Abstract
Hyperbole is an interesting trope in the perspective of Space Grammar, since it is related to the displacing of a limit (Lausberg in Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. M.H. Verlag, Munchen 1967; see the Ancient Greek meaning ‘to throw over’ > ‘exaggerate’). Hyperbole semantic mechanisms are related to virtual scanning (Holmqvist and Płuciennik in Imagery in language. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp 777–785, 2004). Basic concepts of SIZE and QUANTITY, related image-schemas (IS) and conceptual metaphors (UP IS MORE; IMPORTANT IS BIG: Lakoff 1987, Johnson 1987) are implied in hyperbole processing. The virtual scanning is the simulation of a perceptual domain (here, the vertically oriented space). The virtual limit is defined by expected values on the relevant scale. Since hyperbole is a form of intensification, its linguistic interest lies in cases involving the extremes of a scale, for which a limit can be determined (Schemann 1994). In this experimental study, we analyze the concept of ‘limit’ in terms of ‘abstract motion’ and ‘oriented space’ domains (Langacker 1990) with respect to hyperboles expressed by Italian Verbs of movement. The IS considered are PATH and SOURCE-PATH-GOAL. The latter corresponds to a virtual scale whose limit is arrived at, or overcome, in hyperboles.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is part of a research on hyperbolic strategies and their semantic-pragmatic, configurational, colligational patterns. In Cognitive Grammar hyperboles are constructions (their meaning is not compositional).
In NM hyperbole a sole domain serves as base for literal and hyperbolic expression. Such opposition allows dealing with spatial categories in hyperboles semantically realized by metaphors, while in Lausberg’s definition only “basic” hyperboles are based on space categories, and hyperbole “combined” with other tropes is mostly employed for non-spatial categories.
VM + PP could be considered as a “special syntactic construction for hyperbolic use” (Claridge 2011), which contributes some forms to be idiomatised or lexicalised.
The hypothesis can be confronted with: the broadly discussed cases in which an expression stands for very by means of the feature ‘completion, final degree’ (e.g., dead, break one’s neck, break the sound barrier, the sky is the limit); the idea that: instances where the membership in a semantic or pragmatic scale is clear and fixed are highly conventional (Claridge 2011); exaggeration is an important feature of metaphorical fixed expressions (Moon 1998).
References
Bambini V et al (2011) Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Res Bull 86(3/4):203–216
Baroni M et al (2009) The WaCky wide web. J Lang Resour Eval 43(3):209–226
Cano Mora L (2009) All or nothing: a semantic analysis of hyperbole. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 4:25–35
Claridge C (2011) Hyperbole in English. Cambridge University Press, New York
Cruse DA (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ferstl EC et al (2005) Emotional and temporal aspects of situation model processing during text comprehension. J Cognit Neurosci 17(5):724–739
Flavell J (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In: Resnick L (ed) The nature of intelligence. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 231–236
Gibbs RW (1992) What do idioms really mean? J Mem Lang 31:485–506
Goldberg A (2012) Argument structure constructions: items and generalization. Conference held at Roma Tre University, 3 April 2012
Holmqvist K, Płuciennik J (2004) Virtual scanning in hyperbolas. In: Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk B, Kwiatkowska A (eds) Imagery in language. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp 777–785
Johnson M (1987) The body in the mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press, London
Langacker RW (1990) Concept, image, and symbol. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin
Lausberg H (1967) Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. M.H. Verlag, Munchen
Levinson SC (2000) Presumptive meaning. MIT Press, Cambridge
Mellet E et al (2002) Neural basis of mental scanning of a topographic representation built from a text. Cereb Cortex 12(12):1322–1330
Moon R (1998) Fixed expressions and idioms in English. Calendon Press, Oxford
Nemesi AL (2004) What discourse goals can be accomplished by the use of hyperbole? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 51(3/4):351–378
Nunberg G et al (1994) Idioms. Language 70:491–538
Rapp AM et al (2011) Neural correlates of metonymy resolution. Brain Lang 119(3):196–205
Schemann H (1994) Hyperbel und Grenzwert. In: Sabban A, Schmitt C (eds) Sprachlicher Alltag. Niemeyer, Tubingen, pp 499–502
Sharp DJ et al (2010) The neural response to changing semantic and perceptual complexity during language processing. Hum Brain Mapp 31(3):365–377
Simmons WK et al (2008) fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. J Physiol Paris 102(1/3):106–119
Struiksma ME et al (2009) What is the link between language and spatial images? Acta Psychol 132(2):145–156
Conflict of interest
This supplement was not sponsored by outside commercial interests. It was funded entirely by ECONA, Via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Roma, Italy
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Mara Catricalà wrote the first paragraph (Hyperbole oriented in the space) and Annarita Guidi the second and the third.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Catricalà, M., Guidi, A. Hyperbole, abstract motion and spatial knowledge: sequential versus simultaneous scanning. Cogn Process 13 (Suppl 1), 117–120 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0474-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0474-8