Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T23:57:12.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Semantics of Metaphor and the Structure of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Daniel Rothbart*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Religion, George Mason University

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the semantics of metaphoric language in scientific contexts. According to the theory of metaphor advanced below, the benchmark of a metaphoric expression is the implicit transfer of semantic features across incongruous semantic fields. This transfer results in a conceptual variation of “meaning” in the receiving semantic field. Thus, the theory of metaphor rests on semantic field theory. Existing semantic approaches to metaphor are evaluated in Section 1. In Sections 2 and 3 an alternative theory is introduced through an analysis of the mechanics of the feature transfer process followed by a discussion of some methodological cues for deciphering the metaphor's “meaning.” As I explore in Section 4, this theory of metaphor explains how all metaphoric expressions are potentially literal depending on the general compliance of the community of speakers. Consequently, concept formation in scientific contexts is, in large measure, metaphoric. Finally, I argue in Section 5 that metaphoric concept formation is an essential aspect of scientific reasoning for the purpose of solving conceptual problems.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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.)

Footnotes

I am indebted to Professor Debra Bergoffen, Professor Emmett Holman, and the referee of this journal for many constructive comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I also thank the Philosophy Discussion Group of George Mason University for their response and encouragement on this project.

References

Berggren, D. (1962–63), “The Use and Abuse of Metaphor”, Review of Metaphysics 16: 237–58, 450–72.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1969), “Prolegomena to a Linguistic Theory of Metaphor”, Foundations of Language 5: 3452.Google Scholar
Black, M. (1962), Models and Metaphors. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, M. (1979), “More About Metaphors”, in Metaphor and Thought, Ortony, A. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1943.Google Scholar
Canguilhem, G. (1963), “The Role of Analogies and Models in Biological Discovery”, in Scientific Change, Crombie, A. (ed.), New York: Basic Books, pp. 507–20.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J., and Margalit, A. (1972), “The Role of Inductive Reasoning in the Interpretation of Metaphor”, in Semantics of Natural Language, Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.). 2nd Edition. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 722–40.Google Scholar
Feleppa, R. (1982), “Translation as Rule-Governed Behavior”, Philosophy of Social Sciences 12: 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henle, P. (1958), “Metaphor”, in Language, Thought and Culture, Henle, P. (ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, pp. 173–95.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1966), Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1974), The Structure of Scientific Inference. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutten, E. (1956), The Language of Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (1982), Physics as Metaphor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kittay, E. (1982), “The Creation of Similarity: A Discussion of Metaphor in Light of Tversky's Theory of Similarity”, in PSA 1982, Asquith, P. and Nickles, T. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, Michigan State University, pp. 394405.Google Scholar
Kittay, E., and Lehrer, A. (1981), “Semantic Fields and the Structure of Metaphor”, Studies in Language 5: 3163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Leatherdale, W. H. (1974), The Role of Analogy, Model and Metaphor in Science. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1974), Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Levin, S. R. (1977), The Semantics of Metaphor. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969), Convention. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McReynolds, P. (1978), “The Clock Metaphor in the History of Psychology”, in Scientific Discovery: Case Studies, Nickles, T. (ed.). Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, volume 60. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 97112.Google Scholar
Matthews, R. J. (1971), “Concerning a ‘Linguistic Theory’ of Metaphor”, Foundations of Language 7: 413–25.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1978), “Semantic Relations Among Words”, in Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, Halle, M., Bresnan, J., and Miller, G. A. (eds.), pp. 60118. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1979), “Images and Models, Similes and Metaphors”, in Metaphor and Thought, Ortony, A. (ed.), pp. 202–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1952), Opticks. Based on 4th edition, 1730. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1960), Word and Object. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., and Mervis, C. B. (1973), “Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories”, Cognitive Psychology 7: 573603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. J. (1949), “The River of Time”, Mind 58: 483–94.Google ScholarPubMed
Stem, G. (1931), Meaning and Change of Meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977), “Features of Similarity”, Psychological Review 84: 327–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, W. (1847), Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, vol. 2. London: Parker.Google Scholar