ICCS 2008 Proceedings
An Iconic Logic of Metaphors
Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen
Department of Philosophy, University of Helsinki
P.O. Box 9, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
ahti-veikko.pietarinen@helsinki.fi
Abstract
Three theses are defended: (i) that metaphors create
non-literal meaning; (ii) that metaphoric meaning is
a matter of iconic logic; and (iii) that semantics of
metaphors requires modal interpretation. The logic
of metaphors takes similarity considerations to be
central to iconicity. Similarity is a species of
iconicity in the sense of Charles Peirce’s theory of
diagrammatic signs. Consequence is a refutation of
(i) meaning holism, (ii) the language of thought
hypothesis, and (iii) psychologism about
metaphoric meaning.
Introduction
What is a Metaphor? In this paper, I defend
three theses: (i) that metaphors create non-literal
meaning; (ii) that metaphoric meaning is a logical
matter that has to do with iconicity; and (iii) that
such meaning is to be accounted for in terms of a
modal (‘many-world’) interpretation.
The logic of metaphors proposed in this paper
takes similarity considerations to be central to
iconicity. I argue that similarity considerations are
a species of iconicity in the sense of Charles
Peirce’s theory of diagrammatic signs (CP).
According to Peirce, particular kinds of hypoiconic
signs lie at the heart of metaphoric meaning. His
characterisation of metaphoric icons contains an
argument for metaphors as conveying non-literal
meaning. In other words, iconicity enables the
creation of various similarity considerations
essential to non-literal meaning.
Metaphors as Hypoicons The goal of this paper
is to sketch an explanation to Peirce’s succinct
remark about metaphors as the ‘thirdness’ of
hypoicons:
Hypoicons may be roughly divided according to the
mode of Firstness of which they partake. Those which
partake of simple qualities, or First Firstnesses, are
images; those which represent the relations, mainly
317
July 27 - 29 ㆍSeoul, korea
dyadic, or so regarded, of the parts of one thing by
analogous relations in their own parts, are diagrams;
those which represent the representative character of a
representamen by representing a parallelism in
something else, are metaphors. (Peirce, 1998)
The logic of images is studied in Pietarinen (to
appear). The logic of diagrams, known as Peirce’s
Existential Graphs (EG), has been studied in
Pietarinen (2006) and Roberts (1973), among
others. My proposal for the logic of metaphors is
built upon the concepts of EGs, such as images as
indecomposable ingredients. Images, diagrams and
metaphors rest in the continuum of increasingly
complexity of iconic signs.
The key phrase in Peirce’s remark about
metaphors is that they represent “by representing a
parallelism in something else”. Because metaphors
are sophisticated, evolving forms of diagrams, I
propose to formulate the logic of metaphors in an
iconic language of diagrammatic logic with a
special modal ingredient. This iconic logic
accomplishes, I submit, the representation of
metaphoric, non-literal meaning.
My approach is logical and non-psychologistic.
It is hence to be preferred over the cognitive
theories of the Lakoff-Johnson-Turner stripe
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lakoff & Turner, 1989;
Turner & Fauconnier, 1995). They propose
‘blending’, whereas my theory only needs to
account for the composition of concepts.
The Meaning of Metaphors
Non-literal Meaning Metaphors communicate
non-literal meaning. In metaphors, representations
are translocated from one medium into another.
This transference, or parallelism of several
representations, is what effects a change in
meaning from linguistic or literal to non-linguistic
or non-literal meaning.
 ICCS 2008 Proceedings
Iconicity is similarity, semblance or likeness of
that which represents with that which is being
represented. Similarity may be qualitative,
structural or functional. Hence it can be abstract
and intellectual, and need not be based only in
closeness in looks or in some visual or sensuous
features.
Many-world Interpretation Hintikka & Sandu
(1994) argue that metaphoric meaning is a matter
of possible-worlds semantics, which is extended
with non-standard ‘meaning lines’ between objects
of the domains and the interpretations of predicate
terms across different possible worlds.
I take that modal approach to metaphors to be
essentially correct (see also Engström, 2001). The
key is that to understand a metaphor, we need to
understand its extensions under many kinds of
circumstances besides the actual one. Moreover,
we need mechanisms of drawing meaning lines in
a non-standard fashion.
Non-standard lines are effectuated by
considerations of similarity between the
interpretations of metaphoric terms.
Diagram Logic for Metaphors
Preliminaries Diagrams are icons that reflect
continuous relationships between “rationally
related objects” (Peirce, manuscript 293).
Diagrammatic logic of EGs is a system of logical
description and reasoning build up from
diagrammatic expressions that function as iconic
counterparts of logical constants familiar from
symbolic logic.
Modality Since metaphor is a matter of a many-
world interpretation, the modal dimension is
essential in diagrams. This can be achieved by
adding to logical diagrams ‘tinctures’ or colours
that represent different modes of interpretation of
objects and terms.
Peirce did not consider such possibility to
capture metaphoric meaning. But he suggested
diagrammatic modal logics for various other kinds
of modalities, including epistemic, deontic,
intentional and non-declarative moods (Pietarinen,
2008; Roberts, 1973). An example involves logical
modality:
318
July 27 - 29 ㆍSeoul, korea
Figure 1: There is a woman who will commit a
suicide if she fails in business.4
Notable in this graph is that lines of identities
enter the field of modalities. That is, whenever a
line occupies an area covered by a tincture, it
creates a ‘worldline’, a mapping from worlds to
extensions. Worldlines signal identities of objects
across different situations or possible worlds in
which terms and objects are interpreted.
I propose to add a special tincture for
metaphoric meaning. Thus, whatever is interpreted
within such areas by necessity refers to non-
standard domains. Whenever a line occupies an
area tinctured with such metaphoric modality, a
‘meaning line’ is created to signify non-standard
interpretation. The line, connecting various parts
and concepts of the graphs, draws a connection
that is metaphorically interpreted. I propose to
term such non-standard lines of identity lines of
similarity.5
Similarity Comparisons
The meaning of metaphors is thus based on
considerations of similarity between different parts
of logical diagrams. Typically, these parts refer to
different universes of discourse.
However, similarity per se is a vague notion. It
must be preceded by ways of composing terms and
expressions, including metaphoric ones.6
Composition of Concepts Take, for instance, the
sentence The surgeon is a butcher. The two
concepts (is a surgeon and is a butcher) are
indeterminate. How metaphor is created is a
question of the composition of the two concepts.
4
The example belongs to the famous “Peirce’s
Puzzle” concerning material implication and
equivalence in first-order logic.
5
Think of metaphoric modality effectuating a change
of what is the originally a line of identity into that of
similarity.
6
As such, composition of concepts is an old problem
in logic and philosophy antedating cognitive sciences.
 ICCS 2008 Proceedings
How do we put together two indeterminate
expressions to create non-literal meaning?
The problem concerns the indeterminacy of the
word for being. Such indeterminacy is, I propose,
considerably greater for metaphoric than for non-
metaphoric, literal interpretations of predicates.
The composition nevertheless succeeds as soon
as a sufficient number of connections are found
between different meanings of “is a butcher” and
according to which the copula is intended to
transmit between the two concepts.
Diagrammatically:
Figure 2: The surgeon is a butcher.
Such connections are no more and no less
objective as being of the character of associations
of mental facts (CP 7.464).
Similarity has to be taken in a loose and wide
sense; also contraries can be joined. And similarity
need not be symmetric: the direction of the
interpretation of graphs is from outside in.
The proposed mechanism implies that the more
poetic or creative a metaphor is the more
indeterminacy there is to be taken into account in
composing the predicates. Hence, poetic
metaphors engage in considerable referential
multiplicity.
Examples and Illustrations The interpretation of
predicates that fall within metaphorically modal
areas of the sheet of assertion is world dependent.
Thus, complex forms of metaphors can be
diagrammatically represented:
Figure 3: My cup overflows.
Figure 4: Chicago, the windy city.
319
July 27 - 29 ㆍSeoul, korea
Figure 5: Words decay, will not stay in place,
will not stay still.
Likewise, the interpretation of objects is, in
addition to the continuity of non-metaphoric
objects, world dependent and based on similarity
considerations. Similarity considerations at the
level of the interpretation of metaphoric objects
exemplify iconic relationships.
Parallelism Thus the explanation falls neatly
within Peirce’s classification of metaphors as the
‘thirdness’ of hypoicons (the first being the images
and the second the diagrams). Since the basic
constituents of diagrams are images, it is only to
be expected that representations of metaphors are
built up from diagrams whose terms acquire
multiply referential interpretations.
This is, in a nutshell, what it means that
metaphors are able to represent “a parallelism in
something else” (Peirce, 1998).
Moreover, the “materiality” (Anderson, 1984)
of metaphors is found in the fact that meanings are
always grounded in the actual world or in one of
the possible worlds, including worlds of fiction.
Hence the reason why metaphors can be either true
or false.
Implications
No Meaning Holism The iconic-logical theory of
metaphors provides a refutation of meaning holism.
Lakoff & Johnson (1980) argue that metaphors
affect the way an entire network of interconnected
words behaves. But not all action concerning the
ways of interpreting metaphoric words can
contribute to how the similarities between objects
of metaphors are drawn and conceived. For
otherwise, there could be no false metaphors.
No Language of Thought The word for being in
metaphoric statements, represented iconically by
 ICCS 2008 Proceedings July 27 - 29 ㆍSeoul, korea

the line of similarity, is made unambiguous by the References

particular, tinctured mode of representation in
Anderson, D. (1984) Peirce and Metaphor.
graphs. Thus there is no need for ‘the language of
Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society
thought’ determining the correct interpretation.
20, 453-468.
Engström, A. (2001) Hintikka and Sandu on
No Psychologism The mechanism of metaphoric
Metaphor. Philosophia 28, 391-410.
comparison in terms of the composition of
Hintikka, J. & Sandu, G. (1994) Metaphor and
iconically conceived ideas does not imply a lapse
Other Kinds of Nonliteral Meaning. In J.
into cognitive psychology. Metaphor is a matter of
Hintikka (Ed.). Aspects of Metaphor. Dodrecht:
truth and falsity, and hence non-literal meaning,
Kluwer, 151-189.
and that meaning admits of a comprehensive
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We
logico-semantic theory.
Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Counterexamples? Searle (1979) argued that
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989) More than Cool
metaphors exist that have nothing to do with
Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.
similarity (and thus with Peirce’s notion of
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
parallelism), such as “Julia is icy.” There is no
Pietarinen, A.-V. (2006) Signs of Logic: Peircean
reasonable comparison, according to Searle,
Themes on the Philosophy of Language,
between being icy and being insensitive.
Games and Communication. Dordrecht:
The answer is that similarity comparisons need
Springer.
not be based on the interpretation of simple
Pietarinen, A.-V. (2007) Getting Closer to Iconic
qualities of predicates, but in the consequences of
Logic. In G. Dodig-Crnkovic & S. Stuart (Eds).
the application of those predicates across different
Computing, Philosophy, and Cognitive
situations. There is a clear-cut parallelism between
Science: The Nexus and the Liminal,
the effects of something being cold and something
Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, 53-74.
being insensitive, such as making you shiver or
Pietarinen, A.-V. (2008) On the Diagrammatic
going goosey. Thus Searle presents no trouble for
Logic of Existential Graphs: A Case Study of
the theory. Indeed, how Peirce originally
Commands. Proc. Diagrams 2008, Lecture
suggested expressions to be interpreted was
Notes in Computer Science, Springer.
precisely in terms of the sum total of their effects
Pietarinen, A.-V. (to appear) Peirce and the Logic
and consequences.
of Image. Semiotica.
Peirce, C.S. (1998) The Essential Peirce 2. The
Conclusions Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana
I outlined a novel logical and semantic theory of University Press.
metaphoric meaning. The theory appeals to Peirce, C.S. (1931-58) (CP) Collected Papers of
similarity comparisons through the composition of C.S. Peirce. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
concepts. Composition is seen as an operation Searle, J. (1979) Expression and Meaning.
involving contemplation of iconic and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
diagrammatic representations. Metaphors are true Turner, M. & Fauconnier, G. (1995) Conceptual
or false, and cognitive theories can be dispensed Integration and Formal Expression. Metaphor
with. and Symbolic Activity 10, 183-203.

Acknowledgments
Supported by the University of Helsinki
Excellence in Research Grant (Project 4701321)
and Chancellor’s 2008 Travel Grant.

320