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. 201–216

Chapter 9
Irony has a metonymic basis

Irony often cooperates with many other figures like metonymy, metaphor, hyperbole, simile. Metonymy, is argued, constitutes the basis for irony. To this effect, two frequent types of constructions that exhibit irony are studied. The particular constructions that encourage and activate irony are the adjective-noun pair and the like-construction. In the former case, ironic evaluation is expressed by means of opposing scripts while in the latter, ironic evaluation is expressed by means of comparison where dissimilarity is evoked. In both cases, figuration is evoked by constructional aspects as well. Metonymy is the conceptual process which provides the foundation onto which irony, too, is built. It is highly responsible for the production and interpretation of ironic constructions.
Keywords: antonymy, comparison, contrast, figuration, hyperbole, ironic constructions, metonymy, opposition, simile
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Verbal irony
    • 2.1Opposing scripts
    • 2.2Hyperbolic (dissimilar) comparison
  • 3.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.10ath
References (43)
References
Athanasiadou, A. (2007). On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences, 29, 554–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21–1, 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2003). Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (pp. 241–266). J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgers, Chr., van Mulken, M., & Schellens, P. J. (2011). Finding Irony: An Introduction of the Verbal Irony Procedure (VIP). Metaphor and Symbol, 26:3, 186–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camp, E. (2012). Sarcasm, Pretense, and The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Noûs, 46:4, 587–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. & Wearing, C. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3–2, 283–312. 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
Colston, H. L. & Keller, S. (1998). You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 499–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L. & O’Brien, J. (2000a). Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1557–1583. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000b). Contrast of kind vs. contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30, 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S. (2005). Sarcasm and the space structuring model. In S. Coulson, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Literal and Nonliteral in Language and Thought (pp. 129–144). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative Language. CUP.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. & Bowdle, B. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16: 3-4, 223–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). Irony in Language and Thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Taylor & Francis Group. New York, London.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19: 239–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Pragmatics (pp. 113–127). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Herrero Ruiz, J. (2011). The role of metonymy in complex tropes. Cognitive operations and pragmatic implications. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 167–193). J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, M., Riddle Harding, J., & Tobin, V. (2004). On simile. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture and Mind (pp. 123–135). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kay, P. C., & Fillmore, Ch. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kihara, Y. (2005). The mental space structure of verbal irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 16:3, 513–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy. Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moder, C. (2008). It’s like making a soup: Metaphors and similes in spoken news discourse. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the Context of Use. Discourse and Cognitive Approaches to Language (pp. 301–320). Mouton de Gruyter, CLR 37.Google Scholar
Palinkas, I. (2014a). Blending and folk theory in an explanation of irony. RCL, 12:1, 64–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Metaphor, Irony and Blending. Argumentum, 10, 611–630.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & L. Thornburg (2012). Antonymy in language structure and use. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Z. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 159–186). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2017). Exploiting wh-questions for expressive purposes. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in Figurative Thought and Language (pp. 17–40). J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 17–59). J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 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
(2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 103–123). J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. HCP series 28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Diez Velasco, O. I. (2003). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 489–532). Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use – mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 295–318). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tobin, V., & Israel, M. (2012). Irony as a viewpoint phenomenon. In B. Dancygier, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in Language (pp. 25–46). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vosshagen, Chr. (1999). Opposition as a Metonymic Principle. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 289–308). J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87: 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

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
Givoni, Shir, Dafna Bergerbest & Rachel Giora
2021. On figurative ambiguity, marking, and low-salience meanings. In Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Lehmann, Claudia & Alexander Bergs
2021. As if irony was in stock. Constructions and Frames 13:2 ► pp. 309 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
Athanasiadou, Angeliki
2020. Intensification via figurative language. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Athanasiadou, Angeliki
2024. Cultural Conceptualizations of Irony Versus Arrogance and their Figurative Expression. In The Handbook of Cultural Linguistics [Springer Handbooks in Languages and Linguistics, ], ► pp. 697 ff. DOI logo
Baicchi, Annalisa
2020. Figurativeness all the way down. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 2 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
Barnden, John A.
2022. Metonymy, reflexive hyperbole and broadly reflexive relationships. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Introduction to Cognitive Pragmatics [Cognitive Linguistics in Practice, 4], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Modeling Irony [Figurative Thought and Language, 12], 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 15 october 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.