Ministry of higher and secondary special education of republic of uzbekistan

Simile Versus Metaphor

One of the universal ways of the world perception is the comparison of one object (a thing or an event) with another aiming to point out their common and differential features that leads to further penetration into the essence of the TO (target object) enabling it to be viewed from a new angle. Such a comparative cognition of reality is verbally explicated either in ordinary comparisons or in a figure of speech called simile. Both of them represent two diverse processes. Scholars claim that comparison implies the characterization or description of a TO by bringing it into contact with another one belonging to the same ontological class of things with the purpose of establishing the degree of their sameness or difference. Comparison takes into consideration all the properties of the two objects, focusing on the one that is compared (Israel, Harding, & Tobin, 2004, pp. 123-124). Similes differ from ordinary comparisons. The subject matter, i.e., the TO in similes is characterized through comparison with another, ontologically heterogeneous object, which results in creating a new subjective image, different from the original. A simile excludes all the properties of the compared objects except the one which is common to them (Galperin, 1977, p. 167; Miller, 1993, p. 373). For instance: “The boy is as clever as his mother” is an ordinary comparison, boy and mother belonging to the same ontological class of objects—human beings whereas in the textual fragment from Hemingway’s novel For Whom the Bell Tolls (1995), given below, the subject matter is described with the help of simile: Thy hair grows now all over thy head the same length like the fur of an animal and it is lovely to feel and I love it very much and it is beautiful and it flatters and rises like a wheatfield in the wind, when I pass my hand over it. (p. 375)

In this example, the author describes one of the main characters, Maria’s hair, in an expressive, emotive way, comparing it with such heterogeneous classes of things as the fur of an animal and a wheatfield in the wind, thus figuratively mapping its wild beauty in a simile. Similes embody associative poetical cognition of the object world based on the author’s subjective-evaluative perception of the world and his/her individual gift for metaphorical mapping. Accordingly, we define the linguistic status of a simile as that of a language-in-use, i.e., textual construct of pragmatic nature in which the TO is metaphorically determined via comparing it with another, heterogeneous object, fixed as an image in the speaker’s/writer’s consciousness. This conditions the referential difference of the lingual units involved in the simile: the name, nominal phrase, or any other verbal construct denoting the TO is always referentially concrete while the lingual unit, denoting the RO (related object) is devoid of such potential and has only a general meaning.
Accordingly, we define the invariant model of similes (SIM.) as a three-componential structure, in which the TO is qualified through its metaphorical comparison with a RO via the P comp. (comparative predicate). It can be expressed symbolically as follows: SIM.→TO—P comp.—RO. We consider this model as a conceptual invariant of similes as it remains unchanged throughout their structural-semantic variation in the text. When discussing the invariant model of similes, we find it necessary to review its informational aspect within the framework of Functional Sentence Perspective Theory which implies providing the addressee with new information about the subject matter (Daneš, 1974; Firbas, 1992). Fromthe viewpoint of linguistic pragmatics, the informative structure of a sentence is always addressee-orientated, i.e., information is regarded as “given” (theme)
or “new” (rheme) only from the addressee’s viewpoint. We assume that in similes both the target and the ROs represent “given” information—the former being introduced in the text before the simile is realized, and the latter conveying even older information, for it exists as an image in the consciousness of both the addresser and the addressee, constituting their social-cultural background knowledge. Therefore, the new information, representing
the semantic nucleus of a simile, is the comparison of its components, which results in creating a new image of the subject matter. This can be illustrated by Example (1) from Steinbeck’s The Chrysanthemums (1987):
Example (1) -What’s them plants, ma’am?
-Oh, those are chrysanthemums, giant whites and yellows, I raise them every year, bigger than anybody around here.
-Kind of a long stemmed flower? Looks like a quick puff of colored smoke?—he asked.
-That’s it. What a nice way to describe them.
The relationship between metaphor and simile has been a controversial topic in linguistics, philosophy, psychology, or rhetoric. Some authors, from Aristotle to present times, adopt a classical view of metaphor (the comparison approach), claiming that metaphors represent reduced forms of simile as both of them are variants of a unique (or very similar) conceptual process of analogy. In other words, metaphors are viewed as similes with an elliptic like and both “tropes” are treated as equivalent analogy devices. Other authors give arguments and evidence in favor of a different conception of metaphor and simile. We share their opinion that similes are cognitively and discursively different from metaphors, although they are obviously related. We also adhere to Israel et al.’s (2004) hypothesis that “the difference between metaphor and simile may have less to do with the kinds of properties they map than with the mapping process itself”. We claim that both metaphor and simile are based upon an analogy and a traceable similarity between two things which are otherwise entirely dissimilar. Metaphor suggests the process of equating two heterogeneous objects or events, thus having synthetic and diffusive semantics, which determines simultaneous realization of two different meanings. Simile, on the other hand, suggests two different simultaneous processes, as it brings together and at the same time separates two heterogeneous objects. Hence, the TO in similes only resembles the
RO and is by no means equated to it, both of them maintaining their originality and independence.
The contextual-semantic study of the following structural elements in similes—like/to look like, as, as if, asthough, to seem—has enabled us to regard like as the universal marker of comparison for the English language since it is most frequently used, establishing the relation of similarity between heterogeneous objects. Almost the same meaning is conveyed by the verb to seem, which, according to our research, is least frequently used in these verbal constructs. For example: “The overloaded tree-house gave an evil creak. From my vantage point its tenants seemed a single creature, a many-legged, many-eyed spider” (Capote, 1980, p. 98). The language marker as establishes the relation of qualitative analogy between the compared objects. For example: “Mrs. Dundee saw the long white face of Mr. Markham, thin and smooth as a piece of worn soap” (Hudson, 1978, p. 44). As for the two-component markers of comparison as if and as though, we consider them as synonyms, the first part of them as equating two heterogeneous events, while the other part if/though rejects the equation due to the meaning of condition, implied in it. Besides, these structural elements are capable of merging two heterogeneous events so that both of them could maintain independence of their predications, realized in different clauses. Example
Verena was leaning a hand on Amos Legrand’s head as if he were a walking stick.
Example
Catherine tugged at my head as though it were an apple latched to an unyielding bough.
The absence of a formal indication of comparison in the metaphor makes the analogy it is based on more subtle to perceive. This difference between simile and metaphor leads some scholars to the belief that metaphor is more emotional and consequently more expressive, that it is restricted to more literary style, while simile is believed to be more logical and therefore better fitted to lend precision to the expressed thought due to which it can be used in any type of style even in the most prosaic. We think that this assertion cannot be readily accepted, because both poetical similes and poetical metaphors are individual
subjective creations and the degree of their expressiveness depends entirely upon the unexpectedness and freshness of the discovered association.

³