Abstract

Metaphors and similes have been treated as the same comparable types of figurative speech since Aristotle. In early theories, metaphors are interpreted as corresponding similes by paraphrasing. Based on this theoretical framework, some experimental studies interpret simile understanding as evidence for metaphor understanding. However, according to Relevance Theory, similes are interpreted as comparisons, whereas metaphors are interpreted as categorization statements. Therefore, only metaphor reveals metaphor interpretation. In other words, studies cannot use simile interpretation as evidence for metaphor interpretation ability in children. Simile should be easier to understand for children since they exclude an “ad hoc concept” construction as in metaphor understanding. This study seeks evidence showing children’s better performance in simile interpretation than that in metaphor interpretation, thus supporting Relevance Theory. For the Relevance Theory account, whether the experiments use similes or metaphors as testing materials is of considerable significance, whereas for comparison account, it is not. By review and re-interpretation of the empirical studies, we find that few early studies expose “real metaphor” understanding in children. Most experimental results indicate that simile interpretation is easier than metaphor interpretation for children. We consider comparison theory and the Relevance Theory as complementary strategies in metaphor interpretation.

Highlights

  • IntroductionThe early theories state that simile and metaphor understandings are both comparisons differing in the explicitness of the indicators of resemblance

  • Aristotle was the first to propose that metaphors are implicit similes in his works Poetics and the Rhetoric

  • According to the Relevance Theory(RT), metaphors are interpreted as categorization statements, whereas similes are interpreted as comparisons

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The early theories state that simile and metaphor understandings are both comparisons differing in the explicitness of the indicators of resemblance. The experimental studies following these accounts use similes to test metaphor interpretation in children. According to the Relevance Theory(RT), metaphors are interpreted as categorization statements, whereas similes are interpreted as comparisons. We propose that if the empirical findings under both theoretical frameworks demonstrate that children’s performance in simile understanding is different from and better than that in metaphor comprehension, RT will be supported. If comparison interpretation happens at an earlier age in children, it benefits to construct the ad hoc concept that metaphor interpretation requires. This study supports RT that children interpret similes as comparisons while metaphors as categorization statements, which enhances our knowledge of children’s language development linguistically

Models of Simile and Metaphor Comprehension in Adults
The Categorization View of Metaphor
Implications for Developmental Research in Children
Studies Using Similes and Analogies
Studies Distinguishing Similes and Metaphors
Studies Using Metaphors
Discussions
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.