Cover not available
Part of
Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi
[Figurative Thought and Language 9] 2020
► pp. 91–106

Intensification via figurative language

| Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Figurative language, generally speaking, involves intended meaning; it is employed in order to communicate something beyond the very meaning of the elements of a construction. This is largely accomplished by the incongruence of domains, scripts, frames or entities that participate in the conceptualization and the expression of figuration. Irony, simile, metaphor, hyperbole, or metonymy are witnessed to come to the surface, depending on the degree of incongruity between sources and targets. Each figurative process highlights different degrees of intensification. Intensification seems also to be due not only to the type of figure but to two additional parameters as well: the evocation of more than one figure and the special constructional patterns of the usage involved.
Keywords: constructional patterns, figuration, figurative processes, incongruity, intensification, lexicogrammar, opposition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Interaction between figures in a construction
  • 3.Constructions
  • 4.Conceptual incongruity and intensification
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.04ath
References (34)
References
Athanasiadou, A. (2007). On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences 29, 554–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Irony has a metonymic basis. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in Language Use and Communication (pp. 201–216). Figurative Thought and Language Series 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ms. Cultural conceptualizations of irony versus arrogance and their figurative expression. Paper presented in The 1st International Conference of Cultural Linguistics, 20–02/7/2016, Prato, Italy.
Athanasiadou, A., & Dirven, R. (2000). Pragmatic Conditionals. In A. Foolen, & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A. (2008). Unparalleled creativity in metaphor. Creative Intelligent Systems: Papers from 2008 AAAI Spring Symposium. (Dan Ventura, Mary Lou Maher & Simon Colton, Cochairs).Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2010). “Mummy, I love you like a thousand ladybirds”: Reflections on the emergence of hyperbolic effects and the truth of hyperboles. In A. Burkhardt, & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical Truth(s). The Epistemology of Metaphor and Other Tropes (pp. 383–427). Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camp, E. (2012). Sarcasm, Pretense, and The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Noûs, 46:4, 587–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Why metaphors make good insults: perspectives, presupposition, and pragmatics. Philosophical Studies, 1–18.Google Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3–3, 283–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2014). Development of Metaphorical Thinking: The Role of Language. In M. Borkent, J. Hinnell, & B. Dancygier (Eds.), Language and the Creative Mind (pp. 3–18). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Colston, H., & Gibbs, R. W. (2002). Are Irony and Metaphor Understood Differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17:1, 57–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16: 3–3, 223–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford, 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. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kittay, E. F. (1987). Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2009). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I. Stanford, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Losing control: grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency. In A. Blank, & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition (pp. 147–175). Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy. Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. 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). Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010). Two puzzle pieces: fitting discourse context and constructions into Cognitive Metaphor Theory. English Text Construction, 3(2), 294–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2009). Introduction. On figuration in grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
Popa, M. (2010). Ironic Metaphor Interpretation. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics (TWPL), vol. 33.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., Köpcke, K.-M., Berg, Th. & Siemund, P. (2007). Introduction: The construction of meaning in language. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, P. Siemund, (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stern, J. (2000). Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. 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). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar