It has been about four decades since George Lakoff and Mark Johnson brought up the notion of conceptual metaphor in their book Metaphors We Live By (1980). Since then, this theory has found numerous followers and accordingly it has been applied to Persian linguistic and literary researches as well. This essay contends that these two thinkers were not in fact the originator of conceptual metaphor and that, as Richards says, the theorization of this type of metaphor goes back to the olden times. The article attempts to compare literary and conceptual metaphor through the thoughts of Islamic and western masters of eloquence and the definitions of literary and conceptual metaphor that they have given in order to highlight the point that the definition of these two kinds of metaphor should be distinctly recognized and the consideration of one should not result in the overlooking of the other. Considering these two types as the same, undermines their value and independence and may even force the mind to choose one and ignore the other-there are cases in which this has happened or at least some writers have intended to do so. On the one hand George Lakoff’ s insistence on rejecting traditional definitions of metaphors in his essay titled “ The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor” (1993) and on the other hand the enthusiastic acclamation of conceptual metaphor in recent years are some of the reasons for doing this study. In this article, however, neither of these two notions are denied and efforts are made to consolidate the status of both of them. So the outcomes of conceptual metaphor in both language and literature are illustrated and it is argued that this new type of metaphor does not cause limitation to literary metaphor, but can be an appropriate element in linguistic and literary studies.

Due to the development of smart devices, the ability of computers to understand human language has become a key issue in technology. By learning and analyzing machine-readable, annotated linguistic data, computers are able to comprehend human language (corpus). Corpora plays a crucial role in helping computers comprehend human language. Metaphor is one of the most complicated linguistic data that computers cannot comprehend. Despite the prevalence of metaphor in everyday language use and the importance of identifying it, no corpus has been published for Persian yet. Compiling a corpus of Persian metaphors is the initial step in learning metaphors for computers. To compile a corpus of Persian metaphors, it is necessary to meet two main criteria. Deciding the best definition is the first prerequisite. The best definition is both comprehensive and applicable, comprehensive in the sense that it covers a significant proportion of metaphorical instances, and applicable in the sense that it could be used to build a corpus. The second requirement is the construction of a method for metaphor identification. Without a straightforward data annotation method, it is impossible to identify metaphors.

The objective of the present paper is to detennine the factor(s) involved in the death of metaphor, or better said, .lexicalization of metaphorical concepts.To achieve the objective, attempts have been made to provide the readers with definitions proposed by scholars. Furthennore, the writer describes the manner in which metaphor is fonned, drawing a distinction between "dead" and "live" metaphors, showing how a live metaphor turns into a lexical polysemy entering dictionaries.

Since metaphors occur in language, it is an appropriate tool to identify ideology with. The choice of different metaphors in a text by language users would reveal its dominant ideology. Contrary to this, different ideologies may produce different metaphors to support their basic beliefs. Taking conceptual metaphor theory and Teun van Dijk’s theory of ideology as the basic definitions in this paper, the functions of metaphor in an ideological system and also the role of metaphor in different social contexts are being studied.

In this paper, after some preliminary and historical remarks on the concept of metaphor, two recent philosophical analyses of metaphor (the interactive view and the causal view) will be introduced and critically analyzed. Then different functions of metaphor in relation to science will be discussed. The first function is to describe different aspects of scientific inquiry. The second function is to facilitate science education. The third function is to provide clues for scientific discoveries or to suggest ways of developing current theories. It will be argued that neither the interactive nor the causal view can explain this function of metaphor alone. A hybrid view is required to do this job. Finally, we will consider the suggestion that any model in science is a metaphor, and therefore doing science is a metaphorical activity in principle. It will be pointed out that this radical view does not hold for (at least) some scientific models.

Since a long time ago, allegory has been discussed as a significant issue in philosophical and literary domains. And as a matter of fact, scholars, thinkers and literary men have studied it since the golden days of the Greek civilization. Nowadays as a result of the growth and development of linguistics, metaphor has seen a particular attention as a mental-lingual process by the linguists; that is especially the cognitive linguists. According to linguists, metaphor is a device for reflection, comprehension and recognition of abstract concepts. In this article the author introduces the modern views in this scope with emphasize on the opinions of cognitive linguists; especially George Likav, and further on introduces metaphor in Gheysar Aminpour's poetry in his last book of poetry entitled "The Grammar of Love". While Licav emphasizes on the contemporary theories, he uses metaphor in a different concept; in other words mapping between the realms in a conceptual system.

There have been two custom views on the relation of metaphor and philosophy. Some philosophers (esp. analytical philosophers) take metaphor dispensable, and tend to philosophical texts without metaphor, constituted on proper usage of words. Others take metaphor indispensable as the foundation of philosophical concepts. This attitude usually implies reducing philosophy to mythological discourse and inaccurate rhetoric. By embedding metaphor at the heart of language and escaping the classical opposition of metaphorical–proper, Derrida attribute philosophy and rhetoric same nature, while avoids negative evaluation of philosophy. By deconstructing metaphor, Derrida declares the death of metaphor (and so proper sense), and together with it, the death of philosophy, in the classical and historical sense of it. In this article we want to defend this claim that sense does not control language from without, rather it is the result of uniformity of well-founded metaphors, which are the essence of language.

One of the implements of poetry imagination and also the most applied kind of imagery, is metaphor that can be used to analyze much of the poet's feelings and perceptions. However many of Daghighi poetry is not available, but study in remained verses of this poet new results about his metaphors can be attained. Daghighi strength in metaphor is seen in his lyrical poems so that these metaphors have a special flourish among the contemporary poets and pioneers of Persian poems. This is in the occasion that researchers attention has been drawn to his Goshtasb-nameh not his other poems. The present paper has studied metaphors in different aspects of rhetoric and subject and has presented a scientific and statistical analysis of it.