The Concept of Metaphor in the West and Islamic Rhetoric

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Morteza Barati
• Mohammad Reza Salehi Mazandarani
• Nasrollah Emami
• Karim LuWaimi Motlaq

University of Shahi Chamran

10.22067/jls.v49i1.58425

Abstract

1. Introduction
Metaphor definition in Islamic rhetoric has similarities with the theories of metaphor in the West. These similarities do not mean that the traditional definition still works so that rethinking of definition and providing new definitions is not necessary anymore. Such an approach certainly will not be promising. The result of these efforts will enclose metaphor in the realm of rhetoric and word. In the West metaphor is not only limited to poetry and literature and is not a tool for garnishing the words but also it has been imported to the realm of thought and knowledge and is placed at the center of human thinking. Moreover, in the West metaphors have been studied from various points of views such as linguistics, philosophy, psychology, etc. and are used in many sciences. This paper aims at presenting the historical evolution of the concept of metaphor in Islamic rhetoric and in the West along with highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the comparative analysis of metaphor.
2. Methodology
This study is relied on the descriptive analysis by using library research and taking advantage of the resources available in a qualitative approach. The present investigation tries to deal with the following questions:
1. How is the historical evolution of the concept of metaphor in Islamic rhetoric and in the West?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of comparative analysis of metaphor?
3. What are the similarities and differences between metaphor definition in Islamic rhetoric and in the West?
3. Results and Discussion
In general, there is a definite definition for each device in Islamic rhetorical tradition and this definition has been almost constant in the course of its history. For example, considering all proposed definitions of metaphor in Islamic rhetoric, a comprehensive definition of it can be gained. Most of our rhetoricians’ have endeavored to classify metaphors while they have focused on its beauty. Besides, most measures they have done were about the structure and production process and understanding of metaphor, accordingly. On account of comparing the disparate metaphor definitions, it should be noticed that rhetoric in Iranian and Islamic definitions are bound to one type of trope literature (the use of figurative language). However, the west definition of metaphor is boarder and more inclusive of different types of tropes, metonymy, and irony. Perhaps, this is due to the long-standing interest of Persian rhetoricians in creating more categories of the rhetorical devices.
In the West, metaphor has transcended the restrictions of words and rhetoric by entering into the realm of thought and understanding. There are different theories of metaphor in the West, while in Islamic rhetoric we can offer a fairly comprehensive definition for all the proposed definitions on metaphor. Through the comparative analysis, novel ideas in the works of Islamic rhetoric can be achieved. There are similarities between theories of metaphor in Islamic rhetoric and the West. For example, Jurjani asserts that metaphors are more than a simple simile and max black to be reduced to the corresponding simile. Seemingly, Jurjani’s approach adheres somewhat to the theory of conceptualist. Sakkaki’s view has something in common with Donald Davidson. Subtle points like these may be revealed in reading the works of our classic rhetoricians, however, the mere existence of such similarities cannot provide a comprehensive comparative review. So, what should be considered is a critical review of metaphor theory in Islamic rhetoric, while trying to find novel ideas leading to the creation of new theories.

Keywords

• metaphor
• Islamic rhetoric
• Theories of Metaphor
• The concept of Metaphor

---

References

ابن رشیق، ابوعلى‌ حسن‌ بن‌ رشیق. ‌(1907 م.) العمده. قاهره: مکتبه الخانجی.

ابن ‌قتیبه‌، عبدالله. ‌(1954م.). تأویل‌ مشکل ‌القرآن‌، ‌احمد صقر. قاهره‌: الآداب و المؤید.

ابن منظور، محمدبن مکرم. (1993 م.). بیروت: دار صادر.

ابو عبیده، معمر بن المثنّی التیمی. (۱۹۰۵م.). النقائض. لیدن: بوان.

ابو عبیده، معمر بن المثنّی التیمی. (2006 م.). مجاز القرآن. تحقیق: احمد فرید المزیدی. بیروت: دار الکتب العلمیه.

اژه‌ای، محمدعلی. (1376). «استعارۀ تعاملی». جامعه‌شناسی کاربردی. تابستان. ش 8. صص 1-14.

البیومی، محمد رجب. (1971م.). خطوات التفسیر البیانی للقرآن الکریم. مصر: الشرکۀ المصریۀ.

جاحظ، عمرو. (1948م.). البیان ‌و التبیین. ‌فوزی ‌عطوی. بیروت‌: درار و مکتبه الهلال.

جرجانی، عبد القاهر بن عبد الرحمن. (1368). اسرار البلاغه. ترجمۀ جلیل تجلیل. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.

الجرجانی‌، علی ‌بن‌ عبدالعزیز. (1951م.). الوساطة بین‌ المتنبّی‌ و خصومه. ج۱. قاهره‌: مطبعه محمد ابوالفضل‌ ابراهیم‌ و علی‌ محمد بجاوی‌.

داد، سیما. (1390). فرهنگ اصطلاحات ادبی. تهران: مروارید.

الرازی، محمد بن عمر. (1327). نهایۀ الایجاز فی درایۀ الاعجاز: فی علوم البلاغه و بیان اعجاز القرآن الشریف. قاهره: مطبعۀ الآداب و الموید.

الرمانی. (1956م.). النکت فی اعجاز القرآن. دمشق: دار العلم.

سارلی، ناصرقلی. (1387). «انگاره‌ای نو برای تاریخ استعاره». پژوهش‌های ادبی، ش 19، صص71-88.

سکاکی‌، یوسف‌. (1317 ق.). مفتاح العلوم. بیروت: ‌دار الکتب ‌العلمیه‌.

شیخون، محمود السید حسن محمد. (1415 ق.). الاستعاره؛ نشأتها و تطورها. دار الهدایة للنشر و التوزیع.

عسکری، حسن بن عبدالله بن سهل. (1952م.) الصناعتین. القاهره: الشرکۀ المصریۀ.

قدامة بن جعفر. (1941م.). نقد النثر (أو کتاب البیان). بولاق: طبعة المطبعة الأمیریة.

المبرّد، محمد. (1323 ق.). الکامل فی ‌اللغة و الادب. احمد محمد شاکر. قاهره: دار العلم.

Abu Libdeh. As’ad Jabr. (2011). “Metaphor in Arabic Rhetoric: Call for Innovation”. JORDAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED SCIENCE “Humanities Series”. Volume 13, No. 1.

Black, M. (1962). “XII-Metaphor”. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series. Vol. 55, pp. 273-294.

Chun, Lan. (2005). Cognitive Linguistics and Metaphoric Study. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Researchpress.

Hawkes, Terence. (1972). “Metaphor, the Critical Idiom 25. London and New York: Methuen.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1920). The philosophy of fine art. Vol. 3. G. Bell and sons, Limited.

Henle, P. (ed.) (1958). Language, Thought and Culture. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Hobbes, T. (1905). The metaphysical system of Hobbes as contained in twelve chapters from his "Elements of philosophy concerning body" and in briefer extracts from his "Human nature" and "Leviathan" (No. 57). Open Court Publishing Company.

Johnson, M. (Ed.). (1981). Philosophical perspectives on metaphor. U of Minnesota Press.

Lakoff, G. (1991). “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System used to Justify War in the gulf”. (Part 1 and 2). Viet Nam Generation Journal Online, V. 3, No. 3.

Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. (1980). “Conceptual metaphor in Everyday Language”. The Journal of Philosophy. Volume 77. Issu 8. New York.

Lakoff, George & Turner, Mark. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leezenberg, M. (2001). Contexts of metaphor. ELSEVIER SCIENCE Ltd.

Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nietzsche, F. (1873). (1995). “On truth and falsity in their extramoral sense”. (MA Mugge, Trans.). Philosophical writings, 87, 99.

Reddy, Michael. (1979). "The conduit metaphor". Metaphor and thought (2). Cambridge University Press.

Richards, I. (1964). The philosophy of rhetoric. SIU Press.