You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Metaphors play an important role not only in the communications between patients and psychoanalysts but, as Hartmann, Kris, and Loewenstein (1946) among others have noted, in the formulation of psychoanalytic theory as well. In the present paper I shall consider neither of these questions. My focus will be primarily on certain aspects of metaphor itself, normal as well as deranged, and on a number of related phenomena.
It may seem to some that I dwell too much on the intricacies of normal metaphor, on its theory, varieties, functions, and possible evolution. In my view, however, this is a largely neglected area of inquiry, significant not only to the literary critic and the linguist but also to the psychoanalytic theoretician who wants to establish a baseline of normality with which to compare both the abnormal ways of thinking and the fleeting imagery of the dream that constitute his primary field of interest.
It is not possible to formulate even a tentative theory of the nature of metaphor without considering certain aspects of modern linguistics, particularly as elaborated by Chomsky and his followers. Most of these authors have only incidentally referred to metaphor; but what they have had to say (as well as what they imply) is nonetheless important. One may not always agree with them, but their views cannot be disregarded. The following formulations should be viewed as a first approximation to a theory. I hope they will be carried forward by those who are more expert in the field than I am.
Other views, of course, cannot be disregarded either. Some of them I will briefly consider in the second section of this paper.
Let me start with Chomsky. He (1964) regards metaphors of at least a certain type as representing grammatically deviant or semi-grammatical sentences (p. 387).