Metaphor as a Structuring Principle of Higher Education
“You’re here because you know something”, says Morpheus in the Wachowski brothers’ 1999 science fiction masterpiece The Matrix. “What you know, you can’t explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life” he tells savior-to-be and main character Neo. “You don’t know what, but it’s there. Like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I’m talking about?”
“The Matrix?” asks Neo, with reference to the computer program that runs their lives. The basic conceit of ‘The Matrix’ is the notion that the material world is a malevolent delusion, designed by the forces of evil with the purpose of keeping people in a state of slavery. It is “the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth”, Morpheus explains.
It is — in science as well as fiction — a well established opinion that the ‘real world’ is not readily accessible to us. It has to be mediated somehow, and our conception of the world is influenced by the medium. ‘The Matrix’ is such a medium. Language is another. As with ‘The Matrix’, we remain largely unaware of the seductive powers of language, of the ways in which it influences our thinking and conceptualization of the phenomena we encounter. The dismal version of this influence of the medium over thought is explained thus by Morpheus: “You are a slave, Neo. You were born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind”.
In this chapter; I will look at one possible relationship between our language and our cognitive system in the form of conceptual metaphor. The scope is not the world, but education policy. The material is not a computer program, but three White Papers. And the perspective is far from the dystopian image painted by the Wachowski brothers. I do not, as Morpheus, offer “the truth”, but might remain true to the enigmatic powers of the medium, and thus I do extend one offer put forward by Morpheus:
No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
If you were in Neo’s place, and would take the red pill, please read on. If you’d rather opt for the blue one, please skip to the references.
Conceptual metaphor
The theory of conceptual metaphor takes as its starting point the cognitive function of metaphor. Conceptual metaphor is defined as:
[T]he cognitive mechanism whereby one experiential domain is partially ‘mapped’, i.e. projected, onto a different experiential domain, so that the second domain is partially understood in terms of the first one. (Barcelona 2000:3)
This definition departs significantly from the concept of metaphor employed in traditional metaphor theory in two respects. Firstly, metaphor is not understood exclusively as a linguistic phenomenon. It is first and foremost a mental device, a “cognitive mechanism”. Secondly, it defines the relationship between experiential domains as a one-way transfer from the one domain to the other. It is the relationship between these domains, called the source domain and the target domain, which is the starting point for the subsequent analysis.
The nature of our conceptual system, the foundation of both thought and action, is fundamentally metaphoric. Metaphor is a cognitive tool so frequently employed that we use it unconsciously and automatically, permeating our everyday thoughts. In addition, it is readily available to us and conventional, an integrated part of our ordinary, everyday thoughts and language. It enables us to comprehend the world in ways no other modes of thinking do: “…metaphor is a primary tool for understanding our world and our selves” (Lakoff & Turner 1989:xi). Metaphor becomes key to understanding fundamental cognitive processes: “Metaphor is a matter of central concern, perhaps the key to giving an adequate account of understanding […] The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” (Lakoff & Johnson 1980:5). In fact, “the locus of metaphor is not language at all, but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another” (Lakoff 1993:203).
In the cognitive tradition, metaphor is the main mechanism for comprehension of abstract phenomena. This comprehension is a cognitive process, and the cognitive system is metaphorical by nature. We achieve comprehension by anchoring abstract phenomena in concrete ones. The outcome of this anchoring process, this mapping, is a conceptual metaphor. The metaphoric expressions we encounter in everyday language are surface representations of these conceptual metaphors: “Metaphor resides in thought, not just in words. There is a metaphorical conception of death as departure that can be expressed in many different ways, such as ‘passing away’, ‘being gone’, and ‘departing’” (Lakoff & Turner 1989:117). In other words, we are dealing with a mental construction, represented by the conceptual metaphor death is departure, which surfaces in ordinary language as linguistic metaphors. We understand death as departure, and in comprehending such an abstract phenomenon, we map two experiential domains, one abstract and one concrete. Our experience with the concrete domain is transferred to the abstract domain. This transfer comprises the merge of two experiential domains, expressed in ordinary language as linguistic metaphors. The result of this process is that we understand the target domain in terms of the source domain.
The mapping of domains
The cognitive fusion of two experiential domains is referred to as ‘domain mapping’. This concept influences our interpretation of metaphor. Rather than a mere amalgam of two distinct phenomena, we face a wider correspondence between experiential domains (Svanlund 2001:14). Lakoff & Johnson (1980) offer the following example of this correspondence: The conceptual metaphor life is a journey yields the following list of correspondences between conceptual and linguistic metaphor:
Life (target domain / Journey (source domain)
The living / The traveler
Goals / Destination
Ways of reaching the goals / Roads
Difficulties / Obstacles
Advisers / Guides
Progress / The distance traveled
Measures of progress / Milestones
Choices / Crossroads
Our interpretation of the target domain, life, is based on the associations and connotations evoked by our implicit knowledge of and past experience with the source domain, journey. Our knowledge of the structure of this conceptual metaphor comprises our knowledge of several correspondences between the two domains.
Each mapping of domains is a closely defined set of ontological correspondences between elements in the source domain and elements in the target domain. The cognitive mechanism — the understanding facilitated by the metaphor — involves the transfer of patterns which belong to the source domain, to the target domain.
Idealized cognitive models
When metaphors combine in this way to form consistent images, they constitute Idealized Cognitive Models (ICMs) (Lakoff & Turner 1989:97–100). ICMs are abstractions of several interrelated phenomena which, when combined, form a complete structure for an experiential domain. The models are idealized in the sense that they not necessarily constitute an authentic structure; they might just as well be based on assumptions — even erroneous assumptions — about the ‘real world’.
The basis for ICMs is found in our interactions with phenomena around us. Trough this interaction, we form experiential patterns, and ICMs represent a conventionalized way of comprehending this experience: We categorize the world on the basis of these models.
Analysis of metaphoric expressions in English (Lakoff 1987) shows that there are three dominant ICMs: The road, the room and the tree. These are dominant in the sense that the majority of the linguistic metaphors show consistency with these models.
The role of metaphor in ICMs is to expand our understanding of the model, so that the concrete experience we have with the world around us applies to abstract experience. The models thus “are concepts that have directly-understood structures of their own, and they are used metaphorically to structure other complex concepts” (Lakoff 1987:153–154). Metaphor is, in other words, a structuring principle for the abstract experiential domain by attributing the nature of the source domain to the target domain.
Metaphors of education policy
Idealized Cognitive Models underlie descriptions of abstract concepts. In this analysis, we turn to the abstract concept ‘education’. The analysis shows which models govern the descriptions of this concept in three White Papers on education policy, and it seeks to investigate the structuring principles behind these descriptions.
The corpus
The data consists of three White Papers on higher education issued in 1984–1985, 1990–1991, and 2000–2001. White Papers are part of decision processes, and thus serve two purposes: Firstly, they provide matter-of-factual information on the policies in question, and, secondly, they are instrumental in the Government’s strategy for influencing the Parliament’s final decision. In terms of language, White Papers consequently employ both an objective, neutral tone in order to convey as accurately as possible the information the decisions will be based on, and rhetorical finesse: They aim to persuade and convince.
The frequency of metaphor
Given the fact that metaphor is pervasive in everyday, ordinary language, we should expect to find them even in fact-oriented texts like White Papers.
The metaphor count is based on a random selection of five full-text pages in each of the papers. The average number of words on each page is multiplied by the number of pages. The count yields a total number of 142.358 words. The number of linguistic metaphors is 1.341, which accounts for 0,94 percent of the words. One word in a hundred is a metaphor, and this is revealing of the prevalence of metaphor even in a neutral and fact-oriented genre like White Papers.
‘Education’
In the present chapter, I will narrow the scope and focus only on those metaphors that take the concept ‘education’ as their target domain. The number of metaphors in this category is 360, accounting for 26,9% of the 1341 metaphors.
The purpose of the analysis is to show the Idealized Cognitive Models that the linguistic metaphors represent, and how these ICMs serve as structuring principles of the target domain ‘education’. The analysis has two parts: First, we look at metaphors that are consistent with the two Idealized Cognitive Models ‘room’ and ‘road’. Secondly, we compare these models and look at the frequency of metaphors that belong to each of the models for each of the three White Papers.
Education as a room
Metaphors that are structured by the ICM ‘room’ take the room as their source domain. This entails that the structure of the room is mapped onto the target domain, and that the target domain is attributed both the structure and significant characteristics of the room. The underlying cognitive metaphor is education is a room.
The structure of a room is three-dimensional. It has breadth, height, and depth. The breadth and depth define the room’s borders. Metaphors that show consistency with this model map the three dimensions and the notion of borders to the target domain, so that ‘education’ is seen as having a corresponding three-dimensional structure.
Among the significant characteristics of a room, is the possibility to enter or leave it, it can be open or closed, and it can contain something and hence have a specific content.
The structure of the room can be found in expressions like the following:
(1) innenfor høyere utdanning og forskning
in higher education and research
(2) ressursbruk til og innenfor høgre utdanning
resources available to and in higher education
(3) andre institusjoner innen høyere utdanning
other institutions in higher education
(4) antall personer som er involvert i høyere utdanning
the number of people involved in higher education
The semantic meaning of the expressions ’innenfor’, ‘innen’ and ‘i’ is to be internal to a limited area, as opposed to external to or outside the same area. The metaphors are consistent with characteristics of the room.
The next set of examples shows metaphors that evoke the notion of height:
(5) utdanning på høyere nivå
education at a higher level
(6) utdanning på hovedfagsnivå
education at the Master level
(7) lavere grad
lower degrees
(8) høyere grad
higher degrees
Secondly, breadth is expressed in examples such as:
(9) kravet om bredde
the demand for breadth
Finally, the third dimension, depth, is expressed in metaphors like the following:
(10) Utdanning på høyere nivå krever fordypning
Education at a higher level requires depth
(11) kravet til dybde
the demand for depth
The notion of borders evoked by the three room dimensions makes it possible to refer to education as a limited space, as in
(12) Studietilbud som ligger utenfor det som tradisjonelt har vært gitt
Studies outside the traditional offers
Characteristics of the room are evident in the following examples, which show that it is possible to enter or leave education:
(13) Folk skal gå inn og ut av utdanning hele livet
People are supposed to walk in and out of education all their lives
(14) innføring i bestemte fag og disipliner
introduction to specific courses and disciplines
In addition, education can be open or closed:
(15) Når vi åpner høyere utdanning for nye grupper
When we open higher education to new groups
(16) åpne studier
open studies
(17) [studier er] adgangsregulert
studies with access requirements
Finally, a room can have content, which is the case also for ‘education’ in the following examples:
(18) Utdanningenes lengde, innhold
The duration and contents of education
(19) Innholdet i utdanningstilbudene
The content of the education on offer
In conclusion, the metaphors employed in the description of ‘education’ shows that the ICM ‘room’ plays a significant role in the structuring of this domain. The metaphors are consistent with the source domain with respect to both structure and characteristics.
Education as a road
Metaphors that are structured by the ICM ‘road’ take the road as their source domain. This entails that the characteristics of the road are mapped onto the target domain. The underlying cognitive metaphor is education is a road. The following examples apply in particular to one aspect of the road — it is something that we move along. More specifically, then, many of the linguistic metaphors are consistent with the notion of movement.
The structure of the road is one-dimensional, presupposing a defined starting point and a defined ending point. The structure conveys the notion of movement from the starting point to the ending point, and, typically, the metaphoric expressions convey the mode of movement.
Among the expressions that convey the notion of movement, is the following:
(20) studieløp som skal lede fram til klart definerte og uttalte læringsmåll
courses of study that should lead to clearly defined and expressed goals
The structure of the road is evident in the following examples, which show that we see education as having a defined starting point (21) and a defined ending point (22):
(21) den som starter på sin grunnutdanning
those who are starting their education
(22) har avsluttet sin førstegangsutdanning
have ended their elementary education
Another characteristic of the road is that it typically has direction. This characteristic is expressed in (20) above, and, evoking particular directionality, in the following example:
(23) utbyggingen av teknologisk orienterte studier
the development of technologically oriented studies
In conclusion, the ICM ‘road’ is evident in the structuring of ‘education’. The model emphasizes linearity and motion, as well as the direction of the road in the specification of orientation and goals.
Room and road combined
The conceptual metaphors education is a room and education is a road emphasize different characteristics of the target domain. Still, they do not mutually exclude each other as structuring principles. In this part of the analysis, we look at the relationship between the two metaphors by comparing them across the three White Papers, thereby introducing time as a variable.
The comparison is based on the number of linguistic metaphors that are consistent with each of the two conceptual metaphors in each of the three papers. The numbers for each paper are summarized, and the distribution of linguistic metaphors that are consistent with each of the conceptual metaphors is calculated as a percentage of the total number for each paper. The result is presented in the figure below.
We see that the distribution is different for the three papers, and that there is a clear tendency over time (St.meld. nr. 66 is the oldest, St.meld. nr. 27 the most recent) towards describing ‘education’ in terms of the Idealized Cognitive Model road.
The use of two different structuring principles for ‘education’ entails that the papers evoke and emphasize different aspects of the target domain. In the earlier papers, education is predominantly described as a room, evoking characteristics such as structure and connections to other experiential domains. In the most recent paper, the dominant structuring principle is that of education as a road, evoking the notions of movement from one point to the other, directionality, and orientation.
Concluding remarks
The role of ICMs is not such that the source domain completely governs our conception or the target domain. Instead, we are dealing with a partial mapping that highlights some salient properties of the target domain. According to this view, the three White Papers analyzed reveal a tendency in Norwegian education policy towards highlighting the outcome of education as opposed to the state of being educated, as is the case with the ‘room’ model. It is this systematicness, the internal consistency of metaphor, which elevates it from a mere interesting use of words to a mental concept, since it has the power to influence our conception. The result is that we come to consider education and institutions of higher education in ways which conform to the patterns employed in the descriptions. The policies and the linguistic terms in which they are expressed correlate nicely.
However bitter this red pill could be for some to swallow, we do not have access to the world as such, but are at the mercy of our language. Occasionally, the patterns change; someone, like Neo eventually does in The Matrix, alters the code and, consequently, our conception. But rather than seeing this in terms of a delusion, we should take it as strong testimony to the incredible flexibility of language and the creative powers it invests us with.
References
Barcelona, A. 2000: Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bartnes, A. 2002: Kognitive metaforer i stortingsmeldinger om høgre utdanning. Hovedoppgave i nordisk språkvitenskap. Tromsø, Universitetet i Tromsø.
Lakoff, G. 1987: Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G 1993: The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.): Metaphor and Thought (2. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980: Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. 1989: More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Svanlund, J. 2001: Metaforen som konvention. Graden av bildlighet i svenskans vikt- och tyngdmetaforer. Stockholm: Stockholm universitet.
This article is based on my Master’s thesis in Nordic Linguistics, submitted to the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Tromsø in May 2002. The article first appeared in print in Contexts — Historical, Social, Linguistic (K. McCafferty, T. Bull & K. Killie (eds.)
