The Text (I)

A commonplace of recent critical theory is that there is no difference in kind between literary language and ordinary language (see Pratt for an early, influential argument that “the body of utterances we call ‘literature’” is not “systematically distinguishable from other utterances on the basis of intrinsic grammatical or textual properties” [xi]). The general idea is entirely in keeping with cognitive scientific views. As we saw in the preceding chapter, cognitive theorists view genius as an intenser form of ordinary creativity. The same point holds in other areas as well. For example, literary plots are tighter versions of the tales we tell every day. Understanding a postmodern novel is an exercise of the same order as interpreting life itself from the fragmentary evidences of quotidian experience. More generally, for most cognitive scientists, there is no difference in kind between the practices of literature and those of ordinary thought. There is, at most, a difference in their extent or degree. ¹ Metaphor is no exception. Whatever we may think metaphor is, it is not one thing in poems of high seriousness and another thing in idle talk. It is the same thing everywhere. Indeed, metaphor is widely viewed as one of the most significant features of radical creativity, even one of its primary sources. Cognitive theorists too accept that metaphor is central to innovation. They simply stress that this innovation is to be found in everyday conversation as well as sonnets.