Cover not available

In:What makes a Figure: Rethinking figurativity
Edited by Herbert L. Colston
[Figurative Thought and Language 19] 2025
► pp. 305–319

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

Chapter 11
Verbal irony

Duality subjected to evaluation

 | Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Published online: 28 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.19.11ath
Abstract
The aim of the chapter is to re-consider the cognitive and linguistic processes involved as to what makes verbal irony. Looking across its different functions, the chapter argues that it is the conceptual frames that constitute the accepted process in the production of verbal irony. Frames are constantly evaluated by speakers and though they may be in a subversive relation, they form part of one and the same domain. Frames can be contradictory; however, the alternative frame may challenge the initial one, criticize it, restrict or extend it, or the two frames may be subject to hypothetical comparison. These functions are facilitated by special constructional devices that, in their turn, modify frames and thus trigger a variety of very creative uses of irony.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Analysis
    • 2.1Explicit versus implicit evaluation of frames in juxtaposition
    • 2.2Evaluation and highlighting of an unexpected frame
    • 2.3Unexpected comparison and prediction of frames
  • 3.Discussion and concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (36)
References
Athanasiadou, A. (2017). Irony has a metonymic basis. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in Language Use and Communication (pp. 201–216). J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Irony in constructions. In: A. Athanasiadou, & H. L. Colston (Eds.), The Diversity of Irony (pp. 78–90). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, A., & Dirven, R. (1997). Conditionality, hypotheticality, counterfactuality. In A. Athanasiadou, & R. Dirven (Eds.), On Conditionals Again (pp. 61–96). CILT 143. J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burgers, Chr., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J. (2016). Figurative Framing: Shaping Public Discourse Through Metaphor, Hyperbole, and Irony. Communication Theory, 1–21. 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. (Reprinted in Gibbs and Colston, 2007, pp. 25–33). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins Cobuild English Grammar (1990). Collins. London and Glasgow.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. & Gibbs, R. W. (2002). Are Irony and Metaphor Understood Differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 57–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (1999). The view from the periphery: the English correlative conditions. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 543–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore Ch. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J., Kay, P. & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). Irony in Language and Thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Taylor & Francis Group. New York, London. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T., 1998. Irony: Graded Salience and Indirect Negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(2), 83–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greek Language Portal. [URL]
Grice, P. H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts: Vol. 3. Syntax and semantics (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partington, A. (2007). Irony and reversal of evaluation. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1547–1569. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1786–1800. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pexman, M. P. & Olineck, K. M. (2002). Does sarcasm always sting? Investigating the impact of ironic insults and ironic compliments. Discourse Processes 33, 199–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popa, M. (2010). Ironic Metaphor Interpretation. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics (TWPL), Volume 33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Practical English Usage, (1980: 145–6) Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, D. (2005). Frame-shifting in Humor and Irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 20(4), 275–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985/1986). Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, LXXXVI, 153–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Irony and relevance. A reply to Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and implications (pp. 283–93). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stern, J. (2000). Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P. (1983). The Situation is Hopeless but not Serious. The Pursuit of Unhappiness. W.W. Norton & Company. New York. London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). Ultra-Solutions. How to Fail Most Successfully. W.W. Norton & Company. New York. London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber D. (2012). 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
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue