We’ve long recognized that figurative language is social in multiple ways. But new developments in
both socio-cognitive neuroscience and linguistic pragmatics suggests that the extent to which all language, figurative
and everything else, might be considered social has been underestimated. This chapter first reviews the three main
neurally-driven and evolutionarily-constructed powerful social drives in people, motivating us to form social
connections, to maintain or improve our status in social networks and hierarchies, and to form a sense-of-self derived
from social expectations. The chapter then covers the 9 or 10 different ways in which figurative language,
non-figurative language, indirect language and a handful of other processes on the “other-side-of-meaning” (Colston, 2019), exist fundamentally to service those powerful social
motivations, several of which are not usually considered in discussions of the sociality of figurative and other
language.
Austin, J. L. (1961). The
meaning of a word. In J. O. Urmson & G. J. Warnock (Eds.), Philosophical
papers of J. L.
Austin (pp. 23–43). Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The
need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 117(3), 497.
Cameron, L. J., & Stelma, J. H. (2004). Metaphor
clusters in discourse. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional
Practice, 1(2), 107–136.
Chase, D. (Producer), & Van Patten, T. (Director). (1999–2007). The
Sopranos [Television series]. United States: Home Box Office.
Clark, H. H. (1982). The
relevance of common ground: Comments on Sperber and
Wilson. In N. V. Smith (Ed.), Mutual
knowledge (pp. 124–127). New York: Academic Press.
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas
of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Colston, H. L. (2015). Using
figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Colston, H. L. (2018, July). Embodied
meaning in embedded metaphor: Variable pragmatic effects of metaphorical and non-metaphorical
proverbs. Paper presented at the meeting of Researching
and Applying Metaphor 12 (RaAM-12), Hong Kong,
China.
Colston, H. L. (2019). How
language makes meaning: Embodiment and conjoined antonymy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Colston, H. L. (2020, June). Master
of your domain: Metaphorical and figurative creativity in managing social
status. Paper presented at the meeting of Researching and
Applying Metaphor 13 (RaAM- 13), Virtual.
Colston, H. L. (2021). Humor
and figurative language: Good for a laugh, and
more. In M. Strick & T. Ford (Eds.), The
social psychology of Humor, Oxon, U.K.: Routledge.
Colston, H. L., & Rasse, C. (submitted). Embodiment
Across Englishes: Comprehension of popular song lyric metaphors in Canadian, Austrian, and American
English. In M. Degani & M. Cailles (Eds.), Advances
in world Englishes, London, U.K.: Bloomsbury.
Corts &
Meyers. (2002). Conceptual clusters in figurative language
production. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 31, 391–408.
Denny, B. T., Kober, H., Wager, T. D., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). A
meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of self and other judgments reveals a spatial gradient for
mentalizing in medial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 24(8), 1742–1752.
Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming,
gossip, and the evolution of language. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dunbar, R. (1998). The
social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary
Anthropology, 6, 178–190.
Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The
pain of social disconnection: Examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social
pain. Nature Reviews,
Neuroscience, 13(6), 421–434.
Eisenberger, N. I., & Cole, S. W. (2012). Social
neuroscience and health: Neuropsychological mechanisms linking social ties with physical
health. Nature
Neuroscience, 15, 669–674.
Eigenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does
rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social
exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2008). The
way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting
figurative meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piantadosi, S. T., Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Bergen, L., & Levy, R. (2019). How
efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive
Science, 23(5), 389–407.
Kelley, W. M., Macrae, C. N., Wyland, C. L., Caglar, S., Inati, S., & Heatherton, T. F. (2002). Finding
the self? An event-related fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 14(5), 785–794.
Kennedy, K. (Producer), & Spielberg, S. (Director). (2012). Lincoln [Motion
picture]. United States: Twentieth Century Fox.
Kimmel, M. (2009). Why
we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and
beyond. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42(1), 97–115.
Lieberman, M. D. (2010). Social
cognitive neuroscience. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook
of Social Psychology, 5th
ed. (pp. 143–193). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social:
Why our brains are wired to connect. New York: Broadway Books.
Lieberman, M. D., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2009). Pains
and pleasures of social
life. Science, 323, 890–891.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy:
Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge University Press.
Mckiernan, K. A., Kaufman, J. N., Kucera-Thompson, J., & Binder, J. R. (2003). A
parametric manipulation of factors affecting task-induced deactivation in functional
neuroimaging. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 15(3), 394–408.
Nowak, M., & Highfield, R. (2012). SuperCooperators:
Altruism, evolution, and why we need each other to succeed. New York: Free Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech
acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect
speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax
and semantics
Vol. 3 (pp. 59–82). Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression
and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Semendeferi, K., Teffer, K., Buxhoeveden, D. Pl, Park, M. S., Bludau, S., Amunts, K. … & Buckwalter, J. (2011). Spatial
organization of neurons in the frontal pole sets humans apart from great
apes. Cerebral
Cortex, 21(7), 1485–1497.
Shulman, G. L., Corbetta, M., Buckner, R. L., Fiez, J. A., Miezin, F. M., Raichle, M. E., & Petersen, S. E. (1997). Common
blood flow changes across visual tasks I: Increases in subcortical structures and cerebellum but not in
nonvisual cortex. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 9(5), 624–647.
Shulman, G. L., Fiez, J. A., Corbetta, M., Buckner, R. L., Miezin, F. M., Raichle, M. E., & Petersen, S. E. (1997). Common
blood flow changes across visual tasks II: Decreases in cerebral
cortex. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 9(5), 648–663.
Spunt, R. P., & Lieberman, M. D. (2012). Dissociating
modality-specific and supramodal neural systems for action
understanding. Journal of
Neuroscience, 32, 3575–3583.
Stravynski, A., & Boyer, R. (2001). Lonliness
in relation to suicide ideation and parasuicide: A population-wide
study. Suicide and Life-Threatening
Behavior, 31(1), 32–40.
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins
of Hu8man Communicatiion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomasello, M. (2019). Becoming
human: A theory of ontogeny. Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2020). The
role of roles in uniquely human cognition and sociality. Journal for the Theory
of Social
Behaviour, 50, 2–19.
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism:
The power of silence. New York: The Guilford Press.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning
and relevance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.