{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02227342549923195, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.515, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Metaphor and Simile: Fallacies Concerning Comparison, Ellipsis, and Inter-Paraphrase

Comparison-based views of nominal metaphor (metaphor in A-is-B style where A and B are noun phrases) have often been characterized as casting such metaphor as elliptical, compressed or implicit simile. This characterization, while useful for some purposes, is nevertheless a misleading fallacy. It diverts attention from two matters: from the possibility of metaphor and simile being processed by different forms of comparison, and from the role of other processing occurring between surface form and mental comparison processes. Both matters, when taken into consideration, severely affect the way that the results of psychological experiments on metaphor and simile understanding are interpreted. Another, related, fallacy that has been current is a set of claims about whether simile and/or literal comparisons can be paraphrased into copular form or vice versa. This fallacy has, for instance, been used to support a distinction between simile and literal comparison. The article does not support or attack any particular type of theory of metaphor or simile understanding, but instead clarifies the space of theoretical possibilities and introduces added caution into the interpretation of relevant experiments.