pinned us to the wall. Our biggest enemy right now is inflation. The dollar has been destroyed by inflation. Inflation has robbed me of my savings. Inflation has outwitted the best economic minds in the country Inflation has given birth to a money-minded generation. Here inflation is personified,but the metaphor is not
((32)) He' s in love. We' re out of trouble now. He' s coming out of the coma. I'm slowly getting into shape. He entered a state of euphoria. He fell into a depression. He finally emerged from the catatonic state he had been in since the end of finals week. ((33)) 7. Personification Perhaps the most obvious ontological metaphors are those where the physical object is further specified as being a person. This allows us to comprehend a wide variety of experiences with nonhuman entities in terms of human motivations, characteristics, and activities. Here are some examples: His theory explained to me the behavior of chickens raised in factories. This fact argues against the standard theories. Life has cheated me. Inflation is eating up our profits. His religion tells him that he cannot drink fine French wines. The Michelson-Morley experiment gave birth to a new physical theory. Cancer finally caught up with him. In each of these cases we are seeing something nonhuman as human. But personification is not a single unified general process. Each personification differs in terms of the aspects of people that are picked out. Consider these examples. Inflation has attacked the foundation of our economy. Inflation has pinned us to the wall. Our biggest enemy right now is inflation. The dollar has been destroyed by inflation. Inflation has robbed me of my savings. Inflation has outwitted the best economic minds in the country. Inflation has given birth to a money-minded generation. Here inflation is personified, but the metaphor is not
(34) merely INFLATION IS A PERSON.It is much more specific,namely,INFLATION IS AN ADVERSARY.It not only gives us a very specific way of thinking about inflation but also a way of acting toward it.We think of inflation as an adversary that can attack us,hurt us,steal from us, even destroy us.The INFLATION IS AN ADVERSARY metaphor therefore gives rise to and justifies political and economic actions on the part of our government:declaring war on inflation, setting targets,calling for sacrifices,installing a new chain of command,etc. The point here is that personification is a general category that covers a very wide range of metaphors,each picking out different aspects of a person or ways of looking at a person. What they all have in common is that they are extensions of ontological metaphors and that they allow us to make sense of phenomena in the world in human terms-terms that we can understand on the basis of our own motivations,goals,actions,and characteristics.View- ing something as abstract as inflation in human terms has an explanatory power of the only sort that makes sense to most people.When we are suffering substantial economic losses due to complex economic and political factors that no one really understands,the INFLATION IS AN ADVERSARY metaphor at least gives us a coherent account of why we re suffering these losses. (35) 8. Metonymy In the cases of personification that we have looked at we are imputing human qualities to things that are not human-theories,diseases,inflation,etc.In such cases there are no
((34)) merely INFLATION IS A PERSON. It is much more specific, namely, INFLATION IS AN ADVERSARY. It not only gives us a very specific way of thinking about inflation but also a way of acting toward it. We think of inflation as an adversary that can attack us, hurt us, steal from us, even destroy us. The INFLATION IS AN ADVERSARY metaphor therefore gives rise to and justifies political and economic actions on the part of our government: declaring war on inflation, setting targets, calling for sacrifices, installing a new chain of command, etc. The point here is that personification is a general category that covers a very wide range of metaphors, each picking out different aspects of a person or ways of looking at a person. What they all have in common is that they are extensions of ontological metaphors and that they allow us to make sense of phenomena in the world in human terms—terms that we can understand on the basis of our own motivations, goals, actions, and characteristics. Viewing something as abstract as inflation in human terms has an explanatory power of the only sort that makes sense to most people. When we are suffering substantial economic losses due to complex economic and political factors that no one really understands, the INFLATION IS AN ADVERSARY metaphor at least gives us a coherent account of why we' re suffering these losses. ((35)) 8. Metonymy In the cases of personification that we have looked at we are imputing human qualities to things that are not human—theories, diseases, inflation, etc. In such cases there are no
actual human beings referred to.When we say "Inflation robbed me of my savings,"we are not using the term "in-flation"to refer to a person.Cases like this must be distinguished from cases like The ham sandwich is waiting for his check. where the expression "the ham sandwich"is being used to refer to an actual person,the person who ordered the ham sandwich.Such cases are not instances of personification metaphors,since we do not understand"the ham sandwich"by imputing human qualities to it.Instead,we are using one entity to refer to another that is related to it.This is a case of what we will call metonymy.Here are some further examples: He likes to read the Marguis de Sade.(the writings of the marquis) He's in dance.(the dancing profession) Acrylic has taken over the art world.(the use of acrylic paint) The Times hasn't arrived at the press conference yet.(the reporter from the Times) Mrs.Grundy frowns on blue jeans.(the wearing of blue jeans) New windshield wipers will satisfy him.(the state of hav-ing new wipers) (36) We are including as a special case of metonymy what traditional rhetoricians have called synecdoche,where the part stands for the whole,as in the following. THE PART FOR THE WHOLE The automobile is clogging our highways.(the collection of automobiles) We need a couple of strong bodies for our team.(strong people) There are a lot of good heads in the university.(intelligent people) I've got a new set of wheels.(car,motorcycle.etc.) We need some new blood in the organization.(new people) In these cases,as in the other cases of metonymy,one entity is being used to refer to another.Metaphor and.metonymy are different kinds of processes.Metaphor is principally a way of conceiving of one thing in terms of another,and its primary function is understanding.Metonymy,on the other hand,has primarily a referential function,that is,it allows us to use one entity to stand for another.But metonymy is not merely a referential device.It also serves the function of providing understanding.For example,in the case of the metonymy THE PART FOR THE WHOLE there are many parts that can stand for the whole.Which part we pick out determines which aspect of the whole we are focusing on.When we say that we need some good heads on the project,we are using "good heads"to refer to "intelligent people."The point is not just to use a part (head)to stand for a whole (person)but rather to pick out a particular characteristic of the person,namely,intelligence,which is associated with the head.The same is true of other kinds of metonymies.When we say The Times hasn't arrived at the press conference yet,"we are using "The Times"not merely to refer to some
actual human beings referred to. When we say "Inflation robbed me of my savings," we are not using the term "in-flation" to refer to a person. Cases like this must be distinguished from cases like The ham sandwich is waiting for his check. where the expression "the ham sandwich" is being used to refer to an actual person, the person who ordered the ham sandwich. Such cases are not instances of personification metaphors, since we do not understand "the ham sandwich" by imputing human qualities to it. Instead, we are using one entity to refer to another that is related to it. This is a case of what we will call metonymy. Here are some further examples: He likes to read the Marquis de Sade. (= the writings of the marquis) He' s in dance. (= the dancing profession) Acrylic has taken over the art world. (= the use of acrylic paint) The Times hasn't arrived at the press conference yet. (= the reporter from the Times) Mrs. Grundy frowns on blue jeans. (= the wearing of blue jeans) New windshield wipers will satisfy him. (= the state of hav-ing new wipers) ((36)) We are including as a special case of metonymy what traditional rhetoricians have called synecdoche, where the part stands for the whole, as in the following. THE PART FOR THE WHOLE The automobile is clogging our highways. (= the collection of automobiles) We need a couple of strong bodies for our team. (= strong people) There are a lot of good heads in the university. (= intelligent people) I've got a new set of wheels. (= car, motorcycle. etc.) We need some new blood in the organization. (= new people) In these cases, as in the other cases of metonymy, one entity is being used to refer to another. Metaphor and. metonymy are different kinds of processes. Metaphor is principally a way of conceiving of one thing in terms of another, and its primary function is understanding. Metonymy, on the other hand, has primarily a referential function, that is, it allows us to use one entity to stand. for another. But metonymy is not merely a referential device. It also serves the function of providing understanding. For example, in the case of the metonymy THE PART FOR THE WHOLE there are many parts that can stand for the whole. Which part we pick out determines which aspect of the whole we are focusing on. When we say that we need some good heads on the project, we are using "good heads" to refer to "intelligent people." The point is not just to use a part (head) to stand for a whole (person) but rather to pick out a particular characteristic of the person, namely, intelligence, which is associated with the head. The same is true of other kinds of metonymies. When we say The Times hasn't arrived at the press conference yet," we are using "The Times" not merely to refer to some