Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18522501 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of 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>