Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Philosophy of dialogue is primarily concerned with the relation of I to you, alternatively as the I-and-you (I ⇄ you) sphere of relation, in Martin Buber’s terminology, on the basis of primary words such as I, you, and it. It is convincingly held that the primary words do not refer to or denote or signify things but they intimate human relations. Grounded on primary words, metaphorical expressions are created to bridge over the cognition gaps encountered in the process of dyadic interaction between I and you. To interpret the spontaneously created metaphorical expressions has become intuitive responses frequenting the participants I and you in the ongoing dyadic interaction. In what way I and you collaboratively predict the meaning of metaphorical expressions is an ontological question which might be tackled from the perspective of epistemology. Therefore, it is in epistemology assumed that the semantic predictability of metaphorical expressions in any dyadic interaction can be conceptually realized by means of the four types of coherence in dialogism such as dictional coherence, emotional coherence, intentional coherence and rational coherence. The four types of coherence might be created saliently either in combination with each other or in isolation. No matter what kind of salience is identified, the I-and-you sphere of relation has at most sixteen channels for predicting the semantics of metaphor created in actual dyadic interaction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aristotle
    Aristotle (2006) Poetics. Trans, byJ. Sachs. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing Puilins Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Beardsley, M. C.
    (1962) The metaphorical twist. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 22: 293–307. 10.2307/2104415
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2104415 [Google Scholar]
  3. Black, M.
    (1954) Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 55: 273–94. 10.1093/aristotelian/55.1.273
    https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/55.1.273 [Google Scholar]
  4. Buber, M.
    (2008) I and Thou. LaVergne, TN: Hesperides Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chibbaro, S., Rondoni, L., & Vulpiani, A.
    (2014) Reductionism, emergence and levels of reality: The importance of being borderline. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑06361‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06361-4 [Google Scholar]
  6. Coddy, S. W.
    (1988) Meaning and intention. Journal of Pragmatics, 12: 1–11. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90016‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90016-1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  8. Davidson, D.
    (1978) What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry, 5: 31–47. Reprinted inInquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press 1984: 245–264.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Deignan, A.
    (2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Du, S.
    (2012) Lines and coherence: Discourse understanding in philosophy of language (Written in Chinese). Beijing: People’s Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Frege, G., Geach, P. T., & Black, M.
    (1951) On concept and object. Theoria, 60: 168–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gass, W. H.
    (1975) On being blue: A philosophical inquiry. Boston: David R. Godine.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Grice, H. P.
    (1969) Utterer’s meaning and intention. The Philosophical Review, 78: 147–177. 10.2307/2184179
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2184179 [Google Scholar]
  14. Grice, H.P.
    (1989) Logic and conversation. Lecture 2. InStudies in the way of words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Universitry Press, 22-40.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Habermas, J.
    (1984) The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Vol.I. Trans. byThomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hawkes, T.
    (2018) Metaphor. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hills, D. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kirby, J. T.
    (1997) Aristotle on metaphor. The American Journal of Philology, 118: 517–554. 10.1353/ajp.1997.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ajp.1997.0056 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kövecses, Z.
    (2000) Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2010) Metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2015) Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2003) Metaphors we live by (with an added Afterword). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee, D.
    (2001) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Martinich, A. P.
    (1984) A theory for metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics, 13: 35–56. 10.1515/jlse.1984.13.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.1984.13.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  27. Nozick, R.
    (1993) The nature of rationality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400820832
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400820832 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ortony, A.
    (1993) Metaphor, language, and thought. InA. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–19. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Reddy, M.
    (1993) The conduit metaphor : A case frame conflict in our language about language. InA. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 164–201. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.012 [Google Scholar]
  30. Richards, I. A.
    (1936) The philosophy of rhetoric. London and New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Schulte, J.
    (2009) Wittgenstein on emotion. InGustafsson, Y. (ed.). Emotions and understanding: Wittgensteinian perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 27–42. 10.1057/9780230584464_3
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230584464_3 [Google Scholar]
  32. Searle, J. R.
    (1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 76–116. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213.006 [Google Scholar]
  33. Simon, H.
    (1983) Reason in human affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Thagard, P.
    (2000) Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1900.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1900.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Turner, M.
    (2000) Mother is the death of beauty: Mind, metaphor, criticism. Christchurch, New Zealand: Cyberedition Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Tversky, A.
    (1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84: 327–352. 10.1037/0033‑295X.84.4.327
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327 [Google Scholar]
  37. Wittgenstein, L.
    (1980) Remarks on the philosophy of psychology. InWright, G. H., & Nyman, H. (eds.). Translated byLuckhardt, C. G., & Aue, M. A. E.Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (1998) Philosophical remarks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2009) Philosophical investigations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Woiwode, L.
    (1987) Wanting an orange. InNadell, J., & Langan, J. (eds.). The MacMillan reader. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 72–77.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): coherence; metaphor; philosophy of dialogue; semantic predictability
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error