Defaultness vs. constructionism
The case of default constructional sarcasm and default non-constructional literalness
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.
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
-
Appendix
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approach (unpublished PhD dissertation, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel).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.
Ariel, M.
(
2009)
Discourse,
grammar, discourse: An overview.
Discourse
Studies,
11(1), 5–36.
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.
Beardsley, C. M.
(
1958)
Aesthetics. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
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.
Biacchi, A.
(
2015)
Construction
Learning as a Complex Adaptive System: Evidence from L2 Learners of
English. New York, NY: Springer.
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.
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W.
(
1997)
Productivity
and schematicity in metaphors.
Cognitive
Science,
21, 247–282.
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.
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.
Giora, R.
(
2003)
On
our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
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.
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., 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.
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., 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 &
Symbol,
32(1), 1–18.
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., 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.
Givoni, S. & Giora, R.
(
2018)
Salience
and Defaultness. In:
F. Liedtke, &
A. Tuchen (Eds.),
Handbuch
Pragmatik (pp. 207–213). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Givoni, S., Giora, R., & Bergerbest, D.
(
2013)
How
speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings.
Journal of
Pragmatics,
48(1), 29–40.
Goldberg, A. E.
(
1995)
Constructions:
A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E.
(
1996)
Construction
Grammar. In
K. Brown &
J. Miller (Eds.),
Concise
encyclopedia of syntactic
theories (pp. 68–71). Oxford: Pergamon.
Goldberg, A. E.
(
2006)
Constructions
at Work: The Nature of Generalization in
Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E.
(
2013)
Constructionist
approaches. In
T. Hoffmann &
G. Trousdale (Eds.),
The
Oxford Handbook of Construction
Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Hilpert, M.
(
2014)
Construction
Grammar and its Applications to
English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
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.
Jung-Beeman, M.
(
2005)
Bilateral
brain processes for comprehending natural language.
Trends in Cognitive
Sciences,
9(11), 512–518.
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.
Levy, G.
(
2015)
Israel’s
Low Court of Justice Helps Perpetuate the Occupation.
[URL]
Partington, A.
(
2011)
Phrasal
irony: Its form, function and exploitation.
Journal of
Pragmatics,
43, 1786–1800.
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th.
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.
Thompson, D., & Filik, R.
(
2016)
Sarcasm
in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention.
Journal
of Computer-Mediated
Communication,
21(2), 105–120.
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).
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 march 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.