1887
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper demonstrates that, when interpretation is at stake, it is only degree of that matters. Neither degree of Negation, nor degree of Affirmation, nor equal degree of Novelty, nor equal degree of Literalness/Nonliteralness, nor equal strength of Contextual support, whether linguistic or pictorial (see Heruti et al. 2019), makes a difference. Instead, it is only degree of that counts. Indeed, having established degree of of negatives and affirmatives (Experiment 1.1) and their processing cost when in isolation (Experiment 1.2), we further attested to the speed superiority of default negative interpretations, which seemed more pronounced in the Left Hemisphere rather than in the Right Hemisphere (Experiment 1.2; see Giora, Cholev et al. 2018).We then further attested to the speed superiority of these negatives, when embedded in equally strong supportive contexts. Here, we also show that Negative Sarcasm is processed significantly faster than Affirmative Sarcasm (Experiment 2). And when embedded in equally strong sarcastically biasing contexts, both hemispheres reflect the superiority of Negative Sarcasm over Affirmative Sarcasm (Experiments 2.1–2.2). However, given Affirmative Sarcasm’s , it is only Affirmative Sarcasmthat is expected and shown to rely on cueing for its derivation (Corpus-based Studies 1–2, Section 3). Still, when hedonic effects are considered (see Section 4), it is only utterances’ interpretations, whether in linguistic (Experiment 3) or pictorial contexts (Experiment 4), that are entertaining, given that they make up Optimal Innovations, while involving default interpretations in the process (see Giora et al. 2004, 2017). It is degree of , then, that affects both (i) processing speed (whether in or out of context), (ii) reliance on cueing, and (iii) hedonic effects. Finally, in Section 5, our results and conclusions are summarized.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00064.gio
2021-09-08
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beardsley, C. M.
    (1958) Aesthetics. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Becker, I., & Giora, R.
    (2018) The Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production. Journal of Pragmatics, 138, 149–164. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  3. Giora, R., Cholev, A., Fein, O. & Peleg, O.
    (2018) On the Superiority of Defaultness: Hemispheric perspectives of processing negative and affirmative sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3), 163–174. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1481259
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1481259 [Google Scholar]
  4. Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A.
    (2004) Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal Innovation and Pleasure Ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(2), 115–141. 10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O.
    (2015) Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290–313. 10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804 [Google Scholar]
  6. Giora, R., Givoni, S., Heruti, V. & Fein, O.
    (2017) The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited. Metaphor & Symbol, 32(1), 1–18. 10.1080/10926488.2017.1272934
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1272934 [Google Scholar]
  7. Giora, R., Jaffe, I., Becker, I. & Fein, O.
    (2018) Strongly attenuating highly positive concepts: The case of default sarcastic interpretations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 19–47. 10.1075/rcl.00002.gio
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00002.gio [Google Scholar]
  8. Heruti, V., Bergerbest, D., & Giora, R.
    (2019) A linguistic or pictorial context: Does it make a difference?Discourse Processes, 56/1. https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hdsp20
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Partington, A.
    (2011) Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1786–1800. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ziv, Y.
    (2013) ‘Staam’: maintaining consistency in discourse. InM. Florentin, (Ed.), Studies in Modern Hebrew and its Origins (pp.151–159). The Academy of the Hebrew Language, Jerusalem. (In Hebrew).
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00064.gio
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00064.gio
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): affirmative sarcasm; defaultness hypothesis; negative sarcasm
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error