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. 469–510

Figurative language

Relations and constraints

| University of La Rioja

The present paper discusses two aspects of the production of figures of speech. The first one is their relatedness, which is established on the basis of an analysis of their cognitive configuration in terms of combinations of cognitive operations. Such operations are applied to the creation of basic figures of speech such as metaphor, metonymy, understatement, overstatement, irony, paradox, and oxymoron. Other traditional figurative uses of language are then accounted for with reference to these more basic ones. The second aspect that this paper addresses is the question of constraints on figurative thinking. In this respect, it reviews previous proposals on the topic and extends their application to other cases of figurative language use. The resulting account links figurative language up with the notion of embodied cognition.

Keywords: cognitive operations, constraints on figures of speech, embodied cognition, figurative language, figures of speech, pragmatic inferencing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The analytical tools: A thumbnail account
    • 2.1Cognitive operations: Definition and types
    • 2.2Inferential cognitive operations
      • 2.2.1Formal operations
      • 2.2.2Content operations
    • 2.3Benefits of the account
  • 3.Figures of speech revisited
    • 3.1Metaphor, simile, and related figures
      • 3.1.1Allegory
      • 3.1.2Analogy
      • 3.1.3Paragon
      • 3.1.4Synesthesia
      • 3.1.5Hypocatastasis
    • 3.2Metonymy and related figures
      • 3.2.1Synecdoche
      • 3.2.2 Hypallage
      • 3.2.3Anthimeria
      • 3.2.4 Anthonomasia
      • 3.2.5Merism
      • 3.2.6Aphorisms
    • 3.3 Overstatement
    • 3.4 Understatement, meiosis, and litotes
    • 3.5 Irony
      • 3.5.1 Antiphrasis
      • 3.5.2Prolepsis
      • 3.5.3Sarcasm
    • 3.6Paradox and oxymoron
  • 4. Constraining figurative language
    • 4.1The extended invariance principle
    • 4.2 The correlation principle
    • 4.3 Figure-specific principles: Adjusting scalar concepts and maximizing echoes and contrasts
      • 4.3.1 Scalar symmetry and scalar pragmatic adjustment
      • 4.3.2 Maximization of echoes and contrasts
  • 5. Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.17rui
References

References

Abrams, M. H., & Harpham, G. G.
(2009) A glossary of literary terms (9th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R.
(2010) Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Ayton, J.
(1998) The Oxford dictionary of slang. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A.
(2003) On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 31–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A.
(2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J.
(2017) Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In H. Colston, & A. Athanasiadou (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 145–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(Eds.) (2011) Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M.
(2007) Metonymy in grammar. Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.Google Scholar
Carston, R.
(2002) Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J.
(1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 121–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
(2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2010) Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński, & Ł. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action. From theory to application and back (pp. 13–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
(1999) Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61–76). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529– 562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Metaphor wars. Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.
(2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: when comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez, F., Peña, S., & Pérez, L.
(Eds.) (2013) Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Recent developments and applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J., & Johnson, C.
(2002) Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 533–553). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1960) Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. R.
(1999)  Constructional grounding: The role of interpretational overlap in lexical and constructional acquisition . PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a Cognitive Linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle 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(1), 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Langacker, R. W.
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy. Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miró, I.
(2018) Combining metaphors: From metaphoric amalgams to binary systems. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(1), 81–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R.
(2004) Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1727–1739. DOI logoGoogle 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
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, S.
(2003) Topology and cognition. What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
(2008) Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1041–1066. 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.
(2014) Pretence and echo: Towards and integrated account of verbal irony. International Review of Pragmatics, 6(1), 127–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2017a) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: from basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2017b) Cognitive modeling and irony. In C. Colston, & A. Athanasiadou (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179–200). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gómez, M. A.
(2014) Constructing discourse and discourse constructions. In M. A. Gómez, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & F. Gonzálvez (Eds.), Theory and practice in functional-cognitive space (pp. 295–314). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano, I.
(2019) Unraveling irony: From linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics, 5, 147–173. . DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
(2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, N., & Gibbs, R.
(2007) Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 721–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Athanasiadou, Angeliki
2023. Paragon and antonomasia: Similar but/and different?. Lingua 288 ► pp. 103522 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
Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
2021. Metonymic indeterminacy and metalepsis. In Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo
Broccias, Cristiano
2022. A Cognitive Grammar approach to ‘metonymy’. In Figurative Thought and Language in Action [Figurative Thought and Language, 16], ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Galera Masegosa, Alicia
2023. Review of Lozano-Palacio & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2022): Modeling Irony: A Cognitive-pragmatic Account. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 10:1 ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo
Panther, Klaus-Uwe
2022. Attribute transfer. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & María Asunción Barreras Gómez
2022. Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Modeling Irony [Figurative Thought and Language, 12], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], 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.