Article published in:
Issues in Humour Cognition
Edited by Marta Dynel
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1] 2018
► pp. 48–71
Special issue articles

Perceptual opposites and the modulation of contrast in irony

| University of Macerata
| University of Macerata

This paper proposes a new way of analyzing the contrast between an ironic comment and the referent context by focusing on the structure of the dimension which the contrast belongs to. This new approach was stimulated by previous experimental studies demonstrating that dimensions are perceptually made up of two opposite poles and an intermediate region consisting either of point or range properties. Applying this schema it became clear that, on the one hand what previous evidence-based literature mostly focuses on is the idea that for an ironic meaning to be detected there must be a contrast between two poles or within a pole; on the other hand, that there is room for new investigations concerning whether it is possible to make ironic comments containing poles to refer to intermediate situations (i.e. situations perceived as neither one pole nor the other) or, vice versa, to make ironic comments containing intermediates to refer to polarized situations.

Keywords: contrast, irony, perceptual opposites
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Contrast and irony
  • 3.Perceiving relationships and perceiving contrariety
  • 4.On the modulation of the intensity and direction of contrast in irony: A framework for analysis
    • (I)Ironic vs. non-ironic comments (Figure 1 Diagram I)
    • (II)Levels of contrast (Figure 1, Diagrams II, III, IV, V)
  • 5.Enriching the framework with a third component: Intermediates
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 31 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00003.can
References

References

Akimoto, Y., Miyazawa, S., & Muramoto, T.
(2012) Comprehension processes of verbal irony: The effects of salience, egocentric context and allocentric theory of mind. Metaphor & Symbol, 27(3), 217–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S.
(2000) Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 793–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Humor and irony in interaction: From mode adoption to failure of detection. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp. 166–185). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W.
(2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 716–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K.
(2005) Mental simulation in literal and figurative language understanding. In S. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 255–280). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2012)  Louder than words . The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Burro, R., Pezzola, R., & Savardi, U.
(2017) Matching visual and acoustic mirror forms. Symmetry, 91, 39–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, I., Burro, R., Torquati, S., & Savardi, U.
(2013) The middle of the road: Perceiving intermediates. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 121–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, I., Canestrari, C., Roncoroni, A. M., Burro, R., Branchini, E., & Savardi, U.
(2017) The effects of modulating contrast in verbal irony as a cue for giftedness. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 30(4), 383–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, I., Paradis, C., Burro, R., van de Weijer, J., Nyström, M., & Savardi, U.
(2017) Identification of poles and intermediates by eye and by hand. Acta Psychologica, 1801, 175–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, I., & Savardi, U.
(2008a) The perception of contraries. Rome: Aracne.Google Scholar
(2008b) The relationship perceived between the real body and the mirror image. Perception, 51, 666–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Contrariety in plane mirror reflections. In U. Savardi (Ed.), The perception and cognition of contraries (pp. 113–128). Milan: Mc-Graw Hill.Google Scholar
(2012) The cognitive dimensions of contrariety. In J. Y. Bezieau & G. Payette (Eds.), The square of opposition: A general framework for cognition (pp. 443–470). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., & Burro, R.
(2011) Perceptual ratings of opposite spatial properties: Do they lie on the same dimension?. Acta Psychologica, 138(3), 405–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., Burro, R., & Martelli, M. F.
(2014) Doing the opposite to what another person doing. Acta Psychologica, 1511, 117–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., Burro, R., & Torquati, S.
(2011) Negation and psychological dimensions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 275–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., & Kubovy, M.
(2011) Dimensions and their poles: A metric and topological approach to opposites. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(8), 1232–1265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biederman, I.
(1985) Human image understanding: Recent research and a theory. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Understanding, 32(1), 29–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987) Recognition – by – components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94(2), 585–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boucher, J., & Osgood, C. E.
(1969) The pollyanna hypothesis. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(1), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bressanelli, D., & Parovel, G.
(2012) The emotional effect of violation of causality, or how to make a square amusing. i-Perception, 31, 146–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgers, C., & Beukeboom, C. J.
(2016) Stereotype transmission and maintenance through interpersonal communication: The irony bias. Communication Research, 43(3), 414–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R., & Paradis, C.
(2015) Making sense of sensory perceptions across languages and cultures. Functions of Language, 22(1), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calmus, A., & Caillies, S.
(2014) Verbal irony processing: How do contrast and humour correlate? International Journal of Psychology, 49(1), 46–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canestrari, C., & Bianchi, I.
(2009) The perception of humor: From script opposition to the phenomenological rules of contrariety. In U. Savardi (Ed.), The perception and cognition of contraries (pp. 225–246). Milan: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
(2012) Perception of contrariety in jokes. Discourse Processes, 49(7), 539–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) From perception of contraries to humorous incongruities. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canestrari, C., Bianchi, I., & Cori, V.
(2018) De-polarizing verbal irony. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 43–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canestrari, C., Dionigi, A., & Zuczkowski, A.
(2014) Humor understanding and knowledge. Language and Dialogue, 4(1), 261–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H., & Clark, E. V.
(1977) Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J.
(1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 121–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L.
(1997) I’ve never seen anything like it: Overstatement, understatement, irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 43–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 341, 111–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B.
(1998) You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J.
(2000a) Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: the pragmatic of accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30(2), 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000b) Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language. Anything understatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(11), 1557–1583. 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
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
(1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deckers, L.
(1993) On the validity of weight-judging paradigm for the study of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 6(1), 43–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M.
(2013) Irony from a neo-Gricean perspective: On untruthfulness and evaluative implicature. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(3), 403–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Isn’t it ironic? Defining the scope of humorous irony. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27(4), 619–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H.
(1992) Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three – dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32(12), 2385–2400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filik, R., Leuthold, H., Wallington, K., & Page, J.
(2014) Testing theories of irony processing using eye-tracking and ERPs. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory & Cognition, 40(3), 811–828. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerrig, R. J., & Goldvarg, Y.
(2000) Additive effects in the perception of sarcasm: Situational disparity and echoic mention. Metaphor and Symbol, 5(4), 197–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R.
(1995) On Irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19(2), 239–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Balaban, N., Fein, O., & Alkabets, I.
(2004) Negation as positivity in disguise. In H. L. Colston & A. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 233–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Giora, R., & Fein, O.
(1999) Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(4), 241–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Levi, A. N., & 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., & Schwartz, T.
(1998) Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(2), 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O.
(2015) Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldmeier, E.
(1936/1972) Similarity in visually perceived forms. Psychological Issues, 291, Whole No.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. T., Dunham, P. J., & Purdy, K.
(2000) Children’s comprehension of critical and complimentary forms of verbal irony. Journal of Cognition and Developments, 1(2), 227–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haverkate, H.
(1990) A speech act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1), 77–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hempelmann, C. F., & Attardo, S.
(2011) Resolutions and their incongruities: Further thoughts on logical mechanisms. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 24(2), 125–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivanko, S. L., & Pexman, P. M.
(2003) Context incongruity and irony processing. Discourse Processes, 35(3), 241–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, S.
(2002) Antonymy: A corpus-based perspective. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jorgensen, J., Miller, G. A., & Sperber, D.
(1984) Test of the mention theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 113(1), 112–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kowatch, K., Whalen, J. M., & Pexman, P. M.
(2013) Irony comprehension in action: A new test of processing for verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 50(5), 301–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Caucci, G. M.
(2009) Social aspects of verbal irony use. In H. Pishwa (Ed.), Language and social cognition: Expression of the social mind (pp. 325–348). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Glucksberg, S.
(1989) How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(4), 374–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Link, K. E.
(2002) Asymmetries in the use of verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(2), 127–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M.
(1995) How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 124(1), 3–21. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Leggitt, J. S., & Gibbs, R. W.
(2000) Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A. & Lehrer, K.
(1982) Antonymy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5(4), 483- DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
(1977) Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maier, N. R. F.
(1932) A Gestalt theory of humour. British Journal of Psychology, 231, 69–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marr, D.
(1982) Vision. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Marr, D., & Nishihara, H. K.
(1978) Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three – dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 2041, 301–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D.
(1990) Similarity involving attributes and relations: judgments of similarity and difference are not inverses. Psychological Science, 11, 64–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metz-Göckel, H.
(1989) Witzstrukturen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Closure as a joke-principle. Gestalt Theory, 30(3), 331–336.Google Scholar
Muehleisen, V.
(1997) Antonymy and semantic range in English. Doctoral dissertation in philosophy, field of linguistics. Evanston, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
Myers, A. R.
(1977) Towards a definition of irony. In R. W. Fasold & R. Shuy (Eds.), Studies in language variation (pp. 171–183). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Nerhardt, G.
(1970) Humor and inclination to laugh: Emotional reactions to stimuli of different divergence from a range of expectancy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 185–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1976) Incongruity and funniness: Towards a new descriptive model. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 55–62). London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Okamoto, S.
(2006) Perception of hiniku and oseji: How hyperbole and orthographically deviant styles influence irony-related perceptions in the Japanese language. Discourse Processes, 41(1), 25–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osmańska-Lipka, I.
(2012) Elements of Gestalt psychology in American cognitive linguistics. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie – Skłodowska Lublin –, 30(2), 47–72.Google Scholar
Palmer, S. E.
(1978) Structural aspects of visual similarity. Memory & Cognition, 6(2), 91–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C.
(2008) Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 317–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C., & Willners, C.
(2006) Antonyms and negation: the boundedness hypothesis. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1051–1080. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Negation and approximation as configuration construal in SPACE. In C. Paradis, J. Hudson & U. Magnusson (Eds.), The construal of spatial meaning: Windows into conceptual space (pp. 287–311). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C., Willners, C., & Jones, S.
(2009) Good versus bad antonyms: using textual and experimental methods to measure canonicity. The Mental Lexicon, 4(3), 380–429. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Parovel, G., & Guidi, S.
(2015) The psychophysics of comic: Effects of incongruity in causality and animacy. Acta Psychologica, 1591, 22–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A.
(2005) Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pexman, P. M., & Olineck, K. M.
(2002) Understanding irony how do stereotypes cue speaker intent. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 211, 245–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R. M., & Kreuz, R. J.
(1994) Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science, 5(3), 159–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rock, I.
(1973) Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Russell, R. E.
(1996) Understanding laughter in terms of basic perceptual and response patterns. Humor. International Journal of Humor Research, 9(1), 39–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savardi, U., & Bianchi, I.
(2009) The spatial path to contrariety. In U. Savardi (Ed.), The perception and cognition of contraries (pp. 63–92). Milan: Mc-Graw Hill.Google Scholar
Savardi, U., Bianchi, I., & Burro, R.
(2009) From opposites to dimensions: filling in the gaps. In U. Savardi (Ed.), The perception and cognition of contraries (pp. 275–294). Milan: Mc-Graw Hill.Google Scholar
Schiller, P.
(1938) A configurational theory of jokes and puzzles, The Journal of General Psychology, 181, 217–234. 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, 151, 47–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, K.
(1996) Laughing at the way we see: The role of visual organization principles in cartoon humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9(1), 19–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S.
(1989) Mental rotation and orientation – dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21 (2), 233–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A.
(1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Utsumi, A.
(2000) Verbal irony as implicit display of ironic environment: Distinguishing ironic utterances from nonironic. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(12), 1777–1806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Stylistic and contextual effects in irony processing. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-six annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1369–1374). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Veale, T.
(2008) Figure-ground duality in humour: A multi-modal perspective. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4(1), 63–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viana, A.
(2010) Asymmetry in script opposition. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 23(4), 505–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van de Weijer, J., Paradis, C., Willners, C., & Lindgren, M.
(2014) Antonym canonicity: Temporal and contextual manipulations. Brain and Language, 128(1), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willners, C., & Paradis, C.
(2006) Antonymy and negation: The boundedness hypothesis. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1051–1080. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2013) Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 591, 40–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Bianchi, Ivana, Erika Branchini, Stefania Torquati, Arianna Fermani, Elena Capitani, Veronica Barnaba, Ugo Savardi & Roberto Burro
2021. Non experts’ understanding of terms frequently used by experts to describe the sensory properties of wine: An investigation based on opposites. Food Quality and Preference 92 ► pp. 104215 ff. DOI logo
Bianchi, Ivana, Elena Capitani, Erika Branchini, Ugo Savardi & Roberto Burro
2022. Naïve intuitions about what constitutes “an opposite process”. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 34:3 ► pp. 410 ff. DOI logo
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2022. Figurative thought and language research in the 21st century. In Figurative Thought and Language in Action [Figurative Thought and Language, 16], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Capitani, Elena, Erika Branchini, Roberto Burro, Ugo Savardi & Ivana Bianchi
2020. The opposite of a transformation process. An exploration based on diagrams. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 32:7 ► pp. 698 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 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.