Metaphors

In my last column, I wrote about the misuse of the expression “quantum leap”. My thanks to those correspondents who raised some additional aspects. A point I neglected to make was that using “quantum leap” outside the domain of physics is metaphorical; the question is whether the metaphor is used appropriately. To my mind, if the original (“real”) meaning is “the smallest change possible”, the metaphorical meaning “a huge and noteworthy change” is hardly appropriate. Metaphors are a vital element of the living language, but that doesn’t justify clumsy or ignorant misuse of a term that began with a clear and precise meaning.

The use of metaphors is fraught with danger—especially for people who don’t pause to consider the metaphorical element in what they write. Here are two recent examples:

Backpackers are continuing to place their lives at risk by sleeping in rundown fire traps masquerading as legitimate hostels. Unregulated backyard operators, who run cramped “doss” and “animal” houses, have emerged as the biggest concern to a $1.8 billion annual industry, which is trying to improve fire-safety standards.

—Balogh, S. (2001): “Fire-trap hostels still in business”, in The Weekend Australian, 16–17 June 2001. p 6.

Balogh’s reference to “backyard operators” of hostels conjures up, for me, images of tents pitched under the Hill’s Hoist.

Oskar Schindler’s widow, Emilie, takes legal action to recover a case said to contain The List.

—Contents page, The Australian Magazine, 16–17 June 2001

The reference to legal action made me interpret “recover a case” as referring to a court case. In fact, it’s a reference to a suitcase… (In this case—oops!—perhaps it’s only the incorrect interpretation that’s metaphorical.)

No doubt someone, somewhere, will accuse me of “playing semantic games” with these inappropriate metaphors. There’s another expression that vexes me mightily. If semantics is the science or study of meaning (which it is), what can a semantic game be? To accuse someone (always an opponent in some sort of debate) of playing semantic games is, surely, to accuse them of “merely fussing about what words mean”. If someone wants to make a debating point without fussing about what their words mean, I would have thought it entirely reasonable that an opponent might call them to account. We depend on our use of language to be understood. If we are misunderstood, who is to blame?