Cover not available
Article published In:
Applying Embodied Cognition and Cognitive Linguistics to language teaching
Edited by Paolo Della Putta and Ferran Suñer
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:1] 2023
► pp. 210–228
Regular articles

A multidimensional approach to echoing

Categories, uses, and types

| Universitat Politècnica de València
Stemming from the use-mention distinction by the philosophy of language, Relevance Theory introduces the notion of echo in the context of the echoic mention theory of irony (cf. Wilson & Sperber, 2012). Since then, echoing has awakened multidisciplinary interest, mostly in connection to this figure of thought. Studies on echoing have provided a largely one-dimensional approach. Within cognitive modeling studies, echoing is elevated to the status of cognitive operation. Taking cognitive modeling as a starting point, the aim of the present article is to study echoing from a multidimensional perspective, focusing on its features, functions, and usages. Specifically, the present study addresses echoic implicitness, completeness, complexity, accuracy, and non-ironic echoes (i.e., parodic echoes, denotational and non-denotational echoes). All in all, this study introduces a higher degree of systematicity in the study of echoing in general and endows echo-based studies of irony with greater explanatory adequacy.
Keywords: irony, echoing, integrated approach to irony, cognitive modeling
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some remarks on echoing
  • 3.A brief methodological note
  • 4.A multidimensional analysis of echoing
    • 4.1Implicitness
    • 4.2Completeness
    • 4.3Complexity
      • 4.3.1Compounded echoes
      • 4.3.2Cumulative echoes
      • 4.3.3Echoic chains
    • 4.4Accuracy
    • 4.5Non-ironic echoes
      • 4.5.1Parodic echoes
      • 4.5.2Denotational and non-denotational echoes
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00132.loz
References (22)
References
Bussmann, H. (1996). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. Routledge.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & R. J. Gerrig. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. i, 1 1, 121–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and Decision, 11 1, 27–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galera, A. (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
Goldberg, A. (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (4), 237–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115 (1), 3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lozano-Palacio, I. (2019). Irony in linguistics and literary theory: Towards a synthetic approach. Miscelánea: A journal of English and American Studies, 60 1, 95–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lozano-Palacio, I., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2022). Modeling irony. A cognitive-pragmatic account. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: 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
Rossen-Knill, D. F., & Henry, R. (1997). The pragmatics of verbal parody. Journal of Pragmatics, 27 1, 719–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Barreras, M. A. (2022). Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. In A. Bagasheva, B. Hristov & N. Tincheva (Eds.), Figurativity in life and science. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017). Cognitive modeling and irony. In H. Colson, & A. Athanasiadou (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179–200). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano-Palacio, I. (2019a). Unraveling irony: From linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics, 5 1, 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
(2021). On verbal and situational irony: towards a unified approach. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figures: intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 213–240). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seto, K. (1998). On non-echoic irony. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory (pp. 239–256). 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
(1995). Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Watson, W. G. E. (1986). Classical Hebrew poetry: A guide to its techniques. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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

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.