"Philip Wheelwright's 1962 classification of metaphors into "epiphors" (metaphors that express the existence of something) and "diaphors" (metaphors that imply the possibility of something). Diaphor and epiphor measure the likeness and the dissimilarity of the attributes of the referents. A diaphor can become an epiphor (when the object is found to really exist) and an epiphor can become a literal expression (when the term has been used for so long that people have forgotten its origin). "
diaphor: “Life... is a woman on her back, with swollen, close-set breasts, a smooth, soft, fat belly between protruding hips, with slender arms, plump thighs, and half-closed eyes, who in her grandiose and taunting provocation demands our most ardent fervour” [George Perec, Life A User’s Manual]
If we accept that literal truth, falsity and figurality form a continuum rather than a discrete set, then this entails a clear violation of the law of the excluded middle, should ever a logical analysis of metaphor be pursued. Such a fuzzy-logical approach has been formalised by Earl MacCormac (1985), in a four-valued logic which not only accommodates truth and falsity, but, following Wheelwright (1962), also embraces metaphor in two forms, Epiphor and Diaphor. A diaphor is a novel metaphor which strikes a discordant note, evoking emotive tension in the listener; diaphors initially suggest more dissimilarities that commonalties between the tenor and vehicle, which may have to be reconciled by a change of representation (see Indurkhya 1992). Epiphors are conventionalised or comparison-centred metaphors which have lost their emotive force and which no longer challenge existing conceptual representations.
Employing a system of fuzzy semantic markers, MacCormac defines the fuzzy membership of one category in another as a real number ranging from zero (absolute falsehood) to one (undeniable truth). Within this range exist the delimiters a, b, c, such that 0 > a < b < c < 1, where the interval 0 to a represents falsehood, a to b represents diaphor, b to c represents epiphor, and c to 1 represents literal truth. Metaphoric set membership is thus indicated by a value in the range a to c. Novel metaphors begin life as diaphors, and migrate along this fuzzy scale into epiphors as they lose their emotive tension through commonplace use, to eventually find rest as dead metaphors in the literal truth interval. MacCormac argues for the necessity of literal truth in this model, though it is hard to view it here as anything but a carry-over from previous marker schemes, where an attempt is made to impose an a priori division between semantic validity and anomaly. As we have seen, such a division makes no allowance for contextual influence and is thus incapable of an adequate treatment of metaphor. Given the correct poetic setting, even hoary old anomalies such as `Colourless green ideas dream furiously' can be granted a valid interpretation. What distinguishes diaphor from anomaly is the existence of a context which supports a metaphoric reading, not an artificial delimiter on a fuzzy scale.
While the distinction between truth, anomaly and metaphor is artificial, so too is the distinction between epiphor and diaphor. These forms of metaphor most likely require different forms of processing (if the distinction is to be worth making at all), such that passing the fixed threshold (b) on the fuzzy scale will result in a radical reappraisal of content. But this sudden discontinuity of interpretation contradicts the continuous nature of the underlying fuzzy system. By way of analogy, consider a car which is driving down the motorway, gradually accelerating as it goes. As the car passes 55 m.p.h. the driver is suddenly classified as a speeder. This somewhat arbitrary, imposed discontinuity serves a useful classification task in allowing the police to recognise potentially dangerous drivers. However, it reveals nothing about the mechanics of the engine powering the car, which doesn't perform in a qualitatively different manner after the speed limit is surpassed. Neither does a second engine kick in above certain speeds. In this sense MacCormac's model makes good a posteriori philosophy but comes up short as a cognitive model. A more realistic model which preserves continuity is one in which metaphors are processed homogeneously, and the epiphor/diaphor distinction is used to measure the quantity of processing performed.
And what one person feels is a very discordant diaphor, another more keen, perceptive, or knowledgeable person may feel it a trite and overly-obvious epiphor.
Some more interesting discussion from the eMule site:
Below is a quote (again from Dennis Hammes) that expands and clarifies the issues:
Wheelwright, Philip. Metaphor and Reality. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1962. ...may have the best discussion. It was Aristotle who made the distinction in the /Ars Poetica/. Both of them use definitions based on the logic and mechanics of language. The distinction you give above is a /much/ better working distinction.
Epiphor is what we now mean by "metaphor." Its vehicle is a specific and proper subset of the tenor, in at least most examples; depending on how closely and broadly the known mechanisms of the vehicle map those of the tenor, it can become extended metaphor or symbol (it's still ephiphor); simile is epiphor in which the vehicle has only one attribute in common with the tenor (the flag words "like" or "as" are /not/ andatory or distinguishing), and so cannot be extended. Diaphor hunts for or asserts a connection between two things whose mechanism(s) is(are) not known well enough to make any subsequent estimate of the comparison; it is commonly said to be "mere," even "accidental" juxtaposition, but it isn't; the poet has seen/felt /a/ connection, but is unable to dwell on what it is. The abuse of this technique in a putative report (the poem) is simply to slap pretties or shockers together essentially at random to watch the sparks.
A working poet will probably spend most of his time trying to turn diaphor into epiphor (and not necessarily with his pencil in hand), as the latter obviously maps (explains) the universe of an observation better. Haiku so /look/ like diaphor that it is often necessary to dwell on them for some time to discover just what epiphor the poet has attempted, and how it works (that is, if he wasn't just banging rocks together).
The above was taken from a thread on the newsgroup alt.arts.poetry.comments - you can read the whole thread on Google (was Deja) Groups , searching for the thread Ripe for the Wind.
I wouldn't think 'War is hell' would fit, but perhaps something like 'War is a yellow ribbon', where the connection is not clear.
(Edit: Thanks for the links, wow! And the newsgroup url was provided but the other board deleted it...I haven't arrived at newsgroups yet, so if anyone goes and has the url please post it for others. Thanks!)
RC says:"Why is it that I never meet diaphors like that . . . .?" Diaphors like the one tsuwm gave cause me to experience diaphoresis.Though not so much as it would have sixty years ago.
Hear ye, Hear ye. Proof positive that companionship is beneficial. Good old Faldage, instead of crucifying me before you all, is now so mellow that he sent me a PM exposing my failure to detect an error in the mathematical expression in the long post above"
0 > a < b < c < 1 Obviously, now that Faldage has pointed it out, 0 should be less than a, not greater than a : the expression should read: 0<a<b<c<1 The way the pointed end points does make a difference.
In return, thanks for the jog about Xrefer, which looks like a useful engine!
[silly digression warning] btw, I once wrote and directed a pantomime in which I had a comedy trio of police. They of course were named Laura, Norder & Bill - the highlight of the show by popular acclaim was their rendition of a skit on The Cover of the Rolling Stone, which (in reflection of our local newspaper) became On the Cover of the Tivyside. It gave me the liberty to be brutally honest about the pathetic machinations of local politicians whose ambition was limited to "get their picture/On the cover of the Tivyside!" No one sued, and 5,000 people laughed a lot! [/SDW]
Yeah, tsuwm posted about Xrefer ages ago, and I immediately bookmarked it. "On the cover of Tivyside"...sounds cute, Sweetie--I'll bet every one of those 5000 knew exactly what you were talking about. Oh, by the way, I was so tickled with myself because, first, I actually found the ref., and then, because I got the wordplay!
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
Oh, mav, this was SO good, I love you!
