Abstract
Metaphor and analogy are cognitive tools which, in serving specific communicative goals and descriptive needs, are subject to a host of pragmatic pressures. Knowing that these pressures will shape the interpretation of a given metaphor, an effective communicator will exploit them to structure the conceptual content of the metaphor in such a way as to maximise its perceived aptness and argumentative force to the recipient. This paper considers the form that such pressures can take, and the computational strategies that a communicator can employ to maximise the effectiveness of a given metaphor. We choose as our domain of discourse a collection of visual metaphors which highlights the effect of pragmatic strategies on metaphoric communication.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Black, M. Models and Metaphor: studies in language and philosophy Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.(1962)
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K.D., and D. Gentner.: The Structure-Mapping Engine. Artificial Intelligence, 41, (1989) pp 1–63.
Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner: Conceptual projection and middle spaces. UC SD: Department of Cognitive Science Technical Report 9401, (1994).
Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner.: Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science (in press)
French, R.: The Subtlety of Sameness Cambridge: MIT Press (1995).
Hofstadter, D.R. and the Fluid Analogy Research Group.: Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought Basic Books, NY (1995).
Holyoak, K. J. and P. Thagard.: Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction. Cognitive Science 13, (1989), pp 295–355.
Ortony, A.: The role of similarity in similes and metaphors. Metaphor and Thought, edited by A Ortony.(1979). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Veale, T.and M.T. Keane.: Belief Modelling, Intentionality and Perlocution in Metaphor Comprehension, in The Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Atlanta, Georgia.H illsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, (1994).
Veale, T.and M. T. Keane.: The Competence of Sub-Optimal Structure Mapping on ‘Hard’ Analogies, in The Proceedings of IJCAI’97, the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Nagoya, Japan.(1997).
Veale, T.: ‘Just in Time’ Analogical Mapping: An Iterative-Deepening Approach to Structure-Mapping, in The Proceedings of ECAI’98, the 13th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Brighton, UK. (1998).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Veale, T. (1999). Pragmatic Forces in Metaphor Use: The Mechanics of Blend Recruitment in Visual Metaphors. In: Nehaniv, C.L. (eds) Computation for Metaphors, Analogy, and Agents. CMAA 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1562. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48834-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48834-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-65959-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48834-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive