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

Abstract

This paper explores the trade-off between cognitive effort and cognitive effects during immediate metaphor comprehension. We specifi cally evaluate the fundamental claim of relevance theory that metaphor understanding, like all utterance interpretation, is constrained by the presumption of optimal relevance ( Sperber and Wilson, 1995 , p. 270): the ostensive stimulus is relevant enough for it to be worth the addressee ' s effort to process it, and the ostensive stimulus is the most relevant one compatible with the communicator ' s abilities and preferences. One important implication of optimal relevance is that listeners follow a path of least effort and stop processing at the fi rst interpretation that satisfi es their expectation of relevance. They do this by trying to minimize cognitive effort while maximizing cognitive effects. Some relevance theory scholars suggest that metaphors should require additional cognitive effort to be understood, and that in return they yield more cognitive effects than does literal speech. Others claim that metaphors may be understood quickly, as soon as people infer enough effects for the speaker ' s utterance to meet their expectation of optimal relevance. Our analysis of the experimental evidence suggests that there is no systematic relationship between cognitive effort and cognitive effects in metaphor comprehension. We conclude that relevance theory need not make any general predictions about the effort needed to comprehend metaphors. Nevertheless, relevance theory is consistent with many of the fi ndings in psycholinguistics on metaphor understanding, and can account for aspects of metaphor understanding that no other theory can explain.

Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory

“…In summary, Noveck et al say, ''The work reported here shows that metaphors can be seen to be costly in contexts that are arguably neutral otherwise'' (Noveck et al, 2001: 119). Gibbs and Tendahl (2006) questioned the generality of Noveck et al's experimental findings, and their conclusions about metaphor processing in neutral contexts. First, Noveck et al only compared non-metaphorical referring expressions (e.g., ''All children to the side of the pool'') against metaphorical referring expressions (e.g., ''All toads to the side of the pool''), the latter of which both picks out a referent and expresses a property attribution, unlike the first expression which is only referential.…”

“…How might these different cognitive effects be manifested with metaphor? One experimental study investigated people's understanding of metaphorical statements, like ''Lawyers are also sharks'' in contexts where a speaker provided new information by using the metaphor, strengthening an existing assumption, and contradicting an existing assumption (Gibbs and Tendahl, 2006). Each of these different meanings is related to the basic metaphorical understanding of the comparison between ''lawyers'' and ''sharks.''…”

“…As a linguist (Tendahl) and psychologist (Gibbs), we have found these alternative perspectives to be extremely useful in thinking about mind and language, most broadly, and in trying to understand the complexities of metaphoric language and thought. One of us has published many articles and books that provide empirical support for specific claims of both relevance theory (Gibbs, 1986Gibbs and Moise, 1997;Gibbs and Tendahl, 2006;Hamblin and Gibbs, 2003) and cognitive linguistics (Gibbs, 1992(Gibbs, , 1994(Gibbs, , 2006aGibbs and Colston, 1995;Gibbs et al, 2004). For these reasons, we are in a good position to fairly describe and criticize these different, yet complementary, positions on metaphor.…”

What is said by a metaphor

“…Yet, the alleged ad hoc concept BUTCHER* is easily accessed. A third possibility is to claim, following the line of Gibbs and Tendahl (2006), that there is no systematic answer to such a question. Accessibility is simply a contextual affair, and there are no neutral contexts to evaluate how much effort is needed by a specific interpretation.…”

The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis

“…This general question of an integration of cognitive and communicative aspects in metaphor theory has recently become the subject of intensive theoretical and methodological discussions which focus on the relationship between CMT and specifically Relevance-theoretically (RT) oriented analyses (Carston & Wearing, 2011;Gibbs & Tendahl, 2006Sperber & Wilson, 1995Tendahl, 2009;Tendahl & Gibbs, 2008;Wilson, 2011;Wilson & Carston, 2006). This discussion can serve as a platform to sketch future perspectives in which metaphor research can contribute to CDA.…”