Cover not available

In:Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi
[Figurative Thought and Language 9] 2020
► pp. 91–106

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

Intensification via figurative language

 | Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Published online: 12 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.04ath
Abstract
Figurative language, generally speaking, involves intended meaning; it is employed in order to communicate something beyond the very meaning of the elements of a construction. This is largely accomplished by the incongruence of domains, scripts, frames or entities that participate in the conceptualization and the expression of figuration. Irony, simile, metaphor, hyperbole, or metonymy are witnessed to come to the surface, depending on the degree of incongruity between sources and targets. Each figurative process highlights different degrees of intensification. Intensification seems also to be due not only to the type of figure but to two additional parameters as well: the evocation of more than one figure and the special constructional patterns of the usage involved.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Interaction between figures in a construction
  • 3.Constructions
  • 4.Conceptual incongruity and intensification
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (34)
References
Athanasiadou, A. (2007). On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences 29, 554–565. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Irony has a metonymic basis. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in Language Use and Communication (pp. 201–216). Figurative Thought and Language Series 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ms. Cultural conceptualizations of irony versus arrogance and their figurative expression. Paper presented in The 1st International Conference of Cultural Linguistics, 20–02/7/2016, Prato, Italy.
Athanasiadou, A., & Dirven, R. (2000). Pragmatic Conditionals. In A. Foolen, & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, J. A. (2008). Unparalleled creativity in metaphor. Creative Intelligent Systems: Papers from 2008 AAAI Spring Symposium. (Dan Ventura, Mary Lou Maher & Simon Colton, Cochairs).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2010). “Mummy, I love you like a thousand ladybirds”: Reflections on the emergence of hyperbolic effects and the truth of hyperboles. In A. Burkhardt, & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical Truth(s). The Epistemology of Metaphor and Other Tropes (pp. 383–427). Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Camp, E. (2012). Sarcasm, Pretense, and The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Noûs, 46:4, 587–634. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Why metaphors make good insults: perspectives, presupposition, and pragmatics. Philosophical Studies, 1–18.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3–3, 283–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2014). Development of Metaphorical Thinking: The Role of Language. In M. Borkent, J. Hinnell, & B. Dancygier (Eds.), Language and the Creative Mind (pp. 3–18). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H., & 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
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16: 3–3, 223–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, P. H. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kittay, E. F. (1987). Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2009). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I. Stanford, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Losing control: grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency. In A. Blank, & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition (pp. 147–175). Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy. Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moder, C. (2008). It’s like making a soup: Metaphors and similes in spoken news discourse. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the Context of Use. Discourse and Cognitive Approaches to Language (pp. 301–320). Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2009). Introduction. On figuration in grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Antonymy in language structure and use. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli & M. Z. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 159–186). Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popa, M. (2010). Ironic Metaphor Interpretation. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics (TWPL), vol. 33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G., Köpcke, K.-M., Berg, Th. & Siemund, P. (2007). Introduction: The construction of meaning in language. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, P. Siemund, (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 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
Vosshagen, Chr. (1999). Opposition as a Metonymic Principle. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 289–308). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue