Cover not available

In:Figurativity and Human Ecology
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov and Nelly Tincheva
[Figurative Thought and Language 17] 2022
► pp. 15–41

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

Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance

ORCiD logo with link | University of La Rioja
ORCiD logo with link | University of La Rioja
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.01rui
Abstract
Similarity judgments are fundamental to cognition. They are part and parcel of our ability as humans to deal with the world around us. This ability shows in how we structure and use language. In this context, this chapter addresses the role of perceived similarity, or resemblance, in language use. It starts from a basic distinction between linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. The former addresses similarities between entities and states of affairs, while the latter addresses metarepresentational aspects of language, which can be treated in terms of the notion of echo. It further distinguishes three dimensions of linguistic resemblance: attribute-based resemblance, structural resemblance, and high versus low-level resemblance. It pays special attention to the important theoretical status of high-level resemblance as a constraining factor on experiential correlation, which is also active in synesthesia and situation and event-based metaphors. The paper then discusses the role of resemblance in cross-domain relations in irony, hyperbole, and understatement, and it ends with an analysis of the role of metalinguistic resemblance as a pre-requisite for the inferential activity which arises from ironic, parodic, and metonymy-based implicational echoes.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Linguistic resemblance
    • 2.1Correlation metaphors and high-level resemblance
    • 2.2Synesthesia as a cause-effect correlation metaphor
    • 2.3Situation and event-based metaphors or similes
  • 3.Special cases of linguistic resemblance
  • 4.Metalinguistic resemblance
    • 4.1Ironic echoing
    • 4.2Parodic echoing
    • 4.3Implicational echoing
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (57)
References
Anderson, E. R. (1998). A grammar of iconism. London: Associated University Presses.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Audi, N. (2015). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Third edition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, J. (2020). Uniting irony, hyperbole and metaphor in an affect-centred, pretence-based framework. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. L. Colston (Eds.), The diversity of irony (pp. 15–65). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bryant, G. A. & Fox Tree, J. E. (2005). Is there an Ironic Tone of Voice? Language and Speech, 48(3), 257–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Camp, E. (2012). Sarcasm, pretence and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Noûs, 46, 587–634. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: a pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3 (2), 283–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 668–676. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiappe, D., & Kennedy, J. M. (2001). Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor & Symbol, 16(3), 249–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31, 51–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cowling, S. (2017). Resemblance. Philosophy Compass, 12 (4): e12401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in language. An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Csábi, S. (2014). Metaphor and stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 206–221). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cytowic, R. E. (2002). Synesthesia: A union of the senses (2nd ed.). MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galera, A. (2013). A cognitive approach to simile-based idiomatic expressions. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 43, 3–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2014). Geometry of meaning. Semantics based on conceptual spaces. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: when comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). Similarity. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 13–36). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56(3), 515–540. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasson, U., Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S. (2001). Metaphors communicate more effectively than do similes. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society. 42d Annual Meeting, 6, 103. Psychonomic Society Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 124(1), 3–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lozano, I., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2022). Modeling irony. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2018). What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In O. Blanco Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy. Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 121–160). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partington, A. (2007). Irony and the reversal of evaluation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1547–1569. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popa-Wyatt, M. (2014). Pretence and echo: Towards and integrated account of verbal irony. International Review of Pragmatics, 6(1), 127–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Pereyra, G. (2002). Resemblance nominalism. A solution to the problem of universals. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossen-Knill, D. F., & Henry, R. (1997). The pragmatics of verbal parody. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 719–752. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017a). Cognitive modeling and irony. In H. Colston, & A. Athanasiadou (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179–200). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017b). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020a). Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 71, 16–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020b). Figurative language. Relations and constraints. In J. Barnden, & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (pp. 469–510). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Analogical and non-analogical resemblance in figurative language: a cognitive-linguistic perspective. In S. Wuppuluri, & A. C. Grayling (Eds.), Metaphors and analogies in sciences and humanities: Words and worlds (pp. 269–294). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in meaning making. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. 283–308). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano, I. (2019). A Cognitive-Linguistic approach to complexity in irony: Dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 127–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). On verbal and situational irony: towards a unified approach. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative Language: Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 249–276). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, W. (2007). Iconicity. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 394–418). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. (2004). Conceptual spaces and embodied actions: Cognitive iconicity and signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 119–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Ten lectures on Cognitive Linguistics and the unification of spoken and signed languages. Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2000). Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Metarepresentations. A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 411–448). Oxford University Press (revized version in Wilson and Sperber, 2012a).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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(A), 40–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012a). Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 230–258). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012b). Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Bagasheva, Alexandra
2025. 67Creativity and Routine in Word-Formation. In Dynamics at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface, ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Lozano-Palacio, Inés
2023. A multidimensional approach to echoing. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
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
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2023. HOW LIKE-SIMILE RELATES TO METAPHOR: AN EXPLORATION OF ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2024. Metaphor as a resemblance phenomenon. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 8 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