Chapter published in:
Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives
Edited by John Barnden and Andrew Gargett
[Figurative Thought and Language 10] 2020
► pp. 511–532

Metaphor as sign and as symbol

| University College Dublin
Metaphors come as second nature to users of language because they are so often the norm. We trade in them deftly, to the point of seeming indifference to, and sometimes even ignorance of, their figurative natures. But the opposite is also true, since words that are offered with the plainest of intentions can be granted a metaphorical significance by those who wish to perceive it. In this paper we contribute to the debate about deliberate metaphors by exploring a related concept, the potential metaphor. Any text that supports a non-literal interpretation is a potential metaphor, regardless of its author’s avowed intentions. We build on this distinction to model the mechanical generation of metaphors as an opportunistic process, whereby potential metaphors are converted into deliberate metaphors. We argue that the distinction between potential and deliberate is mirrored in that between signs and symbols, and demonstrate how this understanding leads to a more nuanced basis for generating and interpreting metaphors on a machine.
Keywords: signs, symbols, deliberate metaphors, potential metaphors
Published online: 17 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.18vea
References

References

Attardo, S., & Raskin, V.
(1991) Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and joke representational model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3), 293–347.Google Scholar
Barnden, J. A.
(2006) Artificial Intelligence, figurative language and cognitive linguistics. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current application and future perspectives (pp. 431–459). Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I.
(2003) Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.Google Scholar
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
(2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brants, T., & Franz, A.
(2006) Web 1T 5-gram Version 1. Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Chandler, R.
(1944) The simple art of murder. The Atlantic Monthly, Dec. issue.Google Scholar
Dickens, C.
(1843) A Christmas Carol. Middlesex, UK: Puffin Books (1984 reprint).Google Scholar
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner. D.
(1989) Structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gentner, D.
(1983) Structure-mapping: A Theoretical Framework. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., Falkenhainer, B., & Skorstad, J.
(1989) Metaphor: The good, the bad and the ugly. In Y. Wilks (Ed.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(2015) Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 73–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (1998) Understanding metaphors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 39–43.
 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, D. R., The Fluid Analogies Research Group, & Gibbs, R. W.
(1995) Fluid concepts and creative analogies. Computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jung, C. G., von Franz, M-L., Henderson, J. L., Jacobi, J., & Jaffe, A.
(1964) Man and his symbols. Ferguson Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W.
(2000) Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 7(2), 257–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A.
(1976) Computer science as empirical inquiry. Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 113–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Orwell, G.
(1946) Politics and the English language. Horizon 13(76), April issue.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. (2008) A load of old Orwellian cobblers from Fisk. Language Log, August 31. http://​languagelog​.ldc​.upenn​.edu​/nll​/?p​=551 (last accessed April 20, 2020).Google Scholar
Raskin, V.
(1985) Semantic mechanisms of humor. D. Reidel: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Ricks, C. B.
(1980) Clichés. In L. Michaels, & C. B. Ricks (Eds.), The state of the language. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R.
(1980) Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G.
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 26–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., & Durgin, F. H.
(2011) Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 206–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Veale, T. (2012) Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
(2013) Less rhyme, more reason: Knowledge-based poetry generation with feeling, insight and wit. Proc. ICCC 2013, the 4th Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity , Sydney, Australia, June.
(2015) Unnatural selection: Seeing human intelligence in artificial creations. Journal of General Artificial Intelligence, 6(1), 5–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Veale, T., & Alnajjar, K.
(2016) Grounded for life: Creative symbol-grounding for lexical invention. Connection Science, 28(2), 139–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Veale, T., Chen, H., & Li, G.
(2017) I read the news today, Oh boy! Making metaphors topical, timely and humorously personal. In Proceedings of HCII’2017, Distributed, Ambient & Pervasive Interaction , Vancouver, Canada.
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G.
(2006) The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. Humor: The International Journal of Humor Research, 19-3, 305–338.Google Scholar
Veale, T., & O’Donoghue, D. (2000) Computation and blending. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4), 253–281.Google Scholar