Clifton Pye


Languages combine form and meaning in order to express an infinite number of ideas. Modern linguistics has developed sophisticated methods to probe the formal structure of languages from phonetics to syntax, but the study of meaning remains relatively unexplored. The lack of sophisticated methods to document the semantic structure of languages remains a significant problem for work with endangered languages. Research in semantics is limited by semantic theories that can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle. These theories assume that languages use a universal set of semantic elements to construct meaning. The classical theories cannot account for semantic change and an explanation of metaphor is completely beyond the scope of such theories. In this paper I propose a theory of semantics that puts metaphor at the center of semantics. Rather than create an artificial dichotomy between figurative and non-figurative language, the metaphorical approach to semantics assumes that all languages are figurative. This approach assumes that a basic sentence as “The cat is on the mat” combines figurative language with pragmatic information to communicate a basic proposition. This approach differs from that of Lakoff (1993) in that its focus is on metaphoric mapping within cognitive domains rather than between domains. The trick in metaphorical semantics is to learn how to detect the metaphors used in basic linguistic expressions and to construct a theory of semantics based on metaphor.


metaphor, theory of semantics, figurative language


Aryawibawa, I. N. (2008). Semantic typology: Semantics of locative relations in Rongga (ISO 639-3: ROR). Master’s Thesis. University of Kansas.

Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In O. Andrew (ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 19-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bowerman, M. (1978). The acquisition of word meaning: An investigation into some current conflicts. In N. Waterson and C. Snow (eds.), The development of communication (pp. 263-287). New York: John Wiley.

Bowerman, M. & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and languagespecific in the acquisition of semantic categories. In M. Bowerman and S. C. Levinson (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475-511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carlson, N. R. & Heth, D. C. (2010). Psychology: The science of behavior (4th ed.). Toronto: Pearson.

Cazeaux, C. (2007). Metaphor and continental philosophy: From Kant to Derrida. New York: Routledge.

Davidson, D. (1984). What metaphors mean. In D. Davidson (ed.), Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Levinson, S., Meira, S., & The Language and Cognition Group. (2003). ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain—adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic topology. Language 49, 485-516.

Kuhn, T. S. (1993). Metaphor in science. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 533-542). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nietzsche, F. (2000). On Truth and lie in an extra-moral sense. In C. Cazeaux (ed.), The continental aesthetics reader. London: Routledge.

Putnam, H. (1989). Representation and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pye, C. (1996). K’iche’ Maya verbs of breaking and cutting. Kansas working papers in linguistics 21, 87-98.

Radden, G. (2000). How metonymic are metaphors? In A. Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 93-108). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rethoric. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ricoeur, P. (1975). La métaphore vive. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Ricoeur, P. (1977). The rule of metaphor: Multi-disciplinary studies in the creation of meaning in language. Trans. by R. Czerny with K. McLaughlin and J. Costello. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Riemer, N. (2010). Introducing semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1993). Some problems with the notion of literal meanings. In O. Andrew (ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 71–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stellardi, G. (2000), Heidegger and Derrida on philosophy and metaphor. Amherst, New York: Humanity Books.

Winograd, T. (1972). Understanding natural language. New York: Academic Press.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v35i1.52
View Counter: Abstract Viewed = 308 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Linguistik Indonesia Indexed By

CrossrefCrossrefInastiBASENLA CatalogueRoad 



     Creative Commons License   

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Linguistik Indonesia
d.a. Pusat Kajian Bahasa dan Budaya
Unika Atma Jaya 
Jl. Jenderal Sudirman No. 51
Jakarta 12930 - Indonesia

View My Stats