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

Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez | University of La Rioja

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: speaker's attitude, Pretense Theory, Relevance Theory, contrasting operations, cognitive operations, figurative thinking, echo, inferential pragmatics, idealized cognitive models

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.

Attardo, S.

(2000) Irony as Relevant Inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793–826.

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.

Clark, H., & Gerrig, R.

(1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–126.

Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W.

(2002) Are irony and metaphor understood differently. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 57–80.

Currie, G.

(2006) Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination (pp.111–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elleström, L.

(2002) Divine Madness. On interpreting literatures, music, and the visual arts ironically. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.

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.

Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G.

(2005) The brain’s concepts’ The role of sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology 22: 455–479.

Gibbs, R. W.

(2006) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language 21(3), 434–458.

(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.

(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes 48(8), 529–562.

Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.

(Eds.) (2007) Irony in language and thought. A cognitive science reader. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.

(2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.

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.

Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.

(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77.

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.

Lakoff, G.

(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.

(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.

(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.

Leech, G.

(1967) A Linguistic guide to English poetry. London / New York: Longman.

Littlemore, J.

(2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, R. A.

(2007) The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Panther, K. -U., & Thornburg, L.

(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769.

(Eds.) (2003) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

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.

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.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F.

(2014) Mapping concepts. Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 187–207.

(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.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera, A.

(2014) Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.

(2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357.

(2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K. -U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Pérez, L.

(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185.

Searle, J.

(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

(1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.

(1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Veale, T.

(2012) Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic cre- ativity. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Wilson, N., & Gibbs, R.

(2007) Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 721–731.

Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.

(2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and Relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given

2020. The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1

Barnden, John A.

2017. In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1], ► pp. 145 ff.

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.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 june 2020. 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.