Visit www.benjamins.com

Non-conventional figurative language as aesthetics of everyday communication

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Buy this article

Price: £15.00+Taxes
Add to favourites

The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.6.2.04wim
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
6
3
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.6.2.04wim
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Full text loading...

References

Aiken, L.S. , & West, S.G
(1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bauer, D.J. , & Curran, P.J
(2005) Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), 373–400. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5
Berlyne, D.E
(Ed.) (1974) Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
Blasko, D.G. , & Connine, C.M
(1993) Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295–308. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.19.2.295
Bohrn, I.C. , Altmann, U. , Lubrich, O. , Menninghaus, W. , & Jacobs, A.M
(2012) Old proverbs in new skins - an FMRI study on defamiliarization. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 204. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00204
Bowdle, B.F. , & Gentner, D
(2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
Brisard, F. , Frisson, S. , & Sandra, D
(2001) Processing unfamiliar metaphors in a self-paced reading task. Journal of Pragmatics16(1-2), 87–108.
Brône, G. , & Coulson, S
(2010) Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212–236. doi: 10.1080/01638530902959919
Burgers, C. , van Mulken, M. , & Schellens, P.J
(2012) Type of evaluation and marking of irony: The role of perceived complexity and comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(3), 231–242. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.003
Chang, C.-T. , & Yen, C.-T
(2013) Missing ingredients in metaphor advertising: The right formula of metaphor type, product type, and need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 80–94. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2012.749090
Chiappe, D.L. , Kennedy, J.M. , & Chiappe, P
(2003) Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31(1), 51–68. doi: 10.1016/S0304‑422X(03)00003‑2
Christmann, U. , & Mischo, C
(2000) The efficacy of communicative fairness and rhetorical aesthetics in contributions to argumentation. Language and Speech, 43(3), 229–259. doi: 10.1177/00238309000430030101
Christmann, U. , Wimmer, L. , & Groeben, N
(2011) The aesthetic paradox in processing conventional and non-conventional metaphors: A reaction time study. Scientific Study of Literature, 1(2), 199–240. doi: 10.1075/ssol.1.2.03chr
Fenner, D.E.W
(1996) The aesthetic attitude. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Gibbs, R.W
(1984) Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8(3), 275–304. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0803_4
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(2002) A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457–486. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00046‑7
Giora, R
(1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183
(2002a) Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal?Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 487–506. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00045‑5
(2002b) Optimal innovation and pleasure. In O. Stock , C. Strapparava , & A. Nijholt (Eds.), The April Fools’ Day workshop on computational humour. Proceedings of the twentieth Twente workshop on language technology (pp.11–28). Enschede: University of Twente.
(2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
(2009) Irony. In L. Cummings (Ed.), Pragmatics encyclopedia (pp.265–267). London: Routledge.
Giora, R. , Drucker, A. , Fein, O. , & Mendelson, I
(2015) Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2014.954951
Giora, R. , & Fein, O
(1999) On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1601–1618. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00006‑5
Giora, R. , Fein, O. , Kronrod, A. , Elnatan, I. , Shuval, N. , & Zur, A
(2004) Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(2), 115–141. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2
Grice, H.P
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3, pp.41–58). New York: Academic Press.
(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Groeben, N
(1977) Rezeptionsforschung als empirische Literaturwissenschaft. Paradigma- durch Methodendiskussion [Reception research as empirical study of literature. Discussion of paradigm by discussion of method]. Kronberg: Athenäum.
Groeben, N. , & Scheele, B
(1986) Produktion und Rezeption von Ironie. Pragmalinguistische Beschreibung und psycholinguistische Erklärungshypothesen [Production and reception of irony. Pragmalinguistic description and psycholinguistic attempts at explanation] (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Narr.
Hayes, A.F
(2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hunt, R.A. , & Vipond, D
(1985) Crash-testing a transactional model of literary reading. Reader: Essays in Reader-Oriented Theory, Criticism, and Pedagogy, 14(1), 23–39.
Jacobs, A.M
(2015) Neurocognitive poetics: Methods and models for investigating the neuronal and cognitive-affective bases of literature reception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 186. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00186
Johnson, P.O. , & Neyman, J
(1936) Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.
Jones, L.L. , & Estes, Z
(2006) Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.004
Katz, A.N
(1996) Experimental psycholinguistics and figurative language: Circa 1995. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(1), 17–37. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1101_2
Katz, A.N. , & Ferretti, T.R
(2001) Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3-4), 193–221. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678895
Kaufer, D.S
(1981) Understanding ironic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(6), 495–510. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(81)90015‑1
Kraft, J
(1990) Zur Funktion “wörtlicher Bedeutung”: Am Beispiel ästhetischer Reaktionen auf Witze [On the function of “literal meaning“: Using the example of aesthetic responses to jokes] (Unpublished diploma thesis). University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Kronrod, A. , & Danziger, S
(2013) “Wii Will Rock You!” The use and effect of figurative language in consumer reviews of hedonic and utilitarian consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 726–739. doi: 10.1086/671998
Lagerwerf, L
(2002) Deliberate ambiguity in slogans: Recognition and appreciation. Document Design, 3(3), 244–260. doi: 10.1075/dd.3.3.07lag
Lagerwerf, L. , & Meijers, A
(2008) Openness in metaphorical and straightforward advertisements: Appreciation effects. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 19–30. doi: 10.2753/JOA0091‑3367370202
Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lapp, E
(1992) Linguistik der Ironie [Linguistics of irony]. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik: Vol. 369. Tübingen: G. Narr.
Lundmark, C
(2006) The creative use of idioms in advertising. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(1), 71–98.
McQuarrie, E.F. , & Mick, D.G
(1996) Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 424–438. doi: 10.1086/209459
Miall, D.S
(1992) Response to poetry: Studies of language and structure. In E.F. Nardocchio (Ed.), Reader response: The empirical dimension (pp.153–170). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Miall, D.S. , & Kuiken, D
(1994) Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Response to literary stories. Poetics, 22(5), 389–407. doi: 10.1016/0304‑422X(94)00011‑5
Mukařovský, J
(1964 [1932) Standard language and poetic language. In P. L.Garvin (Ed.), A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp.17–30). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Nerlich, B. , & Clarke, D.D
(2001) Ambiguities we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00132‑0
Pexman, P.M. , Ferretti, T.R. , & Katz, A.N
(2000) Discourse factors that influence online reading of metaphor and irony. Discourse Processes, 29(3), 201–222. doi: 10.1207/S15326950dp2903_2
Reber, R. , Schwarz, N. , & Winkielman, P
(2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
Schumacher, R
(1997) Metapher: Erfassen und Verstehen frischer Metaphern [Metaphor: Conceiving and comprehending fresh metaphors]. Basler Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur: Bd. 75. Tübingen: Francke.
Schweigert, W
(1991) The muddy waters of idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(4), 305–314. doi: 10.1007/BF01074283
Schwoebel, J. , Dews, S. , Winner, E. , & Srinivas, K
(2000) Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1-2), 47–61. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864
Searle, J.R
(1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
Shklovsky, V
(1965 [1917]) Art as technique. In L.T. Lemon & M.J. Reis U (Eds.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp.3–24). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D
(1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. The language and thought series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tourangeau, R. , & Sternberg, R.J
(1982) Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11(3), 203–244. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(82)90016‑6
Van Enschot, R. , & Hoeken, H
(2015) The occurrence and effects of verbal and visual anchoring of tropes on the perceived comprehensibility and liking of TV commercials. Journal of Advertising, 44(1), 25–36. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2014.933688
Van Mulken, M. , Le Pair, R. , & Forceville, C
(2010) The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3418–3430. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.030
Van Mulken, M. , van Enschot-van Dijk, R. , & Hoeken, H
(2005) Puns, relevance and appreciation in advertisements. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(5), 707–721. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.008
Van Mulken, M. , van Hooft, A. , & Nederstigt, U
(2014) Finding the tipping point: Visual metaphor and conceptual complexity in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(4), 333–343. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2014.920283
Van Peer, W
(1986) Stylistics and psychology. Investigations of foregrounding (Croom Helm linguistics series). London: Croom Helm.
Vorderer, P. , & Roth, F.S
(2011) How do we entertain ourselves with literary texts?Scientific Study of Literature, 1(1), 136–143. doi: 10.1075/ssol.1.1.14vor
Weinreich, U
(1969) Problems in the analysis of idioms. In J. Puhvel (Ed.), Substance and structure of language: Lectures delivered before the Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America, University of California, Los Angeles, June 17 – August 12, 1966 (pp.23–82). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Wilson, D. , & Sperber, D
(2002) Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111(443), 583–632. doi: 10.1093/mind/111.443.583
Wimmer, L
(2015) Das ästhetische Paradox bei der Verarbeitung von fiktionalen vs. nicht-fiktionalen Texten [The aesthetic paradox in processing fictional vs. non-fictional texts] (Doctoral thesis, University of Heidelberg, Germany). Retrieved fromarchiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/18232/
http://jbenjamins.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/msw.6.2.04wim
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address