1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 28, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 28, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Cognitive-pragmatic approaches to how metaphors are understood view the activation of perceptual or motor effects as inferred (Steinhart 2001Bergen 2005Wilson and Carston 2006Carston 2010Gibbs and de Macedo 2010Wilson and Carston 2019). Crucially, inferences elicit conceptual representations, e.g. in the form of implicatures, and/or mental simulations, e.g. in the form of imagery, memory, an impression and other private elements. Emotional effects, being non-conceptual, must be left out of this picture. But evidence in neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics has shown that metaphors activate brain regions linked to emotions (for a review, see Ifantidou 2019Citron 2020), and that in L2, in the absence of fully-propositional meaning (due to unknown words), metaphors yield meaningful interpretations by evoking imagery, impressions, emotions (Ifantidou 20192021a2021bIfantidou and Hatzidaki 2019). Drawing on relevance-theoretic views, we would like to argue that metaphors are processed in not entirely propositional terms. Subjective experience heuristics (originally proposed as “availability heuristic” by Tversky and Kahneman 1974Schwarzand and Wänke 2002; “affect heuristic” by Zajonc 1980) allows making rapid responses by absorbing emotions, imagery, impressions, into the interpretation process, an ability which outweighs (the need for) standard inferential reasoning processes. Such a position is likely to apply to non-metaphorical language, too and thus pervade linguistic processing in general.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21009.ifa
2022-06-27
2023-12-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.21009.ifa
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aggelopoulos, Nikolaos
    2015 Perceptual inference. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews55. 375–392. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Almäng, Jan
    2014 Perception, non-propositional content and the justification of perceptual judgments. Metaphysica15. 1–23. 10.1515/mp‑2014‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baillargeon, Renée
    1987 Object permanence in 3½- and 4½-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology23. 655–664. 10.1037/0012‑1649.23.5.655
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.23.5.655 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barsalou, Lawrence W.
    1999 Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences22. 577–609. 10.1017/S0140525X99002149
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergen, Benjamin
    2005 Mental simulation in literal and figurative language understanding. InSeana Coulson & Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.), The literal and non-literal in language and thought, 255–280. Berlin: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2012 Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bermúdez, José & Arnon Cahen
    2008 Nonconceptual mental content. InEdward Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2020 Edition. URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/content-nonconceptual/
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Biehl, Martin, Christian Guckelsberger, Christoph Salge, Simón C. Smith & Daniel Polani
    2018 Expanding the active inference landscape: More intrinsic motivations in the perception-action loop. Frontiers in Neurorobotics. 10.3389/fnbot.2018.00045
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2018.00045 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blakemore, Diane
    1987 Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 2011 On the descriptive ineffability of expressive meaning. Journal of Pragmatics43. 3537–3550. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  11. Borod, Joan C., Kashemi D. Rorie, Lawrence H. Pick, Ronald L. Bloom, Fani Andelman, Alfonso L. Campbell, Loraine K. Obler, James R. Tweedy, Joan Welkowitz & Martin Sliwinski
    2000 Verbal pragmatics following unilateral stroke: Emotional content and valence. Neuropsychology14 (1). 112–124. 10.1037/0894‑4105.14.1.112
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.14.1.112 [Google Scholar]
  12. Boulenger, Veronique, Olaf Hauk & Friedemann Pulvermüller
    2009 Grasping ideas with the motor system: semantic somatotopy in idiom comprehension. Cerebral Cortex19. 1905–1914. 10.1093/cercor/bhn217
     https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn217 [Google Scholar]
  13. Boulenger, Veronique, Yury Shtyrov & Friedemann Pulvermüller
    2012 When do you grasp the idea? MEG evidence for instantaneous idiom understanding. Neuroimage59. 3502–3513. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.011 [Google Scholar]
  14. Camp, Elizabeth
    2006 Metaphor and that certain ‘je ne sais quoi’. Philosophical Studies129. 1–25. 10.1007/s11098‑005‑3019‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-3019-5 [Google Scholar]
  15. Carston, Robyn
    2002 Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2010 Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society110. 295–321. 10.1111/j.1467‑9264.2010.00288.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x [Google Scholar]
  17. 2012 Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review29. 607–623. 10.1515/tlr‑2012‑0022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0022 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2013 Word meaning, what is said and explicature. InCarlo Penco & Filippo Domaneschi (eds.), What is said and what is not, 175–204. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2016 Relevance theory and metaphor. InElena Semino & Zsófia Demjén (eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language, 42–55. London and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Citron, Francesca
    2012 Neural correlates of written emotion word processing: A review of recent electrophysiological and hemodynamic neuroimaging studies. Brain and Language122. 211–226. 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2020 Language that conveys emotion: A commentary on Hinojosa, Moreno and Ferré (2019). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience35. 865–867. 10.1080/23273798.2019.1706714
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1706714 [Google Scholar]
  22. Citron, Francesca & Adele E. Goldberg
    2014 Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience26. 2585–2595. 10.1162/jocn_a_00654
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00654 [Google Scholar]
  23. Citron, Francesca, Jeremie Güsten, Nora Michaelis & Adele E. Goldberg
    2016 Conventional metaphors in longer passages evoke affective brain response. NeuroImage139. 218–230. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.020
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.020 [Google Scholar]
  24. Citron, Francesca, Nora Michaelis & Adele E. Goldberg
    2020 Metaphorical language processing and amygdala activation in L1 and L2. Neuropsychologia140. Article 107381. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107381
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107381 [Google Scholar]
  25. Damasio, Antonio R.
    1994 Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 1999 The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Denison, Stephanie Mia
    2012 Inductive inference in infants and young children: The role of probabilistic reasoning. Berkeley: University of California PhD Thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. de Saussure, Louis & Tim Wharton
    2020 Relevance, effects and affect. International Review of Pragmatics12. 183–205. 10.1163/18773109‑01202001
     https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Falkum, Ingrid Lossius
    2019 Metaphor and metonymy in acquisition: A relevance-theoretic perspective. InKate Scott, Billy Clark, & Robyn Carston (eds.), Relevance, pragmatics and interpretation, 205–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.018 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gazes, Regina Paxton, Robert R. Hampton & Stella F. Lourenco
    2017 Transitive inference of social dominance by human infants. Developmental Science20. e12367. 10.1111/desc.12367
     https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12367 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gibbs, Raymond W.
    2006 Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language21. 434–458. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00285.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Gibbs, Raymond W. & Ana Cristina Pelosi Silva de Macedo
    2010 Metaphor and embodied cognition. DELTA Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada26. 67–700. 10.1590/S0102‑44502010000300014
     https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502010000300014 [Google Scholar]
  33. Golding, Alex
    2015 Mental imagery and metaphor. Letrônica8. 20–32. 10.15448/1984‑4301.2015.1.19608
     https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-4301.2015.1.19608 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hamilton, David L., Nate Way & Jacqueline M. Chen
    2009 Understanding complexities of inferences. Psychological Inquiry20. 53–57. 10.1080/10478400902794522
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400902794522 [Google Scholar]
  35. Henry, Julie D., Louise H. Phillips, John R. Crawford, Magdalena Ietswaart & Fiona Summers
    2006 Theory of mind following traumatic brain injury: The role of emotion and executive functioning. Neuropsychologia44. 1623–1628. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.03.020
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.03.020 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hickson, Linda & Ishita Khemka
    2014 Chapter six: The psychology of decision making. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities47. 185–229. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑800278‑0.00006‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800278-0.00006-3 [Google Scholar]
  37. Holmes, Emily & Andrew Mathews
    2010 Mental imagery in emotion and emotional disorders. Clinical Psychology Review30. 349–362. 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ifantidou, Elly
    2019 Relevance and metaphor understanding in a second language. InKate Scott, Billy Clark & Robyn Carston (eds.), Relevance: Pragmatics and interpretation, 218–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.019 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2021a Non-propositional effects in verbal communication: The case of metaphor. InTim Wharton & Caroline Jagoe (eds.), Special issue inJournal of Pragmatics18 (1). 6–16. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2021b Metaphor comprehension: Meaning and beyond. InElly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure & Tim Wharton (eds.), Beyond meaning, 61–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.324.c4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.324.c4 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ifantidou, Elly & Anna Hatzidaki
    2019 Metaphor comprehension in L2: Meaning, images and emotions. Journal of Pragmatics149. 78–90. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  42. Jończyk, Rafał
    2016 Affect-language interactions in native and non-native English speakers: A neuropragmatic perspective. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑47635‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47635-3 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kopp, Richard R.
    1995 Metaphor therapy: Using client-generated metaphors in psychotherapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol.1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Levin, Samuel R.
    1976 Concerning what kind of speech act a poem is. InTeun A. van Dijk (ed.), Pragmatics of language and literature, 141–160. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 1988 Metaphoric worlds: Conceptions of a romantic nature. New Haven: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. MacWhinney, Brian
    1999 The emergence of language from embodiment. InBrian MacWhinney (ed.), The emergence of language, 213–256. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Mahon, Bradford Z. & Alfonso Caramazza
    2008 A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology, Paris102. 59–70. 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  49. Majid, Asifa
    2012 Current emotion research in the language sciences. Emotion Review4. 432–443. 10.1177/1754073912445827
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912445827 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mazzone, Marco
    2018 Cognitive pragmatics: Mindreading, inferences, consciousness. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501507731
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501507731 [Google Scholar]
  51. Mitchell, Jason P.
    2009 Inferences about mental states. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences. 364. 1309–1316. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0318
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0318 [Google Scholar]
  52. Needham-Didsbury, Isabelle
    2016 Interpreting metaphor: Perspectives from pragmatics and psychotherapy. London: UCL PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Piata, Anna
    (2021) Conceptual mappings and contextual assumptions: The case of poetic metaphor. InElly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure & Tim Wharton (eds.), Beyond meaning, 79–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.324.c5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.324.c5 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pickering, Martin J. & Simon Garrod
    2013 Forward models and their implications for production, comprehension, and dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences36. 329–332. 10.1017/S0140525X12001495
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pilkington, Adrian
    2000 Poetic effects: A relevance theory perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.75
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.75 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2001 Non-lexicalised concepts and degrees of effability: Poetic thoughts and the attraction of what is not in the dictionary. Belgian Journal of Linguistics15. 1–10. 10.1075/bjl.15.02pil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.15.02pil [Google Scholar]
  57. Pouscoulous, Nausicaa
    2011 Metaphor: For adults only?Belgian Journal of Linguistics25. 51–79. 10.1075/bjl.25.04pou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.25.04pou [Google Scholar]
  58. 2014 “The elevator’s buttocks”: Metaphorical abilities in children. InDanielle Matthews (ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition, 239–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tilar.10.14pou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.10.14pou [Google Scholar]
  59. Pulvermüller, Friedemann
    1999 Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences22. 253–270. 10.1017/S0140525X9900182X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X9900182X [Google Scholar]
  60. 2002 A brain perspective on language mechanisms: From discrete neuronal ensembles to serial order. Progress in Neurobiology67. 85–111. 10.1016/S0301‑0082(02)00014‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0082(02)00014-X [Google Scholar]
  61. Recanati, François
    2004 Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Rivera, Susan, Ann Wakeley & Jonas Langer
    1999 The drawbridge phenomenon: Representational reasoning or perceptual preference?Developmental Psychology35. 427–435. 10.1037/0012‑1649.35.2.427
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.427 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sadoski, Mark & Allan Paivio
    2001 Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Santostefano, Sebastiano
    1984 Cognitive control therapy with children: Rationale and technique. Psychotherapy21. 76–91. 10.1037/h0087532
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087532 [Google Scholar]
  65. Schwarzand, Norbert & Michaela Wänke
    2002 Experiential and contextual heuristics in frequency judgement: Ease of recall and response scales. InPeter Sedlmeier & Tilmann Betsch (eds.), Etc. frequency processing and cognition, 89–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198508632.003.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198508632.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  66. Shen, Zih-Yu, Yi-Ting Tsai & Chia-Lin Lee
    2015 Joint influence of metaphor familiarity and mental imagery ability on action metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study. Language and Linguistics16. 615–637.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 1997 Remarks on relevance theory and the social sciences. Multilingua16. 145–151. 10.1515/mult.1997.16.2‑3.145
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1997.16.2-3.145 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2008 A deflationary account of metaphors. InRay W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [Google Scholar]
  70. 2015 Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy15. 117–149.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Steinhart, Eric C.
    2001 Metaphor and inference. InEric C. Steinhart (ed.), The logic of metaphor: Analogous parts of possible worlds, 183–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9654‑1_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9654-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  72. Talmy, Leonard
    1988 Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science12. 49–100. 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  73. Tversky, Amos & Daniel Kahneman, D.
    1974 Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science185 (4157). 1124–1131. 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 [Google Scholar]
  74. van Berkum, Jos J. A.
    2020 Inclusive affective neurolinguistics. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience35. 871–876. 10.1080/23273798.2019.1665191
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1665191 [Google Scholar]
  75. Wharton, Tim & Claudia Strey
    2019 Slave to the passions: Making emotions relevant. InRobyn Carston, Billy Clark & Kate Scott (eds.), Relevance pragmatics and interpretation, 253–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.022
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.022 [Google Scholar]
  76. Wilson, Deirdre
    1998 Linguistic structure and inferential communication. InBernard Caron (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists (Paris, 20–25July 1997), 20–25. Pergamon, Oxford: Elsevier Sciences.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston
    2007 A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. InNoel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_12
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  78. Wilson, Deirdre
    2018 Relevance theory and literary interpretation. InTerence Cave & Deirdre Wilson (eds.), Reading beyond the code: Literature and relevance theory, 185–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston
    2006 Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’. Mind & Language21. 404–433. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00284.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x [Google Scholar]
  80. 2019 Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics145. 31–38. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    1993 Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua90. 1–25. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  82. Zajonc, Robert B.
    1980 Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist35. 151–175. 10.1037/0003‑066X.35.2.151
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151 [Google Scholar]
  83. Zwaan, Rolf A.
    2004 The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation44. 35–62. 10.1016/S0079‑7421(03)44002‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(03)44002-4 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21009.ifa
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): emotion; imagery; inference; non-propositional meaning; perception; relevance theory

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error