Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 47
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Rappaport, Jack M. Richter, Stephen B. and Kennedy, Dennis T. 2018. Applications of Neuroscience. p. 242.

    Lemghari, El Mustapha Neveu, F. Harmegnies, B. Hriba, L. and Prévost, S. 2018. Le nom propre en lecture qualitative : de la métonymie à la métaphtonymie. SHS Web of Conferences, Vol. 46, Issue. , p. 12004.

    Musolff, Andreas 2017. Advances in Cultural Linguistics. p. 325.

    Banaruee, Hassan Khoshsima, Hooshang Khatin-Zadeh, Omid Askari, Afsane and Besson, Mireille 2017. Suppression of semantic features in metaphor comprehension. Cogent Psychology, Vol. 4, Issue. 1,

    Turner, Sarah 2016. Gonzálvez-García, F., Peña Cervel, M. S., & Pérez Hernández, L. (Eds). (2013).Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited. Beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.. Metaphor and the Social World, Vol. 6, Issue. 1, p. 169.

    Khatin Zadeh, Omid and Vahdat, Sedigheh 2016. Abstract and concrete representations in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, Vol. 2, Issue. 2, p. 349.

    Kövecses, Zoltán 2015. The Handbook of Language Emergence. p. 147.

    Cuenca, Maria Josep 2015. Beyond compare. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, Vol. 13, Issue. 1, p. 140.

    Roncero, Carlos and de Almeida, Roberto G. 2015. Semantic properties, aptness, familiarity, conventionality, and interpretive diversity scores for 84 metaphors and similes. Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 47, Issue. 3, p. 800.

    Pouscoulous, Nausicaa 2014. Pragmatic Development in First Language Acquisition. Vol. 10, Issue. , p. 239.

    Mashal, Nira and Itkes, Oksana 2014. The effects of emotional valence on hemispheric processing of metaphoric word pairs. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, Vol. 19, Issue. 5, p. 511.

    2014. Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on political discourse. Journal of Language and Politics, Vol. 13, Issue. 2, p. 205.

    Sullivan, Karen 2013. One metaphor to rule them all? ‘Objects’ as tests of character in The Lord of the Rings. Language and Literature, Vol. 22, Issue. 1, p. 77.

    Eder, Thomas 2012. Handbuch Literatur und Philosophie. p. 311.

    Inglese, Terry and Rigotti, Francesca 2011. Students’ Metaphors for Defining Their Learning Experience with Audio-Visible versus Invisible Authors. Results from a Case Study in a Social Science Discipline. Creative Education, Vol. 02, Issue. 03, p. 181.

    Coleman, Cynthia-Lou and Ritchie, L. 2011. Examining Metaphors in Biopolitical Discourse. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, Vol. 7, Issue. 1,

    Aktekin, Mustafa and Aktekin, Nafiye Çiğdem 2011. Discovering the “anatomy” in students’ mind through metaphors. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy, Vol. 33, Issue. 6, p. 539.

    2008. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language. p. 411.

    Steen, Gerard 2008. The Paradox of Metaphor: Why We Need a Three-Dimensional Model of Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, Vol. 23, Issue. 4, p. 213.

    Johns, Clinton L. Tooley, Kristen M. and Traxler, Matthew J. 2008. Discourse Impairments Following Right Hemisphere Brain Damage: A Critical Review. Language and Linguistics Compass, Vol. 2, Issue. 6, p. 1038.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 1993
  • Online publication date: June 2012

18 - How metaphors work

Summary

In his contribution to this volume, Searle asks, “why do we use expressions metaphorically instead of saying exactly and literally what we mean?” We propose that this question seriously misstates the nature of the problem. We will argue that when people use metaphors, they are saying exactly what they mean. When, for example, someone says that “Sam is a pig,” that is precisely what is meant; that the person designated by the name “Sam” is a member of a superordinate category referred to by the word “pig” (Glucksberg & Keysar, 1990). To understand how metaphors of this type work requires an understanding of at least two processes. First, what is the nature of the category formed by the assertion that S is P? Second, what governs the choice of the metaphor vehicle, P, as a name for that category? Answers to these pivotal questions will provide answers to other questions about how metaphors work, including the question posed by Searle, why do we use metaphors at all? What communicative functions do metaphors serve in discourse that are not served by more or less comparable literal expressions?

We will first examine in detail how metaphors are understood. We will begin with an analysis of the standard pragmatics view of how people understand utterances that are intended nonliterally. The pragmatics view rests on the assumption that literal meanings have unconditional priority in language use.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Metaphor and Thought
  • Online ISBN: 9781139173865
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×