The patient repetition of a fertile metaphor?

12 2. Model as Metaphor What one finds in language depends in large measure on what one expects to find. Among the factors that shape these expectations is metaphor, whose pervasiveness and formative influence in our mental life have been emphasized in a number of recent studies Lakoff and Johnson 1980 ; Lakoff 1987 ; Turner 1987 ; Lakoff and Turner 1989 . Metaphor plays an important role in virtually all phases of scientific inquiry, and there is perhaps no field where this is more apparent than in linguistics. Of course, the indisputable power of metaphor does not come without certain dangers. In particular, one has no guarantee that a seemingly apt metaphor will actually prove appropriate and helpful when pushed beyond the limited observations that initially inspired it. An investigator who wishes not to be misled must make himself aware of the metaphors he uses and remain alert to both their limitations and the continuous pressure they subtly exert. Langacker 1991 :507

2.3. Approaching metatheory via metaphor

As cited in chapter 1 , Figueroa defines metatheory as “the underlying beliefs which generate a particular approach” and as “ideology or theoretical presupposition” Figueroa 1994 :4. While her definition is useful, the “underlying beliefs,” “ideology,” and “theoretical presuppositions” which she suggests one might study do not readily present themselves for examination. How then might one approach the study of metatheory? Most linguists conduct their science without explicitly discussing presuppositions. Nevertheless, the manner in which they speak and write does reflect those presup- positions. Foremost in that reflection are their choices and uses of metaphors. As has been mentioned, Burke 1954 , Lakoff 1987 , and Lakoff and Johnson 1980 , 1999 have argued that metaphors are much more than just a convenient or poetic means of expression. In developing their theory of language, Lakoff and Johnson discovered that a study of metaphorical expressions in language reveals the more abstract conceptual metaphors that shape behavior and experience. They write: Our conceptual system is not something we are normally aware of. In most of the little things we do every day, we simply think and act more or less automatically along certain lines. Just what these lines are is by no means obvious. One way to find out is by looking at language. Since communication is based on the same conceptual system that we use in thinking and acting, language is an important source of evidence for what that system is like. Lakoff and Johnson 1980 :3 Just as a study of metaphorical expressions provides Lakoff and Johnson a means of recognizing underlying conceptual metaphors in language, a study of metaphorical expressions employed by the linguistic community provides a porthole for viewing the more abstract conceptual system to which those metaphors are linked. The metaphorisms which elaborate the code model of communication provide such a porthole into linguistic metatheory. 2.4. The patient repetition of a fertile metaphor? As mentioned, Kenneth Burke suggests that “whole works of scientific research, even entire schools,” may be “hardly more than the patient repetition … of a fertile 2. Model as Metaphor 13 metaphor” Burke 1954 :95. Has the code model of communication been such a “fertile metaphor” for the discipline of linguistics? Has the discipline demonstrated a “patient repetition” of this particular metaphor? At a cursory level, even a simple review of the linguistic literature should serve to answer these questions. If the code model has served the discipline in such a way, then the literature should demonstrate that fact. Accordingly, as a means of exploring and discussing that literature, this section documents by way of quotations the development and use of the code model through nearly fifty years of linguistic literature. The quota- tions are presented here in chronological order by date of publication, serving to highlight the development and continued use of the model up through the present decade. It is important to note that the quotations do not simply reflect a single school of thought or tradition. Indeed, most contemporary linguists have used the code model, regardless of the theories they may employ in accounting for lower level issues. It seems to have mattered little whether they were formalists or functionalists, grammarians or sociolinguists. It should also be noted that the quotations cited here record that the code model has been the property of mainstream linguistics. Most of the quotations represent the work of prominent theoreticians. In an effort to maintain continuity, discussion of particular theories and theoreticians is kept to a minimum in this chapter. Chapter 4 will address particular theories in more detail. Because the use of the code model is not the peculiar habit of any particular school of linguistics, the quotations are not grouped by school or subdiscipline. Readers may note that the linguists quoted have not all used the model in the same manner. As will be discussed, it is evident that the code model formalizes a body of shared presuppositions, but theoreticians differ regarding how these presuppositions should be ordered and applied. Similarly, they differ regarding how the components of the code model should be handled. Nevertheless, most have begun with a basic set of presuppositions, demonstrated in the literature via the metatheoretical conceptual axioms they employ to be discussed in section 3.4 . The discussion now turns to the quotations themselves. • Charles Hockett 1953 , 1955 As has been briefly addressed in the introduction to this study, and will be further discussed in chapter 3 , the code model is best understood as a contemporary integration of three models: 1 the conduit metaphor, 2 Saussure’s speech circuit, and 3 modern information theory. Since information theory was the third and final model to be incor- porated, the point of its introduction to linguistics is an important date in the overall history of the code model within linguistics. Charles Hockett was one of the first linguists to take note of Claude Shannon’s information theory, writing an influential review of Shannon and Weaver 1949 for Language Hockett 1953 . In 1955 Hockett published A Manual of Phonology, in which he attempted to incorporate information theory into linguistics Hockett 1955 :7. Hockett’s appeal to information theory is worked throughout the book in development of his “mathematico-mechanical” model of language 14 2. Model as Metaphor and communication Hockett 1955 :3. It is one of the earliest examples of information theoretic terminology being used by linguists to describe communication. A few examples are offered here: The Speech Transmitter converts the discrete flow of phonemes which comes to it into a continuous speech signal —a continuous train of sound waves. The code by which the Speech Transmitter performs this transduction is the phonetic system of the language. Hockett 1955 :5 Under normal conditions one constantly monitors one’s speech via both [of two] types of feedback. Jill’s Speech Receiver is not quiescent as she speaks, but is functioning just as are her Speech Transmitter and her deeper units. Similarly, we may suspect that Jack’s Speech Transmitter is not completely quiescent just because at the moment he is broadcasting nothing. As he listens to Jill, his Speech Receiver is able to decode the signal partly because the incoming signal is constantly compared with the articulatory motions which Jack himself would have to make in order to produce an acoustically comparable signal. Hockett 1955 :7 11 The phonetic system is the code according to which the Speech Transmitter converts its input a flow of phonologic units into sound waves; the same code governs the inverse operation of the Speech Receiver. Hockett 1955 :15 In Hockett’s defense it should be mentioned that he well understood that a mechanical model was being introduced and that the model would have definite limitations. He writes: Whether or not a mechanical model for a phenomenon constitutes an explanation of the phenomenon depends, not on the model, but on the temperament of the investigator. An explanation is something which satisfies one until one has looked deeper; then one asks for an explanation of the explanation. Certainly those of us with the greatest fondness for mechanical models must avoid the error of argument from analogy. Hockett 1955 :4 Considering the role this mechanical model and its relatives would come to have in linguistics, his comments were ironic, if not prophetic. • Roman Jakobson 1960 Roman Jakobson, discussing the ‘functions’ of language which he termed cognitive, emotive, conative, phatic, metalingual, and poetic, suggests that those functions focused on particular factors within the speech event. He writes: Language must be investigated in all the variety of its functions. Before discussing the poetic function we must define its place among the other functions of language. An outline of these functions demands a concise survey of the constitutive factors in any speech event, in any act of verbal communication. The ADDRESSER sends a MESSAGE to the ADDRESSEE . To be operative the message requires a CONTEXT referred to “referent” in another, somewhat ambiguous, nomenclature, seizable by the addressee, and either verbal or capable of being verbalized; a CODE fully, or at least partially, common to the addresser and addressee or in other words, to the encoder and decoder of the message; and, finally, a CONTACT , a physical channel and psychological connection between the addresser and the addressee, enabling both of them to enter and stay in communication. All these factors inalienably involved in verbal 11 Compare Hockett’s account of the decoding process to Liberman’s motor theory account of speech perception see Liberman 1996 ; Crystal 2003 :303. 2. Model as Metaphor 15 communication may be schematized as follows: [see figure 2.2 ] Each of these six factors determines a different function of language. Although we distinguish six basic aspects of language, we could, however, hardly find verbal messages that would fulfill only one function. Jakobson 1960 :353 Figure 2.2. Jakobson’s communication model after Jakobson 1960 :353 • Peter Denes and Elliot Pinson 1963 The model also influenced phoneticians. Here Denes and Pinson employ the model in their text on acoustic phonetics: 12 We may … think of the speech chain as a communication system in which ideas to be transmitted are represented by a code that undergoes transformations as speech events proceed from one level to another. We can draw an analogy here between speech and Morse code. In Morse code, certain patterns of dots and dashes stand for different letters of the alphabet; the dots and dashes are a code for the letters. This code can also be transformed from one form to another. For example, a series of dots and dashes on a piece of paper can be converted into an acoustic sequence, like ‘beep-bip-bip-beep’. In the same way, the words of our language are a code for concepts and material objects. The word “dog” is the code for a four-legged animal that wags its tail, just as “dash-dash-dash” is Morse code for the letter “O.” … During speech transmission, the speaker’s linguistic code of words and sentences is transformed into physiological and physical codes—in other words, into corresponding sets of muscle movements and air vibrations—being reconverted into linguistic code at the listener’s end. This is analogous to translating the written ‘dash-dash-dash’ of Morse code into the sounds, ‘beep-beep-beep’. Denes and Pinson 1963 :6; 2nd edition 1993 :6 This quote from Denes and Pinson shows a mixture of applications. In their reference to the physical process of muscle movements and air vibrations, Denes and Pinson appropriately appeal to information theory. But in their suggestions regarding the “linguistic code of words and sentences,” they contribute to the development of the code model. 12 While they employ the model in a linguistic context and in a manner consistent with linguistics, it should be mentioned that Denes and Pinson, while working in experimental phonetics, both hold degrees in engineering. 16 2. Model as Metaphor • Eugene Nida 1964 Nida discusses communication in several of his books, occasionally mentioning information theory, or communication theory as it is sometimes called see Nida 1964 :121–122, 1990 :85ff.. 13 Nida employs two models of communication. The simpler of the two is composed of only three elements: source, message, and receptor see Nida 1969 :494; Nida and Taber 1969 :22–23; Nida 1984 :2; Nida and Reyburn 1981 :5. His more technical writing on the topic, however, supplies additional details, yielding a code- model based account of communication see figure 2.3 . Figure 2.3. Nida’s communication model after Nida 1964 :121 Nida writes: In Figure [ 2.3 ] S, M, and R stand for source, message and receptor, respectively. The wavy line through the M suggests the acoustic transmission, while the printed form of M stands for a written communication. As appendages to the squares marked S and R there are sections labeled De and En, standing for “decoder” and “encoder,” respectively … During the entire process of communication there is also a factor of “noise,” to borrow a term from communications engineers …. Nida 1964 :120–121 Nida and de Waard 1986 , expanded the model even further, identifying eight elements and explicitly addressing the issue of intentionality. For any communication there are eight principle elements: source, message, receptors, setting, code, sense channel, instrument channel, and noise. In this present discussion of communication we are, however, limiting the meaning of communication to events in which a person purposely produces signs which communicate something to receptors. Nida and de Waard 1986 :11 13 Unfortunately, Nida does not accurately represent all elements of Shannon’s theory. For example, in discussing the information theoretic notion of information, he states, “‘Information’ is not, therefore to be equated with meaning, but to be understood as the dynamic impact of a word—the extent to which it stands out in the discourse because of its individuality and distinctiveness” Nida 1990 :86; italics added. See section 3.2.3.1.1 for a discussion of the term information and its use within information theory. 2. Model as Metaphor 17 • Jerrold Katz 1966 Natural languages are vehicles for communication in which syntactically structured and acoustically realized objects transmit meaningful messages from one speaker to another. … The basic question that can be asked about natural languages is: what are the principles for relating acoustic objects to meaningful messages that make a natural language so important and flexible a form of communication. Roughly, linguistic communication consists in the production of some external, publicly observable, acoustic phenomenon whose phonetic and syntactic structure encodes a speaker’s inner, private thoughts or ideas and the decoding of the phonetic and syntactic structure exhibited in such a physical phenomenon by other speakers in the form of an inner, private experience of the same thoughts or ideas. Katz 1966 :98 [The speaker’s] message is encoded in the form of a phonetic representation of an utterance by means of the system of linguistic rules with which the speaker is equipped. This encoding then becomes a signal to the speaker’s articulatory organs, and he vocalizes an utterance of the proper phonetic shape. This is, in turn, picked up by the hearer’s auditory organs. The speech sounds that stimulate these organs are then converted into a neural signal from which a phonetic representation equivalent to the one into which the speaker encoded his message is obtained. This representation is decoded into a representation of the same message that the speaker originally chose to convey by the hearer’s equivalent system of linguistic rules. Hence, because the hearer employs the same system of rules to decode that the speaker employs to encode, an instance of successful linguistic communication occurs. Katz 1966 :103–104 • Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle 1968 The goal of the descriptive study of a language is the construction of a grammar. We may think of a language as a set of sentences, each with an ideal phonetic form and an associated intrinsic semantic interpretation. The grammar of the language is the system of rules that specifies this sound-meaning correspondence. The speaker produces a signal with a certain intended meaning; the hearer receives a signal and attempts to determine what was said and what was intended. The performance of the speaker or hearer is a complex matter that involves many factors. One fundamental factor involved in the speaker-hearer’s performance is his knowledge of the grammar that determines an intrinsic connection of sound and meaning for each sentence. Chomsky and Halle 1968 :3 • Wallace Chafe 1970 The messages communicated by nonhuman primates are narrowly circumscribed: “The information transmitted to the receiver refers primarily to the current emotional disposition of the signaler. The consequences of effective reception are largely modifications of the emo- tional dispositions of the receivers.” [ Bastian 1965 :598] … Inextricably interwoven with that development [of man’s evolution and the subsequent broadening of the conceptual universe] has been a vast increase in the number and variety of ideas which man can communicate. The nature of language as a system reflects an evolutionary history of accommodations to this increase. Not only has there been a growth in the number and complexity of ideas which can be communicated, there has also been a change in kind. Through language man communicates not only the emotions and messages essential to his survival, but also an endless array of states, relations, objects, and events both internal and external to himself. Chafe 1970 :24 18 2. Model as Metaphor • David Lockwood 1972 In this quotation David Lockwood, a stratificationalist, makes an interesting appeal to code model concepts without employing much of the classic information theoretic terminology. Most of Lockwood’s account can be traced to the influence of Saussure see section 3.2.2.2 . Communication through the medium of spoken language is concerned with the conveying of concepts by means of vocal noises. Let us attempt to outline a simple view of what goes on when two individuals communicate using language. One participant in the communication process, let us label him A, goes from concepts inside his brain to muscle movements leading to the articulation of vocal sounds. A second participant, B, receives these vocal noises as they have been transmitted through the air. He perceives them by means of his auditory mechanism, which ultimately leads to a stimulation of his conceptual apparatus. Lockwood 1972 :1 It should be noted that certain other stratificationalists employ the concept and the adopted information theoretic terminology e.g., Fleming 1990 . • John Lyons 1977 In his 1977 volume Semantics, John Lyons makes the following appeal: The ideal system is one which encodes just enough redundant information in signals to enable the receiver to recover any information lost as a result of noise. If the conditions of transmission are relatively constant, and if the degree of reliability expected is also relatively constant and does not vary according to the kind of message that is being transmitted, it is possible to design a system which approximates to this idea. It should be clear that the conditions under which linguistic signals are transmitted vary enormously from one occasion to another, and that hearing exactly what is said is more important in some situations than in others. One might not, therefore, expect languages to approximate very closely to the ideal of signalling efficiency. Lyons 1977 :45 In contrast to many other linguists employing the code model, Lyons is aware of its relationship to information theory. He provides a rather extensive review of information theory in his 1977 volume. He also provides the following, perhaps as a hedge against anticipated criticism: It is important to realize that the terms in question are of much wider applicability than their origin in communication-engineering might suggest; and they should not be thought of as referring solely to some electrical, mechanical or electronic system of signal-transmission. Lyons 1977 :36 • Bruce Pearson 1977 Pearson expresses the code model concept in a rather interesting fashion, perhaps based in part on Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale 1983 :29, where individuals are spoken of as being “linguistically linked.” Communication implies the transmission of meaningful data from one organism to another. There is no way that two nervous systems can be directly linked to each other, but language provides a means of encoding messages that can be transmitted in such a way that two or more nervous systems can for all practical purposes achieve a linkup. Pearson 1977 :4 2. Model as Metaphor 19 • M. A. K. Halliday 1978 “‘Code’ became a buzzword in sociolinguistics in the late 1960s and 1970s following the controversial work of Bernstein 1971 , 1973 on the relationship between educational development and social class” Wales 1994 :577. Bernstein’s two types of code, the ‘elaborated’ and the ‘restricted’, replaced earlier notions of ‘formal’ and ‘public’ language Bernstein 1971 , 1973 , 1987 . Halliday then developed a theory of social semiotic much influenced by Bernstein, wherein various types of code are posited. The codes are “types of meaning or cultural values, generated by the social system, which are actualized in language varieties and transmitted by different social groups and in different social situations: semiotic styles, in short” Wales 1994 :577. Halliday writes: 14 In the development of the child as a social being, language has the central role. Language is the main channel through which the patterns of living are transmitted to him, through which he learns to act as a member of a ‘society’ … and to adopt its ‘culture’, its modes of thought and action, its beliefs and its values. … The striking fact is that it is the most ordinary everyday uses of language … that serve to transmit, to the child, the essential qualities of society and the nature of social being. Halliday 1978 :9 In order for language to be a means of learning, it is essential for the child to be able to encode in language, through words and structures, his experience of processes of the external world and of the people and things that participate in them. Halliday 1978 :21 • Andrew Ellis and Geoffrey Beattie 1986 The code model has also had a strong role within psycholinguistics. For example, having introduced The Psychology of Language and Communication with examples of communicative acts, Andrew Ellis and Geoffrey Beattie write: What do all these examples have in common that qualifies them to be grouped together as acts involving communication? Can we capture those common features in a working definition of communication? All of these acts clearly involve the transmission of a signal from one organism to another. The signal carries information from a transmitter organism to a receiver organism. Having decoded the signal, the receiver is now in the position to make an appropriate response should one be required. Drawing all of these threads together we can formulate a working definition of communication which asserts that communication occurs when one organism the transmitter encodes information into a signal which passes to another organism the receiver which decodes the signal and is capable of responding appropriately. Ellis and Beattie 1986 :3 14 It should be noted that, in contrast to many linguists employing the code model, Halliday is very interested in the importance of context. He writes: Now one important fact about speaking and understanding language is that it always takes place in a context. We do not simply ‘know’ our mother tongue as an abstract system of vocal signals, or as if it was some sort of grammar book with a dictionary attached. We know it in the sense of knowing how to use it; we know how to communicate with other people, how to choose forms of language that are appropriate to the type of situation we find ourselves in, and so on. All this can be expressed as a form of knowledge: we know how to behave linguistically. Halliday 1978 :13 20 2. Model as Metaphor • Ronald Wardhaugh 1986 It is important to note that the code model is not simply an expression of formal linguistics. For example, its impact has been felt with equal strength in sociolinguistics. Here Ronald Wardhaugh uses the model to express certain underlying presuppositions that are then woven throughout his widely read textbook. The quotation is from the second paragraph of the first chapter. When two or more people communicate with each other in speech, we can call the system of communication that they employ a code. In most cases that code will be something we may want to call a language. We should also note that two speakers who are bilingual, that is, who have access to two codes, and who for one reason or another shift back and forth between the two languages as they converse, either by code-switching or code-mixing, are actually using a third code, one which draws on those two languages. The system or the grammar, to use a well-known technical term is something that each speaker ‘knows’, but two very important questions for linguists are just what that ‘knowledge’ is knowledge of and how it may best be characterized. Wardhaugh 1986 :1 • Talmy Givón 1989 The code model also appears in functional linguistics, as seen here in a quote from Givón’s Mind, Code, and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Givón, having recognized certain limitations in the code concept as employed in formal linguistics, attempts to overcome those limitations by making the code more elaborate. In the discussion thus far I have deliberately followed a tradition that must now be transcended. That tradition, in discussing language as semeiotics ‘coding system’, has been for a long time beclouded by almost total disregard for some rather fundamental facts concerning human language. Chief among those is the fact that language is a complex, multilevel code, rather than a relatively simple matching of sound sequences with lexical meanings. Givón 1989 :81 Givón maintains the general code model concept, but differs from formalists by attributing the origin of the code to iconicity see Givón 1989 :70–125, “The Linguistic Code: The Iconicity of Grammar”. • Ilah Fleming 1990 Ilah Fleming, a stratificationalist, provides an elaborated appeal to the model. In a stratificational view of communication, there are a number of strata, each of which represents a different aspect of the communication system. The stratal levels are, by convention, ordered vertically in diagrams with content at the top and means of expressing the content at the bottom. If the dynamic use of the strata is to encode a message, the communicator starts with the content of his message at the top and encodes it through the relevant strata until it is expressed ultimately by the lower expression level strata with sounds, non-verbal body movements, writing andor other signals. If an audience wants to decode a message, he starts with input from the expression level and decodes through the relevant strata until he is able to decode the content of the message. The success of the communication is 2. Model as Metaphor 21 affected by the degree to which the inferred message of the decoder matches the intended message of the encoder. Fleming 1990 :25; preliminary edition, quoted with permission 15 It is noteworthy that Fleming includes the information theoretic terminology that Lockwood 1972 had avoided. • David Crystal 2003 Crystal’s longstanding work, A Dictionary of Linguistics Phonetics, provides a classic version of the model in his definition of communication. communication A fundamental notion in the study of behavior, which acts as a frame of reference for LINGUISTIC and PHONETIC studies. Communication refers to the transmission of INFORMATION a ‘message’ between a source and receiver using a signalling system: in linguistic contexts, source and receiver are interpreted in human terms, the system involved is a LANGUAGE , and the notion of response to or acknowledgement of the message becomes of crucial importance. In theory, communication is said to have taken place if the information received is the same as that sent. Crystal 2003 :85 While Crystal’s definition of communication makes a firm appeal to the code model, he does not seem cognizant of the extent to which the model has impacted the discipline. In another entry defining ‘information’, he does refer to information theory; however, he seems to suggest that the impact of that theory is somewhat limited, particularly to the Hallidayan school Crystal 2003 :234–235. Similarly, in defining ‘code’, he almost denies its influence, writing: code n. The general sense of this term–a set of conventions for converting one signalling system into another–enters into the subject-matter of SEMIOTICS and COMMUNICATION theory rather than LINGUISTICS . Such notions as ‘encoding’ and ‘decoding’ are sometimes encountered in PHONETICS and linguistics, but the view of language as a ‘code’ is not one which figures greatly in these subjects. The term has come to the fore in SOCIOLINGUISTICS , where it is mainly used as a neutral label for any system of communication involving language–and which avoids sociolinguists having to commit themselves to such terms as DIALECT , LANGUAGE or VARIETY , which have a special status in their theories. Crystal 2003 :78–79 K. Wales 1994 agrees with Crystal in part, suggesting that the term ‘code’ is being used in place of ‘language’, ‘variety’, and ‘dialect’, but in contrast to Crystal, Wales correctly notes that this use of the term ‘code’ extends far beyond the domain of sociolinguistics. Wales writes: ‘Code,’ as a term borrowed from communication theory and semiotics, is so widely used in other fields, linguistic and literary, that it is in danger of becoming a mere synonym for language, variety, or dialect. Yet to a large extent the technical origins of the word still remain, in that it sounds jargonistic and also conveys the connotations of systemization. Wales 1994 :577 15 Fleming does use the phrase “inferred message” in writing of the decoding process, recognizing that the receiver’s message may not be equivalent to the transmitter’s message. 22 2. Model as Metaphor • The Current Generation The quotations provided above document the existence of the code model from its early years through the recent past. These successive appeals span nearly fifty years. The goal here has not been to produce an exhaustive list, but rather, a sample. The literature includes scores of other appeals to the model which could have been similarly quoted. Having considered the brief description of the code model provided in the introduction and the record of its use as provided through the quotations, some readers may readily identify in that model an historical event, but question the extent to which that model continues to influence the present generation. It is certainly a legitimate question. Just because a model was fashionable for a time does not necessarily mean that its influence has been either pervasive or lasting. As a means of answering this question about contemporary influence, in the early stages of this study, a brief pilot survey was circulated among students who were at the time studying linguistics, as well as among a number of professors and instructors. The survey consisted of one open-ended question: “How would you define or describe the process of communication?” This was followed by a few questions concerning demographics. Of those who returned survey forms, a full 50 percent supplied a code model-based answer in their definition of communication. A full 75 percent made an appeal to one or a combination of the constituent models integrated in the code model. Of this segment, 67 percent employed the code model. 16 No respondents assigned the model a name; rather, they seemed to be describing communication “as it is.” Of those using the code model, only one respondent cited a reference. 17 One other respondent, a student employing the conduit metaphor, acknowledged that he was using a metaphor in his definition of communication, though he did not refer to it by any name. Several responses included diagrams, such as occurs in the response presented in figure A.1 see the appendix. Figure A.1 records a response from a graduate student studying linguistics. The text states: Concept or idea is encoded, transmitted in some form, either oral or written or other symbolic means gestures, pictures, etc., then decoded, by a recipient so that he also now has an idea. The accuracy of communication is determined by the degree to which the recipient ends up with the same concept or idea that the original sender attempted to send. Questionnaire response; April 7, 1998. A similar response was offered by a colleague with an M.A. in linguistics see figure A.2 in the appendix: 16 In a pilot survey with thirty-six responses, one was simply Saussurean, eight were simply conduit metaphorisms, and eighteen employed the code model including information theoretic terminology. Nine made appeals to various other models or accounts. 17 One respondent cited Van Dyke, but provided no date. 2. Model as Metaphor 23 Communication is the process by which information is transmitted from a source usually a person to a receptor usually another person, or group of people. It requires, therefore, that the source and the receptor share some knowledge about the code being used to transmit the information, whether that code is verbal, visual, or otherwise. Questionnaire response; March 28, 1998. These two responses are in many respects typical of the code-model based responses provided. After the survey and initial research for the study had been completed, those portions were presented as a paper at an academic conference Blackburn 1998 . Specifically, the presentation covered the history of the code model and its permeation through linguistics. Following the session, a fellow presenter commented, “I taught this [model] to my students just last week, but you know, before today, I’d never given any thought to the model or where it came from.” A third and perhaps even more illuminating type of response has often arisen in the context of personal conversation concerning the study. When colleagues have been asked, “How do you think communication works?” a majority have responded with a code model-based answer. But if, instead of eliciting their description of communication, they were given a synopsis of the study, many responded with debate. The standard response went something like, “Oh, that’s how we talk about communication, but I don’t think it really has much bearing on how we do linguistics.” These responses are interesting, but they should not be surprising. The code model of communication serves to embody presuppositions, and those presuppositions can indeed guide the analyses of the linguists holding them. Considering the significance of the role thus served, one might expect that the model would be well documented and thoroughly “digested” in discussion. It’s structure has been observed and addressed by a few theoreticians Berge 1994 ; Harris 1981 :10–13; Harris 1987 :205–208; Harris 1990 ; Schiffrin 1994 :391–393; Sperber and Wilson 1986 :2–6ff., but more frequently it is employed in a naïve manner, rarely being explicitly identified or discussed. Instead, it is assumed a priori, being adopted and incorporated as tacit knowledge. Indeed, some linguists report that they cannot conceive of communication operating in any other way than that spelled out in the model.

2.5. Reified metaphor