Enrique Bernárdez Sanchís
Simile: Its Use and Function in Musil's
Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften
Simile is not frequently studied in the cognitive sciences. And in the
existing literature there is seldom any consideration of its
communicative, textual functions. In this paper I offer a review of the
main existing bibliography on the topic and then analyse the use,
functions and meanings of similes in Robert Musil's novel Der Mann ohne
Eigenschtrftcn, in order to identify their main features in a real text and
their difference with respect to metaphor. The conclusions show that
simile and metaphor behave differently in real texts: the former is an
element of the text itself at both the conceptual-semantic and the
linguistic, narrative levels.
CORRESPONDENCE: Enrique Bernárdez. Dept. Filologia Inglesa I. Universidad
Complutense de Madrid, Spain; EMAIL: [email protected]
Introduction
Simile has not been the object of systematic scientific scrutiny in recent
decades, as Addison (1993: 402) writes: "Litde has been written specifically
about simile in modern times. [...] Nearly all discussion of simile is subordinated
to the much more popular topic of metaphor". In fact, this is not entirely true,
as there has been a number of books and papers devoted to simile in such areas
as classical studies (Ready 2008; García Jurado 2007; Castillo Bejarano 2000;
Salvador Castillo, 1994; Nimis 1987) and studies on individual literary authors
(Wicht 1984).
These pages are devoted to an overview of the notion of simile from a
cognitive perspective, both in itself and in its relation to metaphor. In order to
understand simile in a contextual, communicative perspective, a real text is used
as our corpus: Robert Musil's Der Mann ohne Eigenschafien (DMoE; The man
without qualities), a novel famous (among so many other things!) for its extremely
numerous similes, metaphors and other forms of figurative language.
The first part of this paper will review the main proposals concerning the
difference between metaphor and simile, mainly those in a cognitive
framework. The second part will analyse the use and role of similes in the first
two books of DMoE. Finally, the conclusions will try to refine the criteria for
the differentiation of simile and metaphor.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
Cognitive Semiotics, Issue 6 (Spring 2010), pp. 61-84
62 I E. BERNÁRDEZ SANCHiS
1. Metaphor and simile in cognitive studies
Whereas conceptual metaphor is an intensely studied topic, and has been
without any interruption since the early 1980's, simile is practically absent from
cognitive studies. The main journal in the field, Cognitive Linguistics, has never
published a paper with simile as its main or secondary topic. One of the best
known introductions to the discipline devotes only five pages to the difference
between metaphor and simile (Croft & Cruse 2004: 211-216). The traditional,
but never undisputed view considers both to be basically the same
phenomenon (Addison 1993), metaphor being simply an implicit, not explicidy
marked comparison (my neighbour is like a lion —• my neighbour is a Hon), Croft and
Cruse see simile and metaphor as two distinct phenomena and point to the
following differences:
1. The scope of the correspondences between domains is much more
restricted in simile because the precise sense in which the comparison is
established is usually specified. Metaphor, in contrast, lacks such restrictions.
2. The prototypical metaphor is a blend of the two domains, which in simile
are kept distinct (Croft y Cruse 2004: 213).
These authors, however, emphasise the existence of many unclear cases,
generally concerning non-prototypical metaphors. But as the majority of
metaphors 'in use' are seldom prototypical, the distinction they put forward is
far from clear and cannot be expected to be too useful.
On the other hand, some recent papers have analysed the differences
between both notions and reached some conclusions supported by the
methods of experimental psychology. As Aisenman (1999: 49) points out:
The use of similes and metaphors is not accidental Speakers make their choices
in full awareness of the distinct function of each construction. They realize that
communicating resemblance through metaphor, which is in fact an assertion of
identity, commits one far more than using a simile that contains the hedging
term like and so is more restricted in the degree of similarity it can suggest
In an experiment that measured response times to metaphor and simile,
Aisenman found that metaphors are much more rapidly understood than
similes, and he interprets this in terms of Conceptual Metaphor Theory
(although he only makes reference to Lakoff & Johnson 1980): metaphor
would be a general tool of our thinking and consequently its processing would
be more rapid. Similar results were achieved by Johnson (1996). But this
rapidity of the response could also be due to the 'fossilized' character of many
metaphors, which are therefore processed in a non-metaphorical way: Le.,
comparison or even the presence of two distinct domains plays no role. This
seems never to be the case in simile. According to Aisenman, simile would be
cognitively 'marked', as opposed to metaphor that would be primary, universal
and general, both in thinking and in language. But it could be objected that the
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
SIMILE I 6 3
primary character of metaphor cannot be taken for granted in a historical view
of language: metaphors may have been derived from similes, as the traditional
views would have it, and the change from simile to metaphor could be an
equivalent of the grammadcalisation process. Nilsen (1986) finds a weaker
'tension' in simile than in metaphor. Swanson (1979: 165; quoted in Nilsen
1986: 128) wrote that "[a] simile is usually less potent tan a metaphor simply
because it is a true statement It is not a provocation to correction, invention,
and discovery." And Nilsen (ibid) concludes that "[a] metaphor therefore
causes more tension than does a simile because it requires the reader to
'correct, invent, and discover'." He also points out that metaphor is essentially a
matter of emotional intensity, whereas simile is rather a matter of truth-value.
This difference is probable right for very simple similes and metaphors
analysed in absence of any context or communicative situation. In their literary
use, however, this distinction does not seem to hold, and the same can be said
of many similes in the colloquial language. Comparing, as Robert Musil did,
youth friendships with an egg1 does not seem to be 'true' in any real sense;
neither is the simile that compares a woman's eyes with the 'rapid fire of a
Browning' (Bernárdez 2009a). T. S. Eliot's famous simile in "The Love Song of
J. Alfred Prufirock": when the evening is spread out against the sky / like a patient
etherised upon a table (Addison 1993: 409) or Virginia Woolf s The sun [...] rested
like the tip of afan upon a white blind (Bernárdez in print) have very litde to do with
truth values.
A brief note on the importance of the context is probably convenient at this
stage. All similes in DMoE can be disambiguated by the context in which they
are inserted: they are not only to be understood in general, abstract, acontextual
terms (but: does language exist at all in such general, abstract, acontextual
terms?). Quite frequendy, certain elements present in the simile are further
developed in the following co-text (to use Teun van Dijk's generally accepted
term). This is not true, however, of most of the metaphors in DMoE (or
Woolf s The Waves), which can be understood in the absence of any context, i.e.,
in purely cognitive terms2. That is, the context always plays a basic role in (non1
2
[...] ]ugndfrtundschaften [...] Hnd WIE ein Ei, das... (youth friendships are like an egg that..) (54).
All translations are by EB and their only purpose is to make things easier for readers who
cannot understand German. They follow the original as closely as possible and cannot thus
be expected to be elegant or even fully idiomatic English. The translations play no role
whatsoever in the argument, which is exclusively based on the German text That also is the
reason why no published translation of Musil's novel is used; as is well known in translation
theory, there are too many factors interfering with the literal' rendering of expressions in the
original language. Thus, published translations are seldom of much use in linguistic analyses,
and whenever they may be necessary to use, they have to be handled with a lot of care. I
prefer not to comment on the (dangerous, wrong) practice of taking a translated text as the
full-and-simple linguistic equivalent of the original text in a different language.
I doubt, however, that anything cognitive can ever be interpreted in the absence of a certain
type of context: embodied cognition, for instance, already includes a certain context (the
body itself and its surrounding), not to speak of situated, distributed or syneigic/socioUnauthenticated
histotic cognition, which imply the existence of much more specialised and
precise contexts.
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
64 I E. BERNÁRDEZ SANCHlS
conventional, Le. in most) similes, whereas this is not necessarily the case in
metaphor.
Similes may be able to establish much more 'far-fctched' and daring
comparisons than metaphors3 and they could thus be seen as possessing a
higher 'tension' than metaphor, as is evident in DMoE; the direct reference to a
context is probably responsible for this fact Musil's simile above cannot readily
be changed into a metaphor without seriously disturbing intelligibility. A simile
like Jugendfreundschtrfkn sind wie ein Ei makes explicit the need of some possible
tertium comparationis, which in fact is added by the writer himself, thus facilitating
the reader's task to process it But things can also be seen differendy: a simile is
not easier because it is followed by a specification; it is rather that the
comparisons in a simile are usually so far-fetched that correct processing or
understanding is not feasible without that specific information. Obviously, the
use of a metaphor would be even more daring, but probably so much so that
the reader would have great difficulties in trying to process it: Jugenfreundscbafien
sind ein Ei would lack any plausible interpretation, even more so by the lack of
any additional specifying information. Simile, being so powerful in its ability to
create unexpected, improbable comparisons, Le., mappings between two
domains, could also be seen as a more powerful tool than metaphor, since it
licences extremely far-fetched comparisons while allowing adequate
interpretation, as the reader can make use of much necessary information. As
most analyses of simile as opposed to metaphore consider mainly, if not
exclusively, simple, rather conventionalised and stereotyped similes (their
neighbour is like a ¿ion) in complete absence of any context or communicative
intention, their results may bear little resemblance with things as they occur in
reality.
Some proposals for differentiation
In a number of papers, Dan Chiappe and John Kennedy discuss the similarities
and differences between metaphor and simile. In a first paper (Kennedy &
Chiappe 1999: 68) they point out that the so firequendy mentioned higher
strength of metaphor over simile is only true in 'corrections', i.e., constructions
of the type: it is notjust like a banana, it h a banana, where the degree of similarity
is manifestly higher in metaphor.
In a second paper (Chiappe & Kennedy 2001: 249) they propose to
understand the difference in terms of degrees of similarity: speakers opt for
metaphor if that degree is high, for simile whenever the similarity is lower. They
explain that "in literal language, the categorical form (That is an apple) is used
when there are many common properties, whereas the similarity form (That is
like an apple) is used when there are few common properties."
3
A Spanish comedian, Gila, changed the traditional metaphor TEETH ARE PEARLS into a much
more dating (and funny) simile: That lady's teeth wen tike pearls: scarce.Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
SIMILE I 65
Their third article (Chiappe, Kennedy, Smykowski 2003) tests the essential
or secondary character of the difference between metaphor and simile Their
conclusion is that both are different phenomena, as simile compares while
metaphor categorises. In his historical analysis of the topic, Addison (1993) also
reaches very similar conclusions: metaphor and simile are different phenomena
that occupy extreme positions within one continuum4.
Another paper (Chiappe, Kennedy y Chiappe 2003) analyses the difference
in terms of what they call aptness, "although comparisons have to be
comprehensible to be proper metaphors or similes, aptness is more important
in determining whether a comparison is preferred as a metaphor or as a simile"
(51). The notion is defined in the following terms: "the extent to which a
comparison captures important features of the topic" (52). This can be seen as
their main, final conclusion in the identification of differences separating simile
and metaphor.
An obvious objection to this view lies in the impossibility of defining 'once
and for all' which features of a topic are important and which are not This has
to be made in an aprioristic fashion unless due attention is paid to the real use
of a simile or a metaphor. Brandt & Brandt (2005) showed how there is no
single, general, abstract meaning of a metaphor like My surgeon is a butcher, we
need to look at the conditions of its use, the intentions of the speaker, etc. The
same is necessary in any attempt to decipher the differences, in conceptual
terms but inextricably also in use.
In opposition to these proposals, Utsumi (2007: 291) sees interpretive diversity
as the best explanation for the difference:
Interpretive diversity refers to the semantic richness of the figurative
interpretation of a topic-vehicle pair and is determined depending on both the
number of features involved in the interpretation and the uniformity of salience
distribution of those features. The interpretive diversity view predicts that
interpretively more diverse pairs should be easier to comprehend via a
categorization process, and thus the preference for and the relative
comprehensibility of metaphor form should be greater.
This author also mentions the existence of a continuum reaching from dead
metaphors that are not processed metaphorically, to novel metaphors within a
well-established metaphorical domain, such as the now famous we're spinning our
wheels, to completely novel metaphors inscribed in equally novel metaphoric
domains, as seems to be the case for some discourse metaphors (cf. Zinken
Hellsten & Neriich 2008). As in previous attempts, the confrontation with the
4
One has to keep in mind that metaphor and metonymy are also seen as points along a
continuum. Might it be that a multidimensional approach could show that simile, metaphor,
and metonymy occupy different but interconnecting areas or spaces in a three- or more
dimensional space? We are much too limited by the usual, bidimensional way of looking at
things. Unfortunately, the space available here does not allow for an adequate treatment of
Unauthenticated
this hypothesis.
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
66 I E. BERNÁRDEZ SANCHiS
real use of similes in running texts does not seem to conform to Utsumi's
proposal·
Glucksberg & Haught (2006) compare simile and metaphor on the basis of
their own studies on the understanding of metaphors (1990, 1999). Their
results are rather odd, in my opinion. They write: "In comparison form, the
metaphor vehicle refers to the literal concept, e.g. 'in my lawyer is like a shark',
the term 'shark' refers to the literal fish. In categorical form, 'my lawyer is a
shark', 'shark' refers to an abstract (metaphorical) category of predatory
creatures." I will no further consider their analysis which, on the one hand,
repeats some of the criteria that have already been seen and, on the other hand,
seems rather at odds with my own results. They propose as an alternative to the
career-of-metaphor hypothesis their own "quality-of metaphor hypothesis.
Really good metaphors work best as categorizations, and sometimes work only
as categorization assertions (like the well-paid shark* example). In such
metaphors, the vehicle concept is an ideal and salient exemplar of the category
it represents. Poor or limited metaphors might well work best as comparisons,
even when highly conventional" (375).
Summing up, the following criteria for differentiation have been identified:
Reference
Nilsen (based on
Swanson)
Metaphor
More potent:
receiver's effort necessary
Simile or comparison
Less potent; positive
truth value
Kennedy & Chiappe
1999
Stronger in corrections
Chiappe & Kennedy
2001
Higher similarity degree
Lower similarity
Chiappe, Kennedy &
Smykowski 2003
Function: categorising
Function: comparing
Chiappe, Kennedy y
Chiappe 2003
Higher aptness
Lower aptness
Utsumi 2007
Higher interpretive diversity
Lower interpretive diverúty
Table 1. Metaphor vs. simile.
Recategorisation, metaphor, and simile
It is usually said that the main function of metaphor is categorising, as opposed
to the function of simile, which is simply comparing. That is, in the metaphor
my neighbour is a lion, the neighbour would go over —figuratively— from the
category [human being) to the category [lion]; this does not
happen in the simile
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
SIMILE I 67
my neighbour is like a Hon which is only a matter of comparison. O f course this
cannot be taken literally, as Brandt (2003: 75) clearly points out:
Den prsedikative formel· A er Β betyder [...] ikke, at A rekategoriseres som Β,
men at A, der rigtignok slet ikke er Β, i det mindste i en besternt samenhxng
beskrives eller behandles passende ved en deskription eller adfaerd, der
forholder sig til Β. Det flyder kognitivt set en "inferens" fra Β til A. (The
predicative formula A is Β [...] does not mean that A is recategorised as B, but
that A, which is not B, is described or treated, at least in a certain sense, in
accordance to a description or method that is related to B. An 'inference' from
Β on A is cognitively established).
Differentiating metaphor and simile seems more difficult in this view that in the
preceding ones, which simplified the picture too much. Obviously, my neighbour
is a lion does not imply that my neighbour has even cognitively passed over
from the genus [homo] to the genus [felix], but only that a certain part, aspect
or property of my neighbour can be seen as somehow similar to some part,
aspect or property we deem typical of lions: it is always a salient or relevant
property which plays a role in metaphor (cfr. Bowdle & Gentner 2005: 194). O f
course, the relevance of that property cannot be identified and explained except
in real use (Brandt & Brandt 2005).
Asymmetry of the mapping
An important common feature of metaphor and simile is the existence of two
domains and a non-reversible mapping from one onto the other: my neighbour is
(tike) a Hon cannot be easily changed into the lion is like my neighbour, except in
very specific situations: for instance, if my partner and I know our neighbour
well and share certain feelings about him, the sight of a lion can lead to the
assertion that lion is (like) our neighbour, pointing exactly to the same features we
refer to in the first sentence above. It would be a case of profiling: in the first
example we profile the neighbour and see those elements in his character that
could also be found in a lion. In the second case it is just the other way round,
as we are finding in the animal features we know in our neighbour. This lack of
symmetry is included in the standard definitions of metaphor: "[a]
(conventional) metaphor is [...] a conceptual mapping between two domains.
The mapping is asymmetrical, however: the metaphorical expression profiles a
conceptual structure in the target domain, not the source domain" (Croft &
Cruse 2004:196).
The same asymmetry is found in simile: the Target Domain is made more
precise, or a new facet of it is enhanced, by means of the information provided
by the Source Domain, which is probably more conceptually accessible. Only
one, in simile usually very specific part of the Source Domain is profiled, which
is mapped onto an equally limited part of the Target Domain. Let us briefly
consider an example in DMoE. In reference to the murderer, Moosbrugger,
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
68 Ι E. BERNÁRDEZ SANCHlS
who is trying to think, the following simile is used (47): Es gbt solche Gedanken,
die wit Bindfaden sind (there are thoughts that are like strings). The following
mapping is established:
SD T D
strings —• thoughts5
The mapping does not affect the whole of the SD but only that part that the
creator or user of the simile sees as possessing special significance for his/her
communicative purpose. In this case, it is those strings that sich in endlosen
Schlingen um Arme und Beine legen (get twisted up around arms and legs). At the
same time, only a certain facet of the TD is affected by the comparison; in this
case, Moosbrugger's feeling that his thoughts are tangled up.
SOURCE DOMAIN
TARGET DOMAIN
α
A: Conceptual Domain
STRINGS —• TANGLED UP
B: Conceptual Domain
THOUGHTS —• TANGLED UP
Figure 1. Mappings between domains in simile.
Simile in communication
Reference has already been made to the need to include real contexts in a
consideration of simile as it is used in communication, i.e., in real text, in
discourse. Generally speaking, Conceptual Metaphor Theory has not taken into
account the real conditions of the use of metaphor; that is, communication is
seldom, if ever, included in the picture (Bernárdez 2008a, b, 2009b; Geeraerts
2002). Kövecses (2008: 182) writes on this issue:
5
To be read thus: "The semantic and conceptual Source Domain (strings) helps us identify,
understand or highlight some significant feature of the semantic and conceptual Target
Unauthenticated
Domain (thoughts)".
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
SIMILE I 69
[M]etaphofical conceptualization does not simply and merely utilize readymade and/or universal metaphors. The pressure of context is another
inevitable component in the use of metaphors. Our effort to be coherent with
the local context may be an important tool in understanding the use of
metaphor in natural discourse. This aspect of metaphor use has so far
remained outside the interest and, indeed, the competence of "traditional"
conceptual metaphor theory.
That is, he overtly recognises the need to take into consideration the use of
metaphor, not only the conceptual mappings involved which establish some
kind of limited identity at the conceptual leveL Whenever one tries to study
metaphors or similes in real texts, communication factors cannot be left aside.
The 'meaning' of a simile, in the case of this paper, can only be ascertained
when communicative, contextual, and pragmatic factors are given due attention.
That is also what Brandt & Brandt (2005) do when proposing to enlarge the set
of spaces employed in blending theory with some new ones: a semiotic base
space, a reference and representation space, a relevance space, and a meaning
space. They write: "[A] base space, or a discourse base space, is a representation
of the speaker's act of engaging in meaning construction. It is the saying of what
is being said, the very act of signifying" (225). Of course, this central idea has
been around for many decades in many schools of linguistic thinking, but it
appears to be necessary to repeat it again and again: linguistic elements do not
exist in isolation of their real use (and not only their usage, see Bernárdez (2009b)
on this particular distinction and its consequences). And Brandt & Brandt
(2005: 219) put it exceptionally clear.
What the metaphor means is what it is intended to mean in a particular situation
where it is uttered by someone; our claim here is that it does not have intrinsic
meanings outside of its actual use. The utterer, the "sense maker", intends to
share some content of thought with an addressee in a semiotic exchange. This
semantic content, which is inherently intersubjective, borne of the speaker's
intention to have the addressee recognize his utterance as an attempt to engage
in a semiotic event of shared attention, as well as its pragmatic implications (its
status as a communicative act), constitute the meaning of the metaphor.
In a similar vein, Harris, Friel & Mickelson (2006) point to the context and their
function in discourse as an essential factor in the choice of metaphor or simile.
Functions of simile and metaphor in Steen's three-dimensional model
Steen's (2004; 2008: 231) "three-dimensional model of metaphor" proposes the
following functions of simile:
•
The linguistic function of metaphor is to fill lexical (and other formal) gaps
in the language system {metaphor in language)·, we may want to call this naming.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
70 I E. BERNARDEZ SANCHlS
• The conceptual function of metaphor is to offer conceptual frameworks for
concepts that require at least partial indirect understanding (metaphor in
thought); we may want to call this framing.
• The communicative function of metaphor is to produce an alternative
perspective on a particular referent or topic in a message (metaphor in
communication)·,we may want to call this perspective changing, or simply changing.
Simile fits into the second and third functions, probably privileging
communication. The linguistic function does not seem to play any significant
role because, as pointed out above, the complete grammaticalisation or
lexicalisation of similes is probably a very rare phenomenon, leading only to
idioms of the type 'as drunk as a lord' which, however, fully keep their
comparative component Metaphors, on the other hand, can be entirely
grammaticalised and such lexical elements are then not identifiably metaphoric
any more: the English word house, for instance, has a metaphoric or métonymie
origin if we attend to its Indo-European origins, but only etymology is able to
uncover it. This same reason explains why simile cannot fit in Bowdle and
Centner's (2005) 'career of metaphor hypothesis' which also purports to
explain how a metaphor can begin its life as a novel metaphor, processed as
such, and end up as a non metaphorically processed lexical item. There does
not seem to exist any comparable 'career of simile hypothesis'6, as similes are
not fully conventionalised and they probably never end up as simple lexical
items.
Similes are, as said, only very seldom, if ever, lexicalised. The reason for this
behaviour has still to be accounted for. On the one hand, it is still possible to
see metaphors as derived from older similes; this, however, cannot be taken for
granted but studied in detail using the available historical resources. The same
holds for the universal character of similes and their functioning: we just do not
know whether certain types of simile are more or less universal, and in which
sense, unless the topic is duly studied. Let me give a single example. In classic
Nahuatl, the suffix -po means that something is similar to the noun preceding
the suffix: moHwàpo is then 'a woman like you' (-siwâ- 'woman' -po 'like' mo'you', in a verbal construction, mo- being the subject). This construction can be
expanded as much as you like and the result would be 'similar to a simile', e.g.
tétl ükóyopo 'a stone is like a coyote'7. This suffix is very probably the
grammaticalisation of a noun: potli, 'comrade' (393) or, more generally,
'something that is the equal of, just like the very word like is a derivative of an
Old Germanic word meaning 'body'. These could be examples of complete
6
7
This has to be taken with a lot of precaution: it would be necessary to undertake a historical
crosslinguistic study in order to see whether it is in fact the case. Germanic adjectival
constructions with -!ik/ -¡ich could perhaps be seen as possible grammaticalisations of original
simile constructions.
To follow the procedure I am criticising here, this example is my own, created just for the
occasion. As for /mosiwäpo/, it has been adapted from Garibay 1970: 57. Of course he uses
Unauthenticated
the habitual, Spanish-based spelling, <mocihuapo>.
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
SIMILE I 71
conventionalisation, leading to grammaticalisation of a 'simile-like'
construction. But much research has still to be done before we are able to
understand the universality of simile and its possible ways of conventionalisation.
What is universal and what is not? In which terms can we take something as
universal?
This seems to be a significant difference between simile and metaphor, a
difference that was not mentioned in the research papers reviewed above,
though. We may draw a hypothetical consequence of the analysis we have
carried out as far the study, experimental or not, of the difference between
metaphor and simile cannot yield significant and useful results if it is carried out
in the absence of context, Le., without due consideration of the conditions of
use of individual metaphors and similes. Instead of the simple model of
Conceptual Metaphor in use in such analyses, a more complex one which pays
due attention to use, intention, etc., has to be used; such is Brandt & Brandt's
cognitive-semiotic model, which includes every element in the standard model
plus consideration of real, Le., contextual-bound use: "Our network [...]
includes a mental space containing a scenario in which the metaphor is
expressed by someone in a specific situation" (Brandt & Brandt 2005: 218).
Taking into account both Steen's and Brandt & Brandt's proposals, we shall
now proceed to a brief, necessarily incomplete and far from exhaustive analysis
of simile in DMoE: not only its meaning has to be taken into account, but also,
importantly, such communicative intentions as may be discernible, and its
function in context, that is, in the texts themselves.
2. Simile in Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften
The role of the different types of comparison and other tropes in Der Mann ohne
Eigenschaften has been the object of a number of in-depth studies. These studies
have very different scope and purpose: comparison is analysed in reference to
its overall function in the work, as a means of characterising the main persons,
etc. Some writers, like Chardin (1990) focus on a specific simile which is
analysed in comparison with other authors of the same period. This
comparative approach to comparisons is relatively frequent and the -probablymost important book devoted to the topic (Wicht 1984) takes into
consideration, in addition to Musil, other German language writers (Rilke,
Hofmannsthal, Broch, Kafka) and philosophers. It is clear that figurative
language, especially metaphor and simile, play a very significant role, as also in
other writers of the period, i.e., in Modernist literature, e.g. in Virginia Woolf
(Bernárdez in print)8.
Musil not only uses a large number of similes, he also discusses their essence
and role in many places in DMoE. He uses the term Gleichnis, as explicitly
8
But Freed (2007) sees Musil in the light of Postmodernism; under such a view, would our
Unauthenticated
analysis have to be changed in any respect?
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
72 I E. BERNARDEZ SANCHlS
different from Vergleich, Le. comparison in general, although it is not always easy
to differentiate clearly both terms, even in their use in the novel. Vergleich,
however, can be taken as the superordinate term.
Wicht (1984:7) writes that in Vergleich, "wird eine Sache veranschaulicht oder
erklärt, indem ihr eine Sache aus einem anderen Sinnbereich gegenüberstellt"
(some object is illustrated domain). Gleichnis, on the other hand, (8), is "der
Modus des Vieldeutigen und Unbekannten. Seine Funktion kann deshalb
primär nicht darin bestehen, eine Sache zu illustrieren oder zu erläutern. Es ist
vielmehr sein Ziel, einen Gegenstand, der häufig nur schwer erfassbar ist, erst
[...] zugänglich zu machen" ("[...] the mood of the ambiguous and the
unknown. Therefore, its function cannot be primarily that of illustrating or
explaining something. Its aim is rather to make accessible something that is
usually very difficult to grasp").
Musil's reflexions on simile in DMoE
Musil himself is fully conscious of the essence of simile and of his own
motivations in using it He writes:
Aber so wie in einem Gleichnis, wo die Dinge die gleichen sind, dawider aber
auch ganz verschieden sind [...] (But just as in a simile, where things are the same
but, on the other hand, also completely different [...]; 145).
Not only that he also makes clear reference to its cultural, historical roots and
bases, as well as the difference between literal and figurative language and
thinking:
Denn so weit die menschliche Geschichte zurückreicht, lassen sich diese beiden
Grundverhaltensweisen des Gleichnisses und der Eindeutigkeit unterscheiden.
Eindeutigkeit ist das Gesetz des wachen Denkens und Handelns[...]. Das
Gleichnis dagegen ist die Verbindving der Vorstellungen, die im Traum herrscht,
es ist die gleitende Logik der Seele, der die Verwandtschaft der Dinge in den
Ahnungen der Kunst und Religion entspricht (Because as far as human history
can reach back, these two basic relations of simile and unambiguity can be
identified as different Unambiguity is the law of alert thinking and acting [...]
Simile, on the contrary, is the connection of representations that rules in dreams,
it is the gradual logic of the soul, which corresponds to the association of things
in the ideas of art and religion; 539).
And he direcdy integrates the creation of similes in his narrative:
Er richtete die Spitzen seiner Angriffe darum gewöhnlich so ein wie die eines
Floretts, die biegsam nachgeben und von einer den Stoß freundschaftlich
abschwächenden kleinen Hülle umgeben sind. Diesen Vergleich hatte übrigens
Diotima gefunden (therefore he usually directed the point of his attacks just like that
of a floret, which gives way flexibly and is sheltered by a small case that makes its
stab friendly weaker. But this comparison had been found by Diotima [emphasis E.B.];
282).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
SIMILE I 73
Simile itself plays a narrative role:
Graf Leinsdorf gab sich also befriedigt, dem Genuß seines Gleichnisses hin, dessen
Unsicherheit ihn, wie er fühlte, kräftiger erregte als Sicherheiten (Count Leinsdorf
considered himself satisfied with the enjoyment of his ùmile, whose uncertainty he felt
much more exciting than arty certainties [emphasis E. B.]; 89).
The need to find the correct, Le., the best, most adequate simile for some given
conditions is mentioned in many passages of the novel
U n d die Absicht, Moosbrugger aufzusuchen, ist ebenso ehrlos wie' - Hier
unterbrach sich Walter einen Augenblick, um den Nagel auf den Kopf zu treffen,
und schloß mit den Worten: Venn du am Krankenbett Gott anrufen wolltest!'
('And the intention to visit Moosbrugger is just as dishonourable as' —Walter
made a brief pause, in order to hit the nail on its head, and finished with the
words: — 'as if in your sickbed you would want to call on God!'; 914).
Comments like these on simile and comparison in general (Vergleich) witness
their importance in Musil's narrative. On the other hand, no comparable
attention is paid to metaphor, which however is also prevalent in the text. This
means that, from a narrative point of view, simile may be stronger than
metaphor. Wicht (1987: 204, note 7) writes that "Musil zieht das Gleichnis bei
weitem der Metapher, dem Symbol und der Allegorie vor, die primär auf
Ersetzving und nicht auf Vergleichung im Sinne von Gegenüberstellung
beruhen" ("Musil prefers significantly simile over metaphor, symbol and
allegory, which are primarily based on substitution instead of comparison in the
sense of confronting").9
All this draws a picture that does not seem to have much to do with the one
reviewed in the first part of this paper. It seems evident that Musil chooses
between simile and metaphor in a fully conscious way. It also seems obvious
that the choice of simile over metaphor is due to the greater force, or narrative
force, so to say, of simile. As the Austrian writer, Ingeborg Bachmann, wrote in
1954, Musil's similes "zwingen uns, nachzudenken, genau zu denken und mutig
zu denken" ("compel us to think over, to think exactly and to think bravely")
(Wicht 1987: 226, note 143). Even a brief look at some of the examples
analysed here show why this is so. Time can be as fast as anything, but we
never talk of time in terms of camels. That is, no conventionalisation of this
comparison exists; this lack of conventionalisation does not allow us to make
use of an already available meaning; we have to find a possible interpretation of
the comparison, i.e., in Bachmann's terms, we have to think about it. The same
happens with the completely non-conventional comparison of youth
9
Metaphor also plays a significant role in the narrative. Compare: Der Zug der Zeit ist ein
Zug, der seine Schienen vor sich her rollt. Der Fluß der Zeit ist ein Fluß, der seine Ufer
mitfuhrt. (The train [= push] of time is a train that pushes its own rails before itself. The flow
Unauthenticated
of time is a river that carries along its own banks; 445).
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
74 I E. BERNÁRDEZ SANCHlS
friendships and an egg. Simile, as used in this novel (and in literary texts in
general) goes much farther than metaphor, because there exists no apparent,
known point of comparison between the two elements compared. As simile is
always aided by an explanation of the scope of the comparison purported, the
reader (or hearer) can manage to find a way into its meaning. In these similes,
receivers have to search for a meaning, which is not simply given to them. The
lack of conventionalisation, or of 'entrenchment', to use Langacker's term, is
responsible for this peculiarity of such similes as we are analysing in this paper.
This goes of course against the usual view of simile and metaphor we are briefly
considering here.
Clearly, Bachmann's view is just the opposite view to Nilsen's (and
Swanson's) statement above. Readers of DMoE will find metaphors from the
first pages on, but their interest will be enticed mainly by similes. In the very
first page of the first chapter (9), the following sentence is found: Die Isothermen
und Isotheren taten ihre Schuldigkeit (isotherms and isotheres fulfilled their duty).
This can only be read in a metaphoric sense, of course, and the corresponding
conceptual metaphor is easy to identify, although readers may not notice that
metaphoric character and will only think about it for a second, if they do stop
to reflect But it is certainly impossible to read the following simile without
stopping for more than a couple of seconds to 'process' it: [...] schon damals
bewege sich die Zeit so schnell »de ein Reitkamel (already then, time moved as fast as a
riding camel).
We can also find comments which point to the importance of the fact of
comparison itself; for instance, in Ch. 16 (56), the already mentioned simile
which compares youth friendships and an egg is introduced by a reference to
the strange character of the first; then, the scope of the comparison itself is
explained:
Es ist etwas Sonderbares um Jugendfreundschaften; sie sind wie ein Ei, das seine
herrliche Vogelzukunft schon im Dotter fühlt, aber gegen die Welt kehrt es noch
nichts heraus als eine etwas ausdruckslose Eilinie, die man von keiner anderen
unterscheiden kann. (There is something bizarre about youth friendships: they
are like an egg which can feel in its yolk its wonderful future as a bird, but to the
outside world there is nothing else than an unexpressed egg-line that cannot be
differentiated from any other).
This simile, as most in the novel and elsewhere, plays a double role: first, it
plays a conceptual role, as it brings forth some associations, contrasts, etc.,
through the comparison of two (usually widely) divergent domains. In this
sense, it works like conceptual metaphor. Secondly, it plays a communicative, in
this case a narrative role; it in fact serves two narrative purposes: (a) as part of
the narrative itself because, as we have seen in the examples above, the
creation, explanation and justification of simile is an integral part of it (the
narrative is 'dealing with' the creation, development and explanation of some
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
SIMILE I 75
similes); and (b) to characterise persons, introduce and develop topics, etc. (cf.
Wicht 1987).
Types of simile
There are four basic types of simile in our corpus (and probably elsewhere)10:
(a) similes comparing two nominal elements, (b) similes expanding an adjective
with a comparison, (c) similes comparing two (real) events and (d)
counterfactual similes, where an event is compared to an ¡malts event They are
introduced by wie (like) in the first three types, by als ob (as if) in the third. The
analysis was carried out in a systematic fashion only for the first book: 665
pages in the edition used, and to it refer all the numerical data. These data are
provided in (rounded) percentages on the total of 358 similes analysed.
Reference is only made to the first two types, Le., the constructions with als ob
are not included in this discussion. No other types of simile could be identified
in DMoE, The Waves or other books in different languages scanned for this
trope and which included only a very limited number of them.
(a) The type N, COPULA WIE N2
This seems to be the type of simile most frequendy considered in cognitive
treatments of simile by itself or in comparison with metaphor. However, it is by
far the least frequent in DMoE and probably anywhere else. If it is assigned
some sort of prototypical character in the bibliography (although never
explicidy stated — it just seems to be taken for granted) this is probably due to
its comfortable simplicity and because it is closer than other types of simile to
the metaphors usually discussed in the literature. Only 4.2% of similes in the
first book, 123 chapters of DMoE belong to this type. The most significant
examples were analysed in Bernárdez (2009a) with special attention to the
conceptual bases of both Source and Target Domains. As a similar analysis has
not been carried out for the rest of similes, some of the main results are
summed up here. It may be useful to point out that this - the least frequent of
the types of simile that have been identified - is the one normally used in the
theoretical studies devoted to simile. This is also the type of simile that holds a
closer relation with metaphor, i.e., these similes can be 'changed' into
metaphors quite easily, which does not hold for the other types.
There exists an evident relation, repeatedly mentioned in the literature,
between the conceptual domains used as Source Domain in similes and the
main persons in the novel. What apparendy has not been as frequendy
mentioned is that there seems to exist a relatively clear preference for the
following type of association between the specific Target and Source Domains
10 This typology is probably generally valid for (at least some of the) European languages. It is
difficult to say how things may stand at a wider cross-linguistics level, as studies on the
similes do not abound for other, culturally and linguistically different languages - o r for that
matter in the European languages at large. Only further studies can show where the typology
Unauthenticated
proposed here is of wider value.
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
76 I E. BERNÁRDEZ SANCHlS
when human beings are the superordinate Target Domain: the body is mainly
compared with animals and plants, i.e., other living beings, while whatever
belongs to the realm of reason, the mind, etc., tends to be compared with
natural objects and phenomena. For instance, thoughts are compared with
strings, as we saw above, the spirit (Geist) with the rainbow (190), fantasy with a
pincushion (222); on the other hand, the eyes are compared with a butterfly
(95), the body with a sheet of paper (294), a nipple with a poppy-petal (581). A
(very!) special case is the comparison of Clarisse's eyes with das Schnellfeuer eines
Brownings (the rapid fire of a Browning [machine gun]). Interestingly, this
military simile is made by Ulrich, not by General Stumm von Bordwehr, a
'specialist' in such comparisons.
Although these initial results may seem promising, they have to be
confirmed on a larger number of similes, which means including those
belonging to the other types. At the same time, the cultural and historical
import of certain relations between domains has to be taken into account; for
instance, there is an old and strong habit of comparing human beings and
animals, which may go back to Homer and beyond (Castillo Bejarano 2000;
Nimis 1987). Such similes are culturally marked, as Piñel López shows in her
comparative analysis of idiomatic expressions based on animals in German and
Spanish. Should we not take tradition into consideration when considering the
leonine character of our neighbour? Bowdle & Gentner's 'Career of Metaphor'
hypothesis (2005) should have to be included in such discussions, too.
(b) The type ADJ COPULA WIE X
7.26% of similes analysed belong to this type, probably the most
conventionalised and idiomatic of all. In DMoE, however, these similes appear
to be anything but conventional. Only the adjective rund (round) is compared in
the usual way with an egg; although the concept of roundness is applied to such
things as a definition (538) or a mystery (412). The specification of the scope of
comparison finds its way into this category too: ein Gesicht, das so reglos rund me
ein Erdloch ist, in das eben eine Maus schlüpfte (a face that was as motionlessly round
as a hole where a mouse has just slipped in; 69). Other comparisons of this type
include: kahl wie ein Gespenst (bald as a ghost; 152); dunkel und weich wie eine im
Wasser schwebende Meduse (dark and soft like a jellyfish floating in water; 415).
Dieses Mädchen war so viel älter als er und so schön wie ein partes Herrenhemd, das man bei
bestem Willen nicht gleich verderben kann, wenn es frisch aus der Wäsche kommt (this girl
was much older than he and as beautiful as a soft gentleman's shirt which you
cannot spoil, no matter how strong you try, when it has just been washed; 338).
General Stumm von Bordwehr uses a whole series of similes in order to
describe order: Zuerst ist das so nett wie das Zimmer eines alten Fräuleins und so sauber
wie ein ärarischer Pferdestall; dann großartig wie eine Brigade in entwickelter Linie [...]
(firstly it is as nice as the room of an old spinster and as clean as a state-owned
horse-stable; then as magnificent as a brigade deployed in line; 464).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
SIMILE I 77
As can be seen, this type of simile follows the same principles and serves the
same communicative and narrative purposes as the other types.
(c) The type E, VERB WIE E2
This is, by far, the most frequent type of simile, in DmoE as elsewhere: 88.6%
of all analysed similes belong to it It also includes nalis comparisons,
introduced by wie wenn, like the following: Arnhetm sprach langsam und SQtr
Aufmerksamkeit zwingend, wie wenn aus einem Tropffläschchen etwas in ein Glas gegossen
wird (Arnheim spoke slowly and forcing to pay attention, as when something is
poured from a dropper into a glass; p.570); 10% of all similes in the type belong
to this subtype.
Croft and Cruse (2004) use examples belonging to the (a) and (c) types here,
but without making any difference between them. However, as our analysis
seems to show, the first type is very rare - although it is the most frequently
considered in the bibliography. Its advantage seems to lie in its simplicity; a
benefit for the analyst, not for the understanding of the phenomenon.
The comparison in most of the similes in (c) refers to the manner of the
action: the way in which something happens or someone does something is
compared to a completely different way of doing the same or a diverse thing.
Let us see a couple of examples, but without being exhaustive at all: the analysis
of nearly 400 similes would need a book, not the limited space of an article!
[...] ihre elementare jüdische Vorbildung, die klugen Sprüche ihres Elternhauses
hatte sie aus Zorn vergessen und bedurfte ihrer so wenig, wie eine Blume Löffel
und Gabel braucht, um sich mit den Säften des Bodens und der Luft zu nähren
([...] her previous elementary Jewish instruction, as well as her parents' wise
sayings, she had forgotten, out of anger, and needed it as litde as a flower uses
spoon and fork to feed itself the juices from the ground; 165).
In this simile, a certain human way of being is compared with a totally unrelated
form of existence: a human being and a flower, instruction and feeding. Both
comparisons, however, enjoy a very old and distinguished tradition, as the
relation between feeding and learning: here, like in most places, Musil seems to
be using similes (and metaphors) which somehow 'play' with similar old types
of comparison, albeit in extremely novel, daring ways. I will not enter into the
details of this 'renewing' of traditional motives.
'Heißt das nicht, sich die Aufgabe allzu leicht machen?' fragte Diotima ohne
beleidigende Absicht, nur so, wie ein Berg auf einen kleinen Bach zu seinen
Füßen blickt (Isn't it making the task much too easy?' Diotima asked, with no
intention to hurt, just in the way in which a mountain looks at a small brook at
its feet; 274).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
78 I E. BERNARDEZ SANCHiS
We can find new examples of narrative exploitation of this type of simile:
'[...] Sie denken wie ein Raubtier!'
Warum wie ein Raubtier? Der Satz, wie er in der Luft war, verräterisch, kam ihr
selbst unsinning vor, und sie schämte sich ihrer Augen, die sich, angstvoll
aufgerissen, auf Ulrich richteten ('[...] You think like a beast of prey!' / Why like a
beast of prey? The sentence, as it stood in the air, treacherously, seemed absurd
also to her, and she felt ashamed of her eyes which, excited and fearful, were
turned towards Ulrich; 314).
Apparently, the simile uttered by Gerda is incomprehensible in the context and
the situation, and this difficulty is the basic motif for the next paragraph. But
there is no further explanation, at least not directly. The comparison of a
human being with an animal enjoys a very rich tradition, that even reaches
cognitive linguistics {my neighbour is (tike) a tioti). A hint for its interpretation is
given in the use of a compound which refers to a limited group in the general
domain of animals: beast of prey.
Sie (Bonadea) empfand jedes Halbjahr vor der neuen Mode eine Ehrfurcht wie
vor der Ewigkeit (she experienced every half year as much reverence before
fashion as before eternity; 525).
Finally, an example from the last chapter of the second book:
[...] wo das Leben in zauberhafter Stille wächst wie eine Blume ([...] where life
grows in enchanting silence like a flower, 1029).
The subtype with wie wenn works in a similar way:
So lag in der Jugend das Leben noch wie ein unerschöpflicher Morgen vor ihnen,
nach allen Seiten voll von Möglichkeit und Nichts, und schon am Mittag ist mit
einemmal etwas da, das beanspruchen darf, nun ihr Leben zu sein, und das ist im
ganzen doch so überraschend, wie wenn eines Tags plötzlich ein Mensch dasitzt,
mit dem man zwanzig Jahre lang korrespondiert hat, ohne ihn zu kennen, und
man hat ihn sich ganz anders vorgestellt (In youth, life was yet like an
inexhaustible morning before them, bursting at every side with possibility and
nothing, and already at noon something is suddenly there that may claim to be
their current life, and it is all as surprising as when we suddenly discover a person
sitting there, with whom we have kept correspondence for twenty years without
knowing him, and whom we had imagined in a completely different way; 131).
(d) The type E, VERB ALS OB E2
In this type of simile, an event is compared with another, possible or impossible
event or simply with an event that has not yet taken place. It may be seen as the
irreatis counterpart of the wie wenn construction. No systematic analysis of this
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
SIMILE I 79
type of simile has been carried out yet, but the main features identified in the
previous types of simile seem also to hold here.
It remains to be added that the same relative frequency identified in DMoE
holds in another novel, too, which also has a substantial number of similes: in
Virginia Woolfs The Waves (Bernárdez in print).Of the 335 similes analysed in
this novel, only four belong to the (a) type, i.e., 1,2%, while the rest belong to
the (c) type.
Formal and conceptual complexity
The similes used in DMoE, but also elsewhere, can reach considerable degrees
of complexity. That is, the Source Subdomain used in the comparison is usually
extraordinarily specific, which means it can only be defined with a large number
of particulars. In such cases a considerable difference can be found between
simile and metaphor, a difference that is not mentioned in the bibliography.
This complexity is probably the reason why specifications are added as to the
particular sense in which a simile has to be understood. Let us consider a few
examples from DMoE.
So wie eine große Versuchsstätte, wo die besten Arten, Mensch zu sein,
durchgeprobt und neue entdeckt werden müßten , hatte er sich früher oft das
Leben gedacht, wenn es ihm gefallen sollte. (Like a large experimental centre
where the best forms to be a human being would be researched and new ones
would be found out; 152).
This simile is far away from the traditional metaphoñc understanding of the
universe as a machine, as a clockwork. It is not simply about the correctness,
the perfection of its working, always invariable, but about the need to find out,
through experience, i.e., experimentation, which forms of being a human being
are the best Here again Musil uses a traditionally sanctioned simile and changes
it in a novel form.
[...] wie der Staatsbürger die Luft leugnet und von ihr behauptet, daß sie die Leere
sei (just like the citizen denies the existence of air and asserts it is simply the void;
156).
Also in this case a direct relation with the preceding text exists: a certain type of
reaction towards reality is compared with the reaction of the layman, ignorant
of science, towards an invisible thing like air. The role of the comparison itself,
the role of simile is in these and most cases clearly contextual, narrative, as
Steen (2008) and Brandt & Brandt (2005) advanced for metaphor. It is the
explicitness of these similes which allows drawing such relations with the cotext (Teun van Dijk's term).
Moosbruggers Blick schweift noch um ein Stück weiter, wie der eines Mannes,
der einen in den Himmel gezeichneten Hügelkamm erreicht hat und nun sieht,
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
I E. BERNÁRDEZ SANCHiS
daß es ähnliche Hügelkämme dahinter noch mehrere gibt (Moosbrugger's look
wanders a bit farther like that of a man's who has reached the hill-crest drawn
against the sky and now sees that behind that crest new ones exist; 240).
[Diotima] kam ihm dann wie ein junges, hohes, volles Rind von guter Rasse vor,
sicher wandelnd und mit tiefem Blick die trockenen Gräser betrachtend, die es
ausrupfte ([H]e then saw Diotima as a young, thick-set bull walking steady and
watching with a deep look the dry grass he just plucked out; 276).
Aber ich [Ulrich] sehe jetzt klar, und Sie kommen mir vor wie ein Mensch, der
emstlich zum Mond fliegen will; ich hätte Ihnen [Diotima] soviel Verrücktheit
gar nicht zugetraut (But I can see clearly now, and you look to me as a person
who seriously wants to fly to the moon; I would never have credited you with
such madness; 567).
There are also cases in which a comparison is rejected in favour of a better one;
a new example of the essentially narrative function of simile:
Wir haben schon so viel von jener Liebe gesprochen, die nicht wie ein Bach zu
einem Ziel fließt, sondern wie das Meer einen Zustand bildet! (We have already
talked so much about that love, that does not flow like a brook towards some
destination, but in the same way as the sea, that forms a state; 801).
This list can be increased ad libitum·, also with examples from other works by
MusiL But also with recourse to other writers of the period. In V. Woolf s The
Waves, for instance, similes like the following can be found (for a complete list,
Bernárdez in print):
Now and again their songs ran together in swift scales like the interfacings of a
mountain stream whose waters, meeting, foam and then mix, and hasten quicker
and quicker down the same channel, brushing the same broad leaves (82).
Erratically rays of light flashed and wandered, like signals from sunken islands, or
darts shot through laurel groves by shameless, laughing boys (159).
But the similes in other, both later and earlier writers show similar complexity;
even if they use similes in a very limited way. For instance, the 20th c. In the
novel Un home qui dort, French writer, Georges Perec (1967: 93), uses similes
such as these: Tu marches comme un homme qui porterait d'invisibles valises, tu manhes
comme un homme qui suivrait son ombre (you walk as a man carrying invisible
suitcases, you walk as a man following his shadow). Most similes in this novel
qualify the verb marcher 'walk' or its synonyms, which form an essential part of
the novel itself: similes selected are thus an essential element in Perec's
narrative: it is important to know how that man walks through Paris and how
his walking undergoes changes from the beginning to the end of the novel.
114 years earlier, Herman Melville's Bartkby (Bartleby and Benito Cereño. New
York: Dover, 1990), has very few similes, but they are of this type: "like the last
column of some ruined temple, he remained standing mute
and solitary in the
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
SIMILE I 81
middle of the otherwise deserted room" (22); or also, with a lengthy
explanation of the sense in which the comparison has to be understood: 'Tor
an instant I stood like the man who, pipe in mouth, was killed one cloudless
afternoon long ago in Virginia by summer lightning; at his own warm open
window he was killed, and remained leaning out there upon the dreamy
afternoon, till someone touched him, when he fell" (23).
All these similes can only with difficulty and in very limited conditions be
changed into metaphors. Of course, simply erasing ¡vie, like or comme will not do.
Conceptually, too: how can one change [Dioüma] kam ihm dann wie ein jungs,
hohes, volles Rind von guter Rasse vor, sicher wandelnd und mit tiefem Blick die trockenen
Gräser betrachtend, die es ausrupfte into a metaphor beginning Diotima was
? It
is not just a matter of conceptual complexity, of ease of processing and
understanding; the metaphor that could be a substitute for that simile would be
too cumbersome and only with difficulty could it fulfil the narrative,
communicative functions of simile.
It thus seems quite clear that a difference between simile and metaphor is
that the former is an extensive textual element, whereas the metaphor seems to
stay basically at the level of the lexis. That may also be the reason why
metaphors can become grammaticalised into lexical items, whereas similes
extremely seldom, if ever, reach that stage. Using terms which enjoy a long
tradition in linguistics, but which sometimes seem forgotten, we could ascribe
metaphor to the 'paradigmatic axis', whereas simile belongs to the 'syntagmattc
axis'. Metaphor is then substitution, transformation, recategorisation, whereas
simile is basically 'expansion'.
Conclusions
The analysis of simile as it is used in Musil's Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften has
shown a few features of simile which do not fit the proposals reviewed in the
first part
The following features of simile could be identified:
1. It is used to create comparisons that are much more daring, much less
conventional than those achieved through metaphor. Therefore, simile can
be and usually is, formally and conceptually much more complex than
metaphor. Wider, inter- and cross-linguistic analyses will be able to show
whether this is a 'universal' feature of the use of simile or just a feature of
literary language (Musil, Woolf, Perec, Melville). Several examples from
spoken language, however, seem to point in the same direction. Lack of
space does not allow for their detailed consideration in these pages, but the
general impression is that speakers 'feel free' to create daring similes, while
the creation of similarly daring metaphors is much more infrequent
(consider also Gila's simile in footnote 3).
2. There seems to exist no restrictions concerning the degree of similarity
between the domains involved: they can be completely disjunct or
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
82 I E. BERNÁRDEZ SANCHiS
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
'objectively' close. It all depends on the intentions of the creator and the
conveniences of the narrative.
Simile is an integral part of the narrative; it does not only play a function as
part of the conceptual component of the text, but is part of the text itself, as
parts of it can be directly devoted to topics having to do with the creation
or, more seldom, the use of similes. We could probably say that whereas the
metaphor's main function is conceptual, secondarily linguistic, simile is as
much linguistic-narrative as it is conceptual
There exist several types of simile; however, they seem to work in basically
the same way, although the possibilities they offer to the writer are quite
varied. There is probably a close relation between the possibilities allowed
and the frequency of each type.
Similes, like metaphors, belong to old, conventionalised traditions, that have
to be taken into account whenever they are studied: it is of little interest to
see that Musil compares human beings with animals, unless we are aware of
the traditional character of that comparison; only if we know that tradition
can we see whether Musil (or Melville, Woolf, Perec) just conform to it or
attempt to change it in some way. This is not only of interest for literary
scholars: also linguists have to be able to see if anything 'new' has been
intended by the speaker (or, in these cases, the writer). This novelty is at
least as interesting as the analysis of "We're spinning our wheels" for the
development of Conceptual Metaphor Theory.
Simile focuses on the comparison itself, whereas metaphor centres on the
fact that something 'can be understood' in terms of something else.
The features identified in this paper do not agree with those introduced in
Table I. The reason lies probably in the different way of looking at similes.
In most of the studies reviewed here, simile was seen in absence of any
context, and the conditions of its use were not taken into account, i.e., the
role of similes in communication was overlooked. We have tried, on the
other hand, to see simile in context, i.e., in a semiotic, textual framework.
It is necessary to undertake further, in-depth analyses of a cross-linguistic
and historic character, in order to ascertain the degree of universality of the
facts exposed in this paper. A review of the relatively many papers and
books devoted to the simile in classical Greek poetry and its continuation
into Roman, medieval and Renaissance literary theory and practice show
that the results of our analysis of DMoE (and The Waves) are also valid for
previous periods of our cultural domain. But [...] are they equally valid for
other cultures? The only possible answer will come from a detailed
crosscultural and crosslinguistic study.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
SIMILE I 83
References
Addison, C. (1993). From literal to figurative: An introduction to the study of Simile.
College English 55(4): 402-419.
Aisenman, R. A. (1999). Structure mapping and simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor
and Symbolic Activity 14(1): 45-51.
Bernárdez, E. (2008a). Collective Cognition and Individual Activity: Variation,
Language, and Culture. In Dirven R., Frank, R., Ziemke, T. & Bernárdez, E. (Eds.).
Body, language, and mind, VoL 2 φρ. 137-176). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bernárdez, E. (2008b). El lenguaje como cultura. Madrid: Cátedra.
Bernárdez, E. (2009a). Comparaciones explícitas con wie en Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften,
de Robert MusiL Una aproximación cognitiva. In Gil, M. J., I. Hernández, A. Pérez
(Eds.) Revista de Filologia Alemana, anejo I., φρ. 57-71).
Bernárdez, E. (2009b). Algunas consideraciones contra el individualismo esencialista en
las lingüísticas cognitivas. In M. Veyrat R., E. Séria A. (Eds.). La lingiistica como reto
epistemologa)y como acción social, Vol. l(pp. 1-10). Madrid: Arco Libros.
Bernárdez, E. (in print). Símil y metáfora conceptual· Un ejemplo en Virginia Woolf.
Quaderns de Filologia.
Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D. (2005).The Career of Metaphor. Psychological Review 112
(1), 193-216.
Brandt, P. A. (2003). Kognitiv semiotik - et forskningsparadigme for humaniora. In P.
Bundgârd, J. Egholm, M. Skov (Eds.) Kognitiv semiotik (pp. 59-87). Kebenhavn, P.
Haase & Sens Forlag.
Brandt, L. & Brandt, P. A. (2005). Making sense of a blend. A cognitive-semiotic
approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3,216-249.
Castillo Bejarano, M. (2000). El símil de las grullas en la épica clásica. Cuadernos de
Filología Clásica. Estudios Latinos 18,137-162.
rWHin P. (1990). Possibilisme et impossibilisme: les métaphores frontalières chez
Musil et chez James. Revue de littérature comparée, 64 (3), 527-534.
Chiappe, D. L. & Kennedy, J. M (2001). Literal Bases for Metaphor and Simile.
Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3/4), 249-276.
Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J. & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than
comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics 31 (1), 51-68.
Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J. & Smykowski, T. (2003). Reversibility, aptness, and the
conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol 18 (2), 85-105.
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Freed, M M. (2007). Robert Musil's Other Postmodernism: Essayismus, Textual
Subjectivity, And the Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Comparative Literature
Studies 44,231-253.
Garda Jurado, F. (2007). Símiles y metáforas de la erudición en Aulo Gelio. EMERITA
LXXV (2), 279-298.
Garibay, Á. M. (1970). Llave del Náhuatl. Mexico: Porrúa.
Geeraerts, D. (2002). Decontextualising and recontextualising tendencies in 20th
century linguistics and literary theory, In E. Mengel, H.-J. Schmid & M. Steppat
(Eds.), Anglistentag 2002 Bayreuth frp. 369-379). Trier Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, Β. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond
similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3-18.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM
I E. BERNÁRDEZ SANCHÍS
Glucksberg, S. & McGlone, M. (1999). When love is not a journey: What metaphors
mean, journal of Pragmatics, 31,1541-1558.
Glucksbetg, S., & C. Haught (2006b). On the relation between metaphor and simile:
When comparison fails. Mind <& Language, 21 (3), 360-378.
Harris, R., Friel, B., & Mickelson, N. (2006). Attribution of discourse goals for using
concrete- and abstract-tenor metaphors and similes with or without discourse
context Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 863-879.
Johnson, A. T. (1996). Comprehension of metaphors and similes: A time reaction
study. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 11 (2), 145-159.
Kennedy, J. M. & Chiappe, D. L. (1999). What makes a metaphor stronger than a
simile? Metaphor and Symbol 14 (1), 63-69.
Kövecses, Ζ. (2008). Conceptual metaphor theory. Some criticisms and alternative
proposals. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6,168—184.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors me live by. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Melville, H. (1990). Bartleby and Benito Cenno. New York: Dover.
Musil, R. (1930-1942), Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften. I: Erstes und Zweites Buch.
Herausgegeben von Adolf Frisé, Hamburg, Rowohlt 178 (17. Auflage, 2003).
Musil, R. (1930-1942), Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften. Π: Aus dem Nachlaß.
Herausgegeben von Adolf Frisé, Hamburg, Rowohlt 178 (13. Auflage, 2002).
Nilsen, D. L. F. (1986). The nature of ground in farfetched metaphors. Metaphor and
Symbolic Activity 1 (2), 127-138.
Nimis, S. A. (1987). Narrative semiotics in the epic tradition. Simile. Bloomington &
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Perec, G. (1967). Un homme qui dort. Paris: Denoël.
Piñel López, R. (1997). El mundo animal en las expresiones alemanas y españolas y sus
connotaciones sodoculturales. Revista de Filología Alemana 5: 259—274.
Ready, J. L. (2008). The Comparative Spectrum in Homer. American Journal of Philology
129,453-496.
Salvador Castillo, J. A. (1994) El símil homérico de la μήκων (II. 8, 302-308). Cuadernos
de Filologa Clásica (Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos) 4,227—241.
Simeon, R. (1981). Diccionario de la lengua náhuatl o mexicana. México: Siglo XXI.
Steen, G. (2004). Can discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition?
Journal of Pragmatics 36,1295-1313.
Steen, G. (2008). The paradox of metaphor. Why we need a three-dimensional model
of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 23,213-241.
Swanson, D. (1979). Toward a psychology of metaphor, In S. Sacks (ed.), On metaphor
(pp. 161-164). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cited in Nilsen, 1986, p. 128.
Utsumi, A. (2007). Interpretive Diversity Explains Metaphor-Simile Distinction.
Metaphor and Symbol, 22 (4), 291-312.
Wicht, G. (1984). Gott meint die Welt keineswegs wörtlich. Zum Gleichnisbegriff in Robert Musils
Roman Oer Mann ohne Eigenschaften'. Bern etc.: Peter Lang.
Woolf, V. (1931). The Waves. Edited with an introduction and notes by Kate Flint.
London: Penguin Books (Penguin Classics), 2000.
Zinken, J., Hellsten, I. & Neriich, B. (2008). Discourse metaphors. In Dirven, Frank,
Ziemke & Bernárdez (Eds.; pp. 363—385).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/14/17 2:36 PM