Beyond compare: Similes in interaction

Cuenca, Maria Josep

doi:10.1075/rcl.13.1.06cue

Article published In:

Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 13:1 (2015) ► pp.140–166

Beyond compare

Similes in interaction

Maria Josep Cuenca

This paper deals with the formal properties and discourse features of “A és com B” (“A is like B”) similes in Catalan. In contrast with most previous approaches, the examples are naturally-occurring and the whole text has been analyzed so that their context, and not only the similes, is considered. The analysis of similes in interaction puts forward that: (i) a simile is a three-slot comparative construction, including a target and a source belonging to different conceptual domains, and an optional but frequent and highly significant elaboration; (ii) a simile is a figurative comparison between a source and a target (grammatically expressed by noun phrases or clauses) generally considered completely distinct or non-comparable; (iii) similes are powerful mechanisms to catch the addressee’s attention and put in a nutshell someone’s opinion, and (iv) they tend to have a prominent text status and are often found as headlines.

Keywords: similes, comparison, construction, interaction, metaphor

Published online: 23 June 2015

https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.06cue

References (34)

Addison, C. (1993). From literal to figurative: An introduction to the study of simile. College English, 55(4), 402–419.

Aisenman, R.A. (1999). Structure mapping and simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 14(1), 45–51.

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. Available at: <[URL]>. Access: 2. 7.2012.

Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 19–43). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bowdle, B.F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216.

Bredin, H. (1998). Comparisons and similes. Lingua, 1051, 67–78.

Chiappe, D., & Kennedy, J. (2000). Are metaphors elliptical similes? Journal of Pshycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 371–398.

. (2001). Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor and Symbol, 161, 249–276.

Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 311, 51–68.

Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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, 23rd–28th, 2013.

Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Grammatical constructions and figurative meaning. In Figurative Language (pp. 127–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Fromilhague, C. (1995). Les figures de style. Paris: Nathan.

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 71, 155– 170.

. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B.F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3/4), 223–247

Gentner, D., & Markman, A.B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.

Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.

Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21(3), 360–378.

Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 971, 3–18.

. (1993). How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (pp. 401–424). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Moder, C.L. (2008). It’s like making a soup: metaphors and similes in spoken news discourse. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & A. Takada (Eds.). Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 301–320). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

. (2010). Two puzzle pieces: Fitting discourse context and constructions into cognitive metaphor theory. English Text Construction, 3(2), 294–320.

. (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.

Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1993). Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pierini, P. (2007). Simile in English: From description to translation. CÍRCULO de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación (clac), 291, 21–43. [URL].

Romano, M. (in progress). Are metaphor and similes interchangeable? A case study in opinion discourse.

Roncero, C., Kennedy, J., & Smyth, R. (2006). Similes on the Internet have Explanations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 74–77. Available at: [URL].

Sullivan, K. (2009). Grammatical constructions in metaphoric language. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Dziwirek (Eds.), Cognitive Corpus Linguistics (pp. 57–80). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 841, 327–352.

Utsumi, A. (2007). Interpretative diversity explains metaphor-simile distinction. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(4), 291–312.

Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Order by:

Romano, Manuela & Maria Josep Cuenca

2024. Conceptualizing the Covid-19 pandemic through similes. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 99 ff.

Hrdličková, Zuzana

2023. EXPLORING THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS’ KNOWLEDGE OF CONVENTIONALISED SIMILES IN ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY AND PHRASEOLOGY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY. Advanced Education 10:22 ► pp. 72 ff.

Cuenca, Maria-Josep & Manuela Romano

2022. Like a Virus. Similes for a Pandemic. Metaphor and Symbol 37:4 ► pp. 269 ff.

Panagiotidou, Maria-Eirini

2022. Representation and Narrativization in Ekphrasis. In The Poetics of Ekphrasis, ► pp. 85 ff.

Tartakovsky, Roi, David Fishelov & Yeshayahu Shen

2019. Not as Clear as Day: On Irony, Humor, and Poeticity in the Closed Simile. Metaphor and Symbol 34:3 ► pp. 185 ff.

Tartakovsky, Roi & Yeshayahu Shen

2019. Meek as milk and large as logic: A corpus study of the non-standard poetic simile. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 28:3 ► pp. 203 ff.

Tartakovsky, Roi & Yeshayahu Shen

2023. “Insistent as anesthetic”: difficult similes subserving the poetic context. Journal of Literary Semantics 52:1 ► pp. 23 ff.

Hartman, Jenny & Carita Paradis

2018. Emotive and sensory simulation through comparative construal. Metaphor and Symbol 33:2 ► pp. 123 ff.

Romano, Manuela

2017. Are similes and metaphors interchangeable?. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

[no author supplied]

2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14],

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.