III. Background

A. Defining Metaphor

For the purposes of this project, I adapt a definition from the Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory to understand metaphor as “non-literal analogical relation[s] between two concepts or conceptual domains” (305). Metaphor is a frame for “understanding one thing in terms of something else” in “varying degrees of conventionality, creative metaphors being more striking to the addressee than conventional ones” (306). Using familiar conceptual models to structure complex information has a long history in rhetorical tradition; for example, classical rhetoricians relied on “memory palaces,” or walking through imaginary architectural structures, in order to call to mind the points they wanted to make (Whittemore).

When discussing metaphor in this chapter as an invention strategy, I refer to organizing conceptual structures for developing coherence among the multiple juxtaposed pieces that make up a webtext. This metaphor imposes a coordinating logical structure apart from each piece's individual micro-structure. This coheres with Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptually based approach to metaphors: “Metaphors in the conceptual system indicate coherent and systematic relationships between concepts” (135). The primary claim underlying their discussion of metaphor is that “human thought processes are largely metaphorical. This is what we mean when we say that the human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined. Metaphors as linguistic expressions are possible precisely because there are metaphors in a person’s conceptual system” (6). This structural/conceptual approach to metaphor enables me to look not just at the surface of the pieces but rather at their total organizing logic, and the developing analogical system upon which it is based. By focusing on metaphors in design, I examine how webtext composers work towards overall coherence through an overarching, unifying structural concept.

I want to note that I’m not sure if “metaphor” is the right word for the phenomena I’m trying to describe. In the process of researching webtext invention, I’ve encountered (and designed) multiple projects that rely on an orienting conceptual object that forms a significant basis for multimodally organizing a webtext’s various components according to its material logics. There are other terms I could use such as “figure” or “analogy”, each with their own conceptual frameworks and positioning in rhetorical traditions (Fahnestock, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca). I use “metaphor” because it’s an in vivo code that occurred in how several webtext composers who use this form describe their own work that they are doing. However, “metaphor” only partially gets at what I’m trying to describe and raises problems in the process.

One such problem is that of describing both an external object as orienting concept and the way its literally made present in some dimension as a component of the webtext itself (a problem I had to address in developing my coding system for “metaphors” in relation to “pieces”). Prelli’s discussion accounts for how a “shift from metaphorical to literal is accomplished through visual as well as verbal depiction” (111) in studying visual aids used to dispute geographical ocean boundaries between the US and Canada, and I hope to build on these discussions by examining how they play out in relation to metaphor and invention in webtext scholarship. Overall, I suggest there is a need for a taxonomy of design elements in webtexts scholarship—a need for a formal language to describe and categorize the multimodal figures used to make scholarly arguments in digital spaces. Thus, I will use “metaphor” for now to refer to a webtext’s orienting conceptual object, while recognizing that another term might be more appropriate to use in the future.

Other terms might be considered to describe the phenomena I identify and trace here in the context of webtext composing. Fahnestock’s use of the term “figure”, for example, has significant conceptual overlap with how I’m using metaphor. One goal of Fahnestock’s project is to establish the importance of figures of speech so that they are “no longer seen as decoration on the plain cloth of language but as the fabric itself. The figure epitomizes lines of argument that have great applicability and durability, and though these lines can be paraphrased in roundabout ways, they gain their greatest force in the stylistic concision of a recognizable figure. In a general as well as a very particular sense, then, a style argues” (xii). Likewise, my investigation of webtexts posits metaphor as a significant influence on how design performs an argument; these metaphors are durable, in that they tend to enter the design early in the drafting phase and remain a significant feature through to the end; and, I argue, they are not simply decorative but rather a key component of a webtext’s total intellectual work.

Another term to consider would be Perelman and Olbrecht-Tyteca’s “analogy” as structuring inventive force. As they describe, “Analogies are important in invention and argumentation fundamentally because they facilitate the development and extension of thought […] they make it possible to give the theme a structure and to give it a conceptual setting” (385). They note that analogies are useful from an inventive standpoint in seeing how far out a claim might productively extend, though also that an analogy risks damaging an argument’s structural integrity if extended out too far (386). In this regard, “analogy” serves a similar function in my discussion of metaphors as a structural device for organizing a webtext’s various components, and for establishing a “conceptual setting” or sense of place through which a reader can situate themselves within the argument. Additionally, their over-extended analogy overlaps with my discussion of the dangers of metaphor, as a structuring device that can take over the project as a whole if not carefully considered.

Ultimately, I’ve chosen to use “metaphor” to describe the orienting design-object phenomenon explored in this chapter. My primary reason for this choice is that several other composers’ webtext invention narratives (C. Lauer, and Voss) use “metaphor” to describe their materially based design strategy. (In this case, I incorporated the term into both my analysis and describing my own preferred webtext invention practices after reading it in Lauer’s published narrative, and Voss used the term unsolicited in her interview narrative). “Metaphor” thus functions as an in vivo qualitative code (Miles, Huberman, and Saldana) in a way that “figure” or “analogy” would not necessarily capture. Additionally, for digital composers new to webtext composing, I suggest that “metaphor” might be a familiar term to draw upon when working to navigate unfamiliar design territory.