Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 6
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Mahmoud, Reda Ali Hassan 2016. Grammatical and Pragmatic Aspects of Polarity in Arabic Seditious Utterances. Journal of Universal Language, Vol. 17, Issue. 2, p. 21.

    Agyekum, Kofi 2015. Metaphors of Anger in Akan. International Journal of Language and Culture, Vol. 2, Issue. 1, p. 87.

    Lee, Hye-Seung 2006. Socio-Cultural Characteristics Found in Russian-Korean Translation of Metaphoric Expressions. Meta: Journal des traducteurs, Vol. 51, Issue. 2, p. 368.

    Goddard, Cliff 2004. The ethnopragmatics and semantics of ‘active metaphors’. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 36, Issue. 7, p. 1211.

    Vogel, Carl 2001. Dynamic Semantics for Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, Vol. 16, Issue. 1, p. 59.

    Ausmus, William A. 1998. Pragmatic uses of metaphor: Models and metaphor in the nuclear winter scenario. Communication Monographs, Vol. 65, Issue. 1, p. 67.

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

8 - Observations on the pragmatics of metaphor



I am persuaded that the main points in Professor Searle's paper are correct, but there are a few arguments which leave me unsatisfied. I agree with his point that metaphor can only be understood by close attention to the distinction between “sentence meaning” and “utterance meaning,” and that metaphor must be considered a case of the latter, not the former. But I find some aspects of his proposal for a proper treatment of metaphor tantalizingly vague or incomplete. In particular, it seems to me that his discussion of “call to mind” casts the net too wide, capturing some things that are not in the same boat as clear cases of metaphor. Moreover, there are some difficult leaps in his three-step analysis of metaphor, and I think that his proposal avoids dealing with an important question about its nature. I have a few other quibbles that I shall mention along the way, though I do not think they are a serious threat to Searle's analysis, with which, as I have said, I generally agree.

The proper domain of the analysis of metaphor

The distinction Searle makes between sentence meaning and utterance meaning is a crucial one, not only for metaphor, but for the study of meaning in general. The mistake of overlooking this distinction has constantly plagued work on meaning by linguists, and I think recognition of the importance of the distinction is a real advance.

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:
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *