The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Understanding figurative language: from metaphors to idioms
Abstract
This book examines how people understand utterances that are intended figuratively. Traditionally, figurative language such as metaphors and idioms has been considered derivative from more complex than ostensibly straightforward literal language. Glucksberg argues that figurative language involves the same kinds of linguistic and pragmatic operations that are used for ordinary, literal language. Glucksberg's research in this book is concerned with ordinary language: expressions that are used in daily life, including conversations about everyday matters, newspaper and magazine articles, and the media. Metaphor is the major focus of the book. Idioms, however, are also treated comprehensively, as is the theory of conceptual metaphor in the context of how people understand both conventional and novel figurative expressions. A new theory of metaphor comprehension is put forward, and evaluated with respect to competing theories in linguistics and in psychology. The central tenet of the theory is that ordinary conversational metaphors are used to create new concepts and categories. This process is spontaneous and automatic. Metaphor is special only in the sense that these catagories get their names from the best examples of the things they represent, and that these categories get their names from the best examples of those categories. Thus, the literal shark can be a metaphor for any vicious and predatory being, from unscrupulous salespeople to a murderous character in The Threepenny Opera. Because the same term, e.g.,shark, is used both for its literal referent and for the metaphorical category, as in My lawyer is a shark, we call it the dual-reference theory. The theory is then extended to two other domains: idioms and conceptual metaphors. The book presents the first comprehensive account of how people use and understand metaphors in everyday life.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00179-8 · Cited by 783
Gatt, A., & Krahmer, E. (2018) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.5477 · Cited by 776
Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience
Gibbs, R. W., Costa Lima, P. L., & Francozo, E. (2004) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.009 · Cited by 591
The contemporary theory of metaphor — now new and improved!
Steen, G. J. (2011) · Review of Cognitive Linguistics · doi:10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste · Cited by 386
Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory
Tendahl, M., & Gibbs, R. W. (2008) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001 · Cited by 347
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2002-02-01
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 06
- Pages
- 39-3217-39-3217
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1574236237
- Cited by
- 600
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding figurative language: from metaphors to idioms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.39-3217
- The paper
- Understanding figurative language: from metaphors to idioms. (2002). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.39-3217
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.