Escenarios hiperbólicos en la modelación de la hipérboleuna explicación basada en escenarios

  1. Carla Ovejas Ramírez 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

Revista:
Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación

ISSN: 1576-4737

Año de publicación: 2021

Número: 85

Páginas: 61-71

Tipo: Artículo

beta Ver similares en nube de resultados
DOI: 10.5209/CLAC.66249 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

This article discusses hyperbolic markers in modeling hyperbole from the perspective of a scenario-based account of language use within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics. In this view, hyperbole is seen as a mapping across two conceptual domains (Peña & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2017), a source domain, here relabeled as the magnified scenario, which contains a hypothetical unrealistic situation based on exaggeration, and a target domain or observable scenario which depicts the real situation addressed by the hyperbolic expression. Since the hypothetical scenario is a magnified version of the observable scenario, the mapping contains source-target matches in varying degrees of resemblance. Within this theoretical context, the article explores resources available to speakers for the construction of magnified scenarios leading to a hyperbolic interpretation. Among such resources, we find hyperbole markers and the setting up of domains of reference. Finally, the article also discusses hyperbole blockers, which cancel out the activity of the other hyperbolic meaning construction mechanisms

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and Dr. Mª Sandra Peña Cervel (University of La Rioja) for their helpful remarks on a previous draft of this article. Any remaining weakness is my own responsibility. The research on which this article is based has been financed by FEDER/Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, State Research Agency, project no. FFI2017-82730-P.

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Attardo, Salvatore (2000). Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask –International Journal of Language and Communication, 12 (1), 3–20.
  • Bierwiaczonek, Boguslaw (2013). Metonymy in language, thought, and brain. London & Oakville: Equinox.
  • Burgers, Christian, Brugman C. Britta, de Lavalette, Kiki Y. Renardel, and Steen, Gerard J. (2016). HIP: A Method for Linguistic Hyperbole Identification in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 31 (3), 163–178.
  • Burgers, Christian, Van Mulken, Margot, and Schellens, Peter Jan (2011). Finding irony: An introduction of the Verbal Irony Procedure (VIP). Metaphor and Symbol 26 (3), 186– 205.
  • Claridge, Claudia (2011). Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Colston, Herbert L., and O’Brien, Jennifer (2000). Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes 30, 179–199.
  • Edwards, Derek (2000). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (4), 347-373.
  • Johnson, Christopher D. (2010). Hyperboles: The rhetoric of excess in Baroque literature and thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Kövecses, Zoltan (2005). Metaphors in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, George (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, Andrew, ed., Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.), 202–251.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lakoff, George, and Johnsen, Mark (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Langacker, Ronald Wayne (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Theoretical Prerequisites, vol. I. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
  • Langacker, Ronald Wayne (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin and New Work: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Mccarthy, Michael, and Carter, Ronald (2004). “There’s millions of them”: hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2), 149–184.
  • Norrick, Neal R. (2004). Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1727–1739.
  • Panther, Klaus-Uwe (2005). Metonymic reasoning inside and outside language. In Makkai, Adam, Sullivan, William J., and Lommel, Arle R., eds., LACUS Forum XXXI: Interconnections. 15-32. Houston TX: The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.
  • Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Thornburg, Linda (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 755-769.
  • Peña, María Sandra (2016). Argument structure and implicational constructions at the crossroads. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14 (2), 474-497.
  • Peña, María Sandra, and Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José (2017). Construing and constructing hyperbole. In Athanasiadou, Angeliki, ed., Studies in Figurative Thought and Language, 42–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Pomerantz, Anita (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims, Human Studies 9 (2-3), 219-229.
  • Pragglejaz group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22 (1), 1–39.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In Benczes, Réka, Barcelona, Antonio, and Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José, eds., Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view 103–123. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José (2014). Mapping concepts. Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 27 (1), 187–207.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José, and Galera, Alicia (2014). Cognitive operations. In Cognitive Modeling. A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José, and Lozano Palacio, Inés (2019). A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach to Complexity in Irony: Dissecting the Ironic Echo. Metaphor and Symbol 34 (2), 127–138.
  • Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre (1995). Relevance, communication and cognition.
  • Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Whitehead, Kevin A. (2015). Extreme Case Formulations. In Tracy, Karen, Illie, Cornelia, and Sandel, Todd, eds., International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, 579-584. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet