Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 15:1 (2017) ► pp.1–33
Are similes and metaphors interchangeable?
A case study in opinion discourse
Published online: 4 September 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.01rom
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.01rom
Abstract
Since Aristotle, scholars have regarded similes and metaphors as equivalent figures of speech sharing very similar comprehension, interpretation and usage patterns. By analysing the use of similes in real discourse, the aim of this study is to show that these two analogical figures reflect different cognitive processes, as well as different discursive functions, using as a framework cognitive models. To this end, this work presents, first, the main differentiating features of the two figures existing in the literature. And, second, it analyses 100 natural-occurring similes in English opinion discourse (news, interviews and commentary sections) in order to explain the conceptual-semantic and formal-syntactic factors which explain why similes and metaphors are not interchangeable in the discourse type under study; that is, why metaphors can usually be transformed into similes by adding like, whereas the opposite process seems to depend on specific conditions of structure, use and interpretation.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.What is a simile?
- 3.Similes vs. metaphors: An overview
- 4.Are metaphors and similes interchangeable in English opinion discourse?
- 4.1Data and methodology
- 4.2Similes in opinion discourse
- 4.3Results and discussion
- 4.3.1Test 1: Incidence of transformed metaphors in WebCorp and Google
- 4.3.2Test 2: Transformation of similes (“A is like B”) into metaphors (“A is B”)
- a.Conceptual, semantic factors
- b.Formal, syntactic factors
- 4.3.3Test 3: Native subjects’ intuitions
- 5.Some conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (39)
Addison, C. (1993). From literal to figurative: An introduction to the study of simile. College English, 55(4), 402–419.
Aisenman, R. A. (1999). Structure mapping and simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 14(1), 45–51.
Bernárdez, E. (2009). Comparaciones explícitas con wie en Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften, de Robert Musil: Una aproximación cognitiva. Revista de Filología Alemana, anejo I, 57–72.
Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 19–43). Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (1999). Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to categorization. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 90–95). Vancouver, BC: Cognitive Science Society.
Brandt, L., & Brandt, P. A. (2005). Making sense of a blend: A cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 31, 216–249.
Chiappe, D., & Kennedy, J. (2000). Are metaphors elliptical similes? Journal of Pshycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 371–398.
Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 311, 51–68.
Cuenca, M. J., & Romano, M. (2013). Similes in interaction: Beyond (metaphor and) compare. Paper presented at the
12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference
. Edmonton (Canada), June 23–28, 2013.
Cuenca, M. J. (2015). Beyond compare: Similes in interaction. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 140–166.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, C. (1988). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann, (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp. 17–38). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 71, 155–170.
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3/4), 223–247.
Givon, T. (2001[1985]). Syntax, Vol I: A functional – typological introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language, 21(3), 360–378.
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 971, 3–18.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Israel, M., Riddle Harding, J., & Tobin, V. (2004). On simile. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language culture, and mind (pp. 123–135). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Johnson, A. T. (1996). Comprehension of metaphors and similes: A time reaction study. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(2), 145–159.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol.1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Moder, C. L. (2012). Two puzzle pieces: Fitting discourse context and constructions into cognitive metaphor theory. In B. Dancygier, J. Sanders, & L. Vandelanotte (Eds.) Textual choices in discourse: A view from Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 157–183). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1993[1979]). Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pierini, P. (2007). Simile in English: From description to translation. CÍRCULO de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 291, 21–43.
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Roncero, C., Kennedy, J., & Smyth, R. (2006). Similes on the Internet have explanations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 74–77.
Schmid, H. J. (2014), Lexico-grammatical patterns, pragmatic associations and discourse frequency. In T. Herbst, H. J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions collocations patterns (pp. 239–293). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 92–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cited by (17)
Cited by 17 other publications
de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz & Inés Lozano Palacio
2025. Understanding ironic echoing. In What makes a Figure [Figurative Thought and Language, 19], ► pp. 248 ff.
García Romero, Margarita
Reda, Ghsoon
Romano, Manuela & Maria Josep Cuenca
2024. Conceptualizing the Covid-19 pandemic through similes. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 99 ff.
José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco & María Sandra Peña Cervel
Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
Cuenca, Maria-Josep & Manuela Romano
de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
Peña Cervel, Ma Sandra
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & María Asunción Barreras Gómez
2022. Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 15 ff.
Lehmann, Claudia
Roncero, Carlos, Roberto G. de Almeida, Laura Pissani & Iola Patalas
Zhou, Shiqing
Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Hooshang Khoshsima, Nahid Yarahmadzehi & Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
