Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp.19–41
The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation
A cognitive-linguistic perspective
Published online: 17 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00049.mas
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00049.mas
Abstract
Echoic mention was initially proposed as part of the relevance-theoretic approach to irony ( (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.). The aim of this article is to present an account of echoing as a cognitive operation that goes beyond (and yet includes) the interpretation of ironic remarks. For this purpose, we explore the cognitive mechanisms that underlie the production and interpretation of echoic uses of both ironic and non-ironic language. In the light of the examples under scrutiny, we claim that echoic mentions afford metonymic access to the echoed scenario, which is then contrasted with the observable scenario. The relationship between the two scenarios, which ranges from identity to contrast, passing through type-token similarity and metaphorical resemblance, determines the communicative purpose of the speaker, which may convey different kind of attitudes.
Keywords: attitude, echoing, echoed scenario, observable scenario, contrast, resemblance
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical underpinnings
- 2.1Preliminary remarks
- 2.2Cognitive operations
- 2.3Echoing
- 2.4Echoic mentions, echoed scenarios, and echoing operations
- 3.Types of resemblance between the echoed and observed scenarios
- 3.1Type-token resemblance
- 3.2Metaphorical resemblance
- 4.The contrast between the echoed and observed scenarios: Irony
- 5.Concluding remarks and further prospects
- Notes
References
References (38)
Alba-Juez, L., & Attardo, S. (2014). The evaluative palette of verbal irony. In G. Thompson & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Athanasiadou, A., & Colston, H. L. (Eds.). (2017). Irony in language use and communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (Eds.) (2011). Defining metonymy in Cog- nitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez–García, F. (2014). Exploring functional–cognitive space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2010). Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński & Ł. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Action. From Theory to Application and Back (pp. 13–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herrero, J. (2011). The role of metonymy in complex tropes. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 167–194). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2015). Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metaphor in specialist discourse. Insights and implications for metaphor studies and beyond. In J. B. Herrmann & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in Specialist Discourse: Investigating Metaphor Use in Specific and Popularized Discourse Contexts (pp. 299–314). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Peña, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017). Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 42–73). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(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). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2017a). Cognitive modeling and irony. In H. Colston, & A. Athanasiadou (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179–200). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(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: Cambridge University Press.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2020). The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in making meaning. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. 283–307). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano, I. (2019a). Unraveling irony: From linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics, 51, 147–173.
(2019b). A cognitive-linguistic approach to complexity in irony: dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 127–138.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K. –U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use–mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 295–318). New York: Academic Press.
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2011). Paralells and differences in the treatment of metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Studia Linguistica, 1281, 195–213.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yus, F. (2016). Propositional Attitude, Affective Attitude and Irony Comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23(1), 92–116.
Cited by (11)
Cited by 11 other publications
de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz & Inés Lozano Palacio
2025. Understanding ironic echoing. In What makes a Figure [Figurative Thought and Language, 19], ► pp. 248 ff.
Sun, Liying & Mengjie Zhang
Brdar, Mario, Rita Brdar-Szabó & Daler Zayniev
2024. Metonymic layers in proverbs. In Proverbs within Cognitive Linguistics [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 16], ► pp. 40 ff.
Reda, Ghsoon
Reda, Ghsoon
2025. Evidential propositions as situational scenarios. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 23:1 ► pp. 152 ff.
Lozano-Palacio, Inés
Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz de
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & María Asunción Barreras Gómez
2022. Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 15 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 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.
