1887
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Echoic mention was initially proposed as part of the relevance-theoretic approach to irony (Sperber & Wilson, 1986). The aim of this article is to present an account of echoing as a cognitive operation that goes beyond (and yet includes) the interpretation of ironic remarks. For this purpose, we explore the cognitive mechanisms that underlie the production and interpretation of echoic uses of both ironic and non-ironic language. In the light of the examples under scrutiny, we claim that echoic mentions afford metonymic access to the echoed scenario, which is then contrasted with the observable scenario. The relationship between the two scenarios, which ranges from identity to contrast, passing through type-token similarity and metaphorical resemblance, determines the communicative purpose of the speaker, which may convey different kind of attitudes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00049.mas
2020-08-17
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alba-Juez, L., & Attardo, S.
    (2014) The evaluative palette of verbal irony. InG. Thompson & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.242.05alb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.05alb [Google Scholar]
  2. Athanasiadou, A., & Colston, H. L.
    (Eds.) (2017) Irony in language use and communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barcelona, A.
    (Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (Eds.) (2011) Defining metonymy in Cog- nitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bierwiaczonek, B.
    (2013) Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez–García, F.
    (2014) Exploring functional–cognitive space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.157 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2010) Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. InE. Tabakowska, M. Choiński & Ł. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Action. From Theory to Application and Back (pp.13–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gibbs, R. W.
    (2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Herrero, J.
    (2011) The role of metonymy in complex tropes. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.167–194). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.09her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.09her [Google Scholar]
  13. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2015) Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metaphor in specialist discourse. Insights and implications for metaphor studies and beyond. InJ. B. Herrmann & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in Specialist Discourse: Investigating Metaphor Use in Specific and Popularized Discourse Contexts (pp.299–314). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.4.12lit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.4.12lit [Google Scholar]
  19. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R.
    (2005) The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  20. Palinkas, I.
    (2014) Metaphor, irony and blending. Argumentum, 10, 611–630.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Peña, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2017) Construing and constructing hyperbole. InA. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp.42–73). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.56.02pen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.02pen [Google Scholar]
  22. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp.109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp.103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui [Google Scholar]
  24. (2017a) Cognitive modeling and irony. InH. Colston, & A. Athanasiadou (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp.179–200). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.1.09dem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.09dem [Google Scholar]
  25. (2017b) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: from basicity to complexity. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp.138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
    (2014) Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2020) The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in making meaning. InA. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp.283–307). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.9.12rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.12rui [Google Scholar]
  28. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano, I.
    (2019a) Unraveling irony: From linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics, 5, 147–173. 10.1163/23526416‑00501006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00501006 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2019b) A cognitive-linguistic approach to complexity in irony: dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 127–138. 10.1080/10926488.2019.1611714
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1611714 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
    (2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. InK. –U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.23–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.05rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.05rui [Google Scholar]
  31. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1981) Irony and the use–mention distinction. InP. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.295–318). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sullivan, K.
    (2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14 [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilson, D.
    (2006) The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence?Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2009) Irony and metarepresentation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 183–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2011) Paralells and differences in the treatment of metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Studia Linguistica, 128, 195–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
    (2012) Explaining irony. InD. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp.123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008 [Google Scholar]
  38. Yus, F.
    (2016) Propositional Attitude, Affective Attitude and Irony Comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23(1), 92–116. 10.1075/pc.23.1.05yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.1.05yus [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00049.mas
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00049.mas
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): attitude , contrast , echoed scenario , echoing , observable scenario and resemblance
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error