. Instead, the propositional form of the utterance would be viewed as the propositional form of the speaker’s thought. In this situation, the interpretation merely requires bringing together encyclopaedic entries of ‘Sally’ and ‘block of ice’ to create a range of contextual implications most of which will be rejected as being too weak an implicature. As Sperber and Wilson state, metaphor “requires no special interpretative abilities or procedures: it is a natural outcome of some very general abilities and procedures used in verbal communication.” (Sperber and Wilson, 1986: 237)When considering metaphors, Pilkington states that “Poetic metaphors are defined as those that typically achieve their relevance through the accessing of a very wide range of weak implicatures.” (Pilkington, 1991: 55) So, the larger the range and the weaker the implicatures the more poetic the metaphor is. This places more responsibility upon the hearer, or reader, as they have to access, process and attempt to understand the various implicatures. Pilkington later expresses that there can be an indefinite number of implicatures and there is no possible cut-off point that “allows us to say that so many implicatures are communicated and no more.” (Pilkington, 1991: 56) But, it’s these factors that allow us to explain why one person’s interpretation is different from another’s and how there can be numerous interpretations of a particular implicature. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Relevance Theory also introduces ad hoc concepts, a device which Traditional and Gricean accounts lack. An ad hoc concept is constructed in the interpretive process for a particular utterance. Whilst an ad hoc concept is a part of the explicature, the Relevance Theory account claims that creative metaphors communicate a wide array of indeterminate weak implicatures, which is most apparent in creative, rich literary metaphors which hold a wide range of weak implicatures. An author may not care which implicatures you derive, just as long as the reader has derived some. Analysis:U.A Fanthorpe’s ‘Casehistory: Alison (head injury)’ is a dramatic monologue from the perspective of a brain-damaged girl (Alison) who is looking at an old photograph of herself prior to her accident and reflects upon her past self, who is now a stranger as she takes into account her current position. Throughout the monologue, Alison refers to herself in the third person as she no longer identifies or recognises herself as this past person. She now identifies herself as a hospital case, that there is no real person behind her casefile title anymore, thus it is only fitting that the title of this monologue is ‘Casehistory: Alison (head injury)’.