Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T21:54:15.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Robyn Carston  and
Catherine Wearing
Robyn Carston
Affiliation:
University College London Centre For The Study Of Mind In Nature, Oslo
Catherine Wearing*
Affiliation:
Wellesley College
*
Correspondence addresses: Robyn Carston, Linguistics, University College London, Chandler House, 2 Wakefield Street, London WC1N 1PF, UK. Email: robyn.carston@ucl.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

metaphorsimilehyperbolerelevance theoryloose usead hoc conceptliteral meaning

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 283 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Asch, S. E. 1958. The metaphor: A psychological inquiry. In Tagiuri, R. & Petrullo, L. (eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior, 86–94. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
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, 58–71. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Camp, E. Forthcoming. Why metaphors make good insults.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 1997. Enrichment and loosening: complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? Linguistische Berichte 8. 103–127.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2010a. Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In Soria, B. & Romero, E. (eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston's pragmatics, 217–285. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. 2010b. Metaphor: ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110(3). 297–323.Google Scholar
Carston, R. Forthcoming/2011. Metaphor and the literal/nonliteral distinction. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. (eds.), Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V. 2010. Figurative language understanding in LCCM Theory. Cognitive Linguistics 21(4). 601–662.Google Scholar
Evans, V. In press. Metaphor, lexical concepts and figurative meaning construction. Cognitive Semiotics.Google Scholar
Fogelin, R. J. 1988. Figuratively speaking. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. & Bowdle, B.. 2008. Metaphor as structure-mapping. In Gibbs, R. W. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 109–128. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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, 88–118. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. 2001. Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. & Haught, C.. 2006. On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind and Language 21(3). 360–378.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B.. 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97(1). 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B.. 1993. How metaphors work. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 401–424. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S. & Manfredi, D.. 1997. Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 36. 50–67.Google Scholar
Grady, J. 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In Gibbs, R. W. & Steen, G. (eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, 79–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Henle, P. 1958. Metaphor. In Henle, P. (ed.), Language, thought, and culture, 173–195. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Israel, M., Harding, J. & Tobin, V.. 2004. On simile. In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 123–135. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, G. 1993 [1979]. Images and models, similes and metaphors. In Ortony, Andrew (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 357–400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O'Donoghue, J. 2009. Is a metaphor (like) a simile? Differences in meaning, effects and processing. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 125–149.Google Scholar
Ortony, A. 1993 [1979]. The role of similarity in similes and metaphors. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 342–356. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. 2008. Minimalist meaning, internalist interpretation. Biolinguistics 2(4). 317–341.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roncero, C., Almeida, R. de, Smyth, R. & Kennedy, J. M.. Forthcoming. Similes are not interpreted like metaphors. Ms. Concordia University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Rubio Fernández, P. 2007. Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics 24. 345–71.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. 1995 [1986]. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
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, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R. W. (ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, J. 2000. Metaphor in context. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Textor, M. & Allott, N.. Forthcoming. Against the ‘externalist semantic perspective’ in lexical pragmatics. Ms. CSMN, Oslo.Google Scholar
Tirrell, L. 1989. Extending: The structure of metaphor. Noûs 23(1). 17–34.Google Scholar
Tirrell, L. 1991. Reductive and nonreductive simile theories of metaphor. The Journal of Philosophy 88 (7). 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. 2003. Relevance theory and lexical pragmatics. Rivista di Linguistica [Italian journal of linguistics] 15. 273–291.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 2010. Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 22. 42–55.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Carston, R.. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind and Language 21(3). 404–433.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Carston, R.. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference, and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–260. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
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/23Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D.. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111. 583–632.Google Scholar