Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Stemming from the use-mention distinction by the philosophy of language, Relevance Theory introduces the notion of in the context of the echoic mention theory of irony (cf. Wilson & Sperber, 2012). Since then, echoing has awakened multidisciplinary interest, mostly in connection to this figure of thought. Studies on echoing have provided a largely one-dimensional approach. Within cognitive modeling studies, echoing is elevated to the status of cognitive operation. Taking cognitive modeling as a starting point, the aim of the present article is to study echoing from a multidimensional perspective, focusing on its features, functions, and usages. Specifically, the present study addresses echoic implicitness, completeness, complexity, accuracy, and non-ironic echoes (i.e., parodic echoes, denotational and non-denotational echoes). All in all, this study introduces a higher degree of systematicity in the study of echoing in general and endows echo-based studies of irony with greater explanatory adequacy.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bussmann, H.
    (1996) Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Clark, H. H., & R. J. Gerrig
    (1984) On the pretense theory of irony. i, 11, 121–126. 10.1037/0096‑3445.113.1.121
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 [Google Scholar]
  3. Davidson, D.
    (1979) Quotation. Theory and Decision, 111, 27–40. 10.1007/BF00126690
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126690 [Google Scholar]
  4. Galera, A.
    (2020) The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. A cognitive-linguistic perspective. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 19–41. 10.1075/rcl.00049.mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00049.mas [Google Scholar]
  5. Goldberg, A.
    (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 237–356. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  6. Gibbs, R.
    (1986) On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 3–15. 10.1037/0096‑3445.115.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. InCole, P., & Morgan, J. L. (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]
  8. Leech, G. N.
    (1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London & New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lozano-Palacio, I.
    (2019) Irony in linguistics and literary theory: Towards a synthetic approach. Miscelánea: A journal of English and American Studies, 601, 95–115. 10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20196341
    https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20196341 [Google Scholar]
  10. Lozano-Palacio, I., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2022) Modeling irony. A cognitive-pragmatic account. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.12 [Google Scholar]
  11. Popa-Wyatt, M.
    (2014) Pretence and echo: Towards and integrated account of verbal irony. International Review of Pragmatics, 6(1), 127–168. 10.1163/18773109‑00601007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00601007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Rossen-Knill, D. F., & Henry, R.
    (1997) The pragmatics of verbal parody. Journal of Pragmatics, 271, 719–752. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(96)00054‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00054-9 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Barreras, M. A.
    (2022) Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. InA. Bagasheva, B. Hristov & N. Tincheva (Eds.), Figurativity in life and science. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.17.01rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.01rui [Google Scholar]
  14. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2017) Cognitive modeling and irony. InH. Colson, & 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]
  15. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano-Palacio, I.
    (2019a) Unraveling irony: From linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics, 51, 147–173. 10.1163/23526416‑00501006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00501006 [Google Scholar]
  17. (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]
  18. (2021) On verbal and situational irony: towards a unified approach. InA. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figures: intersubjectivity and usage (pp.213–240). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.11.07rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.11.07rui [Google Scholar]
  19. Seto, K.
    (1998) On non-echoic irony. InR. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory (pp.239–256). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.37.13set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.13set [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. (1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Watson, W. G. E.
    (1986) Classical Hebrew poetry: A guide to its techniques. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive modeling; echoing; integrated approach to irony; irony
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