|Abstract||On the relevance-theoretic approach outlined in this paper, linguistic metaphors are not a natural kind, and ―metaphor‖ is not a theoretically important notion in the study of verbal communication. Metaphorical interpretations are arrived at in exactly the same way as literal, loose and hyperbolic interpretations: there is no mechanism specific to metaphors, and no interesting generalisation that applies only to them. In this paper, we defend this approach in detail by showing how the same inferential procedure applies to utterances at both ends of the literal-loose-metaphorical continuum, and how both literal and metaphorical utterances may create poetic effects.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Deirdre Wilson & Dan Sperber (2002). Truthfulness and Relevance. Mind 111 (443):632583-.
Lynne Tirrell (1989). Extending: The Structure of Metaphor. Noûs 23 (1):17-34.
Elisabeth Camp (2006). Metaphor and That Certain 'Je Ne Sais Quoi'. Philosophical Studies 129 (1):1 - 25.
Deirdre Wilson & Robyn Carston (2006). Metaphor, Relevance and the 'Emergent Property' Issue. Mind and Language 21 (3):404–433.
Jakub Mácha (2011). Metaphor in the Twilight Area Between Philosophy and Linguistics. In P. Stalmaszczyk & K. Kosecki (eds.), Turning Points in the Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Peter Lang.
Eva Feder Kittay (1984). The Identification of Metaphor. Synthese 58 (2):153 - 202.
Catherine Wearing (2006). Metaphor and What is Said. Mind and Language 21 (3):310–332.
Josef Stern (2006). Metaphor, Literal, Literalism. Mind and Language 21 (3):243–279.
Added to index2009-10-07
Total downloads134 ( #3,287 of 549,070 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,186 of 549,070 )
How can I increase my downloads?