Likewise, Aristotle considered metaphors a sign of language mastery and genius, but he also deemed them ornamental, appropriate for poetry but too enigmatic for philosophical or scientific discourse. On the contrary, Max Black articulated an influential alternative to traditional views of understanding metaphors. Having rejected Aristotle’s comparison as too simplistic, Black argued that metaphor is a communicative phenomenon operating not at the level of mere word meaning, but at the (ostensibly) deeper level of conceptual structure. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) put forward that metaphors establish the modal method through which the mind represents concepts that are not sensorial or perceptual in nature. Their conclusion is:

“Metaphor pervades our normal conceptual system. Because so many of the concepts that are important to us are either abstract or not clearly delineated in our experience (the emotions, ideas, time) we need to get a grasp on them by means of other concepts that we understand in clearer terms (spatial orientation, objects). This need leads to metaphorical definition in our conceptual system” (1980, 115).

Conceptual Metaphor has been the prime concern for translation scholars, academicians, and students. Scholars have tried to map and analyze conceptual metaphorical aspects in poetry and novels for a long time. But somehow, they face a series of confusions regarding the meanings of some conceptual metaphorical phrases. As Newmark (1988) holds, whilst the central problem of translation is the overall choice of a translation method for a text, the most important particular problem is the translation of metaphor. Conceptual Metaphor is often fully employed in literary texts and it is regarded as a challenge to ESL students and academicians.

According to Tone Aksberg Bjerkmo Johansen (2007), the process that constitutes a conceptual metaphor is when the knowledge of one field is epitomized onto another field. Conceptual Metaphors are normally used when expressions that represent our thoughts in a conventional way are being systematically used in everyday language. An example of conceptual metaphor is a metaphoric concept such as “Theories are buildings,” where we can partially conceptualize “Theories” in terms of “Buildings.” According to Lakoff and Johnson, metaphor has the tendency to highlight and hide certain aspects of the target concept. Another example is “A relationship is a journey,” which ascertains that the metaphor is measuring the progress in a relationship, but it does not give any idea of how this progress can be achieved. Metaphor is only a partial mapping as “not all the features of the source have analogs in the target,”

According to Apps (1995), metaphors have proven useful after examining different approaches to learning in adult education. Young (1996) states that, “Metaphors form visual constructs through which we associate, interpret and organize thought. They dominate and delimit our consideration of experience and phenomena. Because one’s metaphor of teaching and learning interacts with fundamental issues such as the nature of knowledge and the nature of persons, it impinges directly on the way pedagogical decisions are made” (p. 79).

Postman and Weingartner (1969) suggested that many adult educators conceptualize teaching and learning through the use of metaphors. Winner and Engel (1980) used a matching task where the classification of one item in terms of recurring similarity to another item was scored as metaphorical. Furthermore, Vosniadou and Ortony (1983) asked their participants to complete similarity statements, including similes. The expressions tested “were often constructed idiosyncratic metaphorical expressions instead of actual natural language expressions.”

Waggoner, Messe, and Palermo (1985) found out that the recollection and the construction of meaning for both literal and metaphorical expressions depends on the supporting contexts, such as extended and appropriately structured stories. Stones (1989) used short stories with familiar concrete nominal metaphors as targets and he found out that participants perform better when they are asked to paraphrase rather than explain the meaning of the metaphor. However, this has one drawback for children, as the meta-cognitive abilities that paraphrasing required usually develop late in childhood. Thus, such reasons could prevent participants from scoring well in the task.

For students who do not have a cultural orientation of the western background, metaphors from English Linguistics or English Literature textbooks might create confusion. According to Brown, “cultural knowledge” is too vast to teach in the context of English Literature, thus, ESL students should be taught “explicit strategies for making inferences from language” (1990, 11-17). Furthermore, Murray (1985, 7) states that without the inculcation of such strategies, students will interpret the texts according to their own background. Murray’s recommendations are based on the “Schema Theory” (Adams Collins 1979), which is the body of research into reading comprehension. According to Adams and Collins (1979), a schema can be characterized as an “abstract knowledge structure” in the memory and it functions by interpreting, storing, and retrieving new information. This theory concludes that texts on their own do not provide meanings, but rather they direct to readers the construct meaning based on what they have acquired previously.

References

• (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Ed.). Retrieved June 23, 2007, from Dictionary.com website.
• Kaal, Anna Albertha. 2012. Metaphor in conversation. VU University Amsterdam.
• Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, George. 1993. Metaphor and Thought. 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press.
• Lakoff, George and Turner, Mark. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, George. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor.” In A. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought. (pp. 202-251) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [second edition]
• Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. “Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language.” (Vol. 7). The Journal of Philosophy.
• McGlone, Matthew S. 2006. What is the explanatory value of conceptual metaphor? The University of Texas.
• Erna. 1996. “The limits of literal meaning.” Danish Yearbook of Philosophy.
• Pierson, Cheri. 2008. “Reflections on Educational Metaphors for Teaching English as a Second Language to Adult Learners.” (Vol.17). PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning.
• Short, Mick. 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. Longman.
• Van, Engen Robert B. 2008. Metaphor: A Multifaceted Literary Device used by Morgan and Weick to Describe Organizations. (Vol. 1). Regent University.
• Winberg, Christine. 1994. The comprehension of figurative language in English literary texts. Rhodes University.

A:

“They are utterly deaf, dumb, and blind; they can no longer recover.” (Al-Baqarah, 2:18)

“They are deaf, dumb and blind, and so they have no understanding of (what is said to them).” (Al-Baqarah, 2:171)

One of the above verses is about hypocrites; and the other is about unbelievers. As clearly expressed in these verses, the state of hypocrites and unbelievers are considered as equal to being deaf, dumb, and blind in their difficulty to digest the truth, in the way they view events, and in their injustice. However, the two verses differ in their essence: one of them implies for these groups inability to find their original disposition (fitrat al-asliya) and former state of being, while in the other verse there is an emphasis on failure in using their reason. What joins these groups in their common deafness, dumbness, and blindness is the fact that both cannot evaluate truly the “book of the universe,” a book laid out before their very eyes in the form of an exhibition so that they can find out about the Almighty Creator; they cannot analyze the cosmos comprehensively, nor can they interpret events by reading between the lines. They do not give the slightest importance to the books, nor do they lend a listening ear to their conscience.

If they had made good use of the books and their conscience, then they would have been able to testify to the truth-as the believers do-by using their intelligence. This way they would also have returned to their original innate nature; as a result, they would have lived their lives according to God’s commands and prohibitions. Truly, they are deaf because, while every creature in the universe announces the existence of God in its unique tongue, they are incapable of hearing that. They are dumb because they are incapable of acknowledging what they feel in their inner consciousness. They are blind because they cannot see the ways which lead humans to the truth of God’s existence and His oneness.

To consider more deeply these verses, “La ya’qilun” is used for the unbelievers, meaning that they do not use their intelligence and they do not actually think. As a matter of fact, if they had taken time to think, then they could have found the ways leading to faith easily. Indeed, the obstinate unbelievers of the city of Mecca had persecuted the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, and his companions for long years. Yet, when they truly recognized how Muslims were and how they lived in an environment of peace after the Hudaybiya Treaty, the unbelievers turned their heads towards the right path saying, “We have been in great error!” For such a level of realization to be possible for unbelievers is largely dependent on their endeavor to think and to make a rational assessment of the situation; thus, the Qur’an concludes the verse about unbelievers with the expression “La ya’qilun.”

The Qur’an describes the hypocrites as follows: “Vacillating between (the believers) and (the unbelievers), neither with these, nor with those” (An-Nisa 4:143). In other words, they frequently go from one place to the other; they represent being deprived of light both in their vision and in their conscience. In addition, as they limit their lives to this world, they have been living in indifference and recklessness in this world. Belief and unbelief do not make any difference to them; they desire to live in a place where the living standards are high and where they become comfortable. Hence, they even go to the masjid and pray when necessary; nevertheless, they pray ostentatiously and lazily, as the Qur’an says: “When they rise to do the Prayer, they rise lazily, and to be seen by people (to show them that they are Muslims); and they do not remember God (within or outside the Prayer) save a little” (An-Nisa 4:142). This demonstrates that the hypocrites, in one sense, keep living in an Islamic way and they even follow the Prophet; nonetheless, they are still far from seeing the truth because their hearts are veiled and their thoughts are far from faith and sincerity.

Therefore, the biggest problem of the hypocrites is their insincerity. Accordingly, the Qur’an uses the expression, “La yarjiun” -“they cannot return to the truth and the purity that they originally had”-for the hypocrites as a characteristic. Also, the verses in chapter Al-Munafiqun (The Hypocrites) are concluded either as “La ya’lamun” -“They do not know”- or “La yafqahun” -“They do not understand.” Expressions like “La a’qilun, la yatafaqqarun” -“They do not consider, they do not think”-are not used for hypocrites because those expressions are the attributes of unbelievers.