Metaphor in Vico and Coseriu

Abstract

In strict quantitative terms, metaphor does not occupy a privileged place in Coseriu’s work, being effectively addressed in a single study, “La Creación metafórica en el lenguaje” – “Metaphorical Creation in Language” (1956). However, the way he outlines it reveals a highly complex theoretical model that betrays a deep understanding of the concept. The current research raises the question about the origins of Coseriu’s ideas on metaphor. In his 1956 article, Coseriu makes explicit reference to Cassirer, but the way he conceives metaphor presents a series of striking similarities with the model outlined, a few centuries earlier, by Vico, in several works: De nostri temporis studiorum ratione – On the Study Methods of Our Time (1709), De antiquissima italorum sapientia – On the Most Ancient Wisdom of the Italians (1710), “Risposte” – “Responses” (1711–1712), and Scienza Nuova – New Science (1744). Although Coseriu does not mention Vico in his 1956 article, he often recognises him among the leading voices that inspired his views on language. There are references to Vico in many works, including Forma y sustancia en los sonidos del lenguaje – Form and Substance in the Sounds of Language (1954), Sincronía, diacronía e historia – Synchrony, Diachrony, and History (1958), “Sprache und Dichtung” – “Language and Poetry” (1963–1964), Geschichte der Sprachphilosophie – History of the Philosophy of Language (1969/1972), “Von den universali fantastici” – On the universali fantasctici (1995), and the two interviews conducted by Saramandu (1996) and Kabatek/Murguía (1997), respectively. There is significant work on metaphor in Vico, beginning with Di Cesare’s 1986 trailblazing article and continuing with contributions by other well-read scholars (such as Danesi, Price, Valagussa, Trabant, and Verene). Valuable research has also been conducted on Coseriu’s views on metaphor (mainly by Borcilă and Faur). However, no systematic dialogue between Coseriu and Vico on this specific issue (metaphor) has yet been initiated (although it is already implicit in Coseriu and has been, in some way, suggested by Borcilă and, indirectly, by Kabatek and Faur).

This contribution aims to fill the gap. It, therefore, provides an overview of how Vico and Coseriu conceive of metaphor and sketches the corresponding models of understanding. It then compares the two models, highlighting lines of continuity/discontinuity. By tracing the punctuated trajectory of the idea of metaphor from Vico to Coseriu, this study seeks to implicitly ‘recover’ an essential segment of the tradition of thought on this fascinating topic (metaphor). The research concludes by inviting reflections on how integrating Vico and Coseriu more systematically could shed new light on more recent theories. It may eventually open new avenues for the so-called “cognitive paradigm”, in a broad sense (as defined in contributions by Lakoff/Johnson, Fusaroli/Morgagni (eds), Zlatev/Jacobsson/Paju, and Zlatev). It could strengthen a line of inquiry opened, in one sense, by some scholars (such as Danesi, Gensini, and Trabant), who have linked this paradigm to Vico, and, in another sense, by other scholars (Faur and Faur/Zlatev), who are making an effective attempt to put the same paradigm in dialogue with Coseriu.