Metaphor, specifically, and figurative language, generally, have been of interest to philosophers and literary theorists since Aristotle's Poetics. Yet we still lack clear criteria for what it means for an expression to be figurative, and how this is to be distinguished from literal usage. We argue here that this question has remained unanswered, in part, because it has been misconceived. One important source of misunderstanding has been the almost universal tendency to view metaphors and other tropes as comprising two discrete meanings, one that is literal, and one that is figurative. Rather, we propose that metaphorical and literal phrases are both understood by drawing on denotative and connotative associations of their terms in an interactive fashion, and that assessments of adequacy for an interpretation--whether literal or figurative--refer to the same basic criteria. Metaphors are phrases with a high degree of tolerance for such interpretation, literals much less so, and idioms even less. Interpreting idioms depends more on the retrieval of a specific and conventional meaning. In this sense, idioms are hardly "figurative" at all.
Read full abstract