How defaultness shapes our language production
A usage-based study of discoursal resonance with default
interpretations of metaphor and sarcasm
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.
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
References
Beardsley, M. C.
(
1958)
Aesthetics. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
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.
Colston, L. H., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(
2002)
Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 57–80.
Du Bois, J. W.
(
2014)
Towards
a dialogic syntax.
Cognitive
Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410.
Du Bois, J. W., & Giora R.
(
2014)
From
cognitive-functional linguistics to dialogic
syntax.
Cognitive
Linguistics, 25(3), 351–357.
Fein, O., Yeari M., & Giora, R.
(
2015)
On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of irony.
Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–32.
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.
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.
Giora, R.
(
1997)
Understanding
figurative and literal language: The graded salience
hypothesis.
Cognitive
Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.
Giora, R.
(
2003)
On
our mind: Salience, context, and figurative
language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giora, R.
(
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 Gruyter
Giora, R.
(
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)
Giora, R.
(
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).
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.
Giora, R., Drucker, A., & Fein, O.
Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., & Mendelson, I.
(
2015a)
Default
sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient
interpretations.
Discourse
Processes, 52(3), 173–200.
Giora, R., & Fein, O.
(
1999)
On
the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and
figurative language.
Journal
of
Pragmatics, 31, 919–929.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Aschkenazi, K., & Alkabets-Zlozover, I.
(
2007)
Negation
in context: A functional approach to
suppression.
Discourse
Processes, 43, 153–172.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T.
(
1998)
Irony:
Graded salience and indirect
negation.
Metaphor and
Symbol, 13(2), 83–101.
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.
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O.
(
2015c)
Defaultness
reigns: The case of
sarcasm.
Metaphor and
Symbol, 30(4), 290–313.
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.
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.
Giora, R., Jaffe, I., Becker, I., & Fein, O.
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.
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.
Givoni, S., & Giora, R.
(
2018)
Salience
and
Defaultness. In
F. Liedtke, &
A. Tuchen (Eds.),
Handbuch
Pragmatik (pp. 207–2013). Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
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]
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.
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]
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.
Pexman, P., Ferretti, T., & Katz, A.
(
2000)
Discourse
factors that influence irony detection during on-line
reading.
Discourse
Processes, 29, 201–222.
Veale, T.
(
2018)
The
“default” in our stars: Signposting non-defaultness in
ironic discourse.
Metaphor
and
Symbol, 33(3),175–184.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 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.