Vol. 8:1 (2021) ► pp.1–15
The defaultness hypothesis
Affirmative sarcasm, negative sarcasm
This paper demonstrates that, when interpretation is at stake, it is only degree of defaultness 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 defaultness that counts. Indeed, having established degree of defaultness 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 default Negative Sarcasm is processed significantly faster than nondefault Affirmative Sarcasm (Experiment 2). And when embedded in equally strong sarcastically biasing contexts, both hemispheres reflect the superiority of default Negative Sarcasm over nondefault Affirmative Sarcasm (Experiments 2.1–2.2). However, given Affirmative Sarcasm’s nondefaultness, it is only nondefault 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’ nondefault 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 defaultness, 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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Defining defaultness, introducing the predictions of the defaultness hypothesis, and testing the first prediction regarding processing speed when in supportive contexts
- 2.1The defaultness hypothesis and its predictions with regard to (1) processing (Giora et al. 2015), (2) cueing (Becker & Giora 2018), and (3) pleasurability (Giora at al. 2017).
- Predictions
- 2.2Testing the Defaultness Hypothesis and its prediction with regard to processing (Giora et al. 2015)
- Experiment 1: Establishing degree of defaultness when in isolation
- Experiment 1.1
- Experiment 1.2
- Experiment 2: Testing the 1st prediction of the defaultness hypothesis with regard to processing speed of targets when in biasing contexts
- Experiment 2.1
- Experiment 2.2
- Experiment 1: Establishing degree of defaultness when in isolation
- 2.1The defaultness hypothesis and its predictions with regard to (1) processing (Giora et al. 2015), (2) cueing (Becker & Giora 2018), and (3) pleasurability (Giora at al. 2017).
- 3.Testing the 2nd prediction of defaultness hypothesis with regard to cueing (Becker & Giora 2018)
- 3.1Corpus-based Study 1: Testing the 2nd prediction of the defaultness hypothesis with regard to prompting nondefault Affirmative Sarcasm
- 3.2Corpus-based Study 2: Testing the 2nd prediction of the defaultness hypothesis with regard to intensifying default negative sarcasm, which should be rare, as itis redundant
- 4.Testing the 3rd prediction of the defaultness hypothesis with regard to pleasurability (Giora et al. 2004, 2017)
- 4.1Experiment 3: Testing pleasurability in linguistic contexts
- Predictions
- 4.2Experiment 4: Testing pleasurability in pictorial contexts
- Predictions
- 4.1Experiment 3: Testing pleasurability in linguistic contexts
- 5.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00064.gio