View source for Literal and figurative language

{{Short description|Distinction in certain fields of language analysis}}
{{linguistics}}
The distinction between '''literal''' and '''figurative language''' exists in all [[natural language]]s; the phenomenon is studied within certain areas of [[language]] analysis, in particular [[stylistics]], [[rhetoric]], and [[semantics]]. 
*'''Literal language''' is the usage of [[word]]s exactly according to their direct, straightforward, or conventionally accepted [[meaning (linguistics)|meaning]]s: their [[denotation]].
*'''Figurative''' (or '''non-literal''') '''language''' is the usage of words in addition to, or deviating beyond, their conventionally accepted definitions<ref>
{{cite book
 |last1                = Glucksberg
 |first1               = Sam
 |author-link1         = Sam Glucksberg
 |date                 = 26 July 2001
 |title                = Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphor to Idioms
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=rKX7qcQerLcC
 |series               = Oxford Psychology Series
 |location             = New York
 |publisher            = Oxford University Press
 |page                 = v
 |isbn                 = 9780198027126
 |access-date          = 5 February 2025
 |quote                = In figurative language, the intended meaning does not coincide with the literal meanings of the words and sentences that are used.
}} 
</ref><ref>
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/figurative-language "''Figurative language'' refers to words or phrases that are meaningful, but not literally true."]
</ref> in order to convey a more complex meaning or achieve a heightened effect.<ref>"[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/figure%20of%20speech Figure of speech]." ''Merriam-Webster Dictionary''. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2015 "figure of speech [...]: a form of expression (such as a simile or metaphor) used to convey meaning or heighten effect often by comparing or identifying one thing with another that has a meaning or connotation familiar to the reader or listener".
</ref> This is done by language-users presenting words in such a way that their audience equates, compares, or associates the words with normally unrelated meanings. A common intended effect of figurative language is to elicit audience responses that are especially emotional (like excitement, shock, laughter, etc.), aesthetic, or intellectual.

The [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greek]] philosopher [[Aristotle]], and later the Roman rhetorician [[Quintilian]], were among the early documented language analysts who expounded on the differences between literal and figurative language.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SUEtEa9nUWQC&pg=PA129 |title=A Glossary of Literary Terms |publisher=Cengage Learning |year=2011 |isbn=978-0495898023 |edition=10 |author1=M.H. Abrams |author2=Geoffrey Harpham}}</ref> A comprehensive scholarly examination of metaphor in antiquity, and the way its use was fostered by [[Homer]]'s epic poems ''[[The Iliad]]'' and ''[[The Odyssey]]'', is provided by [[William Bedell Stanford]].<ref>W. Bedell Stanford, ''Greek Metaphor'' (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1936)</ref>

Within [[literary analysis]], the terms "literal" and "figurative" are still used; but within the fields of cognition and linguistics, the basis for identifying such a distinction is no longer used.<ref name="BarberStainton2009">{{cite book |last1 = Nuessel
 |first1               = F.
 |chapter              = Figurative Language: Semiotics
 |editor-last1=Barber |editor-first1=Alex |editor-last2=Stainton |editor-first2=Robert J. |title=Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language and Linguistics |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2boGE2NKtpsC&pg=PA230 |access-date=23 December 2012 |year=2009 |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=978-0080965000 |pages=230–242 | quote = Traditional scholars maintain a strict dichotomy between figurative language and ordinary or literal language. This conventional aesthetic sense of figurative language no longer reflects current usage. Today, the term 'metaphor' has replace 'figurative language' with the special sense of a cognitive device used to explain how people categorize reality and store abstractions of that physical existence in their brain. [...] The essence of the literal-figurative debate revolves around whether or not metaphor is a deviation from some pristine ordinary language or whether it is a basic form of linguistic expression.
}}</ref>

==The meaning of literal language==

Literal usage confers meaning to words, in the sense of the meaning words have by themselves,<ref name="JaszczoltTurner2003">{{cite book |last1=Jaszczolt |first1=Katarzyna M. |last2=Turner |first2=Ken |title=Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ToPN1kTaBMUC&pg=PA141 |access-date=20 December 2012 |year=2003 |publisher=John Benjamins Publishing |isbn=978-1588112071 |pages=141–}}</ref> for example as defined in a dictionary. It maintains a consistent meaning regardless of the [[context (language use)|context]],<ref name="Glucksberg2001">{{cite book |last=Glucksberg |first=Sam |title=Understanding Figurative Language:From Metaphor to Idioms: From Metaphor to Idioms |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rKX7qcQerLcC |access-date=20 December 2012 |year=2001 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0195111095}}</ref> with the intended meaning of a phrase corresponding exactly to the meaning of its individual words.<ref name="Harley2001">{{cite book |last=Harley |first=Trevor A. |title=The Psychology of Language: From Data to Theory |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yKbAhoSFcbwC&pg=PA293 |access-date=20 December 2012 |year=2001 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-0863778674 |pages=293–}}</ref> On the other hand, figurative use of language (a later offshoot being the term ''[[figure of speech]]''{{cn|date=February 2025}}) is the use of words or phrases with a meaning that does make literal sense but that encourages certain mental associations or reflects a certain type of truth,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Montgomery |first1=Mar |last2=Durant |first2=Alan |last3=Fabb |first3=Nigel |author4=Tom Furniss |author5=Sara Mills |author5-link=Sara Mills (linguist) |title=Ways of Reading: Advanced Reading Skills for Students of English Literature |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BhrYfYdHuN8C&pg=PA117 |access-date=23 December 2012 |year=2007 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-0415346337 |pages=117–}}</ref> perhaps a more artistically presented one.

==Figurative language==
{{main|Figure of speech}}
Uses of figurative language, or figures of speech, can take multiple forms, such as [[simile]], [[metaphor]], [[hyperbole]], and many others.<ref name="MontgomeryDurant2007">{{cite book|last1=Montgomery|first1=Martin|last2=Durant|first2=Alan|last3=Fabb|first3=Nigel |author4=Tom Furniss |author5=Sara Mills|title=Ways of Reading: Advanced Reading Skills for Students of English Literature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BhrYfYdHuN8C&pg=PA117|access-date=3 April 2013|date=2007|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0203597118|pages=117–}}</ref> ''Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature'' says that figurative language can be classified in five categories: resemblance or relationship, emphasis or [[understatement]], figures of sound, verbal games, and errors.<ref name="inc1995">{{cite book|author=Merriam-Webster, inc.|title=Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eKNK1YwHcQ4C|access-date=23 April 2013|year=1995|publisher=Merriam-Webster|isbn=978-0877790426|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=eKNK1YwHcQ4C&pg=PA415 415]}}</ref>

A [[simile]]<ref>Origin: 1350–1400; Middle English < Latin: image, likeness, comparison, noun use of neuter of ''similis'' similar. {{cite web|url=http://www.oed.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/Entry/179881|work=simile, n.|publisher=Oxford English Dictionary|title=Simile}}</ref> is a comparison of two things, indicated by some connective, usually "like", "as", "than", or a verb such as "resembles" to show how they are similar.<ref>Kennedy, X. J., and [[Dana Gioia]]. ''[[An Introduction To Poetry]]''. 13th ed. Longman Pub Group, 2007. p. 594.</ref>

: Example: "His cheeks were ''like roses'', his nose ''like a cherry''.../And the beard on his chin was ''as white as the snow.''" (emph added)—Clement Clark Moore<ref name="Terbanjoi1993">{{cite book|last1=Terban|first1=Marvin|last2=joi|first2=Giulio Maestro|title=It Figures!: Fun Figures of Speech|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Gk_Le0B46BEC&pg=PT12|access-date=23 December 2012|year=1993|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|isbn=978-0395665916|pages=12–}}</ref>

A [[metaphor]]<ref>Origin: 1525–35; < Latin ''metaphora''  < Greek ''metaphorá''  a transfer, akin to ''metaphérein'' to transfer. See meta-, -phore{{cite web|url=http://www.oed.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/Entry/117328|work=metaphor, n.|publisher=Oxford English Dictionary|title=Metaphor}}</ref> is a figure of speech in which two "essentially unlike things" are shown to have a type of resemblance or create a new image.<ref name="Miller2001"/> The similarities between the objects being compared may be implied rather than directly stated.<ref name="Miller2001">{{cite book|last=Miller|first=Carol Rawlings|title=Irresistible Shakespeare: 6 Sensational Scenes from Favorite Plays and Dozens of Fun Ideas That Introduce Students to the Wonderful Works of Shakespeare|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qT3BC2CH1LoC&pg=PA25|access-date=23 December 2012|date=2001|publisher=Scholastic Inc.|isbn=978-0439098441|pages=25–}}</ref> The literary critic and rhetorician, [[I. A. Richards]], divides a metaphor into two parts: the vehicle and the tenor.<ref>I. A. Richards, ''The Philosophy of Rhetoric'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1936), 119–127.</ref>
: Example: "Fog comes on little cat feet"—[[Carl Sandburg]]<ref name="Fandel2005">{{cite book|last=Fandel|first=Jennifer|title=Metaphors, Similes, And Other Word Pictures|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bfWu6bCwRLcC&pg=PA30|access-date=3 April 2013|date=2005|publisher=The Creative Company|isbn=978-1583413401|pages=30–}}</ref> In this example, “little cat feet” is the vehicle that clarifies the tenor, “fog”. A comparison between the vehicle and tenor (also called the ''[[Tertium comparationis|teritium comparitionis]]'') is implicit: fog creeps in silently like a cat.

An [[extended metaphor]] is a metaphor that is continued over multiple sentences.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extended-metaphor|publisher=Dictionary.com|title=Extended Metaphor}}</ref><ref name="Oliver1994">{{cite book|last=Oliver|first=Mary|title=Poetry Handbook|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fuBHMccJx6UC&pg=PA103|access-date=6 March 2013|year=1994|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|isbn=978-0156724005|pages=103–}}</ref>
: Example: "The sky steps out of her daywear/Slips into her shot-silk evening dress./An entourage of bats whirr and swing at her hem, ...She's tried on every item in her wardrobe." [[Dilys Rose]]<ref name="LiddellGifford2001">{{cite book|last1=Liddell|first1=Gordon F.|last2=Gifford|first2=Anne|title=New Scottish poetry|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eQRs8Uz6480C&pg=PA131|access-date=3 April 2013|date=2001|publisher=Heinemann|isbn=978-0435150983|pages=131–}}</ref>

[[Onomatopoeia]] is a word designed to be an imitation of a sound.<ref>Origin: 1570–80; < Late Latin < Greek ''onomatopoiía'' making of words = onomato-  (combining form of ónoma name) + poi-  (stem of poieîn to make; see poet) + -ia -ia{{cite web|url=http://www.oed.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/Entry/131486|work=onomatopoeia, n.|publisher=Oxford English Dictionary|title=Onomatopoeia}}</ref>
: Example: “Bark! Bark!” went the dog as he chased the car that vroomed past.

[[Personification]]<ref>Origin: 1745–55; personi(fy) + -fication{{cite web|url=http://www.oed.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/Entry/141506|work=personification, n.|publisher=Oxford English Dictionary|title=Personification}}</ref> is the attribution of a personal nature or character to inanimate objects or abstract notions,<ref name="Moustaki2001"/> especially as a rhetorical figure.
: Example: "Because I could not stop for Death,/He kindly stopped for me;/The carriage held but just ourselves/And Immortality."—[[Emily Dickinson]]. Dickinson portrays death as a carriage driver.<ref name="Moustaki2001">{{cite book|last=Moustaki|first=Nikki|title=The Complete Idiot's Guide to Writing Poetry|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RdH3hvXEIB8C&pg=PT146|access-date=23 December 2012|date=2001|publisher=Penguin|isbn=978-1440695636|pages=146–}}</ref>

An [[oxymoron]] is a figure of speech in which a pair of opposite or contradictory terms is used together for emphasis.<ref>Origin: < post-classical Latin oxymoron, figure of speech in which a pair of opposed or markedly contradictory terms are placed in conjunction for emphasis (5th cent.; also ''oxymorum'') < ancient Greek ὀξυ-oxy- comb. form1+ μωρόςdull, stupid, foolish (see moron n.2).{{cite web|url=http://www.oed.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/Entry/135679|publisher=Oxford English Dictionary|title=Oxymoron}}</ref>
: Examples: Organized chaos, Same difference, Bittersweet.

A [[paradox]] is a statement or proposition which is self-contradictory, unreasonable, or illogical.<ref>Origin:  < Middle French, French ''paradoxe'' (1495 as noun; 1372–74 in plural ''paradoxesas'' the title of a work by Cicero; paradoxon (noun) philosophical paradox in post-classical Latin also a figure of speech < ancient Greek παράδοξον, especially in plural παράδοξαStoical paradoxes, use as noun of neuter singular of παράδοξος (adjective) contrary to received opinion or expectation < παρα-para- prefix1+ δόξαopinion (see doxology n.), after ancient Greek παρὰ δόξαν contrary to expectation{{cite web|url=http://www.oed.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/Entry/137353|work=paradox, n.|publisher=Oxford English Dictionary|title=Paradox}}</ref>
: Example: This statement is a lie.

[[Hyperbole]] is a figure of speech which uses an extravagant or exaggerated statement to express strong feelings.<ref>Origin:  < Greek ὑπερβολήexcess (compare hyperbola n.), exaggeration; the latter sense is first found in Isocrates and Aristotle. Compare French hyperbole (earlier yperbole).{{cite web|url=http://www.oed.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/Entry/90286|work=hyperbol e, n.|publisher=Oxford English Dictionary|title=Hyperbole}}</ref>
: Example: They had been walking so long that John thought he might drink the entire lake when they came upon it.

[[Allusion]] is a reference to a famous character or event.
: Example: A single step can take you through the looking glass if you're not careful.

An [[idiom]] is an expression that has a figurative meaning often related, but different from the literal meaning of the phrase.
:Example: You should keep your eye out for him.

A [[pun]] is an expression intended for a humorous or rhetorical effect by exploiting different meanings of words.
: Example: I wondered why the ball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.

===Use of ''literally'' non-literally===
Commentators have often noted (and sometimes criticized) how the word ''literally'' itself is very commonly now used non-literally to intensify the meaning of a sentence (as in "I literally died of laughter", where clearly the speaker did not die). Far from this being a recent development, however, this usage goes at least as far back as the 19th century. [[Frances Brooke]]'s 1769 novel ''[[The History of Emily Montague]]'' was used in the earliest ''Oxford English Dictionary'' (OED) citation for the figurative sense of ''literally''; the sentence from the novel used was: "He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally ''to feed among the lilies''."<ref name="languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu">{{Cite web |url=http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=5914 |title = Language Log » Frances Brooke, destroyer of English (Not literally)}}</ref> This citation was also used in the OED's 2011 revision.<ref name="languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu"/>

==Standard pragmatic model of comprehension==
Prior to the 1980s, the "standard pragmatic" model of comprehension was widely believed. In that model, it was thought the recipient would first attempt to comprehend the meaning as if literal, but when an appropriate literal inference could not be made, the recipient would shift to look for a figurative interpretation that would allow comprehension.<ref name="Katz1998">{{cite book|last=Katz|first=Albert N.|title=Figurative Language and Thought|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lSxhb_fZLx0C&pg=PA166|access-date=20 December 2012|year=1998|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0195109634|pages=166–}}</ref> Since then, research has cast doubt on the model. In tests, figurative language was found to be comprehended at the same speed as literal language; and so the premise that the recipient was first attempting to process a literal meaning and discarding it before attempting to process a figurative meaning appears to be false.<ref name="EysenckKeane2005">{{cite book|last1=Eysenck|first1=Michael William|last2=Keane|first2=Mark T.|title=Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=22ZWi-LVLDcC&pg=PA369|access-date=20 December 2012|year=2005|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1841693590|pages=369–}}</ref>

==Reddy and contemporary views==
Beginning with the work of Michael Reddy in his 1979 paper "[[Conduit metaphor|The Conduit Metaphor]]", many linguists now deny that there is a valid way to distinguish between a "literal" and "figurative" mode of language.<ref name="Ortony1993">{{cite book |last=Ortony |first=Andrew |title=Metaphor and Thought |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QiJRvuXA_VcC&pg=PA204 |access-date=20 December 2012 |year=1993 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0521405614 |pages=204–}}</ref> Nevertheless, work has continued on making such a distinction.<ref>
For example:
{{cite book
 |last1                = Steen
 |first1               = Gerard J.
 |last2                = Dorst
 |first2               = Aletta G.
 |last3                = Herrmann
 |first3               = J. Berenike
 |last4                = Kaal
 |first4               = Anna
 |last5                = Krennmayr
 |first5               = Tina
 |last6                = Pasma
 |first6               = Tryntje
 |year                 = 2010
 |title                = A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=I6CLpwAACAAJ
 |series               = Converging evidence in language and communication research, ISSN 1566-7774, volume 14
 |publisher            = John Benjamins Publishing Company
 |isbn                 = 9789027239044
 |access-date          = 2 May 2025
}}
</ref>

==See also==
{{Div col|colwidth=30em}} 
* [[Biblical literalism]]
* [[Connotation (semiotics)]] 
* [[Denotation (semiotics)]] 
* [[Denotation]]
* [[Figures of speech]]
* [[Frances Brooke]]
* [[Imagery]]
* [[Linguistics]]
* [[Literal translation]]
* [[Metaphor]] 
* [[Metonymy]] 
* [[Phatic expression]]
* [[Philosophy of language]]
* [[Rhetoric]]
* [[Semantics]]
* [[Semiotics]]
* [[Signified and signifier]]
{{Div end}}

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/ The Word We Love To Hate. Literally.] from Slate Magazine
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20140602073659/http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/Figures-Overview.htm Figures of Speech] from Silva Rhetoricae
* [http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie/vol4/metaphor.html/ Metaphor and Meaning] from Minerva – An Internet Journal of Philosophy. An account of how metaphor provides new perspectives, deepens understanding, and is a major tool of linguistic development.

[[Category:Semantics]]
[[Category:Conceptual distinctions]]