A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach to Complexity in Irony: Dissecting the Ironic Echo

ABSTRACT

This article discusses the complexity in ironic echoic mention from the perspective of Cognitive Linguistics. It builds on the scenario-based approach to irony where ironic meaning is treated as a contextually adjustable meaning inference resulting from a clash between an echoed and an observed scenario. The article discusses five ways of endowing the ironic echo with complexity: (i) through the degree of elaboration of the cultural and sociohistorical references in it; (ii) through echoic compounding; (iii) through the creation of echoic chains; (iv) through the construction of cumulative echoes; and (v) through the creation of multi-operational echoes, which incorporate the cognitive operations involved in other figurative uses of language such as metaphor, metonymy, and hyperbole. The first strategy addresses the contextualized content of the ironic echo, while the other strategies are a matter of its conceptual structure. In addition, the article studies the role of echoic marking in creating strengthened ironic effects similar to those achieved through cumulative echoes and compares complexity in ironic echoing with other cases of conceptual complexity. Finally, it discusses the role of echoic complexes within the scenario-based approach. The resulting analysis of ironic echoes endows the study of this phenomenon with greater descriptive delicacy and explanatory systematicity than previous accounts, while contemplating irony within the broader picture of complexity in conceptualization.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Alicia Galera Masegosa (University of Almería, Spain) for her comments on a preliminary draft of this article. Of course, any remaining flaws are the authors’ sole responsibility.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ This meaning is based on the pragmatic adjustment of and (cf. Sperber & Wilson, 1993) into a world-knowledge induced complementary alternation relation, i.e., one in which the two members of an alternation are not exclusive of each other, roughly equivalent to saying “not X nor Y” or even “not X, less likely Y” (cf. Iza Erviti, 2015; Mairal & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2009).

Additional information

Funding

The research on which this article is based has been financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, grant no. FFI2017-82730-P.