What is the status of metaphorical meaning? Is it an input to semantic composition or is it derived post-semantically? This question has divided theorists for decades. Griceans argue that metaphorical meaning/content is a kind of implicature that is generated through post-semantic processing. Others, such as the contextualists, argue that metaphorical meaning is an input to semantic composition and thus part of “what is said” by an utterance. I think both sides are right: metaphorical meaning is an input to semantic composition and it is also derived post-semantically. I explain how this is possible by positing that successful metaphor involves coining a new word on the spot; this new metaphorical word is ambiguous with its literal counterpart. I show that an ambiguity theory of metaphor, far from being the obvious non-starter that it has long been treated as, actually offers elegant predictions of a whole suite of otherwise recalcitrant linguistic data.

隐喻意义的地位如何？它是语义组合的输入，还是在语义后派生的？几十年来，这个问题一直使理论家们产生分歧。Griceans 认为，隐喻意义/内容是一种通过后语义处理产生的暗示。其他人，如语境论者，认为隐喻意义是语义构成的输入，因此是话语“所说的”的一部分。我认为双方都是对的：隐喻意义是语义构成的输入，也是在语义后派生的。我通过假设成功的隐喻涉及当场创造一个新词来解释这如何成为可能;这个新的隐喻词与它的字面对应物是模棱两可的。我表明，隐喻的歧义理论，远非长期以来被视为明显的无用之物，它实际上提供了对一整套原本顽固的语言数据的优雅预测。