{"title":"隐喻的解释","authors":"Xinmeng Lu, T. Pritchard","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01302008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper compares two different theoretical approaches which have been developed to account for metaphoric interpretation: the comparison approach and the categorisation approach. Following a brief review on the history of the two theoretical approaches, the paper points out in part 5 that these two approaches are not fundamentally incompatible. It is further argued in parts 6 and 7 that while the comparison approach can be improved to provide metaphoric interpretations beyond a focus on words and phrases, similar improvement can hardly be made for the categorisation approach, whether by updating the approach itself or by merging it with non-categorisational processes. As a result, the metaphoric cases accountable by the categorisation approach can only be a subset of the cases accountable by the comparison approach.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metaphoric interpretation\",\"authors\":\"Xinmeng Lu, T. Pritchard\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18773109-01302008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper compares two different theoretical approaches which have been developed to account for metaphoric interpretation: the comparison approach and the categorisation approach. Following a brief review on the history of the two theoretical approaches, the paper points out in part 5 that these two approaches are not fundamentally incompatible. It is further argued in parts 6 and 7 that while the comparison approach can be improved to provide metaphoric interpretations beyond a focus on words and phrases, similar improvement can hardly be made for the categorisation approach, whether by updating the approach itself or by merging it with non-categorisational processes. As a result, the metaphoric cases accountable by the categorisation approach can only be a subset of the cases accountable by the comparison approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01302008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01302008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper compares two different theoretical approaches which have been developed to account for metaphoric interpretation: the comparison approach and the categorisation approach. Following a brief review on the history of the two theoretical approaches, the paper points out in part 5 that these two approaches are not fundamentally incompatible. It is further argued in parts 6 and 7 that while the comparison approach can be improved to provide metaphoric interpretations beyond a focus on words and phrases, similar improvement can hardly be made for the categorisation approach, whether by updating the approach itself or by merging it with non-categorisational processes. As a result, the metaphoric cases accountable by the categorisation approach can only be a subset of the cases accountable by the comparison approach.