The prevalent theories of metaphor in the literature, with very few exceptions, involve a conversion of either meaning or reference from the literal meaning or reference of the metaphor to either a corresponding simile or to a metaphorical meaning or reference. In this essay an altemative to the conversion view - i.e., a constancy theory - is offered that requires no such conversions. H.R Grice's notions of conversational maximes and implicatures provide a conceptual framework within which to account for metaphors (...) in a totally literal context. A selection procedure is suggested as the mechanism by which one can interpret metaphors and distinguish them from other figures of speech. (shrink)

The prevalent theories of metaphor in the literature, with very few exceptions, involve a conversion of either meaning or reference from the literal meaning or reference of the metaphor to either a corresponding simile or to a metaphorical meaning or reference. In this essay an altemative to the conversion view - i.e., a constancy theory - is offered that requires no such conversions. H.R Grice's notions of conversational maximes and implicatures provide a conceptual framework within which to account for metaphors (...) in a totally literal context. A selection procedure is suggested as the mechanism by which one can interpret metaphors and distinguish them from other figures of speech. (shrink)

Metaphor, I argue, is a type of expression that is used to communicate information beyond that communicated by its literal meaning. I argue that the literal meaning of metaphors are essential. I attempt to account for metaphor in such a way as to retain the literal meaning, while also accounting for what is called the "metaphorical meaning" of metaphors. Secondly, I am concerned with the mechanisms in virtue of which we are able to distinguish the metaphorical from the literal. ;Chapter (...) I is a discussion of the problems that I will consider in the dissertation. These include distinguishing metaphorical from literal expressions, Donald Davidson's learnability and scrutability criteria, the exclusionary criteria, conversion and constancy theories of metaphor, and truth-values of metaphors. ;Chapter II critically examines Aristotle's, Max Black's, and Monroe C. Beardsley's intensional conversion theories. Here I argue that conversion theories are inadequate and unnecessary to account for metaphorical attributions. ;Chapter III critically examines extensional conversion theories of metaphor including Nelson Goodman's version. I discuss the difficulties that arise in postulating such reference conversions. I argue that this type of conversion theory is also unsuccessful and unnecessary. ;Chapter IV is a critical examination of four types of emotive theory of metaphor, one of which is Max Rieser's. These theories maintain, and I deny, that metaphors have an "emotive meaning" in addition to or instead of their literal meaning. I consider the shortcomings and consequences of emotive views, and argue that the postulation of emotive meanings is also misguided and unnecessary. ;Chapter V offers an alternative to conversion theories. Here I argue for a theory requiring no meaning or reference conversions. My view involves H. P. Grice's notions of conversational maxims and implicatures. I conclude that metaphors retain their literal meaning, partly in virtue of which they generate implicatures. I also conclude that our recognition of, and ability to distinguish, metaphors from literal expressions involves the violations of conversational maxims. (shrink)