Creative metaphors and non-propositional effects
An experiment
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Creative metaphors, mental images and affective effects
- 2.1Mental images
- 2.2Affective effects
- 3.Non-propositional effects: An application
- 4.Experiment
- 4.1Aim
- 4.2Participants
- 4.3Materials – procedure
- 4.4Methods – rationale
- 4.4.1Choice of linguistic medium
- 4.4.2Questions
- 4.4.3The relativity (or indeterminacy) of non-propositional effects
- 4.5Results and preliminary discussion
- 4.6Interpretation of results
- 5.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (31)
References
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2022. “Ostension and the Communicative Function of Natural Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 1911: 46–54.
Blakemore, Diane. 2011. “On the Descriptive Ineffability of Expressive Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 3537–3550.
Bonard, Constant. 2022. “Beyond Ostension: Introducing the Expressive Principle of Relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics 1871: 13–23.
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, Robyn. 2004. “Explicature and Semantics.” In Semantics: A Reader, ed. by Steven Davis, and Brad Gillon, 1–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carston, Robyn. 2010. “Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 1101: 295–321.
Carston, Robyn. 2013. “Word Meaning, What Is Said and Explicature.” In What Is Said and What Is Not, ed. by Carlo Penco, and Fillipo Domaneschi, 175–204. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Carston, Robyn. 2018. “Figurative Language, Mental Imagery and Pragmatics.” Metaphor and Symbol 331: 198–217.
Cavafy, Constantine. 1992. “Candles.” In C. P. Cavafy: Collected Poems, ed. by George Savidis, 4511. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Colston, Herbert. 2015. Using Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davidson, Donald. 1984. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Saussure, Louis, and Tim Wharton. 2020. “Relevance, Effects and Affect.” International Review of Pragmatics 121: 183–205.
Gibbs, Raymond, and Jody Bogdonovich. 1999. “Mental Imagery in Interpreting Poetic Metaphor.” Metaphor and Symbol 141: 37–44.
Heller, Zoe. 2008. The Believers. London: Fig Tree-Penguin Books.
Ifantidou, Elly. 2021. “Non-Propositional Effects in Verbal Communication: The Case of Metaphor.” Journal of Pragmatics 1811: 6–16.
Jensen, Lucy. 1986. “Advanced Reading Skills in a Comprehensive Course.” In Teaching Second Language Reading for Academic Purposes, ed. by Fraida Dubin, David Eskey, and William Grabe, 103–124. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2003. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Miliotis, Panagiotis. 2021. Λιώναν με τις μπότες στο χορτάρι [Melting the grass with their boots]. Athens: Enypnio.
Moeschler, Jacques. 2009. “Pragmatics, Propositional and Non-Propositional Effects: Can a Theory of Utterance Interpretation Account for Emotions in Verbal Communication?” Social Science Information 481: 447–463.
Parrott, Gerrod (ed). 2001. Emotions in Social Psychology: Essential Readings. London: Psychology Press.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. “Principles of Categorization.” In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara Lloyd, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Segalowitz, Norman, Catherine Poulsen, and Melvin Komoda. 1991. “Lower Level Components of Reading Skill in Higher Level Bilinguals: Implications for Reading Instruction.” AILA Review 81: 15–30.
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 521: 1061–1086.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 2015. “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning”. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 151: 117–149.
Thomas, Ronald S. 1946. The Stones of the Field. Carmarthen: The Druid Press.
Weber, Rose-Marie. 1991. “Linguistic Diversity and Reading in American Society.” In Handbook of Reading Research, ed. by Rebeca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and David Pearson, 97–119. New York: Longman.
Wharton, Tim, and Claudia Strey. 2019. “Slave to the Passions: Making Emotions Relevant.” In Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. by Robyn Carston, Billy Clark, and Kate Scott, 253–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wharton, Tim, Constant Bonard, Daniel Dukes, David Sander, and Steve Oswald. 2021. “Relevance and Emotion.” Journal of Pragmatics 1811: 259–269.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2007. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2019. “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 571: 125–148.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 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.