Chapter published in:
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.10ath
References

References

Athanasiadou, A.
(2007) On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences, 29, 554–565. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J.
(2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21–1, 1–34. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Camp, E.
(2012) Sarcasm, Pretense, and The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Noûs, 46:4, 587–634. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. & Wearing, C.
(2011) Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3–2, 283–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L. & Gibbs, R. W.
(2002) Are Irony and Metaphor Understood Differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17:1, 57–80. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000b) Contrast of kind vs. contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30, 179–199. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kihara, Y.
(2005) The mental space structure of verbal irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 16:3, 513–530. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy. Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
(1995) Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D.
(1992) On verbal irony. Lingua, 87: 53–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

No author info given
2022.  In Introduction to Cognitive Pragmatics [Cognitive Linguistics in Practice, 4], Crossref logo
No author info given
2022.  In Modeling Irony [Figurative Thought and Language, 12], Crossref logo
Athanasiadou, Angeliki
2020.  In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 92 ff. Crossref logo
Baicchi, Annalisa
2020.  In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 2 ff. 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
Givoni, Shir, Dafna Bergerbest & Rachel Giora
2021.  In Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 241 ff. Crossref logo
Lehmann, Claudia & Alexander Bergs
2021. As if irony was in stock. Constructions and Frames 13:2 ► pp. 309 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.