Showing, Expressing, and Figuratively Meaning (in G. Preyer (ed.) Beyond Semantics and Pragmatics (OUP)). (original) (raw)
Related papers
Linguistic Meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive Pragmatics
Mind & Language, 2002
Within the philosophy of language, pragmatics has tended to be seen as an adjunct to, and a means of solving problems in, semantics. A cognitive-scientific conception of pragmatics as a mental processing system responsible for interpreting ostensive communicative stimuli (specifically, verbal utterances) has effected a transformation in the pragmatic issues pursued and the kinds of explanation offered. Taking this latter perspective, I compare two distinct proposals on the kinds of processes, and the architecture of the system(s), responsible for the recovery of speaker meaning (both explicitly and implicitly communicated meaning).
Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech
Journal of Pragmatics, 2009
Creativity and Convention (CC) is presented as a ''unified account'' of figurative speech based on the theoretical tools provided by the latest developments in Relevance Theory (RT). The book, which makes lavish use of the relevant literature in psychological experimentation on language processing and figurative language in order to back up its proposals, is divided into eight chapters. In the following, I will present a brief summary of the most central theses of the book and then an assessment of its main strengths and weaknesses.
Figurative Language, Chapter 1
It is well known that 'fi gurative language' is often used in speaking and writing to express ideas and emotions, and to affect the views and attitudes of others. However, there is increasing evidence that the use of fi gurative language varies depending on the nature of the communicative activity, or, more specifi cally, depending on factors such as topic, audience, mode of communication, situational context, and so on. In this book we propose a systematic approach to variation in the use of fi gurative language, and particularly metaphor and metonymy, in different 'genres' and 'registers', which we defi ne in Chapter 2 Rose, 2003, 2008). A central notion in our approach is that texts are produced by and for members of different 'discourse communities' -groups of people who 'have texts and practices in common' (Barton, 2007: 75). We show that the forms and functions of fi gurative language can differ signifi cantly from genre to genre and across registers. We argue that this both refl ects and shapes the discourse communities associated with different genres and, more specifi cally, the goals, conventions, expertise and ideologies of the members of the discourse communities that texts are produced by or meant for. We investigate the use of fi gurative language across a variety of genres and registers (both written and spoken), and consider a range of instances of communication that involve crossing the boundaries between different discourse communities.
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 1995
This article inquires into the role of meaning in linguistic pragmatics (conceived in its widest interdisciplinary sense as a cognitive, social, and cultural perspective on language and communication). With reference to earlier discussions of the relationship between meaning and intention, especially in the anthropological linguistic literature, two case studies are adduced in order to further demonstrate the need to allow for types of meaning which do not depend exclusively or primarily on individual intentionality (even when dealing with language use in a mainstream Western context), and also to show how taking nonintentional forms of meaning into account can be done systematically in a theoretically and methodologically justifiable way. The first one focuses on the dynamics of interactional processes, the second on different degrees of salience which even result in direct contradictions between the level of implicit meaning and communicatively transparent information. The conclusion is that a straightforward pragmatic perspective allows linguists to return to the question, What is the meaning of expression X in context Y?, rather than to stick with the Gricean question, What did the language user intend X to mean in context Y?, even though the latter provided a major impetus for the development of the field of pragmatics in the first place.
The Pragmatic Functions of Metaphorical Language
A Life in Cognition, Language, Cognition, and Mind 11, 2022
Figures of speech have been suggested to play important pragmatic roles in language. Yet the nature of these pragmatic functions has not been specified in detail, and it is not clear what particular social-communicative purposes metaphors fulfill. I propose that metaphors are utilized in two distinct ways in communication. First, similarly to indirect speech, they can be utilized in social bargaining: by expressing intentions, beliefs and desires in a veiled manner, they put the burden of interpretation on the hearer, which makes them revocable and thus a great tool for negotiations. Secondly, metaphors can be used to transform the literal meaning of words to describe phenomena and refer to concepts that do not have a lexical entry, by transferring some abstract sense figuratively. This latter use is not only a tool of verbal creativity but a means of linguistic change as it adds novel senses to words. Metaphor does not seem to be a mere example of loose language use, but a sophisticated communicational tool, either to deliberately create ambiguity in a deniable manner, or to extend word meaning beyond the public lexicon, which puts some fundamental mechanisms of abstract thought to figurative use.