Productive perils: on metaphor as a theory-building device

Open access


Metaphors constitute a relevant method for both building and making sense of theories. Semiotics is not exempt from their influence, and an important range of semiotic theories depends on metaphors to be meaningful. In this paper, we wish to examine the place of theory-constitutive metaphors considering the interaction view and the extent to which some areas of semiotics, particularly, the semiotics of culture and biosemiotics, are enriched by having metaphors dominate the way we think about them. The intention of the paper is not to document the different metaphors that have built semiotic theory, but rather to observe through a number of examples that semiotic research contains theory-building metaphors and that these are productive means of developing semiotic thinking further, with the caveat that theory change can be unexpected based on how we build metaphors for our theories.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Black M. 1955. Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series 5 273–294.

  • [2] Boyd R. 1993. *Metaphor and theory change: What is “metaphor” a metaphor for? In Ortony A. (Ed.) Metaphor and thought 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 481–532.

  • [3] Kuhn T. S. 1993. Metaphor in science. In Ortony A. (Ed.) Metaphor and thought 2nd edition. Cambridge [England]; New York NY USA: Cambridge University Press pp. 533–542.

  • [4] Brown T. L. 2003. The metaphorical foundations of chemical explanation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 988(1) 209–216.

  • [5] Trčková D. 2014. Representations of natural catastrophes in newspaper discourse. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.

  • [6] English K. 1998. Understanding science: When metaphors become terms. ASp 19–22 151–163.

  • [7] Núñez R. E. Lakoff G. 2000. Where mathematics comes from. How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.

  • [8] van Rijn-van Tongeren G. W. 1997. Metaphors in medical texts. Utrecht studies in language and communication. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

  • [9] Greenwood J. Bonner A. 2008. The role of theory-constitutive metaphor in nursing science. Nursing Philosophy 9 154–168.

  • [10] Taylor C. Dewsbury B. M. 2018. On the problem and promise of metaphor use in science and science communication. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 19(1).

  • [11] Gentner D. Wolff P. 2000. Metaphor and knowledge change. In Dietrich E. Markman A. B. (Eds.) Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates pp. 295–342.

  • [12] Black M. 1962. Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  • [13] Lotman J. 2011. The place of art among other modelling systems. Sign Systems Studies 39(2/4) 249.

  • [14] Sebeok T. A. 2001. Signs: an introduction to semiotics. Toronto studies in semiotics and communication 2nd edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  • [15] Sonesson G. 2015. Bats out of the belfry: The nature of metaphor with special attention to pictorial metaphors. Signs and Media 11 74–104.

  • [16] Loewenberg I. 1975. Identifying metaphors. Foundations of Language 12(3) 315–338.

  • [17] Kittay E. F. 1984. The identification of metaphor. Synthese 58(2) 153–202.

  • [18] Steen G. 2002. Identifying metaphor in language: A cognitive approach. Style 36(3) 386–406.

  • [19] Salupere S. 2011. Semiotics as science. Sign Systems Studies 39(2/4) 271.

  • [20] Kull K. 2010. Umwelt and modelling. In Cobley P. (Ed.) The Routledge companion to semiotics. Oxon: Routledge pp. 43–56.

  • [21] Lotman J. 2005. On the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies 33(1) 205–229.

  • [22] Nöth W. 2006. Yuri Lotman on metaphors and culture as self-referential semiospheres. Semiotica 161 249–263.

  • [23] Remm T. 2010. Time in spatial metalanguage: The ambiguous position of time in concepts of sociocultural social and cultural space. Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 14(4) 394.

  • [24] Emmeche C. Hoffmeyer J. 2009. From language to nature: The semiotic metaphor in biology. Semiotica 84(1-2) 1–42.

  • [25] Markoš A. Faltýnek D. 2011. Language metaphors of life. Biosemiotics 4(2) 171–200.

  • [26] Barbieri M. 2008. Biosemiotics: A new understanding of life. Naturwis- senschaften 95(7) 577–599.

  • [27] Kull K. Deacon T. Emmeche C. Stjernfelt F. Hoffmeyer J. 2009. Theses on biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a theoretical biology. Biological Theory 4(2) 167–173.

  • [28] Kull K. 2002. A sign is not alive – A text is. Sign Systems Studies 30(1) 327–336.

  • [29] Barbieri M. 2008. Introduction to Biosemiotics: The New Biological Synthesis. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • [30] Kull K. 1999. Biosemiotics in the twentieth century: A view from biology. Semiotica 127(1–4) 385–414.

  • [31] Barbieri M. 2018. What is code biology? Biosystems 164 1–10.

  • [32] Barbieri M. 2013. Organic Semiosis and Peircean Semiosis. Biosemiotics 6(2) 273–289.

  • [33] Cannizzaro S. 2013. Where did information go? Reflections on the logical status of information in a cybernetic and semiotic perspective. Biosemiotics 6(1) 105–123.

  • [34] Santaella Braga L. 1999. A new causality for the understanding of the living. Semiotica 127(1–4) 497–520.

  • [35.] Nöth W. 2014. The life of symbols and other legisigns: More than a mere metaphor. In Romanini V. Fernández E. (Eds.) Peirce and biosemiotics: A guess at the riddle of life volume 11 of Biosemiotics. Dordrecht: Springer pp. 171–181.

  • [36] Houser N. 2014. The intelligible universe. In Romanini V. Fernández E. (Eds.) Peirce and biosemiotics: A guess at the riddle of life volume 11 of Biosemiotics. Dordrecht: Springer pp. 9–32.

  • [37] Nöth W. 2014. The growth of signs. Sign Systems Studies 42(2–3) 172.

  • [38] Idone Cassone V. 2014. Sull’uso metaforico dei giochi nella teoria semiotica. E|C – Rivista dell’Associazione Italiana Studi Semiotici.

  • [39] Eco U. 1983. The scandal of metaphor: Metaphorology and semiotics. Poetics Today 4(2) 217–257.

  • [40] Galantucci B. Garrod S. 2010. Experimental semiotics: A new approach for studying the emergence and the evolution of human communication. Interaction Studies 11(1) 1–13.

  • [41] Petrilli S. Ponzio A. 2007. Semiotics today. From global semiotics to semioethics a dialogic response. Signs 1 29–127.

  • [42] Brown J. R. 2012. Platonism naturalism and mathematical knowledge volume 10 of Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.

  • [43] Stjernfelt F. 2013. The generality of signs: The actual relevance of anti- psychologism. Semiotica 194 77–109.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 51 51 12
PDF Downloads 18 18 5