L.'s book is the published version of her Ph.D. thesis that she defended in 2001 at the Paris Lodron University of Salzburg. The way she defines the subject of her book contributes largely to its originality: L. chooses to study together language phenomena that are usually considered to be distinct, metaphors and comparisons, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, proverbs, expressions and quotations, all as part of the category of ‘preformed elements of speech’, ‘vorgeformte Sprachelemente’ (p. 4). The main part of the book is composed of four major studies, each dedicated to one of Plato's dialogues, the Euthyphro, the Hippias major, the Laches and the Euthydemus: L. examines by order of appearance all the passages where one of the linguistic elements that she sets out to study occurs. These four analyses differ in length: the first one is 20 pages long (pp. 29–48), the second one 30 (pp. 49–78), the third one 45 (pp. 79–123) and the fourth one over 100 (pp. 125–230). Each section ends with a summary in which L. lays out the functions of all the quoted elements. Besides the introduction and the general conclusion, the book features a bibliography and two indexes.

In the introduction, after defining her undertaking, i.e. studying the use that Plato makes of preformed and metaphorical expressions in some early works (p. 1), L. puts forward what profit could be derived from her research for the interpretation of the dialogues (pp. 2–5): the interrelatedness between the form and the philosophical content imply that the structure of a dialogue as well as its results depend on the characters who carry it out. Thus, in order to understand a dialogue, the interpreter should be able to define each character with precision; however, because of the dialogical form, the description of a character is always made, when it is explicit, from the point of view of other characters. To perceive Plato's view of the characters, the interpreter should study not only what the philosopher makes them say, but also the way he makes them speak and, in particular, the way he makes them use the preformed and metaphorical expressions. Furthermore, these elements play a part in building up the general structure of a dialogue as well as in the process of thought in each passage where they appear. L. proceeds to justify the choice of the dialogues by pointing out the particular importance communication has in them (pp. 6–7). She then explains why she decided to study imagery, proverbs and quotations together (pp. 7–23). Metaphors, comparisons and proverbs, according to L., are based on analogical thought: much in the same way as a metaphor or a comparison liken two objects, a proverb is used to describe situations different from the one its literal meaning refers to. As for the affinity between quotations and proverbial expressions, L. justifies it by saying that every use of a preformed expression is a quotation in a broad sense. She then introduces her classification of the elements she studies, founded on three criteria, the extent to which an expression has spread, the awareness of its origin among its users and finally whether it is variable or not. Lastly (pp. 23–8) she mentions semantic and formal elements that can reveal the presence of a proverb and makes a list of terms that Plato uses to introduce preformed and metaphorical expressions.

The first major study is dedicated to the Euthyphro. L. enumerates 22 expressions, 16 of which come from Socrates and 6 from Euthyphro. The latter is characterised by the expressions he uses as a keeper of religious orthodoxy and as a man not very prone to dialogue. Socrates, conversely, shows his capacity to adapt to his interlocutor by mentioning three proverbial figures taken from mythology. Furthermore, the expressions under study structure the dialogue: they appear at the beginning of each sequence of the discussion, because Socrates uses them to remobilise Euthyphro when he is about to give up. Finally, L. observes that Plato consciously modifies certain proverbs and plays with literal and figurative senses.

In the Hippias major L. finds 30 expressions, mostly metaphors and comparisons, out of which 24 are used by Socrates and 6 by Hippias. Hippias is depicted as a man blinded to the point of stupidity by his vanity, as shown by the simplicity of the metaphorical and preformed expressions he uses. Socrates, conversely, uses expressions of various types and contents and employs them tactically to involve Hippias in a real discussion as well as to explain what he means. Finally, the preformed and metaphorical expressions reveal the recurrence, at first almost imperceptible, of words etymologically related to the keyword καλός.

In the Laches L. mentions 35 expressions. The vast majority of metaphors she studies were no longer perceived as such in Plato's time: their interest lies, according to her, in the process of ‘remotivation’ or ‘deliteralization’ (‘Remotivierung’, p. 87), by which Plato reminds the reader of the initial meaning of the words used in a figurative sense. Furthermore, Plato creates links between metaphors and preformed expressions as well as among different metaphorical fields; he uses them to introduce a leitmotif, defined by L. in the phrase ‘don't let go!’ (p. 117). Finally, the use of metaphorical and proverbial expressions reveals a closeness between the three main characters, Laches, Nicias and Socrates. In fact, the expressions are here more evenly distributed than in the other dialogues: Socrates has 16 of them to Laches’ 13, Nicias’ 5 and Lysimachus’ 1. Moreover, if Laches is close to the philosopher in the practical aspects of things, Nicias is close in the theoretical ones, especially as he adopts Solon's principle of lifelong learning (188b).

The fourth section is about the Euthydemus. L. observes 95 expressions, 84 of which are Socrates’, 8 his ally Ctesippus’, 3 Dyonisodorus’ and none Euthydemus’. Among these, comparisons and metaphors are the most numerous. L. puts forward examples of ambivalence in meaning derived from a play on literal and figurative senses as well as on tone, either serious or ironical. Characterisation in the Euthydemus acts on two levels: not only does Plato characterise each participant, but he also comments on the situation as a whole, which represents here the opposition between philosophy and eristics. Thus the two sophists’ arrogance is denounced in the parodies of prayers that Socrates and Ctesippus address to their opponents, ironically comparing them with gods. Their wickedness is shown through their comparison with such mythological figures as the Corybants (277de) and Medea (285c). Their way of behaving is described with numerous metaphors belonging to the fields of wrestling, hunting or playing. Finally, the simplicity of the expressions they use shows that even though they are skilful, they have nothing to say. On the contrary, the wealth and the variety of metaphorical and proverbial expressions Socrates uses show his mastery of speech both in leading and recounting the dialogue, while Ctesippus is shown as the philosopher's alter ego. Lastly, basing herself on the expressions studied, L. sheds light on various features shared by this dialogue and comedy.

In her general conclusion L. states that all the categories she has studied have mainly the same functions. From the characters’ point of view, these functions can be brought down to four main ones, the logical function, establishing an idea, summarising it or further demonstrating it; the didactic function, putting it forward or explaining it; the tactical function, which has to do with Socrates' leading of the dialogue; and the paraenetic function, exerting a direct influence over the interlocutors. From Plato's point of view, the major function of the expressions studied is the characterisation; they can also help comment or organise the dialogue.

In this book L. associates two categories, one of which, the preformed expressions, is defined by its form, while the other, imagery, is not. This makes L. give comparatively little importance to the effects that the integration of a preformed expression in the linguistic context of a live discourse produces. However, this association is justified by the profit L. derives from it for the scrutiny of Plato's style. Moreover, the insightful study of the uses that the characters make of the expressions and the detailed analysis of the way their speech characterises them make the book particularly valuable and useful to different kinds of readers.