Chapter published in:
Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond
Edited by Herbert L. Colston, Teenie Matlock and Gerard J. Steen
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 9] 2022
► pp. 305–324

Defaultness vs. constructionism

The case of default constructional sarcasm and default non-constructional literalness

| Tel Aviv University

Default responses play a major role in affecting processing, pleasantness, and cueing of nondefault alternatives. Default responses are activated automatically, initially and directly, faster than nondefault counterparts, irrespective of degree of negation, novelty, nonliteralness, or contextual support (Giora et al., 2015c). No wonder default automatic responses may be initially involved in processing nondefault counterparts. This involvement of defaultness in processing nondefaultness slows down the latter while rendering it Optimal Innovative and therefore pleasing, even if highly dependent on context or cueing for its derivation. Findings here are discussed in terms of the Defaultness Hypothesis (Giora et al., 2015c, 2017), Construction Grammar (e.g., Goldberg, 1995, 1996, 2006, 2013; Johnson & Goldberg, 2013), and pragmatic effects.

Keywords: the defaultness hypothesis, the optimal innovation hypothesis, default and nondefault sarcasm, hedonic effects, construction grammar, non/constructional interpretations, pragmatic cueing
Article outline
  • 1.Overview
  • 2.Testing the defaultness hypothesis
    • 2.1Defining defaultness
      • 2.1.1Conditions for default interpretations
    • 2.2Predictions
      • 2.2.1Processing: The speed superiority of default over nondefault interpretations
      • 2.2.2Pleasure: The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure
      • 2.2.3Cueing: Rejecting default interpretations while inviting nondefault counterparts
        • 2.2.3.1Cues inviting nondefault sarcastic interpretations of affirmatives
        • 2.2.3.2Weighing cues explicitly rejecting defaultness vs. explicitly intensifying defaultness (of negative sarcasm)
  • 3.The role of defaultness in affecting processing, pleasure, and pragmatic cueing
  • 4.Constructions
  • 5.Conclusions: Non/default vs. non/constructional interpretations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 09 September 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.9.16gio
References
Adler, Meni
2007 Hebrew morphological disambiguation: An unsupervised stochastic word-based approach (unpublished PhD dissertation, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel).
Ariel, M.
(2008) Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Discourse, grammar, discourse: An overview. Discourse Studies, 11 (1), 5–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baroni, Marco, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi & Eros Zanchetta
2009 The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3). 209–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beardsley, C. M.
(1958) Aesthetics. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Becker, I. & Giora, R.
(2018) The Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production. Journal of Pragmatics, 138 , 149–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biacchi, A.
(2015) Construction Learning as a Complex Adaptive System: Evidence from L2 Learners of English. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, I., Paradis, C., Burro, R., van de Weijer, J., Nyström, M. & Savardi, U.
(2017) Identification of opposites and intermediates by eye and by hand. Acta Psychologica, 180 , 175–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W.
(1997) Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21 , 247–282. 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Filik, R., Țurcan, A., Thompson, D., Harvey, N., Davies, H., & Turner, A.
(2016) Sarcasm and emoticons: Comprehension and emotional impact. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69 (11), 2130–2146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R.
(2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Cholev, A., Fein, O. & Peleg, O.
(2018a) 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. & 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., 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, 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., 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 & Symbol, 32 (1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Jaffe, I., Becker, I. & Fein, O.
(2018b) 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., Zaidel, E., Soroker, N., Batori, G., and Kasher, A.
(2000) Differential effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 15 , 63–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1993) English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction (2 vols.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givoni, S. & Giora, R.
(2018) Salience and Defaultness. In: F. Liedtke, & A. Tuchen (Eds.), Handbuch Pragmatik (pp. 207–213). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givoni, S., Giora, R., & Bergerbest, D.
(2013) How speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 48 (1), 29–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1996) Construction Grammar. In K. Brown & J. Miller (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of syntactic theories (pp. 68–71). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2014) Construction Grammar and its Applications to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2013) Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28 (10), 1439–1452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jung-Beeman, M.
(2005) Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (11), 512–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý & Vít Suchomel
2014 The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1(1). 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, G.
(2015) Israel’s Low Court of Justice Helps Perpetuate the Occupation. http://​www​.haaretz​.com​/opinion​/.premium​-1​.652428
Partington, A.
(2011) Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 , 1786–1800. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2 , 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sulis, E., Hernandez-Farias, D. I., Rosso, P., Patti, V., & Ruffo, G.
(2016) Figurative messages and affect in Twitter: Differences between #irony, #sarcasm and #not. Journal of Knowledge-Based Systems, 108 , 132–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D., & Filik, R.
(2016) Sarcasm in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21 (2), 105–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziv, Y.
(2013)  Staam: Maintaining consistency in discourse. In M. Florentin (Ed.), Collection of Articles on Language (pp. 151–159). Jerusalem: Hebrew Academy (In Hebrew).Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Ariel, Mira
2019. Orconstructions. Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 january 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.