1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 20, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

I explore some relationships between metonymy and a special type of hyperbole that I call . Reflexive hyperbole provides a unified, simple explanation of certain natural meanings of statements such as the following: and . The meanings, while of seemingly disparate types, are deeply united: they are all hyperbolic about some contextually salient relationship that has a special property that I call “broad reflexivity.” Although a few of the types of meaning of interest have metonymic aspects (or metaphorical aspects), reflexive hyperbole cannot just be explained by a straightforward application of metonymy theory (or metaphor theory). Indeed, I argue instead for a dependency in the converse direction: that much and perhaps even all metonymy is rooted – if sometimes slightly indirectly – in broadly reflexive relationships, though not usually in a hyperbolic way.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00100.bar
2022-05-24
2024-10-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00100.bar
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AllAboutTRH Newsletter
    AllAboutTRH Newsletter (2013) Lisa Vanderpump calls Bethenny Frankel out for constantly trashing her!AllAboutTRH Newsletter, 20December 2013, athttps://www.allabouttrh.com/2013/12/20/lisa-vanderpump-calls-bethenny-frankel-out-for-constantly-trashing-her/, accessed on22 August 2018. [TRH = The Real Housewives]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Athanasiadou, A.
    (2017) Irony has a metonymic basis. InA. Athanasiadou & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp.201–216). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.1.10ath
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.10ath [Google Scholar]
  3. Barcelona, A.
    (2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  4. (2018) General description of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project, with particular attention to the issues of hierarchy, prototypicality, and taxonomic domains. InO. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp.27–54). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.01bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.01bar [Google Scholar]
  5. (2019) The tripartite typology and the Córdoba Metonymy Database. InM. Bolognesi, M. Brdar & K. Despot (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in the digital age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language (pp.49–73). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.8.03bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.03bar [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnden, J. A.
    (2015) Metaphor, simile, and the exaggeration of likeness. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 41–62. 10.1080/10926488.2015.980692
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.980692 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2016) Communicating flexibly with metaphor: A complex of strengthening, elaboration, replacement, compounding and unrealism. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(2), 442–473. 10.1075/rcl.14.2.07bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.2.07bar [Google Scholar]
  8. (2017a) A hyperbole-based account of the paradoxical usage of “literally”. InA. Wallington, A. Foltz & J. Ryan (Eds.), Selected papers from UK CLA Meetings (Vol.4, pp.111–130). ISSN2046-9144. www.uk-cla.org.uk/proceedings/volume_4_37
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2017b) Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. InA. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp.145–177). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.1.08bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.08bar [Google Scholar]
  10. (2018a) Broadly reflexive relationships, a special type of hyperbole, and implications for metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3), 218–234. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1481256
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1481256 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2018b) Some contrast effects in metonymy. InO. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp.97–119). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.04bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.04bar [Google Scholar]
  12. (2020) Uniting irony, metaphor and hyperbole in a pretence-based, affect-centred framework. InA. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (Eds.), The diversity of irony (pp.15–65). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110652246‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110652246-002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bierwiaczonek, B.
    (2020) Figures of speech revisited: Introducing syntonymy and syntaphor. InA. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp.225–251). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.9.10bie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.10bie [Google Scholar]
  14. Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
    (2010) “Mummy, I love you like a thousand ladybirds”: Reflections on the emergence of hyperbolic effects and the truth of hyperboles. InA. Burkhardt & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical truth(s): The epistemology of metaphor and other tropes, (pp.383–427). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110230215.383
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110230215.383 [Google Scholar]
  15. Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
    (2015) Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 79–92. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cohen, J.
    (2001) Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245–264. 10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01 [Google Scholar]
  17. Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B.
    (1998) You’ll never believe this: irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. J. Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499–513. 10.1023/A:1023229304509
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023229304509 [Google Scholar]
  18. Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
    (2003) Metonymy and conceptual blending. InK.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.51–79). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.06cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.06cou [Google Scholar]
  19. Cutting, J.
    (2007) ‘Doing more stuff – where’s it going?’: Exploring vague language further. InJ. Cutting (Ed.), Vague Language Explored (pp.223–243). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230627420_12
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230627420_12 [Google Scholar]
  20. Elder, J.
    (2009) Jason de Caires Taylor: Underwater sculptures. Athttps://shapeandcolour.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/jason-de-caires-taylor/, accessed on22 August 2018.
  21. Fauconnier, G.
    (2009) Generalized integration networks. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp.147–160). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.12fau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.12fau [Google Scholar]
  22. Hoare, P.
    (2004) Coward, Sir Noël Peirce (1899–1973), playwright and composer. InOxford Dictionary of National Biography (www.oxforddnb.com/). URL: 10.1093/ref:odnb/30976)
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/30976 [Google Scholar]
  23. Igartua, J.-J.
    (2010) Identification with characters and narrative persuasion through fictional feature films. Communications, 35(4), 347–373. 10.1515/comm.2010.019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2010.019 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  25. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  26. McCarthy, M., & Carter, R.
    (2004) ‘‘There’s millions of them’’: Hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 149–184. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00116‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00116-4 [Google Scholar]
  27. Musolff, A.
    (2017) Irony and sarcasm in follow-ups of metaphorical slogans. InA. Athanasiadou & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp.127–141). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.1.07mus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.07mus [Google Scholar]
  28. Norrick, N. R.
    (2004) Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. J. Pragmatics, 36, 1727–1739. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  29. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2007) Metonymy. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (2012) Antonymy in language structure and use. InM. Brdar, I. Raffaelli & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (pp.161–188). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2018) What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?InO. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp.121–160). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.05pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.05pan [Google Scholar]
  32. Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. 10.1515/COG.2006.007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.007 [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. Popa-Wyatt, M.
    (2020) Mind the gap: Expressing affect with hyperbole and hyperbolic figures. InJ. A. Barnden & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing figurative expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspective (pp.449–467). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.10.16pop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.16pop [Google Scholar]
  35. Radden, G.
    (2018) Molly married money: Reflections on conceptual metonymy. InO. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp.161–182). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.06rad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.06rad [Google Scholar]
  36. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  37. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2020) Figurative language: relations and constraints. InJ. A. Barnden & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing figurative expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (pp.469–510). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.10.17rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.17rui [Google Scholar]
  38. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. I.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  40. Stamp, J.
    (2012) Rebranding Amsterdam and what it means to rebrand a city. Smithsonian Magazine, 30August 2012, accessed on22 August 2018athttps://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/rebranding-amsterdam-and-what-it-means-to-rebrand-a-city-19539392/
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Travel Guide
    Travel Guide (n.d.). I amsterdam sign. Amsterdam Travel Guide. Atwww.amsterdamtravelguide.com/discover-amsterdam/sightseeing-tours/in-amsterdam/i-amsterdam-sign/, accessed on22 August 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Varzi, A.
    (2019) Mereology. InE. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/mereology/.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Volokh, E.
    (2015) The two French meanings of “Je suis Charlie.” Washington Post, 9January 2015, athttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/09/the-two-french-meanings-of-je-suis-charlie/?utm_term=.ae7d0f449d13, accessed on29 June 2017.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Vosshagen, C.
    (1999) Opposition as a metonymic principle. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden, Metonymy in language and thought (pp.289–308). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.17vos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.17vos [Google Scholar]
  45. Warren, B.
    (2006) Referential metonymy. Scripta Minora of the Royal Society of Letters at Lund 2003–2004: 1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Watling, G.
    (2020) Denying the salient contrast: Speaker’s attitude in hyperbole. InA. Athanasiadou & H. Colston (Eds.), The diversity of irony (pp.107–130). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110652246‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110652246-006 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang, G.
    (2011) Elasticity of vague language. Intercultural pragmatics, 8(4), 571–599. 10.1515/iprg.2011.026
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.026 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00100.bar
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): hyperbole; metonymy; reflexivity in relationships

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