Cover not available
Part of
Irony in Language Use and Communication
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou and Herbert L. Colston
[Figurative Thought and Language 1] 2017
► pp. 255–276

Chapter 12
Investigating sarcasm comprehension using eye-tracking during reading

What are the roles of literality, familiarity, and echoic mention?

This chapter tests the hypothesised effects of various factors on sarcasm processing. In an eye-tracking experiment, participants read texts ending in either literal or sarcastic and familiar or unfamiliar remarks, either echoing a previous contextual utterance or not. Results indicated that (1) the effect of utterance literality was observed in the later processing stages when sarcasm was more difficult to process than literal language, (2) utterance familiarity also affected processing, and (3) echoing an antecedent made comments faster to read. A novel finding was that echoing an antecedent made sarcastic comments as easy to process as literal equivalents – a result not easily explained within any of the frameworks under investigation here. Implications for theories of sarcasm comprehension are discussed.
Keywords: figurative language, irony, sarcasm processing, eye-tracking
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Empirical evidence
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Materials and design
    • Procedure
  • Results
    • The pre-critical region
    • The critical region
    • The post-critical region
  • Discussion
    • Utterance literality
    • Utterance familiarity
    • Echoic mention
  • Note
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 14 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.13tuc
References (24)
References
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. D. & Katz, A. N. (2012). Are there necessary conditions for inducing a sense of sarcastic irony? Discourse Processes, 49, 459–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curcó, C. (2000). Irony: negation, echo and metarepresentation. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. and H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language and thought (pp. 260–293). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Filik, R. (2008). Contextual override of pragmatic anomalies: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 106, 1038–1046. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 811–828. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filik, R. & Moxey, L. M. (2010). The on-line processing of written irony. Cognition, 116, 421–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19, 239–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 183–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T. (1998). Irony: graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13, 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). Irony: context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 241–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Laadan, D., Wolfson, J., Zeituny, M., Kidron, R., Kaufman, R., & Shaham, R. (2007). Expecting irony: context versus salience-based effects. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 119–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P., (1975). Logic and conversation. In: J. Morgan and P. Cole (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaakinen, J. K., Olkoniemi, H., Kinnari, T., & Hyönä, J. (2014). Processing of written irony: An eye movement study. Discourse Processes, 51, 287–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kowatch, K., Whalen, J. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2013). Irony comprehension in action: A new test of processing for verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 50, 301–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: the echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 374–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez, H. de R. (2015). Package ‘phia‘. [URL]Google Scholar
Peleg, O., Giora, R., & Fein, O. (2001). Salience and context effects: two are better than one. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P. M. (2008). It’s fascinating research: The cognition of verbal irony. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 286–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL [URL].
Sperber, D., Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In: Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York. (Reprinted in Davis, S. (Ed.), 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 550–563.).Google Scholar
Spotorno, N. & Noveck, I. A. (2014). When is irony effortful? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1649–1665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Țurcan, A. & Filik, R. (2016). An Eye-Tracking Investigation of Written Sarcasm Comprehension: The Roles of Familiarity and Context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1867–1893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Milosavljevic, Ana
2024. Experiments on the Development of Irony: Walking Through a Methodological Maze. In Studying Verbal Irony and Sarcasm, ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Attardo, Salvatore
2023. Tracking the Ironical Eye: Eye Tracking Studies on Irony and Sarcasm. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 140 ff. DOI logo
Filik, Ruth
2023. Emotional Responses to Sarcasm. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
Mazzaggio, Greta, Alessandra Zappoli & Diana Mazzarella
2023. Verbal irony and the implicitness of the echo. Pragmatics & Cognition 30:2 ► pp. 412 ff. DOI logo
Mazzarella, Diana & Nausicaa Pouscoulous
2023. Ironic speakers, vigilant hearers. Intercultural Pragmatics 20:2 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Barzy, Mahsa, Ruth Filik, David Williams & Heather J. Ferguson
2020. Emotional Processing of Ironic Versus Literal Criticism in Autistic and Nonautistic Adults: Evidence From Eye‐Tracking. Autism Research 13:4 ► pp. 563 ff. DOI logo
Colston, Herbert L.
2020. On why people don’t say what they mean. In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10], ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo
Howman, Hannah Elizabeth & Ruth Filik
2020. The role of emoticons in sarcasm comprehension in younger and older adults: Evidence from an eye-tracking experiment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 73:11 ► pp. 1729 ff. DOI logo
Filik, Ruth, Hannah Howman, Christina Ralph-Nearman & Rachel Giora
2018. The role of defaultness and personality factors in sarcasm interpretation: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Metaphor and Symbol 33:3 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Pickering, Bethany, Dominic Thompson & Ruth Filik
2018. Examining the emotional impact of sarcasm using a virtual environment. Metaphor and Symbol 33:3 ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. The Multimodal Performance of Conversational Humor [Figurative Thought and Language, 13], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Irony, Affect, and Related Figures. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Irony in Linguistic Communication. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 october 2024. 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.