The code model of communication: a powerful - SIL International

3. The Code Model Decoded 31
3.2.1. The conduit metaphor
The role of metaphors in linguistic metatheory has until the last few decades been
generally overlooked or ignored. The instrumental analysis offered by Michael J. Reddy
(1979) has undoubtedly been the catalyst for what literature is available. Reddy’s paper,
“The Conduit Metaphor—A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language About Language,”
serves as a landmark for those interested in the subtle pressure of metaphor. Reddy
investigates the conduit metaphor, the preeminent metaphor employed by English
speakers in referencing and thinking about the process of communication. The origins of
the metaphor are unknown, but it is suspected that the metaphor has been employed for
hundreds, if not thousands of years. The conduit metaphor suggests that meaning (i.e.,
thoughts, ideas) can be sent, as via a conduit, from speaker to hearer. (Reddy offers many
excellent examples, including, “It’s hard to get that idea across to him.”)
The conduit metaphor commonly involves a second metaphor, the container
metaphor, which suggests that meaning can be contained in words (and language
generally). Words can then serve as a package to be sent along the conduit. The hearer
then “unpackages” the meaning on the other end. (Again, Reddy offers examples,
including, “The introduction has a great deal of thought content” (1979).)
As will be discussed, the conduit metaphor plays a tremendous role in the code
model of communication. Most sciences have a metalanguage that serves as an investigative
tool. Accordingly, the existence of that metalanguage is rather independent of the
subject of inquiry. This is not so for linguistics, for as Uriel Weinreich observes,
“Language is its own metalanguage” (Reddy 1979:286). Building upon Weinreich’s
observation, Reddy investigates the way in which speakers of English refer to their own
communicative efforts and the efforts of others (Reddy 1979:286). In doing so, he
powerfully illustrates the workings of the container and conduit metaphors.
If an accurate understanding of this metaphor is to be developed, that understanding
must include awareness that the conduit metaphor is universally employed by speakers of
English. It is such a common means of expression and is so deeply embedded in
speakers’ thought processes, that most speakers are unaware that a metaphor is even
involved. This lends it an intuitive plausibility that is difficult to overcome.
Reddy characterizes the conduit metaphor as having a “major framework,” which
also includes a container metaphor, and a “minor framework,” which does not evoke the
container metaphor. Of the major framework he writes:
The core expressions in these categories imply, respectively, that: (1) language functions
like a conduit, transferring thoughts bodily from one person to another; (2) in writing and
speaking, people insert their thoughts or feelings in the words; (3) words accomplish the
transfer by containing the thoughts or feelings and conveying them to others; and (4) in
listening or reading, people extract the thoughts and feelings once again from the words.
(Reddy 1979:290)