Metaphor and mental language in late-medieval nominalism
In this paper, I intend to examine the conception of metaphor developed by fourteenth-century nominalist
philosophers, in particular William of Ockham and John Buridan, but also the Ockhamist philosophers who were condemned by the 1340
statute of the faculty of arts of the University of Paris. According to these philosophers, metaphor is a transfer of meaning from
one word to another. This transfer is based on some similarity, and is intentionally produced by a speaker. My aim is to study
whether this view on metaphor is related to a specific view on the relation between thought, language, and communication. With
this case study, I intend to argue that the view on the nature of thought one holds does not necessarily determine what the nature
and function of metaphor are. I will show that the three philosophical doctrines under study diverge in their understanding of the
mechanisms of a metaphor, while they share the same view on the nature of thought, namely that thought is a mental language.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Metaphor in medieval semantics and hermeneutics
- 2.1The distinction between literal and figurative meaning
- 2.2Metaphor and equivocation
- 2.3Equivocation and imposition
- 2.4Literal meaning and supposition theory
- 3.Ockham on metaphor and mental language
- 3.1Metaphor and hermeneutics
- 3.2Equivocation and mental language
- 3.3Paraphrase and metaphor
- 3.4The cognitive value of metaphor
- 4.The reception of Ockham’s view at the University of Paris
- 4.1A debate over the right interpretation of texts
- 4.2A contextualist and pragmatic view on figurative speech
- 5.Buridan on metaphor and mental language
- 5.1Buridan on mental language and equivocation
- 5.2Metaphor and paraphrase II: The distinction of propositions
- 5.3A new view of imposition
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes