In:Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond
Edited by Herbert L. Colston, Teenie Matlock and Gerard J. Steen
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 9] 2022
► pp. 305–324
Defaultness vs. constructionism
The case of default constructional sarcasm and default non-constructional literalness
Published online: 9 September 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.9.16gio
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.9.16gio
Abstract
Default responses play a major role in affecting processing, pleasantness, and cueing of
nondefault alternatives. Default responses are activated automatically, initially and directly, faster than nondefault
counterparts, irrespective of degree of negation, novelty, nonliteralness, or contextual support (Giora et al., 2015c). No wonder default automatic responses may be initially
involved in processing nondefault counterparts. This involvement of defaultness in processing nondefaultness slows
down the latter while rendering it Optimal Innovative and therefore pleasing, even if highly dependent on context or
cueing for its derivation. Findings here are discussed in terms of the Defaultness Hypothesis (Giora et al., 2015c, 2017), Construction Grammar
(e.g., Goldberg, 1995, 1996,
2006, 2013; Johnson & Goldberg, 2013), and pragmatic effects.
Article outline
- 1.Overview
- 2.Testing the defaultness hypothesis
- 2.1Defining defaultness
- 2.1.1Conditions for default interpretations
- 2.2Predictions
- 2.2.1Processing: The speed superiority of default over nondefault interpretations
- 2.2.2Pleasure: The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure
- 2.2.3Cueing: Rejecting default interpretations while inviting nondefault counterparts
- 2.2.3.1Cues inviting nondefault sarcastic interpretations of affirmatives
- 2.2.3.2Weighing cues explicitly rejecting defaultness vs. explicitly intensifying defaultness (of negative sarcasm)
- 2.1Defining defaultness
- 3.The role of defaultness in affecting processing, pleasure, and pragmatic cueing
- 4.Constructions
- 5.Conclusions: Non/default vs. non/constructional interpretations
Acknowledgements Notes References Appendix
References (40)
Adler, Meni. 2007. Hebrew
morphological disambiguation: An unsupervised stochastic word-based
approach (unpublished PhD dissertation, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel).
Baroni, Marco, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi & Eros Zanchetta. 2009. The
WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled
corpora. Language Resources and
Evaluation 43(3). 209–226.
Becker, I. & Giora, R. (2018). The
Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness
production. Journal of
Pragmatics, 138, 149–164.
Biacchi, A. (2015). Construction
Learning as a Complex Adaptive System: Evidence from L2 Learners of
English. New York, NY: Springer.
Bianchi, I., Paradis, C., Burro, R., van de Weijer, J., Nyström, M. & Savardi, U. (2017). Identification
of opposites and intermediates by eye and by hand. Acta
Psychologica, 180, 175–189.
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1997). Productivity
and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive
Science, 21, 247–282.
Fein, O., Yeari, M., & Giora, R. (2015). On
the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of
irony. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 12(1), 1–32.
Filik, R., Howman, H., Ralph-Nearman, C., & Giora, R. (2018). The
role of defaultness in sarcasm interpretation: Evidence from eye-tracking during
reading. Metaphor and
Symbol, 33(3), 148–162.
Filik, R., Țurcan, A., Thompson, D., Harvey, N., Davies, H., & Turner, A. (2016). Sarcasm
and emoticons: Comprehension and emotional impact. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental
Psychology, 69(11), 2130–2146.
Giora, R. (2003). On
our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Giora, R., Cholev, A., Fein, O. & Peleg, O. (2018a). On
the superiority of defaultness: Hemispheric perspectives of processing negative and affirmative
sarcasm. Metaphor and
Symbol, 33(3), 163–174.
Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O. & Mendelson, I. (2015a). Default
sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient
interpretations. Discourse
Processes, 52(3), 173–200.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kotler, N., & Shuval, N. (2015b). Know
Hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation, and
pleasure. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts & T. Veale (Eds.). Cognitive
Linguistics and Humor Research. Current Trends and New
Developments, 129–146. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A. (2004). Weapons
of mass distraction: Optimal Innovation and Pleasure Ratings. Metaphor and
Symbol, 19, 115–141.
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O. (2015c). Defaultness
reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and
Symbol, 30(4), 290–313.
Giora, R., Givoni, S., Heruti, V., & Fein, O. (2017). The
role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The Optimal Innovation Hypothesis
revisited. Metaphor &
Symbol, 32(1), 1–18.
Giora, R., Jaffe, I., Becker, I. & Fein, O. (2018b). Strongly
attenuating highly positive concepts: The case of default sarcastic
interpretations. Review of Cognitive
Linguistics, 6(1), 19–47.
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.
Giora, R., Zaidel, E., Soroker, N., Batori, G., and Kasher, A. (2000). Differential
effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and
metaphor. Metaphor and
Symbol, 15, 63–83.
Givón, T. (1993). English
Grammar: A Function-Based
Introduction (2 vols.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. .
Givoni, S. & Giora, R. (2018). Salience
and Defaultness. In: F. Liedtke, & A. Tuchen (Eds.), Handbuch
Pragmatik (pp. 207–213). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Givoni, S., Giora, R., & Bergerbest, D. (2013). How
speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. Journal of
Pragmatics, 48(1), 29–40.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions:
A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(1996). Construction
Grammar. In K. Brown & J. Miller (Eds.), Concise
encyclopedia of syntactic
theories (pp. 68–71). Oxford: Pergamon.
(2006). Constructions
at Work: The Nature of Generalization in
Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2013). Constructionist
approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Construction
Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic
and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech
acts: Syntax and
semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction
Grammar and its Applications to
English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Johnson, M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Evidence
for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated
verbs. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 28(10), 1439–1452.
Jung-Beeman, M. (2005). Bilateral
brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 9(11), 512–518.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý & Vít Suchomel. 2014. The
Sketch Engine: Ten years
on. Lexicography 1(1). 7–36.
Levy, G. (2015). Israel’s
Low Court of Justice Helps Perpetuate the Occupation. [URL]
Partington, A. (2011). Phrasal
irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43, 1786–1800.
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions:
Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal
of Corpus
Linguistics, 2, 209–243.
Sulis, E., Hernandez-Farias, D. I., Rosso, P., Patti, V., & Ruffo, G. (2016). Figurative
messages and affect in Twitter: Differences between #irony, #sarcasm and
#not. Journal of Knowledge-Based
Systems, 108, 132–143.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Ariel, Mira
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.
