Metaphors in Conversation: How Are They Understood? Why Are They Used?

Abstract

Literal and nonliteral expressions are compared with respect to how they are understood in ordinary conversation. Analysis suggests that literal expressions have the same recognition problems as metaphors; namely, they both require listeners to classify utterances as to propositional types. Literal and metaphorical expressions also do not differ with respect to priority of understanding (i.e., nonliteral interpretation is not an option that depends on a prior derivation of literal meaning). Similarly, literal and nonliteral interpretation depend equally on contextual information, and both require the same kinds of such information. Passive theories of metaphor comprehension are examined and rejected in favor of a conversational-interactive account that treats both literal and nonliteral comprehension in terms of discourse processes. Finally, some reasons why people use nonliteral expressions are suggested, and I propose that, under certain circumstances, metaphors permit more precise and informative commu...