kazm.cdr


On the Problem of Implicitness 
in Metaphoric Similes

Language, which is the instrument of logic anddiscourse standing between man and expression,
influences and determines the way its speakers understand the
world around them. Linguistic communication is easily
accomplished, but not so easily explained. Its serious
investigation is an exciting, enjoyable experience leading to a
better understanding of ourselves as well as the world as a
whole. The correlation ‘speaker - sign’ has aroused
considerable interest recently. This is conditioned by the fact
that the role of man is regarded as central in the process of
communication. When we focus on the function of language,
we focus on what a person is doing with words in particular

speech situations. Namely, we focus on the speaker’s intentions, purposes, beliefs, etc.
Therefore, the speaker’s communicative intention is an inseparable part of the message
communicated. It has generally been acknowledged that the meaning of a particular
linguistic expression is governed by rules of syntax, semantics, phonology and style, but
the choice of that particular type is strongly affected by the pragmatic purpose of the
utterance. Pragmalinguistic analysis has proved to be very effective when applied to
implicit aspects of language use. It is of special interest when both the speaker (author)
and the listener (reader) go beyond what is conveyed by the language form itself or what
is literally said. Metaphoric similes viewed from this point of view are of particular
interest. The linguistic phenomenon of simile and its relation to other classical tropes and
figures of speech has certainly been the focus of much thought. This article is to show
the need for a pragmatic approach to similes and to sketch the directions in which such
a pragmatic account might contribute to the study of them.

The choice of the subject matter of the present investigation is conditioned by the
fact that metaphoric similes are characterized by a higher degree of implicitness in which
case the associations leading to assimilation may seem complicated and rather
incomprehensible at first sight. The complex correlation between a word, the thing it
denotes and the image created entails a complete scale of subtle shades of meaning. This
gives rise to various implicatures and makes the listener draw more complex inferences.

e.g. She seemed to him to  teach the lamps to burn more brightly, and her beauty
showed by night like a rich jewel worn by a black man.

(Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet)

At first sight it may seem difficult to find a point of resemblance between the
concepts of “beauty” and “jewel” - an abstract notion and a concrete thing. Thus, the gap
between what is on the surface and what is conveyed is so substantial that a semantic

48

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics

Gohar Haroutunian 



theory cannot go beyond interpretation of literal meaning. Meanwhile, pragmatics,
which relies on elements of context, provides metaphorical interpretation of word-
meaning. In the given example the comparison is made on the basis that the beauty of
the heroine is as vivid at night as a rich jewel worn by a black man. How does the hearer
(reader) recognize the speaker’s (writer’s) communicative intention when the implicit
aspects of language are in use, when we mean more than what we say?  In other words,
very often the speaker-meaning (what we mean to communicate) is not compatible with
the sentence-meaning (what our expression literally means) but is dependent on it
(Grice, 1975:53-59). Common cases of this are metaphors, similes, ironies and other
implicit means of language use.

e.g. “Rumours are like infections.”
(D. du Mourier, Rebecca)

This utterance cannot be taken literally (or to put it in another way, it is literally
false). When analyzed on the semantic level (where the nominative meanings of
linguistic units are defined), the words “rumour” and “infection” have nothing in
common. “Rumour” means “general talk, gossip, statement which cannot be verified and
is of doubtful accuracy”. “Infection” has the meaning of “disease which can be spread
from person to person, especially through the air”. Thus, the interpretation of so-called
literal meaning is far from what the speaker intends to convey. The comparison is carried
out and adequately comprehended because of the consideration that both rumour and
infection are dangerous and spread rapidly. Thus, the common features mentioned here
are implicit. The whole utterance may be paraphrased as follows: “Rumours like
infections, spread at a fantastic speed and are dangerous, so one should avoid them.”      

According to Grice’s theory of conversational implicature, implicit utterances are
cases of maxim exploitation (Grice, 1968:64). Grice singles out different cases of
breaking the maxims. For example, if the speaker breaks the maxims secretly by telling
a lie, he is “violating the maxim”. Accordingly, if he breaks them deliberately, he is
“flouting the maxim”. From the linguistic point of view, the cases of flouting are more
interesting as they give rise to various implicatures depending on the context and the
speaker’s communicative intention. Metaphoric similes are viewed as cases of flouting
the maxim of quality (the need to be truthful). However, it should be mentioned that the
flouting is to be observed only on the surface level. If the listener interprets the utterance
as literally untrue, or nonsensical, the cooperative principle and the maxims may lead
him to search for a further deeper level of meaning, i.e. figurative meaning which to
some extent preserves the maxim of quality.

e.g. Her whole mind was a chaos, darkness breaking in upon it, and herself
struggling to gain control with her will, as a swimmer struggles with the swirling
water.

(D.H. Lawrence, Women in Love)

In this example there is no relation of explicit similarity between the notions
“mind” and “chaos”. How does the listener (reader) understand that the speaker (author)
implies somewhat different from what is actually said. The inference strategy involved

49

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika



in working out the speaker’s message can be formulated in the form of the following
steps:
1. In saying that “Her whole mind was a chaos” the speaker seems to observe the

maxims (i.e. we assume that what he says is true and relevant), at least at first
glance.

2. But the speaker’s utterance is, nevertheless, inadequate and it does not seem to be
true (“mind” and “chaos” have nothing in common).

3. This means that the speaker’s utterance has some hidden, implicit illocutionary
point or aim.

4. In such a situation we look for a meaning that seems to be more relevant. In general,
“chaos” symbolizes disorder, mess, disharmony and darkness. Therefore, we
conclude that the heroine’s mind being compared to chaos expresses her
disorganized state of mind - being at a loss, not knowing what to do, or how to act.
Everything inside her is mixed up and she tries hard to overcome this attack of
emotions.

5. Hence, the encoder aims at making his/her utterance more expressive and draws a
similarity between “mind” and “chaos”. 
It should be pointed out that no one will consciously go through this process of

inference to understand what the speaker intends to convey. People are generally not
aware of doing it either as encoders or decoders. It is here that the general principles of
conversation together with mutually shared background knowledge, global vertical
context come to help. These factors play an important role in the speaker’s creating of
implicature and in the listener’s interpretation of it. Only in this case the implicature that
is conveyed and the one that is inferred will be essentially the same. Undoubtedly,
context plays a great role in determining the indirect force of the utterance. For instance,
it is held that the word “dog” may evoke various associations, namely: being dirty,
sleepy, as well as prudent, devoted, etc. Often in actual speech situations context makes
it clear what the utterance implies. However, the following questions are bound to arise:
What facts determine indirect ways of expression? Why does the author express himself
implicitly? Why is it preferable for him to say “He was no gentle lamb” instead of saying
“He was obstinate, bold, shrewd, etc.”, which would be more easy to perceive. The main
reason is that the speaker (author) aims at making his speech more expressive, emotional
in order to achieve certain aesthetic impact on the listener (reader). His intention is
assumed to be fulfilled if he succeeds in getting the hearer to understand and interpret
the utterance non-literally.

In the process of communication we often come across cases when the listener fails
to perceive the intention of the speaker’s utterance, and this gives rise to curious
situations.

e.g. Do you know what time it is?
“Yes”. (without any further action)

Here the speaker’s intention is not achieved as the listener has failed to perceive the
indirect meaning of the speaker’s utterance and his answer “yes” refers only to its literal

50

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics



meaning. Thus, the listener’s recognition of the speaker’s communicative intention
(which J. Austin terms “illocutionary uptake”) is very important for any communication
to be successful. In the case of metaphoric similes the listener (reader) is more free in
his/her interpretation.

e.g. She had eyes like forest pools.
(S. Maugham, Salvatore)

In this example the heroine’s eyes are compared to forest pools and create an image
of dark eyes with a shining surface sparkling like pools and reflecting everything around
like a mirror. They are framed by long eyelashes as forest trees frame forest pools. This
utterance is not easily perceived and interpreted as it may create different images
depending on the listener’s power of imagination and ability to employ analogy. And we
may assume that irrespective of the way utterances of this type are perceived  and
interpreted, if they arouse emotions in the listener (reader), creating  certain images in
the latter’s mind, then the speaker’s (author’s) intention may be considered to be
achieved i.e. he succeeds in bringing about the perlocutionary effect of aesthetic impact
on the listener.

Our analysis proves once again that the meanings of words are vague in general and
they may acquire some additional expressive-emotional-aesthetic overtones due to
collocational environments. On the pragmatic level our task is to reveal those implicit
meanings (or various connotations) that words may acquire when used in combination
with other words and to explain the inferential mechanisms involved in understanding
them, including their aesthetic evaluation. Metaphoric similes, due to their power of
effecting energy in communication, play a significant role in the creation of a piece of
verbal art. Its multifunctional character is accounted for by the fact that we, humans, like
to play with words. We take ideas, give them wings and they fly like brightly coloured
birds making the world around us seem more exciting and magic.

References:

1. Austin J.L.  How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962, p.6-29.
2. Grice H.P. Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence-Meaning, and Word-Meaning. //

Foundations of Language, 1968.
3. Grice H.P. Logic and Conversation. // Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3, ed. by P. Cole

and J.L. Morgan. N.Y.: Academic Press, 1975, p. 45-134.
4. Leech G.N. Principles of Pragmatics. London - N.Y.: Longman, 1983.
5. Levinson S.C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
6. Verschueren J. Understanding Pragmatics. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1999.
7. Uitti K.D. Linguistics and Literary Theory. N.Y., 1969.
8. Àðóòþíîâà Í.Ä., Ïàäó÷åâà Å.Â. Èñòîêè, ïðîáëåìû è êàòåãîðèè ïðàãìàòèêè. //

Íîâîå â çàðóáåæíîé ëèíãâèñòèêå, âûï.16. Ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêàÿ ïðàãìàòèêà. Ì.:
Ïðîãðåññ, 1985.

51

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika



9. Àðóòþíîâà Í.Ä. Ïðåäëîæåíèå è åãî ñìûñë. Ìîñêâà, 1976.
10. Ãàñïàðÿí Ñ.Ê. Ôèãóðà ñðàâíåíèÿ â ôóíêöèîíàëüíîì îñâåùåíèè. Åðåâàí: Èçä.

Åðåâàíñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà, 2000.
11. Ëåâèí Ñ. Ïðàãìàòè÷åñêîå îòêëîíåíèå âûñêàçûâàíèÿ. // Òåîðèÿ ìåòàôîðû. /

Ïîä ðåä. Í.Ä. Àðóòþíîâîé, Ì.À. Æóðèíñêîé. Ì.: Ïðîãðåññ, 1990.
12. Ñåðëü Äæ.Ð. Ìåòàôîðà. // Òåîðèÿ ìåòàôîðû. / Ïîä ðåä. Í.Ä. Àðóòþíîâîé,

Ì.À. Æóðèíñêîé. Ì.: Ïðîãðåññ, 1990.

ܺð²Î²ÚàôÂÚ²Ü ÊܸÆðÀ 
ä²îκð²ìàð вغزîàôÂÚàôÜܺðàôØ

ºÉÝ»Éáí ѳٳï»ùëïÇ ÁݹѳÝáõñ ·³Õ³÷³ñ³Ï³Ý μáí³Ý¹³ÏáõÃÛáõÝÇó
¨ ËáëáÕÇ Ùï³¹ñáõÃÛáõÝÇóª Ý߳ݳÛÇÝ ï³ññ»ñÁ ϳñáÕ »Ý Éñ³óáõóÇã ѳÕáñ-
¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý ·áñͳéáõÛà ӻéù μ»ñ»É: Üñ³Ýó Ý»ñ³Ï³ ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ ÏÇñ³éáõÙ-
Ý»ñÁ Ñݳñ³íáñ ¿ Ù»Ïݳμ³Ý»É ÙdzÛÝ í»ñÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ Ù³Ï³ñ¹³ÏáõÙ: ä³ï-
Ï»ñ³íáñ ³ñï³Ñ³Ûïã³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÁ ³é³ÝÓݳѳïáõÏ Ñ»ï³ùñùñáõÃÛáõÝ »Ý
Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáõÙ ·áñͳμ³Ý³Ï³Ý í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛ³Ý ï»ë³ÝÏÛáõÝÇó, ÇÝãÝ ¿É Ñݳ-
ñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝ ¿ ï³ÉÇë ó÷³Ýó»É Ñ»ÕÇݳÏÇ ëï»ÕÍ³Í å³ïÏ»ñÝ»ñÇ ³ß-
˳ñÑÁ ¨ ¹ñ³Ý ѳٳå³ï³ë˳ݪ ÁÙμéÝ»É ËáëùÇ ÷á˳μ»ñ³Ï³Ý ÇÙ³ëïÁ:
Ðá¹í³ÍáõÙ ÷áñÓ ¿ ³ñíáõÙ μ³ó³Ñ³Ûï»É Ëáëù³ÛÇÝ Ýß³ÝÝ»ñÇ  ³Ýëáíáñ ½áõ-
·áñ¹Ù³Ùμ ³ñï³Ñ³Ûïí³Í Ý»ñ³Ï³ ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ »ñ³Ý·Ý»ñÁ ¨ áõëáõÙݳëÇ-
ñ»É ³ÛÝ Ù»Ë³ÝǽÙÝ»ñÝ áõ ëϽμáõÝùÝ»ñÁ, áñáÝù Ýå³ëïáõÙ »Ý ¹ñ³Ýó å³ï-
Ï»ñ³íáñáõÃÛ³Ý ÁÝϳÉÙ³ÝÝ áõ Ù»Ïݳμ³ÝÙ³ÝÁ:

52

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics