{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020179372197309416, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0007473841554559044, 'mean_word_length': 5.316037735849057, '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}}
Iconicity in the interplay of the literal and the metaphorical: An example from William Blake's Jerusalem

Abstract This paper aims to explore how iconicity is entwined in an intricate relationship between the literal and the metaphorical. Two particular issues are under scrutiny here. Firstly, the traditionally assumed dichotomy – literal versus metaphorical meaning – needs reconsidering. This study proposes that the literal and the metaphorical are best seen as on a continuum rather than as dichotomous. Secondly, studies of the link between metaphor and iconicity have not received sufficient attention, and are therefore examined critically here. Iconicity, which is part and parcel of the process of representation and communication, plays a significant role in understanding metaphor, and indeed in understanding the interplay between the literal and the metaphorical. Overall, this paper makes the case for an integrational view of iconicity, metaphor, and literalness. The literal and the metaphorical are seen as an interplay, in which not only do metaphors interact with one another but they also interact with literal meaning. In addition, metaphor and iconicity are not treated separately but in interaction with each other. By way of illustration, this paper analyzes a passage from Plate 9 of William Blake's Jerusalem.