Many contemporary discussions of metaphor have taken for granted the primacy of literal language. They tried to interpret Mataphor in the light of literal, normal languages on condition that there are such things.
These attitudes on metaphor result...
Many contemporary discussions of metaphor have taken for granted the primacy of literal language. They tried to interpret Mataphor in the light of literal, normal languages on condition that there are such things.
These attitudes on metaphor resulted in theories such as Comparison theory, Interaction theory, and Feature theory,‥‥etc.
All of these views failed in explaining and apprehending the full impact of metaphor, though they provided source understanding of it.
The failure was due to the dualistic view which lays emphasis on the literal side of metaphor.
It says that metaphors can be understood better or only through literal paraphrase.
The view didn't understand the metaphorical nature of language.
There are proofs that language is metaphorical in its nature considering the metaphoricalness in the human nature and in everyday language.
On the basis of these proofs, this paper presents a new view of metaphor.
"The point is that certain ways of apprehending things under the aspect of other things or qualities, usually spoken of as metaphor, operate to focus our thought on conditions and qualities in experiences and situations that we are dealing with"(G,Yoos)
Thus, metaphors function much the same as felling someone to look out the window instead of a description of what is out the window. They are not literally descriptions but they are substitutes for descriptions.