Metaphor and the 'Emergent Property' Problem: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach

Authors

Deirdre Wilson, University College London, Department of Linguistics
Robyn Carston, University College London, Department of Linguistics

Keywords

linguistics, philosophy

Abstract

The interpretation of metaphorical utterances often results in the attribution of emergent properties; these are properties which are neither standardly associated with the individual constituents of the utterance in isolation nor derivable by standard rules of semantic composition. For example, an utterance of ‘Robert is a bulldozer’ may be understood as attributing to Robert such properties as single-mindedness, insistence on having things done in his way, and insensitivity to the opinions/feelings of others, although none of these is included in the encyclopaedic information associated with bulldozers (earth-clearing machines). An adequate pragmatic account of metaphor interpretation must provide an explanation of the processes through which emergent properties are derived. In this paper, we attempt to develop an explicit account of the derivation process couched within the framework of relevance theory. The key features of our account are: (a) metaphorical language use is taken to lie on a continuum with other cases of loose use, including hyperbole; (b) metaphor interpretation is a wholly inferential process, which does not require associative mappings from one domain (e.g. machines) to another (e.g. human beings); (c) the derivation of emergent properties involves no special interpretive mechanisms not required for the interpretation of ordinary, literal utterances.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Recommended Citation

Wilson, Deirdre and Carston, Robyn (2007) "Metaphor and the 'Emergent Property' Problem: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach," Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication: Vol. 3. https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v3i0.23

References

Asch, Solomon E. 1955. On the use of metaphor in the description of persons. In Heinz Werner (ed.), Expressive Language, pp. 29–38. Worcester: Clark University Press.

Asch, Solomon E. 1958. The metaphor: A psychological inquiry. In Renato Tagiuri and Luigi Petrullo (eds.), Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior, pp. 86–94. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Barsalou, Lawrence. 1991. Deriving categories to achieve goals. In Gordon H. Bower (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Becker, Angela H. 1997. Emergent and common features influence metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 12:243–259.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1204_3

Black, Max. 1962. Metaphor. In Max Black (ed.), Models and Metaphors, pp. 25–47. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Camp, Elisabeth. 2006. Contextualism, metaphor, and what is said. Mind and Language 21(3):280–309.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00279.x

Carston, Robyn. 1997. Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? Linguistische Berichte 8:103–127.

Carston, Robyn. 2002a. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603

Carston, Robyn. 2002b. Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language 17:127–48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00192

Carston, Robyn. 2007. How many pragmatic systems are there? In Frapolli (2007), pp. 18–48.

Coulson, Seana and Todd Oakley. 2005. Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics 37:1510–1536.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.010

Davis, Steven (ed.). 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22:133–187.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1

Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Frapolli, Maria J. (ed.). 2007. Saying, Meaning, Referring: Essays on Francois Recanati’s Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gernsbacher, Morton A., Boaz Keysar, Rachel Robertson, and Necia Werner. 2001. The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language 45:433–450.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2782

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1996. Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition 61:309–319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00723-8

Gibbs, Raymond W. and Markus Tendahl. 2006. Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind and Language 21(3):379–403.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00283.x

Gineste, Marie-Dominique, Bipin Indurkhya, and Veronique Scart. 2000. Emergence of features in metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol 15:117–135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1503_1

Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001

Glucksberg, Sam. 2004. On the automaticity of pragmatic processes: A modular proposal. In Noveck and Sperber (2004), pp. 72–93.

Glucksberg, Sam and Zachary Estes. 2000. Feature accessibility in conceptual combination: Effects of context-induced relevance. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 7:510–515.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03214364

Glucksberg, Sam and Boaz Keysar. 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97:3–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3

Glucksberg, Sam, Deanna A. Manfredi, and Matthew S. McGlone. 1997. Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create new categories. In Ward et al. (1997), pp. 327–350.

Glucksberg, Sam, Mary Newsome, and Yevgeniya Goldvarg. 2001. Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol 15:277–293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898

Grice, H. Paul. 1967/89. Logic and conversation. In H. Paul Grice (ed.), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. William James Lectures 1967.

Hampton, James. 1997. Emergent attributes in combined concepts. In Ward et al. (1997), pp. 83–110.

van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste and Dan Sperber. 2004. Testing the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. In Noveck and Sperber (2004), pp. 141–171.

Kintsch, Walter. 2000. Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 7:257–266.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03212981

Kolaiti, Patricia. 2005. ‘The empty vessel makes the greatest sound’: Corpus analysis and lexical pragmatics. Paper delivered to the AHRC Conference on Word Meaning, Concepts and Communication, Cumberland Lodge, Windsor Great Park, September 2005.

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press.

Lakoff, George. 1994. Conceptual Metaphor Home Page. Available at: http://cogsci.berkeley.edu/lakoff/MetaphorHome.html.

Lewis, David. 1975. Languages and language. Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Language 7:3–35. Reprinted in Lewis 1983, 163-188.

Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8:339–359. Reprinted in Lewis 1983, 233-249.

Lewis, David. 1983. Philosophical Papers, volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martinich, Al P. 1984/91. A theory for metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics 13:35–56. Reprinted in Davis (ed.) 1991, 507-518.

McGlone, Matthew. S. and Deanna A. Manfredi. 2002. Topic-vehicle interaction in comprehension. Memory and Cognition 29:1209–1219.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03206390

Noveck, Ira, Maryse Bianco, and Alain Castry. 2001. The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 16:109–121.

Noveck, Ira and Dan Sperber (eds.). 2004. Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pilkington, Adrian. 2000. Poetic Effects: A Relevance theory Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pugmire, David. 1998. Rediscovering Emotion. Edinburgh University Press.

Rakova, Marina. 2003. The Extent of the Literal: Metaphor, Polysemy and Theories of Concepts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Recanati, Francois. 1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science 19:207–232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1902_2

Recanati, Francois. 2002. Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind and Language 17:105–126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00191

Recanati, Francois. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rips, Lance. 1995. The current status of research on concept combination. Mind and Language 10:72–104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1995.tb00006.x

Romero, Esther and Belen Soria. 2007. A view of novel metaphor in the light of Recanati’s proposals. In Frapolli (2007), pp. 145–159.

Rubio Fernandez, Paula. 2005. Pragmatic Processes and Cognitive Mechanisms in Lexical Interpretation: The On-Line Construction of Concepts. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge.

Rubio Fernandez, Paula. 2007. Suppression in metaphor interpretation: Differences between meaning selection and meaning construction. Journal of Semantics 24(4):345–372. Special Issue on Processing Meaning.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm006

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1985/6. Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86:153–171. Reprinted in Davis (ed.) 1991, 540-549.

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/95. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition 1995.

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In Peter Carruthers and Jill Boucher (eds.), Language and Thought, pp. 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 84–105. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tourangeau, Roger and Lance Rips. 1991. Interpreting and evaluating metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language 30:452–472.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90016-D

Vega Moreno, Rosa. 2004. Metaphor interpretation and emergence. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16:297–322.

Vega Moreno, Rosa. 2007. Creativity and Convention: The Pragmatics of Everyday Figurative Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ward, Thomas, Steven Smith, and Jyotsna Vaid (eds.). 1997. Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Wilson, Deirdre. 2003. Relevance theory and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica 15:273–291. (Special Issue on Pragmatics and the Lexicon).

Wilson, Deirdre and Robyn Carston. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, pp. 230–259. London: Palgrave.

Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111:583–632.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583

Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.