In partial answer to Robyn, 7 points:
1 - Yes, we have not been clear enough, not just in our writing but also in
our thinking about the relationship between metaphor and effort.
2 - The major bifurcation in approaches to metaphor is that between:
A - those (classical rhetoricians, Grice, most researchers on
metaphor) for whom the interpretation of a metaphor (or any other trope)
is a three steps affairs: first compute the literal meaning, second reject
it, third retrieve or construct a figurative meaning, and
B - those (Romantics, Lakoff, Gibbs, RT) for whom there is no difference in
procedure for interpreting literally or figuratively intended utterances.
Obviously, the classical-Gricean gang is committed to the figurative
interpretation of an utterance taking more effort than the literal
interpretation of the same utterance, given that two more steps are
involved. Just as obviously, we Romantics are not so committed.
3 - RT does not assume that the amount of effort involved in processing the
utterance of a given sentence is constant across contexts for the same
interpreter, not even roughly so. At least three factors determine the
amount of effort involved. A) Different utterance-contexts pairs determine
higher or lower expectations of relevance, hence a disposition to process
more or less deeply. B) Under certain conditions, the very fact that an
utterance causes an extra effort in decoding (e.g. because of use of a rare
word, or because of repetition) raises expectations of effect C) When more
effects are actually derived, there is the added cost of just deriving
these effects. These factors can cause a metaphorical interpretation OR a
literal interpretation of the same utterance to involve more or less effort
in different contexts.
4 - No one assumes, I hope, that the processing of different utterances -
even of synonymous utterances - in the same context should require the same
amount of effort. Moreover, if we Romantics are right, literal and
metaphorical utterances are never quite synonymous. On the whole,
metaphorically interpreted utterances tend to carry some extra, typically
weak, effects and may therefore involve more effort. But it should not be
too difficult to find or devise exceptions, where the literal
interpretation is more effort demanding. Here is an example:
(Said in London): John is in love to the point of madness. He wants to fly
in a straight line to the wedding, which is next month in New York.
Metaphorical: John cannot wait, etc
Literal: got it? (flying in a straight line from London to NY would involve
flying into the see and the earth at London, and getting out at NY, THAT's
madness!). Try with Sydney instead of NY to make it easier, but still more
effort demanding than the metaphorical one.
The easiest interpretation is probably the loose one where "in a straight
line" is understood as "as directly as possible".
5 - Robyn is smack right in pointing out the difficulty in comparing
metaphorical vs. literal. If we compare the same utterance in two different
contexts, one where it is interpreted metaphorically, the other where it is
interpreted literally, we can fiddle the contexts so as to have the effort
be greater one way or the other. If we compare different utterances in the
same context with very similar literal and metaphorical interpretation,
there is the possibility that the one taking more effort will be simply the
one carrying more effect (usually but not necessarily the metaphorical
one). If one compares, as is sometimes done, different utterances in
different contexts, one can always find evidence for one's pet theory and
nothing serious follows.
6 - What about literal vs. metaphorical referring expressions, where or so
it seems metaphorical causes more effort. A guess: often, a referring
expression contributes to relevance just by picking its referent (and not
by attributing to it any property). When so, the best referring expression
is the most economical one for fixing the reference, hence a pronoun or a
demonstrative when possible, or else the most trivial and succinct
description. When any expression, literal or metaphorical, that manifestly
has more content than necessary to efficiently pick the referent is used,
there is a hint of extra effect. So for instance "the author of Hamlet" vs.
"William Shakespeare". The extra effort in processing metaphorical
referring expression is just a consequence of a more general pragmatic
property of referring expressions, and is not specific to metaphor.
7 - General guess: there is nothing specific to metaphor that makes it more
effort-demanding
-----------------------------
Dan Sperber
Institut Jean Nicod (CNRS et EHESS)
http://www.institutnicod.org
1bis avenue de Lowendal
75007 Paris, France
email: dan@sperber.com
web site: http://www.dan.sperber.com
-----------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 27 2001 - 11:13:30 GMT