Cognitive Effort and Effects in Metaphor Comprehension: Relevance Theory and Psycholinguistics

127 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A deflationary account of metaphors (2008, background): “For an interesting proposal to handle emergent properties by augmenting the relevance-theoretic account with the machinery of domain mappings, see Gibbs and Tendahl (2006).”
Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. (2008, background): “…many articles and books that provide empirical support for specific claims of both relevance theory (Gibbs, 1986, 1999; Gibbs and Moise, 1997; Gibbs and Tendahl, 2006; Hamblin and Gibbs, 2003) and cognitive linguistics (Gibbs, 1992, 1994, 2006a,b,c,d; Gibbs and Colston, 1995; Gibbs et al.,…”
The Paradox of Metaphor: Why We Need a Three-Dimensional Model of Metaphor (2008, methodology): “This three-dimensional discourse-analytical approach also differs from Relevance Theory (Wilson & Carston, 2006; cf. Gibbs & Tendahl, 2006; Tendahl & Gibbs, in press), which recently has been connected to Class-Inclusion Theory by Glucksberg and Haught (2006).”
Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual analogies (2007, background): “The more work has to be invested in construing a relevant meaning, the more figurative the utterance is bound to feel.2 The di¤erence can be illustrated with the utterances ‘‘this thing is a bulldozer’’ and ‘‘Robert is a bulldozer’’ (discussed in Carston 2002; see also Gibbs and Tendahl 2006).”