Ofer Fein | The Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yaffo
What are the constraints rendering stimuli, such as Alert he is not; He is not the most organized person around; Hospitality is not his best attribute; Do you really believe you are sophisticated? sarcastic by default? Recent findings (Filik, Howman, Ralph-Nearman, & Giora, in press; Giora et al., 2005, 2013, 2015a, 2015b, in progress a) suggest that strongly attenuating a highly positive concept, e.g., alert, sophisticated, most organized, best attribute (associated here with hospitality), induces sarcastic interpretations by default. To be interpreted sarcastically by default, items should be construable as such in the absence of factors inviting sarcasm. [1] 1 They should, thus, be (i) novel, noncoded in the mental lexicon, (ii) potentially ambiguous between literal and nonliteral interpretations, so that a preference is allowed, and (iii) free of specific and biasing contextual information. Online and offline studies, collecting self-paced reading times, eye-tracking data during reading, sarcasm rating, and pleasure ratings, alongside corpus-based studies, further support this view. [2] 2
(1958) Aesthetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Becker, I.
(2015) The good, the not good, and the not beautiful: On the non-obligatoriness of suppression following negation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11(2), 255–283.
Becker, I.
(2016) The negation operator is not a suppressor of the concept in its scope: In fact, quite the opposite. Unpublished MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.
Becker, I., & Giora, R.
submitted). The Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production.
Bergson, H.
(1900/1956) Laughter. In W. Sypher (Ed.), Comedy (pp. 61–190). New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor Book.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
(1978) Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, J. D., & Katz, A. N.
(2012) Are there necessary conditions for inducing a sense of sarcastic irony?Discourse Processes, 49(6), 459–480.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V.
(1977) Psychology and language. Cambridge University Press.
Colston, H. L.
(1999) “Not good” is “bad,” but “Not bad” is not “good”: An analysis of three accounts of negation asymmetry. Discourse Processes, 28(3), 237–256.
Cori, V., Canestrari, C., & Bianchi, I.
(2016) The perception of contrariety and the processing of verbal irony. Gestalt Theory, 38(2–3), 253–266.
Dews, S., & Winner, E.
(1995) Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 10(1), 3–19.
Du Bois, J. W.
(2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410.
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.
in press). The role of defaultness in sarcasm interpretation: Evidence from eye-tracking. Metaphor and Symbol.
Filik, R., Turcan, A., Thompson, D., Harvey, N., Davies, H., & Turner, A.
(2016) Sarcasm and emoticons: Comprehension and emotional impact. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 691, 2130–2146.
Fraenkel, T., & Schul, Y.
(2008) The meaning of negated adjectives. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(4), 517–540.
Gibbs, R. W.
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W.
(2000) Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 5–27.
Giora, R.
(1995) On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 191, 239–264.
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. Oxford University Press.
Giora, R.
(2016) When negatives are easier to understand than affirmatives: The case of negative sarcasm. In P. Larrivée & C. Lee (Eds.), Negation and negative polarity: Experimental perspectives (pp. 127–143). Cham: Springer.
Giora, R.
under review). How defaultness affects processing, pleasure, and cueing: The case of default constructional sarcasm and default non-constructional literalness.
Giora, R., Cholev, A., Fein, O., & Peleg, O.
in press). On the superiority of defaultness: Hemispheric perspectives of processing negative and affirmative sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol.
(2015a) Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Levi, N. A., & Sabah, H.
(2005) On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39(1), 81–100.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kotler, N., & Shuval, N.
(2015c) 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(2), 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, 221, 119–146.
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O.
(2015b) 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., & Fein, O.
in progress a). Default sarcastic interpretations: The case of rhetorical questions.
Giora, R., Levant, E., & Fein, O.
in progress b). Default affirmative sarcasm: The case of attenuated similes.
Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O., Barnea, A., Zeiman, R., & Berger, I.
(2013) Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 281, 89–115.
Giora, R., Meytes, D.Tamir, A.Givoni, S., Heruti, V., & Fein, O.
(2017) Defaultness shines while affirmation pales. In A. Athanasiadou & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 219–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldenberg, D.
(2011) Default ironic interpretation. Unpublished ms. Tel Aviv University.
Heruti, V., Bergerbest, D., & Giora, R.
submitted). A linguistic or pictorial context: Does it make a difference?
Horn, L. R.
(1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ilie, C.
(1994) What else can I tell you?: A pragmatic study of English rhetorical questions as discursive and argumentative acts. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm.
Kecskés, I.
(2003) Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V.
(2014) The sketch engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7–36.
Mashal, N., & Faust, M.
(2009) Conventionalization of novel metaphors: A shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Laterality, 14(6), 573–589.
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A.
(2012) Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mukařovský, J.
(1932/1964) Standard language and poetic language. In P. L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague school reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp. 17–30). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Mukařovský, J.
(1978) Structure, sign and function. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Paolazzi, C.
(2013) “Do you really think it?”: Testing hypotheses on default nonliteral interpretations. University of Trento, Italy. Unpublished ms.
Partington, A.
(2011) Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 1786–1800.
Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K.
(2000) Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 47–61.
Shklovsky, V.
(1917/1965) Art as technique. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds. and Trans.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 3–57). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
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. Knowledge-Based Systems, 1081, 132–143.
Veale, T.
(2012) Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London/New York: Continuum.
Veale, T.
(2013) Humorous similes. Humor, 26(1), 3–22.
Wason, P. C.
(1965) The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4(1), 7–11.
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).
Zuanazzi, A.
(2013) Italian affirmative rhetorical questions generate ironic interpretations by default. University of Trento, Italy. Unpublished ms.
2018. The Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production. Journal of Pragmatics 138 ► pp. 149 ff.
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.
2020. The Interplay of Syntactic and Lexical Salience and its Effect on Default Figurative Responses. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 61:1 ► pp. 69 ff.
Lehmann, Claudia
2021. About as boring as flossing sharks: Cognitive accounts of irony and the family of approximate comparison constructions in American English. Cognitive Linguistics 32:1 ► pp. 133 ff.
2020. Default sarcastic interpretations of attenuated and intensified similes. Journal of Pragmatics 166 ► pp. 59 ff.
Novikova, Yana & Maria Kiose
2022. From visual perception to comprehension: Variations in construal and gaze behavior. Languages and Modalities 2 ► pp. 37 ff.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2020. Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication 71 ► pp. 16 ff.
Skalicky, Stephen
2023. Verbal Irony Processing,
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 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.