1887
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

What are the constraints rendering stimuli, such as ; ? sarcastic ? Recent findings ( Filik, Howman, Ralph-Nearman, & Giora, in press ; Giora et al., 2005 , 2013 , 2015a , 2015b , in progress a ) suggest that strongly attenuating a highly positive concept, e.g., (associated here with ), induces sarcastic interpretations . To be interpreted sarcastically , items should be construable as such in the absence of factors inviting sarcasm. They should, thus, be (i) novel, noncoded in the mental lexicon, (ii) potentially ambiguous between literal and nonliteral interpretations, so that a preference is allowed, and (iii) free of specific and biasing contextual information. Online and offline studies, collecting self-paced reading times, eye-tracking data during reading, sarcasm rating, and pleasure ratings, alongside corpus-based studies, further support this view.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00002.gio
2018-05-31
2019-12-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beardsley, M.
    (1958) Aesthetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Becker, I.
    (2015) The good, the not good, and the not beautiful: On the non-obligatoriness of suppression following negation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11(2), 255–283.10.1515/cllt‑2014‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0010 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2016)  The negation operator is not a suppressor of the concept in its scope: In fact, quite the opposite. Unpublished MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.
  4. Becker, I. , & Giora, R.
    (submitted). The Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergson, H.
    (1900/1956) Laughter. In W. Sypher (Ed.), Comedy (pp.61–190). New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor Book.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, P. , & Levinson, S.
    (1978) Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp.56–311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell, J. D. , & Katz, A. N.
    (2012) Are there necessary conditions for inducing a sense of sarcastic irony?Discourse Processes, 49(6), 459–480.10.1080/0163853X.2012.687863
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.687863 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, H. H. , & Clark, E. V.
    (1977) Psychology and language. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Colston, H. L.
    (1999) “Not good” is “bad,” but “Not bad” is not “good”: An analysis of three accounts of negation asymmetry. Discourse Processes, 28(3), 237–256.10.1080/01638539909545083
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545083 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cori, V. , Canestrari, C. , & Bianchi, I.
    (2016) The perception of contrariety and the processing of verbal irony. Gestalt Theory, 38(2–3), 253–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dews, S. , & Winner, E.
    (1995) Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 10(1), 3–19.10.1207/s15327868ms1001_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1001_2 [Google Scholar]
  12. Du Bois, J. W.
    (2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410.10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fein, O. , Yeari, M. , & Giora, R.
    (2015) On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of irony. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–32.10.1515/ip‑2015‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Filik, R. , Howman, H. , Ralph-Nearman, C. , & Giora, R.
    (in press). The role of defaultness in sarcasm interpretation: Evidence from eye-tracking. Metaphor and Symbol.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Filik, R. , Turcan, A. , Thompson, D. , Harvey, N. , Davies, H. , & Turner, A.
    (2016) Sarcasm and emoticons: Comprehension and emotional impact. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 2130–2146.10.1080/17470218.2015.1106566
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1106566 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fraenkel, T. , & Schul, Y.
    (2008) The meaning of negated adjectives. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(4), 517–540.10.1515/IPRG.2008.025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2008.025 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2000) Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 5–27.10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862 [Google Scholar]
  19. Giora, R.
    (1995) On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19, 239–264.10.1080/01638539509544916
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544916 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2016) When negatives are easier to understand than affirmatives: The case of negative sarcasm. In P. Larrivée & C. Lee (Eds.), Negation and negative polarity: Experimental perspectives (pp.127–143). Cham: Springer.10.1007/978‑3‑319‑17464‑8_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17464-8_6 [Google Scholar]
  23. (under review). How defaultness affects processing, pleasure, and cueing: The case of default constructional sarcasm and default non-constructional literalness.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Giora, R. , Cholev, A. , Fein, O. , & Peleg, O.
    (in press). On the superiority of defaultness: Hemispheric perspectives of processing negative and affirmative sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Giora, R. , Drucker, A. , & Fein, O.
    (2014) Resonating with default nonsalient interpretations: A corpus-based study of negative sarcasm. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28, 3–18.10.1075/bjl.28.01gio
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.28.01gio [Google Scholar]
  26. Giora, R. , Drucker, A. , Fein, O. , & Mendelson, I.
    (2015a) Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200.10.1080/0163853X.2014.954951
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.954951 [Google Scholar]
  27. Giora, R. , Fein, O. , Ganzi, J. , Levi, N. A. , & Sabah, H.
    (2005) On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39(1), 81–100.10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3 [Google Scholar]
  28. Giora, R. , Fein, O. , Kotler, N. , & Shuval, N.
    (2015c)  Know Hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation, and pleasure. In G. Brône , K. Feyaerts , & T. Veale (Eds.). Cognitive Linguistics and humor research: Current trends and new developments (pp.129–146). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110346343‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346343-007 [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. Giora, R. , Fein, O. , Laadan, D. , Wolfson, J. , Zeituny, M. , Kidron, R. , Kaufman, R. , & Shaham, R.
    (2007) Expecting irony: Context vs. salience based effects. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 119–146.10.1080/10926480701235346
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480701235346 [Google Scholar]
  31. Giora, R. , Givoni, S. , & Fein, O.
    (2015b) 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]
  32. 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]
  33. Giora, R. , Jaffe I. , & Fein, O.
    (in progress a). Default sarcastic interpretations: The case of rhetorical questions.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Giora, R. , Levant, E. , & Fein, O.
    (in progress b). Default affirmative sarcasm: The case of attenuated similes.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Giora, R. , Livnat, E. , Fein, O. , Barnea, A. , Zeiman, R. , & Berger, I.
    (2013) Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 89–115.10.1080/10926488.2013.768510
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768510 [Google Scholar]
  36. Giora, R. , Meytes, D. Tamir, A. Givoni, S. , Heruti, V. , & Fein, O.
    (2017) Defaultness shines while affirmation pales. In A. Athanasiadou & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp.219–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ftl.1.11gio
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.11gio [Google Scholar]
  37. Goldenberg, D.
    (2011) Default ironic interpretation. Unpublished ms. Tel Aviv University.
  38. Heruti, V. , Bergerbest, D. , & Giora, R.
    (submitted). A linguistic or pictorial context: Does it make a difference?
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Horn, L. R.
    (1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ilie, C.
    (1994) What else can I tell you?: A pragmatic study of English rhetorical questions as discursive and argumentative acts. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kecskés, I.
    (2003) Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894035
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894035 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kilgarriff, A. , Baisa, V. , Bušta, J. , Jakubíček, M. , Kovář, V. , Michelfeit, J. , Rychlý, P. , & Suchomel, V.
    (2014) The sketch engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7–36.10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mashal, N. , & Faust, M.
    (2009) Conventionalization of novel metaphors: A shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Laterality, 14(6), 573–589.10.1080/13576500902734645
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500902734645 [Google Scholar]
  44. McEnery, T. , & Hardie, A.
    (2012) Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Mukařovský, J.
    (1932/1964) Standard language and poetic language. In P. L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague school reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp.17–30). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (1978) Structure, sign and function. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Paolazzi, C.
    (2013) “Do you really think it?”: Testing hypotheses on default nonliteral interpretations. University of Trento, Italy. Unpublished ms.
  48. Partington, A.
    (2011) Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1786–1800.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Raeber, T.
    (2016) Distinguishing rhetorical from ironical questions: A relevance-theoretic account. In M. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance Theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions (pp.173–190). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.268.07rae
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.07rae [Google Scholar]
  50. Schwoebel, J. , Dews, S. , Winner, E. , & Srinivas, K.
    (2000) Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 47–61.10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864 [Google Scholar]
  51. Shklovsky, V.
    (1917/1965) Art as technique. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds. and Trans.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp.3–57). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Sulis, E. , Hernandez Farias, D. I. , Rosso, P. , Patti, V. , & Ruffo, G.
    (2016) Figurative messages and affect in Twitter: Differences between #irony, #sarcasm and #not. Knowledge-Based Systems, 108, 132–143.10.1016/j.knosys.2016.05.035
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2016.05.035 [Google Scholar]
  53. Veale, T.
    (2012) Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London/New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (2013) Humorous similes. Humor, 26(1), 3–22.10.1515/humor‑2013‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2013-0002 [Google Scholar]
  55. Wason, P. C.
    (1965) The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4(1), 7–11.10.1016/S0022‑5371(65)80060‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80060-3 [Google Scholar]
  56. Ziv, Y.
    (2013)  Staam: Maintaining consistency in discourse. In M. Florentin (Ed.), Collection of articles on language (pp.151–159). Jerusalem: Hebrew Academy (In Hebrew).
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Zuanazzi, A.
    (2013) Italian affirmative rhetorical questions generate ironic interpretations by default. University of Trento, Italy. Unpublished ms.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00002.gio
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00002.gio
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): attenuation , default interpretation , pleasure and 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