Wann verstehen, wann interpretieren wir Metaphern?

Abstract

Depending on the kind of metaphor (i.e. lexicalized, conventional or live metaphor) a hearer/reader understands a metaphorical expression immediately or he must interpret it for reaching an understanding. Whether understanding is the result or, instead, interpretation is required will be discussed as contingent upon the linguistic form, the linkage to common knowledge, and the mode of symbolization (Goodman 1976) of a metaphorical expression. In my paper, I argue that the ease of metaphorical understanding depends on the degree of conventionalization of the linguistic form and function, the interacting commonplaces, and the mode of symbolization. By contrast, I show that metaphors not featuring these characteristics demand for “specific activities” (Shusterman 1992, 1996) on the part of the hearer/reader, in particular the activity of interpreting an utterance as metaphorical. Different kinds of metaphors cause different levels of understanding for which I propose a distinction in propositional understanding and aesthetic experience (the latter means the aesthetic dimension of understanding which requires interpretation).