The problem of dead metaphors

Philosophical Studies

Volumn 82, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 13-25

  Reimer, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248779480     PISSN: 00318116     EISSN: 15730883     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF00355292     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Davidson, Donald (1978). "What Metaphors Mean," reprinted in Pragmatics, S. Davis, ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 495-506.
2. Davidson, p. 495.
3. Ibid., p. 504.
4. I use the locution "metaphorical force," rather than "metaphorical meaning," simply to avoid begging the question in favor of the existence of such meanings.
5. Davidson, p. 503.
6. Grice, H. P. (1957). "Meaning," Philosophical Review 66, pp. 377-388.
7. I say "ideally" here, as one might wish to claim that the acquisition of secondary literal meanings in the case of dead metaphors is somehow "special," and thus not to be accommodated within a general account of the sort in question. However, as I claim below, no plausible alternative account of literal meaning is available.
8. Davidson, p. 498.
9. Ibid., p. 500.
10. Davidson, p. 499.
11. Ibid., p. 503.
12. Ibid., p. 504.
13. Ibid., p. 504.