If a metaphor meant merely what the literal words meant, then would metaphors exist?
This question attempts to take seriously the thesis of Davidson's paper. "This paper is concerned with what metaphors mean, and its thesis is that metaphors mean what the words, in their most literal interpretation, mean, and nothing more."
Davidsom acknowledges that this is controversial and is contrary to much, if not all, of previous opinion on the matter. As long as Davidson accepts that a phrase such as "Richard is a lion" is actually a metaphor, it is difficult to understand how he defends his position. All people who utter metaphors are merely mistaken? Metaphors become mere falsehoods. Literal prose and metaphors become one and the same; metaphors, as distinct linguistic entities cease to be.
Thank you very much. This information is really helpful. Write more.
ReplyDelete