In everyday English usage, the words ‘literal’ and ‘figurative’ are normally taken to be opposite in meaning. It is an opposition with very ancient roots. One of its forbears was the medieval theory of Scriptural hermeneutics, which distinguished among the literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogic senses of Scripture. This itself had an ancestry in pre-Augustinian times: Augustine tells in his Confessions how he learned from Ambrose the trick of interpreting Scripture figuratively, thus eliminating the problems and contradictions created by a (...) literal reading. Earlier still, the distinction and the opposition were at least implicit in Poetics 21, where Aristotle differentiated between the standard or normal name for a thing, and various other types of name among which he listed metaphor. The antonymy of the literal and the figurative is therefore deeply embedded in our intellectual history, and it is perhaps for this reason that it has remained, to a large extent, unexamined and unquestioned. (shrink)

From the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries, scientists such as Kekule, Mendel, Lavoisier and Harvey argued for insights that depended critically on antithetical expressions and reasoning. The heuristic and persuasive use of devices like the antithesis has roots in the in combined grammatical, rhetorical and dialectical training established during the early modern educational reforms of the humanists. While the entire array of figures includes devices which inscribe all the rhetorical appeals, the set of devices derived from parallel phrasing illustrates how (...) certain figures of speech express lines of reasoning iconically. But the continued use of such devices invites a general rationale for their persuasiveness based on the importance of pattern completion in language processing. (shrink)