metaphor thesis

Moldova State University
Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures
English Philology Department
GRADUATION THESIS
The Role of Metaphor in Dan Brown’s
Novels “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels &
Demons”
Scientific advisor:
<surname, name>, <MA/PhD>
Submitted by:
<student surname, name>, gr. <number>
Chișinău <year>
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
CHAPTER I: Metaphor as a Stylistic Device and a Complex Unity 5
1.1 The Notion of Stylistic Device. An Overview of Classifications of Stylistic Devices 5
1.2 Definitions, Origins and Nature of Metaphor 9
1.3 Modern Theories about Metaphor and Its Attribution to the Terms Figure and Trope 13
1.4 Structure and Types of Metaphor 17
1.5 Functions and Roles of Metaphor 22
CHAPTER II: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Metaphors in Dan Brown’s Novels 25
2.1 Analysis of Metaphors in “The Da Vinci Code” 25
2.1.1 Metaphors classified according to the part of speech 25
2.1.2 Metaphors classified according to novelty (I.Galperin) 29
2.1.3 Metaphors classified according to structure (I.Galperin) 32
2.1.4 Metaphors classified according to the presence of departure and arrival terms (E.
Slave) 34
2.2 Analysis of Metaphors in “Angels & Demons” 37
2.2.1 Metaphors classified according to the part of speech (E. Slave) 38
2.2.2 Metaphors classified according to novelty (I.Galperin) 41
2.2.3 Metaphors classified according to structure (I.Galperin) 43

2.2.4 Metaphors classified according to the presence of departure and arrival terms (E.
Slave) 44
2.3 Quantitative Analysis of Metaphors in Dan Brown’s Novels 46
Conclusions 50
Bibliography 52
Appendix 55
Glossary of Linguistic Terms 55
Corpus Linguistics 56
2
Introduction
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Dylan Thomas
These famous lines by Thomas are examples of what classical theorists, at least since
Aristotle, have referred to as metaphor: instances of novel poetic language in which words
like ``mother,'' ``go,'' and ``night'' are not used in their normal everyday senses.
The study of metaphor had been a preoccupation, which dominated all the periods of
human existence. Its study can and will never be completed, because it penetrates not only
figurative language, but the ordinary language as well. It is dissolved in the myriads of lines
of emotive prose, poetry as well as in well-known everyday words and expressions. The
present paper attempts to touch only a small section of the metaphor universe.
The purpose of the given research paper is to analyze a corpus linguistics of 150
examples (taken in context), collected from Dan Brown’s novels “The Da Vinci Code” and
“Angels & Demons”, observe and comment on the use of metaphors, their type, structure,
stylistic function and effect within the novels.
The topicality of the theme lays in the fact that modern literature enjoys a tremendous
popularity, so it would be relevant to perform a linguistic analysis of some of the bestseller
novels and determine possible linguistic reasons for this popularity, as they proved to be of
interest to great numbers of readers.
The hypothesis that we postulate for this research is that metaphors sought in the two
modern novels by Dan Brown will be not quite numerous due to the fact that contemporary

popular literature tends to stay less sophisticated from the point of view of language.
The specific objectives of the research are:
•To study the notion of stylistic devices and their classification;
•To examine theoretical sources concerning the nature of metaphor;
•To provide a concise picture of numerous views on metaphor, its definitions and classifications;
•To reveal specific characteristics of metaphors in the novels under analysis;
•To classify the metaphors under investigations according to criteria selected according to the
theoretical sources that were examined;
3
•To establish the frequency of occurrence of various metaphoric patterns in both novels
under analysis;
•To interpret images created by metaphors in the novels under analysis;
•To comment on the effects created by metaphors in the novels under analysis;
•To demonstrate the connections within the images that are created and elements of the narrative
text;
•To bring arguments to support the choice of this type of grouping;
•To conclude on the results of the research.
In the course of our research activity on the given topic, we used diverse methods such as:
description, analysis, synthesis, generalization, classification, commentary.
As for the structure of the research paper, it is organized as follows:
The introduction presents the goal, objectives, resources and topicality of the research.
Chapter One introduces general considerations on stylistic devices and namely defines them,
presents their classification and describes some of their peculiarities. It also deals with the notion
of metaphor in general, attempting to describe it and its peculiarities and types. Finally, it dwells
on the basic concepts concerning structure and functions of the metaphor.
Chapter Two is dedicated to the analysis of 150 metaphors from two novels by Dan Brown
from the various such classification point of view as part of speech grouping, novelty, and
structure.
The conclusion sums up the results of the research. The bibliography lists the entire bulk of
primary and secondary sources used for the elaboration of the research. The appendix includes a

glossary of linguistic terms that were used in the thesis and the complete corpus linguistics used
as basis for the investigation.
We believe that the practical value of our work might lie in fact that it can be useful for
specialists in the field of stylistics and literary theory, as well as methodology, because an
investigation of metaphor helps pay attention to teaching it and explain its meaning as well as
possible. It may also be useful to researchers in the field of stylistics, text interpretation and
literary theory, as well as to practical translators. We also hope that our work could help those,
who encounter difficulties with the understanding of the concept of metaphor.
4
CHAPTER I: Metaphor as a Stylistic Device and a Complex Unity
The purpose of the given chapter is to present an overview on the most important
theoretical concepts that are relevant for our research. Among these are the notions of stylistic
devices and their classification, various definitions of metaphor and opinions on its classification
according to a number of linguists, modern linguistic and philosophical theories on metaphor,
and types and functions of metaphor. These notions will be briefly presented, analysed and
compared.
1.1 The Notion of Stylistic Device. An Overview of Classifications of Stylistic Devices.
The notion of “stylistic device” is very controversial. The style of anything is formed out
of features peculiar to it, those differentiating it from whatever it may be compared to. What we
say or write what we read or hear is not style by itself, but simply has style; it demonstrates
stylistic features. It is just like fashion in clothing: no one ever wears “fashion”, people wear
clothes which demonstrate fashionable features.
In linguistics, there are different terms to denote the particular means by which a writer
obtains his effect and shows a certain style. Expressive means, stylistic devices, and other terms
are used to characterize his own style of writing. It is very important to make a distinction
between expressive means and stylistic devices. I. R. Galperin defines expressive means as
“phonetic means, morphological means, morphological forms, means of word-building, lexical,
phraseological and syntactical forms, all of which linguistic function is to intensify the utterance
[15; 137].
One of the first linguists who tried “to modernize” traditional rhetoric system was British

scholar G. Leech. In 1967 his contribution into stylistic theory in the book “Essays on Style and
Language” was published in London. Paying tribute to the descriptive linguistics popular at the
time he tried to show how linguistic theory could be accommodated to the task of describing such
rhetorical figures as metaphor, parallelism, alliteration, personification and other in the present-
day study of literature.
One of the latest classifications of expressive means and stylistic devices is given in the
book “Fundamentals of English Stylistics” by Y. M. Skrebnev. His approach demonstrates a
combination of principles observed in Leech’s system of paradigmatic and syntagmatic
5
subdivision and the level-oriented approach on which Galperin’s classification is founded [44;
24].
An overview of the classifications presented here shows rather varied approaches to
practically the same material. And even though they contain inconsistencies and certain
contradictions they reflect the scholar’s attempts to overcome an intentional description of device.
Meanwhile we will focus our attention on the I. R. Galperin’s classification.
Thus, he defines the stylistic device as a literary model in which semantic and structural
features are blended so that it represents a generalized pattern [15; 118-123].
Prof. I. R. Galperin calls a stylistic device a generative model when through frequent use a
language fact is transformed into stylistic device. Thus we may say that some expressive means
have evolved into stylistic devices which represent a more abstract form or set of forms. A
stylistic device combines some general semantic meaning with a certain linguistic form resulting
in stylistic effect. It is like an algorithm employed for an expressive purpose.
The classification suggested by Prof. Galperin is simply organized and very detailed. His
manual “Stylistics” published in 1971 includes the following subdivision of expressive means and
stylistic devices based on the level-oriented approach:
1. Phonetic expressive means and stylistic devices.
2. Lexical expressive means and stylistic devices.
3. Syntactical expressive means and stylistic devices.
1.1.1 Phonetic Expressive Means And Stylistic Devices
To this group Galperin refers such devices as: Onomatopoeia, Alliteration, Rhyme,

Rhythm and Meter. [15; 123-131]
Onomatopoeia is a combination of speech-sounds, which aims at imitating sounds
produced in nature (wind, sea, thunder…), by things, by people and by animals. There are two
varieties of onomatopoeia: direct and indirect.
Alliteration is a phonetic stylistic device, which aims at imparting a melodic effect to the
utterance. The essence of this device lies on the repetition of similar sounds, in particular
consonant sounds, in close succession, particularly at the beginning of successive words.
Therefore alliteration is generally regarded as a musical accompaniment of the author’s idea,
supporting it with some vague emotional atmosphere, which each reader interprets for himself.
Rhyme is repetition of identical or similar terminal sound combinations of words. We
distinguish between full rhymes and incomplete rhymes. rhyme (full, incomplete, compound or
broken, eye rhyme, internal rhyme. Also, stanza rhymes: couples, triple, cross, framing/ring.)
6
Rhythm exists in all spheres of human activity and assumes multifarious forms. It is a
mighty weapon in stirring und emotions whatever its nature or origin, whether it is musical,
mechanical, or symmetrical as in architecture. Rhythm in language necessarily demands
oppositions that alternate: long, short; stressed, unstressed; high, low and other contrasting
segments of speech.
Meter is any form of periodicity in verse, its kind being determined by the character and
number of syllables of which it consists. Rhythm is flexible and sometimes an effort is required
to perceive it. Much has been said and written about rhythm in prose.
1.1.2 Lexical Expressive Means And Stylistic Devices
There are three big subdivisions in this class of devices and they all deal with the
semantic nature of a word or phrase [15; 135-160]. However the criteria of selection of means
for each subdivision are different and manifest different semantic processes.
In the first subdivision the principle of classification is the interaction of different types
of a word’s meanings: dictionary, contextual, derivative, nominal and emotive. The stylistic
effect of the lexical means is achieved through the binary opposition of dictionary and
contextual or logical and emotive or primary and derivative meanings of a word.
A. The first group includes means based on the interplay of dictionary and contextual

meanings: Metaphor, Metonymy, Irony.
B. The second unites means based on the interaction of primary and derivative
meanings: Polysemy, Zeugma and Pun.
C. The third group comprises means based on the opposition of logical and emotive
meanings: Interjections and exclamatory words, Epithet, Oxymoron.
D: The fourth group is based on the interaction of logical and nominal meanings and
includes: Antonomasia
The principle for distinguishing the second big subdivision according to Galperin is
entirely different from the first one and is based on the interaction between two lexical
meanings simultaneously materialized in the context. This kind of interaction helps to call
special attention to a certain feature of the object described here belong: Simile, Periphrasis,
Euphemism, Hyperbole.
III. The third subdivision comprises stable word combinations in their interaction
with the context: Clichés, Proverbs and sayings, Epigrams, Quotations, Allusions,
Decomposition of set phrases [15; 135-160].
7
As the purpose of the given research encompasses a study of metaphor, we will further
concern ourselves with a perspective on stylistic devices that deal with the interaction of
dictionary a nd contextual logical meanings, as it is this division that comprises metaphor.
The stylistic devices based on this principle are metaphor, metonymy, and irony.
A metaphor is defined as a relation between the dictionary and contextual logical
meanings based on the affinity or similarity of certain properties of features of two
corresponding concepts. The metaphor is well-known semantic way of building new meaning
and new words.
Metaphors, like all stylistic devices can be classified according to their degree of
unexpectedness. Thus metaphors, which are absolutely unexpected, are quite unpredictable, are
called genuine metaphors. Those, which are commonly used in speech and therefore are
sometimes even fixed in dictionaries and expressive means of language, are trite metaphors, or
dead metaphors. V. V. Vinogradov states: " a metaphor, if it is not a cliché, is an act of
establishing an individual world outlook, it is an act of subjective isolation Therefore a word a

metaphor is narrow, subjectively enclosed, it imposes on the reader a subjective view of the
object or phenomenon and its semantic ties.
A more thorough look on metaphor will be provided further, in the next subchapters.
Metonymy is based on a different type of relation between the dictionary and contextual
meanings, a relation based not on affinity, but on some kind of association connecting the two
concepts, which these meanings represent. Metonymy used in language-in-action or speech, i.e.
contextual metonymy, is genuine metonymy and reveals a quite unexpected substitution of one
word for another, or even of one concept for another, on the ground of some strong impression
produced by a chance feature of thing.
Irony is a stylistic device also based on the simultaneous realization of two logical
meanings – dictionary and contextual, but the two meanings stand in opposition to each other. In
no other device where we can observe the interplay of the dictionary and contextual meanings, is
the latter so fluctuating, suggestive, and dependent on the environment as is irony. Irony must
not be confused with humour, although they have much in common. Humour always causes
laughter. What is funny must come as a sudden clash of the positive and negative. In this respect
irony can be linked to humour. But the function of irony is not confirmed to producing a
humorous effect [15; 136-144].
1.1.3 Syntactical Expressive Means And Stylistic Devices
8
Another fundamental subdivision of stylistic devices according to Galperin is named
qualified as syntactical, as they are not paradigmatic, but syntagmatic, or structural means [15;
164-180].
In defining syntactical devices I. R. Galperin proceeds from the following criterion: the
structural elements have their own independent meaning and this meaning may affect the lexical
meaning. In doing so it may impart a special contextual meaning to some of the lexical units.
The principal criteria syntactical stylistic devices are:
- the juxtaposition of the parts of an utterance;
- the type of connection of the parts;
- the peculiar use of colloquial constructions;
- the transference of structural meaning.

Devices built on the principle of juxtaposition number: Inversion, Detached constructions,
Parallel constructions, Chiasmus, Repetition, Enumeration, Suspense, Climax, Antithesis.
Devices based on the type of connection of the parts include: Asyndeton, Polysyndeton, Gap-
sentence link.
Devices united by the peculiar use of colloquial constructions are: Ellipsis, Aposiopesis
(break-in-the-narrative), Question in the narrative, Represented speech (uttered and unuttered or
inner represented speech).
Transferred use of structural meaning devices involve such means as: Rhetorical questions
and Litotes.
1.2 Definitions, Origins and Nature of Metaphor
The word metaphor has Greek origin and it means “translation (moving), transfer of a
word ‘s meaning onto another one.”
The metaphor had been widely discussed in rhetoric and in almost all the philological
disciplines; it is a basic notion of stylistic studies, as well as those of poetics and aesthetics.
Since the ancient times philosophers had analyzed the possibilities of an accurate
expression. The art of rhetoric was highly developed in both Greek and roman civilizations.
Ample treatises about an attractive expression had been written. And it is the metaphor that was
the central figure of ancient rhetoric.
Aristotle offers the first definition of metaphor. He says that it is a transfer of the name of
an object onto another object; which can be from a category to an item, from an item to a
category, or by analogy. In other words, Aristotle implies that metaphor is recognition of
9
objective properties being objectively shared by objective referents in the objective world [6;
52].
But the linguist M. Dolgan [41;14] points out that Aristotle’s definition also implies a
formal classification of metaphors, the first classification in aesthetic theory. He asserts, that
from the point of view of modern classification of stylistic devices, Aristotle’s notion cannot be
accepted entirely, as it makes no difference between metaphor, metonymy and other stylistic
devices, but places them all in the field of metaphor.
The Romanian linguist Tudor Vianu [38;10] criticizes Aristotle, because the latter had

described the notion and its types and varieties, but he hadn’t mentioned why it appeared.
The next to examine the problem of metaphor during the ancient period was Cicero, in his
work “De Oratore”. He was also the one to dwell upon the cause of emergence of this notion.
Cicero shows that the metaphor appeared because of a certain insufficiency of language. There
were no expressions for the new notions emerging from human experience, thus, he says, they
(the notions) had to be named by the old ones. At the same time Cicero highlights the fact that
just as the clothes appeared firstly to protect human body from cold, later becoming ornaments,
the same way, the metaphor, firstly imposed by lacks of language, became later an object of
rhetoric delight [38; 23].
Other ancient thinkers also used the term “ornament”, but when they did, they either
omitted the metaphor from their field (as Aristotle, who said that any name can be
provincialized, be it metaphor or ornament; and as Quintilian, who distinguished between
“ornaments of language” and “stylistic devices”, separating them into two separate categories.
Quintillian shows that only the following qualities of language can be its ornaments: purity,
vitality and clarity. He defined an ornament as follows: “an expression cannot be called an
ornament of language if it is only clear and plausible. The first step to the perfection of an
expression is to grasp with our mind its object; then it is necessary for one to be able to depict it
by means of the word, and the third step is to give it decorous shine, so, this is, truly, an
ornament”. ) or they expanded it over the field of the stylistic device, as Cicero. The common
point is that in both cases, the notion of the “ornament” was attributed a positive semantic
content.
Cicero’s explanation remained as a cornerstone for many generations of writers of all sort
of Poetics and Rhetorics. But in the XVIIIth century Giambatista Vico considered it necessary to
rectify the understanding of metaphor as an “ornament”. In his greatest work “Scienza Nuova”
(1725), Vico distinguishes a poetic phase of the human spirit, which is prior to the philosophic
one, to which the modern scientists belonged [5; 34].
10
During that poetic phase, people imagined a living universe, where each thing possesses a
material and a spiritual life, similar to a human being’s. The only means to understand the world
and to expand the experience was to assimilate new objects of the latter with those given by

body’s and soul’s own experience. Vico is said to be the first theoretician of primitive animism.
Thus, according to primitive metaphysics, man is inclined to name the visible aspects of the
universe, by words originally used to denote the realities of the body. Thus, people speak of the
mouth of a river, the foot of the mountain, or of the smile of the sky. Any metaphor is essentially
a personification.
G. Vico thinks that the same wish (to create things by naming them) is at the base of
primitive sciences, in which new, alien things are endowed with life and passions, very much
like the human ones. He also considers that this was the way the myths were created, and
metaphors are nothing more but myths.
T. Vianu, in his work “Problemele metaforei si alte studii de stilistica” compares Cicero’s
and Vico’s acceptions of the metaphor [38;12]. He points out the following: for Cicero, the
metaphor was the result of a logical operation, a mere transfer of notions, whereas for Vico it is
the product of a mentality fifferent from ours – of a prelogic mentality. For Vico the basis of the
metaphor is a peculiar understanding of the world, a special metaphysics, characteristic for the
first phase of the civilization, which connects primitive poetry with other products of the human
spirit at the same level of its development.
Later on, in the XIXth century, Vico’s discovery receives a minor modification. During the
flourishing of German Romantic movement, Jean Paul Richter asserts that the metaphor is the
result of an ancient phase the development of the human spirit, but still it is not the product of its
first phase. For Richter, metaphor emerged when man was already not a part of nature. Thus,
being alienated from nature, man wished to understand it, in this way lending it his own self,
thus obtaining the first metaphors.
A special interest represents the opinion of the above-mentioned Romanian linguist T.
Vianu. Except the fact that he presents a definition [38; 9] of the metaphor, which is simple and
easy to understand – “metaphor is the expressed result of an implied comparison” ; he also
asserts that metaphor is dissolved in every language. He underlines it by saying that wishing to
name some spiritual realities, people, being unable to invent new terms merely associated them
with some sensitive realities, naming the first, abstract ones, by the latter, slightly changing
them, thus executing a metaphorisation process.
T. Vianu’ s conclusions about the nature of the metaphor are the following: a metaphor

presupposes a deliberate alternation of two kinds of representations:
11
1) a set of similarities between the reality expressed by the logical meaning of the necessary
word and the reality expressed by its figurative meaning, or, in other words, expressed
metaphorically;
2) a set of differences between the two realities.
Vianu also concludes that metaphor is psychologically sustained by the perception of a
certain unity of the objects by means of the differences between them. From the logical point of
view, metaphor implies a considerably high level of abstractization, because mind (in order to
realize the metaphor) has to execute a double operation of elimination. Firstly, by means of
metaphoric transfer, it must take away all the differences that would be able to hinder the
unification from all the related terms. Secondly, from all the similar features it should retain only
the necessary ones, in order not to interfere with the impression of difference, all the rest having
to be eliminated. A total unification between the terms, Vianu says, does not produce a
metaphor. The latter can only emerge when the realization of the terms’ unity, between which
the transfer took place, coexists with the realization of their difference.
As far as it concerns the similarity metaphor is based on, T. Vianu says that mind has o
retain necessary similarities in order to guide itself towards the obtaining of a metaphor. Thus,
the linguist concludes that the metaphor is not an original procedure/act of the spirit, but it
belongs to a later period, contemporary with the emergence of a greater power of human
intelligence.
Later on, the Romanian professor E. Budau offers the following definition of the metaphor
[5; 22]. He says that it is a passing from the regular meaning of a word to a new meaning, by
means of an implied comparison, or by lexical substitution of an appropriate word with another,
which is inappropriate. The characteristics of metaphor according to Budau are: by extension, it
indicates any type of figurative language and it is the main element of poetic expression. As we
can see, this definition is very similar to Vianu’s definition.
The Russian linguist I. R. Galperin in his book “Stylistics” presents the formulation we are
accustomed to, but his definition is radically different from all the previous ones, as it says that
“metaphor is a relation between the dictionary and conceptual logical meanings based on the

affinity or similarity of certain properties or features of the two corresponding concepts”[15;
137]. Here we can see another formulation of the well-known stylistic device. It is already not a
mere transfer of meanings, but a relation between them.
An even more interesting definition or - we would rather say explanation - of the source of
metaphor is offered by R. Jakobson [13; 178]. He regards the syntagmatic and paradigmatic
relations as a basis for metonymy and metaphor. In the case of metonymy an object is expressed
by the name of another object, which is associated to the previous one on the basis of experience
12
– this being equivalent to syntagmatic relations. The case of metaphor is presented as a situation
where the object is named by the name of a similar object. But even here the relation of
similarity is preserved. No matter what formulation the definition of metaphor does receive, it is
inevitably based on the inherent category of similarity.
1.3 Modern Theories about Metaphor and Its Attribution to the Terms Figure and Trope
The contemporary research beyond the field of literature is dominated by semantic and
philosophical approaches, as well as by cognitive and pragmatic analysis. They are concentrated
on the study of content (identified as the development of a conceptual conflict) and around the
examination of discourse values of stylistic devices. The definitions depend on the field
(contents, linguistic structures, conditions of use in a pragmatic approach) and on the level of
analysis adopted by the scientists: word, phrase, and utterance.
These points of view privilegiate again certain stylistic devices. The privilege, which the
metaphor enjoys (which is often the only device in discussion, even if in a general meaning) can
be explained by 1) dimensions of the relation of analogy, which is implied (verbal, adjectival,
adverbial metaphors, except the field of traditionally studied nominal metaphors) and 2) by the
capacity of this trope to establish relations between remote conceptual fields.
The contemporary theories of metaphor criticize the traditional conception about metaphor
as a noun and doubt about the ornamental function attributed to this trope until then, as well as
the relations between metaphor and concept. Two aspects of this criticism emerged.
1) Richards and M. Black consider that the traditional theory is strictly introverted in the
lexical perspective (metaphor as a figure of a word). They propose the interactive conception,
which revitalizes the power of discourse and gives back to rhetoric its power of generalization:

metaphor is not a displacement of words, but a transaction between contexts. It implies an
interaction, according to Black, or a verbal opposition between two semantic contents – the one
of the metaphorically used expression and the other, belonging to the context.
I.A. Richards also proposes that every metaphoric phrase has a tenor (idea) and a vehicle
(expression). Metaphor exists only when a tenor is attributed to a vehicle that usually designates
another idea. Metaphor is the product of interaction between the two ideas attributed to this
expression (the usual content and the content attributed in a given context).
Black, at his turn, defines metaphor as a conflict between a framework (the literal
component) and a focus (the non-literal component).
13
S. Borutti [4; 408] supports the idea the metaphor is not a lexical transfer but rather an
event of the meaning, which affects the whole utterance. J.Cohen [7; 273] calls metaphor “a
predication, which does not respect the code that regulates the usual use of predicates”, and
Beardsley says that “it is a dynamic of the meaning, which is to be analyzed in the framework of
the utterance”.
2) Metaphor has no ornamental function, but a cognitive and a meaningful one. The
classic theory asserts that metaphoric utterances are based on a shortened comparison or on a
hidden similarity between two objects. Similarity is thought to be the motivation of the
metaphoric transfer, which would have as a basis a relationship of analogy between the two
compared objects. A word is replaced by another on the basis of the similarity that connects
them. The figurative meaning is justified by the semantic features, which would have something
in common with the logical meaning. There is also a possibility to return to the word proper,
even at the cost of sacrificing the connotative values linked to the figure [Ducrot, Schaeffer,
p.380].
The theories of semantic interaction [29; 133] emphasized the fact that a metaphoric
utterance is not necessarily an assertion of similarity. In the case of metaphoric expression, the
utterance does not refer to any object to be compared with. The utterance has a meaning in this
case, but not a reference.
According to J.R. Searle, it can be assumed that the mental and semantic processes, which
interfere in the elaboration and understanding of metaphoric utterances, do not use references,

nor the similarities between them [33; 208].
It is usually considered that the metaphor theories formulated by Anglo-Saxon literary
theory and philosophy of language represent an alternative to the opinions that consider
metaphor an elliptic comparison or a substitution.
On the other hand, Black [1; 21] considers that the figurative meaning does not replace the
logical one; metaphors do not express an already existing reality, but they build it. This is the
difference between the substitution and interactive approaches. U. Eco [13; 28] proceeds from a
theory of denotation to a theory of metaphor as an expression modality with a cognitive value.
The metaphor mechanism is analyzed in terms of semantic components, conceptual conflict and
transfer of meaning.
The metaphoric “tension” is described using the notion of “seme”, following the example
of French structural lexical semantic. The textual developments made possible by the tropes are
explained in the following way: lexical units are considered as a hierarchic inventary of semes
(or content units). According to Greimas [13; 133-140] figures are “semic hierarchies” and
14
“connections” at the same time. Thus, metaphor would be based on the interaction between the
content units and the selection of only a part of the constitutive semes of the used words.
In N. Goodman’s theory [18; 104] metaphor is not as much a figure of speech, but rather a
principle of transfer common for all the figures – it is a transfer of properties. He says: “It is
characteristic of metaphor to impose a change which does not concern a category, but a domain.
An order, which is a constitutive element of a scheme, is taken from the original domain of this
scheme and applied unto another domain in order to organize and sort it” [18; 106]. In this case,
he asserts, the transfer of a scheme can be executed in different domains like in the case of
personification, between two cross-related domains (hyperbole, litotes), in the framework of the
same domain (the scheme is applied to the same domain, but inversely in the case of irony).
The German philosopher Wittgenstein considered that the cognitive value of the figurative
utterance consists in the fact that it allows a reconsideration of the universe under a different
aspect [13; 381]. It also offers new worlds by means of reinterpretation of a domain using
relations between metaphor, re-description of objects and changing of theories and paradigms in
science.

The end of the domination of rhetoric opened free way to pragmatic, semantic, poetic and
philosophic interpretations of the stylistic devices and of the phenomenon of figurativity. These
interpretations at their turn, led to a revision of such notions as “figure” and “trope”. Rhetoric
and philosophy structured their figural theories on the basis of the idea of the exclusive presence
of figures in literary discourse and their exclusion from other fields such as philosophical and
scientific discourse. This interest concerns metaphor in particular, which evolves from an
ornamental function to a cognitive one, and from a marginal position to a central position as
related to the Truth and the concept in general. New units, such as discourse and utterance, are
taken into consideration: this change of level resulted especially in pragmatic approaches and in
an expanding of the notion of “figure”. The latter does not designate anymore a certain number
of operations, but it can represent any linguistic manifestation [13; 360].
These revisions highlight as problematic the rigid use of the following oppositions: logical
vs. figurative meaning, denotation vs. connotation, figurative vs. non-figurative discourse.
In structural poetics, which was influenced by stylistics [13; 377] (Ch. Bally, M. Rifaterre)
the figures are considered as one of the means of emphasizing existent in language. It is
characteristic to the poetic function of the language, which ensures “visibility of discourse”
according to Tz. Todorov. Or they may be a modality to affirm themselves, according to G.
Genette who also defines “figure” as a deviation between the sign and the meaning or as an
internal space of the language. In this case, he continues, the notion of deviation should not be
15
understood as related to a norm; the figure defines the space in which writing and literature
would take place, the semantic space between the logical and figurative meaning.
It should also be mentioned, that by means of rhetoric, literature enters the space
(autonomous space) of the figurative domain, so it should be insisted on the differential character
of the literary fact. When linguists [13; 377] say that the figure is related to connotation, they
refer to a transparent state of the discourse. Stylistics and structural poetic give anew
formulation to the concept of the figure, that of a distance in regard to a neutral expression. This
allows a solution for the inefficiency of the classic theory, as it cannot give a definition of the
norm regarding which, poetic language would be a deviation [7; 44].
Another orientation of structural poetics proposed the interpretation of literary discourse as

a criscrossing between metaphor and metonymy (which Jakobson associates with the linguistic
processes of selection and combination). Any linguistic sign implies two modes of organization:
combination and selection, or substitution. The discourse in unfolded along two axes: of
similarity (the metaphoric process) and of contiguity (the metonymic process). Thus the four
main stylistic devices are reduced to two. The two axes, syntagmatic and paradigmatic,
constitute the basis of the elaboration of an articulated rhetoric around the couple of metaphor
and metonymy. The correspondents to these modes of association are discovered [13; 378] in
any symbolic process. R. Jakobson remarks a certain frequency of metaphoric processes in
Romanticism and Symbolisms and of metonymic processes in Realism and Cubism.
These poetic researches are completed by interpretations of the literary phenomenon,
which appeal to the notions of rhetoricity and figurality , and which oppose the creativity of
stylistic devices that institute the rules of a literary text to the creativity governed by the rules of
rhetoric.
The notion of rhetoricity proposed by P. de Man [13; 390] arises the problem of the
syntactic approach to the text proposed by structural poetics. He says that the fact that narrative
cannot exist without metonymic operations, does not necessarily mean that all the rest of stylistic
devices do not play any role. De Man considers that metaphor also creates contiguity in the
narrative.
All these theories, points Ducrot, which are literary text interpretations as a fact of an auto-
contextualized language, are influenced by the opinions about the metaphoric origin of the
concept and the supremacy of figurative language, but they are also marked by the theories of
interaction, which describe metaphor as a fragment of text and a textual construction of
meaning.
16
1.4 Structure and Types of Metaphor
1.4.1 Structure of Metaphor
Thus, we could see that metaphor was defined as a change of meaning, which is based on
an elliptical comparison. Further we will try to present various linguists’ results of studies and
their opinions, concerning the structure and the classification of metaphors.
The English critic I.A. Richards names the tenor and the vehicle as the components of a

metaphor, with the tenor referring to the concept, object, or person meant, and the vehicle being
the image that carries the weight of the comparison. [29; 27]
The Romanian linguist E. Slave [34; 9-12] considers that from the structural point of
view, metaphor presupposes the existence of two paradigmatically distinct entities. But in certain
circumstances based on some associations the relationship of opposition is neutralised. Thus, in
the content plan, new relations appear between the term bearing the logical meaning, and the one
with the figurative one. As an example, E. Slave brings the association between the words “a
vorbi” (to talk) and “a latra” (to bark), which are actually distinct entities. Slave concludes that
the metaphoric process is based on the breaking of semantic and syntagmatic relations of
implication (to bark – a dog, to talk – a person). Moreover, the Romanian linguist adds that
unlike the case of phonetic neutralization, in the case of metaphoric neutralization, it is not
always possible to establish the context where figurative expression appears.
It is worth noting the model of structural analysis of metaphor, also presented by E. Slave
in her work “Metafora in limba romana”. The above-mentioned model was elaborated in 1970 by
the French μ group, in their work “Rhetorique generale”.
According to this model, metaphor consists of two terms: a metasememe as a departure
term (D) [termen de plecare] and an arrival term (A) [termen de sosire], which is connected to
the first. These notions are nothing but the traditional figurative and logical terms, but in a new
acception. In fact the departure term corresponds to Richard’s concept of tenor, and the arrival
term to the concept of vehicle.
These two terms are analyzed according to componential analysis. E. Slave reminds of B.
Pottier’s conception about two categories of semes (specific and generic), and of the great role of
17
these semantic features in the process of metaphorisation. For instance “to talk” is analyzed in
terms of the following semes:
1)to emit sounds
2)to articulate words
3)to express human thoughts and feelings
Similarly, “to bark” is analyzed as composed of other characteristic features:
1’) to emit sounds

2’) to repeat short jerky sounds
3’) to render characteristic states for the dog species
Thus, “to bark” is the metasememe, the departure term, and “to talk” is the arrival term.
A new aspect is underlined in the relation between the terms: a crossing relation is
established between D and A. These are two crossed sets of semes, and the intersection
represents the so-called intermediary term (I). Revising the above-mentioned scheme, the semes
are distributed in the following way:
The two operations, which determine the reorganization of semes in the metasememic
process, are suppression and/or adding of semes. The above-presented scheme shows the
common semantic basis of the two terms and the opposition between them. Our attention will be
concentrated on the metaphor itself, as a departure term (D). It actually takes semes from A, D’s
original semes being superposed over A’s semes. Thus, “to bark” maintains the features 2’,3’,
but only in a suggestive aspect: “to talk jerkily, as if rendering specific states characteristic for
the dog”.
The mechanism of metaphor is based on the fact that the denotative term, which belongs
to its semantic structure, does not disappear totally. On the opposite, it is their preservation,
which is a necessary condition for the realization of the “manifest” metasememic deviation.
E. Slave points out that the complexity of metaphoric structure is [34;17] due to one of
the fundamental features of language – redundancy. Without it, there wouldn’t have been any
18
semantic deviation. Quoting S. Marcus and M. Ţuţescu, the Romanian linguist asserts that there
are semes that determine one’s possibility to choose between different units. These semes are
present in the context and are called by S. Marcus iterative semes or clasemes. According to his
opinion, clasemes are compatibility factors between the units of an utterance.
Applying this theory to the examples given above, it can be observed that “to bark” is
compatible with the claseme [-human] and “to talk” with [+human]. Any violation by semantic
deviation of this compatibility, or, in other words, of selective restriction, creates a metaphoric
structure in the framework of the departure term (D).
1.4.2 Types of Metaphors
1.4.2.1 E. Slave’s Classification

E Slave distinguishes between two basic types of metaphor. They differ in structure and
especially in the relation and presence of the departure and arrival term.
The implicit metaphors use or contain only the departure term. The arrival term is
implied and has to be guessed.
The explicit metaphor uses simultaneously both terms. They can be exemplified by such
expressions as “inger de copil” or “bujor de fata” in Romanian. In this case, - “bujor”
(decomposed into “fata” and “floare”) is opposed to “fata”. Because of the syntagmatic structure
of the opposition, the figurative term “bujor” is less loaded with the meanings of the opposite,
“fata”; the presence of the latter makes it possible that the departure term have a greater power of
suggestion. Explicit metaphor is decoded by means of its syntagmatic structure, that’s why the
distance between the two terms can be great.
From the point of view of classes, Slave divides implicit metaphors into nominal and
verbal. She also underlines that verbal metaphor is stronger than the nominal one, because if the
latter can be reduced to a mere substitution (A=B), then the first one (verbal) is more complex,
as the verb receives a double substitution function. Of course, E. Slave mentions adjectival
metaphor, but she considers it less important and structurally similar to the verbal metaphor.
1.4.2.2 I. R. Glaperin’s Classification
Let’s now turn to other classifications of metaphor, and firstly, to the one offered by
Galperin. He classifies the metaphors according to their degree of unexpectedness. [15;137].
Based on this criterion, there can be genuine, trite/dead and sustained/prolonged metaphors.
Genuine metaphors are defined as “absolutely unexpected….quite unpredictable”. They
have their special place in language: “they are regarded as belonging to language-in-action, i.e.
speech metaphors”.
19
Trite or dead metaphors are those, which “are commonly used in speech and therefore are
sometimes even fixed in the dictionaries as expressive means of language”. But this type, is said
to be able to be restored or revived. This is the case of sustained or prolonged metaphor.
Galperin comments on them as follows [15; 138]:
“Trite metaphors are sometimes injected with new vigour, i.e. their primary meaning is
re-established alongside the new (derivative) meaning. This is done by supplying the central

image created by the metaphor with additional words bearing some reference to the main word”.
Galperin appoints several terms to describe the sustained metaphor. The principal
metaphor, the one that needs to be revigorated is called central image and the words that refer to
it - contributory images.
In the example given above, the trite metaphor cup of satisfaction (central image) is
revived by such contributory images as full, drop, content, sprinkle. The Russian author
emphasizes the fact that “both the central image and the contributory images are used in two
senses simultaneously. The second plane of utterance is maintained by the key-word satisfaction.
It is this word that helps us to decipher the idea behind the sustained metaphor. ”
Variations of this case are possible, especially in the case when the central image is not
given, but can be implied, if judging upon the contributory images, which refer to it and create
the missing images in our imagination.
Thus we could observe Galperin’s classification of metaphors, but despite the fact his
work,“Stylistics”, is well known and widely used, we consider this classification a bit superficial,
if compared to other classifications, done for example, by E.Slave.
1.4.2.3 L. Galdi’s Classification
Another classification is presented by the Romanian linguist Ladislau Galdi. It is
somewhat similar to Galperin’s formulations. But first of all he presents some views upon the
nature of metaphor [14; 280]. According to his opinion, metaphors are either compressed similes
or more or less subjective identifications, based on a common feature, obvious or latent.
Galdi also divides metaphors into classes according to the degree of their unexpectedness.
His classes are:
- traditional (can be considered close to genuine);
- trite;
- vulgar;
- original (with a high degree of unexpectedness).
20
But Galdi also offers another criterion for a classification of metaphors. This is the
criterion of type and mechanism of the inherent simile. Thus the passage from the departure term
to the arrival term can be executed according the following paths: (examples by Galdi)

A) Animate – Animate
B) Inanimate – Animate
E) Mixed
1.4.2.4 E. Slave’s Addenda – Metaphor and Connotation
It is worth noting E. Slave’s opinion about the metaphoric connotation. She considers it
necessary to take in consideration the category of connotation (as figurative meaning) as
opposed to denotation. This conception about connotation will be further useful in following E.
Slave’s classification of metaphors.
Slave underlines the fact that connotations (whether they are linked to a certain semic
structure, or not) impregnate the sememe with a certain colour, which is added to denotation. She
also presents a typology of connotations, according to the criterion of their nature.
Thus there can be:
1) Referential connotation – the closest to denotation, as it is directly determined by the
referent. This type is also called existential connotation. In the case of metaphors, this kind of
connotation works on the level of words, which refer to concrete objects.
2) Social connotation – a semantic structure constructed to express certain attitudes or
appreciations. Particularly, kinship metaphors like “parent, father, mother, son, child, sister” or
hierarchy metaphors like “slave, master, servant” highlight social connotations based on social
and kinship relations.
3) Moral connotation – is connected with social sphere, where there is a certain attitude
determined by ethics of a certain period of time. This type of connotation gave birth to such
metaphors as “snake, beast” and other which reveal negative features of human character.
4) Emotional connotation – which expresses more subjective attitudes. Together with
moral connotation it expresses implicitly speaker’s intention to communicate, which is correctly
understood by the interlocutor.
Having enumerated the types of connotations, it will be useful to show the effects and
relations it produces in the framework of the metaphor.
E. Slave is the one who offers the material and theoretical basis for the study of the nature
of connotation. She considers that the same semantic field contains a lot of variations, which are
21

translated into the figurative field. The lexical material is considered from the point of view of
logical and figurative connotation. Thus, some of the metaphors do not contain a connotative
appreciation, being neutral, when their logical meaning is used. Others have a positive or
negative connotation, but it can change according to the context and wish of the author.
Further comes the complete list of possible correspondences between the semantic and
figurative fields as far as it concerns the formation and essence of metaphors.
1) Positive – positive; origin -> cradle
2) Positive – neutral;– characteristic feature -> perfume.
3) Positive – negative; fear -> chill
4) Neutral – neutral; sphere of activity -> field
5) Neutral – positive; important event -> page
6) Neutral – negative; talkative woman -> magpie
7) Negative – negative; moral pain -> wound
8) Negative – neutral; a compact crowd of beings -> cloud
9) Negative – positive; enthusiasm -> delirium
This enumeration of various figurative meanings proves the complexity of connotative
effects and the various classifications presented in this section illustrates the complexity of the
phenomenon of metaphor.
1.5 Functions and Roles of Metaphor
The origins and functions of metaphor are closely interconnected. In the above-mentioned
work, T.Vianu tries to point out the connection between the first original functions of this trope
and its later functions. The answer to this question is found in G. Vico’s works [38; 36] . Vianu
considers Vico the modern founder of the philosophy of metaphor. Defining the origin of the
trope, he also states some reasons for its emergence. For the Italian thinker, metaphor appeared
as an adequate tool of an animist mentality (as it was mentioned before). It could have the power
to correct the lacks of first human languages.
Thus, Vianu distinguishes 4 basic functions of the metaphor:
1) philosophical
2) psychological
3) aesthetical

4) of liberation
22
The philosophical function is traditionally considered the most important, so that’s why
we shall dwell more upon the details of this function. The essence of this function relies in the
relationship between the metaphoric and philosophic notions.
Quoting a German thinker, Alfred Biese, T. Vianu asserts that the role of the metaphor in
the field of philosophy resides in the endless metaphoric transfers of the language to mind’s
system of notions, bringing colour to it.
Philosophy abunds in metaphoric processes. For example, Hegel considered that the laws
of universal development are nothing but human intelligence’s own laws, this being a
metaphoric analogy. Thus, he places antropocentrism in the field of philosophy. Vico considered
that the human spirit thinks metaphorically only in its initial phase, the prephilosophical one. But
Biese added that even philosophy couldn’t exist without metaphors and that personifying
analogies are tools of cognition even in philosophy’s most complex operations.
On the other hand Vianu criticizes Biese because he seems not to make a difference
between a metaphor and a personification. The above-mentioned notion of antropocentrism is
thought to be directly connected with metaphor.
Personifying analogy did play an important part in the formation of the first conceptions of
human spirit, although not an exclusive part. Later, the metaphor lost its old importance, when
the spirit moved on to other domains of the universe. Today, the emergence of personifications
in new conceptions is considered to be a spiritual archaism.
There even was a philosophical work that treated the role of the metaphor in philosophy. It
was “The Two Great Metaphors Of Philosophy” by Jose Ortega y Gasset. Unlike Biese, Ortega
does not treat only personifying metaphors. He possesses a different conception of metaphor
according to which, the terms that replace each other during the process of metaphoric transfer
are accompanied by the awareness of their own discrepancy.
Ortega, quoted by Vianu, also states a function proper of the metaphor: “We use the
metaphor in order not only to make our thoughts comprehensible for others by means of using
signs. Metaphor is essential for the ability to think of certain difficult objects. It is more than a
means of expression: it is an essential means of cognition.” [38; 44]

What is more important, Ortega establishes an interesting difference between poetic and
scientific metaphor. The first one, poetic metaphor, contains a pleasant exaggeration, which
makes a strong appeal to our fancy. Whereas the scientific metaphor appears when the spirit
retains only necessary features from the identity of two objects. It happens when these necessary
characteristics are needed to perceive some phenomena, which otherwise would be impossible to
23
perceive. Thus, he concludes that the poetic metaphor performs a progress from less to more
information, whereas the scientific metaphor, vice versa, goes from more to less.
The two fundamental metaphors examined by Ortega y Gasset and endlessly studied by
cognition theories were the following: the metaphor of consciousness as a board (tabula), where
the impressions are recorded and the metaphor of consciousness as a vessel, where ideas are
gathered in content. If metaphor can help the spirit during the process of cognition, then it can
progress to replace one metaphor by another, or even to give up using any metaphor and discover
the reality only by notional means.
All the rest of the functions consist in the following:
The psychological function resides in the fact that there are common points between such
mental forms as dreams and symbols, and metaphor. They have a similar structure as both of
them establish connections between two planes, amd both are symbols.
The aesthetical function can be reduced to the much dwelled upon before ornamental
function.It means that metaphor is a means to perceive and penetrate the world of the beauty of
language.
The function of liberation is similar to the cathartic or purification function of art in
general. In a similar way, metaphor realizes a purification and a liberation of the writer that
creates it by creating an aesthetic value.
But still, despite the opinions of the classical theories, the philosophic function of
metaphor, in our opinion, represents the utmost value, as metaphor represents a means of
cognition of reality and of human mental models. It helps us to understand the abstract structure
of the mind’s representations.
24
CHAPTER II: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Metaphors in Dan

Brown’s Novels
The purpose of the given chapter is to analyse the 150 examples selected from D.
Brown’s novels “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels & Demons” according to such criteria as
structure, semantics, part of speech attribution, and novelty, as well as to complete this grouping
with a commentary referring to the stylistic function and colouring of these metaphors.
Before we proceed to the two types of analysis, it would be crucial to mention that it was
rather difficult to identify and collect metaphors in the two novels under research. This is due to
the fact that the novels are postmodern in style and trend, and the language employed in them –
though quite standard – is far from what one usually expects in a literary work. The frequency of
various stylistic devices occurring is very low, as contemporary readers are much keener to
accessible, not-typically-literary type of language in literature. That might be one of the major
reasons why Dan Brown’s novels have become bestsellers – due to the fascination they excite in
the reader, and – not in the least – due to the accessibility of language.
2.1 Analysis of Metaphors in “The Da Vinci Code”
The total number of metaphors collected from the novel “The Da Vinci Code” was 100.
These were classified according to the following criteria:
- according to the part of speech (as suggested by linguist E. Slave)
- according to novelty (as suggested by linguist I. R. Galperin)
- according to structure (also suggested by I. R.Galperin)
- according to the presence of departure and arrival terms (after E. Slave)
Further a detailed analysis of metaphors grouped under the above-mentioned criteria and
their corresponding groups can be found. The analytical comments will refer not only to the
criterion that the metaphor will be classified under, but to the stylistic effect and connotations
that it creates, as well.
2.1.1 Metaphors classified according to the part of speech
• Nominal metaphors
25