philosophy, linguistic


Theorists often associate certain “poetic” qualities with metaphor – most especially, producing an open-ended, holistic perspective which is evocative, imagistic and affectively-laden. I argue that, on the one hand, non-cognitivists are wrong to claim that metaphors only produce such perspectives: like ordinary literal speech, they also serve to undertake claims and other speech acts with propositional content. On the other hand, contextualists are wrong to assimilate metaphor to literal loose talk: metaphors depend on using one thing as a perspective for thinking about something else. I bring out the distinctive way that metaphor works by contrasting it with two other poetic uses of language, juxtapositions and “telling details,” that do fit the accounts of metaphor offered by non-cognitivists and contextualists, respectively.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.


Ayer, A.J.. 1936. Language Truth and Logic. London: Gollancz, 2nd edn. 1946.

Bezuidenhout, Anne. 2001. Metaphor and what is said: A defense of a direct expression view of metaphor. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 25:156–186.

Brandom, Robert. 1983. Asserting. Noûs 17:637–650.

Camp, Elisabeth. 2003. Saying and Seeing-as: The Linguistic Uses and Cognitive Effects of Metaphor. Dissertation, University of California Berkeley.

———. 2004. The generality constraint, nonsense, and categorial restrictions. Philosoph- ical Quarterly 54(215):209–231. doi:10.1111/j.0031-8094.2004.00348.x

———. 2006a. Metaphor and that certain ‘je ne sais quoi’. Philosophical Studies 129(1):1– 25. doi:10.1007/s11098-005-3019-5

———. 2006b. Contextualism, metaphor, and ‘what is said’. Mind & Language 21(3):280–309. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00279.x

———. 2007. Prudent semantics meets wanton speech act pluralism. In G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds.), Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism: New Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics, pp. 194–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carnap, Rudolph. 1935. Philosophy and Logical Syntax. London: Kegan Paul.

Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cohen, Ted. 1976. Notes on metaphor. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 34:249–259.

———. 1997. Metaphor, feeling, and narrative. Philosophy and Literature 21:223–244.

Cooper, David. 1986. Metaphor. Oxford: Blackwell.

Davidson, Donald. 1978. What metaphors mean. In S. Sacks (ed.), On Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Green, Mitchell. 2000. Illocutionary force and semantic content. Linguistics and Philoso- phy 23:435–473. doi:10.1023/A:1005642421177

Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3. London: Academic Press.

———. 1989. Utterer’s meaning and intentions. In Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hills, David. 1997. Aptness and truth in verbal metaphor. Philosophical Topics 25:117– 153.

Pilkington, Adrian. 2000. Poetic Effects. A Relevance Theory Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pound, Ezra. 1915. Preface. In Some Imagist Poets: An Anthology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Reimer, Marga. 2001. Davidson on metaphor. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 25:142–155.

Rorty, Richard. 1987. Unfamiliar noises I: Hesse and Davidson on metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (supp. volume 61):283–296.

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1985. Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86:153–71.

———. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd edn. 1995.

Stern, Josef. 2000. Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Taylor, Paul. 1989. Insight and metaphor. Analysis 49(2):71–77. doi:10.2307/3328653

White, Roger. 1996. The Structure of Metaphor: The Way the Language of Metaphor Works. Oxford: Blackwell.