Convention, Form, and Figurative Language Processing

Abstract

There are 2 basic controversies concerning how metaphors are processed. First, are metaphoric mappings more akin to literal comparisons or to literal categorizations? And second, is metaphor comprehension indirect or direct? We believe that these controversies are more appqent than real and that a unified theoretical framework can be offered that reconciles these opposing views. The central idea is that all metaphors involve structural alignment of the target and base domains. Whether these alignments are more akin to comparisons or to categorizations, and whether they are computed directly or indirectly, depends on 2 factors: the type of representation invoked by the base term and the linguistic form of the metaphor.Metaphors establish mappings between concepts from disparate domains of knowledge. For example, in the metaphor "The mind is a computer, " an abstract entity is described in terms of a complex electronic device. It is widely believed that metaphors are a major source of conceptual change. In the field of cognitive psychology, the computer metaphor resulted in a new way of conceptualizing the mind and has inspired researchers to postulate a vast array of mental constructs. Indeed, it has recently been claimed that metaphors may be the primary (if not the only) mechanism for reasoning with abstract concepts-metaphors allow us to structure vague or ambiguous ideas in terms of more concrete realms of experience (e.g

The cognitive functions of language

“…These "primary metaphors" are not temporary mappings, perhaps created just for communicative purposes, but reflect people's embodied understandings of the positive correlations in their experiences of both the source and target domains (Gibbs et al, in press;Grady 1999). Related work on structure mapping theory suggests that structural consistency constraints and a systematicity principle guide the mapping of relations between domains dictating which sets of structures can be most readily coupled (Gentner & Bowles 2001). We claim that this body of research on metaphor and analogy provides clear evidence that cross-domain conceptual connections cannot be driven by syntactic processes alone, as argued by Carruthers.…”

Similes on the Internet have explanations

“…In addition, writers may use metaphors when the key features are expected to come to mind without prompting (Gentner & Bowdle, 2001). Love is a devil alerts us to love's perils.…”

“…Similes imitate literal comparisons, such as Fords are like Chryslers. Metaphors make claims about a category, as in Fords are cars (Gentner & Bowdle, 2001;Glucksberg, 2001). Comparisons and categorization are vital to human cognition, so figurative expressions of them could be present in all cultures, but although it has been studied for millennia, the connection between similes and metaphors is still much debated (Chiappe & Kennedy, 1999).…”

Interpretive Diversity Explains Metaphor–Simile Distinction

“…However, if metaphors cannot be comprehended 1 Bowdle and Gentner (2005) refer to this link between form and function in figurative language as grammatical concordance. Grammatical concordance is now widely accepted and supported by a number of studies (e.g., Bowdle & Gentner, 2005;Chiappe & Kennedy, 2001;Gentner & Bowdle, 2001;Glucksberg & Haught, 2006b;Gregory & Mergler, 1990), and thus it is used as a tool for examining whether a comparison process or a categorization process is used during metaphor (or simile) comprehension. via a categorization process invited by the form and as a result both metaphors and similes are comprehended via a comparison process, similes should be preferred over and more comprehensible than metaphors.…”