Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 42–73

Chapter 2
Construing and constructing hyperbole

| University of La Rioja
| University of La Rioja
Hyperbole has received little attention in Cognitive Linguistics, while studies within psychology and pragmatics leave aside its representational aspects. To fill this gap, this chapter looks into linguistic evidence of the cognitive operations that underlie its communicative impact. Following up on recent research on figurative thought in terms of cross-domain mappings (e.g. Ruiz de Mendoza 2014), this chapter provides further evidence for an analysis of hyperbole in such terms. It offers a critical account of existing taxonomies of this phenomenon, argues for a twofold distinction between inference-based and constructional hyperbole, and discusses the usually hyperbolic X is not Y but Z and ‘God-related’ constructions. Finally, the chapter contends that hyperbole is regulated by the joint activity of two sets of constraints.
Keywords: cognitive operations, constraints, cross-domain mapping, inference-based and construction-based hyperbole, figurative expressions of emotions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A brief note on methodology and corpus selection
  • 3.Creating mental models of how we perceive the world
  • 4.A cognitive-linguistic approach to hyperbole
    • 4.1Hyperbole as a cross-domain mapping
    • 4.2Classifying hyperbole
  • 5.Hyperbolic constructions
    • 5.1 X is not Y but Z
      • 5.1.1NP1 is not NP2 but NP3
      • 5.1.2NP is not ADJP1 but ADJP2
    • 5.2‘God-related’ constructions
  • 6.Constraints on hyperbole
    • 6.1General constraints
    • 6.2Specific constraints
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.02pen
References (74)
References
Anderson, J. R. 2010. Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. J. 1998. The atomic components of thought. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bergen, B., & Binsted, K. 2003. The cognitive linguistics of scalar humor. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (79–92). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bergh, G. 2005. Min(d)ing English language data on the Web: What can Google tell us? ICAME Journal , 29, 25–46.Google Scholar
Bergh, G., & Zanchetta, E. 2008. Web linguistics. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (309–327). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bhaya, R. 1985. Telling lies: Some literary and other violations of Grice’s maxim of quality. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 14, 53–71.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. 2013. Metonymy in language, thought, and brain. London & Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
Byrne, R. M. J. 2007. Precis of the rational imagination: How people create alternatives to reality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(5–6), 439–453.Google Scholar
Cano, L. 2003–2004. At the risk of exaggerating: How do listeners react to hyperbole? Anglogermanica Online 2 ([URL])
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. 2011. Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 283–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 79–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C. 2011. Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. 1996. Psychology of language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J. 2000. Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30, 179–199. DOI logoGoogle 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 (13–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. 2000. Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. 2012. Interpreting figurative meaning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford 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 (79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (41–58). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Haverkate, H. 1990. A speech-act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 77–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrero, J. 2009. Understanding tropes: At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hopper, P J., & Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. D. 2010. Hyperboles: The rhetoric of excess in Baroque literature and thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., & Grefenstette, G. 2003. Introduction to the special issue on the Web as corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29(3), 333–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, R., & Roberts, R. 1995. Two cues for verbal irony: Hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(1), 21–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunneman, F., Liebrecht, C., van den Bosch, A., & van Mulken, M. 2014. Signaling sarcasm: From hyperbole to hashtag. Information Processing and Management. DOI logo
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lausberg, H. 1990. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leisi, E. 1953. Der Wortinhalt: seine Struktur im Deutschen und Englischen. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. 2015. Metonymy. Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. 2004. “There’s millions of them”: hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 149–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R. 2004. Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1727–1739. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renouf, A. 2003. WebCorp: Providing a renewable data source for corpus linguists. In S. Granger, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research: New applications, new challenges (39–58). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (27–48). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rubio-Fernández, P., Wearing, C., & Carston, R. 2013. How metaphor and hyperbole differ: An empirical investigation of the relevance-theoretic account of loose use. In D. Mazzarella, I. Needham-Didsbury, & K. Tang (Eds.), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 35 (20–45).([URL]).
2015. Metaphor and hyperbole: Testing the continuity hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 30, 24–40. 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 (103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Meaning construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Mapping concepts. Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 187–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A. 2007. Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes, & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (95–128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. 2014. Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Luzondo, A. 2016. Figurative and non-figurative motion in English resultative constructions. Language and Cognition, 8, 32–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. 2008. Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña, M. S. 2005. Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations, and projection spaces. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (254–280). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008. Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish. In M. A. Gómez, J. L. Mackenzie, & E. M. González-Álvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive perspectives (251–280). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. 2011. The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sert, O. 2008. An interactive analysis of hyperboles in a British TV series: Implications for EFL classes. ARECLS, 5, 1–28 ([URL]).
2009. Developing interactional competence by using TV series in ‘English as an additional language’ classrooms. Enletawa Journal, 2, 23–50 ([URL]).
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance, communication and cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spitzbardt, H. 1963. Overstatement and understatement in British and American English. Philologica Pragensia, 6, 277–286.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. 2013. Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van der Henst, J.-B., & Sperber, D. 2012. Testing the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (279–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. 1991. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Veale, T. 2012. Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic creativity . London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 625–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. 2012. Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Ivorra Ordines, Pedro & Belén López Meirama
2024.  Vete a freír cristales . Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Kratochvílová, Dana
2024. Review of Peña-Cervel & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2022): Figuring out figuration: A cognitive linguistic account. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Martínez, Inmaculada Penadés
2023. Las locuciones hiperbólicas. Yearbook of Phraseology 14:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Peña Cervel, Ma Sandra
2022. For Better, for Worse, for Richer, for Poorer, in Sickness and in Health: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach to Merism. Metaphor and Symbol 37:3 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Peña-Cervel, María Sandra
2022. Lexical blending in terms of cognitive modeling. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 275 ff. DOI logo
Galera Masegosa, Alicia
2020. The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2020. Metonymy meets coercion. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo
Popa-Wyatt, Mihaela
2020. Mind the gap. In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10], ► pp. 449 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2020. Figurative language. In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10], ► pp. 469 ff. DOI logo
Barnden, John
2018. Broadly reflexive relationships, a special type of hyperbole, and implications for metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol 33:3 ► pp. 218 ff. DOI logo
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.
2017. Chapter 7. Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1], ► pp. 145 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]
2022. Modeling Irony [Figurative Thought and Language, 12], 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 14 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.