Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEWybierz format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEParallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics
Data publikacji: 10.12.2011
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2011, Volume 128, Issue 1, s. 195 - 213
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10148-011-0025-1Autorzy
Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics
Both cognitive linguists and relevance theorists are developing original approaches to metaphor. Both shed new light on old debates and suggest fruitful directions for research. Although there has so far been little interaction between the two approaches, Raymond Gibbs and Markus Tendahl (2006, 2008) have recently begun to compare them and consider how they might be combined. This paper is intended as a contribution to that debate. After outlining some parallels and differences between the two approaches, I will discuss how they might fit together to give a fuller picture of the role of metaphor in language and thought.
Astington J. et al. (eds.) 1988. Developing theories of mind. Cambridge, New York.
Barsalou L. 1987. The instability of graded structure in concepts. – Neisser B. (ed.) Concepts and conceptual development. Cambridge, New York: 101–140.
Barsalou L. 1993. Flexibility, structure and linguistic vagary in concepts. – Collins A. et al. (eds.) Theories of memory. Hove: 29–101.
Carston R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford.
Fauconnier G., Turner M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York.
Fauconnier G., Turner M. 2008. Rethinking metaphor. – Gibbs R. (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: 53–66.
Gibbs R. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge.
Gibbs R. 1998. The fight over metaphor in thought and language. – Katz N. et al. (eds.) Figurative language and thought. New York, Oxford: 88–118.
Gibbs R., Tendahl M. 2006. Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. – Mind & Language 21: 379–403.
Glucksberg S. 2001. Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford.
Grady J.E. 1997. Theories are buildings revisited. – Cognitive Linguistics 8: 267–290.
Hampe B. 2005. On the role of iconic motivation in conceptual metaphor: Has metaphor theory come full circle? – Maeder C. et al. (eds.) Outside in, inside-out. Iconicity in language and literature. [vol. 4]. Amsterdam: 39–66.
Higashimori I. 2002. Metaphor understanding in relevance theory: From loan concept metaphor to time is space metaphor. – Translation and Meaning [Part 6].
Lakoff G., Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago. [2nd edition 2003].
Lasersohn P. 1999. Pragmatic halos. – Language 75: 522–551.
Liszkowski U. et al. 2008. Twelve-month-olds communicate helpfully and appropriately for knowledgeable and ignorant partners. – Cognition 108: 732–739.
McGlone M. 2001. Concepts as metaphors. – Glucksberg S. Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: 90–115.
Matsui T. et al. 2006. On the role of language in children’s early understanding of others as epistemic beings. – Cognitive Development 21: 158–173.
Matsui T. et al. 2009. Understanding of speaker certainty and false-belief reasoning: A comparison of Japanese and German preschoolers. – Developmental Science 12: 602–13.
Müller C. 2008. Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez F., Perez Hernandez L. 2003. Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. – Panther K.-U., Thornburg L. (eds.) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam: 23–49.
Sodian B. 2004. Theory of mind: The case for conceptual development. – Schneider W. et al. (eds.) Young children’s cognitive development. London: 95–130.
Southgate V. et al. 2007. Infant pointing: Communication to cooperate or communication to learn? – Child Development 78: 735–740.
Southgate V. et al. 2009. Sensitivity to communicative relevance tells young children what to imitate. – Developmental Science: 1013–1019.
Sperber D., Wilson D. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. [2nd edition]. Oxford.
Sperber D., Wilson D. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. – Carruthers P., Boucher J. (eds.) Language and thought. Cambridge: 184–200.
Sperber D., Wilson D. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. – Mind & Language 17: 3–23.
Sperber D., Wilson D. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. – Gibbs R. (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: 84–105.
Tendahl M., Gibbs R. 2008. Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. – Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1823–1864.
Vega Moreno R. 2007. Creativity and convention: The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam. Wellman H. et al. 2001. Meta-analysis of theory of mind development: The truth about false belief. – Child Development 72: 655–684.
Wilson D. 2009. Irony and metarepresentation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 183–226.
Wilson D. [forthcoming]. Pragmatic processes and metarepresentational abilities: The case of verbal irony. – Matsui T. (ed.) Pragmatics and theory of mind. Amsterdam.
Wilson D., Carston R. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. – Burton-Roberts R. (ed.) Pragmatics. Basingstoke: 230–259.
Wilson D., Carston R. 2008. Metaphor and the ‘Emergent Property’ problem: A relevancetheoretic approach. – The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 3 (2007). Online: http://www.thebalticyearbook.org/.
Wilson D., Sperber D. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. – Mind 111: 583–632.
Wilson D., Sperber D. 2004. Relevance theory. – Horn L., Ward G. (eds.) The Handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: 607–632.
Informacje: Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2011, Volume 128, Issue 1, s. 195 - 213
Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Tytuły:
Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics
Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics
University College, London, Great Britain
Publikacja: 10.12.2011
Status artykułu: Otwarte
Licencja: Żadna
Udział procentowy autorów:
Korekty artykułu:
-Języki publikacji:
AngielskiLiczba wyświetleń: 2215
Liczba pobrań: 1757