Cover not available

In:Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 1–22

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

Introduction

The literal-figurative language continuum and optimally relevant interpretations

 | University of Warsaw, Poland
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.00pis
Article outline
  • 1.Non-literalness in inferential communication
  • 2.Contributions to this volume
  • 3.Some questions for the future
  • Notes
  • References
References (56)
References
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11(3), 211–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Apposition and affective communication. Language and Literature, 17(1), 37–57. 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
(2010). Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110 (3), 297–323.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua, 175–176, 154–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2015). Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 79–92. . Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, B. (1996). Stylistic analysis and relevance theory. Language and Literature, 5, 163–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Salient inferences: Pragmatics and the inheritors. Language and Literature, 18, 173–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2015). Using figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Falkum, I. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. PhD Thesis. London: UCL.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutt, E.-A. (2000). Translation and relevance. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2001). Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jodłowiec, M. (2015). The challenges of explicit and implicit communication. A relevance-theoretic approach. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jodłowiec, M., & Piskorska, A. (2015). Metonymy revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12 (2), 161–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M. (2015). On the role of vigilance in the interpretation of puns. Humor, 28(3), 469–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. (1996). On metonymy. Lingua, 99, 169–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piskorska, A. (2017). Editorial: relevance theory and intercultural communication problems. Research in Language, 15(1), 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language, 25/4, 359–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uchida, S. (1998). Text and relevance. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory. Applications and implications (pp. 161–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2000). Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Metarepresentations (pp. 411–448). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011a). Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 177–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011b). Relevance theory and the interpretation of literary works. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 23, 47–68.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2013). Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 59(A): 40–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Explaining metonymy. Paper delivered at Relevance Round Table Meeting 4. Institute of English Studies, Jagiellonian University in Kraków.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua, 175–176, 5–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90, 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Explaining Irony. In Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. Relevance and meaning (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Wharton, T. (2006). Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1559–1579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2003). Humor and the search for relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1295–1331. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two 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 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