Deceptive clickbaits in the relevance-theoretic lens: What makes them similar to punchlines

Maria Jodłowiec

Abstract

This paper explores the nature of clickbaiting as a form of viral journalism from a relevance-theoretic perspective (Sperber and Wilson 1995; Wilson and Sperber 2012). The focus is on deceptive clickbaits, i.e., manipulative internet headlines whose interpretation, based on the way they are worded, leads to opening an information gap, thus luring the reader into clicking on the link provided with a view to increasing the website traffic. It is highlighted that such headlines exploit linguistic underdeterminacy, and unlike felicitous headlines, which provide an accurate representation of the article content and therefore play the role of relevance optimizers (Dor 2003), deceptive clickbaits induce recipients to generate interpretations which arouse their intense curiosity but are ultimately incompatible with the article’s content. The paper shows how relevance theory can explain the interpretation bias that the reader of deceptive clickbaits falls prey to and advances the idea that there is affinity in this respect between deceptive clickbaits and jokes.

Keywords:
Publication history
Table of contents

Verbal communication, as is widely acknowledged (e.g., Sperber and Wilson 1995, 2002, 2008; Carston 2002; Bach 2007; Wilson and Sperber 2012; Belleri 2014), involves a certain amount of underspecificity. This is directly related to the fact that utterances abound in contextual variables (such as, e.g., indexical expressions or demonstrative pronouns), vague and conceptually incomplete expressions, ellipsis, structural ambiguities, etc., which must be adequately worked out by the comprehender to get the intended contextual meaning. All this means that what is expressed by utterances is either “too variable or too skimpy to comprise what people mean in uttering them” (Bach 2007, 29–30). This idea has been formalized by Carston (2002) as the linguistic underdeterminacy thesis, which amounts to stating that there is always a gap between what the utterance standing meaning is and what it is used to communicate (see also Belleri 2014 and the references therein).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Bach, Kent
2007 “Regression in Pragmatics (and Semantics).” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 29–30. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazaco, Ángela, Marta Redondo, and Pilar Sánchez-García
2019 “Clickbait as a Strategy of Viral Journalism: Conceptualisation and Methods.” Revista Latina de Comunicación Social 74: 94–115. http://​www​.revistalatinacs​.org​/074paper​/1323​/06en​.html. Crossref
Belleri, Delia
2014Semantic Under-Determinacy and Communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blom, Jonas, and Kenneth Hansen
2015 “Click Bait: Forward– Reference as Lure in Online News Headlines.” Journal of Pragmatics 76: 87–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, John, and Marcia Johnson
1972 “Contextual Prerequisites for Understanding: Some Investigations of Comprehension and Recall.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 717–726. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Lexical Pragmatics, Ad Hoc Concepts and Metaphor: From a Relevance Theory Perspective.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 22 (1): 153–180.Google Scholar
Chen, Yimin, Nadia Conroy, and Victoria Rubin
2015 “Misleading Online Content: Recognizing Clickbait as False News.” In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Workshop on Multimodal Deception Detection, 15–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Day, H. I.
1982 “Curiosity and the Interested Explorer.” Performance and Instruction 21 (4): 19–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dor, Daniel
2003 “On Newspaper Headlines as Relevance Optimizers.” Journal of Pragmatics 35: 695–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, Marta
2009Humorous Garden-Paths: A Pragmatic-Cognitive study. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2018Irony, Deception and Humour. Seeking the Truth about Overt and Covert Untruthfulness. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ecker, Ullrich, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ee Pin Chang, Rekha Pillai
2014 “The Effects of Subtle Misinformation in News Headlines.” Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied 20 (4): 323–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Galasiński, Dariusz
2000The Language of Deception. A Discourse Analytical Study. Thousand Oaks: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geer, John, and Kim Kahn
1993 “Grabbing Attention: An Experimental Investigation of Headlines During Campaigns.” Political Communication 10: 175–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graney, John
1990 “Determination of Fact and Opinion: A Critical Reading Problem.” Journal of Psycholinguist Research 19: 147–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iarovici, Edith, and Rodica Amel, R.
1989 “The Strategy of the Headline.” Semiotica 77 (4): 441–459. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly
2009 “Newspaper Headlines and Relevance: Ad Hoc Concepts in Ad Hoc Contexts.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 699–720. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaki, Sylvia
2014Phraseological Substitutions in Newspaper Headlines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Katarzyna
2012 “Semantics/Pragmatics Boundary Disputes.” In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, ed. by Claudia Maienbom, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 2333–2360. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jodłowiec, Maria
2015The Challenges of Explicit and Implicit Communication. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Damon, Byron George, Shawn Hannon, and John Glover
1989 “The Effect of Outlines and Headings on Readers’ Recall of Text.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 14: 111–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, Jeffrey, Anne Schuth, Martijn Spitters, and Maarten Marx
2017 “Effective Headlines of Newspaper Articles in a Digital Environment.” Digital Journalism 5 (10): 1300–1314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lew, Robert
1996 “Exploration of Linguistic Ambiguity in Polish and English Jokes.” Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 31: 127–133.Google Scholar
Livingstone, Sonia, and Peter Lunt
1994Talk on Television. Audience Participation and Public Debate. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, George
1994 “The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation.” Psychological Bulletin 116 (1): 75–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Lisa., Jason Cohen, and Arthur Wingfield
2006 “Contextual Knowledge Reduces Demands on Working Memory during Reading.” Memory & Cognition 34: 1355–1367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2015 “On the Role of Vigilance in the Interpretation of Puns.” Humor – International Journal of Humor Research 28 (3): 469–490.Google Scholar
2016 “Vigilance Mechanisms in Interpretation: Hermeneutical Vigilance.” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 133 (1): 21–29.Google Scholar
Piskorska, Agnieszka, and Maria Jodłowiec
2018 “Weak Communication, Joke Targets and the Punch-Line Effect: A Relevance-Theoretic Account.” Studies in Polish Linguistics 13 (1): 25–44.Google Scholar
Piskorska, Agnieszka
2020 “Introduction: The Literal-Figurative Language Continuum and Optimally Relevant Interpretations.” In Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Potthast, Martin, Sebastian Köpsel, Benno Stein, and Matthias Hagen
2016 “Clickbait Detection.” In Advances in Information Retrieval, ed. by Nicola Ferro, Fabio Crestani, Marie-Francine ‎Moens, Josiane Mothe, Fabrizio Silvestri, Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio, Claudia Hauff, and Gianmaria Silvello, 810–817. Switzerland: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Kristina
2000 “Emergence and Development of Headlines in English Newspapers.” In English Media Texts Past and Present: Language and Textual Structure, ed. by Friedrich Ungerer, 45–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Kate
2021 “You Won’t Believe What’s in This Paper! Clickbait, Relevance and the Curiosity Gap.” Journal of Pragmatics 175: 53–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shin, Dajung, and Sung-il Kim
2019 “Homo Curious: Curious or Interested?Educational Psychology Review 31: 853–874. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2002 “Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind–Reading.” Mind & Language 17: 3–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Pragmatics.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 17: 353–388.Google Scholar
2008 “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Straumann, Heinrich
1935Newspaper Headlines. A Study in Linguistic Method. London: Unwin Brothers.Google Scholar
Sweeny, Kate., Darya Melnyk, Wendi Miller, and James Shepperd
2010 “Information Avoidance: Who, What, When, and Why.” Review of General Psychology 14 (4): 340–353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun
1988News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wiley, Jennifer, and Keith Rayner
2000 “Effects of Titles on the Processing of Text and Lexically Ambiguous Words: Evidence from Eye Movements.” Memory & Cognition 28: 1011–1021. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
2012Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2013 “An Inference-Centered Analysis of Jokes: The Intersecting Circles Model of Humorous Communication.” In Irony and Humor: From Pragmatics to Discourse, ed. by Leonor Ruiz Gurillo, and M. Belén Alvarado-Ortega, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar