Can the distinction be maintained between Conventional and non-conventional language use?

Recall from above that the traditional view holds that literal language is markedly distinct from non-literal or figurative language. In this section, we investigate whether the various categories of literal language can actually be meaningfully distinguished from non-literal language.

Conventional versus non-conventional language use

 This distinction relies upon the idea that while literal language is the conventional ‘ordinary’ or ‘everyday’ way we have of talking about things, figurative language is ‘exotic’ or ‘literary’ and only need concern creative writers. According to this view, most ordinary language is literal. However, on closer inspection, much of our ordinary everyday language turns out to be figurative in nature. Consider the following examples, in which the figurative expressions are highlighted:

These sentences are representative of ‘ordinary’, ‘everyday’ ways of talking about events like operations, emotional or psychological states, and changes in the economy. However, each sentence makes use of language that relates to motion, physical location or change in location in order to describe nonphysical entities. Consider sentence (4): while sailing boats can ‘go smoothly’ across a lake or an ocean, abstract entities like operations are not physical objects that can undergo motion. Similarly, in sentence (5), while we can be physically located within bounded landmarks like rooms or buildings, we cannot be literally located within a state of shock, because shock is not a physical entity. Finally, in example (6) a change of state is understood in terms of a physical change in location. From this perspective, the italicised expressions in examples (4)–(6) have non-literal meanings in these sentences. Despite this, these expressions represent conventional means of talking about events, states and changes. This observation presents a serious challenge to the view that literal language provides the conventional means for talking about everyday events and situations.

Metaphorical versus non-metaphorical language use

 Another definition of literality identified by Gibbs is non-metaphorical literality. According to this view, literal language is language that directly expresses meaning rather than relying upon metaphor. This view entails that we should always be able to express our ‘true’ meaning without recourse to metaphorical language, which involves expressing one idea in terms of another. For example, while the sentence in (7) has literal meaning, the sentence in (8) does not because it employs a metaphor: Achilles is understood in terms of a lion, which conveys the idea that Achilles has some quality understood as typical of lions such as fearlessness. This interpretation arises from our folk knowledge of lions, which stipulates that they are brave.

However, it is difficult to find a non-metaphorical way of thinking and talking about certain concepts. For example, try talking about TIME without recourse to expressions relating to SPACE or MOTION. Consider example (9).

Each of these expressions relies upon language relating to motion or space in order to convey the idea that the temporal concept CHRISTMAS is imminent. These expressions represent ordinary everyday ways of talking about time. Indeed, it turns out to be more difficult to find ways of describing temporal concepts that do not rely on metaphorical language (see Evans 2004a). If certain concepts are wholly or mainly understood in metaphorical terms, then the non-metaphorical definition of literality entails that concepts like CHRIST MAS or TIME somehow lack meaning in their own right. Indeed, some scholars have actually claimed that time is not a ‘real’ experience. However, many every day concepts appear to be understood in metaphorical terms. Consider the concept ANGER. Emotions like anger are, in developmental terms, among the earliest human experiences. Despite this, the way we conceptualise and describe this concept is highly metaphorical in nature, as the following examples illustrate.

Consider another example. We typically think and talk about ARGUMENT in terms of WAR. The examples in (11) are from Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 4).

As these examples demonstrate, the non-metaphorical definition of literality, which entails that we should always be able to express ourselves without recourse to metaphoric language, does not appear to present an accurate picture of the facts.

 Literal truth versus literal falsity in language use

 The truth-conditional view of literality rests upon the assumption that the basic function of language is to describe an objective external reality, and that this relationship between language and the world can be modelled in terms of truth or falsity (this idea was introduced in Chapter 5). The intuition behind this approach is that an important function of language is to describe states of affairs. Consider example (12).

This sentence describes a state of affairs in the world and can be assessed as either true or false of a given situation, real or hypothetical. According to the truth-conditional definition of literality, example (12) represents literal language because it can either be literally true or false of a given situation. In contrast, expressions like It’s raining in my heart or You are my sunshine can only be literally false and are therefore figurative. However, many linguistic expressions do not describe situations at all, and cannot therefore be meaning fully evaluated as true or false. Consider the examples in (13).

These examples represent speech acts. For instance, the function of the example in (13c) is not to describe a situation, but to change some aspect of the world (this idea was introduced in Chapter 1). If we adopt the truth conditional view of literality, which rests upon the idea of literal truth, expressions like those in (13) are neither literal nor figurative since they cannot be evaluated as true (or false) with respect to a given situation.

 Context-free versus context-dependent language use

The truth-conditional view also holds that literal meaning is context independent. This means that literal meaning does not require a context in order to be fully interpreted. Consider example (14).

According to this view, (14a) is fully interpretable independent of any context and the meaning we retrieve from (14a) is literal. In contrast, example (14b), which contains a metaphor, relies upon a context in which a cat habitually eats a lot in order to be fully understood. If this example were interpreted literally it would result in contradiction, since a cat cannot literally be a pig.

However, according to the encyclopaedic view of meaning assumed by cognitive semanticists (see Chapter 7) even the sentence in (14a) is not context independent because it is interpreted against the background of rich encyclopaedic knowledge. Cultural associations, for instance, dictate what kind of cat we have in mind, and our experience of the world entails the assumption that gravity and normal force-dynamics apply so that we do not envisage the cat in (14a) on a flying carpet. In other words, a considerable number of back ground assumptions are brought to bear even on the interpretation of a relatively simple sentence. This brief discussion illustrates that it is difficult to pin down what aspects of meaning might be fully context-independent, which in turn calls into question the context-independent definition of literality.

In sum, we have examined a number of different definitions of literality identified by Gibbs in the cognitive science literature. We have seen that each of these definitions is problematic in certain respects. In particular, it seems that it is difficult to establish a neat dividing line between literal and figurative meaning. In the remainder of this chapter, we examine metaphor and metonymy: two phenomena that have traditionally been described as categories of figurative language use. As we will see, cognitive semanticists view metaphor and metonymy as phenomena fundamental to the structure of the conceptual system rather than superficial linguistic ‘devices’.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

مكتب المتولي الشرعي للشؤون النسوية يناقش استعداداته لإقامة مهرجان روح النبوة الثامن وحفل تخرج الطالبات العاشر

الهيأة العليا لإحياء التراث تشارك بمؤتمر دولي عن السيد الميلاني (قدس سره) في إيران

وفد متحف الكفيل يطّلع على النفائس والوثائق التاريخية في متاحف العتبة الرضوية المقدسة

قسم الشؤون الطبية يواصل تنظيم ورش تدريبية لرفع كفاءة المنتسبين في الإسعافات الأولية

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

خصوصا مع تقدم السن.. 6 سلوكيات يومية قد تدمّر صحتك

فاكهة خضراء.. علاج طبيعي فعّال للإمساك واضطرابات الهضم

روسيا تبدأ أولى التجارب السريرية للقاح واعد ضد السرطان

كنز غذائي على طبقك.. ماذا تفعل السبانخ بجسمك؟

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

رصد نوع نادر من القطط في تايلاند للمرة الأولى منذ عقود

روسيا تخطط لإقامة محطة نووية في القمر خلال العقد المقبل

كيف قاد إيلون ماسك حملة "غروك" لاختراق عرش الذكاء الاصطناعي

ألتمان: الذكاء الاصطناعي سيتجاوز البشر في 2026 !

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

What is metaphor?

Literal and figurative language as complex concepts

Literal versus figurative language

Metaphor and metonymy

Categorisation and idealised cognitive models Summary

The structure of ICMs

Addressing the problems with prototype theory

Radial categories as a further source of typicality effects

Sources of typicality effects

The theory of idealised cognitive models

Problems with prototype theory