THE QUESTION OF METAPHORICITY:  A RELEVANCE-THEORETIC PERSPECTIVE

Beyond the Frontiers: Perspectives on Pragmatic Theory and Practice (2026) [pp. 175-195]  

AUTHOR(S) / АУТОР(И): Nina Manojlović
Download Full Pdf   
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46793/BeyondFront.175M
ABSTRACT / САЖЕТАК:

The paper deals with the question of the status of metaphoric expressions depending on the interpretative processes they require. I begin with lexicalized metaphors which, in fact, do not have the status of a metaphor since their interpretation requires mere decoding. Turning to genuine metaphoric expressions, the first question I attempt to answer is – what makes an expression metaphoric? This question is relevant for establishing demarcation between metaphor and other loose uses of language. Once the criterion is clearly set, the question of the level of metaphoricity imposes itself. Hence, the main aim of this research is to suggest a possible solution for the continuum of metaphoric expressions – from those that represent a descriptive language use to those that are highly unconventional and frequently involve mental imagery. The proposed continuum goes from instances of descriptive language use whose interpretation results in formation of ad hoc concept, through instances of interpretative language use where the communicated concept departs even more from the encoded one, to extended poetic metaphors whose relevance lies in the weak implicatures.

KEYWORDS / КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ:

metaphor, polysemy, interpretative language use, descriptive language use, ad hoc concept, mental imagery

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT / ПРОЈЕКАТ:

The research in this paper was funded according to the Agreement on the transfer of funds for financing the scientific research work of teaching staff at accredited higher education institutions in 2025 (451-03-137/2025-03/ 200198).

REFERENCES / ЛИТЕРАТУРА:
  • Bach 1994: K. Bach, Conversational impliciture, in: Mind and language, 9 (2), 124‒162.
  • Bach 2001: K. Bach, Speaking loosely: Sentence nonliterality, in: Midwest studies in philosophy, 25, 249‒263.
  • Bambini et al. 2014: V. Bambini, D. Resta & M. Grimaldi, A Dataset of Metaphors from the Italian Literature: Exploring Psycholinguistic Variables and the Role of Context, PLoS ONE, 9, DOI: <10.1371/journal.pone.0105634>.
  • Bowdle, Gentner 1999: B. Bowdle & D. Gentner, Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to categorization, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 90–95.
  • Bowdle, Genter 2005: B. Bowdle & D. Gentner, The career of metaphor, Psychological Review, 112 (1), 193–216, DOI: <10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193>.
  • Camp 2006: E. Camp, Metaphor in the Mind: The Cognition of Metaphor, Philosophy Compass, 1, 154–170, DOI: <10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00013.x>.
  • Carston 2002a: R. Carston, Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication, Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Carston 2002b: R. Carston, Metaphor, ad hoc concepts and word meaning – more questions than answers, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 83–105.
  • Carston 2010: R. Carston, Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110 (3), 295–321.
  • Carston 2018: R. Carston, Figurative language, mental imagery, and pragmatics, Metaphor and Symbol, 33 (3), 198–217.
  • Carston 2019: R. Carston, Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon, у: K. Scott, B. Clark, R. Carston (ур.), Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 150–162.
  • Carston, Yan 2023: R. Carston & X. Yan, Metaphor processing: Referring and predicating, Cognition, 238, 105‒534.
  • Cardillo et al. 2012: E. Cardillo, C. Watson, G. Schmidt-Snoek, A. Kranjec & A. Chatterjee, From novel to familiar: Tuning the brain for metaphors, NeuroImage, 59, 3212–3221, DOI: <10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.079>.
  • Deignan 2005: A. Deignan, Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Deignan 2008: A. Deignan, Corpus linguistics and metaphor, in: R. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 280–294.
  • Gibbs 1996: R. Gibbs, Why many concepts are metaphorical, Cognition, 61 (3), 309–319.
  • Glucksberg 1990: S. Glucksberg & B. Keysar, Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity, Psychological Review, 97 (1), 3–18, DOI: <10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3>.
  • Goldstein et al. 2012: A. Goldstein, Y. Arzouan & M. Faust, Killing a novel metaphor and reviving a dead one: ERP correlates of metaphor conventionalization, Brain and Language, 123, 137–142, DOI: <10.1016/j.bandl.2012.09.008>.
  • Gentner et al. 2001: D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak & B. N. Kokinov (eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Holyoak, Thagard 1995: K. J. Holyoak & P. Thagard, Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Holyoak, Stamenković 2018: K. J. Holyoak, D. Stamenković, Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence, Psychological Bulletin, 144 (6), 641–660.
  • Kintsch 2000: W. Kintsch, Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 257–266. DOI: <10.3758/BF03212981>.
  • Kövecses 2002: Z. Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kövecses 2010: Z. Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed., Harlow:
  • Pearson-Longman.
  • Lai, Curran 2013: V. Lai & T. Curran, ERP evidence for conceptual mappings and comparison processes during the comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors, Brain and Language, 127, 484–496, DOI: <10.1016/j.bandl.2013.09.010>.
  • Lakoff 1993: G. Lakoff, The contemporary theory of metaphor, in: A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202–252, DOI: <10.1017/ CBO9781139173865.013>.
  • Lakoff, Johnson 1980: G. Lakoff, M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, Turner 1989: G. Lakoff, M. Turner, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, DOI: <10.7208/chicago/978022647098 6.001.0001>.
  • Manojlović 2023: N. Manojlović, Metafora i semantičko-pragmatički interfejs, Srpski jezik: studije srpske i slovenske, 28, 209–226.
  • Manojlović 2024: N. Manojlović, Pragmatički aspekti identifikacije metaforičkih izraza, Srpski jezik: studije srpske i slovenske, 29, 305–326.
  • Mashal, Faust 2009: N. Mashal, M. Faust, Conventionalisation of novel metaphors: A shift in hemispheric asymmetry, Laterality, 14, 573–589, DOI: <10.1080/13576500902734645>.
  • Mišković-Luković 2013: M. Mišković-Luković, Od fikcije ka realnosti: leksika kao osnova za generiranje stereotipa, in: B. Mišić Ilić & V. Lopičić (ed.), Jezik, književnost, vrednosti: zbornik radova. Jezička istraživanja, Niš: Filozofski fakultet, 47–63.
  • Mišković-Luković 2014: M. Mišković-Luković, Doslovno i figurativno značenje: pragmatičke perspektive, in: Srpski jezik, književnost, umetnost, Kragujevac: Filološko-umetnički fakultet, 345–355.
  • Mišković-Luković 2018: M. Mišković-Luković, Pragmatika, Kragujevac: Filološko-umetnički fakultet.
  • Rasse et al. 2019: C. Rasse, A. Onysko & F. Citron, Conceptual metaphors in poetry interpretation: A psycholinguistic approach, Language and Cognition, 12, 310–342, DOI: <10.1017/ langcog.2019.47>.
  • Pragglejaz 2007: Pragglejaz Group, MIP: A Method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse, Metaphor and Symbol, 22 (1), 1–39.
  • Rasulić 2021: K. Rasulić & M. Mišković-Luković, Šta spaja a šta razdvaja kognitivnolingvistički i kognitivnopragmatički pristup metafori?, Lipar, 72, 11–45.
  • Rubio Fernández 2007: P. Rubio Fernández, Suppression in Metaphor Interpretation: Differences Between Meaning Selection and Meaning Construction, Journal of Semantics, 24, 345–371. Rubio Fernández et al. 2015: P. Rubio Fernández, C. Wearing, R. Carston, Metaphor and hyperbole: Testing the continuity hypothesis, Metaphor and Symbol, 30 (1), 24–40.
  • Sperber, Wilson 1986/95: D. Sperber & D. Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Sperber, Wilson 1987: D. Sperber & D. Wilson, Précis of relevance: Communication and cognition, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10 (4), 697–710.
  • Sperber, Wilson 2008: D. Sperber & D. Wilson, A deflationary account of metaphors, in: R. Gibbs (ур.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 84–105.
  • Steen et al. 2010: G. Steen, A. Dorst, J. Herrmann, A. Kaal, T. Krennmayr & T. Pasma, A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Tendahl 2008: M. Tendahl, R. W. Gibbs, Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory, Journal of Pragmatics, 40 (11), 1823–1864.
  • Tendahl 2009: M. Tendahl, A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Vega Moreno 2007: R. Vega Moreno, Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Wilson 2011: D. Wilson, Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics, Intercultural Pragmatics, 8 (2), 177–196.
  • Wilson 2018: D. Wilson, Relevance theory and literary interpretation, у: Reading Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory, 185–204.
  • Wilson, Carston 2006: D. Wilson & R. Carston, Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue, Mind & Language, 21 (3), 404–433.
  • Wilson, Carston 2007: D. Wilson & R. Carston, A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics, у: N. Burton-Roberts (ур.), Pragmatics, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 230–259.
  • Wilson, Carston 2019: D. Wilson & R. Carston, Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects, Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–38.
Post Views: 120