Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2020) ► pp.458–479

Echoing-contrast combination in non-ironic constructions

| Sohar University
The Lexical Constructional Model (LCM) describes ironic constructions as containing echoes that invoke two contrasting situations: expected and real. The reconciliation of the contrast, which happens at the implicational level, gives rise to specific meaning effects in terms of speaker’s emotional reaction (see Ruiz de Mendoza & Galera Masegosa, 2014). The present study elaborates on these insights showing that echoing and contrast can cooperate in non-ironic constructions. In these cases, however, a full-fledged interpretation of the speaker’s reaction happens at the illocutionary level as bearing the value of an indirect invitation to the hearer to assess the truth value of the expected situation. Hence, the collaboration of echoing and contrast in non-ironic constructions may effect conceptual change/development. This is consistent with yet another observation made by the LCM; namely, that the cooperation of echoing and contrast operations in ironic constructions involves a concept-building operation (Ruiz de Mendoza, 2017).
Keywords: comparison by contrast, comparison by resemblance, echoing-contrast combination, irony, speech acts, speech reports, the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Lexical Constructional Model
    • 2.1The LCM’s account of meaning derivation process
    • 2.2Cognitive operations
  • 3.Ironic versus non-ironic echoing
  • 4.Echoing-contrast combination in non-ironic constructions: Instances of “see”
    • 4.1Cases of contrasting echoes
    • 4.2Cases where an echo invokes contrasting situations
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00067.red
References (45)
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. (2009). The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In C. S. Butler & M. A. Javier (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 117–152). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1131, 121–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Currie, G. (2006). Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination: New essays on pretence, possibility, and fiction (pp. 111–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar coursebook. (Reading Materials for Ling. X20). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1) 37–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (2002). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Pörings & R. Dirven (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349–378). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
(1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. (2016). The syntax of yes and no. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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, 1241, 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1974). Syntactic amalgams. In papers from the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, 2014.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. I1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. (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
(2000). The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–231). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Pörings & R. Dirven (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). How metonymic are metaphors? In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 93–108). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2007). Indexicality, context and pretence. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 213–229). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reda, G. (2017a). Teaching syntactic relations: A cognitive semiotic perspective. Language and Semiotic Studies, 3(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
(2017b). Conceptual projection and religion. In C. N. Kasumi (Ed.), Religion: Mental religion (pp.179–194). Part of the Macmillan Interdisciplinary Handbooks: Religion series. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
(2012). A study of two Qur’anic counterfactuals: An application of a model of conceptual projection and integration. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(4), 139–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J. (2017). Cognitive modeling and irony. In A. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179–200). 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 (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). High level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2012). Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation: Metaphoric chains. In E. R. Bárbara (Ed.), Studies in linguistics and cognition (pp.153–181). Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J., & Pérez, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 211, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J., & Rosca, A. (2013). Lexical classes and constructions: An analysis of the constructional realization of entity-specific change-of-state English verbs. EXELL, 1(1), 19–39.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In C. Pete, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr., & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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 (2)

Cited by two other publications

Reda, Ghsoon
2022. Constructivist Education: The Learner Tongue as a Prerequisite to Constructivist Practice. In Integrated Education and Learning [Integrated Science, 13], ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Reda, Ghsoon
2023. Evidential propositions as situational scenarios. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 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.