Cover not available

In:Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond
Edited by Herbert L. Colston, Teenie Matlock and Gerard J. Steen
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 9] 2022
► pp. 143–156

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

Communication, comprehension, and interpretation

 | University College London
Published online: 9 September 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.9.08wil
Abstract
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brody, R. (2017). The frightening lessons of Philip Roth’s The plot against America. New Yorker, February 1, 2017.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2018). Figurative language, mental imagery and pragmatics. Metaphor and Symbol, 33: 198–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cave, T., & Wilson, D. (Eds.). (2018). Reading beyond the code: Literature and relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Csibra, G. (2010). Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind & Language, 25, 141–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 148–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Intentions in the experience of meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). The allegorical impulse. Metaphor & Symbol, 26, 121–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Experimental pragmatics. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 310–325). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macfarlane, R. (2013). The old ways: A journey on foot. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rich, F. (2004). President Lindbergh in 2004. New York Times, September 23, 2004.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roth, P. (2004a). The plot against America. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004b). The story behind The plot against America. New York Times, September 19, 2004.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. (2nd edition, 1995.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15, 117–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2017). Relevance theory. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Relevance theory. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2019). Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Al Tamimi, Turath Awad & Thulfiqar H. Altahmazi
2025. Tracing relevance beyond codes and across modes. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo
Yus, Francisco
2025. Inferring from Emojis: From Propositions to Feelings and Emotions. In Emoji Pragmatics, ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Yus, Francisco
2025. Pragmatics, Cyberpragmatics and Relevance Theory. In Emoji Pragmatics, ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
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
Wilson, Deirdre
2023. Relevance Theory and Context. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context, ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 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