Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 15:1 (2017) ► pp.1–33

Are similes and metaphors interchangeable?

A case study in opinion discourse

| Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Since Aristotle, scholars have regarded similes and metaphors as equivalent figures of speech sharing very similar comprehension, interpretation and usage patterns. By analysing the use of similes in real discourse, the aim of this study is to show that these two analogical figures reflect different cognitive processes, as well as different discursive functions, using as a framework cognitive models. To this end, this work presents, first, the main differentiating features of the two figures existing in the literature. And, second, it analyses 100 natural-occurring similes in English opinion discourse (news, interviews and commentary sections) in order to explain the conceptual-semantic and formal-syntactic factors which explain why similes and metaphors are not interchangeable in the discourse type under study; that is, why metaphors can usually be transformed into similes by adding like, whereas the opposite process seems to depend on specific conditions of structure, use and interpretation.
Keywords: similes vs. metaphors, opinion discourse, socio-cognitive approach
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What is a simile?
  • 3.Similes vs. metaphors: An overview
  • 4.Are metaphors and similes interchangeable in English opinion discourse?
    • 4.1Data and methodology
    • 4.2Similes in opinion discourse
    • 4.3Results and discussion
      • 4.3.1Test 1: Incidence of transformed metaphors in WebCorp and Google
      • 4.3.2Test 2: Transformation of similes (“A is like B”) into metaphors (“A is B”)
        • a.Conceptual, semantic factors
        • b.Formal, syntactic factors
      • 4.3.3Test 3: Native subjects’ intuitions
  • 5.Some conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 4 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.01rom
References (39)
References
Addison, C. (1993). From literal to figurative: An introduction to the study of simile. College English, 55(4), 402–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aisenman, R. A. (1999). Structure mapping and simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 14(1), 45–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 19–43). Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (1999). Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to categorization. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 90–95). Vancouver, BC: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
(2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, L., & Brandt, P. A. (2005). Making sense of a blend: A cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 31, 216–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bredin, H. (1998). Comparisons and similes. Lingua, 1051, 67–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D., & Kennedy, J. (2000). Are metaphors elliptical similes? Journal of Pshycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 371–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 311, 51–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 23–28, 2013.
Cuenca, M. J. (2015). Beyond compare: Similes in interaction. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 140–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fogelin, R. J. (1988). Figuratively speaking. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fromilhague, C. (1995). Les figures de style. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 71, 155–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3/4), 223–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givon, T. (2001[1985]). Syntax, Vol I: A functional – typological introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21(3), 360–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 971, 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. T. (1996). Comprehension of metaphors and similes: A time reaction study. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(2), 145–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol.1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Moder, C. L. (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1993[1979]). Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierini, P. (2007). Simile in English: From description to translation. CÍRCULO de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 291, 21–43.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roncero, C., Kennedy, J., & Smyth, R. (2006). Similes on the Internet have explanations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 74–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. J. (2014), Lexico-grammatical patterns, pragmatic associations and discourse frequency. In T. Herbst, H. J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions collocations patterns (pp. 239–293). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 92–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 841, 327–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Utsumi, A. (2007). Interpretative diversity explains metaphor-simile distinction. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(4), 291–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Romano, Manuela & Maria Josep Cuenca
2024. Conceptualizing the Covid-19 pandemic through similes. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco & María Sandra Peña Cervel
2023. Structural similarity in figurative language: A preliminary cognitive analysis. Lingua 290 ► pp. 103541 ff. DOI logo
Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023. A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Cuenca, Maria-Josep & Manuela Romano
2022. Like a Virus. Similes for a Pandemic. Metaphor and Symbol 37:4 ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz
2022. Analogical and Non-analogical Resemblance in Figurative Language: A Cognitive-Linguistic Perspective. In Metaphors and Analogies in Sciences and Humanities [Synthese Library, 453], ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2023. HOW LIKE-SIMILE RELATES TO METAPHOR: AN EXPLORATION OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Peña Cervel, Ma Sandra
2022. For Better, for Worse, for Richer, for Poorer, in Sickness and in Health: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach to Merism. Metaphor and Symbol 37:3 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & María Asunción Barreras Gómez
2022. Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Lehmann, Claudia
2021. About as boring as flossing sharks: Cognitive accounts of irony and the family of approximate comparison constructions in American English. Cognitive Linguistics 32:1 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Roncero, Carlos, Roberto G. de Almeida, Laura Pissani & Iola Patalas
2021. A metaphor is not like a simile: reading-time evidence for distinct interpretations for negated tropes. Metaphor and Symbol 36:2 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Shiqing
2021. A Cognitive Analysis of Conceptual Metaphors of Color Idioms in English and Chinese Based on Data Mining. In Application of Intelligent Systems in Multi-modal Information Analytics [Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1234], ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo
Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Hooshang Khoshsima, Nahid Yarahmadzehi & Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos
2019. The Impact of Metaphorical Prime on Metaphor Comprehension Processes. Australian Journal of Linguistics 39:3 ► pp. 375 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Modeling Irony [Figurative Thought and Language, 12], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 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.