Cover not available
Part of
Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 1–22

Introduction

The literal-figurative language continuum and optimally relevant interpretations

| University of Warsaw, Poland
Article outline
  • 1.Non-literalness in inferential communication
  • 2.Contributions to this volume
  • 3.Some questions for the future
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.00pis
References (56)
Athanasiadou, A.
(2017) Introduction. Figurative thought, figurative language, figurative grammar? In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 1–14). John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L.
(1983) Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11(3), 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D.
(1987) Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2008) Apposition and affective communication. Language and Literature, 17(1), 37–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R.
(2002) Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110 (3), 297–323.Google Scholar
(2012) Metaphor and the literal/nonliteral distinction. In K. Allan, & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 469–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua, 175–176, 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
(2015) Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 79–92. . DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, B.
(1996) Stylistic analysis and relevance theory. Language and Literature, 5, 163–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Salient inferences: Pragmatics and the inheritors. Language and Literature, 18, 173–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L.
(2015) Using figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Pragmatic effects in blended figures. The case of metaphtonymy. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 273–294). John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J.
(2000) Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishment of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30 (2), 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falkum, I.
(2011) The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. PhD Thesis. London: UCL.Google Scholar
Falkum, I. L.
(2019) Metaphor and metonymy in acquisition. A relevance-theoretic perspective. In K. Scott, R. Carston, & B. Clark (Eds.), Relevance: Pragmatics and interpretation (pp. 205–217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutt, E.-A.
(2000) Translation and relevance. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Hall, A.
(2017) Lexical pragmatics, explicature and ad hoc concepts. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 85–100). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E.
(2001) Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jodłowiec, M.
(2015) The challenges of explicit and implicit communication. A relevance-theoretic approach. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jodłowiec, M., & Piskorska, A.
(2015) Metonymy revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12 (2), 161–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherern, K., & Frijda, N. H.
(2013) Appraisal Theories of Emotion: State of the Art and Future Development. Emotion Review, 5(2), 119–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M.
(2015) On the role of vigilance in the interpretation of puns. Humor, 28(3), 469–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A.
(1996) On metonymy. Lingua, 99, 169–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piskorska, A.
(2017) Editorial: relevance theory and intercultural communication problems. Research in Language, 15(1), 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popa, M.
(2010) Ironic metaphor: A case for metaphor’s contribution to truth-conditions In E. Wałaszewska, M. Kisielewska-Krysiuk & A. Piskorska (Eds.) In the mind and across minds: A relevance-theoretic perspective on communication and translation (pp. 224–245). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Scott, K.
(2017) Prosody, procedures and pragmatics. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 323–341). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D.
(2002) In defense of massive modularity. In E. Dupoux (Ed.), Language, brain and cognitive development: essays in honor of Jacques Mehler (pp. 47–57). Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: structure and content (pp. 53–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1998a) Irony and relevance: A reply to Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory. Applications and implications (pp. 283–293). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998b) The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers, & J. Boucher (Eds.), Thought and language (pp. 184–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) A Deflationary account of metaphors. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D.
(2010) Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language, 25/4, 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uchida, S.
(1998) Text and relevance. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory. Applications and implications (pp. 161–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unger, C.
(2011) Exploring the borderline between procedural encoding and pragmatic inference. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives (pp. 103–127). Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Wharton, T.
(2009) Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Prosody and meaning: Theory and practice. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T., & Strey, C.
(2019) Slave of the passions. Making emotions relevant. In K. Scott, R. Carston, & B. Clark (Eds.), Relevance: Pragmatics and interpretation (pp. 253–266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2000) Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Metarepresentations (pp. 411–448). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011a) Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 177–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b) Relevance theory and the interpretation of literary works. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 23, 47–68.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
(2011c) The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives (pp. 3–31). Emerald Group Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2013) Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 59(A): 40–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Explaining metonymy. Paper delivered at Relevance Round Table Meeting 4. Institute of English Studies, Jagiellonian University in Kraków.Google Scholar
(2016) Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua, 175–176, 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Relevance theory and literary interpretation. In T. Cave, & D. Wilson (Eds.), Reading beyond the code: Literature and relevance theory (pp. 185–204). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Carston, R.
(2007) A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230–259). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(1993) Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Explaining Irony. In Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. Relevance and meaning (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Wharton, T.
(2006) Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1559–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, F.
(2003) Humor and the search for relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1295–1331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by 2 other publications

Jodłowiec, Maria
2023. Deceptive clickbaits in the relevance-theoretic lens. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:3 ► pp. 418 ff. DOI logo
Piskorska, Agnieszka
2021. Being ambivalent by exploiting indeterminacy in the explicit import of an utterance. Pragmatics & Cognition 28:2 ► pp. 376 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.