Abstract
Figures of speech have been suggested to play important pragmatic roles in language. Yet the nature of these pragmatic functions has not been specified in detail, and it is not clear what particular social-communicative purposes metaphors fulfill. I propose that metaphors are utilized in two distinct ways in communication. First, similarly to indirect speech, they enable social bargains: by expressing intentions, beliefs and desires in a veiled manner, they put the burden of interpretation on the hearer, which makes them revocable and thus a great tool for negotiations. Secondly, metaphors can be used to transform the meaning of words so that they describe phenomena and refer to concepts that do not have a lexical entry, by transferring an abstract sense figuratively to a new domain. The latter use is not only a tool of verbal creativity but a means of linguistic change as it adds novel senses to words. Metaphor does not seem to be a mere example of loose language use but a sophisticated communicational tool, either to deliberately create ambiguity in a deniable manner or to extend word meaning beyond the public lexicon, which puts the fundamental mechanisms of abstract thought to figurative use.
This chapter is a deeper elaboration and further development of ideas laid out initially in the very first scientific paper I have written, in Hungarian (Forgács, 2009), as a Ph.D. student guided by Professor Csaba Pléh. I would like to express my eternal gratitude for his helpful, careful, and truly transformative mentorship and for introducing me, through his most welcoming and witty manner, to the excitement and joy of cognitive science, in hope of following in his footsteps towards the heights of the science of the mind. Csaba has been a sharp and open minded mentor from the classical school, encouraging investigations outside of his main area of interest, which shows in the diversity of his students’ research. As a brilliant scientist, excellent speaker and outstanding mentor there is a lot to learn from him, but the Pléh-superpower seems to be beyond reach: Csaba is able to recall and recommend practically any author, book and idea from the recorded history of psychology and philosophy alike. Particularly noteworthy is the smaller havoc that erupted in the Ph.D. room when someone accidentally printed his full bibliography instead that of the past five years: the printer could not be stopped. His productivity and intellectual freedom combined with his friendliness and organization skills not only enabled him to establish cognitive science in Hungary, but to bring fresh air to the study of mind and language at large – which is radiating ever further through the several generations of students all over the globe he helped spread their wings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Following the convention in cognitive science I use small capitals for concepts, single quotes for words and expressions, double quotes for quotations proper, and italics for meanings, senses, referents, and any semantic values (the word ‘dog’ refers to the concept dog, and mean and expresses the property of being a dog).
References
Aristotle (1952). Rhetoric (W. D. Ross, (Ed.) & W. R. Roberts Trans.). The works of Aristotle (Vol. 11): Theoretica, de rhetorica ad alexandrum, poetica. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press (Original work published ca. 322).
Aristotle (1952). Poetics In (W. D. Ross, (Ed.) & I. Bywater Trans.). The works of Aristotle (Vol. 11): Theoretica, de rhetorica ad alexandrum, poetica. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press (Original work published ca. 335).
Bach, S. (1994). The language of perversion and the language of love. Jason Aronson.
Barber, H. A., Otten, L. J., Kousta, S. T., & Vigliocco, G. (2013). Concreteness in word processing: ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 125(1), 47–53.
Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors. Cornell University Press.
Blasko, D., & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295–308.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216.
Bréal, M. (1900). Semantics: Studies in the science of meaning. Henry Holt & Co.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. NY, US: Elmsford
Brône, G., & Coulson, S. (2010). Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212–236.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
Cameron, L. J. (2007). Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk. Discourse & Society, 18(2), 197–222.
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 671–690.
Cameron, L. J., & Stelma, J. H. (2004). Metaphor clusters in discourse. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 1(2), 107–136.
Carston, R. (2010). XIII—metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110(3), part 3, 295–321.
Casasanto, D., & Gijssels, T. (2015). What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor? Linguistics Vanguard 1(1), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1015
Evans, V., Bergen, B. K., & Zinken, J. (2007). The cognitive linguistics enterprise: An overview. In V. Evans & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 2–36). Equinox.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187.
Fonagy, I. (1971). Double coding is speech. Semiotica, 3, 189–222.
Forgács, B. (2009). Verbal metacommunication—why a metaphorical mapping can be relevant? (In Hungarian) Hungarian Psychological Review, 64(3), 593–605. https://doi.org/10.1556/MPSzle.64.2009.3.8.
Forgács, B. (2013). The right hemisphere of cognitive science. In C.S. Pléh, L. Gurova, & L. Ropolyi (Eds.), New Perspectives on the History of Cognitive Science (pp. 129–141). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó
Forgács, B. (2014). Figures of language in cognitive science in the light of figurative language processing in the brain. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest.
Forgács, B. (2020). An electrophysiological abstractness effect for metaphorical meaning making. eNeuro 7(5), 1–12.
Forgács, B., Bardolph, M., Amsel, B. D., DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2015). Metaphors are physical and abstract: ERPs to metaphorically modified nouns resemble ERPs to abstract language. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(28).
Forgács, B., Bohrn, I., Baudewig, J., Hofmann, M. J., Pléh, Cs., & Jacobs, A. M. (2012). Neural correlates of combinatorial semantic processing of literal and figurative noun noun compound words. NeuroImage, 63(3), 1432–1442.
Forgács, B., Lukács, Á., & Pléh, Cs. (2014). Lateralized processing of novel metaphors: Disentangling figurativeness and novelty. Neuropsychologia, 56, 101–109.
Forgács, B., & Pléh, Cs. (2019). What are you thinking about where? Syntactic ambiguity between abstract arguments and concrete adjuncts in hungarian modulated by concreteness. Psychology in Russia, 12(1), 67–78.
Freud, S. (1901/1989). The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. WW Norton & Company.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory–motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479.
Gergely, Gy., & Pléh, Cs. (1994). Lexical processing in an agglutinative language and the organization of the lexicon. Folia Linguistica, 28, 175–204.
Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. R., & Werner, N. K. (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(3), 433–450.
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92–96.
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21(3), 360–378.
Grady, J. (2005). Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1595–1614.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics Speech Acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 958.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic Books.
Leary, D. E. (Ed.). (1994). Metaphors in the history of psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J. J., & Pinker, S. (2010). Rationales for indirect speech: The theory of the strategic speaker. Psychological Review, 117(3), 785–807.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647.
Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1), 59–70.
McGlone, M. S. (2007). What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor? Language & Communication, 27(2), 109–126.
Mithen, S. J. (1996). The prehistory of the mind: A search for the origins of art, religion, and science. Thames and Hudson.
Nuessel, F. (2006). Figurative language: Semiotics. In A. Barber & R. J. Stainton (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of language & linguistics (pp. 446–459). Elsevier.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Antos, S. T. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(4), 465–477.
Pinker, S. (2010). The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(Supplement 2), 8993–8999.
Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., & Lee, J. J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(3), 833–838.
Pléh, C. S. (2000). Modularity and pragmatics: Some simple and some complicated ways. Pragmatics, 10(4), 415–438.
Pléh, Cs. (2010). A lélektan története [The History of Psychology]. Budapest: Osiris.
Pléh, C. S. (2018). A kettős kódolás és a nem tudatos mozzanatok a nyelvben: Fónagy Iván koncepciója [Dual Coding and unconscious moments in language: The conception of Iván Fónagy]. IMÁGÓ Budapest, 7(3), 19–29.
Porat, R., & Shen, Y. (2015). Imposed metaphoricity. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(2), 77–94.
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526.
Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., & Ilmoniemi, R. (2005). Brain signatures of meaning access in action word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(6), 884–892.
Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(7), 576–582.
Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge–based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 489–537.
Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P. (2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382–419.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1998). The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (Eds.), Thought and language (pp. 184–200). Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge University Press.
Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6), 645–659.
Szabó, R. (2015). Metaforák és szimbólumok: CG Jung szimbólumértelemzésének és a fogalmi metaforák elméletének összevetése [Metaphors and symbols: The comparison of the symbol interpretation of C. G. Jung and conceptual metaphor theory]. Budapest: Oriold és Társai Kiadó.
Tendahl, M., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823–1864.
Thuma, O., & Pléh, Cs. (1999). Ambiguous data on Hungarian ambiguity resolution. In M. Prinzhorn, & J. Rennison (Eds.), Dressler Festschrift
Thuma, O., & Cs, P. (2000). Ambiguity and morphological decomposition in Hungarian. In Ch. Schaner-Wolles, J. Rennison, & F. Neubarth (Eds.), Naturally! linguistic essays in honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 128–142). Rosenberg & Sellier.
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2006) Does functional neuroimaging solve the questions of neurolinguistics? Brain and Language, 98(3), 276 290
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: relevance, inference, and ad hoc concepts. In Noel Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 3). Palgrave McMillan.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Blackwell.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111(443), 583–632.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by a NKFIH Young Researcher grant (125417) to Bálint Forgács.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Forgács, B. (2022). The Pragmatic Functions of Metaphorical Language. In: Gervain, J., Csibra, G., Kovács, K. (eds) A Life in Cognition. Language, Cognition, and Mind, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66175-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66175-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66174-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66175-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)