Chapter published in:
Irony in Language Use and Communication
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou and Herbert L. Colston
[Figurative Thought and Language 1] 2017
► pp. 219236
References

References

Barnden, J. A.
(this volume). Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou and H. Colston Eds. Irony in Language Use and Communication. FTL series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V.
(1977) Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Clark, H. & Gerrig, R.
(1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colston, H.
(this volume). Irony performance and perception: What underlies verbal, situational and other ironies? In A. Athanasiadou and H. Colston Eds. Irony in Language Use and Communication. FTL series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref
Fein, O., Yeari, M., & Giora, R.
(2015) On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of irony. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filik, R., Howman, H., Ralph-Nearman, C., & Giora, R.
(Under review). On the superiority of negative sarcasm over affirmative sarcasm: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Metaphor and Symbol.
Filik, R., Leuthold, H., Wallington, K., & Page, J.
(2014) Testing theories of irony processing using eye-tracking and ERPs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 811–828.Google Scholar
Fillenbaum, S.
(1966) Memory for gist: Some relevant variables. Language and Speech, 9, 217–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. & Samermit, P.
(this volume). How does irony arise in experience In A. Athanasiadou and H. Colston Eds. Irony in Language Use and Communication. FTL series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Giora, R.
(1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919–929. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 981–1014. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Cholev, A., Fein, O., & Peleg, O.
(Under review). On the Superiority of Defaultness: Hemispheric perspectives of processing negative and affirmative sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol.
Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O. & Mendelson, I.
(2015a) Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 115–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kotler, N., & Shuval, N.
(2015b)  Know Hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation, and pleasure. In: Geert Brône, Kurt Feyaerts & Tony Veale (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics Meet Humor Research. Current Trends and New Developments, 129–146. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O.
(2015c) Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm Metaphor and Symbol , 30/4, 290–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., Heruti, V., & Fein, O.
(2017) The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The Optimal Innovation Hypothesis revisited. Metaphor and Symbol.32/1, 1–18 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Jaffe, I., & Fein, O.
(2018) Strongly attenuating highly positive concepts: The case of default sarcastic interpretations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1993) English grammar I: A function-based introduction (pp. 190–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(2002) Bio-linguistics: The Santa Barbara lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givoni, S., Giora, R. & Bergerbest, D.
(2013) How speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 29–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts. syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R.
(1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S. & Brown, M.
(1995) How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(1), 3–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, R., Schul, Y., & Burnstein, E.
(2004) ‘‘I am not guilty’’ vs ‘‘I am innocent’’: Successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 433–449. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meytes, D., & Tamir, A.
(2005) Negation is sometimes faster than affirmation. Unpublished manuscript. Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C.
(1959) The processing of positive and negative information, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11/2, 92–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1961) Response to affirmative and negative binary statements. British Journal of Psychology, 32/2, 133–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willison, R.
(this volume). In defense of an ecumenical approach to irony. In A. Athanasiadou and H. Colston Eds. Irony in Language Use and Communication. FTL series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Giora, Rachel, Inbal Jaffe, Israela Becker & Ofer Fein
2018. Strongly attenuating highly positive concepts. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1  pp. 19 ff. Crossref logo
Givoni, Shir & Rachel Giora
2018.  In Handbuch Pragmatik,  pp. 207 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 august 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.