The integration of language and vision capabilities in computers can b
e seen purely as a multi-media task without any theoretical assumption
s being required. However, it is worth exploring whether the modalitie
s have anything serious in common, in particular in the light of claim
that most non-technical language use is metaphorical. What consequenc
es would that have for the underlying relationship of language and vis
ion: is it possible that vision is largely metaphorical? The conclusio
n (see also, Wilks 1978b and Wilks and Okada (in press) is that visual
processing can embody structural ambiguity (whether compositional or
not), but not anything analogous to metaphor. Metaphor is essentially
connected with the extension of sense and only symbols can have senses
. But if it makes no sense to say a figure can be metaphorical (unless
it embodies symbolic elements) that must also mean, alas, that it mak
es no sense to say it is literally anything either. Only a symbol can
be literally something. A hat is a hat is a hat, but never, ever liter
ally so.