An Inferential Articulation of Metaphorical Assertions
Abstract
This paper argues for the view that metaphors are assertions by locating metaphor within our social discursive practices of asserting and inferring. The literal and the metaphorical differ not in the stating of facts nor in the representation of states of affairs but in the kind of inferential involvements they have and the normative score-keeping practices within which the inferential connections are articulated. This inferentialist based account of metaphor is supplemented by insights from accommodation theory. The account is significant for our understanding of both metaphor’s figurativeness and cognitive content.References
Brandom, Robert (1988), «Pragmatism, phenomenalism, and truth talk», in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 12. n. 1, pp. 75-93.
Brandom, Robert (1994), Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing and discursive commitments, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Brandom, Robert (2000), Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Camp, Elizabeth (2006), «Metaphor and that certain je ne sais quoi», in Philosophical Studies, vol. 129, pp. 1-25.
Camp, Elizabeth (2017), «Why metaphors make good insults: perspectives, presupposition, and pragmatics», in Philosophical Studies, vol. 174, n. 1, pp. 47-64.
Carston, Robyn (2002), Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication, Blackwell, Oxford.
Carston, Robyn (2010), «Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images», in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 110, pp. 297-323.
Cooper, David (1986), Metaphor, Basil Blackwell, New York.
Davidson, Donald (1979), What metaphors mean, in S. Sacks, ed., On metaphor, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 29-45.
Ervas, Francesca, Gola, Elisabetta & Rossi, Maria Grazia (2018), Argumentation as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning, in S. Oswald, T. Herman, & J. Jacquin, eds., Argumentation and language: Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations, Springer, Berlin, pp. 153-170.
Gaut, Berys (1997), «Metaphor and the understanding of art», in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol. 97, pp. 223-241.
Hornsby, Jennifer (1994), Illocution and its significance, in S. L. Tsohatzidis, ed., Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, Routledge, London, pp. 187-207.
Hornsby, Jennifer, & Langton, Rae (1998), Free speech and illocution, in Legal Theory, vol. 4, pp. 21-37.
Indurkhya, Bipin (2016), Towards a model of metaphorical understanding, in E. Gola & F. Ervas, eds., Metaphor and Communication, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 123-146.
Karttunen, Lauri (1974), «Presuppositions and linguistic context», in Theoretical Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 181-194.
Kwesi, Richmond (2018), Metaphor, truth, and representation, in P. Stalmaszczyk, ed. Objects of Inquiry in Philosophy of Language and Linguistics, Peter Lang, Berlin, pp. 117-146.
Kwesi, Richmond (2019 forthcoming), «Semantic meaning and content: The intractability of metaphor», in Studia Semiotyczne.
Lamarque, Peter, & Olsen, Stein (1994), Truth, fiction, and literature: A philosophical perspective, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Lepore, Ernie & Stone, Matthew (2010), «Against metaphorical meaning», in Topoi, vol. 29, pp. 165-180.
Lepore, Ernie & Stone, Matthew (2015), Imagination and convention: Distinguishing grammar and inference in language, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lewis, David (1979), «Scorekeeping in a language game», in Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, pp. 339-359.
Macagno, Fabrizio & Zavatta, Benedetta (2014), «Reconstructing metaphorical meaning», in Argumentation, vol. 28, n. 4, pp. 453-488.
Moran, Richard (1989), «Seeing and believing: Metaphor, image and force», in Critical Inquiry, vol. 16, n. 1, pp. 87-112.
Oswald, Steve & Rihs, Alain (2014), «Metaphor as argument: rhetorical and epistemic advantages of extended metaphors», in Argumentation, vol. 28, n. 2, pp. 133-159.
Recanati, Francois (2004), Literal Meaning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Reimer, Marga (2001), Davidson on metaphor, in P.A. French & H.K. Wettstein, eds., Midwest studies in philosophy, 25, Figurative language, Blackwell, Boston (Mass), Oxford (UK), pp. 142-55.
Richard, Mark (2004), «Contextualism and relativism», in Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, vol. 119, n. 1, pp. 215-242.
Richard, Mark (2008), When truth gives out, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Roberts, Craige (2004), Pronouns and definites, in M. Reimer & A. Bezuidenhout, eds., Descriptions and beyond, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 503-543.
Rorty, Richard (1987), «Unfamiliar noises I: Hesse and Davidson on metaphor», in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 61, pp. 283-311.
Soames, Soames (1982), «How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem», in Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 13, n. 3, pp. 483-545.
Stalnaker, Robert (1973), «Presuppositions», in Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 2, n. 4, pp. 447-457.
Stalnaker, Robert (1974), Pragmatic presuppositions, in M. Munitz & P. Unger, eds., Semantics and Philosophy, New York University Press, New York, pp. 197-214.
Stalnaker, Robert (1978), Assertion, in P. Cole & J. Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semantics, Academic Press, New York.
Stalnaker, Robert (2002), «Common ground», in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 25, n. 5, pp. 701-721.
Taylor, Charles (2016), The language animal: The full shape of the human linguistic capacity, Harvard University Press.
Wagemans, Jean H. M. (2016), «Analyzing metaphor in argumentative discourse», in RIFL – Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, vol. 102, pp. 79-94.
Wilson, Deirdre & Carston Robyn (2006), «Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue», in Mind & Language, vol. 21, n. 3, pp. 404-433.
Works published in RIFL are released under Creative Commons Licence:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
