I was reminded by this blog post on LousyLinguist that many people still see metaphor as an unproblematic homogeneous concept leading to much circular thinking about them. I wrote about that quite a few years ago in:
I suggested that a classification of metaphor had better focused on their use rather than inherent nature. I came up with the heuristic device of: cognitive, social and textual uses of metaphor.
Some of the uses I came up with (inspired by the literature from Halliday to Lakoff) were:
- Cognitive
- Conceptual (constitutive)
- Explanative
- Generative
- Attributive
- Conceptual (constitutive)
- Social (Interpersonal)
- Conceptual/Declarative (informational)
- Figurative (elegant variation)
- Innovative
- Exegetic
- Prevaricative
- Performative
- Textual
- Cohesive (anaphoric, cataphoric, exophoric)
- Coherent
- Local
- Global
I also posited a continuum of salience and recoverability in metaphors:
- High salience and recoverability
- Low salience and recoverability
Read the entire paper here.
My thinking on metaphor has moved on since then – I see it as a special case of framing and conceptual integration rather than a sui generis concept – but I still find this a useful guide to return to when confronted with metaphor use.