ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-RHE-0002 · ATLAS 262

Metaphor

A transfer that makes one domain of experience intelligible through another.

Part of the subject path Rhetoric and Style

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

F · Figure / procedure R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Metaphor provides a way to examine understanding one domain through another. Its distinctive contribution is the paired question of what a mapping reveals and what it hides. This separates a change in conceptual perspective from merely decorative wording.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

A metaphor makes one domain appear in the light of another. It is not simply the replacement of an ordinary word by a more decorative one. Properties, relations, and possible inferences from one domain are projected onto the other: when an idea “germinates”, it acquires growth, duration, cultivation, and the possibility of withering. Every metaphor therefore highlights some aspects while suppressing others. It may occur as a single phrase or organise an entire argument or worldview. Its cognitive force lies not in complete identity but in a productive and necessarily limited transfer. Only the image term is spoken: “The shark has signed.” Context supplies the person meant and constrains the qualities brought into focus. Harjung’s hypocatastasis offers a historical access term for this configuration, not a reason to restrict all metaphor to an explicitly named source and target. The relevant question remains the supported transfer and its context; an unspoken name alone does not establish an additional mechanism.

Movement of thought

1. A difficult or abstract target calls for a perceptible form. 2. A second, more familiar domain supplies images and relations. 3. Selected structures are projected while others are excluded. 4. The projection enables new inferences and simultaneously creates a blind spot. 5. Returning to the target reveals that it is now perceived as differently organised.

Scientific use case

Metaphor analysis can identify source and target domains, reconstruct the projected relations, and register the properties that are left behind. Political or scientific corpora can then be examined for the actions that recurring metaphors privilege or marginalise.

Example

“This objection breaks the frame of the debate.” The spatial model of a frame organises what counts as relevant inside the debate and what is placed outside it.

Counterexample

“This printed book weighs 500 grams” can state a literal result when the book is actually weighed. Whether an expression is used metaphorically must be assessed through its meaning in context; conventional use alone does not exclude metaphor.

Distinction

Distinguish metaphor from simile, metonymy, and allegory. Simile marks likeness explicitly; metonymy shifts within a factual association; allegory may sustain an extended and systematically interpretable figurative level.

Effect on thought and perception

Metaphors condense experience, guide inference, and can embed prior decisions within apparently self-evident images.

Resonance

Two semantic fields remain distinct and begin to work upon one another precisely through their incomplete correspondence.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Metaphor“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-RHE-0002. ATLAS 262, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-RHE-0002

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-RHE-0002

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-29. Include your access date for precise references.

Reading routes and their connections

The transitions explain what the next entry adds; they establish neither synonymy nor a necessary historical sequence.

How descriptions prepare judgments
  1. Metaphor

    The individual image leads to the selection of a wider interpretive frame.

  2. Framing

    The frame then prompts examination of what the utterance presents as already given.

  3. Presupposition

    A carried assumption needs to be distinguished from explicitly offered reasons.

  4. Argumentation

    From reasons for one claim, the route turns to a possible stabilised representation of an enemy. Such a pattern must be demonstrated in the material.

  5. Enemy image
When things acquire a human voice
  1. Representation

    From the wider question of representation, one particular linguistic mode of transfer is selected.

  2. Metaphor

    Transfer is focused on the case of something represented as a speaking or acting person.

  3. Personification

    Developed representation as a person is distinguished from broader human-like attributions.

  4. Anthropomorphism

    In the supposed voice of things or data, attention turns to the source of a message and human interpretive responsibility.

  5. Metaphors of speaking things and data

Historical background

Duden traces German Metapher through Latin metaphora to Greek metaphorá. Merriam-Webster records a Middle English form with French or Latin mediation, dating earliest known English use to the fifteenth century. The entries share a transfer image while reporting different intermediary steps. Their lexical histories establish no single authoritative rhetorical or cognitive theory of metaphor.

How conceptual history changes the analysis

Shared origins and separately documented borrowing histories can coexist without constructing an artificial semantic opposition.

Refined short definition

A metaphor presents a subject through an expression associated with another domain.

Further explanation

Calling a conversation a bridge foregrounds connection; calling it a battlefield suggests opponents and victories. Identify what each transfer makes visible and what it sidelines.

The countercheck suspends the image. Disagreement is not necessarily an attack, and an encounter has no literal load-bearing structure. Metaphor can enable insight precisely when the reader can also recognise where the comparison stops working.

Additional example

Original example: A team calls feedback “building blocks”. The image encourages construction, but it does not turn every hurtful remark into useful material.

References for the historical section

Historical source evidence and Atlas applications remain separate; this import does not assert new first attestations or a fresh exhaustive source verification.