Article published In:
Issues in Humour Cognition
Edited by Marta Dynel
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1] 2018
► pp. 1947
Beardsley, M.
(1958) Aesthetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 Unpublished MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. D., & Katz, A. N.
(2012) Are there necessary conditions for inducing a sense of sarcastic irony? Discourse Processes, 49(6), 459–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V.
(1977) Psychology and language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cori, V., Canestrari, C., & Bianchi, I.
(2016) The perception of contrariety and the processing of verbal irony. Gestalt Theory, 38(2–3), 253–266.Google Scholar
Dews, S., & Winner, E.
(1995) Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 10(1), 3–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W.
(2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. 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.
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, T., & Schul, Y.
(2008) The meaning of negated adjectives. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(4), 517–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R.
(1995) On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 191, 239–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. 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(2), 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, 221, 119–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O.
(2015b) 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., & 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, D.
(2011) Default ironic interpretation. Unpublished ms. Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kecskés, I.
(2003) Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mashal, N., & Faust, M.
(2009) Conventionalization of novel metaphors: A shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Laterality, 14(6), 573–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A.
(2012) Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1978) Structure, sign and function. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Paolazzi, C.
(2013) “Do you really think it?”: Testing hypotheses on default nonliteral interpretations. University of Trento, Italy. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Partington, A.
(2011) Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 1786–1800. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raeber, T.
(2016) Distinguishing rhetorical from ironical questions: A relevance-theoretic account. In M. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance Theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions (pp. 173–190). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google 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. Knowledge-Based Systems, 1081, 132–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veale, T.
(2012) Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2013) Humorous similes. Humor, 26(1), 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wason, P. C.
(1965) The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4(1), 7–11. 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
Zuanazzi, A.
(2013) Italian affirmative rhetorical questions generate ironic interpretations by default. University of Trento, Italy. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 16 other publications

Bardenstein, Ruti
2022. Constructionalized rhetorical questions from negatively biased to negation polarity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 23:1  pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Becker, Israela & Rachel Giora
2018. The Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production. Journal of Pragmatics 138  pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Frenda, Simona, Alessandra Teresa Cignarella, Valerio Basile, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti & Paolo Rosso
2022. The unbearable hurtfulness of sarcasm. Expert Systems with Applications 193  pp. 116398 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel
2020. How defaultness shapes our language production. In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10],  pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel
2021. The defaultness hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:1  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel
2022. Defaultness vs. constructionism. In Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 9],  pp. 305 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel & Israela Becker
2019. S/he is not the Most Sparkling Drink in the PubGlobal Vs. Local Cue – Which Reigns Supreme?. Metaphor and Symbol 34:3  pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel, Dalia Meytes, Ariela Tamir, Shir Givoni, Vered Heruti & Ofer Fein
2017. Chapter 10. Defaultness shines while affirmation pales. In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1],  pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Kiose, Maria
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. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Lehmann, Claudia
2023. Chapter 9. Multimodal markers of irony in televised discourse. In Multimodal Im/politeness [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 333],  pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Levant, Efrat, Ofer Fein & Rachel Giora
2020. Default sarcastic interpretations of attenuated and intensified similes. Journal of Pragmatics 166  pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Novikova, Yana & Maria Kiose
2022. From visual perception to comprehension: Variations in construal and gaze behavior. Languages and Modalities 2  pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2020. Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication 71  pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Skalicky, Stephen
2023. Verbal Irony Processing, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 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.