Communication, comprehension, and interpretation
Ray Gibbs has argued that three features of figurative utterance interpretation make it hard to
envisage a unitary pragmatic theory, with a set of dedicated principles or mechanisms linked to “some specialized
‘pragmatics’ part of the mind”. First, a given figurative utterance may be interpreted radically differently in
different contexts; second, pragmatic performance varies not only across, but within, individuals; third, figurative
interpretation involves a mixture of conceptual, perceptual and sensorimotor information which cannot be adequately
rendered in terms of a finite literal paraphrase. In this paper, I consider how relevance theory, an approach to
pragmatics which incorporates such a set of dedicated pragmatic principles or mechanisms, might deal with the
context-dependence, variability and indeterminacy of figurative interpretation in particular, and utterance
interpretation in general.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Relevance, cognition and communication
- 3.Comprehension and interpretation
- 4.Indeterminacy in communication
- 5.Concluding remarks
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (27)
References
Beaver, D., Roberts, C., Simons, M., & Tonhauser, J. (2017). Questions
under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content. Annual
Review of Linguistics, 265–284. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brody, R. (2017). The
frightening lessons of Philip Roth’s The plot against
America. New
Yorker, February 1, 2017.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R. (2018). Figurative
language, mental imagery and pragmatics. Metaphor and
Symbol, 33: 198–217. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cave, T., & Wilson, D. (Eds.). (2018). Reading
beyond the code: Literature and relevance
theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Csibra, G. (2010). Recognizing
communicative intentions in infancy. Mind &
Language, 25, 141–168. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural
pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 13, 148–153. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Degen, J., & Tanenhaus, M. (2019). Constraint-based
pragmatic processing. In C. Cummins & N. Katsos (Eds.), Handbook
of experimental semantics and
pragmatics (pp. 21–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. (1994). The
poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and
understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. (1999). Intentions
in the experience of
meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. (2011). The
allegorical impulse. Metaphor &
Symbol, 26, 121–130. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. (2017). Experimental
pragmatics. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of
pragmatics (pp. 310–325). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R., & Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting
figurative meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Macfarlane, R. (2013). The
old ways: A journey on
foot. London: Penguin Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rich, F. (2004). President
Lindbergh in 2004. New York
Times, September 23, 2004.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roth, P. (2004a). The
plot against America. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roth, P. (2004b). The
story behind The plot against America. New York
Times, September 19, 2004.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual
knowledge and relevance in theories of
comprehension. In Neil Smith (Ed.), Mutual
knowledge (pp. 61–85). London: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance:
Communication and cognition. (2nd
edition, 1995.) Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics,
modularity and mindreading. Mind &
Language, 17, 3–23. Reprinted
in Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning
and
relevance (pp. 261–278). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2015). Beyond
speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of
Philosophy, 15, 117–149.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Unger, C. (2017). Towards
a relevance theory account of allegory. In A. Piskorska & E. Walaszewska (Eds.), From
discourse to morphemes: Applications of relevance
theory (pp.152–174). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Unger, C. (2018). Cognitive
pragmatics and multi-layered communication: Allegory in Christian religious
discourse. In P. Chilton & M. Kopytowska (Eds.), Religion,
language and the human
mind (p. 333–352). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Unger, C. (2019). Allegory
in relation to metaphor and irony. In K. Scott, B. Clark & R. Carston (Eds.), Relevance,
pragmatics and
interpretation (pp. 240–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D. (2017). Relevance
theory. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of
pragmatics (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D. (2019). Relevance
theory. In Oxford research encyclopedia of
linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2019). Pragmatics
and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of
Pragmatics, 145, 31–38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance
theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The
handbook of
pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
王, 静怡
2024.
A Study of Metaphorical Translation of International Publicity Texts from the Perspective of Relevance Theory—Taking the English Translation of the 2022 Report on the Work of the Government as an Example.
Modern Linguistics 12:02
► pp. 689 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre
2023.
Relevance Theory and Context. In
The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context,
► pp. 247 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.