How Metaphor, Irony, and Hyperbole Work in the Mind

What is it about?

This paper explains how our minds create meaning whenever we use figurative language—not just metaphors and metonymies, which have been widely studied, but also hyperbole, irony, paradox, and oxymoron. The central idea is that all these expressions rely on a basic mental ability called conceptual mapping. A conceptual mapping happens when we understand one idea by relating it to another. For example, when someone says “This suitcase weighs a ton,” they obviously do not mean the suitcase weighs literally 1,000 kilograms. Instead, they imagine an impossible situation (a suitcase weighing a ton) to help us understand how heavy it feels in real life. The paper shows that this kind of exaggeration—hyperbole—works through the same kind of mental “cross‑domain connection” used in metaphors. The mind builds an unrealistic mental image and maps it onto a real situation to highlight the speaker’s attitude or feelings. The paper also explains irony in simple terms: irony occurs when a speaker echoes a belief—either someone else’s or their own past belief—while signaling that reality contradicts it. For instance, if someone performs badly after being praised as “very talented,” saying “Yes, truly talented…” becomes ironic because it highlights the clash between expectation and reality. This too involves a conceptual mapping between the echoed thought and the actual situation. Paradox and oxymoron (e.g., “a sober drunkard”) also rely on conceptual mappings. Even though they contain contradictions on the surface, we resolve them by mentally reframing the situation—imagining, for example, a drunk person who momentarily behaves with clarity. Finally, the paper shows that all these figures obey the same cognitive constraints as metaphor and metonymy. In other words, our mind uses consistent principles to decide which conceptual connections make sense and which do not. Overall, the article argues that figurative thinking is much richer and more systematic than commonly assumed. We understand all sorts of non‑literal expressions by mapping one mental scenario onto another—whether we are exaggerating, being ironic, or expressing a contradiction

Featured Image

Photo by Delia Giandeini on Unsplash

Photo by Delia Giandeini on Unsplash

Why is it important?

This paper is important because it widens the scope of cognitive linguistics. Much research has focused only on metaphor and metonymy, but this work demonstrates that many other forms of figurative thinking are also grounded in systematic cognitive processes. Hyperbole, irony, paradox, and oxymoron are shown to follow the same mental principles that guide metaphor. It also provides a detailed account of the constraints that determine which conceptual mappings are possible. This is crucial because not every idea can be mapped onto another. By identifying the principles that guide these mappings—such as preserving basic structure and choosing the most meaningful source domain—the paper lays groundwork for cognitive models that can later be tested through psycholinguistic or neurological methods. More broadly, the article positions linguistic analysis as an essential starting point for understanding how the mind handles complex reasoning and creativity. It encourages cognitive science to expand beyond metaphor and consider a wider variety of figurative patterns as windows into human thought.

Perspectives