Cover not available

In:Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives
Edited by John Barnden and Andrew Gargett
[Figurative Thought and Language 10] 2020
► pp. 129–174

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

On why people don’t say what they mean

Production of figurative formulaic language

 | University of Alberta
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.06col
Abstract
The study addresses two problems with recent psycholinguistic research on why people don’t say what they mean, (1) possible underrepresentation in research studies of types of figurative language found in everyday talk, and (2) potential ecological validity problems due to using standard psycholinguistic experimental methodologies and inauthentic language materials. In three experiments, these problems were addressed using authentic productions of a relatively unexplored figurative language type – formulaic language, specifically gratitude acknowledgements, which cover a range of figurativity (e.g., “don’t worry about it”, through, “anytime”), often using hyperbole as part of their functioning – a key focus of the present study. The results demonstrate that speakers use figurative gratitude acknowledgements to achieve the pragmatic effects of politeness and esteem display as well as fondness expression, which are not achieved to the same extents by nonfigurative gratitude acknowledgements. The particular pragmatics of this figurative form, the influence of these pragmatic effects on some theoretical questions, and the broader implications of inclusion of new figurative language forms, as well as authentic language items and methods, in research on figurative language production and pragmatics, are discussed.
Article outline
  • 1.Problems with figurative language usage research: Types
    • 1.1Conventionality/prevalence
    • 1.2Risks/costs
  • 2.Problems with figurative language usage research: Methods
  • 3.Solution: A study of pragmatic effects of gratitude acknowledgements using elicited authentic productions
  • 4.Gratitude acknowledgements
  • 5.Summary
  • 6.Production tasks
    • 6.1Method
    • 6.2Participants and design
    • 6.3Materials
      • Procedure
  • 7.Results
  • 8.Experiment 1: Figurativity and politeness expression in gratitude acknowledgements
    • 8.1Participants and design
    • 8.2Materials
    • 8.3Procedure
    • 8.4Results and discussion
  • 9.Experiment 2: Figurativity and esteem expression in gratitude acknowledgements
    • 9.1Participants and design
    • 9.2Materials
    • 9.3Procedure
    • 9.4Results and discussion
  • 10.Experiment 3: Figurativity and fondness expression in gratitude acknowledgements
    • 10.1Participants and design
    • 10.2Materials
    • 10.3Procedure
    • 10.4Results and discussion
  • 11.General discussion
  • 12.Pragmatics of gratitude acknowledgements
  • 13.Theoretical approaches to figurative language usage: Politeness and constraint satisfaction
    • 13.1Politeness Theory
    • 13.2Constraint satisfaction
  • 14.Inclusion and authenticity
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (83)
References
Becker, J. A., Kimmel, H. D., & Bevill, M. J. (1989). The interactive effects of request form and speaker status on judgments of requests. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(5), 521–531. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. In A. Jaworski, & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 321–335). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1979). The flow of thought and the flow of language. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 159–181). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1980). The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In W. L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 9–50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Concealing one’s meaning from overhearers. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(2), 209–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 259–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Schunk, D. H. (1980). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8(2), 111–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1981). Politeness in requests: A rejoinder to Kemper and Thissen. Cognition, 9(3), 311–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, L. (1979). The semantics of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 64–77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (1997a). “I’ve never seen anything like it”: Overstatement, understatement and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 43–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997b). Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: The pragmatic functions of ironic criticism. Discourse Processes, 23, 25–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999a). “Not good” is “bad”, but “not bad” is not “good”: An analysis of three accounts of negation asymmetry. Discourse Processes, 28(3), 237–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999b). The pragmatic functions of rebuttal analogy. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(4), 259–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000a). Comprehending speaker intent in rebuttal analogy use: The role of irony mapping, absurdity comparison and argumentative convention. Language and Speech, 43(4), 337–354. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000b). “Dewey defeats Truman”: Interpreting ironic restatement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19(1), 44–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000c). On necessary conditions for verbal irony comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition, 8(2), 277–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002a). Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 111–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002b). Pragmatic justifications for nonliteral gratitude acknowledgements: “Oh sure, anytime”. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(3), 205–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Social and cultural influences on figurative and indirect language. In H. L. Colston, & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). How language makes meaning: Embodiment and conjoined antonymy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Athanasiadou, A. (2017). Introduction: The irony of irony. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication. Series: Figurative thought and language (Vol. 1) (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Demarias, D. (2002). An account of anomalous conventional gratitude expressions: It’s the least we could do. Poster session presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association , Chicago, IL.
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (1998). Analogy and irony: Rebuttal to “Rebuttal Analogy”. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(1), 69–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B. (1998). You’ll never believe this: Irony and Hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499–513. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J. (2000a). Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1557–1583. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000b). Contrast of kind vs. contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30(2), 179–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corts, D. P. (2006). Factors characterizing bursts of figurative language and gesture in college lectures. Discourse Studies, 8(2), 211–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Formulaic Language. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 305–306). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coupland, J., Coupland, N., & Robinson, J. D. (1992). ‘How are you?’: Negotiation communion. Language in Society, 21, 207–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dews, S., Kaplan, J., & Winner, E. (1995). Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes, 19, 347–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dews, S., & Winner, E. (1995). Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 3–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Obligatory processing of literal and nonliteral meanings in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1579–1599. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dress, M. L., Kreuz, R. J., Link, K. E., & Caucci, G. M. (2008). Regional variation in the use of sarcasm. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(1), 71–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DuBois, J. W. (1986). Self-evidence and ritual speech. In W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 313–336). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2000). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eson, M. E. (1977). Cognitive function and interpretive semantics: Psychological components of psycholinguistics. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 4, 67–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraert, K., Newman, J., & Baayen, H. R. (2017). Idiom variation: Experimental data and a blueprint of a computational model. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 653–669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Robertson, R. R. W. (1999). The role of suppression in figurative language comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1619–1630. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1981a). Memory for requests in conversation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(6), 630–640. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1981b). Your wish is my command: Convention and context in interpreting indirect requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(4), 431–444. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). What makes some indirect speech acts conventional? Journal of Memory and Language, 25(2), 181–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Memory for requests in conversation revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 100(2), 179–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1&2), 5–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphor in human life. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & McCarrell, N. (1990). Why boys will be boys and girls will be girls: Understanding colloquial tautologies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 125–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Conversational sequences and preference for indirect speech acts. Discourse Processes, 11(1), 101–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givon, T. (1983). Introduction. In T. Givon (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hancock, J. T., Dunham, P. J., & Purdy, K. (2000). Children’s comprehension of critical and complimentary forms of verbal irony. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1(2), 227–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T. (1986). Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 305–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Communication in context: Effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 1205–1218.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Interpreting indirect replies. Cognitive Psychology, 37(1), 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Comprehending indirect replies: When and how are their conveyed meanings activated? Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 519–540. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Honeck, R. P. (1997). A proverb in mind: The cognitive science of proverbial wit and wisdom. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, A. N. (1995). Discourse and socialcultural factors in understanding nonliteral language. In H. L. Colston, & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 183–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). The standard experimental approach to the study of irony: Let’s not be hasty in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication. Series: Figurative thought and language (Vol. 1) (pp. 237–254). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemper, S., & Thissen, D. (1981). Memory for the dimensions of requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 552–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, H. (2003). Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1387–1411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J. (2000). The production and processing of verbal irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1-2), 99–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Link, K. E. (2002). Asymmetries in the use of verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(2), 127–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., Long, D. L., & Church, M. B. (1991). On being ironic: Pragmatic and mnemonic implications. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6, 149–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfaff, K. L., Gibbs, R. W., & Johnson, M. D. (1997). Metaphor in using and understanding euphemism and dysphemism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 59–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, R. M., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science, 5(4), 159–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (1988). Small talk: Analyzing discourse. Marburg: Hitzeroth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K. (2000). Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1&2), 47–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (1st ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Precis of ‘Relevance: Communication and cognition’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 697–754. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toplak, M., & Katz, A. N. (2000). On the uses of sarcastic irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1467–1488. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turcan, A., & Filik, R. (2017). Investigating sarcasm comprehension using eye-tracking during reading: What are the roles of literality, familiarity, and echoic mention? In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication. Series: Figurative thought and language (Vol. 1) (pp. 255–276). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whaley, B. B., & Holloway, R. L. (1996). “Rebuttal” analogy: A theoretical note. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11, 161–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zegarac, V. (1998). What is phatic communication? In V. Rouchota, & A. H. Jucker (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory (pp. 327–361). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zegarac, V., & Clark, B. (1999). Phatic interpretations and phatic communication. Journal of Linguistics, 321–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Colston, Herbert
2023. Measurement matters. Metaphor and the Social World 13:1 ► pp. 104 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue