All-Russian academic journal
“Issues of Cognitive Linguistics”



Author:  Sandeep Kumar Sharma & Sweta Sinha

Affiliation:  Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology

Abstract:  Several influential theories have been developed in cognitive linguistics to investigate the relationship between language and mind. Conceptual metaphor and conceptual blending, two distinct but closely related theories play a significant role in the process of meaning construction especially in metaphors and other figurative linguistic tools.

Metaphors are pervasively used in everyday conversation in the form of irony, satire and sarcasm, etc. where sarcasm projects profoundly negative intention. Hence, the present research studies the process of conceptualization of sarcasm and its functions with special reference to the Hindi language within the framework of conceptual metaphor and conceptual blending theories.

The study is an attempt to bridge the gap between computational studies of sarcasm and the theories underlying the phenomenon of perceiving sarcasm. The findings aim to provide a theoretical understanding of how Hindi sarcasm is perceived among native speakers.

Keywords:  cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, conceptual blending, sarcasm, metaphors.

References:  Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, 56-311. Cambridge University Press.

Beaty, R. E., & Silvia, P. J. (2013). Metaphorically speaking: Cognitive abilities and the production of figurative language. Memory & cognition, 41 (2), 255-267.

Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P. (2007). The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 56 (2), 172-188.

Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. N.Y.: Routledge.

Campbell, J.D. & Katz, A.N. (2012). Are there necessary conditions for inducing a sense of sarcastic irony? Discourse Processes, 49 (6), 459-480.

Camp, E. (2012). Sarcasm, pretense, and the
semantics/pragmatics distinction. Noûs, 46 (4),

Clark, H., Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given new contract. In R.O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ; Erlbaum.

Eisterhold, J., Attardo, S. and Boxer, D. (2006). Reactions to irony in discourse: Evidence for the least disruption principle. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 (8), 1239-1256.

Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2008). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.

Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive science,
22 (2), 133-187.

Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19 (2), 239-264.

Goalty, A. (1997). The language of metaphor, London, Routledge.

Grice, H.P., Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (1975). Logic and conversation. 1975, 41-58.

Gibbs, R.W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.

Gibbs, Jr. R.W. and O'Brien, J. (1991). Psychological aspects of irony understanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 16 (6), 523-530.

Glucksberg, S. (2001) Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Joshi, A. Bhattacharyya, P. and Carman, M.J. (2017). Automatic sarcasm detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50 (5), 73.

Kreuz, R.J. and Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 118 (4), 374.

Lakoff, G.J. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago London: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony, ed., Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prokofiev, G. (2017). Differentiation between irony and sarcasm in contemporary linguistic studies. Вісник Дніпропетровського університету імені Альфреда Нобеля. Серія: Філологічні науки, (1), 233-239.

Ramos, F.Y. (2000). Literal/non-literal and the processing of verbal irony. PragmalingüÃstica,
(8-9), 349-374.

Shamay-Tsoory, S.G., Tomer, R. and Aharon-Peretz, J. (2005) The neuroanatomical basis of understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social cognition. Neuropsychology, 19 (3), 288.

Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2012). Making creative metaphors: The importance of fluid intelligence for creative thought. Intelligence, 40(4), 343-351.

Turner, M. and Fauconnier, G. (2002) The way we think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York.

Tay, D. (2014) Lakoff and the theory of conceptual metaphor. The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics, 49-59.

Thirumalai, M. S. (2003). Understanding nonverbal behavior. Language in India, 3.

Language demographics in the census of India 2011. http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/ Census_Data_Online/Language/data_on_language.aspx.

Surging Hindi, shrinking South Indian languages: Nine charts that explain the 2011 language

census" https://scroll.in/article/884754/surging-hindi-shrinking-south-indian-languages-nine-charts-that-explain-the-2011-language-census

For citation:  Sandeep Kumar Sharma & Sweta Sinha. (2020). A Cognitive Theoretical Investigation of Conceptualizing Hindi Sarcasm. Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki, 3, 77-91.

Pages:  77-91

Back to the list