Erard’s essay about metaphors, “See through words” took a very interesting approach to the formation of metaphors. The entire purpose of the metaphor is to look into a deeper meaning and understanding of the concept. Erard mentions there are even jobs that are constructed around producing metaphors for advertising companies. As I was reading and annotating the text, I noticed specific sentences that allowed me to think deeper into the meaning of what Erard was trying to express. Erard added the theory developed by Gentner and Bowdle, which states that “people understand new metaphors more easily if they are presented as mere comparisons”. I felt that this related to the Ted Talk given by James Geary, “Metaphorically Speaking”. In the presentation, Geary stated that metaphors are similar mathematics in a sense that x equals y. I felt that the concept Geary proposed does show the comparison between the subjects being related in a metaphor. Personally, I feel that I understand metaphors if they are a comparison because it allows me to relate on subject with another, allowing me to develop a deeper understanding of what the metaphor is trying to declare. I also agree with Erard’s proposal that metaphors cannot be reversed. He mentioned researchers cannot conclude why metaphors cannot be reversed but from my understanding, I think it makes sense. I related this to geometry where a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. These two shapes in this saying cannot be reversed because if they were to be flipped, the mathematical statement would not be correct. In addition to understanding metaphors, Erard included a metaphor that I felt made sense in context of the developing child. Erard stated the metaphor “people valued the orchid and looked down on the dandelion” to explain that some circumstances take more time to become extravagant. He compared the dandelion to the child who can thrive in any kind of environment and the orchid to the child who needed a specific environment to grow in, rather than being resilient to any situation. I felt that this metaphor showed the deeper meaning of development. Every child has a different personality trait that will have different forms of resilience in different environments. I also thought it was interesting for Erard to add that every parent wants to believe their child the special orchid. The parents want their child to be the best and will therefore not use the metaphor accurately. I enjoyed analyzing Erard’s thoughts on the deeper meaning of metaphors because I felt it allowed me to think of metaphors in a broader context.
Colleen,
Your response is so thorough and thoughtful. Your annotations look fantastic. When you write: “I also agree with Erard’s proposal that metaphors cannot be reversed. He mentioned researchers cannot conclude why metaphors cannot be reversed but from my understanding, I think it makes sense. I related this to geometry where a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square,” you make such a fabulous world-to-text connection. Patterns are everywhere in math, and I think pattern and pattern-recognition play an enormous role in understanding metaphor. Keep up the amazing work!