Ah ha! Key to metaphor is an understanding of affordances that link – and all it needs is ONE feature in common. This is done through having a list of “how many ways they function”. It doesn’t HAVE to be put into words, but it *can* be. ALL YOU NEED is a list with every word that is a PROPERTY OF another word. [or a characteristic, or a FUNCTION – I’m calling them all affordances]. FROM THAT, you know you COULD use that word as a metaphor WITH ANY OTHER WORD that shares at least ONE feature in common – even metaphors that no one has yet made! SO: It’s _not_ a computationally impossible or even a complex problem to discern metaphorical connections, whether in English or in ANY human language, including science (whose very language is BUILT upon grammatical metaphors). BUT MAYBE, as one goes up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponymy_and_hypernymy (“umbrella term”) chain, you reach a point with TOO MANY possible metaphors among the hyponyms (subordinates in the taxonomy (ontology, hierarchy), especially when EACH word will have _its own_ unique tree from which a network of connections COULD POSSIBLY result in the “AT LEAST ONE” common property that I think is needed to create a metaphor. ADDING to this: New metaphors are created all of the time. The world of memes have their own metaphorical worlds overlapping, and there’s distinctions between users such that, say, a 35 year old gamer will create a meme from his/her own knowledgebank of visual metaphors that will “read” entirely differently to a 12 year old memer, whose generation has been developing their OWN set of metaphorical connections, for example, pruning what they see as an EXPLICIT reference (that the 35 year old thinks is subtle) and substituting a more “in-group” meaning such that both will laugh but from a much different place. Ok, this ramble is long enough. The quote below made it “click” for me: That it really CAN be “as simple as” using words, so long as you create the proper systemic view of each. I don’t think this is “mere semantics” either as this power is part of the very logic of the lexico-grammar itself and arises from a place as powerful as “Noun, Verb”. “the categorization view of metaphor can be interpreted as a type of conceptual combination, in which the head concept provides relevant dimensions and the modifier concept provides candidate features for attribution.”

Ah ha! Key to metaphor is an understanding of affordances that link – and all it needs is ONE feature in common.
 
This is done through having a list of “how many ways they function”. It doesn’t HAVE to be put into words, but it *can* be.
 
ALL YOU NEED is a list with every word that is a PROPERTY OF another word. [or a characteristic, or a FUNCTION – I’m calling them all affordances].
 
FROM THAT, you know you COULD use that word as a metaphor WITH ANY OTHER WORD that shares at least ONE feature in common – even metaphors that no one has yet made!
 
SO: It’s _not_ a computationally impossible or even a complex problem to discern metaphorical connections, whether in English or in ANY human language, including science (whose very language is BUILT upon grammatical metaphors).
 
BUT MAYBE, as one goes up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponymy_and_hypernymy (“umbrella term”) chain, you reach a point with TOO MANY possible metaphors among the hyponyms (subordinates in the taxonomy (ontology, hierarchy), especially when EACH word will have _its own_ unique tree from which a network of connections COULD POSSIBLY result in the “AT LEAST ONE” common property that I think is needed to create a metaphor.
 
ADDING to this: New metaphors are created all of the time. The world of memes have their own metaphorical worlds overlapping, and there’s distinctions between users such that, say, a 35 year old gamer will create a meme from his/her own knowledgebank of visual metaphors that will “read” entirely differently to a 12 year old memer, whose generation has been developing their OWN set of metaphorical connections, for example, pruning what they see as an EXPLICIT reference (that the 35 year old thinks is subtle) and substituting a more “in-group” meaning such that both will laugh but from a much different place.
 
Ok, this ramble is long enough. The quote below made it “click” for me: That it really CAN be “as simple as” using words, so long as you create the proper systemic view of each.
 
I don’t think this is “mere semantics” either as this power is part of the very logic of the lexico-grammar itself and arises from a place as powerful as “Noun, Verb”.
 
“the categorization view of metaphor can be interpreted as a type of conceptual combination, in which the head concept provides relevant dimensions and the modifier concept provides candidate features for attribution.”
——-

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


1 + = ten

Leave a Reply