Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) departed from tradition in metaphor studies by treating this phenomenon as an ordinary one used in everyday reasoning. From its inception, this theory made emphasis on the role of experiential correlation in accounting for metaphorical thought to the detriment of its long-standing treatment in terms of similarity. This experientialist thesis was later strengthened by making it part of a broader theoretical framework that treated correlation metaphor as an embodied phenomenon where an essential part of its role in reasoning was due to its ability to give rise to conceptual conflation. Against the background provided by this theoretical context, this article reexamines the role of correlation, conflation, and embodiment in terms of two distinctions: low and high-level similarity, on the one hand, and structural and non-structural similarity, on the other hand. The analytical categories that support these distinctions are used to provide an improved understanding of the nature of metaphorical thought, including correlation metaphor, structural metaphor, several forms of analogy, synesthetic metaphor, and metaphorical amalgams.
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) departed from tradition in metaphor studies by treating this phenomenon as an ordinary one used in everyday reasoning. From its inception, this theory made emphasis on the role of experiential correlation in accounting for metaphorical thought to the detriment of its long-standing treatment in terms of similarity. This experientialist thesis was later strengthened by making it part of a broader theoretical framework that treated correlation metaphor as an embodied phenomenon where an essential part of its role in reasoning was due to its ability to give rise to conceptual conflation. Against the background provided by this theoretical context, this article reexamines the role of correlation, conflation, and embodiment in terms of two distinctions: low and high-level similarity, on the one hand, and structural and non-structural similarity, on the other hand. The analytical categories that support these distinctions are used to provide an improved understanding of the nature of metaphorical thought, including correlation metaphor, structural metaphor, several forms of analogy, synesthetic metaphor, and metaphorical amalgams.
Similarity judgments are fundamental to cognition. They are part and parcel of our ability as humans to deal with the world around us. This ability shows in how we structure and use language. In this context, this chapter addresses the role of perceived similarity, or resemblance, in language use. It starts from a basic distinction between linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. The former addresses similarities between entities and states of affairs, while the latter addresses metarepresentational aspects of language, which can be treated in terms of the notion of echo. It further distinguishes three dimensions of linguistic resemblance: attribute-based resemblance, structural resemblance, and high versus low-level resemblance. It pays special attention to the important theoretical status of high-level resemblance as a constraining factor on experiential correlation, which is also active in synesthesia and situation and event-based metaphors. The paper then discusses the role of resemblance in cross-domain relations in irony, hyperbole, and understatement, and it ends with an analysis of the role of metalinguistic resemblance as a pre-requisite for the inferential activity which arises from ironic, parodic, and metonymy-based implicational echoes.
Traditional accounts of figurative language consider like-simile and metaphor to be largely equivalent. However, more recent research shows that metaphor expresses a closer association between the two terms of comparison than like-simile. This paper proposes a variety of criteria to understand the similarities and differences between these two figures of speech, among them the abstractness of the resemblance relationship, the greater subjectivity of metaphor, and the role of comparison in contrast to other factors. This discussion casts light on the metaphor-simile equivalence versus non-equivalence debate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.