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. 3–18
Resonating with default nonsalient interpretations
A corpus-based study of negative sarcasm
Published online: 28 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.28.01gio
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.28.01gio
Based on natural language use, we examine the contextual environment of some negative constructions (e.g., Punctuality is not her forte/best attribute). Previous findings show that, as predicted by the view of default nonliteral interpretations, such negative constructions are interpreted nonliterally by default: (a) when presented in isolation, they are interpreted sarcastically and rated as sarcastic compared to affirmative counterparts; (b) when embedded in equally strongly biasing contexts, they are processed faster in sarcastically than in literally biasing contexts (Giora et al., 2013; Giora, Drucker et al., 2014). Here we test a third prediction that, unlike affirmative sarcasm, (c) such negative utterances will convey a sarcastic interpretation and their natural environment will echo their nonsalient (sarcastic) interpretation rather than their salience-based (literal) interpretation (Giora et al., 2010, 2013). Findings from 2 corpus-based studies of (Hebrew and English) negative constructions lend usage-based support to the view of default nonliteral interpretations (Giora et al., 2010, 2013; Giora, Drucker et al., 2014). They show that when occurring in natural discourses, such utterances communicate sarcasm significantly more often than their alternative affirmatives. Their neighboring utterances further reflect their nonsalient sarcastic interpretation rather than their salience-based nonsarcastic interpretation.
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.
Colston, Herbert L., & Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. 2002. Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 171, 57–80.
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.
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.
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.
Filik, Ruth, & Linda M. Moxey. 2010. The on-line processing of written irony. Cognition, 116(3), 421–436.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 1986a. Comprehension and memory for nonliteral utterances: The problem of sarcastic indirect requests. Acta Psychologica, 621, 41–57.
. 1986b. On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1151, 3–15.
. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
. 2002. A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 341, 457–486.
. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 183–206.
. 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.
. 2011a. Will anticipating irony facilitate it immediately? In Dynel, M. (ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains, 19–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 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)
. 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.
Giora, Rachel & Ofer Fein. 1999. On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1601–1618.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Giora, Rachel, Moshe Raphaely, Ofer Fein & Elad Livnat. 2014. Resonating with contextually inappropriate interpretations: The case of irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 443–445.
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.
Givoni, Shir, Rachel Giora, & Dafna Bergerbest. 2013. How speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 29–40.
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.
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.
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.
. 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.
Ivanko, Stacey L., & Penny M. Pexman. 2003. Context incongruity and irony processing. Discourse Processes, 35(3), 241–279.
Katz, Albert N. & Penny M. Pexman. 1997. Interpreting figurative statements: Speaker occupation can change metaphor to irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 19–41.
Kotthoff, Helga. 2003. Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1387–1411.
Melbrod. 2010. [URL]. (Retrieved on February 14th, 2010).
Partington, Alan. 2011. Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1786–1800.
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.
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.
Pickering, Martin & Simon Garrod. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–392.
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]
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.
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.
彭, 丽
Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein & Vered Heruti
Kolhatkar, Varada, Hanhan Wu, Luca Cavasso, Emilie Francis, Kavan Shukla & Maite Taboada
Giora, Rachel & Israela Becker
Stevens, Emmy
Giora, Rachel, Inbal Jaffe, Israela Becker & Ofer Fein
2018. Strongly attenuating highly positive concepts. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1 ► pp. 19 ff.
Dynel, Marta
Giora, Rachel, Shir Givoni, Vered Heruti & Ofer Fein
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.
Giora, Rachel
Giora, Rachel
2020.
How defaultness shapes our language production. In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10], ► pp. 211 ff.
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.
