Apologies if this has already been answered but I couldn't find a question addressing this.
I had a thought about an expression I hear used frequently, in that myself and many others I know use the term "hear" or "heard" in reference to written information that was never conveyed audibly.
For instance, I may read an interesting fact in an online article and later tell it to someone else as "I heard that..." as opposed to "I read that..." or "I saw that..."
I'm wondering how one would classify this usage of the term or literary device. In my mind the use of the term "heard" implies that the information was perceived audibly.
My thoughts are:
- This could be considered a form of metaphor (we are using "heard" in a context it is not literally applicable)
- This meaning/interpretation of heard comes under the definition of the word, colloquially or otherwise
- This is simply erroneous; it's just incorrect to use the word "heard" in this context
- This is some other kind of literary device, perhaps something like personification (we are attributing the quality of spoken word to the information)
- This is a bad 'translation' of the term used correctly in a slightly different context (for example, if I read an interesting fact and wanted to enquire if someone else knew about it already, I might ask them "did you hear that...", which is perfectly valid as even though I only read the information someone else may have heard it eg. via word of mouth")
I am hoping someone more knowledgable than I can clarify, and if applicable point me towards the correct nomenclature for this kind of thing.