Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach

  • Robyn Carston (a1) (a2) and Catherine Wearing (a3)

Abstract

According to recent work on lexical pragmatics within the relevance-theoretic framework, grasping the intended meaning of a metaphorically used word requires a process of adjusting the linguistically encoded concept to derive an ad hoc concept whose denotation is broader than that of the lexical concept. Metaphorical uses are claimed to be one kind of loose use of language, on a continuum with approximations, hyperboles and other kinds of meaning extension. The question addressed in this paper is whether this account fully captures the processes involved in understanding metaphors and the kinds of cognitive effects they have. We tackle this question by examining the similarities and differences between metaphors and hyperboles and between metaphors and similes. The upshot of our analyses is two proposals, both requiring further investigation: (a) that a distinction should be drawn between the kind of ad hoc concepts derived for hyperbolic and other loose uses, on the one hand, and metaphorical uses, on the other, and (b) that the understanding of some metaphorical uses, in particular extended and/or novel creative cases, is achieved by a different mode of processing altogether, one which gives much greater weight to the literal meaning.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Correspondence addresses: Robyn Carston, Linguistics, University College London, Chandler House, 2 Wakefield Street, London WC1N 1PF, UK. Email: robyn.carston@ucl.ac.uk.

References

Hide All
Asch, S. E. 1958. The metaphor: A psychological inquiry. In Tagiuri, R. & Petrullo, L. (eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior, 8694. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bosch, P. 2007. Productivity, polysemy, and predicate indexicality. In Cate, B. ten & Zeevat, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation, 5871. Berlin: Springer.
Camp, E. Forthcoming. Why metaphors make good insults.
Carston, R. 1997. Enrichment and loosening: complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? Linguistische Berichte 8. 103127.
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, R. 2010a. Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In Soria, B. & Romero, E. (eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston's pragmatics, 217285. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carston, R. 2010b. Metaphor: ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110(3). 297323.
Carston, R. Forthcoming/2011. Metaphor and the literal/nonliteral distinction. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. (eds.), Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, V. 2010. Figurative language understanding in LCCM Theory. Cognitive Linguistics 21(4). 601662.
Evans, V. In press. Metaphor, lexical concepts and figurative meaning construction. Cognitive Semiotics.
Fogelin, R. J. 1988. Figuratively speaking. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Gentner, D. & Bowdle, B.. 2008. Metaphor as structure-mapping. In Gibbs, R. W. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 109128. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. 1998. The fight over metaphor in thought and language. In Katz, A., Cacciari, C., Gibbs, R. W. & Turner, M. (eds.), Figurative language and thought, 88118. New York: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S. 2001. Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S. & Haught, C.. 2006. On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind and Language 21(3). 360378.
Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B.. 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97(1). 318.
Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B.. 1993. How metaphors work. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 401424. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S. & Manfredi, D.. 1997. Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 36. 5067.
Grady, J. 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In Gibbs, R. W. & Steen, G. (eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, 79100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 4158. New York: Academic Press.
Henle, P. 1958. Metaphor. In Henle, P. (ed.), Language, thought, and culture, 173195. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Israel, M., Harding, J. & Tobin, V.. 2004. On simile. In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 123135. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 202251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, G. 1993 [1979]. Images and models, similes and metaphors. In Ortony, Andrew (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 357400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O'Donoghue, J. 2009. Is a metaphor (like) a simile? Differences in meaning, effects and processing. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 125149.
Ortony, A. 1993 [1979]. The role of similarity in similes and metaphors. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 342356. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pietroski, P. 2008. Minimalist meaning, internalist interpretation. Biolinguistics 2(4). 317341.
Recanati, F. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roncero, C., Almeida, R. de, Smyth, R. & Kennedy, J. M.. Forthcoming. Similes are not interpreted like metaphors. Ms. Concordia University, Montreal.
Rubio Fernández, P. 2007. Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics 24. 345–71.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. 1995 [1986]. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In Carruthers, P. & Boucher, J. (eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes, 184200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R. W. (ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 84105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, J. 2000. Metaphor in context. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Textor, M. & Allott, N.. Forthcoming. Against the ‘externalist semantic perspective’ in lexical pragmatics. Ms. CSMN, Oslo.
Tirrell, L. 1989. Extending: The structure of metaphor. Noûs 23(1). 1734.
Tirrell, L. 1991. Reductive and nonreductive simile theories of metaphor. The Journal of Philosophy 88 (7). 337358.
Wilson, D. 2003. Relevance theory and lexical pragmatics. Rivista di Linguistica [Italian journal of linguistics] 15. 273291.
Wilson, D. 2010. Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 22. 4255.
Wilson, D. & Carston, R.. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind and Language 21(3). 404433.
Wilson, D. & Carston, R.. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference, and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics, 230260. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilson, D. & Carston, R.. 2008. Metaphor and the ‘emergent property’ problem: A relevance-theoretic treatment. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 3. http://thebalticyearbook.org/journals/baltic/article/view/23
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D.. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111. 583632.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed