Why do we talk in metaphors? What is systematic about metaphors? How do we process metaphors? In the past cognitive linguistics and relevance theorists have answered these questions in very different ways and have therefore been perceived as being radically different.
The differences concerning goals and working assumptions are so great, in fact, that few metaphor scholars have tried to systematically compare these two theories to understand how and why they differ.
Markus Tendahl shows that cognitive linguistic and relevance theory perspectives on metaphor may be complementary.
Drawing from research in pragmatics, cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics this work is the first that compares and contrasts relevance theory positions and cognitive linguistic positions on metaphor in a systematic way.
The outcome is a broader and more realistic hybrid theory of metaphor that forces metaphor research into a new direction.