Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 273–294

Chapter 11
Pragmatic effects in blended figures

The case of metaphtonymy

 | University of Alberta
Issues concerning pragmatic effects resulting from blends of figurative language forms are considered. Different resulting patterns in such blends are approached first through deconstruction of pragmatic effects in individual figures such as metaphor, synecdoche, broader metonymy, verbal irony and others. How blends of those figures can then afford cancellation, facilitation, combination and other outcomes for their corralled pragmatic effects is then demonstrated from previous research and consideration of blended figurative examples, most prominently blends of metaphor and metonymy, or metaphtonymy. A call for further research and delineation of some specific issues warranted by such an exploration is then offered.
Keywords: pragmatics, metaphor, metonymy, verbal irony, hyperbole, synecdoche, oxymora, figure blends, figurative language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Figures in isolation
    • 2.1Metaphor
      • 2.1.1Association
      • 2.1.2Sharing
      • 2.1.3Blending
      • 2.1.4Emergence
      • 2.1.5Simulation
    • 2.2Synecdoche
      • 2.2.1Diminishment
      • 2.2.2Iconic minimalism
      • 2.2.3Attitude demonstration
    • 2.3Verbal irony
      • 2.3.1Pretense
      • 2.3.2Echoic mention and reminder
      • 2.3.3Graded salience
      • 2.3.4Contrast
  • 3.Blended figures
    • 3.1Metaphor with verbal irony
    • 3.2Verbal irony with synecdoche (metonymy)
    • 3.3Metaphor with synecdoche (metonymy)
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.11col
References (28)
References
Baring, Z., Cushing, H., Gay-Rees, J. (Producers), & Banksy (Director). 2010. Exit through the gift shop [Motion picture]. United Kingdom: Paranoid Pictures.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. 2012. Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Brone, G., Feyaerts, K., & Veale, T. (Eds.). 2016. Cognitive linguistics and humor research. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. 2011. Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatics approach. Language and Cognition, 3, 283–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. 2007. On the pretense theory of irony. In R. W. Gibbs, & H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader (25–33). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. 1997. “I’ve never seen anything like it”: Overstatement, understatement and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 43–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. What figurative language development reveals about the mind. In A. C. Schalley, & D. Khlentzos (Eds.), Mental states. Volume 2: Language and cognitive structure (191–212). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Using figurative language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. 2002. Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 57–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B. 1998. You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
David, L., Seinfeld, J., Mandel, D. (Writers), & Ackerman, A. (Director). 1996. The Bizarro Jerry [Television series episode]. In A. Ackerman, T. Kaiser, & S. Mamann-Greenberg (Producers), Seinfeld. Los Angeles, CA: Castle Rock Entertainment.Google Scholar
David, L., Seinfeld, J., & Mandel, D. (Writers), & Ackerman, A. (Director). 1997. The Strike [Television series episode]. In A. Ackerman, T. Kaiser, & S. Mamann-Greenberg (Producers), Seinfeld. Los Angeles, CA: Castle Rock Entertainment.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. B. 2008. Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (53–66). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, H. L. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. 1986. Comprehension and memory for nonliteral utterances: The problem of sarcastic indirect requests. Acta Psychologica, 62, 41–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (Eds.). 2007. Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Giora, R., & Gur, I. 2003. Irony in conversation: Salience, role, and context effects. In B. Nerlich, V. Herman, & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (297–315). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Will anticipating irony facilitate it immediately? In M. Dynel (Ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains (19–32). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Levi, N. A., & Sabah, H. 2005. On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39(1), 81–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lorre, C., Prady, B., & Goetsch, D. (Writers), & Cendrowski, M. (Director). 2009. The Hofstadter Isotope [Television series episode]. In L. Aronsohn (Executive Producer), The Big Bang Theory. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros. Television.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (Eds.). 1999. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (Eds.). 2003. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russo, R. 1994. Nobody’s fool. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Solska, A. 2012a. Relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure and processing multiple meanings in paradigmatic puns. In E. Walaszewska, & A. Piskorska (Eds.), Relevance theory: More than understanding (167–182). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2012b. The relevance-based model of context in processing puns. Research in Language, 10(4), 387–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. 2007. On verbal irony. In R. W. Gibbs, & H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader (35–56). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2022. Figurative thought and language research in the 21st century. In Figurative Thought and Language in Action [Figurative Thought and Language, 16], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Piskorska, Agnieszka
2020. Introduction. In Relevance Theory, Figuration and Continuity in Pragmatics [Figurative Thought and Language, 8], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. 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.