Negation and Polarity: Experimental Perspectives pp 127-143 | Cite as
When Negatives Are Easier to Understand Than Affirmatives: The Case of Negative Sarcasm
Abstract
Based on Hebrew items, I present here findings showing that some novel negative constructions (e.g. Supportive he is not; Punctuality is not her forte/what she excels at) are interpreted and rated as sarcastic even when in isolation, and even when involving no semantic anomaly or internal incongruity. Their affirmative alternatives (Supportive he is; Punctuality is her forte/what she excels at) are interpreted literally and rated as literal. In strongly supportive contexts, the negative constructions are processed faster when biased toward their nonsalient sarcastic interpretation than toward their equally strongly biased literal interpretation. In contrast, affirmative utterances are slower to process when embedded in sarcastically biasing contexts than in salience-based (often literal) ones. Corpus-based studies provide further corroborative evidence. They show that the environment of such negative utterances resonates with their sarcastic rather than their literal interpretation; the opposite is true of affirmative sarcasm. The priority of nonsalient sarcastic interpretation of negative constructions is shown to be affected by negation rather than by the structural markedness of the fronted constructions. No contemporary processing model can account for these findings.
Keywords
Affirmative sarcasm Negative sarcasm Processing ease Negation Default sarcastic interpretationsNotes
Acknowledgments
The research reported here was supported by THE ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant no. 436/12). I am also obliged to the editors of this volume and to 4 anonymous reviewers and deeply so to Ari Drucker and Ruth Filik for very valuable comments.
References
- Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 793–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts: A semantics and pragmatics analysis. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beardsley, M. C. (1958). Aesthetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
- Bergson, H. (1900/1956). Laughter. In W. Sypher (Ed.), Comedy (pp. 61–190). New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
- Booth, W. (1974). A rhetoric of irony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Brisard, F., Östman, J.-O., & Verschueren, J. (Eds.). (2009). Grammar, meaning and pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Bryant, G. A., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Recognizing verbal irony in spontaneous speech. Metaphor and Symbol, 17, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Burgers, C., van Mulken, M., & Schellens, P. J. (2012). Type of evaluation and marking of irony: The role of perceived complexity and comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 231–242.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 113, 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W, Jr. (2002). Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17, 57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Curcó, C. (2000). Irony: Negation, echo and metarepresentation. Lingua, 110, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Du Bois, W. J. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Du Bois, W. J. (2014). Toward a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410.Google Scholar
- Eisterhold, J., Attardo, S., & Boxer, D. (2006). Reactions to irony in discourse: Evidence for the least disruption principle. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1239–1256.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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, and Cognition, 40(3), 811–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Filik, R., & Moxey, L. M. (2010). The on-line processing of written irony. Cognition, 116(3), 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Gibbs, R. W, Jr. (1986a). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gibbs, R. W, Jr. (1986b). Comprehension and memory for nonliteral utterances: The problem of sarcastic indirect requests. Acta Psychologica, 62, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gibbs, R. W, Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Gibbs, R. W, Jr. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R. (2006). Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 981–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R. (2011a). Irony. In J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Pragmatics and practice (pp. 159–176). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R. (2011b). Will anticipating irony facilitate it immediately? In M. Dynel (Ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains (pp. 19–31). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R. (2014). Literal vs. nonliteral language—novelty matters. In T. Holtgraves (Ed.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 330–347). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Giora, R., & Attardo, S. (2014). Irony. In S. Attardo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of humor studies (pp. 397–401). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., & Mendelson, I. (2015). Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations of negative utterances. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200.Google Scholar
- Giora, R., Drucker, A., & Fein, O. (2014). Resonating with default sarcastic interpretations. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Alkeslassy Levi, N., & Sabah, H. (2005). On negation as mitigation: The case of irony. Discourse Processes, 39, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R., Fein, O., Kaufman, R., Eisenberg, D., & Erez, S. (2009). Does an “ironic situation” favor an ironic interpretation? In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics. Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 383–399). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Giora, R., Fein, O., Laadan, D., Wolfson, J., Zeituny, M., Kidron, R., et al. (2007). Expecting irony: Context versus salience-based effects. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R., Fein, O., Metuki, N., & Stern, P. (2010). Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator. In L. Horn (Ed.), The expression of negation (pp. 225–256). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Giora, R., & Gur, I. (2003). Irony in conversation: Salience and context effects. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, H. V & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meanings in language and mind (pp. 297–316). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O., Barnea, A., Zeiman, R., & Berger, I. (2013). Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giora, R., Raphaely, M., Fein, O., & Livnat, E. (2014b). Resonating with contextually inappropriate interpretations in production: The case of irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Givoni, S., Giora, R., & Bergerbest, D. (2013). How speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Hasson, U., & Glucksberg, S. (2006). Does understanding negation entail affirmation? An examination of negated metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1015–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Horn, L. R. (2001). Flaubert triggers, squatitive negation and other quirks of grammar. In J. Hoeksema, H. Rullmann, & V. Sánchez-Valencia (Eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items (pp. 173–202). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Horn, L. R. (2016, this volume). Licensing NPIs: Some negative (and positive) results. In P. Larrivée & C. Lee (Eds.). Negation and polarity: Experimental perspectives (pp. 281–305). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
- Israel, M. (2002). Literally speaking. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Israel, M. (2004). The pragmatics of polarity. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 701–723). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Israel, M. (2011). The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kotthoff, H. (2003). Responding to irony in different contexts: Cognition and conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1387–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kreuz, R. J., & Caucci, G. M. (2007). Lexical influences on the perception of sarcasm. Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Figurative Language (pp. 1–4).Google Scholar
- Kreuz, R., & Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental psychology: General, 118, 347–386.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Meytes, D., & Tamir, A. (2005). Negation is sometimes faster than affirmation. Ms., Tel Aviv University. Google Scholar
- Moon, R. (2008). Conventionalized as-similes in english: A problem case. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(1), 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Partington, A. (2011). Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1786–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pexman, P. M., Ferretti, T., & Katz, A. (2000). Discourse factors that influence irony detection during on-line reading. Discourse Processes, 29, 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Phelan, J. (2009). The narrative turn and the how of narrative inquiry. Narrative, 17(1), 1–10.Google 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, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sperber, D. (1984). Verbal irony: Pretense or echoic mention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 295–318). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Veale, T. (2012). Exploding the creativity myth. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
- Veale, T. (2013). Humorous similes. Humor, 26(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Voyer, D., & Techentin, C. (2010). Subjective acoustic features of sarcasm: Lower, slower, and more. Metaphor and Symbol, 25, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wason, P. C. (1959). The processing of positive and negative information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87, 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar