1887
image of Creative metaphors and non-propositional effects
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Over the last decade there has been growing relevance-theoretic interest in the interpretation of creative metaphors. Much of this interest has focused on non-propositional aspects of interpretation: mental image effects/emotive effects. Central to this enquiry is the following question: are non-propositional effects essential to the metaphorical interpretation process? The implications of answering this question are important, since, if the answer is positive, then the delivery of metaphorical interpretation depends, not only on utterance processing, but also on the hearer’s formation of mental images as well as emotive experience. Relevance-theoretic studies argue that mental images do not fulfill an essential role in the metaphorical interpretation process. While the supporting evidence is solid, it requires experimental substantiation. The current paper responds to this requirement, taking on board emotive effects, too, apart from mental images. Ultimately, the current work concludes that the role of non-propositional effects in metaphorical interpretation is not essential.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22034.bar
2023-08-17
2024-10-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Assimakopoulos, Stavros
    2022 “Ostension and the Communicative Function of Natural Language.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.021 [Google Scholar]
  2. Blakemore, Diane
    2011 “On the Descriptive Ineffability of Expressive Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bonard, Constant
    2022 “Beyond Ostension: Introducing the Expressive Principle of Relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.024
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.024 [Google Scholar]
  4. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2004 “Explicature and Semantics.” InSemantics: A Reader, ed. bySteven Davis, and Brad Gillon, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2010 “Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: –. 10.1111/j.1467‑9264.2010.00288.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013 “Word Meaning, What Is Said and Explicature.” InWhat Is Said and What Is Not, ed. byCarlo Penco, and Fillipo Domaneschi, –. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2018 “Figurative Language, Mental Imagery and Pragmatics.” Metaphor and Symbol: –. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1481257
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1481257 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cavafy, Constantine
    1992 “Candles.” InC. P. Cavafy: Collected Poems, ed. byGeorge Savidis, . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Colston, Herbert
    2015Using Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316226414
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226414 [Google Scholar]
  11. Davidson, Donald
    1984Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. de Saussure, Louis, and Tim Wharton
    2020 “Relevance, Effects and Affect.” International Review of Pragmatics: –. 10.1163/18773109‑01202001
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gibbs, Raymond, and Jody Bogdonovich
    1999 “Mental Imagery in Interpreting Poetic Metaphor.” Metaphor and Symbol: –. 10.1207/s15327868ms1401_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1401_4 [Google Scholar]
  14. Heller, Zoe
    2008The Believers. London: Fig Tree-Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ifantidou, Elly
    2021 “Non-Propositional Effects in Verbal Communication: The Case of Metaphor.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jensen, Lucy
    1986 “Advanced Reading Skills in a Comprehensive Course.” InTeaching Second Language Reading for Academic Purposes, ed. byFraida Dubin, David Eskey, and William Grabe, –. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
    Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 2003 London: Pearson Education Limited.
  18. Miliotis, Panagiotis
    2021Λιώναν με τις μπότες στο χορτάρι [Melting the grass with their boots]. Athens: Enypnio.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Moeschler, Jacques
    2009 “Pragmatics, Propositional and Non-Propositional Effects: Can a Theory of Utterance Interpretation Account for Emotions in Verbal Communication?” Social Science Information: –. 10.1177/0539018409106200
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018409106200 [Google Scholar]
  20. Parrott, Gerrod
    (ed) 2001Emotions in Social Psychology: Essential Readings. London: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rosch, Eleanor
    1978 “Principles of Categorization.” InCognition and Categorization, ed. byEleanor Rosch, and Barbara Lloyd, –. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Segalowitz, Norman, Catherine Poulsen, and Melvin Komoda
    1991 “Lower Level Components of Reading Skill in Higher Level Bilinguals: Implications for Reading Instruction.” AILA Review: –.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Shaver, Philip, Judith Schwartz, Donald Kirson, and Cary O’Connor
    1987 “Emotion Knowledge: Further Exploration of a Prototype Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: –. 10.1037/0022‑3514.52.6.1061
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1061 [Google Scholar]
  24. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2015 “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning”. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: –.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Thomas, Ronald S.
    1946The Stones of the Field. Carmarthen: The Druid Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Weber, Rose-Marie
    1991 “Linguistic Diversity and Reading in American Society.” InHandbook of Reading Research, ed. byRebeca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and David Pearson, –. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Wharton, Tim, and Claudia Strey
    2019 “Slave to the Passions: Making Emotions Relevant.” InRelevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. byRobyn Carston, Billy Clark, and Kate Scott, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.022 [Google Scholar]
  29. Wharton, Tim, Constant Bonard, Daniel Dukes, David Sander, and Steve Oswald
    2021 “Relevance and Emotion.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
    2007 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” InPragmatics, ed. byNoel Burton-Roberts, –. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2019 “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22034.bar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22034.bar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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