Cover not available
Part of
Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives
Edited by John Barnden and Andrew Gargett
[Figurative Thought and Language 10] 2020
► pp. 449–468

Mind the gap

Expressing affect with hyperbole and hyperbolic figures

| Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) , Berlin

Hyperbole is traditionally understood as exaggeration. I argue instead that the point of hyperbole is emphasis. By overstating that things are greater (lesser) than expected, hoped, or desired, we shift the salience of the target property, thus making it more emphatic. This enables to express surprise or other relevant affect in reaction to how much, or how little, our expectations have been either exceeded or thwarted. This purpose is well suited to hyperbolic expression. This is because hyperbole naturally draws a contrast between how things are and how they were expected to be, exaggerating the gap between them. I conclude by considering the characteristics of hyperbolic figures where hyperbole mixes with other figures of speech.

Keywords: hyperbole, salience-shift, affect, metaphor, irony, hyperbolic figures
Article outline
  • 1.Hyperbole and exaggeration
  • 2.What’s in hyperbole?
  • 3.Scaling up F and expressing affect
  • 4.Context-relative scaling
  • 5.Hyperbolic Figures
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.16pop
References

References

Aristotle
(350 BC) Rhetoric, Trans. by W. Rhys Roberts, 1954. Available online from [URL]Google Scholar
Barnden, J.
(2017) Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou, & Herbert L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 145–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Uniting irony, hyperbole and metaphor in a pretence-based framework. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Ed.), On the diversity of irony. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barnden, J., & Popa-Wyatt, M.
(2012) Hyperbole in irony. In 4th UK-Cognitive Linguistics Conference (UK-CLC4), Kings’ College, London.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E.
(2005) A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
(2015) Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 79–92. 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.
(2013) Presentation 2.1.13 at the University of Alberta. [URL]
(2015) Using figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J.
(2000) Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishment of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30(2), 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B.
(1998) You’ll never believe this: irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499–513. 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
Grady, J., Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
(1999) Blending and metaphor. In G. Steen, & R. W. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts, R. M.
(1995) Two cues for verbal irony: Hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 21–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, P.
(2005) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(6), 643–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2017) Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 41–73). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popa-Wyatt, M.
(2009)  Figuring the code: Pragmatic routes to the non-literal . PhD dissertation. University of Geneva.
(2010a) Ironic metaphor interpretation. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 33.Google Scholar
(2010b) Ironic metaphor: A case for metaphor’s contribution to truth-conditions. In E. Walaszewska, M. Kisielewska-Krysiuk, & A. Piskorska (Eds.), In the mind and across minds: A relevance-theoretic perspective on communication and translation (pp. 224–245). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(2014) Pretence and echo: Towards an integrated account of verbal irony. International Review of Pragmatics, 6, 127–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Compound figures: Priority and speech-act structure. Philosophical Studies, 174(1), 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Embedding irony and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Inquiry, 62/6, 674–699.Google Scholar
(2020) Hyperbolic figures. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Ed.), On the diversity of irony. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(ms) Compound figures: intention structure and communicative channels.
Recanati, F.
(2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rubio-Fernández, P., Wearing, C., & Carston, R.
(2015) Metaphor and hyperbole: Testing the continuity hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 24–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2014) Mapping concepts. Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 187–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Figurative language: relations and constraints. In A. Gargett, & J. Barnden (Ed.), Figurative thought and language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Walton, K.
(1990) Mimesis as make-believe: on the foundations of the representational arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2017) Meiosis, hyperbole, irony. Philosophical Studies, 174(1), 105–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2006) The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 40–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Irony, hyperbole, jokes and banter. In J. Blochowiak, C. Grisot, S. Durrleman, & C. Laenzlinger (Eds.), Formal models in the study of language (pp. 201–219). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

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.
2022. Metonymy, reflexive hyperbole and broadly reflexive relationships. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], 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 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.