1887
Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Since Aristotle, scholars have regarded similes and metaphors as equivalent figures of speech sharing very similar comprehension, interpretation and usage patterns. By analysing the use of similes in real discourse, the aim of this study is to show that these two analogical figures reflect different cognitive processes, as well as different discursive functions, using as a framework cognitive models. To this end, this work presents, first, the main differentiating features of the two figures existing in the literature. And, second, it analyses 100 natural-occurring similes in English opinion discourse (news, interviews and commentary sections) in order to explain the conceptual-semantic and formal-syntactic factors which explain why similes and metaphors are not interchangeable in the discourse type under study; that is, why metaphors can usually be transformed into similes by adding , whereas the opposite process seems to depend on specific conditions of structure, use and interpretation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.1.01rom
2017-08-18
2019-08-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Addison, C.
    (1993) From literal to figurative: An introduction to the study of simile. College English, 55(4), 402–419. doi: 10.2307/378650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/378650 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aisenman, R. A.
    (1999) Structure mapping and simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 14(1), 45–51. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1401_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1401_5 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernárdez, E.
    (2009) Comparaciones explícitas con wie en Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften, de Robert Musil: Una aproximación cognitiva. Revista de Filología Alemana, anejo I, 57–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Black, M.
    (1979) More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.19–43). Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowdle, B. F. , & Gentner, D.
    (1999) Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to categorization. InProceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.90–95). Vancouver, BC: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brandt, L. , & Brandt, P. A.
    (2005) Making sense of a blend: A cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 216–249. doi: 10.1075/arcl.3.12bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.12bra [Google Scholar]
  8. Bredin, H.
    (1998) Comparisons and similes. Lingua, 105, 67–78. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(97)00030‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00030-2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chiappe, D. , & Kennedy, J.
    (2000) Are metaphors elliptical similes?Journal of Pshycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 371–398. doi: 10.1023/A:1005103211670
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005103211670 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chiappe, D. , Kennedy, J. , & Chiappe, P.
    (2003) Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31, 51–68. doi: 10.1016/S0304‑422X(03)00003‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(03)00003-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, W. , & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cuenca, M. J. , & Romano, M.
    (2013) Similes in interaction: Beyond (metaphor and) compare. Paper presented at the 12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference . Edmonton (Canada), June 23–28, 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cuenca, M. J.
    (2015) Beyond compare: Similes in interaction. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 140–166. doi: 10.1075/rcl.13.1.06cue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.06cue [Google Scholar]
  14. Dancygier, B. , & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, C.
    (1988) Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann , (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp.17–38). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fogelin, R. J.
    (1988) Figuratively speaking. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fromilhague, C.
    (1995) Les figures de style. Paris: Nathan.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gentner, D.
    (1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gentner, D. , & Bowdle, B. F.
    (2001) Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3/4), 223–247. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896 [Google Scholar]
  21. Givon, T.
    (2001[1985]) Syntax, Vol I: A functional – typological introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Glucksberg, S.
    (2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Glucksberg, S. , & Haught, C. (2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21(3), 360–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00282.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Glucksberg, S. , & Keysar, B.
    (1990) Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3–18. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.97.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Israel, M. , Riddle Harding, J. , & Tobin, V.
    (2004) On simile. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language culture, and mind (pp.123–135). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnson, A. T.
    (1996) Comprehension of metaphors and similes: A time reaction study. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(2), 145–159. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1102_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1102_3 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Langacker, R.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol.1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Moder, C. L.
    (2012) Two puzzle pieces: Fitting discourse context and constructions into cognitive metaphor theory. In B. Dancygier , J. Sanders , & L. Vandelanotte (Eds.) Textual choices in discourse: A view from Cognitive Linguistics (pp.157–183). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/bct.40.09mod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.40.09mod [Google Scholar]
  31. Ortony, A.
    (Ed.) (1993[1979]) Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pierini, P.
    (2007) Simile in English: From description to translation. CÍRCULO de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 29, 21–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Radden, G. , & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  34. Roncero, C. , Kennedy, J. , & Smyth, R.
    (2006) Similes on the Internet have explanations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 74–77. doi: 10.3758/BF03193815
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193815 [Google Scholar]
  35. Schmid, H. J.
    (2014), Lexico-grammatical patterns, pragmatic associations and discourse frequency. In T. Herbst , H. J. Schmid , & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions collocations patterns (pp.239–293). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Searle, J.
    (1979) Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.92–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sullivan, K.
    (2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14 [Google Scholar]
  38. Tversky, A.
    (1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.84.4.327
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327 [Google Scholar]
  39. Utsumi, A.
    (2007) Interpretative diversity explains metaphor-simile distinction. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(4), 291–312. doi: 10.1080/10926480701528071
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480701528071 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.1.01rom
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.15.1.01rom
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): opinion discourse , similes vs. metaphors and socio-cognitive approach
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