Cover not available
Part of
Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives
Edited by John Barnden and Andrew Gargett
[Figurative Thought and Language 10] 2020
► pp. 211–236

How defaultness shapes our language production

A usage-based study of discoursal resonance with default interpretations of metaphor and sarcasm

| Tel Aviv University
The paper focuses on discourse production. It shows that language production unfolds via resonating (Du Bois, 2014) with default interpretations. Default interpretations are defined as automatic responses. However, for an automatic response to be considered a default, it has to be (i) novel; (ii) free of semantic an omaly (Beardsley, 1958) and internal incongruity (Partington, 2011); and (iii) free of contextual information, intonation, discourse markers, etc. Results show that constructions, shown to be interpreted sarcastically or metaphorically when in isolation, were processed faster than nondefault counterparts when in discourse. As a result, corpus-based studies, displaying default interpretations, show that speakers’ discourse is unfolding via utterances’ default rather than nondefault interpretations. This applies here to Hebrew but also to English, German, and Russian.
Keywords: discourse production, default interpretations, nondefault interpretations, processing, sarcasm, metaphor, literalness, negative, affirmative, corpus-based studies
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Conditions for interpretations’ defaultness: Which kind of responses would be definable as default outputs
    • 1.2The defaultness hypothesis – predictions
  • 2.On the speed superiority of default over nondefault interpretations
    • 2.1The speed superiority of default metaphorical interpretations of negative constructions over their nondefault literal counterparts
    • 2.2The speed superiority of default sarcastic interpretations of negative constructions over their nondefault literal counterparts
    • 2.3The speed superiority of default literal interpretations of affirmative sarcasm over their nondefault literal counterparts
    • 2.4The speed superiority of default literal interpretations of affirmative metaphors over their nondefault literal counterparts
    • 2.5The speed superiority of default over nondefault counterparts is insensitive to degree of figurativeness
  • 3.Resonating with default interpretations
    • 3.1Resonating with default metaphorical interpretations of negative constructions
      • 3.1.1Study 1: Distribution of default negative metaphoricity and default affirmative literalness
      • 3.1.2Study 2: Distribution of type of resonance with default metaphorical interpretations of negative constructions
    • 3.2Resonating with default sarcastic interpretations of negative constructions
      • 3.2.1Study 3: Distribution of default negative sarcasm and default affirmative literalness of the form X s/he is not
      • 3.2.2Study 4: Distribution of type of resonance with default sarcastic interpretations of negative constructions of the form X s/he is not
      • 3.2.3Study 5: Distribution of default negative sarcasm and default affirmative literalness of the form X is not her/his forte/best attribute
      • 3.2.4Study 6: Distribution of type of resonance with default sarcastic interpretations of negative constructions of the form X is not her/his forte/ best attribute
      • 3.2.5Study 7: Distribution of default negative sarcasm and default affirmative literalness of the form X is not the most Y
      • 3.2.6Study 8: Distribution of type of resonance with default sarcastic interpretations of negative constructions of the form X is not the most Y
    • 3.3Resonating with default literal interpretations of affirmative metaphor and sarcasm
      • 3.3.1Study 9: Distribution of type of resonance with default literal interpretations of affirmative sarcasm
      • 3.3.2Study 10: Distribution of type of resonance with default literal interpretations of affirmative metaphors
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.08gio
References
Beardsley, M. C.
(1958) Aesthetics. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Becker, I., & Giora, R.
(2018) The Defaultness Hypothesis: How speakers cue default literal and sarcastic interpretations – a quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production. Journal of pragmatics, 138, 149–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, L. H., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(2002) Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 57–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W.
(2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., & Giora R.
(2014) From cognitive-functional linguistics to dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 351–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fein, O., Yeari M., & Giora, R.
(2015) On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of irony. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Filik, R., Howman, H., Ralph-Nearman. C., & Giora, R.
(2018) The role of defaultness in sarcasm interpretation: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3), 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
(1998) Counter point commentary. In A. Katz, C. Cacciari, R. Gibbs, & M. Turner (Eds.), Figurative language and thought (pp. 158–192). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R.
(1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) “A good Arab is not a dead Arab – a racist incitement”: On the accessibility of negated concepts. In I. Kecskés, & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, (pp. 129–162). Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
(2012) “Your baby is no longer an infant”. On metaphor as context. In M. Gluzman, & O. Lubin (Eds.), Intertextuality in literature and culture (pp. 245–257). Tel Aviv: Hakibbuz Hameuchad. (In Hebrew)Google Scholar
(2021) The defaultness hypothesis – affirmative sarcasm negative sarcasm: Which will be faster to process? Which will rely on cueing? Which will be more entertaining? Cognitive Linguistics Studies, 8(1).Google Scholar
Giora, R., & Balaban, N.
(2001) Lexical access in text production: On the role of salience in metaphor resonance. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation (pp. 111–124). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Drucker, A., & Fein, O.
(2014a) Resonating with default nonsalient interpretations: A corpus-based study of negative sarcasm. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28, 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., & Mendelson, I.
(2015a) Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., & Fein, O.
(1999) On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919–929. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Aschkenazi, K., & Alkabets-Zlozover, I.
(2007) Negation in context: A functional approach to suppression. Discourse Processes, 43, 153–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kotler, N., & Shuval, N.
(2015b)  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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Metuki, N., & Stern, P.
(2010) Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator. In L. Horn (Ed.), The expression of negation (pp. 225–256). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T.
(1998) Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(2), 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Becker, I.
(2020) How defaultness affects text production: Resonating with default interpretations of negative sarcasm. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), The diversity of irony (pp. 66–77). Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O.
(2015c) Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290–313. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., & Gur, I.
(2003) Irony in conversation: Salience and context effects. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman, & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meanings in language and mind (pp. 297–316). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Raphaely, M., Fein, O., & Livnat, E.
(2014b) Resonating with contextually inappropriate interpretations in production: The case of irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 443–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givoni, S., & Giora, R.
(2018) Salience and Defaultness. In F. Liedtke, & A. Tuchen (Eds.), Handbuch Pragmatik (pp. 207–2013). Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, S.
(2008, November 3) Joke on Palin again as she falls for fake Sarkozy call. The Guardian. Retrieved from [URL]
Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V.
(2013) The TenTen corpus family. In 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference (pp. 125–127). Lancaster, UK, July 2013.
James, E.
(2015) Protecting the colton bride. [URL]Google Scholar
Joan
(2008) 20 Responses to “Bridget Moynahan Must Have Laughed, or Why I’m Almost Glad the Patriots Lost”. March 28, 2008. [URL]
Kotthoff, H.
(2003) Responding to irony in different contexts: Cognition and conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1387–1411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, G.
(3 March 2008a) Spotlight on the lesser evil. [URL]
Mazali, R.
(2006) There is no Israeli Ceasefire in Gaza. (Translated from Hebrew). Talk in Tel Aviv for December 2 Demo – Coalition to Stop the Siege of Gaza. December 2, 2006. [URL]Google Scholar
Mebrod
(2010) Near misses in obedience training! LOL [URL]
Partington, A.
(2011) Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1786–1800. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P., Ferretti, T., & Katz, A.
(2000) Discourse factors that influence irony detection during on-line reading. Discourse Processes, 29, 201–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veale, T.
(2018) The “default” in our stars: Signposting non-defaultness in ironic discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3),175–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
2022. Metonymy in multimodal discourse, or. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 october 2023. 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.