Figurative language

Prototypical figurative language will be characterized here as language use where, from the speaker's point of view, conventional constraints are deliberately infringed in the service of communication, and from the hearer's point of view, a satisfactory (i.e. relevant) interpretation can only be achieved if conventional constraints on interpretation are overridden by contextual constraints.

What is the motivation for figurative uses of language? Here we need to distinguish the speaker's motivation for using an expression figuratively, and the hearer's motivation for assigning a figurative construal to an expression. Briefly, a speaker uses an expression figuratively when he/she feels that no literal use will produce the same effect. The figurative use may simply be more attention-grabbing, or it might conjure up a complex image not attainable any other way, or it may permit the conveyance of new concepts. As far as the hearer is concerned, the most obvious reason for opting for a figurative construal is the fact that no equally accessible and relevant literal construal is available.

The major types of figurative usage are metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor and metonymy both involve a vehicle and a target. Metaphor involves an interaction between two domains construed from two regions of purport, and the content of the vehicle domain is an ingredient of the construed target through processes of correspondence and blending. For instance, in (1) (from Patricia Cornwell's Black Notice) the speaker's mental processes are presented as having simultaneously the character of thoughts and small sinister creatures: