Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II The Scope of Irony
- 2 Kinds of Irony: A General Theory
- 3 Irony and Cognitive Operations
- 4 The Varieties of Ironic Experience
- Part III Irony’s Impact
- Part IV Irony in Linguistic Communication
- Part V Irony, Affect, and Related Figures
- Part VI Irony in Expressive, Nonlinguistic Media
- Index
- References
3 - Irony and Cognitive Operations
from Part II - The Scope of Irony
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2023
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II The Scope of Irony
- 2 Kinds of Irony: A General Theory
- 3 Irony and Cognitive Operations
- 4 The Varieties of Ironic Experience
- Part III Irony’s Impact
- Part IV Irony in Linguistic Communication
- Part V Irony, Affect, and Related Figures
- Part VI Irony in Expressive, Nonlinguistic Media
- Index
- References
Summary
Irony is a complex phenomenon that may rely on several different forms of thought which are routinely relied on in verbal and nonverbal communication. This chapter outlines a theory of the “cognitive operations” that underlie the possible production and understanding of ironic meaning. These cognitive operations (e.g., strengthening and mitigation, expansion and reduction) are critical in the expression and interpretation of many figures of speech (e.g., metaphor, metonymy) and may provide the basis for a more general theory of meaning construction. Mendoza Ibáñez focuses primarily in this chapter, however, on ironic echoing, which allows speakers to pretend to be in agreement with some previously stated utterance or presumed thought. He considers many of the formal complexities of ironic echoing to demonstrate their varying, often subtle, communicative effects. His analysis also suggests how attention to cognitive operations may provide the theoretical basis for unifying verbal and situational irony.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought , pp. 38 - 59Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Aguert, M., Le Vallois, C., Martel, K., & Laval, V. (2018). “That’s really clever!” Ironic hyperbole understanding in children. Journal of Child Language, 45(1), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000917000113Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask – International Journal of Language and Communication, 12(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
Banasik-Jemielniak, N., & Bokus, B. (2019). Children’s comprehension of irony: Studies on Polish-speaking preschoolers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 1217–1240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09654-sCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121Google Scholar
Colston, H., & Gibbs, R. W. (2002). Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17, 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1701_5Google Scholar
Colston, H., & Gibbs, R. W. (2007). A brief history of irony. In Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, Herbert (Eds.), Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader (pp. 3–21). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2005). Sarcasm and the space structuring model. In Coulson, S., & Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Eds.), The literal and the nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 129–144). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2014). Linguistic approaches to (non)humorous irony. Humor, 27(4), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2014-0097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkum, I. L., Recasens, M., & Clark, E. V. (2017). “The moustache sits down first”: On the acquisition of metonymy. Journal of Child Language, 44(1), 87–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000915000720CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–255.Google Scholar
Galera, A. (2020). The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00049.masGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Introspection and cognitive linguistics: Should we trust our intuitions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.4.06gibCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139168779Google Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O. (2015). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30, 290–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1995). Isomorphism in the grammatical code. In Simone, R. (Ed.), Iconicity in language (pp. 47–76). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In Gibbs, R. W., & Steen, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.06graGoogle Scholar
Handwerk, G. J. (1986). Irony and ethics in narrative: From Schlegel to Lacan. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001Google Scholar
Newen, A. (2017). What are cognitive processes? An example-based approach. Synthese, 194, 4251–4268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0812-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (2004). Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1727–1739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popa-Wyatt, M. (2014). Pretence and echo: Towards and integrated account of verbal irony. International Review of Pragmatics, 6(1), 127–168. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00601007Google Scholar
Pouscoulous, N. (2014). The elevator’s buttocks: Metaphorical abilities in children. In Matthews, D. (Ed.), Pragmatic development in first language acquisition (pp. 239–259). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.10.14pouGoogle Scholar
Ramonda, K. (2019). The role of encyclopedic world knowledge in semantic transparency intuitions of idioms. English Language and Linguistics, 23(1), 31–53. https://doi.10.1017/S1360674317000284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Barcelona, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2014). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In Littlemore, J., & Taylor, J. (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp. 143–166). Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017a). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In Hampe, B. (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.009Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017b). Cognitive modeling and irony. In Colston, H., & Athanasiadou, A. (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179–200). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.09demGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2020). Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 71, 16–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2021). Ten lectures on cognitive modeling. In Between Grammar and Language-Based Inferencing. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004439221Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano, I. (2019a). A cognitive-linguistic approach to complexity in irony: Dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1611714Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano, I. (2019b). Unraveling irony: From linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics, 5, 147–173 https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00501006.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano, I. (2021). On verbal and situational irony: Towards a unified approach. In Soares da Silva, A. (Ed.), Figurative language: Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 249–276). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Pérez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). The building blocks of cognition. In Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C., & Brewer, W. F. (Eds.), theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell. https://doi.org//10.1017/s004740450001318xGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1998) Irony and relevance: A reply to Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi. In Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (Eds.), Relevance Theory (pp. 283–293). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Kesteren, M. T. R., & Meeter, M. (2020). How to optimize knowledge construction in the brain. npj Science of Learning, 5(5). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0064-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Kesteren, M. T. R., Ruiter, D. J., Fernandez, G., & Henson, R. N. (2012) How schema and novelty augment memory formation. Trends in Neurosciences, 35, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2012.02.001Google Scholar
Veale, T. (2012). Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472541659Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (2007). Dialog theory for critical argumentation. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.5Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2013). Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.016Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87, 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Explaining irony. In Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (Eds.), Meaning and Relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139028370.008Google Scholar
Žegarac, V. (2006). Believing in: A pragmatic account. Lingua 116, 1703–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.02.005Google Scholar