F3 Admissible vs Illicit Metaphors
Fuente:
Zenodo
Salvato in:
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Recurso digital |
| Pubblicazione: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866901102916534272 |
|---|---|
| author | Maley, Amos |
| author_facet | Maley, Amos |
| contents | <p>This paper draws a sharp structural distinction between admissible and illicit metaphors within a standing-conserving descriptive regime. It shows that metaphors are admissible only when the constraint structure they induce preserves role typing, scope, and standing; metaphors that introduce hidden dynamics, ontic surplus, or unauthorized scope transport are shown by exhaustion to be illegitimate. The analysis is eliminative rather than prescriptive: it does not recommend metaphor usage but records the necessary conditions under which metaphor does not collapse admissibility. The treatment is declarative and non-procedural, placing on record the boundary at which metaphor ceases to be a legitimate representational device.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_18522501 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | F3 Admissible vs Illicit Metaphors Maley, Amos <p>This paper draws a sharp structural distinction between admissible and illicit metaphors within a standing-conserving descriptive regime. It shows that metaphors are admissible only when the constraint structure they induce preserves role typing, scope, and standing; metaphors that introduce hidden dynamics, ontic surplus, or unauthorized scope transport are shown by exhaustion to be illegitimate. The analysis is eliminative rather than prescriptive: it does not recommend metaphor usage but records the necessary conditions under which metaphor does not collapse admissibility. The treatment is declarative and non-procedural, placing on record the boundary at which metaphor ceases to be a legitimate representational device.</p> |
| title | F3 Admissible vs Illicit Metaphors |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18522501 |