Cover not available
Part of
Figurativity and Human Ecology
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov and Nelly Tincheva
[Figurative Thought and Language 17] 2022
► pp. 15–41

Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance

ORCID logo | University of La Rioja
ORCID logo | University of La Rioja

Similarity judgments are fundamental to cognition. They are part and parcel of our ability as humans to deal with the world around us. This ability shows in how we structure and use language. In this context, this chapter addresses the role of perceived similarity, or resemblance, in language use. It starts from a basic distinction between linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. The former addresses similarities between entities and states of affairs, while the latter addresses metarepresentational aspects of language, which can be treated in terms of the notion of echo. It further distinguishes three dimensions of linguistic resemblance: attribute-based resemblance, structural resemblance, and high versus low-level resemblance. It pays special attention to the important theoretical status of high-level resemblance as a constraining factor on experiential correlation, which is also active in synesthesia and situation and event-based metaphors. The paper then discusses the role of resemblance in cross-domain relations in irony, hyperbole, and understatement, and it ends with an analysis of the role of metalinguistic resemblance as a pre-requisite for the inferential activity which arises from ironic, parodic, and metonymy-based implicational echoes.

Keywords: analogy, echo, linguistic resemblance, metalinguistic resemblance, metaphor, structural resemblance, high-level resemblance, simile
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Linguistic resemblance
    • 2.1Correlation metaphors and high-level resemblance
    • 2.2Synesthesia as a cause-effect correlation metaphor
    • 2.3Situation and event-based metaphors or similes
  • 3.Special cases of linguistic resemblance
  • 4.Metalinguistic resemblance
    • 4.1Ironic echoing
    • 4.2Parodic echoing
    • 4.3Implicational echoing
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.01rui
References (57)
Anderson, E. R.
(1998) A grammar of iconism. London: Associated University Presses.Google Scholar
Attardo, S.
(2000) Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask –International Journal of Language and Communication, 12(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
Audi, N.
(2015) The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Third edition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J.
(2020) Uniting irony, hyperbole and metaphor in an affect-centred, pretence-based framework. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. L. Colston (Eds.), The diversity of irony (pp. 15–65). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bryant, G. A. & Fox Tree, J. E.
(2005) Is there an Ironic Tone of Voice? Language and Speech, 48(3), 257–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camp, E.
(2012) Sarcasm, pretence and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Noûs, 46, 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
Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M.
(1999) Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 668–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D., & Kennedy, J. M.
(2001) Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor & Symbol, 16(3), 249–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J., & Chiappe, P.
(2003) Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31, 51–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowling, S.
(2017) Resemblance. Philosophy Compass, 12 (4): e12401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A.
(2000) Meaning in language. An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Csábi, S.
(2014) Metaphor and stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 206–221). Routledge.Google Scholar
Cytowic, R. E.
(2002) Synesthesia: A union of the senses (2nd ed.). MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galera, A.
(2013) A cognitive approach to simile-based idiomatic expressions. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 43, 3–48.Google Scholar
(2020) The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. A cognitive-linguistic perspective. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P.
(2014) Geometry of meaning. Semantics based on conceptual spaces. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L.
(2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C.
(2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: when comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y.
(2005) Similarity. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 13–36). Cambridge University Press.Google 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). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1980) The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56(3), 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasson, U., Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Metaphors communicate more effectively than do similes. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society. 42d Annual Meeting, 6, 103. Psychonomic Society Publications.Google Scholar
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.
(1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lozano, I., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
(2022) Modeling irony. John Benjamins. 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). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(2018) What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In O. Blanco Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy. Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 121–160). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partington, A.
(2007) Irony and the reversal of evaluation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1547–1569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2022) Figuring out figuration. A cognitive linguistic account. 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
Rodríguez-Pereyra, G.
(2002) Resemblance nominalism. A solution to the problem of universals. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Romano, M.
(2017) Are similes and metaphors interchangeable? A case study in opinion discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossen-Knill, D. F., & Henry, R.
(1997) The pragmatics of verbal parody. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 719–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(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). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Cognitive modeling and irony. In H. Colston, & A. Athanasiadou (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179–200). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a) Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 71, 16–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b) Figurative language. Relations and constraints. In J. Barnden, & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (pp. 469–510). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022) Analogical and non-analogical resemblance in figurative language: a cognitive-linguistic perspective. In S. Wuppuluri, & A. C. Grayling (Eds.), Metaphors and analogies in sciences and humanities: Words and worlds (pp. 269–294). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in meaning making. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. 283–308). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano, I.
(2019) A Cognitive-Linguistic approach to complexity in irony: Dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 127–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) On verbal and situational irony: towards a unified approach. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative Language: Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 249–276). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D.
(2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, W.
(2007) Iconicity. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 394–418). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S.
(2004) Conceptual spaces and embodied actions: Cognitive iconicity and signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 119–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Ten lectures on Cognitive Linguistics and the unification of spoken and signed languages. Brill.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2000) Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Metarepresentations. A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 411–448). Oxford University Press (revized version in Wilson and Sperber, 2012a).Google Scholar
(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(A), 40–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012a) Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 230–258). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by 4 other publications

Lozano-Palacio, Inés
2023. A multidimensional approach to echoing. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
Lozano-Palacio, Inés
2024. A cognitive-pragmatic account of the structural elements of the ironic event. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2023. HOW LIKE-SIMILE RELATES TO METAPHOR: AN EXPLORATION OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2024. Metaphor as a resemblance phenomenon. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 8 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.