Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:36:43.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Psycholinguistics

Verbal Irony Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2023

Stephen Skalicky
Stephen Skalicky
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington

Summary

Ironic language is a salient reminder that speakers of all languages do not always mean what they say. While ironic language has captured the attention of theorists and scholars for centuries, it is only since the 1980s that psycholinguistic methods have been employed to investigate how readers and hearers detect, process, and comprehend ironic language. This Element reviews the foundational definitions, theories, and psycholinguistic models of ironic language, covering key questions such as the distinction between literal and ironic meaning, the role of contextual information during irony processing, and the cognitive mechanisms involved. These key questions continue to motivate new studies and methodological innovations, providing ample opportunity for future researchers who wish to continue exploring how ironic language is processed and understood.
Get access

Keywords

verbal ironysarcasmpragmaticsfigurative languagepsycholinguistics
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Psycholinguistics
Online ISBN: 9781009234566
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 02 February 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akimoto, Y., Sugiura, M., Yomogida, Y. et al. (2014). Irony comprehension: Social conceptual knowledge and emotional response: Comprehending Irony. Human Brain Mapping, 35(4), 1167–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22242.Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793–826.Google Scholar
Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., & Poggi, I. (2003). Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor, 16(2), 243–60. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2003.012.Google Scholar
Baptista, N. I., Manfredi, M., & Boggio, P. S. (2018). Medial prefrontal cortex stimulation modulates irony processing as indexed by the N400. Social Neuroscience, 13(4), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2017.1356744.Google Scholar
Bell, N. D. (2015). We are not amused: Failed humor in interaction. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A., & Cutting, J. C. (2002). Literal meaning, minimal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 433–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00042-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosco, F. M., Parola, A., Valentini, M. C., & Morese, R. (2017). Neural correlates underlying the comprehension of deceitful and ironic communicative intentions. Cortex, 94, 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.06.010.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–07.Google Scholar
Caffarra, S., Michell, E., & Martin, C. D. (2018). The impact of foreign accent on irony interpretation. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0200939. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200939.Google Scholar
Caffarra, S., Motamed Haeri, A., Michell, E., & Martin, C. D. (2019). When is irony influenced by communicative constraints? ERP evidence supporting interactive models. European Journal of Neuroscience, 50(10), 3566–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14503.Google Scholar
Caillies, S., Gobin, P., Obert, A. et al. (2019). Asymmetry of affect in verbal irony understanding: What about the N400 and P600 components? Journal of Neurolinguistics, 51, 268–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2019.04.004.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. D., & Katz, A. (2012). Are there necessary conditions for inducing a sense of sarcastic irony? Discourse Processes, 49(6), 459–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.687863.Google Scholar
Cheang, H. S., & Pell, M. D. (2008). The sound of sarcasm. Speech Communication, 50(5), 366–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.11.003.Google Scholar
Cheang, H. S., & Pell, M. D. (2009). Acoustic markers of sarcasm in Cantonese and English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(3), 1394–405. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3177275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, A., & Boves, L. (2018). What’s in a word: Sounding sarcastic in British English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 48(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100318000038.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 121–26.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2015). Using figurative language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2017). Irony and sarcasm. In Attardo, S. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 234–49). Routledge.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2002). Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1701_5.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2021). Figurative language communicates directly because it precisely demonstrates what we mean. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 75(2), 228–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000254.Google Scholar
Cornejol, C., Simonetti, F., Aldunate, N. et al. (2007). Electrophysiological evidence of different interpretative strategies in irony comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36(6), 411–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-007-9052-0.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Delogu, F., Brouwer, H., & Crocker, M. W. (2019). Event-related potentials index lexical retrieval (N400) and integration (P600) during language comprehension. Brain and Cognition, 135, 103569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.05.007.Google Scholar
Eviatar, Z., & Just, M. A. (2006). Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2348–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.05.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fein, O., Yeari, M., & Giora, R. (2015). On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of sarcastic irony. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0001.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Yang, Z. (2019). The problem of comprehension in psycholinguistics. Discourse Processes, 56(7), 485–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1591885.Google Scholar
Filik, R., Howman, H., Ralph-Nearman, C., & Giora, R. (2018). The role of defaultness and personality factors in sarcasm interpretation: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3), 148–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1481258.Google Scholar
Filik, R., Ingram, J., Moxey, L., & Leuthold, H. (2021). Irony as a test of the presupposition-denial account: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50(6), 1321–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09795-y.Google 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), 811–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035658.Google Scholar
Filik, R., & Moxey, L. M. (2010). The on-line processing of written irony. Cognition, 116(3), 421–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.005.Google Scholar
Filik, R., Ţurcan, A., Ralph-Nearman, C., & Pitiot, A. (2019). What is the difference between irony and sarcasm? An fMRI study. Cortex, 115, 112–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.01.025.Google Scholar
Frith, C., & Frith, U. (2005). Theory of mind. Current Biology, 15(17), R644–R645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.08.041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallagher, H. L., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Functional imaging of “theory of mind.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00025-6.Google Scholar
Garmendia, J. (2014). The clash: Humor and critical attitude in verbal irony. HUMOR, 27(4), 641–59. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2014-0094.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 275–304.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1986a). Comprehension and memory for nonliteral utterances: The problem of sarcastic indirect requests. Acta Psychologica, 62(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(86)90004-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1986b). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.3.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 457–86.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Literal and nonliteral meanings are corrupt ideas: A view from psycholinguistics. In Coulson, S. & Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Eds.), The literal and nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 221–38). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2020). Pragmatics always matters: An expanded vision of experimental pragmatics. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1619. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19, 239–64.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. (2002). Literal vs. Figurative language: Different or equal. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 487–506.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. (2021). The creativity of negation. In Wen, X. & Taylor, J. R. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (1st ed., pp. 127–41). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-9.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., & Mendelson, I. (2015). Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.954951.Google Scholar
Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(4), 241–57.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Laadan, D. et al. (2007). Expecting irony: Context versus salience-based effects. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(2), 119–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T. (1998). Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(2), 83–101.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O. (2015). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Jaffe, I., Becker, I., & Fein, O. (2018). Strongly attenuating highly positive concepts: The case of default sarcastic interpretations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00002.gio.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O. et al. (2013). Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(2), 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768510.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Raphaely, M., Fein, O., & Livnat, E. (2014). Resonating with contextually inappropriate interpretations in production: The case of irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 443–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenwright, M., & Pexman, P. M. (2010). Development of children’s ability to distinguish sarcasm and verbal irony. Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 429–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909009520.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., Morgan, J. L., & Kimball, J. P. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1978). Some further notes on logic and conversation. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics (Vol. 9, pp.113–27). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heredia, R. R., & Cieślicka, A. B. (2015). Bilingual figurative language processing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ivanko, S. L., Pexman, P. M., & Olineck, K. M. (2004). How sarcastic are you?: Individual differences and verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(3), 244–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X04266809.Google Scholar
Kaakinen, J. K., Olkoniemi, H., Kinnari, T., & Hyönä, J. (2014). Processing of written irony: An eye movement study. Discourse Processes, 51(4), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.870024.Google Scholar
Katz, A. (2005). Discourse and sociocultural factors in understanding nonliteral language. In Colston, H. L. & Katz, A. (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 183–207). Routledge.Google Scholar
Katz, A. (2017). Chapter 11. The standard experimental approach to the study of irony: Let us not be hasty in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In Athanasiadou, A. & Colston, H. L. (Eds.), Figurative Thought and Language (Vol. 1, pp. 237–54). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.12kat.Google Scholar
Katz, A., Blasko, D. G., & Kazmerski, V. A. (2004). Saying what you don’t mean: Social influences on sarcastic language processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(5), 186–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00304.x.Google Scholar
Katz, A., & Pexman, P. M. (1997). Interpreting figurative statements: Speaker occupation can change metaphor to irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1201_3.Google Scholar
Katz, A., & Reid, N. J. (2020). Tests of conceptual metaphor theory with episodic memory tests. Cognitive Semantics, 6(1), 56–82. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00601003.Google Scholar
Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2018). Reading comprehension theories: A view from the top down. In Schober, M. F., Rapp, D. N., & Britt, M. A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed., pp. 7–21). RoutledgeGoogle 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), 301–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.799934.Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J. (2020). Irony and sarcasm. The MIT Press.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.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 621–47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C. K., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics Electrified II (1994–2005). In Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 659–724). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50018-3.Google Scholar
Li, S., Gu, W., Liu, L., & Tang, P. (2020). The role of voice quality in Mandarin sarcastic speech: An acoustic and electroglottographic study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(8), 2578–88. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00166.Google Scholar
Lœvenbruck, H., Jannet, M. A. B., D’Imperio, M., Spini, M., & Champagne-Lavau, M. (2013). Prosodic cues of sarcastic speech in French: Slower, higher, wider. Interspeech 2013, 3537–41. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2013-761.Google Scholar
Lucariello, J. (1994). Situational irony: A concept of events gone awry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(2), 129–45.Google Scholar
Matsui, T., Nakamura, T., Utsumi, A. et al. (2016). The role of prosody and context in sarcasm comprehension: Behavioral and fMRI evidence. Neuropsychologia, 87, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.04.031.Google Scholar
Mauchand, M., Caballero, J. A., Jiang, X., & Pell, M. D. (2021). Immediate online use of prosody reveals the ironic intentions of a speaker: Neurophysiological evidence. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00849-7.Google Scholar
Mauchand, M., Vergis, N., & Pell, M. (2018). Ironic tones of voices. Speech Prosody 2018, 443–47. https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-90.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental pragmatics: The making of a cognitive science (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316027073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obert, A., Gierski, F., Calmus, A. et al. (2016). Neural correlates of contrast and humor: Processing common features of verbal irony. PLOS ONE, 11(11), e0166704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166704.Google Scholar
Olkoniemi, H., Johander, E., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2018). The role of look-backs in the processing of written sarcasm. Memory & Cognition, 47, 87–105. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0852-2.Google Scholar
Olkoniemi, H., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2021). Processing of irony in text: A systematic review of eye-tracking studies. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 75(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olkoniemi, H., Ranta, H., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2016). Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(3), 433–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000176.Google Scholar
Olkoniemi, H., Strömberg, V., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2019). The ability to recognise emotions predicts the time-course of sarcasm processing: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1212–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818807864.Google Scholar
Dictionary, Oxford English. (2022). Irony, n. In Oxford English Dictionary.Google Scholar
Pexman, P. M. (2005). Social factors in the interpretation of verbal irony: The roles of speaker and listener characteristics. In Colston, H. L. & Katz, A. (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 209–32). Routledge.Google Scholar
Pexman, P. M. (2008). It’s fascinating research: The cognition of verbal irony. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 286–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00591.x.Google Scholar
Pexman, P. M., Ferretti, T. R., & Katz, A. (2000). Discourse factors that influence online reading of metaphor and irony. Discourse Processes, 29(3), 201–22.Google Scholar
Pfaff, K. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (1997). Authorial intentions in understanding satirical texts. Poetics, 25, 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(97)00006-5.Google Scholar
Regel, S., Coulson, S., & Gunter, T. C. (2010). The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain Research, 1311, 121–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.10.077.Google Scholar
Regel, S., Gunter, T., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Isn’t it ironic? An electrophysiological exploration of figurative language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(2), 277–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rivière, E., Klein, M., & Champagne-Lavau, M. (2018). Using context and prosody in irony understanding: Variability amongst individuals. Journal of Pragmatics, 138, 165–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.006.Google Scholar
Roberts, M. (2014). What everybody gets wrong about Alanis Morissette’s “Ironic.” Salon. www.salon.com/2014/05/08/what_everybody_gets_wrong_about_alanis_morissettes_ironic_partner/.Google Scholar
Rothermich, K., & Pell, M. D. (2015). Introducing RISC: A new video inventory for testing social perception. PLOS ONE, 10(7), e0133902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133902.Google Scholar
Rothermich, K., Schoen Simmons, E., Rao Makarla, P. et al. (2021). Tracking nonliteral language processing using audiovisual scenarios. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 75(2), 211–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000223.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(1–2), 47–61.Google Scholar
Shelley, C. (2001). The bicoherence theory of situational irony. Cognitive Science, 25(5), 775–818. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2505_7.Google Scholar
Simpson, P. (2003). On the discourse of satire: Towards a stylistic model of satirical humour. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skalicky, S. (2019). Investigating satirical discourse processing and comprehension: The role of cognitive, demographic, and pragmatic features. Language and Cognition, 11, 499–525. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.30.Google Scholar
Skalicky, S. (2020). Exploring perceptions of novelty and mirth in elicited figurative language production. Metaphor and Symbol, 35(2), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2020.1820763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skalicky, S. (In press). Modeling satirical uptake using discourse processing methods. Discourse Processes. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2022.2128182Google Scholar
Skalicky, S. (2022, July). Recognising satirical intent in satirical news discourse: Effects of reading behaviour and need for cognition [Standard Presentation]. 2022 Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Virtual Conference. https://osf.io/e8qj7/?view_only=8673be1971cb4886801e55f5a4c693ab.Google Scholar
Skalicky, S., & Crossley, S. A. (2019). Examining the online processing of satirical newspaper headlines. Discourse Processes, 56(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1368332.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use mention distinction. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 295–318). ElsevierGoogle Scholar
Spotorno, N., Cheylus, A., Van Der Henst, J.-B., & Noveck, I. A. (2013). What’s behind a P600? Integration operations during irony processing. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066839.Google Scholar
Spotorno, N., Koun, E., Prado, J., Van Der Henst, J.-B., & Noveck, I. A. (2012). Neural evidence that utterance-processing entails mentalizing: The case of irony. NeuroImage, 63(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.046.Google Scholar
Spotorno, N., & Noveck, I. A. (2014). When is irony effortful? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1649–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036630.Google Scholar
Thompson, D., Leuthold, H., & Filik, R. (2021). Examining the influence of perspective and prosody on expected emotional responses to irony: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 75(2), 107–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000249.Google Scholar
Țurcan, A., & Filik, R. (2016). An eye-tracking investigation of written sarcasm comprehension: The roles of familiarity and context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(12), 1867–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000285.Google Scholar
Țurcan, A., & Filik, R. (2017). Chapter 12. Investigating sarcasm comprehension using eye-tracking during reading: What are the roles of literality, familiarity, and echoic mention? In Athanasiadou, A. & Colston, H. L. (Eds.), Figurative Thought and Language (Vol. 1, pp. 255–76). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.13tuc.Google Scholar
Uchiyama, H., Saito, D. N., Tanabe, H. C. et al. (2012). Distinction between the literal and intended meanings of sentences: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of metaphor and sarcasm. Cortex, 48(5), 563–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.01.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uchiyama, H., Seki, A., Kageyama, H. et al. (2006). Neural substrates of sarcasm: A functional magnetic-resonance imaging study. Brain Research, 1124(1), 100–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.088.Google Scholar
Utsumi, A. (2000). Verbal irony as implicit display of ironic environment: Distinguishing ironic utterances from nonirony. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1777–806.Google Scholar
Voyer, D., & Techentin, C. (2010). Subjective auditory features of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 25(4), 227–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2010.510927.Google Scholar
Weissman, B., & Tanner, D. (2018). A strong wink between verbal and emoji-based irony: How the brain processes ironic emojis during language comprehension. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0201727. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201727.Google Scholar
Wikipedia. (2022). Ironic (song). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_(song).Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87(1), 53–76.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Verbal Irony Processing
  • Stephen Skalicky, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Online ISBN: 9781009234566
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Verbal Irony Processing
  • Stephen Skalicky, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Online ISBN: 9781009234566
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Verbal Irony Processing
  • Stephen Skalicky, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Online ISBN: 9781009234566
Available formats
×