Figures of Speech

Manfred Kienpointner
Table of contents

Figures of Speech (= FSP, also called “rhetorical figures” or “figures of rhetoric”; the term FSP will be used in its broadest sense, including both tropes and FSP in the narrow sense, that is, figures of diction and figures of thought) can be briefly defined as the output of discourse strategies for creating communicatively adequate texts (cf. below Section 3.1. for a more detailed definition). From antiquity onwards, they have been studied as one of the main branches of rhetoric. In ancient rhetoric, FSP were mainly characterized as a kind of ornament. Moreover, a detailed typology of FSP was developed. In recent times, various theories of style have been developed which present quite different definitions and characterizations of FSP. Several authors have tried to establish standards of classification and demarcation of FSP which are more satisfactory than those of ancient rhetoric. There also have been attempts to extend the concept of FSP to nonverbal domains (e.g. FSP in the visual arts: painting, cinema etc.). Not very surprisingly, metaphor has attracted far more interest than any other FSP: therefore, studies on metaphor will be mentioned more frequently than work on other FSP.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Aitchison, J.
1994 Words in the Mind. Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, V.C
1983 Visuelle Metapher. In A. Haverkamp (ed.): 142–159.Google Scholar
Aristotle
1991 On Rhetoric. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1960 Posterior Analytics. Topica. Heinemann.Google Scholar
1965 Poetics. Clarendon.Google Scholar
Bacry, P.
1992 Les figures de style. Belin.Google Scholar
Becker, J. & A. Kibédi Varga
(eds.) 1993 The Appeal of Images. Argumentation 7(1)(Special issue).Google Scholar
Behrens, L.
1993 Lexikalische Ambiguität und Disambiguierung im Kontext der maschinellen Übersetzung. In P.R .Lutzeier (ed.): 251–268.Google Scholar
Black, M.
1954 Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55: 273–294.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradford, A.N
1982 Classical and Modern Views of the Figures of Speech: Ancient Theory and Modern Manifestations. Ph.D. New York.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & S. Levinson
1987 Politeness. Some Universals of Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cahn, M.
1989 Paralipse und Homöopathie. In H. Schanze & J. Kopperschmidt (eds.) Rhetorik und Philosophie: 275–295. Fink.Google Scholar
Carbonell, J.G
1982 Metaphor: An Inescapable Phenomenon in Natural-Language Comprehension. In W.G. Lehnert & M.H. Ringle (eds.) Strategies for Natural Language Processing: 415–434. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cicero
1951 De oratore. Clarendon.Google Scholar
Corbett, E.P.J. & R.J. Connors
1999 Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E.
1956 La creación metafórica en el lenguaje. University de la República.Google Scholar
1994 Textlinguistik. Francke.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Debatin, B.
(eds.) 1997 Metaphor and Rational Discourse. Niemeyer.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
De Man, P.
1979 Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke and Proust. New Haven.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T.A.
1980 Textwissenschaft. dtv. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T.A. & W. Kintsch
1983 Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Dubois, J
1974 Allgemeine Rhetorik. Fink.Google Scholar
Dumarsais, C. & P. Fontanier
1984. [1818] Les Tropes. Slatkine.Google Scholar
Eco, U.
1972 Einführung in die Semiotik. Fink.Google Scholar
1985 Semiotik und Philosophie der Sprache. Fink. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F.H
2010 Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F.H. & R. Grootendorst
1992 Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eggs, E.
1994 Grammaire du discours argumentatif. Kimé.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Enkvist, N.E.
1973 Linguistic Stylistics. Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N.
1989 Language and Power. Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fass, D.
1988 An Account of Coherence, Semantic Relation, Metonymy, and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. In S.L. Small, G.W. Cottrell & M.K. Tanenhaus (eds.) Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: 151–177. Kaufmann. DOI logo  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Fogelin, R.J.
1987 Some figures of Speech. In F.H. Van Eemeren et al. (eds.) Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline: 263–272. Foris.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 Figuratively Speaking. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fontanier, P.
1968 Les figures du discours. Flammarion.Google Scholar
Freeman, D.C.
(ed.) 1970 Linguistics and Literary Style. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Freud, S.
1975 The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. Penguin.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.
1994 The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A.
1997 The Language of Metaphors. Routledge.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P.
1975 Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: 41–58.Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Groarke, L.
1996 Logic, Art and Argument. Informal Logic 18(2): 105–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Toward a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In F.H. Van Eemeren (ed.) Advances in Pragma-Dialectics: 137–151. SicSat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
2009 Five Theses on Toulmin and Visual Argument. In F.H. Van Eemeren & B. Garssen (eds.) Pondering on Problems of Argumentation: 229–239. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Arnold.Google Scholar
Haverkamp, A.
(ed.) 1983 Theorie der Metapher. Wiss. Buchgesellschaft.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Hopper, R.
1992 Speech Errors and the Poetics of Conversation. Text and Performance Quarterly 12(2): 113–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D.
1998 When is oral narrative poetry? Generative Form and its Pragmatic Conditions. Pragmatics 8(4): 475–500.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, C.
1994 What Else Can I Tell You? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Almqvist & Wiksell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, S.
1980 Freud as Rhetorician: Elocutio and Dreamwork. Rhetorik 1: 42–69.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R
1960 Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. In T. Sebeok (ed.) Style in Language: 350–377. MIT-Press.Google Scholar
1971a Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances. In R. Jakobson (1971b): 239–259.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1971b Selected Writings, vol. 2. Mouton.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1977 Huit questions de poétique. Seuil.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. & C. Lévi-Strauss
1977 “Les Chats” de Charles Baudelaire. In R. Jakobson: 163–188.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. & L.R. Waugh
1979 The Sound Shape of Language. Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, V. & J. Kennedy
(eds.) 1993 Metaphor and Visual Rhetoric. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 8(3)(Special issue).Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.
1986 L’implicite. Colin.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kibédi-Varga, A.
1970 Rhétorique et littérature. Didier.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, M.
1996 Vernünftig argumentieren. Rowohlt.Google Scholar
2004 Metaphern für Emotionen: Universalien oder Kulturspezifika? In L. Zybatow (ed.) Translation in der globalen Welt und neue Wege in der Sprach- und Übersetzerausbildung: 61–91. Lang.Google Scholar
Kittay, E.F.
1987 Metaphor. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kloepfer, R.
1975 Poetik und Linguistik. Fink.Google Scholar
Knape, J.
1996 Figurenlehre. In G. Ueding (ed.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 3: 289–342. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kopperschmidt, J.
(ed.) 1990/1991 Rhetorik, 2 vols. Wiss. Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
2000 Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge Univ. Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
2002 Metaphor. Oxford Univ. Press.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Lacan, J.
1983 Das Drängen des Buchstabens im Unbewußten oder die Vernunft seit Freud. In A. Haverkamp (ed.): 175–215.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1991 War and Metaphor. In P. Grzybek (ed.) Cultural semiotics: Facts and Facets: 73–92. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
2005 Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
& M. Johnson 1980 Metaphors we Live by. Chicago University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lamy, B.
1969[1670] La rhétorique ou L’art de parler. Brighton.Google Scholar
Lanham, R.A.
1991 A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lausberg, H.
1990 Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Hueber.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.N.
1966 A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. Longman.Google Scholar
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. Longman.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M.
1999 Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C.M. Brown & P. Hagoort (eds.) The Neurocognition of Language: 83–122. Oxford Univ.Press.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk
1993 Bilingual Thesaurus (BIT), Field Theory, and Cognitive Linguistics. In P.R. Lutzeier (ed.): 229–238.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locke, J.
1975 An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lutzeier, P.R.
(ed.) 1993 Studien zur Wortfeldtheorie/Studies in Lexical Field Theory. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marouzeau, J.
1935 Traité de stylistique. Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Mccloskey, D.N.
1983 The Rhetoric of Economics. Journal of Economic Literature 21: 481–517.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J.J.
1974 Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nash, W.
1989 Rhetoric. The Wit of Persuasion. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F.
1969 Über Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinn. In K. Schlechta (Hg.) Friedrich Nietzsche. Werke III: 309–322. Ullstein.Google Scholar
Ong, W.J.
1982 Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. Methuen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C. & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca
1983[1958] Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Ed. Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Pielenz, M.
1993 Argumentation und Metapher. Narr.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Plett, H.F.
1975 Textwissenschaft und Textanalyse. Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
1985 Rhetoric. In T.A. Van Dijk (ed.) Discourse and Literature: 59–84. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plett, H.F
2000 Systematische Rhetorik.Fink.Google Scholar
Quintilianus
1970 Institutio oratoria. Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ricœur, P.
1975 La métaphore vive. Seuil.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Reinsdorf, W.
1993 Schizophrenia, Poetic Imagery and Metaphor. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 13(4): 335–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandig, B.
1986 Stilistik der deutschen Sprache. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmitz, A.
1990 Die oratorische Kunst Bachs. In J. Kopperschmidt (ed.): 290–312.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
1979 Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sexl, M.
(ed.) 2004 Einführung in die Literaturtheorie. Wien.Google Scholar
Spencer, J.R.
1957 Ut Rhetorica Pictura: A Study in Quattrocento Theory of Painting. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute 20: 26–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson
1986 Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Spillner, B.
1974 Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft. Kohlhammer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spitzer, L.
1961 Stilstudien. Hueber.Google Scholar
Springfellow, F.
1994 The Meaning of Irony: A Psychoanalytic Investigation. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Todorov, T.
1967 Littérature et signification. Larousse. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977 Théories du symbole. Seuil.Google Scholar
Ueding, G.
1986 Grundriß der Rhetorik. Metzler.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J.
1998 Understanding Pragmatics. Arnold.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Weinrich, H.
1976 Sprache in Texten. Klett.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Weydt, H.
1987 Metaphern und Kognition. In J. Lüdtke (ed.) Energeia und Ergon: 303–311. Narr.  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Yu, N.
1998 The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Benjamins.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar