Talk:Literal and figurative language

Philosophy: Logic / Language Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of language

Linguistics: Philosophy of language

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Rap Section

I think the rap is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Entries should be written in prose in order to be concise. Mirage465 (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defintion

Great start Ryguasu. I'm a "newbie" (a.k.a.: F.N.G.) to Wikipedia, so bear with me. I'd be glad to communicate with you on this article/subject.

Here's why I've deleted/replaced a couple of your phrases/sentences: XD

"...figurative language uses more poetic senses."

Although it's used a lot in poetic senses, figurative language is used in a lot more contexts than just poetic-sounding language. When I shake my fist at someone on the freeway and call them an "a__hole," I'm using figurative language (the figure of speech is synecdoche) without being poetic sounding in any sense of the word.

"In literal language, truth conditions work out well, while in figurative language, they may not."

IMO the definition of terms in this sentence will be unclear to most general readers of an encyclopedia. What are "truth conditions"? If it's a technical term, we'd better define it.

Also, I moved the following to this page

Why would someone want to divide language into literal and figurative? What is gained thereby? (Lakoff provides some insight here.)d
Why would people prefer not to view language with this divide?
How does this connect to theories of truth?"

These are all needed additions. The last one, especially, shows the importance and relevance of this subject to a broad range of disciplines, including theories of knowledge, cognition, language development, etc., etc.

And now....here's an explanations for one of my suspect assertions :-)

"Some have boiled down the more than two hundred and fifty figures described in classical and traditional linguistics into two: metaphor and metonymy."

I know this from research, and my additions to Further Reading document reflect the "classical and traditional" end of this statement. But I need to go back and document specifically which modern analyses have done the boiling. jstanley01 Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 12:45 CDT.

Types of figurative language

Isn't it logical to add to this page a list of types of figurative langiage, such as metaphor, similie, etc.? Or is there such a list on some other term? 80.178.164.204 08:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moved to discussion

Don't converse in article...203.218.79.155 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

):):):)It is a very hard type of learning and it is very hard to learn the different things that it has in it because

life is not easy and that i guess is the way that life works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -CULOchi

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v5029336p8105433/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article in English split in two articles in Portuguese

Hi guys

Any suggestion on how to resolve an interwiki issue where the article in one language is split in two in a different language, none of the two being more important than the other? Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption error

The caption states:

"When "She is as pretty as a daisy" is used to describe the woman on the right, it is used in literal manner - she has the petals and leaves of a flower."

This is not what the phrase implies. It implies that the woman's level of prettiness matches that of a daisy. It is strictly a comment on how pretty she is, not whether she has petals and leaves. In the same way, the phrase "This coconut is as big as my head" does not imply that the coconut has eyes, a nose and a mouth, because it is only a comment on the size of the coconut, just as the sentence in the caption is only a comment on prettiness. The literal meaning of something matching one specified attribute of another thing is not that it shares all of its attributes. I am therefore removing the image and caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.33.109 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about metaphorical language?

Isn't it a particular case of figurative language? Perhaps both articles should be joined. At least they should link to each other. Now I know why we have so many "different" articles ;-) 85.193.216.88 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did some change in hyperlink about "precise definition".

Before I've visited this page; it started as follows:

   *Literal language uses words exactly according to their proper [[meaning 
  (linguistics)|meaning]]s or precise definitions.
   *Figurative (or non-literal) language uses words deviating from their proper 
   definitions in order to achieve a more complicated understanding or 
   heightened effect.

(Source code:)

    
    *'''Literal language''' uses words exactly according to their proper [[meaning 
    (linguistics)|meaning]]s or [[denotation|precise definitions]].
    *'''Figurative''' (or '''non-literal''') '''language''' uses words deviating from their proper 
    definitions in order to achieve a more complicated understanding or 
    heightened effect.

(Permalink)

But the hyperlink on precise definition; which leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotation and that though includes one meaning as "literal" definition; but have so many other meanings too; so the hyperlink was confusing. And the examples with images given there; is just the opposite of "literal meaning"

Such as

     "The denotation of this example is a red rose with a green stem. The connotation is that it is a symbol of passion and love – this is what the rose represents."

So to avoid confusion, and reach accurate meaning; I made new hyperlink as follows:

     *Literal language uses words exactly according to their proper meanings or precise definitions.
     *Figurative (or non-literal) language uses words deviating from their proper definitions in order to achieve a more complicated understanding or 
      heightened effect.

Source:

      
      *'''Literal language''' uses words exactly according to their proper [[meaning (linguistics)|meaning]]s or [[Precising definition|precise]] [[Definition|definitions]].
      *'''Figurative''' (or '''non-literal''') '''language''' uses words deviating from their proper definitions in order to achieve a more complicated understanding or 
      heightened effect.

I. e. linked "precise" to Precising definition and definition to Definition.

Permalink: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Literal_and_figurative_language&oldid=803567380

If anyone thinks the previous one was more correct and mine one contains any mistake, then they may discuss and revert the edit.

I've placed the previous hyperlink about denotation to "See also section" ( Permalink: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Literal_and_figurative_language&oldid=803567460 , compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Literal_and_figurative_language&type=revision&diff=803567460&oldid=803567380 ) So no worry the link is still available within the page.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Literal and figurative language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602073659/http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/Figures-Overview.htm to http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/Figures-Overview.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of definition of idiom

Idiomatic language may not be related, such as "raining cats and dogs" to express a heavy volume of precipitation, or it may be: for example, "keep your eye out for him" which expresses semantic contiguity since it expresses "be observant". In fact, many idioms have well established etymologies that show a relation between the non-literal and literal semantics of the phrase. For instance, "mind your p's and q's" derives from "mind your pints and quarts" expresses "mind your consumption of alcohol" expresses in a more specific sense the general activity of "behave appropriately". To say there is no connection between the lexemes "mind your p's and q's" and "behave appropriately" would be a clear falsity. From the idiom article in WP: "An idiom is a phrase or expression that typically presents a figurative, non-literal meaning attached to the phrase". This definition does not rule out semantic contiguity. jtvisona (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

one s hand full

is it a literal or figurative 41.13.74.188 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]