What is it about?
This article examines how *like‑*similes (e.g., Her house is like a pigsty) differ from metaphors (e.g., Her house is a pigsty) in ways that go beyond the traditional claim that similes are “overt” comparisons and metaphors “covert” ones. The study shows that the two figures are not simply interchangeable forms: they rely on different types of resemblance, convey different degrees of subjectivity, and play different roles in meaning construction. Metaphors typically express a tighter, more integrated association between source and target, while *like‑*similes keep the two elements more separate and open to interpretation. The paper identifies key analytical parameters—such as high‑ vs. low‑level resemblance, subjectivity vs. objectivity, and the primary vs. secondary role of comparison—to evaluate the true relationship between simile and metaphor. Through detailed linguistic examples, the article challenges the widespread assumption that similes are merely metaphors with the word like, showing instead that they follow their own cognitive and pragmatic patterns.
Featured Image
Photo by nrd on Unsplash
Why is it important?
This work is important because it brings conceptual clarity to a long‑standing debate in linguistics, cognitive science, and literary studies: Are similes and metaphors essentially the same, or do they work differently in the mind? By introducing clear analytical parameters, the article shows that metaphors often rely on high‑level resemblance—including experiential correlations—while *like‑*similes are mainly grounded in low‑level, perceptual similarities and allow much more interpretive freedom. The study also explains why metaphors tend to feel more powerful or subjective: their tighter source‑target connection and greater susceptibility to conventionalization make them stronger carriers of evaluative meaning, unlike similes, which remain more neutral and descriptive. This refined perspective helps scholars and practitioners better analyze figurative language, understand how meaning is built in discourse, and avoid oversimplifications common in dictionaries and textbooks.
Perspectives
Writing this article allowed me to revisit and clarify assumptions that have shaped the study of figurative language for decades. I found it particularly rewarding to demonstrate that similes and metaphors, although related, are not just stylistic variants but cognitively distinct tools with different interpretive effects. Exploring parameters such as resemblance type, subjectivity, and categorization helped me articulate a more nuanced view of how speakers actually construct and understand comparisons. My hope is that this work encourages readers to approach similes not as “lesser metaphors” but as meaningful, analytically rich expressions in their own right—and to appreciate the subtle cognitive operations underlying both figures
Professor Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza
University of La Rioja
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: HOW LIKE-SIMILE RELATES TO METAPHOR: AN EXPLORATION OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS, Lege artis Language yesterday today tomorrow, July 2023, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Saints Cyril and Methodius,
DOI: 10.34135/lartis.23.8.1.08.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
