Cover not available

In:Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives
Edited by John Barnden and Andrew Gargett
[Figurative Thought and Language 10] 2020
► pp. 449–468

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Mind the gap

Expressing affect with hyperbole and hyperbolic figures

 | Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.16pop
Abstract
Hyperbole is traditionally understood as exaggeration. I argue instead that the point of hyperbole is emphasis. By overstating that things are greater (lesser) than expected, hoped, or desired, we shift the salience of the target property, thus making it more emphatic. This enables to express surprise or other relevant affect in reaction to how much, or how little, our expectations have been either exceeded or thwarted. This purpose is well suited to hyperbolic expression. This is because hyperbole naturally draws a contrast between how things are and how they were expected to be, exaggerating the gap between them. I conclude by considering the characteristics of hyperbolic figures where hyperbole mixes with other figures of speech.
Article outline
  • 1.Hyperbole and exaggeration
  • 2.What’s in hyperbole?
  • 3.Scaling up F and expressing affect
  • 4.Context-relative scaling
  • 5.Hyperbolic Figures
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (35)
References
Aristotle. (350 BC). Rhetoric, Trans. by W. Rhys Roberts, 1954. Available online from [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, J. (2017). Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou, & Herbert L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 145–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020) Uniting irony, hyperbole and metaphor in a pretence-based framework. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Ed.), On the diversity of irony. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, J., & Popa-Wyatt, M. (2012). Hyperbole in irony. In 4th UK-Cognitive Linguistics Conference (UK-CLC4), Kings’ College, London.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2015). Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 79–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2013). Presentation 2.1.13 at the University of Alberta. [URL]
(2015). Using figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J. (2000). Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishment of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30(2), 179–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Currie, G. (2006). Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination (pp. 111–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J., Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In G. Steen, & R. W. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts, R. M. (1995). Two cues for verbal irony: Hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 21–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(6), 643–686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peña, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017). Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 41–73). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popa-Wyatt, M. (2009). Figuring the code: Pragmatic routes to the non-literal . PhD dissertation. University of Geneva.
(2010a). Ironic metaphor interpretation. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). Ironic metaphor: A case for metaphor’s contribution to truth-conditions. In E. Walaszewska, M. Kisielewska-Krysiuk, & A. Piskorska (Eds.), In the mind and across minds: A relevance-theoretic perspective on communication and translation (pp. 224–245). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Pretence and echo: Towards an integrated account of verbal irony. International Review of Pragmatics, 6, 127–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Compound figures: Priority and speech-act structure. Philosophical Studies, 174(1), 141–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Embedding irony and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Inquiry, 62/6, 674–699.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Hyperbolic figures. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Ed.), On the diversity of irony. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ms). Compound figures: intention structure and communicative channels.
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rubio-Fernández, P., Wearing, C., & Carston, R. (2015). Metaphor and hyperbole: Testing the continuity hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 24–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2014). Mapping concepts. Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 187–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Figurative language: relations and constraints. In A. Gargett, & J. Barnden (Ed.), Figurative thought and language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe: on the foundations of the representational arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Meiosis, hyperbole, irony. Philosophical Studies, 174(1), 105–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2006). The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 40–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Irony, hyperbole, jokes and banter. In J. Blochowiak, C. Grisot, S. Durrleman, & C. Laenzlinger (Eds.), Formal models in the study of language (pp. 201–219). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Barnden, John
2023. Irony, Exaggeration, and Hyperbole: No Embargo on the Cargo!. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 272 ff. DOI logo
Barnden, John A.
2022. Metonymy, reflexive hyperbole and broadly reflexive relationships. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Irony, Affect, and Related Figures. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue