Language Resources and Evaluation

, Volume 41, Issue 3–4, pp 215–232 | Cite as

Irony in a judicial debate: analyzing the subtleties of irony while testing the subtleties of an annotation scheme

  • Isabella Poggi
  • Federica Cavicchio
  • Emanuela Magno Caldognetto


Irony has been studied by famous scholars across centuries, as well as more recently in cognitive and pragmatic research. The prosodic and visual signals of irony were also studied. Irony is a communicative act in which the Sender’s literal goal is to communicate a meaning x, but through this meaning the Sender has the goal to communicate another meaning, y, which is contrasting, sometimes even opposite, to meaning x. In this case we have an antiphrastic irony. So an ironic act is an indirect speech act, in that its true meaning, the one really intended by the Sender, is not the one communicated by the literal meaning of the communicative act: it must be understood through inferences by the Addressee. The ironic statement may concern an event, object or person, and in this case, the Addressee, or a third person, or even the Sender itself (Self-irony). In this paper we define irony in terms of a goal and belief view of communication, and show how the annotation scheme, the Anvil-Score, and illustrate aspects of its expressive power by applying it to a particular case: ironic communication in a judicial debate.


Irony Goals and beliefs communication Multimodal communication Annotation 


  1. Anolli, L., Infantino, M. G., & Ciceri, R. (2002). “Your’re a real genius!”: Irony as a miscommunication design. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  2. Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotele (1973). Retorica. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  4. Attardo, S. (2000). Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask. International Tidsskrift for Sprog og Kommunication, 12, 3–20.Google Scholar
  5. Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., & Poggi, I. (2003). Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor. International Journal of Humor Research, 16(2), 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boersma, P. (1996). PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9/10), 341–345.Google Scholar
  7. Booth, W. C. (1974). A rhetoric of irony. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Buisine, S., Abrilian, S., Niewiadomski, R., Martin, J.-C., Devillers, L., & Pelachaud, C. (2006). Perception of blended emotions: From video corpus to expressive agent. In The 6th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, Marina del Rey, USA, August (2006)Google Scholar
  9. Castelfranchi, C., & Poggi, I. (1998). Bugie, finzioni, sotterfugi. Per una scienza dell’inganno. Roma: Carocci editore.Google Scholar
  10. Conte, R., & Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Cognitive and social action. London: University College.Google Scholar
  11. Fontanier, P. (1827–1830). Les Figures du Discours. Paris: Belin-Le Prieur.Google Scholar
  12. Giuliani, M. V., & Orletti, F. (1977). Aspetti dell’ironia linguistica. In G. Mosconi & V. D’Urso (Eds.), Psicologia e retorica. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  13. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol, III, Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1976). Problématique de l'isotopie. Linguistique et Sémiologie, 2, 10–46.Google Scholar
  15. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1980). L’ironie comme trope. Poétique, 41, 108–127.Google Scholar
  16. Kipp, M. (2001). From human gesture to synthetic action. In C. Pelachaud & I. Poggi (Eds.), Multimodal communication and context in embodied agents. In Proceedings of the Workshop W7 at the 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada, 9–14.Google Scholar
  17. Magno Caldognetto, E., Poggi, I., Cosi, P., Cavicchio, F., & Merola, G. (2004). Multimodal score: An ANVIL based annotation scheme for multimodal audio-video analysis. In Workshop on Multimodal Corpora LREC 2004. Centro Cultural de Belem, Lisboa, Portugal, 25th may 2004.Google Scholar
  18. Martin, J. C. (2006). Multimodal human–computer interfaces and individual differences. Perception, representation and generation of situated multimodal behaviours. Habilitation Report, Paris 11 University.Google Scholar
  19. Poggi, I. (2007). Mind, hands, face and body. A goal and belief view of multimodal communication. Berlin: J. Weidler.Google Scholar
  20. Poggi, I., & Magno Caldognetto, E. (1996). A score for the analysis of gesture in multimodal communication. In L. Messing (Ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Integration of Gesture in Speech (pp. 235–244). Newark and Wilmington: Applied Science and Engineering Labs.Google Scholar
  21. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87, 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vincent, J., & Castelfranchi, C. (1981). On the art of deception: How to lie while saying the truth. In H. Parret, M. Sbisa’, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics (pp. 749–778). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabella Poggi
    • 1
  • Federica Cavicchio
    • 2
  • Emanuela Magno Caldognetto
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze dell’EducazioneUniversità di Roma TreRomaItaly
  2. 2.CIMeCUniversità di TrentoRoveretoItaly
  3. 3.ISTC CNR Sezione Territoriale di PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations