What is it about?
This paper tackles two fundamental questions about figurative language: How are different figures of speech related, and what are the limits of their use? First, it argues that the vast array of figurative expressions –from metaphor and irony to paradox and oxymoron– are not an unrelated list. Instead, they are built from a small set of basic cognitive “building blocks” or operations (like comparison, reduction, expansion, and contrast). Complex figures are simply different combinations of these core operations. Second, the paper explores the “rules” or constraints that govern figurative thought. It examines why some combinations work powerfully while others fall flat or make no sense, proposing that these limits are deeply tied to our embodied experiences, i.e., how our physical bodies and interactions with the world shape our understanding and therefore our creative use of language.
Featured Image
Photo by Alex on Unsplash
Why is it important?
This work is significant because it moves the study of figurative language from a descriptive catalog of terms to a predictive, explanatory model. By reducing dozens of figures to combinations of a few core cognitive operations, it provides a unified theory that reveals the hidden structure behind creative language. Furthermore, by systematically addressing the constraints on figurative thinking, it answers the crucial “why” questions: Why can we understand “burning love” but not “rectangular love”? The proposal that these constraints are rooted in embodied cognition grounds the theory in our fundamental human experience, making it both powerful and biologically plausible. This integrative framework offers scholars a more elegant and economical tool for analyzing figurative language and provides deeper insights into the very nature of human creativity and reasoning.
Perspectives
Writing this paper felt like constructing a periodic table for figurative language. The goal was to find the elemental cognitive operations whose combinations could explain the entire spectrum of figurative expression. It was incredibly rewarding to see how patterns emerged, showing that seemingly distinct figures like metonymy and overstatement shared underlying mechanisms. The most challenging yet fulfilling part was grappling with the constraints. Moving beyond simply describing what figures exist to explaining why they exist in the forms they do, and why other forms are impossible, required delving into the deepest connections between body, mind, and language. This work strongly reinforced my belief that the most elegant linguistic theories are those that find simplicity and unity underlying apparent complexity.
Professor Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza
University of La Rioja
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Figurative language, November 2020, John Benjamins,
DOI: 10.1075/ftl.10.17rui.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
