Cover not available

Article published In: New Perspectives on Utterance Interpretation and Implicit Contents
Edited by Daniela Rossi and Nicolas Ruytenbeek
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 28] 2014
► pp. 318

Get fulltext from our e-platform
References (49)
Akimoto, Yoritaka, Shiho Miyazawa, & Toshiaki Muramoto. 2012. Comprehension processes of verbal irony: The effects of salience, egocentric context, and allocentric theory of mind. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(3), 217–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beardsley, Monroe C. 1958. Aesthetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, Herbert L., & Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. 2002. Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 171, 57–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2014. Dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eisterhold, Jodi, Salvatore Attardo & Diana Boxer. 2006. Reactions to irony in discourse: Evidence for the least disruption principle. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1239–1256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eviatar, Zohar, & Marcel Adam Just. 2006. Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2348–2359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fein, Ofer, Menahem Yeari & Rachel Giora. 2014. On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of irony. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1).
Filik, Ruth, Hartmut Leuthold, Katie Wallington & Jemma Page. 2014. Testing theories of irony processing using eye-tracking and ERPs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filik, Ruth, & Linda M. Moxey. 2010. The on-line processing of written irony. Cognition, 116(3), 421–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 1986a. Comprehension and memory for nonliteral utterances: The problem of sarcastic indirect requests. Acta Psychologica, 621, 41–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986b. On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1151, 3–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 341, 457–486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 1995. On irony and negation. Discourse processes, 19(2), 239–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 183–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “A good Arab is not a dead Arab – a racist incitement”: On the accessibility of negated concepts. In I. Kecskés, and L.R. Horn (eds.) Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects, 129–162. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011a. Will anticipating irony facilitate it immediately? In Dynel, M. (ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains, 19–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011b. “Your baby is no longer an infant”. On metaphor as context. In Michael Gluzman & Orly Lubin (eds.), Intertextuality in literature and culture, 235–247. Tel Aviv: Hakibbuz Hameuchad. (In Hebrew)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. When negatives are easier to understand than affirmatives: The case of negative sarcasm. In Chungmin Lee and Pierre Larrivée (eds.). In press.
Giora, Rachel, Ari Drucker, Ofer Fein & Itamar Mendelson. 2014. Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes. In press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel & Ofer Fein. 1999. On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1601–1618. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Jonathan Ganzi, Natalie Alkeslassy Levi & Hadas Sabah. 2005. Negation as mitigation: the case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 391, 81–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Dafna Laadan, Joe Wolfson, Michal Zeituny, Ran Kidron, Ronie Kaufman & Ronit Shaham. 2007. Expecting irony: Context vs. salience-based effects . Metaphor and Symbol, 22(2), 119–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Nili Metuki & Pnina Stern. 2010. Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator. In L. Horn (ed.), The expression of negation, 225–256. Mouton de Gruyter series “The expression of cognitive categories” under the general editorship of Wolfgang Klein and Stephen Levinson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Ronie Kaufman, Dana Eisenberg & Shani Erez. 2009. Does an “ironic situation” favor an ironic interpretation. Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps, 383–399. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel & Inbar Gur. 2003. Irony in conversation: salience and context effects. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman and D. Clarke (eds.) Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meanings in Language and Mind, 297–316. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Elad Livnat, Ofer Fein, Anat Barnea, Rakefet Zeiman & Iddo Berger. 2013. Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 281, 89–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Moshe Raphaely, Ofer Fein & Elad Livnat. 2014. Resonating with contextually inappropriate interpretations: The case of irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 443–445. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Eran Zaidel, Nachum Soroker, Gila Batori & Asa Kasher. 2000. Differential effects of right-and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 63–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givoni, Shir, Rachel Giora, & Dafna Bergerbest. 2013. How speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 29–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts. Syntax and semantics, Vol. 31, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasson, Uri, Galia Avidan, Hagar Gelbard, Ignacio Vallines, Michal Harel, Nancy Minshew & Marlene Behrmann. 2009. Shared and idiosyncratic cortical activation patterns in autism revealed under continuous real‐life viewing conditions. Autism Research, 2(4), 220–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
HodyYanksFan 2005. [URL] (Retrieved on February 18th, 2014).
Horn, R. Laurence. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form and Use in Context (GURT ‘84), 11–42. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. Economy and redundancy in a dualistic model of natural language. In Shore, S., & Vilkuna, M. (eds.), SKY – Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, 33–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivanko, Stacey L., & Penny M. Pexman. 2003. Context incongruity and irony processing. Discourse Processes, 35(3), 241–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, Albert N. & Penny M. Pexman. 1997. Interpreting figurative statements: Speaker occupation can change metaphor to irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 19–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga. 2003. Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1387–1411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Melbrod. 2010. [URL]. (Retrieved on February 14th, 2010).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partington, Alan. 2011. Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1786–1800. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pexman, Penny M., Todd R. Ferretti & Albert N. Katz. 2000. Discourse factors that influence on-line reading of metaphor and irony. Discourse Processes, 291, 201–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pexman, Penny M. & Kara M. Olineck. 2002. Understanding irony how do stereotypes cue speaker intent? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(3), 245–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin & Simon Garrod. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, Z. 2003. Miss Keane strikes back. [URL] (Retrieved on January 14th, 2013)
Stephens, Greg J., Lauren J. Silbert & Uri Hasson. 2010. PNAS Early Edition, 1–6. [URL]
Veale, Tony. 2012. Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Humorous similes. Humor, 26(1), 3–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
2022. Metonymy in multimodal discourse, or. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17],  pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Givoni, Shir, Dafna Bergerbest & Rachel Giora
2021. On figurative ambiguity, marking, and low-salience meanings. In Figurative Language - Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11],  pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
彭, 丽
2021. The Influence of Subject Familiarity on the Interpretation of Negative Constructions. Modern Linguistics 09:02  pp. 390 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein & Vered Heruti
2020. Whether Verbal or Visual, Affirmative or Negative, Tautologies are Not Tautologies. Metaphor and Symbol 35:2  pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Kolhatkar, Varada, Hanhan Wu, Luca Cavasso, Emilie Francis, Kavan Shukla & Maite Taboada
2020. The SFU Opinion and Comments Corpus: A Corpus for the Analysis of Online News Comments. Corpus Pragmatics 4:2  pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel & Israela Becker
2019. S/he is not the Most Sparkling Drink in the PubGlobal Vs. Local Cue – Which Reigns Supreme?. Metaphor and Symbol 34:3  pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Stevens, Emmy
2019. Altijd leuk, zo’n ironische constructie!. Nederlandse Taalkunde 23:3  pp. 371 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel, Inbal Jaffe, Israela Becker & Ofer Fein
2018. Strongly attenuating highly positive concepts. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1  pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Dynel, Marta
2017. The Irony of Irony: Irony Based on Truthfulness. Corpus Pragmatics 1:1  pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel, Shir Givoni, Vered Heruti & Ofer Fein
2017. The Role of Defaultness in Affecting Pleasure: The Optimal Innovation Hypothesis Revisited. Metaphor and Symbol 32:1  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel, Dalia Meytes, Ariela Tamir, Shir Givoni, Vered Heruti & Ofer Fein
2017. Defaultness shines while affirmation pales. In Irony in language use and communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1],  pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel
2016. When Negatives Are Easier to Understand Than Affirmatives: The Case of Negative Sarcasm. In Negation and Polarity: Experimental Perspectives [Language, Cognition, and Mind, 1],  pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Giora, Rachel
2020.  How defaultness shapes our language production. In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10],  pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Kapogianni, Eleni
2016. The ironic operation: Revisiting the components of ironic meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 91  pp. 16 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue