1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 18, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The (LCM) describes ironic constructions as containing echoes that invoke two contrasting situations: expected and real. The reconciliation of the contrast, which happens at the implicational level, gives rise to specific meaning effects in terms of speaker’s emotional reaction (see Ruiz de Mendoza & Galera Masegosa, 2014). The present study elaborates on these insights showing that echoing and contrast can cooperate in non-ironic constructions. In these cases, however, a full-fledged interpretation of the speaker’s reaction happens at the illocutionary level as bearing the value of an indirect invitation to the hearer to assess the truth value of the expected situation. Hence, the collaboration of echoing and contrast in non-ironic constructions may effect conceptual change/development. This is consistent with yet another observation made by the LCM; namely, that the cooperation of echoing and contrast operations in ironic constructions involves a concept-building operation (Ruiz de Mendoza, 2017).

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00067.red
2020-12-04
2025-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00067.red
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, J. L.
    (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Butler, C. S.
    (2009) The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. InC. S. Butler & M. A. Javier (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp.117–152). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.107.07the
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.07the [Google Scholar]
  3. Chomsky, N.
    (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, H., & Gerrig, R.
    (1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–126. 10.1037/0096‑3445.113.1.121
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 [Google Scholar]
  6. Currie, G.
    (2006) Why irony is pretence. InS. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination: New essays on pretence, possibility, and fiction (pp.111–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fauconnier, G.
    (1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fillmore, C.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C., & Kay, P.
    (1993) Construction Grammar coursebook. (Reading Materials for Ling. X20). Berkeley: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldberg, A.
    (1992) The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1) 37–74. 10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  11. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Goossens, L.
    (2002) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. InR. Pörings & R. Dirven (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.349–378). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.349
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.349 [Google Scholar]
  13. (1990) Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics1(3), 323–340. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  14. Grice, P. H.
    (1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (1975) Logic and conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (pp.41–58). New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  16. Holmberg, A.
    (2016) The syntax of yes and no. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Kövecses, Z.
    (2000) Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M.
    (1995) How about another piece of the pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 3–21. doi:  10.1037/0096‑3445.124.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1974) Syntactic amalgams. In papers from theTenth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, 2014.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Langacker, R. W.
    (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  23. (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol.I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Panther, K., & Thornburg, L.
    (2012) Antonymy in language structure and use. InM. Brdar, I. Raffaelli & M. Z. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between universality and variation (pp.159–186). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2000) The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp.215–231). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Radden, G.
    (2002) How metonymic are metaphors?InR. Pörings & R. Dirven (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.407–434). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.407
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.407 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2000) How metonymic are metaphors?InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.93–108). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Recanati, F.
    (2007) Indexicality, context and pretence. InN. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp.213–229). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_11
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_11 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Reda, G.
    (2017a) Teaching syntactic relations: A cognitive semiotic perspective. Language and Semiotic Studies, 3(2), 1–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2017b) Conceptual projection and religion. InC. N. Kasumi (Ed.), Religion: Mental religion (pp.179–194). Part of the Macmillan Interdisciplinary Handbooks: Religion series. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2012) A study of two Qur’anic counterfactuals: An application of a model of conceptual projection and integration. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(4), 139–156. 10.5296/ijl.v4i4.2335
     https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i4.2335 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.
    (2017) Cognitive modeling and irony. InA. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (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]
  34. (2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. InB. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp.231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2007) High level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. InK. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp.11–30). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. (2012) Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation: Metaphoric chains. InE. R. Bárbara (Ed.), Studies in linguistics and cognition (pp.153–181). Switzerland: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J., & Pérez, L.
    (2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. doi:  10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J., & Rosca, A.
    (2013) Lexical classes and constructions: An analysis of the constructional realization of entity-specific change-of-state English verbs. EXELL, 1(1), 19–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Searle, J.
    (1975) Indirect speech acts. InC. Pete, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp.59–82). New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_004 [Google Scholar]
  42. (1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  43. Van Valin, R. D., Jr.
    (2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511610578
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  44. Van Valin, R. D. Jr., & LaPolla, R.
    (1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139166799
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  45. 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]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00067.red
Loading
Echoing-contrast combination in non-ironic constructions
Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association 18, 458 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00067.red
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00067.red
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00067.red
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): comparison by contrast; comparison by resemblance; echoing-contrast combination; irony; speech acts; speech reports; the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM)

Most Cited

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