Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp.19–41

The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation

A cognitive-linguistic perspective

 | University of Almería
Echoic mention was initially proposed as part of the relevance-theoretic approach to irony (Sperber & Wilson, 1986). The aim of this article is to present an account of echoing as a cognitive operation that goes beyond (and yet includes) the interpretation of ironic remarks. For this purpose, we explore the cognitive mechanisms that underlie the production and interpretation of echoic uses of both ironic and non-ironic language. In the light of the examples under scrutiny, we claim that echoic mentions afford metonymic access to the echoed scenario, which is then contrasted with the observable scenario. The relationship between the two scenarios, which ranges from identity to contrast, passing through type-token similarity and metaphorical resemblance, determines the communicative purpose of the speaker, which may convey different kind of attitudes.
Keywords: attitude, echoing, echoed scenario, observable scenario, contrast, resemblance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical underpinnings
    • 2.1Preliminary remarks
    • 2.2Cognitive operations
    • 2.3Echoing
    • 2.4Echoic mentions, echoed scenarios, and echoing operations
  • 3.Types of resemblance between the echoed and observed scenarios
    • 3.1Type-token resemblance
    • 3.2Metaphorical resemblance
  • 4.The contrast between the echoed and observed scenarios: Irony
  • 5.Concluding remarks and further prospects
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00049.mas
References (38)
References
Alba-Juez, L., & Attardo, S. (2014). The evaluative palette of verbal irony. In G. Thompson & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Athanasiadou, A., & Colston, H. L. (Eds.). (2017). Irony in language use and communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (Eds.) (2011). Defining metonymy in Cog- nitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez–García, F. (2014). Exploring functional–cognitive space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 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 (pp. 13–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2011). Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herrero, J. (2011). The role of metonymy in complex tropes. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 167–194). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. 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
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metaphor in specialist discourse. Insights and implications for metaphor studies and beyond. In J. B. Herrmann & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in Specialist Discourse: Investigating Metaphor Use in Specific and Popularized Discourse Contexts (pp. 299–314). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palinkas, I. (2014). Metaphor, irony and blending. Argumentum, 101, 611–630.Google Scholar
Peña, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017). Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 42–73). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google 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
(2017a). Cognitive modeling and irony. In H. Colston, & A. Athanasiadou (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179–200). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: 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: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in making meaning. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. 283–307). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano, I. (2019a). Unraveling irony: From linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics, 51, 147–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b). A cognitive-linguistic approach to complexity in irony: dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 127–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K. –U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use–mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 295–318). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. (2006). The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 1161, 1722–1743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Irony and metarepresentation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 211, 183–226.Google Scholar
(2011). Paralells and differences in the treatment of metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Studia Linguistica, 1281, 195–213.Google 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
Yus, F. (2016). Propositional Attitude, Affective Attitude and Irony Comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23(1), 92–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Brdar, Mario, Rita Brdar-Szabó & Daler Zayniev
2024. Chapter 2. Metonymic layers in proverbs. In Proverbs within Cognitive Linguistics [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 16], ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Lozano-Palacio, Inés
2023. A multidimensional approach to echoing. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz de
2023. Irony and Cognitive Operations. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Reda, Ghsoon
2023. Evidential propositions as situational scenarios. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 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. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. The Scope of Irony. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.