Cover not available
Part of
Irony in Language Use and Communication
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou and Herbert L. Colston
[Figurative Thought and Language 1] 2017
► pp. 179–200

Chapter 8
Cognitive modeling and irony

This chapter studies the role of the pragmatic notion of echo in creating ironic meaning. The notion of echo is treated as a cognitive operation rather than just a pragmatic task, which combines with other cognitive operations of at least two kinds: concept-building and inferential. The former operations include the creation of echoed and observed scenarios. The latter include the cancellation and addition of structure in an echoed scenario resulting from the contrast between the two scenarios. This account of irony, which is complementary of the one developed in Relevance Theory, allows us to trace the origin of the speaker’s attitudinal component in an ironic utterance to the underlying cognitive activity involving the cancellation of echoed assumptions within an inferential reasoning schema.

Keywords: cognitive operations, contrasting operations, echo, figurative thinking, idealized cognitive models, inferential pragmatics, Pretense Theory, Relevance Theory, speaker’s attitude
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A brief overview of approaches
  • 3.Echoing
  • 4.Ironic echoing
  • 5.Contrasting
  • 6.Cognitive modeling
  • 7.Modeling irony
  • 8.Special cases of echoing operations involving irony
  • 9.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 14 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.09dem
References
Anderson, John R.
(2010) Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Attardo, S.
(2000) Irony as Relevant Inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J.
this volume). Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou & H. Colston Eds. Irony in Language Use and Communication FTL series Amsterdam John Benjamins Publishing Company
Carston, R.
(2002) Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R.
(1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W.
(2002) Are irony and metaphor understood differently. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 57–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Currie, G.
(2006) Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination (pp.111–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elleström, L.
(2002) Divine Madness. On interpreting literatures, music, and the visual arts ironically. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar
Gallese, V.
(2003) The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: The quest for a common mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 358: 1231–1240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G.
(2005) The brain’s concepts’ The role of sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology 22: 455–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(2006) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language 21(3), 434–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Experimental tests of figurative meaning construction. In G. Radden, K. M. Köpke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (eds.) Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 19–32). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes 48(8), 529–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.
(Eds.) (2007) Irony in language and thought. A cognitive science reader. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.
(2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. H.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and seman- tics: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
(1967) A Linguistic guide to English poetry. London / New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. A.
(2007) The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K. -U., & Thornburg, L.
(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2003) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. -U.
(2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
(2014) Mapping concepts. Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 187–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: from basicity to complexity. In Beate Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera, A.
(2014) Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
(2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K. -U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Pérez, L.
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Veale, T.
(2012) Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic cre- ativity. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Wilson, N., & Gibbs, R.
(2007) Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 721–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and Relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 22 other publications

Antloga, Špela
2023. Review of Peña-Cervel & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2022): Figuring out Figuration: A Cognitive Linguistic Account. Metaphor and the Social World 13:2 ► pp. 316 ff. DOI logo
Barnden, John
2021. Metaphor and irony. In Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Barnden, John
2023. Irony, Exaggeration, and Hyperbole: No Embargo on the Cargo!. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 272 ff. DOI logo
Barnden, John A.
2017. Chapter 7. Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1], ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz
2022. Analogical and Non-analogical Resemblance in Figurative Language: A Cognitive-Linguistic Perspective. In Metaphors and Analogies in Sciences and Humanities [Synthese Library, 453], ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz de
2023. Irony and Cognitive Operations. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2020. Figurative language. In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10], ► pp. 469 ff. DOI logo
Galera Masegosa, Alicia
2020. The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza & Inés Lozano-Palacio
2019. A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach to Complexity in Irony: Dissecting the Ironic Echo. Metaphor and Symbol 34:2 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Inés Lozano-Palacio
2021. On verbal and situational irony. In Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Kratochvílová, Dana
2024. Review of Peña-Cervel & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2022): Figuring out figuration: A cognitive linguistic account. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Lehmann, Claudia
2021. About as boring as flossing sharks: Cognitive accounts of irony and the family of approximate comparison constructions in American English. Cognitive Linguistics 32:1 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Lehmann, Claudia & Alexander Bergs
2021. As if irony was in stock. Constructions and Frames 13:2 ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
Lozano-Palacio, Inés
2023. A multidimensional approach to echoing. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
Peña Cervel, Ma Sandra
2022. For Better, for Worse, for Richer, for Poorer, in Sickness and in Health: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach to Merism. Metaphor and Symbol 37:3 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Reda, Ghsoon
2020. Echoing-contrast combination in non-ironic constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:2 ► pp. 458 ff. DOI logo
Reda, Ghsoon
2023. Conceptual Development and Change: The Role of Echoing and Contrast as Cognitive Operations. In Brain, Decision Making and Mental Health [Integrated Science, 12], ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & María Asunción Barreras Gómez
2022. Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Modeling Irony [Figurative Thought and Language, 12], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. The Scope of Irony. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Irony, Affect, and Related Figures. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.