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 (Mind &...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Intercultural pragmatics 2011-05, Vol.8 (2), p.177-196
Main Author: Wilson, Deirdre
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-c344e39b5f0ad002cc851c9dfea243421b34d1e5c2c888b0f1c67f21bee1e15c3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-c344e39b5f0ad002cc851c9dfea243421b34d1e5c2c888b0f1c67f21bee1e15c3
container_end_page 196
container_issue 2
container_start_page 177
container_title Intercultural pragmatics
container_volume 8
creator Wilson, Deirdre
description 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 (Mind & Language 21: 379–403, 2006, Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1823–1864, 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1515/iprg.2011.009
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_918041332</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>918041332</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-c344e39b5f0ad002cc851c9dfea243421b34d1e5c2c888b0f1c67f21bee1e15c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0TtPwzAQB_AIgUR5jOzZmFJ8fiTxiCpeohIgFahYLNc5F0OaFNut6LcnAQQjTHe6--mG-yfJEZAhCBAnbunnQ0oAhoTIrWQAObCM5WK6_dnTjEox3U32QnghhBWyLAZJdau9rmusQ6qbKq2cteixMRhS16TxGdPoUccFNjFtbbrAqJfPre-XHmtc6472rPWbzwOmnTcuujWmtWvmKxeiM-Eg2bG6Dnj4XfeT-_OzyegyG99cXI1Ox5nhQGJmGOfI5ExYoitCqDGlACMri5pyxinMGK8AhaGmLMsZsWDywnZjREAQhu0nx193l759W2GIauGCwbrWDbaroCSUhANj9L-SFn_KUuYgOSmgk9mXNL4NwaNVS-8W2m8UENUHpPqAVB-Q6gL69d2T8P0Ha_-q8oIVQt1NuJo-Pj7J69GD4uwDhu2U9Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>896194071</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics</title><source>EBSCOhost MLA International Bibliography With Full Text</source><source>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</source><creator>Wilson, Deirdre</creator><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Deirdre</creatorcontrib><description>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 (Mind &amp; Language 21: 379–403, 2006, Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1823–1864, 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1612-295X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1613-365X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1515/iprg.2011.009</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Walter de Gruyter GmbH &amp; Co. KG</publisher><ispartof>Intercultural pragmatics, 2011-05, Vol.8 (2), p.177-196</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-c344e39b5f0ad002cc851c9dfea243421b34d1e5c2c888b0f1c67f21bee1e15c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-c344e39b5f0ad002cc851c9dfea243421b34d1e5c2c888b0f1c67f21bee1e15c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,31270</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Deirdre</creatorcontrib><title>Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics</title><title>Intercultural pragmatics</title><addtitle>Intercultural Pragmatics</addtitle><description>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 (Mind &amp; Language 21: 379–403, 2006, Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1823–1864, 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.</description><issn>1612-295X</issn><issn>1613-365X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7T9</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0TtPwzAQB_AIgUR5jOzZmFJ8fiTxiCpeohIgFahYLNc5F0OaFNut6LcnAQQjTHe6--mG-yfJEZAhCBAnbunnQ0oAhoTIrWQAObCM5WK6_dnTjEox3U32QnghhBWyLAZJdau9rmusQ6qbKq2cteixMRhS16TxGdPoUccFNjFtbbrAqJfPre-XHmtc6472rPWbzwOmnTcuujWmtWvmKxeiM-Eg2bG6Dnj4XfeT-_OzyegyG99cXI1Ox5nhQGJmGOfI5ExYoitCqDGlACMri5pyxinMGK8AhaGmLMsZsWDywnZjREAQhu0nx193l759W2GIauGCwbrWDbaroCSUhANj9L-SFn_KUuYgOSmgk9mXNL4NwaNVS-8W2m8UENUHpPqAVB-Q6gL69d2T8P0Ha_-q8oIVQt1NuJo-Pj7J69GD4uwDhu2U9Q</recordid><startdate>20110501</startdate><enddate>20110501</enddate><creator>Wilson, Deirdre</creator><general>Walter de Gruyter GmbH &amp; Co. KG</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7TK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110501</creationdate><title>Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics</title><author>Wilson, Deirdre</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-c344e39b5f0ad002cc851c9dfea243421b34d1e5c2c888b0f1c67f21bee1e15c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Deirdre</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Intercultural pragmatics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wilson, Deirdre</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics</atitle><jtitle>Intercultural pragmatics</jtitle><addtitle>Intercultural Pragmatics</addtitle><date>2011-05-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>177</spage><epage>196</epage><pages>177-196</pages><issn>1612-295X</issn><eissn>1613-365X</eissn><abstract>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 (Mind &amp; Language 21: 379–403, 2006, Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1823–1864, 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.</abstract><pub>Walter de Gruyter GmbH &amp; Co. KG</pub><doi>10.1515/iprg.2011.009</doi><tpages>20</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1612-295X
ispartof Intercultural pragmatics, 2011-05, Vol.8 (2), p.177-196
issn 1612-295X
1613-365X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_918041332
source EBSCOhost MLA International Bibliography With Full Text; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)
title Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T20%3A20%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Parallels%20and%20differences%20in%20the%20treatment%20of%20metaphor%20in%20relevance%20theory%20and%20cognitive%20linguistics&rft.jtitle=Intercultural%20pragmatics&rft.au=Wilson,%20Deirdre&rft.date=2011-05-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=177&rft.epage=196&rft.pages=177-196&rft.issn=1612-295X&rft.eissn=1613-365X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1515/iprg.2011.009&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E918041332%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-c344e39b5f0ad002cc851c9dfea243421b34d1e5c2c888b0f1c67f21bee1e15c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=896194071&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true