Uniting Irony Metaphor and Hyperbole in a PretenceBased

Uniting Irony, Metaphor and Hyperbole in a Pretence-Based, Affect-Centred Framework John Barnden Emeritus Professor of AI School of Computer Science University of Birmingham, UK Plenary talk at FTL-4, Braga, Portugal October 2018

Plan of Talk • Introduction to the unification attempt. • One of the novel developments arising, about hyperbole and irony. • Some specifics of the approach taken, with special attention to consistency of approach to the three figures, and combinations of hyperbole with metaphor and with irony. • See talk tomorrow at Theme Session: Figuratively Mixed and Massed … for further thoughts on metaphor/irony combination. Notes • Entirely theoretical/conceptual. • Arose from an AI project on metaphor, but there’s no AI in this talk. • Would be fruitful to align/combine the approach with the “second(+)-order empathy” considerations in Dirk Geeraerts’s plenary.

Why Develop a Unified Model? Why Pretence-Based? What About Other Figures? • Intrinsic connections: Hyperbole: often an intrinsic aspect of or intimately combined with metaphor and irony. • Pretence-Based and other accounts have been offered of all three, largely separately. but with less detailed and systematic attention than I would like to CONSISTENCY between the figures and COMBINATIONS of them. • Metonymy and various other figures seem orthogonal to pretence. • But, hope straightforward to encompass (at least) understatement.

Hyperbole in Metaphor • Hyperbole in / arising from metaphor is often pointed out [e. g. : Brdar-Szabó & Brdar 2010, Burgers, Konijn & Stein 2016, Norrick 2004, Peña & Ruiz de Mendoza 2017] • “Albert’s an angel. ” He’s (e. g. ) very kind / helpful / protective, though not as much as a traditional angel.

Hyperbole in Irony • Hyperbole has well-recognized importance in irony. [See, e. g. : Athanasiadou 2017, Carston & Wearing 2015, Dynel 2016, Kreuz & Roberts, 1995, Mc. Carthy & Carter 2004, Ruiz de Mendoza 2017, Sperber & Wilson 1995. See Kreuz & Roberts 1995 for hyperbole as irony cue. ) “Sure, great weather!”

Combination of Irony and Metaphor • Alan: “Joe’s a kind person. ” • Beth [who finds Joe cruel]: “Yeah sure, he’s a real angel. ” [cf. example in Ruiz de Mendoza 2017] [See also: Burgers, Konijn & Steen 2016, Colston & Gibbs 2002, Dynel 2016, Giora et al 2013, Grice 1989/1975, Athanasiadou 2017, Musolff 2017, Popa. Wyatt 2017]

A Key Novel Development arising from the Unification Attempt Speaker affect (e. g. mocking, surprise) is the MAIN DRIVER, and not merely a reflection of or comment on, • Estimation of the “reversed” value addressed in a case of irony. • Estimation of the “reduced” value addressed in a case of hyperbole. And this driving works THE SAME WAY for hyperbole and irony. Representation of addressed values may even be IN TERMS OF the affect.

Pretence-Based Approaches to Irony Speaker pretends (in a “light” sense of pretence) to believe a fictional (= pretended) scenario that contrasts with her view of the world, as a way of conveying (e. g. ) that it is misguided to believe the fictional scenario or a relevant similar one. Alan: “Nice weather today!” [sincere] Beth: “[Yeah sure, ] nice/great/… weather!” [ironic] Beth is momentarily pretending to be a person (saying &) thinking it’s nice/great/… weather, where Beth considers the weather to be bad. Some past accounts and discussion: Colston (2017); Clark & Gerrig (2007/1995); Currie (2006, 2010), Kumon. Nakamura, Glucksberg & Brown (2007/1995) ; Popa-Wyatt (2014).

Pretence-Based Approaches to Metaphor Speaker outlines/implies a fictional (= pretended) scenario, and there are mapping mechanisms that transfer selected information from that scenario and apply it (with suitable modification) to the target scenario. “The idea was deeply buried in Joe’s mind. ” One might map the inferred lack of physical accessibility, to become lack of mental accessibility. Accounts using pretence/fiction (possibly by other names) for metaphor: ATT-Meta [Barnden 2008, 2015 a, 2016]; blending theory [Fauconnier 2009]; games of make-believe [Walton 2004/1993]; metarepresentations added to Relevance Theory [Carston & Wearing 2011].

Pretence-Based Approach to Hyperbole [Peña & Ruiz de Mendoza 2017; pretences = their “imaginary situations”] Speaker outlines/implies a fictional (= pretended) scenario, and there are mapping mechanisms that transfer selected information from that scenario and apply it (with suitable modification) to the target scenario. “Poor Tim – his suitcase weighs a ton. ” One might map the weight and Tim’s frustration, attenuating it. This talk will concentrate on hyperbole “from above” rather than “from below” as in “My piece of cake is infinitesimal!”.

(slightly modified) ATT-Meta pretence-based approach to metaphor (for metaphor that is based upon but goes beyond known mappings) [e. g. : Barnden 2008, 2015 a, 2016]

Simplified Treatment of an Example • “John’s exam marking broke into the weekend”: (I will assume the marking was originally in the working week) The hearer (as well as the speaker) momentarily considers a pretended/fictional scenario in which the marking (literally) physically broke into the weekend from the working week and hence the marking was a person, and those time periods were spatial containers. • I assume this rests in part on a familiar metaphorical view of TIME PERIOD AS SPATIAL CONTAINER.

some main features of the pretence John’s marking broke into … John WW = working week WE = weekend John’s marking [PRETENCE / FICTION] J’s marking is a person WW is a phys region WE is a phys container [REAL WORLD for speaker and hearer] (c) John’s marking was then physically in WE John was very ANNOYED about (c) sorry about speaker/hearer

plus a “traditional” EXPORT John’s marking overflowed … John WW = working week WE = weekend John’s marking J’s marking is a liquid; WW is a phys container; WE is … EXPORT via VIEW-SPECIFIC mapping (cc) John’s marking (c) John’s marking occurred during the WE was then physically in WE John was very ANNOYED about (c) sorry about speaker/hearer

plus “generic” EXPORTs John’s marking overflowed … WW = working week WE = weekend John’s marking J’s marking is a liquid WW is a phys container; WE is … (cc) some of John’s marking occurred during the WE (c) some of John’s marking was then physically in WE POTENTIALLY ATTENUATED EXPORT by VIEW-NEUTRAL mapping John was very ANNOYED about (c) sorry John was moderately…very ANNOYED about (cc) (less) sorry speaker/hearer

A View of Hyperbole AFFECT DIMENSION (well known) • “Poor Tim – his suitcase weighs a ton. ” Arguably this is not just to convey something about the weight of the suitcase but also that the speaker finds the weight notable/remarkable/surprising/ridiculous /… to some degree and (it could well be that) Tim is frustrated / annoyed / … to find how difficult it is to lift, etc. [e. g. , Carston & Wearing 2015, Mc. Carthy & Carter 2004, Norrick 2004, Peña & Ruiz de Mendoza 2017]

SEVERAL SCALES involved • The addressed scale (e. g. , weight scale) [the main focus in the literature] • The speaker-affect-intensity scale(s) • Protagonist-affect-intensity scale(s) • Consider especially: ABSURD hyperbole: • “I agree with you 200%”. [based on many similar examples in corpora] • Degree of agreement scale: stops at 100% ! ! • Degree of (e. g. ) speaker’s eagerness to express the high agreement: different scale, and if it has a limit it has little to do with the agreement-scale limit. The speaker is saying: I’m even more eager to convey my agreement than would normally be appropriate for very high or even 100% agreement. • “I’ve had minus amounts of kip [sleep]. ” [real example, Mc. Carthy & Carter 2004]. Degree of (e. g. ) frustration: greater than that appropriate for very little sleep.

FICTIVE ELABORATIONS, and more ABSURDITY [see, e. g. : Musolff 2017, Kapogianni 2011, Carston & Wearing 2015] • “The laughter in Brussels at Theresa May’s proposal was so loud you could hear it from London. ” • The distant hearing (and possibly the laughter itself) are fictive elaborations that provide hyperbole. The distant hearing is, moreover, absurd. The laughter implies that the Brussels officials were amused. The speaker finds the intensity of laughter and amusement extremely notable and indeed ridiculous.

THE USUAL SORT OF VIEW OF THE ADDRESSED VALUE (e. g. suitcase weight) and its relationship to speaker/protagonist affect: • The hearer performs some cognitive operation (ATTENUATION or mitigation) of going down the weight scale from the overt value (“a ton”) to some lower but still reasonably high point or interval (perhaps vague: very heavy”). • The hearer estimates the speaker/protagonist affect in additional processing, which is usually influenced BY the addressed value estimate, But where the affect estimation does not itself influence the addressed value. I WANT TO TURN THIS ON ITS HEAD.

NOTABILITY, NO-EXPLICIT-SCALE-POSITION, and AFFECT-DRIVENNESS • What the hearer gets fairly directly from the utterance is merely that the addressed value is NOTABLY (EVEN RIDICUOUSLY, . . ) HIGH UP, where The notability can be because the addressed value is higher than normal and/or it’s enough to justify the apparent degree(s) of affect. • The hearer might be content just to know the value is notably high in some unknown way, but if he does choose an addressed value/interval, I claim: He chooses it on the basis partly of how “affected” the speaker/protagonist is. But even then he might be content just with a mental representation like: the suitcase is so heavy that Tim finds it frustratingly difficult to lift. • Affect is central and fully integrated, and not just a reflection of or derivable from an addressed value (suitcase weight etc. ) that is found separately.

POTENTIAL INCLUSION OF LITERAL VALUE (so merely-potential attenuation) • The range for the addressed value could or even should (if circumstances are right) include the overt (i. e. literal) value. • This could apply to “Mary has hundreds of living relatives. ” Mary has many living relatives and possibly even hundreds. • “liberal” hyperbole. “Ordinary” hyperbole when the overt value is excluded by the hearer’s reasoning about the real situation. • The liberal possibility is not prominent in the hyperbole field, but to me it’s central. See Barnden (2015 b) for its importance based on other considerations.

Pretence/fiction-based proposal for hyperbole [see also Barnden, forthcoming] [loosely derived from the Peña & Ruiz de Mendoza 2017 account; see also Ruiz de Mendoza 2014]

With speaker affect only [PRETENCE/ FICTION] Tim’s suitcase weighs a ton [REAL WORLD for Beth and hearer Alan] “… [Tim’s] suitcase weighs a ton” Tim’s suitcase is very…extremely heavy POTENTIALLY ATTENUATED EXPORT by VNMAs finds ridiculous Finds the weight very notable … ridiculous Beth (speaker)

with speaker [PRETENCE/ and Tim FICTION] affect Tim’s suitcase [REAL WORLD for Beth and Alan] weighs a ton finds ridiculous Tim is maximally unable to lift it “… [Tim’s] suitcase weighs a ton” Tim’s suitcase is very…extremely heavy Beth Tim is very…maximally unable to lift it POT’LY ATTEN’D EXPORT by VNMAs Tim is extremely FRUSTRATED about that Tim is very…extremely FRUSTRATED about that

HYPERBOLE in/with METAPHOR

Hyperbolic metaphor [Real World] [Pretence] Albert is an archangel Albert . . …… Albert is maximally kind, helpful, … “Albert is an archangel” POT’LY ATTEN’D EXPORT by VNMAs extreme APPROVAL Albert is QUITE……VERY kind, helpful, … Albert is QUITE…. …MAX’LY kind, helpful, … strong APPROVAL hearer

Which Metaphors are Hyperbolic? Just those where there are potentially-attenuated export operations where the attenuation happens to be preserved by the hearer’s targetside reasoning. That keeps the top source-side values (so the hyperbole may be “liberal”) unless excluded by such reasoning (in which case the hyperbole is “ordinary”).

A View of Irony AFFECT DIMENSION (well known) Alan, sincerely: “Nice weather today. ” Beth, ironically: “Sure, nice/great/… weather!” – Beth conveys / comments on addressed value: the weather’s badness. – express (Beth’s) affect such as criticism of Alan (this talk will concentrate on such critical cases) [see, for importance and types of affect: e. g. : Dynel 2016, 2018, Herrero Ruiz 2009, Kumon-Nakamura et al 2007/1995, Katz 2017, Partington 2007, Ruiz de Mendoza 2017] SEVERAL SCALES involved • The addressed-value scale • The speaker-affect-intensity scale(s) [the main focus in the literature]

SCALAR HYPERBOLE and FICTIVELY-ELABORATIVE HYPERBOLE • Beth: “Sure, great weather, what with the burning sun and tweeting birds!” The burning sun and tweeting birds are fictive elaborations that add hyperbole and heighten the effects. [cf. Carston & Wearing 2015, Herrero Ruiz 2009, Kapogianni 2011, Musolff 2017 ] Together with great, they boost the overtly claimed weather goodness. By increasing the contrast between the pretended believer’s belief and nonnice weather they increase Alan’s perception of the degree of Beth’s criticism of the pretended believer (who merely corresponds to Alan). Here I assume that Alan has worked out that is being ironic and is therefore objecting to his claim that the weather is nice. • I unpack criticism (of people) in irony as: finding notable/ridiculous/… the cognitive defectiveness of the person.

AFFECT-DRIVENNESS • So, Alan infers a degree range for Beth’s OVERT CRITICISM OF THE PRETENDED BELIEVER, taking into account also additional evidence: “Sure…” / tone of voice / recent critical irony by this speaker / …. [on such evidence see, e. g. , Burgers & Steen 2017] an attenuated estimate of Beth’s ACTUAL LEVEL OF CRITICISM OF HIMSELF an impression of HOW WRONG HIS VIEW (that the weather is nice) must be, in Beth’s view an opinion about degree of weather badness from Beth’s point of view, which could even merely be like: the weather is so bad for Beth that it makes her THAT critical. • Speaker affect is central to DRIVING the process of estimating the addressed value, and even to REPRESENTING it, not just a side-comment.

Divergence from Usual Assumptions • In existing theories, it is left quite vague or mysterious how the hearer is to get an impression of what value the speaker may be trying to convey. – Just negating the overt value (nice -> not nice, great -> not great) seems too weak [see e. g. Partington 2007]. – Although it’s often said (for brevity, it seems) that the addressed value (or an exaggerated form of it) is the “opposite” or the “reverse” of the overt value (“great”, “genius”), it’s generally recognized that there’s often/usually no welldefined opposite/reverse value. Hence: how find a more loosely contrasting value? [Burgers & Steen 2017, Colston 2017, Partington 2007]. • The affect-centred proposal provides a powerful, well-founded guide, and fully integrates the speaker-affect side of irony into the “addressed” side, • while also systematically taking care of hyperbole within the irony.

ABSURD FICTIVE ELABORATIONS [cf. Musolff 2017; “surrealist” irony in Kapogianni 2011] • Beth: “Sure, great weather for a picnic. Fun to sit in the pouring rain eating soggy sandwiches!” The fun to sit … eating … is a (complex) absurd fictive elaboration that adds hyperbole, of a different sort from before (when the pretended believer thought there was burning sun and tweeting birds even though the weather was bad). Now he KNOWS that there’s rain and soggy sandwiches, but thinks that is fun!! He’s crazy! This increases (more than before) Alan’s perception of the degree of Beth’s criticism of the pretended believer. Hence his impression of how bad the weather is in Beth’s view will tend to be more intense than before (more sarcastic: Musolff 2017).

“ATT-Iro” account of (hyperbolic) irony based on pretence/fiction [see also Barnden 2017 and Barnden, forthcoming]

IRONY AS DRAMA • I treat the pretended scenarios as (micro)dramas containing – a character that the speaker is acting [e. g. “Palan” for “pretend Alan”] – and who thinks that, e. g. , the weather is good, and – who inhabits some environment in the drama – the “setting” or “drama’s world". [This follows one line in the field -- Clark & Gerrig 2007/1984, Carston & Wearing 2015, Popa-Wyatt 2014, 2017] -- but more thoroughly and systematically than before. ] • The drama’s world is an enrichment going beyond other pretence approaches [aside from something similar for another purpose in Récanati 2007: 224– 226].

Alan’s View [Beth’s Drama’s World] [Real World for Alan] “Sure, great weather for a picnic. Fun to sit in the pouring rain eating soggy sandwiches!” [Real World for Beth] [Palan] Great Weather: Fun: Sitting in rain, eating soggy sandwiches ABSURD contrast [Alan] Good Weather (VERY) BIG CONTRAST from …. POTENTIALLY ATTENUATED EXPORT by VNMAs CRITICIZES Normal reactions to sitting very in rain, eating soggy strongly sandwiches (Very) Bad Weather CRITICIZES (very) strongly Beth Good Weather

Combination of Irony and Metaphor Alan: “Joe’s a kind person. ” Beth [who finds Joe cruel]: “Yeah sure, he’s an archangel. ” [Also involves hyperbole]

A metaphorical irony “Sure, Joe is an archangel” [Palan] [Real World for Alan] [m 4 l pret] [Real World for Beth] Joe is an archangel Joe is extr’ly kind Joe[m 4 l is very pret…] extr’ly kind contrast from badly failing to notice Joe is not kind [Alan] Joe is kind [Beth’s drama’s world] POT’LY ATTEN’D EXPORT CRITICIZES strongly Joe is kind Joe is very unkind CRITICIZES (potentially) strongly Beth

Conclusions • We are on track to achieving a unified account of hyperbole, metaphor and irony, and illuminating the nature of each separately and in combination, by – Adopting a particularly rich pretence-based approach (especially: introducing and richly exploiting a setting or drama’s world). – Extending to hyperbole and irony some key features of the ATT-Meta pretencebased approach to metaphor (e. g. VNMAs). – Driving the estimation of addressed values in irony and hyperbole (partly) by means of speaker affect, giving a more central and integrated role to affect than heretofore. – Adopting a notion of “[merely-]potential attenuation” and viewing (initial) hyperbolic interpretation as standardly allowing inclusion of the overt value.

thanks very much (without hyperbole, metaphor or irony!)

References Athanasiadou, A. (2017). Irony has a metonymic basis. In A. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (Eds. ), Irony in Language Use and Communication, pp. 201– 216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barnden, J. A. (2008). Metaphor and artificial intelligence: Why they matter to each other. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed. ), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 311 --338. Cambridge, U. K. : Cambridge University Press. Barnden, J. A. (2015 a). Open-ended elaborations in creative metaphor. In Besold, T. R. , Schorlemmer, M. & Smaill, A. (Eds, ) Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines, pp. 217 -242. Atlantis Press (Springer). Barnden, J. A. (2015 b). Metaphor, simile, and the exaggeration of likeness. Metaphor and Symbol, 30 (1), pp. 41 --62. Barnden, J. A. (2016). Mixed metaphor: Its depth, its breadth, and a pretence-based approach. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed. ), Mixing Metaphor, pp. 75 --111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barnden, J. A. (2017). Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. . In A. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (Eds. ), Irony in Language Use and Communication, pp. 145– 177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barnden, J. A. (forthcoming). Uniting irony, hyperbole and metaphor in a pretence-based framework. In A. Athanasiadou & H. Colston (Eds. ), The Diversity of Irony (provisional title). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

References 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: De Gruyter. Burgers, C. Konijn, E. A. & Stein, G. J. (2016). Figurative framing: shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory 26, pp. 410– 430. Burgers, C. & Steen, G. J. (2017). Introducing a three-dimensional model of verbal irony: irony in language, in thought, and in communication. . In A. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (Eds. ), Irony in Language Use and Communication, pp. 87– 108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carston, R. & Wearing, C. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2): pp. 283— 312. Carston, R. & Wearing, C. (2015). Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, pp. 79– 92. Claridge, C. 2011. Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, R. J. (2007/1984). On the pretense theory of irony. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. & H. L. Colston (Eds), Irony in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Science Reader, pp. 25– 33. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reprinted from J. Experimental Psychology: General, 113, pp. 121– 126 (1984). Colston, H. L. (2017). Irony performance and perception: What underlies verbal, situational and other ironies? . In A. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (Eds. ), Irony in Language Use and Communication, pp. 19– 41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Colston, H. L. (2010). Irony, analogy and truth. In A. Burkhardt & B. Nerlich (Eds), Tropical Truth(s): The Epistemology of Metaphor and Other Tropes, pp. 339 --354. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter. Colston, H. L. & Gibbs, R. W. , Jr. (2002). Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17 (1), pp. 57 --80. Colston, H. L. , & O'Brien, J. (2000). Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse processes, 30(2), 179 --199. Currie, G. (2006). Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed. ), The Architecture of the Imagination, pp. 111– 133. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Currie, G. (2010). Echo et feintise: quelle est la difference et qui a raison? Philosophiques, 35(1): pp. 12– 23.

References Dynel, M. (2016). Two layers of overt untruthfulness: When irony meets metaphor, hyperbole or meiosis. Pragmatics & Cognition 23(2), pp. 259– 283. Dynel, M. (2018). Deconstructing the myth of positively evaluative irony. In Manuel Jobert, Sandrine Sorlin (Eds), The Pragmatics of Irony and Banter, pp. 41 -57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fauconnier, G. (2009). Generalized integration networks. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 147 --160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gibbs, R. W. , Jr. (Ed. ), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 311 --338. Cambridge, U. K. : Cambridge University Press. Giora, R. , Livnat, E. Fein, O. , Barnea, A. , Zeiman, R. & Berger, I. (2013). Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor & Symbol, 28, pp. 89 -11 Grady, J. E. (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (4), pp. 267 --290. Grice, H. P. (1989/1975). Logic and conversation. In Studies in the Way of Words, pp. 22– 40. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press. {Reprinted from 1975 papers. ]

References, contd Herrero Ruiz, J. (2009). Understanding tropes: At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang. Katz, A. (2017). The standard experimental approach to the study of irony: Let us not be hasty in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. . In A. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (Eds. ), Irony in Language Use and Communication, pp. 237– 254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kreuz, R. J. & Roberts, R. M. (1995). Two cues for verbal irony: Hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor & Symbol, 10(1), pp. 21– 31. Kumon-Nakamura, S. , Glucksberg, S. & Brown, M. (2007/1995). How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of irony. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. & H. L. Colston (Eds), Irony in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Science Reader, pp. 57– 95. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mc. Carthy, M. & Carter, R. (2004). ‘‘There’s millions of them’’: hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (2), pp. 149– 184. Musolff, A. (2017). Irony and sarcasm in follow-ups of metaphorical slogans. . In A. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (Eds. ), Irony in Language Use and Communication, pp. 127– 141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Norrick, N. R. (2004). Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. J. Pragmatics, 36, pp. 1727– 1739. Partington, A. (2007). Irony and reversal of evaluation. J. Pragmatics 39, pp. 1547– 1569.

References, contd 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. Popa-Wyatt, M. (2014). Pretence and echo: Towards an integrated account of verbal irony International Review of Pragmatics 6(1), pp. 127– 168. Popa-Wyatt, M. (2017). Compound figures: priority and speech-act structure. Philosophical Studies, 174: pp. 141– 161. Récanati, F. (2007). Indexicality, context and pretence: A speech-act theoretic account. In Burton. Roberts, N. (Ed. ), Advances in Pragmatics, pp. 213– 229. Palgrave-Macmillan. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2014). Mapping concepts. Understanding figurative though from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27 (1), pp. 187 -207. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2017). Cognitive modeling and irony. . In A. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (Eds. ), Irony in Language Use and Communication, pp. 179– 200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition} (2 nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell. Walton, K. (2004/1993). Metaphor and prop oriented make-believe. In E. John & D. M. Lopes (Eds), Philosophy of Literature—Contemporary and Classic Readings: An Anthology, pp. 239 -247. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Reprinted from European J. of Philosophy, 1, pp. 39 --57.

((MOVED IN CURR MODS))

((FULLER, OLD)) Conclusions • Achieving a unified account of hyperbole, metaphor and irony, and illuminating the nature of each, through – Adopting a particularly rich pretence-based approach, distinctively placing weight on the relationship between agents and their surrounds in pretended scenarios. – Adopting a distinctive, liberal approach to hyperbole, giving great weight and some primacy to the accompanying affect rather than the value-at-issue, and with the latter partly derived from the former. – Letting the value-at-issue in irony be (partly) derived from accompanying affect. – Using the way degrees are handled in that view of hyperbole to become the way all degrees are handled in all exports in metaphor and irony. Whether a degree is attenuated or not depends on reality-side inferencing, not on peculiarities of hyperbole, metaphor or irony. – Extending the use of ATT-Meta’s VNMAs to hyperbole and irony, with no change except the adoption of an potentially-attenuated-degree VNMA.

[PRETENCE/ FICTION] Marty’s suitcase weighs a ton [REAL WORLD for Beth and Alan] Marty’s suitcase is very…extremely heavy Marty is maximally unable to lift it Marty is extremely frustrated about that “Marty’s suitcase weighs a ton” Marty is very…maximally unable to lift it Marty is very…extremely frustrated about that feels wonder at feels (possibly less) wonder at Beth

ATT-Meta approach to metaphor [e. g. : Barnden 2008, 2015, 2016]

Example • “John’s exam marking overflowed into the weekend”: (I will assume it overflowed from the working week) The understander (as well as the speaker) momentarily pretends that (counterfactually imagines that, constructs a (fantastic) fiction that) the marking (literally) physically overflowed from the working week into the weekend and hence the marking was some sort of flow-capable physical substance, and those time periods are spatial regions/containers.

John’s marking overflowed … John WW = working week WE = weekend John’s marking [PRETENCE / FICTION] J’s marking is a liquid WW is a phys container WE is a phys region outside WW (c) some of John’s marking was then physically in WE John was moderately/very? ANNOYED about (c) [REAL WORLD for speaker and hearer]

John’s marking overflowed … John WW = working week WE = weekend John’s marking J’s marking is a liquid; WW is a phys container; WE is … export via VIEW-SPECIFIC mapping (c) some of John’s marking was then physically in WE John was moderately/very? ANNOYED about (c) (cc) some of John’s marking occurred during the WE

John’s marking overflowed … John WW = working week WE = weekend John’s marking J’s marking is a liquid WW is a phys container; WE is … (c) some of John’s marking was then physically in WE John was moderately/very ANNOYED about (c) (cc) some of John’s marking occurred during the WE John was moderately/very ANNOYED about (cc) VIEW-NEUTRAL export of Within-Scenario Affect

being more careful [Real World for ALAN] WW = working week WE = weekend [Real World for BETH] Pretence / Fiction [BETH’s Pretence / Fiction] (cc) some of John’s marking occurred during the WE John was moderately ANNOYED about (cc)

View-NEUTRAL Mapping Adjuncts (VNMAs) • The understander is assumed to know VNMAs that carry across information that is commonly carried across in metaphor, irrespective of the metaphorical views in play. E. g. : – Affective attitudes of within-pretence agents towards within-pretence circumstances over to the same attitudes of corresponding agents to corresponding circumstances. – Affective attitudes of speaker or hearer to within-pretence circumstances. – Causation, enablement, prevention, ability, trying. – Degrees of holding of circumstances. – ((Logical properties and relationships, including negation. )) – ((Mental states & qualities of within-pretence agents. )) – ((temporal properties and relations. ))

EXTRA

Why Use Hyperbole? (1) – Avoid Choice • [As often observed: ] Hyperbole provides vivid, economical communication, wrapping together base values and affect. • My view of what this amounts to (in part): Enables speaker to avoid choosing a realistic high point on the base scale (e. g. weight) or inferred scales (e. g. difficulty of lifting). E. g. speaker doesn’t have to choose a specific number, or even something vague like “extremely heavy” versus “very heavy. ” (Related to two common views: hyperbole is a type of metonymy; metonymy generally allows avoidance of choices. )

Why Use Hyperbole? – Slick Inference • A major reason: Get relatively secure and easy inference in the overtly presented situation. • Given that a suitcase weighs a ton, it’s obvious and definite that it’s impossible to lift; and • from this (assuming this is unexpected) it’s obvious that there may well be very intense frustration. • This slickly puts the issues of lifting difficulty and frustration on the table, together with the causal links. • WHEREAS: if Beth just said “My suitcase is very/extremely heavy”, it’s not at all clear she finds it very difficult to lift; hence it’s not at all clear that she’s frustrated.

OBSOL

Three Pretence-Based Approaches to Unify • An existing pretence/fiction-based ATT-Meta approach to metaphor. [Barnden 2008, 2015, 2016] [pretence/fiction for metaphor: blending theory (e. g. , Facuconnier 2009); games of make-believe (e. g. , Walton 2004/1993); metarepresentations in Relevance Theory (Carston & Wearing 2011)] A developing version of the pretence-based approach to irony. [here “ATT-Iro”: Barnden (forthcoming)] [pretence for irony: Clark & Gerrig, 2007/1995; Currie, 2006, 2010; Kumon -Nakamura, Glucksberg & Brown, 2007/1995; Popa-Wyatt, 2014] The Peña/Ruiz de Mendoza imaginary-situation-based approach to hyperbole. [Ruiz de Mendoza & Peña 2016, Peña & Ruiz de Mendoza 2017 ]

Clarifications / Amendments • Loosen the meaning of “My suitcase weighs a ton”: The suitcase should not be assumed to be impossible to lift. As the suitcase may not be impossible to lift, the frustration in the Real Situation should not be assumed to be as high as in the Imaginary Situation. So transfer of degrees (of difficulty, frustration, …) from Source to Target needs to be “(Potentially) Attenuated”, much as the weight does. • Need more attention to the detailed mappings and on the causal/inferential links between the components of the situations. • Relabel the imaginary situation usage as (thin) pretence or fiction embedded within the real world (for both Beth and Alan, assuming that they don’t disagree about it).

Fig ? [Pretence] Beth’s suitcase weighs a ton (ULd) Beth is maximally unable to lift it “This suitcase weighs a ton” [Real World for Alan] [Real World for Beth] Beth’s suitcase is very…extremely heavy atttenuated weight export ? ? ? (potentially) attenuated inability export ? ? ? Beth is extremely frustrated (potentially) attenuated about (ULi) affect export (ULr) Beth is very…maximally unable to lift it Beth is very…extremely frustrated about (ULr)

A Further Amendment • Having Beth talk about her own suitcase obscures a distinction concerning affect. Consider: • “Bertie’s suitcase weighs a ton. ” • Speaker can be conveying both Bertie’s frustration and her own wonder at the weight. • So, equally, in the original example she can be expressing her frustration about the difficulty and her wonder at the weight.

Fig ? [Pretence] Beth’s suitcase weighs a ton (ULd) Beth is maximally unable to lift it [Real World (for both Alan & Beth)] Beth’s suitcase is very…extremely heavy atttenuated weight export ? ? ? (potentially) attenuated inability export ? ? ? Beth is extremely frustrated (potentially) attenuated about (ULd) affect export “This suitcase weighs a ton” (ULr) Beth is very…maximally unable to lift it Beth is very…extremely frustrated about (ULr)

Fig ? [Pretence] The tree is a mile high feels wonder at [Real World] atttenuated height export The tree is very…extremely tall (potentially) attenuated affect export feels wonder at Beth “The tree is a mile high”

View-SPECIFIC Mapping • The understander is assumed to know view-specific mapping rules for metaphorical views that commonly arise in ordinary language (e. g. , views of: A PROCESS AS A PHYSICAL OBJECT; A TIME PERIOD AS A PHYSICAL REGION; A PROCESS IS A JOURNEY; A MIND IS A PHYSICAL REGION; etc. ) • Much as is assumed in Conceptual Metaphor Theory (REFs), but ATT-Meta does not include the views themselves as explicit constructs, only rules like: • ((FILL in a rule from irch 2))

Observations • Current Degree VNMA: keeps the degree constant. Need to replace by potentially-attenuated version on above lines. • ATT-Meta has an analogy-minimizing strategy, contra the analogy-maximizing assumption adopted in other approaches, notably SMT ((REFs)). I. e. , it is often the case that operationally important contents in the pretended scenario have no parallel in the real situation. • The liquid nature of the marking • The overflowing event itself. Non-mapped aspects = fictive elaborations.

Attenuated Degree Export • The attenuation does not fit the current ATT-Meta VNMA. • So, propose replacing it by an Attenuated Degree VNMA: • ((FILL IN from irch 2))

Fig 1 [Drama’s World] [Real World for Beth] [Palan] [Alan] Good Weather CONTRAST from FAILING to NOTICE Bad Weather “Sure, it’s good weather” CONTRAST from FAILING to NOTICE affect import Bad Weather CRITICIZES Beth

Fig 2 [Drama’s World] “Sure, it’s good weather” [Real World for Alan] [Real World fpr Beth] [Alan] [Palan] Good Weather CONTRAST from FAILING to NOTICE Bad Weather affect export Bad Weather CRITICIZES Beth Good Weather CONTRAST from FAILING to NOTICE

Bringing the Hyperbole Approach into ATT-Meta

Nature of Hyperbole, & Role of Affect, contd • “I agree with you 200%. ” : The 200% versus the logical max of 100% conveys yet higher eagerness to express agreement or conveys higher emphasis on it (= higher importance).

Nature of Irony, & Role of Affect • Or Beth could say “Great weather today!” to express disappointment with respect to some general expectation / social norm or some prior hope of her own, or just to vividly point out the divergence.

Nature of Metaphor, & Role of Affect, contd • Seemingly simple metaphors often have subtle connotations like that. • Another example: Recent female speaker on Radio 4 disliked “break the glass ceiling” and prefers “get through the sticky door”, because former implies dramatic event and suggests deletion of the problem, latter doesn’t.

Combination of Irony and Metaphor • ((REFs)) • Alan: “This train’s nice and fast. ” Beth [who finds the train slow]: “Yeah, it’s a real rocket. ” • While Alan can straightforwardly first (1) unpack the metaphor by comparing to the real train to get this train is very fast and then (2) take that as irony, Neither Beth nor an overhearer who agrees with Beth should compare a rocket to the actual, slow train, because this could lead to irrelevant, misleading metaphorical meaning, e. g. the train makes a roaring sound / is cylindrical / is a military weapon / …

Using Pretence/Fiction for Irony, contd • ATT-Iro treats the pretended scenarios as dramas containing – a character that the speaker is acting and who – thinks that, e. g. , the weather is good, and – who is immersed in some environment in the drama. • This follows one line in the field ((REFs)), but more thoroughly and systematically than before. In particular: while other approaches would largely confine attention to Beth’s pretended thought, with its similarity/contrast to Alan’s claim and to reality, ATT-Iro also gives great weight to an imagined world that the acted character is immersed in.

Alan’s View [Drama’s World] “Sure, such great weather, what with singing birds , warm sun and balmy breeze!” [Real World for Alan] [Palan] Great Weather: singing birds, warm sun, balmy breeze fpr Beth] [Alan] Good Weather potentially attenuated affect export CRITICIZES by VNMAs strongly BIG CONTRAST from BADLY FAILING to NOTICE Bad Weather to some extent BIG(gish) CONTRAST from …. Pretty Bad Weather CRITICIZES (potentially) strongly Beth Good Weather

Nature of Hyperbole, & Role of Affect • Hyperbole = [roughly] non-deceptive use of exaggeration to convey an intense base value and some accompanying affect (emotion, value judgments, …). – “This suitcase weighs a ton / is as light as a feather. ” – “Peter has millions of pets. ” – “My bedroom is freezing cold / boiling hot. ” – “I agree with you 100 percent / 200 percent. ” – “Everyone in the audience laughed. ” / “The whole cake is ruined. ” / “No-one likes to be insulted. ” / “You can find pizza everywhere in the UK now. ” – “The laughter in Brussels at Teresa May’s claim was so loud that you could hear it from this side of the Channel. ” [Fictive elaboration. ]

Nature of Metaphor, & Role of Affect, contd • Conveying affect is often and perhaps typically important in metaphor. “John’s exam marking overflowed into the weekend. ” : What affect? : • John’s dislike of ( / annoyance about / disappointment about, …) the fact that some of the marking ended up in the weekend. • NB also connotation of inadvertence (non-intention at the start), and that the marking was being done in the days immediately preceding the weekend.

Distinctive View of Hyperbole • Turns out that a particular, unusual view of hyperbole is key to the unification and is one result of the “cross-illumination”. • Following draws from other researchers in some ways, but partly original.

Note about the Examples • Speaker – “she”– usually Beth • Hearer – “he” – usually Alan

“Albert is an angel” [Pretence] [Real World] Albert is an angel Albert is maximally good morally potentially attenuated view-neutral export of an evaluation Albert is highly…maximally good morally