more on this theme     |     more from this text


Single Idea 18025

[filed under theme 19. Language / F. Communication / 6. Interpreting Language / d. Metaphor ]

Full Idea

The simile theory of metaphors makes them too easy to figure out, when they cannot be paraphrased in literal terms, …and it does not explain why we use metaphors as well as similes.

Gist of Idea

The simile view of metaphors removes their magic, and won't explain why we use them

Source

Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 3.5)

Book Ref

Magidor,Ofra: 'Category Mistakes' [OUP 2013], p.68


A Reaction

[She cites Davidson for these points] They might just be similes with the added frisson of leaving out 'like', so that they seem at first to be false, until you work out the simile and see their truth.

Related Idea

Idea 18024 One theory says metaphors mean the same as the corresponding simile [Magidor]


The 51 ideas from Ofra Magidor

Category mistakes are either syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic [Magidor]
Strong compositionality says meaningful expressions syntactically well-formed are meaningful [Magidor]
Weaker compositionality says meaningful well-formed sentences get the meaning from the parts [Magidor]
Are there partial propositions, lacking truth value in some possible worlds? [Magidor]
Some suggest that the Julius Caesar problem involves category mistakes [Magidor]
Generative semantics says structure is determined by semantics as well as syntactic rules [Magidor]
'John is easy to please' and 'John is eager to please' have different deep structure [Magidor]
Category mistakes seem to be universal across languages [Magidor]
Category mistakes as syntactic needs a huge number of fine-grained rules [Magidor]
Embedded (in 'he said that…') category mistakes show syntax isn't the problem [Magidor]
The normal compositional view makes category mistakes meaningful [Magidor]
Understanding unlimited numbers of sentences suggests that meaning is compositional [Magidor]
Two good sentences should combine to make a good sentence, but that might be absurd [Magidor]
If a category mistake is synonymous across two languages, that implies it is meaningful [Magidor]
People have dreams which involve category mistakes [Magidor]
Propositional attitudes relate agents to either propositions, or meanings, or sentence/utterances [Magidor]
To grasp 'two' and 'green', must you know that two is not green? [Magidor]
Gricean theories of metaphor involve conversational implicatures based on literal meanings [Magidor]
Non-cognitivist views of metaphor says there are no metaphorical meanings, just effects of the literal [Magidor]
Metaphors as substitutes for the literal misses one predicate varying with context [Magidor]
Metaphors tend to involve category mistakes, by joining disjoint domains [Magidor]
One theory says metaphors mean the same as the corresponding simile [Magidor]
Theories of metaphor divide over whether they must have literal meanings [Magidor]
The simile view of metaphors removes their magic, and won't explain why we use them [Magidor]
Maybe a metaphor is just a substitute for what is intended literally, like 'icy' for 'unemotional' [Magidor]
Category mistakes are meaningful, because metaphors are meaningful category mistakes [Magidor]
A good explanation of why category mistakes sound wrong is that they are meaningless [Magidor]
If a category mistake has unimaginable truth-conditions, then it seems to be meaningless [Magidor]
Category mistakes are neither verifiable nor analytic, so verificationism says they are meaningless [Magidor]
Category mistakes play no role in mental life, so conceptual role semantics makes them meaningless [Magidor]
A sentence can be meaningful, and yet lack a truth value [Magidor]
Two sentences with different meanings can, on occasion, have the same content [Magidor]
Maybe when you say 'two is green', the predicate somehow fails to apply? [Magidor]
If category mistakes aren't syntax failure or meaningless, maybe they just lack a truth-value? [Magidor]
Intensional logic maps logical space, showing which predicates are compatible or incompatible [Magidor]
Category mistakes suffer from pragmatic presupposition failure (which is not mere triviality) [Magidor]
The infelicitiousness of trivial truth is explained by uninformativeness, or a static context-set [Magidor]
The infelicitiousness of trivial falsity is explained by expectations, or the loss of a context-set [Magidor]
A presupposition is what makes an utterance sound wrong if it is not assumed? [Magidor]
A test for presupposition would be if it provoked 'hey wait a minute - I have no idea that....' [Magidor]
The best tests for presupposition are projecting it to negation, conditional, conjunction, questions [Magidor]
If both s and not-s entail a sentence p, then p is a presupposition [Magidor]
Why do certain words trigger presuppositions? [Magidor]
The semantics of a sentence is its potential for changing a context [Magidor]
In the pragmatic approach, presuppositions are assumed in a context, for successful assertion [Magidor]
In 'two is green', 'green' has a presupposition of being coloured [Magidor]
Category mistakes because of presuppositions still have a truth value (usually 'false') [Magidor]
'Numbers are coloured and the number two is green' seems to be acceptable [Magidor]
Maybe the presuppositions of category mistakes are the abilities of things? [Magidor]
The presuppositions in category mistakes reveal nothing about ontology [Magidor]
We can explain the statue/clay problem by a category mistake with a false premise [Magidor]