Abstract

Theories of language have primarily been theories of literal discourse. Accounts of metaphor have been unsatisfactory footnotes to these theories. This dissertation offers an account of metaphor that is neither a footnote to a theory of literal discourse nor a footnote to prior theories of metaphor. Two claims govern the development of the account. First, any bit of discourse may be interpreted literally or metaphorically. Metaphor is not a special linguistic type, like nouns or verbs. The important question, then, is what constitutes the difference between literal and metaphorical interpretation. This question is answered in the dissertation. Second, metaphors are extendable. This fact is the keystone of my theory. I say what it is for one expression to be taken to be a metaphorical extension of another and I use an anaphoric model to describe the various relations of extensions. In addition, I take a discourse approach: unlike most theories, which focus on the intra-sentential tensions usually assumed to mark metaphor, my account offers an inter-sentential account of the structure of metaphor. Rather than explaining the nature of metaphorical interpretation as a deviation from the literal, I explain metaphor in its own right. Finally, I argue that an independent account of metaphorical interpretation teaches important lessons about the normative structure of all language