In linguistics, the conduit metaphor is a dominant class of figurative expressions invoked when linguists discuss communication itself (metalanguage). It operates whenever people speak or write as if they "insert" their mental contents (feelings, meanings, thoughts, concepts, etc.) into "containers" (words, phrases, sentences, etc.) whose contents are then "extracted" by listeners and readers. Thus, in this model, language is viewed as a "conduit" conveying mental content between people.
The conduit metaphor was first defined and described by linguist Michael J. Reddy in 1979. Reddy's proposal of this conceptual metaphor refocused debate within and outside the linguistic community on the importance of metaphorical language.
Fellow linguist George Lakoff stated: "The contemporary theory that metaphor is primarily conceptual, conventional, and part of the ordinary system of thought and language can be traced to Michael Reddy's now classic essay... With a single, thoroughly analyzed example, he allowed us to see, albeit in a restricted domain, that ordinary everyday English is largely metaphorical, dispelling once and for all the traditional view that metaphor is primarily in the realm of poetic or 'figurative' language. Reddy showed, for a single, very significant case, that the locus of metaphor is thought, not language, that metaphor is a major and indispensable part of our ordinary, conventional way of conceptualizing the world, and that our everyday behavior reflects our metaphorical understanding of experience. Though other theorists had noticed some of these characteristics of metaphor, Reddy was the first to demonstrate them by rigorous linguistic analysis, stating generalizations over voluminous examples."
Background Reddy's paper drew inspiration from work done by others in several different disciplines, as well as in linguistics.Reddy 1979, pp. 284–286 Research on information theory had led Norbert Wiener to publish in 1950 the seminal book on cybernetics, in which he had stated, "Society can only be understood through a study of the messages and communications facilities which belong to it."Wiener, N. (1954). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society (2nd ed.) (p. 16). Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor. (Also available from Da Capo Press (1988). Social-systems theorist Donald Schön examined the effects of metaphorical speech in matters of public-policy; he suggested that people's conflicting frames of reference were often to blame for communication breakdown.Schön, D. A. (1979). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 137–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. paperback Schön's frame-restructuring solution resembled in some ways Thomas Kuhn's groundbreaking views on the shifting of scientific paradigms through what he called the "translation" process.Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reddy 1979, pp. 284–285
Research within linguistics (including the controversial Sapir-Whorf hypothesisWhorf, B.L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. Edited by J. B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. and Max Black's arguments against it),Black, M. (1962). Linguistic relativity: The views of Benjamin Lee Whorf. In M. Black, Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. coupled with Uriel Weinreich's assertion that "Language is its own metalanguage",Weinreich, U. (1972). Explorations in semantic theory. The Hague–Paris: Mouton. prompted Reddy to approach the conduit metaphor's exposition and its possible impact on language and thought with caution.Reddy 1979, pp. 285–286
Summary of Reddy's paper The way English speakers discuss communication depends on the semantics of the language itself English has a default conceptual framework for communicating (the conduit metaphor) The conduit metaphor has a self-reinforcing bias A contrasting, more accurate, seldom-used non-metaphorical framework exists (the toolmakers paradigm) The resulting frame conflict may negatively impact solutions to social and cultural problemsReddy 1979, p. 285
Research into core expressions Reddy collected and studied examples of how English speakers talk about success or failure in communication. The overwhelming majority of what he calls core expressions involved dead metaphors selected from speakers' internal thoughts and feelings. Speakers then "put these thoughts into words" and listeners "take them out of the words." Since words are actually marks or sounds and do not literally have "insides," people talk about language largely in terms of metaphors.
Most English core expressions used in talking about communication assert that actual thoughts and feelings pass back and forth between people through the conduit of words. These core expressions and the few that do not qualify as conduit metaphors are listed in the paper's extensive appendix,Reddy 1979, pp. 311–324 which itself has been cited by Andrew Ortony as "a major piece of work, providing linguistics with an unusual corpus, as well as substantiating Reddy's claims about the pervasiveness of the root metaphor."Ortony, A. (1992). Metaphor, language, and thought. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.) (p. 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. hardback; paperback
Major framework There are two distinct but similar frameworks in which the conduit metaphor appears. Four types of core expressions constitute the major framework. (In the following example sentences, the operative core expressions are italicized.)
Language is a conduit These commonplace examples— You can't get your concept across to the class that way His feelings came through to her only vaguely They never give us any idea of what they expect —are understood metaphorically. In 1., people do not actually "get across" concepts by talking; in 2., feelings do not really "come through to" people; and in 3., people do not in fact "give" to others their ideas, which are mental states. Listeners assemble from their own mental states a partial replica of the speakers'. These core expressions assert figuratively that language literally transfers people's mental contents to others.Reddy 1979, pp. 286–287
Speakers insert thoughts into words These examples— Practice capturing your feelings in complete sentences I need to put each idea into phrases with care Insert that thought further down in the paragraph She forced her meanings into the wrong lyrics Please pack more sensation into fewer stanzas He loads an argument with more viewpoints than it can withstand —show that in 1., the speaker might be inexperienced in ensnaring meaning; in 2., be clumsy when putting it in; in 3., put it in the wrong place; in 4., compel words to accommodate meanings for which there is not enough room; in 5., fail to put in enough; or in 6., put in too much. These core expressions assert that speakers "insert" mental content into the "containers" represented by words with varying degrees of success.Reddy 1979, pp. 287–288
Words contain thoughts These examples indicate that sounds and marks can be "containers" for mental content: The sense of loneliness is in just about every sentence His story was pregnant with meaning The entire paragraph was full of emotion These lines indeed rhyme, but they are devoid of feeling Your words are hollow—you don't mean them. These core expressions assert that words contain or do not contain mental content, depending on the success or failure of the insertion process.Reddy 1979, p. 288
Listeners extract thoughts from words These examples— I couldn't actually extract coherent ideas from that prose. You found some challenging concepts in the essay They wouldn't really get any hatred out of those statements Her remark is truly impenetrable The author's intentions are going to be locked up in that dense chapter forever Hiding the meaning in his sentences is just his style. They're reading things into the poem —indicate that speakers and writers are responsible to a large extent for the mental content conveyed by language, and that listeners and readers play a more passive role. However, in 7., a reader can add something to the container that was not originally there. Overall, these core expressions assert that listeners must "extract" mental content from words.Reddy 1979, pp.288–289
Minor framework Instead of words, an "idea space" between people's heads can be the container for mental content. The conduit is no longer a sealed pipeline between people, but an open pipe allowing mental content to escape into, or enter from, this space. Three types of core expressions constitute the minor framework of the conduit metaphor.
Speakers eject thoughts into idea space These examples— She poured out the sorrow she'd been holding back He finally got those ideas out there —show that speakers and writers can eject mental content into an external idea space outside people.Reddy 1979, p. 291
Idea space contains thoughts These examples— That theory has been floating around for a century His crazy notions made their way immediately into cyberspace Those opinions are on the streets of Brooklyn, not in a classroom —indicate that mental content has a material existence in an idea space, existing outside people.Reddy 1979, p. 291
Listeners extract thoughts from idea space The following examples— I had to absorb Einstein's ideas gradually His deepest emotions went right over her head We couldn't get all that stuff into our brains in one afternoon —demonstrate that mental content from an idea space may or may not re-enter people.Reddy 1979, pp. 291–292
Logical apparatus The italicized words in the above examples are interchangeable with a wide array of terms that label mental content, the containers in which the content may be placed, and the ways in which these containers may be transferred in the conduit-metaphor paradigm.
Reddy developed a logical apparatus for diagramming the conduit metaphor's many permutations in both frameworks. Mental contents (feelings, emotions, ideas, etc.) are represented by RM, which stands for "repertoire member." Containers (words, phrases, sentences, etc.) are represented by S, which stands for "signal." Thus, "I need to put each idea into phrases with care" can be rendered as the core expression put RM into S.Reddy 1979, pp. 289–290 Reddy uses this logical apparatus throughout the appendix to his paper to clarify distinctions between metalingual expressions that use the conduit metaphor and the minority that do not.Reddy 1979, pp. 311–324
The toolmakers paradigm In order to examine the effects of the objectification of mental content in communication using the conduit metaphor, Reddy proposes an alternate, contrasting, "radical subjectivist" conception of communication called the toolmakers paradigm.Reddy 1979, pp. 292–295
A person's mental content is in fact isolated from others'. This isolation can be represented by a wheel-shaped compound, each wedge-shaped sector of which is an environment (a brain) bounded by two spokes and part of the circumference (right). They all contain differing amounts and types of plants, rocks, water, etc. (repertoire members). The wheel's hub has machinery that can deliver sheets of paper between sectors (communication). People use it to exchange crude blueprints (signals) for making tools, shelters, foods, etc., but they have no other contact whatsoever, and know of others' existence by inferences based on these blueprints.Reddy 1979, pp. 292–293
Living in a forested sector, Alex builds a wooden rake, draws three identical blueprints, and drops them in the slots for Bob, Curt and Don. Bob finds a piece of wood for the handle, but because he lives in a rocky sector, starts making a stone rake head. (Alex had not considered wood to be unavailable or wrong for the rake head, so it was not specified.)