Ordinary speakers may not recognize, even upon reflection, that they are speaking nonliterally because that nonliteral use has become entrenched through repetition.
Austin's Oxford colleague H.P. Grice (1913 88) developed a sophisticated theory of how nonliteral aspects of meaning are generated and recovered through the exploitation of general principles of rational cooperation as adapted to conversational contexts.
Rashi combined the two basic methods of interpretation, literal and nonliteral, in his influential Bible commentary.
As a result, some of his successors are critical of his searching literalism and deviation from traditional Midrashic exegesis, while others find his excessive fondness for nonliteral homilies uncongenial.
In addition, even before the Babylonian Exile (586 bc) there is evidence of the kind of midrashic exposition (nonliteral interpretations) familiar in the rabbinical period (c. 300 bc c. ad 500) and after.
Rashi's Bible commentary illustrates vividly the coexistence and, to some extent, the successful reconciliation of the two basic methods of interpretation: the literal and the nonliteral.
This and myriad other practical and expressive (nonliteral) aspects of meaning are the subject of pragmatics.
In the Zohar the peshaṭ (literal) and derash (nonliteral meanings) types of interpretation are accompanied by those called remez ("allusion"), including typology and allegory, and sod ("secret"), the mystical sense.
In other words, it assumes a willingness to make nonliteral connections.
All the older siblings made at least one ironic remark, as did 38 mothers, 26 fathers and 37 of the younger siblings —a total of 1,661 nonliteral comments.
The scientists transcribed more than 350 hours of speech, and sorted all the nonliteral utterances into one of the four categories, each time identifying the speaker.
