In P. Stalmaszczyk & K. Kosecki (eds.), Turning Points in the Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Peter Lang. pp. 159--169 (2011)
This paper investigates the issue whether metaphors have a metaphorical or secondary meaning and how this question is related to the borderline between philosophy and linguistics. On examples by V. Woolf and H. W. Auden, it will be shown that metaphor accomplishes something more than its literal meaning expresses and this “more” cannot be captured by any secondary meaning. What is essential in the metaphor is not a secondary meaning but an internal relation between a metaphorical proposition and a description of its effects. In order to understand metaphors, we have to share an ability to construe metaphorical meanings at once. The aim of this ability is to uncover an internal relation, which lies behind a particular metaphor.
|Keywords||metaphor metaphorical meaning secondary meaning literal meaning internal relation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
On the Very Importance of the Metaphoric as Semantic to Communication, Understanding, and the Philosophy of Language.Mark Andrew Matienzo - 2001 - Dissertation, College of Wooster
Peirce Versus Davidson on Metaphorical Meaning.Aaron Wilson - 2011 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 47 (2):117-135.
On the Meaning of Metaphor in Gadamer's Hermeneutics.Ben Vedder - 2002 - Research in Phenomenology 32 (1):196-209.
Aquinas on Scriptural Metaphor and Allegory.Alexander J. Doherty - 2002 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 76:183-192.
Added to index2010-08-17
Total downloads94 ( #55,039 of 2,171,820 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #326,616 of 2,171,820 )
How can I increase my downloads?