Chapter published in:
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
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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R.
(1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W.
(2002) Are irony and metaphor understood differently. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 57–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Currie, G.
(2006) Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination (pp.111–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G.
(2005) The brain’s concepts’ The role of sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology 22: 455–479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(2006) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language 21(3), 434–458. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes 48(8), 529–562. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2003) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Pérez, L.
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and Relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

No author info given
2022.  In Modeling Irony [Figurative Thought and Language, 12], Crossref logo
Barnden, John
2021.  In Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 139 ff. Crossref logo
Barnden, John A.
2017.  In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1], ► pp. 145 ff. Crossref logo
Galera Masegosa, Alicia
2020. The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 19 ff. Crossref 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. Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Lehmann, Claudia & Alexander Bergs
2021. As if irony was in stock. Constructions and Frames 13:2 ► pp. 309 ff. Crossref logo
Reda, Ghsoon
2020. Echoing-contrast combination in non-ironic constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:2 ► pp. 458 ff. Crossref logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2020.  In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10], ► pp. 469 ff. Crossref logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Inés Lozano-Palacio
2021.  In Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 213 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. 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.