Categorization and the Distinction of Metaphor and Simile

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This article aims to offer some critical remarks and provide empirical evidence against the attributive categorization thaw held by Glucksberg and his colleagues(l990, 1931, 1933, 1937, 1999, 2003). The theory has proposed that metaphors are attributive categorization statements and similes are weak versions of metaphors. This paper claims that there are some problems with the theory. Some critical remarks from cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics are described in support of this claim. Empirical evidence is also offered that shows, against Glucksberg and Keysar`s(l990, 1993) distinction between metaphors and similes, the qualitative difference of simile and metaphor: Korean people tend to prefer metaphors for mapping relational properties, whereas they tend to prefer similes for mapping attributive properties. This paper suggests that similes are not weak versions of metaphors and both metaphors and similes have different communicative function in quality: Metaphors are used for mapping relational properties, whereas similes for mapping attributive properties.