Cover not available

In:Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi
[Figurative Thought and Language 9] 2020
► pp. 187–208

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

Sources of pragmatic effects in irony and hyperbole

 | University of Alberta
 | Rosalind Franklin University
Published online: 12 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.08col
Abstract
How persuasion is accomplished by speakers who use hyperbole and irony, in response to accusations of wrong-doing, was investigated in three experiments. Results confirmed a predicted dissociation – when accused speakers exaggerate denials (e.g., “I have never, ever stolen anything from this store”), they look relatively guilty compared to using no exaggeration (e.g., “I did not steal from this store”). But when accused speakers exaggerate ironic denials (e.g., “Oh sure, I have always, stolen everything from this store”), they are perceived as comparatively innocent relative to using no exaggeration. This dissociation is also not due to differences in hyperbolizing-toward-zero, versus hyperbolizing-toward-infinity, a difference which can affect pragmatic effects leveraged by hyperbole (Colston & Keller, 1998). The results are interpreted as demonstrating the operation of psychological figurative comprehension and influence mechanisms both in parallel to and independent from similar pragmatic mechanisms found in some theories of linguistic pragmatics (e.g., Relevance Theory).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The relevance of hyperbole: The case of accusation denials
  • 3.Experiment 1
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials
    • 3.3Design and procedure
    • 3.4Results and discussion
  • 4.Experiment 2
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Materials
    • 4.3Design and procedure
    • 4.4Results and discussion
  • 5.Experiment 3
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Materials
    • 5.3Design and procedure
    • 5.4Results
  • 6.General discussion
    • 6.1Non-ironic denials
    • 6.2Ironic denials
    • 6.3Relevance and pragmatic effects
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (34)
References
Blow, C. M. (2012, August 31). The G.O.P fact vacuum. New York Times, The Opinion Pages.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3, 283–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 (pp. 25–33). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (1997a). “I’ve never seen anything like it”: Overstatement, understatement and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 43–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997b). Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: The pragmatic functions of ironic criticism. Discourse Processes, 23, 25–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). “Dewey defeats Truman”: Interpreting ironic restatement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19(1), 44–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 111–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 (pp. 191–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015a). Under-determinedness, indirectness, figurativeness and Psychology: Sources of pragmatic effects in irony and hyperbole. International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language. Pavia, Italy.
(2015b). Using figurative language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). How language makes meaning: Embodiment and conjoined antonymy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Carreno, A. (2012). Hyperbole and deception: Dost thou protest too much? Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Chicago, IL.
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
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J. (2000a). Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1557–1583. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000b). Contrast of kind vs. contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30(2), 179–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor & Symbol, 15, 5–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2002). The risks and rewards of ironic communication. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp. 181–194). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(Eds.). (2007). Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Taylor & Francis Group. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Izett, C. D. (2005). Irony as persuasive communication. In H. Colston, & A. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 131–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T., & Grayer, A. R. (1994). I am not a crook: Effects of denials on perceptions of a defendant’s guilt, personality, and motives. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(23), 2132–2150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hsiao, C., & Su, L. (2010). Metaphor and hyperbolic expressions of emotion in Mandarin Chinese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1380–1396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (2004). Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1727–1739. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orthaber, S., & Márquez-Reiter, R. (2011). ‘Talk to the hand’: Complaints to a public transport company. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3860–3876. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, D. (2005). Frame shifting in humor and irony? Metaphor & Symbol, 20(4), 275–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, R. M., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science, 5, 159–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shakespeare, W. (1984). Hamlet. In D. Bevington (Ed.), The complete works of William Shakespeare, Vol. 3, (Act 3, Scene 2, line 228). New York: Bantam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2004). There’s risks in everything: Extreme-case formulations and accountability in inquiry testimony. Discourse & Society, 15(6), 745–766. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1984). Verbal irony: Pretense or echoic mention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 130–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, J. P. (1984). Does mention (or pretense) exhaust the concept of irony? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 127–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and ad hoc concepts. Pragmatics, 1, 230–259.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Relevance and meaning. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yandell, B. (1979). Those who protest too much are seen as guilty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(1), 44–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Xu, Tianqi & Yong Jiang
2025. Research on the Semantic and Pragmatic Reasoning of Chinese Hyperbolic Numerical Idioms Based on the Bayesian Model. Corpus-based Studies across Humanities DOI logo
Desai, Shreyasi & Ruth Filik
2024. Literal vs. hyperbole: examining speech preferences in testimonies of victims of sexual crime. Psychology, Crime & Law 30:5 ► pp. 387 ff. DOI logo
Gibbs, Raymond W.
2023. What’s figurative about figurative language?. Lingua 287 ► pp. 103520 ff. DOI logo
Harman, Brittany & Hennessy Strine
2023. Quantifying Hyperbole: Explicit Estimates of Exaggerated Utterances. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS 33:1 DOI logo
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

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