Volume 28, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Deirdre Wilson (2018) provides a reflective overview of a volume devoted to the historic application of relevance-theoretic ideas to literary studies. She maintains a view argued elsewhere that the putative non-propositional nature of (among other things) literary effects are an illusion, a view which dates to Sperber and Wilson (1986/1995: 224): “If you look at [non-propositional] affective effects through the microscope of relevance theory, you see a wide array of minute cognitive [i.e., propositional] effects.” This paper suggests an alternative, that modern-day humans have two apparently different modes of expressing and interpreting information: one of these is a system in which propositional, cognitive effects dominate; the other involves direct, non-propositional effects. The paper concludes by describing two ways such affects might be assimilated into relevance theory. The first, to accept that humans are much more than merely cognitive organisms; the second, to rethink quite radically what we mean by cognition.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, Michael
    2010 Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences33: 245–266. 10.1017/S0140525X10000853
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000853 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bambini, Valentina, Chiara Bertini, Walter Schaeken, Alessandra Stella and Francesco di Russo
    2016 Disentangling metaphor from context: an ERP study. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00559
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00559 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baron-Cohen, Simon
    1995Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4635.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4635.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barsalou, Lawrence
    1999 Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (22): 577–660. 10.1017/S0140525X99002149
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010 Grounded cognition: past, present and future. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (22): 577–660.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergquist, Patricia
    1974 Phylum porifera. InTextbook of zoology invertebrates, 7th ed., ed. byMarshall, Andrew J. and Vale William Williams, 76–103. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bezuidenhout, Anne
    2001 Metaphor and what is said: a defense of a direct expression view of metaphor, Midwest Studies in Philosophy25: 156–186. 10.1111/1475‑4975.00044
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4975.00044 [Google Scholar]
  8. Black, Max
    1955 Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 55 (19): 273–294. 10.1093/aristotelian/55.1.273
    https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/55.1.273 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blakemore, Diane
    1987Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2011 On the descriptive ineffability of expressive meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14): 3537–3550. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  11. Block, Ned
    1983 Mental pictures and cognitive science. The Philosophical Review 93, Vol.4: 499–541. 10.2307/2184879
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2184879 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bradbury, Jack & Sandra Vehrencamp
    1998Principles of animal communication. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Byrne, Richard & Andrew Whiten
    eds. 1988Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes and humans. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Camp, Elizabeth
    2006 Metaphor and that certain ‘je ne sais quoi’. Philosophical Studies, 129: 1–25. 10.1007/s11098‑005‑3019‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-3019-5 [Google Scholar]
  15. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2008 Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese165 (3):321-345. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9191‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9191-8 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2010 Metaphor: ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 110: 295–321. 10.1111/j.1467‑9264.2010.00288.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x [Google Scholar]
  18. 2018 Figurative language, mental imagery and pragmatics. Metaphor and Symbol: 198–217. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1481257
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1481257 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cave, Terence & Deirdre Wilson
    2018Reading beyond the code: literature and relevance theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198794776.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794776.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cheney, Dorothy & Robert Seyfarth
    1990How monkeys see the world: inside the mind of another species. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226218526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226218526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Clark, Andy
    1999 An embodied cognitive science?Trends in Cognitive Sciences3 (9): 345–351. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(99)01361‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01361-3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Collingwood, Robin George
    1938The principles of art. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cornell, Louis & Tim Wharton
    2021 Before meaning: creature construction, sea-sponges, lizards and Humean projection. InElly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure & Tim Wharton (eds.) Beyond meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177–198. 10.1075/pbns.324.c11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.324.c11 [Google Scholar]
  24. Damasio, Antonio
    1994Descartes Error. Harper Perennial.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Davidson, Donald
    1978 What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry5(1): 31–47. 10.1086/447971
    https://doi.org/10.1086/447971 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dennett, Daniel
    1978 Beliefs about beliefs. Behavior and Brain Sciences4: 568–570. 10.1017/S0140525X00076664
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076664 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1981Brainstorms: philosophical aims on mind and psychology. MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1664.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1664.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Deplanque, Sylvie & David Sander
    2021 A fascinating but risky case of reverse inference: From measures to emotions!Food Quality and Preferences. Volume92. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104183
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104183 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ellsworth, Phoebe
    2013 Appraisal theory: old and new questions. Emotion Review: 125–131. 10.1177/1754073912463617
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912463617 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fabb, Nigel
    2021 Experiences of ineffable significance. InElly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure & Wharton (eds.) Beyond meaning, 135–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.324.c8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.324.c8 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    2002The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fridland, E. R.
    2015 Skill, non-propositional thought, and the cognitive penetrability of perception. Journal for General Philosophy of Science46: 105–120. 10.1007/s10838‑015‑9286‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-015-9286-8 [Google Scholar]
  33. Genovesi, Chris
    2020 Metaphor and what is meant: Metaphorical content, what is said, and contextualism. Journal of Pragmatics157: 17–38. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gibbs, Ray
    1994The poetics of mind: figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2002 A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics. 34: 457–486. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00046‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00046-7 [Google Scholar]
  36. Glucksberg, Sam
    2008 How metaphors create categories – quickly. Gibbs, Raymond (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 67–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006 [Google Scholar]
  37. Golding, Alexandra
    2016 Metaphor in the embodied mind: beyond the propositionality of figurative language. PhD thesis. University of Brighton.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Goleman, Daniel
    1995Emotional intelligence, New York, Bantam Books Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Grice, H. Paul
    1957 Meaning. Philosophical Review66: 377–388. 10.2307/2182440
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  40. 1975a Logic and conversation. InCole, P. and J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press: 41–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 1975b Method in philosophical psychology (from the Banal to the Bizarre). Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association48: 23–53. 10.2307/3129859
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3129859 [Google Scholar]
  42. 1982 Meaning revisited. InSmith, Neil (ed.) Mutual knowledge. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Gutt, Ernest-August
    2013 How does the affective relate to ostensive-inferential communication?Unpublished ms.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hatfield, Elaine, John Cacioppo & Richard Rapson
    1994Emotional contagion. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hauser, Marc
    1996The evolution of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Humphrey, Nicholas
    1984Consciousness regained. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Huron, David
    2006Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6575.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6575.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kaplan, David
    1999What is meaning? Explorations in the theory of meaning as use. Ms.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    2003Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Leslie, Alan
    1994 ToMM, ToBY and Agency: core architecture and domain-specificity. InHirschfeld, Lawrence & Susan Gelman. eds.Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 119–148. 10.1017/CBO9780511752902.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752902.006 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lieberman, Mark
    2000 Intuition: A social-cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological Bulletin126: 109–137. 10.1037/0033‑2909.126.1.109
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.109 [Google Scholar]
  53. Lepore, Ernie & Matthew Stone
    2010 Against Metaphorical Meaning. Topoi29 (2): 165–80. 10.1007/s11245‑009‑9076‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-009-9076-1 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kolaiti, Patricia
    2019The limits of expression: language, literature, mind. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290746
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290746 [Google Scholar]
  55. . in press a. From a poetics of language to a poetics of action: literature and art as a cognitive object. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. . in press b. Perceptual relevance and art: some tentative suggestions. Journal of Literary Semantics49: 2. 10.1515/jls‑2020‑2022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2020-2022 [Google Scholar]
  57. Longhitano, Sabina
    2014 Communicating the ineffable: A pragmatic account of literariness. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences. Vol.158: 187–193. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.068
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.068 [Google Scholar]
  58. Martinich, Aloysius
    1984 A theory for metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics13(1): 35–56. 10.1515/jlse.1984.13.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.1984.13.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  59. McGinn, Colin
    2004Mindsight. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Michaels, Anne
    1991Miner’s Pond: poems. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 1992 Unseen formations. Open Letter8.4: 96–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Moeschler, Jacques
    2009 Pragmatics, propositional and non-propositional effects: Can a theory of utterance interpretation account for emotions in verbal communication?Social Science Information48(3): 447–464. 10.1177/0539018409106200
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018409106200 [Google Scholar]
  63. Moors, Agnes, Phoebe Ellsworth, Klaus Scherer & Nico Frijda
    2013 Appraisal theories of emotion: state of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5: 119–124. 10.1177/1754073912468165
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912468165 [Google Scholar]
  64. Neale, Stephen
    1992 Paul Grice and the philosophy of language. Linguistics and Philosophy15.5: 509–559. 10.1007/BF00630629
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630629 [Google Scholar]
  65. Ortony, Andrew
    1975 Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory25: 45–53. 10.1111/j.1741‑5446.1975.tb00666.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1975.tb00666.x [Google Scholar]
  66. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2009a Towards an alternative relevance-theoretic approach to interjections. International Review of Pragmatics1 (1): 182–206. 10.1163/187731009X455884
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455884 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2009b Might interjections encode concepts? More questions than answers. Łodź Papers in Pragmatics5 (2): 241–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Pignocchi, Alessandro
    2012 History and intentions in the experience of artworks. Topoi33: 477–486. 10.1007/s11245‑012‑9145‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-012-9145-8 [Google Scholar]
  69. Pilkington, Adrian
    2000Poetic effects: a relevance theory perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.75
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.75 [Google Scholar]
  70. Piskorska, Agnieszka
    2012 Cognition and emotions–a joint effort at obtaining positive cognitive effects?InRelevance studies in Poland, Vol. 4. Essays on language and communication. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press: 102–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 2016 Perlocutionary effects and relevance theory. InPadilla Cruz, Manuel (ed.), Relevance Theory: Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions, 287–305. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin. 10.1075/pbns.268.11pis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.11pis [Google Scholar]
  72. Potts, Christopher
    2005The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 2007a The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics33 (2): 165–197. 10.1515/TL.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  74. 2007b The centrality of expressive indices. Theoretical Linguistics33(2): 255–268. 10.1515/TL.2007.019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.019 [Google Scholar]
  75. Proust, Marcel
    1922–1931À la recherche du temps erdu. In search of lost time, translated byScott-Moncrieff, Charles Kenneth, Terence Kilmartin & Andreas Mayor (Vol.7). Revised byD. J. Enright. London: Chatto and Windus, New York: The Modern Library 1992 Based on the French La Pléiade edition (1987–89).
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Pylyshyn, Zenon
    1973 What the mind’s eye tells the mind’s brain: A critique of mental imagery. Psychological Bulletin, 80(1): 1–24. 10.1037/h0034650
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034650 [Google Scholar]
  77. Ramachandran, Vilayanur, & William Hirstein
    1999 The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies6: 15–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Recanati, François
    1993Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Rey, Georges
    1981 Introduction: What are mental images?InBlock, Ned (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology: 117–127. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 1980 Functionalism and the emotions. InRorty, Amélie (ed.) Explaining emotions, 163–198. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Sander, David, Jordan Grafman & Tiziana Zalla
    2003 The human amygdala: an evolved system for relevance detection. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 14 (4): 303–16. 10.1515/REVNEURO.2003.14.4.303
    https://doi.org/10.1515/REVNEURO.2003.14.4.303 [Google Scholar]
  82. de Saussure, Louis & Peter Schulz
    2009 Subjectivity out of irony. Semiotica (173): 397–416. 10.1515/SEMI.2009.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/SEMI.2009.018 [Google Scholar]
  83. de Saussure, Louis & Wharton
    2020 Relevance, effect and affect. International Review of Pragmatics, John Benjamin: 10.1163/18773109‑01202001
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202001 [Google Scholar]
  84. Schooler, Jonathan & Joseph Melcher, J.
    1994 The ineffability of insight. InSmith, Steven, Thomas Ward, & Ronald Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 97–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Searle, John
    1979Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  86. Sperber, Dan
    1996Explaining culture: a naturalistic approach. Blackwell: Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Oliver Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi & Deirdre Wilson
    2010 Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language25: 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  88. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition (1st and 2nd eds.). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 2015Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of PhilosophyXV (44): 117–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 1998 The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. InCarruthers, Peter & Jill Boucher. (eds.), Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes, 184–200. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511597909.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597909.012 [Google Scholar]
  91. 2008 A deflationary account of metaphors. InGibbs, Ray. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, p.84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [Google Scholar]
  92. Stanley, Jason
    2011Know how. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199695362.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199695362.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  93. Tendahl, Markus & Raymond Gibbs
    2008 Complementary perspectives on metaphor: cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics40: 1823–1864. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  94. 2011 Coupling of metaphoric cognition and communication: a reply to Deirdre Wilson. Intercultural Pragmatics8–4. 10.1515/iprg.2011.027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.027 [Google Scholar]
  95. Tolstoy, Leo
    1897What is art? (translated byPevear, Richard & Larissa Volokhonsky 1995) Hanworth: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Tomasello, Michael, Melinda Carpenter, Josep Call, Tanya Behne & Henrike Moll
    2005 Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28: 675 – 691. 10.1017/S0140525X05000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129 [Google Scholar]
  97. Tooby, John & Leda Cosmides
    2008 The evolutionary psychology of the emotions and their relationship to internal regulatory variables. InHandbook of Emotions, 3rd ed., ed. byMichael Lewis, Jeannette M. Haviland-Jones, and Lisa Feldman Barrett: 114–137. New York: Guilford.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Tye, Michael
    2004 On the non-conceptual content of experience. InReicher, Marie & Johan Marek (eds.), Experience and Analysis: Papers of the 27th International Wittgenstein Symposium, 221–239. Vienna: Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Wharton, Tim
    2003a Interjections, language and the ‘showing’/‘saying’ continuum. Pragmatics & Cognition. Vol.11–1. 10.1075/pc.11.1.04wha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.11.1.04wha [Google Scholar]
  100. 2003b Natural pragmatics and natural codes. Mind and LanguageVolume18, No.5: 447–477. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00237
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00237 [Google Scholar]
  101. 2009Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635649
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635649 [Google Scholar]
  102. 2015 That bloody so-and-so has retired: Expressives revisited. Lingua. 175–176: 20–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Wharton, Tim & Claudia Strey
    2019 Slave to the passions: making emotions relevant. InRelevance, pragmatics and interpretation, ed. byRobyn Carston, Billy Clark, and Kate Scott, 253–267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.022 [Google Scholar]
  104. Wharton, Tim, Constant Bonard, Daniel Dukes, David Sander & Steve Oswald
    2021 Relevance and emotion. Journal of Pragmatics, 181: 259–269. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  105. Wilson, Deirdre
    2011 Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics. Intercultural Studies. 8–2: 177–196.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston
    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]
  107. Wilson, Deirdre
    2018 Relevance theory and literary interpretation. InCave, T. & Wilson, D. (eds.) Reading Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory, 185–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Yus, Francisco (Paco)
    2016 Propositional attitude, affective attitude and irony comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition23(1): 92–116. 10.1075/pc.23.1.05yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.1.05yus [Google Scholar]
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