off than those who call some of the finest, most beautiful, and most fully expressive speech figurative, treating it as derivative rather than foundational in language, as a later assignment of meaning that altered an earlier one, and as dependent on other usage rather than something other usage follows.

Section

Those who deny figurative usage have advanced a weak argument, saying:

“Furthermore, there is no situation that cannot be expressed by a literal expression specific to it. Using a figurative expression instead, when it requires a contextual indicator and serves no need, is far removed from the practice of wise and eloquent people in establishing linguistic conventions.”

He answered this by saying:

“The answer to the second argument is that using a figurative expression rather than a literal one may offer the advantage of being easier on the tongue; fitting the cadence of speech, in wording and prose; achieving correspondence, similarity of sound, or rhymed prose; conveying magnification; or departing from the literal expression for emphasis—among other purposes sought through speech.”

The response is:

This argument is weak. Whoever advances it must concede the division of speech into literal and figurative usage, but then insists that literal rather than figurative expressions must be used. This contradicts his statement, “There is no figurative usage in language.” Rather, the instances they have called