You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Figurative language is language that reaches beyond its literal meaning to create effects, convey complex ideas, or evoke emotion. It is one of the most important areas of semantic analysis at A-Level, because figurative language is pervasive — far from being confined to poetry, it saturates everyday conversation, journalism, advertising and political discourse. Analysing it well requires more than spotting figures of speech: it demands an account of the cognitive and communicative work each figure performs. As with all methods of language analysis on the AQA specification, this toolkit is integrated across Paper 1, Paper 2 and the NEA, and its primary objective is AO1 — applying appropriate methods of language analysis using associated terminology. The strongest responses then push into AO3 by relating figurative choices to context, audience and purpose.
The literal meaning (closely tied to denotation) of a word is its primary, dictionary sense — the direct, non-metaphorical reading. The figurative meaning extends or transforms that literal sense, typically by drawing a connection between two different domains of experience.
In the figurative example, "icy" does not denote temperature but coldness of manner, and "melted" does not denote a physical change of state but the weakening of determination. The figurative meaning works by mapping properties from a source domain (temperature and physical states) onto a target domain (emotions and attitudes). This idea of cross-domain mapping is the single most important concept in the lesson, and it returns when we reach conceptual metaphor theory.
A caution worth absorbing early: the line between literal and figurative is not fixed. Expressions begin life as vivid figures and gradually fossilise into literal-feeling vocabulary. To say a journey "took two hours" is now wholly literal, yet "take" is a faded spatial metaphor. This drift — the conventionalisation of metaphor — is itself a topic of analysis.
Metaphor is the most important and pervasive type of figurative language. A metaphor describes one thing in terms of another, asserting an implicit comparison without using "like" or "as".
Key Definition: Metaphor — a figure of speech in which a word or phrase from one semantic domain (the source) is applied to another (the target), creating an implicit comparison that transfers properties from source to target.
Linguists describe metaphor in terms of components. Two competing but compatible vocabularies are in common use, and confident candidates can deploy either:
When you analyse a metaphor, naming the source and target and then specifying the ground — the precise properties being carried across — is exactly the move that lifts an answer from assertion to analysis.
Some metaphors have become so habitual that speakers no longer perceive their figurative origin. These are dead metaphors (or conventional metaphors):
Live metaphors (or novel metaphors) are creative, original comparisons that surprise the reader and forge fresh meaning. Dead metaphors are analytically interesting because they have become invisible: they reveal the cultural assumptions a community has stopped noticing. Live metaphors are interesting because they defamiliarise, forcing the reader to construct a new correspondence. Crucially, the distinction is not binary but a cline: metaphors range from fully live, through semi-conventional, to wholly dead, and writers can deliberately reanimate a dead metaphor by extending it ("the department was not merely headed but decapitated by the cuts").
Closely related is the idiom — a fixed, multi-word expression whose meaning is not predictable from the literal meanings of its parts ("kick the bucket", "spill the beans", "let the cat out of the bag"). Many idioms are frozen metaphors. Their fixedness is the analytical point: because the wording is conventionalised, a writer who alters an idiom ("kicked the proverbial bucket", "spilled only half the beans") foregrounds the change and invites the reader to notice it.
An extended metaphor (sometimes a sustained or, in older terminology, a conceit) develops a single source domain across several sentences, a paragraph, or an entire text, elaborating it through a chain of related expressions. A leader's speech that opens by calling the nation a "ship", then speaks of "weathering the storm", "staying the course" and reaching "safe harbour", sustains one nautical mapping for cumulative coherence and emotional force. Tracing how an extended metaphor is built — and where it strains or breaks — is a rich seam for analysis.
An extended metaphor frequently surfaces in a text as a semantic field drawn from the source domain: the nautical metaphor above will scatter words like "voyage", "anchor", "tide" and "crew" through the text, so the figurative reading and the lexical-field reading reinforce one another. This is why the previous lesson's tool of semantic-field analysis and this lesson's tool of conceptual metaphor are best used together: the field is the visible lexical evidence on the page; the conceptual metaphor is the cognitive pattern organising it. When you spot a cluster of words from a single source domain doing figurative work, you have found both at once, and saying so explicitly demonstrates an integrated command of the toolkit.
The most influential modern theory of metaphor was developed by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in Metaphors We Live By (1980). Their central, field-changing claim is that metaphor is not merely a decorative literary device but a fundamental feature of human thought. We do not just talk in metaphors — we think in them. Abstract domains that we cannot perceive directly (time, emotion, argument, morality) are systematically understood through more concrete, embodied domains (space, money, war, physical force).
A conceptual metaphor is an underlying pattern of thought in which one conceptual domain is systematically structured in terms of another. By convention, conceptual metaphors are written in small capitals (rendered here in bold) to distinguish the underlying thought pattern from the individual linguistic expressions that realise it:
| Conceptual Metaphor | Linguistic Expressions |
|---|---|
| ARGUMENT IS WAR | "He attacked my position." "She defended her argument." "His claims were indefensible." "I demolished his case." "Your criticisms were right on target." |
| TIME IS MONEY | "You're wasting my time." "I've invested a lot of time in this." "That saved me an hour." "How do you spend your weekends?" |
| LIFE IS A JOURNEY | "He's at a crossroads." "She's come a long way." "We're going in different directions." "He's reached a dead end." |
| IDEAS ARE FOOD | "I can't digest all that information." "That's food for thought." "Let me chew it over." "A half-baked idea." |
| THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS | "The foundation of the argument." "We need to buttress it with evidence." "The theory collapsed." "A framework of ideas." |
| HAPPY IS UP / SAD IS DOWN | "I'm feeling up today." "He's really down." "My spirits rose." "She sank into depression." |
Lakoff and Johnson distinguish several kinds of conceptual metaphor. Structural metaphors (like ARGUMENT IS WAR) map a rich source structure onto a target. Orientational metaphors organise a whole system of concepts spatially (HAPPY IS UP, MORE IS UP, CONTROL IS UP). Ontological metaphors let us treat abstractions as bounded entities or substances, so that we can quantify and reason about them ("inflation is rising", "my fear of failure"); personification is a special case of ontological metaphor in which the entity is given specifically human qualities.
The theory is examinable gold because it converts metaphor from ornament into ideology:
Key Definition: Conceptual metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980) — a systematic pattern of thought in which an abstract conceptual domain (the target) is understood through the structure of a more concrete domain (the source). Conceptual metaphors are cognitive, not merely linguistic, and they shape how we perceive and reason. Individual phrases are linguistic realisations of the underlying conceptual metaphor.
Metonymy is a figure of speech in which something is referred to by the name of something closely associated with it, rather than by its own name. Metonymy works through contiguity (association, adjacency, connection) — in contrast to metaphor, which works through perceived similarity across domains.
Common sub-types include:
Key Definition: Metonymy — a figure of speech in which an entity is referred to by the name of something closely associated with it, based on contiguity (association) rather than similarity. Distinguishing metonymy from metaphor on exactly this basis is a frequent discriminator in mark schemes.
Synecdoche is the specific figure in which a part stands for the whole, or (less often) the whole stands for a part. It is grounded in the meronymy relation you met in the previous lesson.
Synecdoche is often treated as a sub-type of metonymy, since the part-whole link is a relation of contiguity. The analytical value lies in which part is chosen: "hired hands" reduces workers to their labouring function, while "many mouths" reduces dependants to their consumption — each selection encodes an attitude.
A simile is an explicit comparison between two things using "like", "as", or another comparative marker. Where metaphor asserts identity, simile signals its figurative nature openly.
Similes are sometimes dismissed as weaker metaphors, but they do something subtly different. A metaphor asserts identity ("life is a journey"), fusing the two domains; a simile asserts resemblance ("life is like a journey"), holding the two terms apart and inviting the reader to weigh the likeness. Because a simile names the source overtly, it can also be qualified ("like a candle, but one that refuses to gutter out"), giving the writer fine control over the comparison.
The overtness of simile carries analytical consequences worth drawing out. Because the comparison is signalled by "like" or "as", a simile foregrounds the act of comparing — it asks the reader to consciously hold the two terms side by side and assess the resemblance, which can feel more measured, explanatory or tentative than the bolder assertion of a metaphor. This makes simile a favoured device in expository and instructional writing, where the goal is to clarify an unfamiliar target by likening it to a familiar source ("the heart works like a pump"). Some similes have themselves fossilised into clichéd, idiomatic comparisons ("as cold as ice", "like a bull in a china shop", "as busy as a bee"), and a writer who refreshes one of these stock similes with an unexpected vehicle ("as cold as a tax inspector's smile") foregrounds the deviation for wit or characterisation. As always, the analytical task is not to record that a simile is present but to specify what the chosen vehicle imports and why the explicit, qualifiable form of comparison suits the writer's purpose.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.