Questions: Analyzing Figurative Language in Context

Question 1

A student reads 'the world is an unweeded garden' and paraphrases: 'the speaker thinks the world is bad.' What is the main limitation of this reading?

• A. The paraphrase is factually incorrect — the speaker may not think the world is bad
• B. The paraphrase loses the specific implications of the garden vehicle: entropy, neglect, failed cultivation — meanings that 'bad' does not capture
• C. Paraphrase is never a valid analytical method
• D. The student should identify the type of figurative device before paraphrasing

Answer: (B)

The paraphrase flattens the metaphor into a generic evaluation, discarding all the vehicle's specific connotations. Choosing 'garden' (rather than 'battlefield' or 'desert') implies something specific: the world *could* have been cultivated and maintained, but has been neglected. 'Bad' captures none of that. Analyzing figurative language means asking why *this* vehicle — and the paraphrase is precisely what you should be going beyond.

Question 2

In Sylvia Plath's line 'Dying is an art, like everything else,' what does applying the tenor/vehicle framework reveal?

• A. That Plath is comparing two unrelated ideas for poetic effect
• B. That dying, like art-making, implies difficulty, craft, deliberateness, and an implied audience — meanings a different vehicle would not convey
• C. That the comparison is ironic because art and dying are opposites
• D. That the line is a simile, not a metaphor, because of the word 'like'

Answer: (B)

The tenor/vehicle framework asks: what qualities does the vehicle (art-making) transfer to the tenor (dying)? The answer is specific: craft, difficulty, doing it well or badly, an implied audience who judges. If Plath had written 'dying is like falling asleep' or 'dying is like paying a debt,' each vehicle would transfer a completely different set of implications. The power of close reading is identifying exactly those transferred meanings rather than treating the comparison as mere decoration.

Question 3

Figurative language is primarily ornamental — it enriches a text's aesthetic appeal without fundamentally contributing to its meaning.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

This is the central misconception that figurative language analysis works against. Figurative language is functional: a metaphor makes an argument, asserting that two things are related in ways that illuminate the tenor. The choice of vehicle carries specific implications that literal language cannot convey as efficiently or precisely. Treating figurative language as decoration causes readers to paraphrase past it rather than analyzing what the specific comparison accomplishes.

Question 4

When multiple metaphors in a text repeatedly draw from the same domain — say, comparing love to financial transactions across several passages — this clustering is likely doing thematic work, not occurring by accident.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

Figurative language that clusters around a single underlying comparison constitutes an extended metaphor, and that repetition is purposeful. The author is arguing that the two domains are structurally related. Identifying that implied argument — and asking whether the text endorses or critiques the comparison — is central to thematic analysis. A reader who treats each metaphor individually, rather than noticing the pattern, misses the cumulative argument the text is building.

Question 5

Why does the choice of vehicle in a metaphor matter — why would swapping one vehicle for another (e.g., 'dying is a debt paid' versus 'dying is an art') change the meaning of a passage, even when the tenor remains the same?

Model answer: Each vehicle carries its own network of connotations that transfer to the tenor. 'Debt' implies obligation, inevitability, and a creditor — dying is something owed. 'Art' implies craft, agency, a possibility of doing it well or badly, and an audience. The tenor (dying) inherits these different implications depending on which vehicle is chosen. No two vehicles have identical connotations, so no two vehicles produce identical meaning.

This is the practical payoff of the tenor/vehicle framework: by asking 'of all possible comparisons, why this one?', the analyst identifies what the speaker actually believes about the tenor. The vehicle is not chosen randomly — it shapes how the tenor is understood. This is why analysts should always ask what alternative vehicles would have implied, and why the chosen one was preferred.