Introduction
The literal-figurative language continuum and optimally relevant interpretations
Article outline
- 1.Non-literalness in inferential communication
- 2.Contributions to this volume
- 3.Some questions for the future
-
Notes
-
References
References (56)
References
Barsalou, L. (1983). Ad
hoc categories. Memory and
Cognition, 11(3), 211–227. 

Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic
constraints on
relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2008). Apposition
and affective communication. Language and
Literature, 17(1), 37–57. 

Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts
and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit
communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Carston, R. (2010). Metaphor:
Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society, 110 (3), 297–323.
Carston, R. (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. 

Carston, R. (2016). The
heterogeneity of procedural
meaning. Lingua, 175–176, 154–166. 

Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2015). Hyperbolic
language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of
Pragmatics, 79, 79–92. . 

Clark, B. (1996). Stylistic
analysis and relevance theory. Language and
Literature, 5, 163–178. 

Clark, B. (2009). Salient
inferences: Pragmatics and the inheritors. Language and
Literature, 18, 173–213. 

Colston, H. L. (2015). Using
figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

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. 

Falkum, I. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. PhD Thesis. London: UCL.
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. 

Gutt, E.-A. (2000). Translation
and relevance. Manchester: St. Jerome.
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. 

Jodłowiec, M. (2015). The challenges of explicit and implicit communication. A relevance-theoretic approach. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 

Jodłowiec, M., & Piskorska, A. (2015). Metonymy
revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 12 (2), 161–187. 

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women,
fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 

Lakoff G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors
we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 

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. 

Padilla Cruz, M. (2015). On
the role of vigilance in the interpretation of
puns. Humor, 28(3), 469–90. 

Papafragou, A. (1996). On
metonymy. Lingua, 99, 169–195. 

Piskorska, A. (2017). Editorial:
relevance theory and intercultural communication problems. Research in
Language, 15(1), 1–9. 

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.
Scott, K. (2017). Prosody,
procedures and pragmatics. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics
and pragmatics: Drawing a
line (pp. 323–341). Berlin: Springer. 

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.
Sperber, D. (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. 

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance:
Communication and cognition (2nd
ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (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. 

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (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. 

Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic
Vigilance. Mind &
Language, 25/4, 359–393. 

Uchida, S. (1998). Text
and relevance. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance
theory. Applications and
implications (pp. 161–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

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.
Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics
and non-verbal
communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Wharton, T. (2012). Prosody
and meaning: Theory and practice. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics
and prosody in English language
teaching (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht: Springer. 

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.
.
Wilson, D. (2000). Metarepresentation
in linguistic communication. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Metarepresentations (pp. 411–448). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D. (2006). The
pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or
pretence? Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. 

Wilson, D. (2011a). Parallels
and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive
linguistics. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 8(2), 177–196. 

Wilson, D. (2011b). Relevance
theory and the interpretation of literary works. UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics, 23, 47–68.
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. 

Wilson, D. (2013). Irony
comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of
Pragmatics 59(A): 40–56. 

Wilson, D. (2015). Explaining metonymy. Paper delivered at Relevance Round Table Meeting 4. Institute of English Studies, Jagiellonian University in Kraków.
Wilson, D. (2016). Reassessing
the conceptual-procedural
distinction. Lingua, 175–176, 5–19. 

Wilson, D. (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.
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. 

Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic
form and
relevance. Lingua, 90, 1–25. 

Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Explaining
Irony. In Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. Relevance
and
meaning (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Wilson, D., & Wharton, T. (2006). Relevance
and prosody. Journal of
Pragmatics, 38(10), 1559–1579. 

Yus, F. (2003). Humor
and the search for relevance. Journal of
Pragmatics, 35, 1295–1331. 

Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 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.