Article published In:
Pragmatics: Online-First Articles

Creative metaphors and non-propositional effects

An experiment

ORCID logo | Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
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.
Keywords: non-propositional effects, mental images, affective effects, relevance theory, creative metaphors
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
Published online: 17 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22034.bar
References (31)
References
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2022. “Ostension and the Communicative Function of Natural Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 1911: 46–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2011. “On the Descriptive Ineffability of Expressive Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 3537–3550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonard, Constant. 2022. “Beyond Ostension: Introducing the Expressive Principle of Relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics 1871: 13–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Explicature and Semantics.” In Semantics: A Reader, ed. by Steven Davis, and Brad Gillon, 1–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 1101: 295–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Figurative Language, Mental Imagery and Pragmatics.” Metaphor and Symbol 331: 198–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cavafy, Constantine. 1992. “Candles.” In C. P. Cavafy: Collected Poems, ed. by George Savidis, 4511. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Colston, Herbert. 2015. Using Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1984. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Louis, and Tim Wharton. 2020. “Relevance, Effects and Affect.” International Review of Pragmatics 121: 183–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond, and Jody Bogdonovich. 1999. “Mental Imagery in Interpreting Poetic Metaphor.” Metaphor and Symbol 141: 37–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, Zoe. 2008. The Believers. London: Fig Tree-Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly. 2021. “Non-Propositional Effects in Verbal Communication: The Case of Metaphor.” Journal of Pragmatics 1811: 6–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2003. London: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Miliotis, Panagiotis. 2021. Λιώναν με τις μπότες στο χορτάρι [Melting the grass with their boots]. Athens: Enypnio.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parrott, Gerrod (ed). 2001. Emotions in Social Psychology: Essential Readings. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. “Principles of Categorization.” In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara Lloyd, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning”. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 151: 117–149.Google Scholar
Thomas, Ronald S. 1946. The Stones of the Field. Carmarthen: The Druid Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim, Constant Bonard, Daniel Dukes, David Sander, and Steve Oswald. 2021. “Relevance and Emotion.” Journal of Pragmatics 1811: 259–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-Propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 571: 125–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar