Cover not available

Article published In: Issues in Humour Cognition
Edited by Marta Dynel
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1] 2018
► pp. 48–71

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Special issue articles

Perceptual opposites and the modulation of contrast in irony

 | University of Macerata
 | University of Macerata
Published online: 31 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00003.can
Abstract
This paper proposes a new way of analyzing the contrast between an ironic comment and the referent context by focusing on the structure of the dimension which the contrast belongs to. This new approach was stimulated by previous experimental studies demonstrating that dimensions are perceptually made up of two opposite poles and an intermediate region consisting either of point or range properties. Applying this schema it became clear that, on the one hand what previous evidence-based literature mostly focuses on is the idea that for an ironic meaning to be detected there must be a contrast between two poles or within a pole; on the other hand, that there is room for new investigations concerning whether it is possible to make ironic comments containing poles to refer to intermediate situations (i.e. situations perceived as neither one pole nor the other) or, vice versa, to make ironic comments containing intermediates to refer to polarized situations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Contrast and irony
  • 3.Perceiving relationships and perceiving contrariety
  • 4.On the modulation of the intensity and direction of contrast in irony: A framework for analysis
    • (I)Ironic vs. non-ironic comments (Figure 1 Diagram I)
    • (II)Levels of contrast (Figure 1, Diagrams II, III, IV, V)
  • 5.Enriching the framework with a third component: Intermediates
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (108)
References
Akimoto, Y., Miyazawa, S., & Muramoto, T. (2012). Comprehension processes of verbal irony: The effects of salience, egocentric context and allocentric theory of mind. Metaphor & Symbol, 27(3), 217–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 793–826. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Humor and irony in interaction: From mode adoption to failure of detection. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp. 166–185). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 716–724. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2005). Mental simulation in literal and figurative language understanding. In S. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 255–280). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Louder than words . The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Burro, R., Pezzola, R., & Savardi, U. (2017). Matching visual and acoustic mirror forms. Symmetry, 91, 39–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Burro, R., Torquati, S., & Savardi, U. (2013). The middle of the road: Perceiving intermediates. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 121–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Canestrari, C., Roncoroni, A. M., Burro, R., Branchini, E., & Savardi, U. (2017). The effects of modulating contrast in verbal irony as a cue for giftedness. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 30(4), 383–415. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Paradis, C., Burro, R., van de Weijer, J., Nyström, M., & Savardi, U. (2017). Identification of poles and intermediates by eye and by hand. Acta Psychologica, 1801, 175–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., & Savardi, U. (2008a). The perception of contraries. Rome: Aracne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008b). The relationship perceived between the real body and the mirror image. Perception, 51, 666–687. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Contrariety in plane mirror reflections. In U. Savardi (Ed.), The perception and cognition of contraries (pp. 113–128). Milan: Mc-Graw Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). The cognitive dimensions of contrariety. In J. Y. Bezieau & G. Payette (Eds.), The square of opposition: A general framework for cognition (pp. 443–470). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., & Burro, R. (2011). Perceptual ratings of opposite spatial properties: Do they lie on the same dimension?. Acta Psychologica, 138(3), 405–418. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., Burro, R., & Martelli, M. F. (2014). Doing the opposite to what another person doing. Acta Psychologica, 1511, 117–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., Burro, R., & Torquati, S. (2011). Negation and psychological dimensions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 275–301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Savardi, U., & Kubovy, M. (2011). Dimensions and their poles: A metric and topological approach to opposites. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(8), 1232–1265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biederman, I. (1985). Human image understanding: Recent research and a theory. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Understanding, 32(1), 29–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Recognition – by – components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94(2), 585–593. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boucher, J., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). The pollyanna hypothesis. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(1), 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bressanelli, D., & Parovel, G. (2012). The emotional effect of violation of causality, or how to make a square amusing. i-Perception, 31, 146–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burgers, C., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2016). Stereotype transmission and maintenance through interpersonal communication: The irony bias. Communication Research, 43(3), 414–441. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caballero, R., & Paradis, C. (2015). Making sense of sensory perceptions across languages and cultures. Functions of Language, 22(1), 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calmus, A., & Caillies, S. (2014). Verbal irony processing: How do contrast and humour correlate? International Journal of Psychology, 49(1), 46–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canestrari, C., & Bianchi, I. (2009). The perception of humor: From script opposition to the phenomenological rules of contrariety. In U. Savardi (Ed.), The perception and cognition of contraries (pp. 225–246). Milan: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Perception of contrariety in jokes. Discourse Processes, 49(7), 539–564. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). From perception of contraries to humorous incongruities. In M. Dynel (Ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canestrari, C., Bianchi, I., & Cori, V. (2018). De-polarizing verbal irony. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 43–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canestrari, C., Dionigi, A., & Zuczkowski, A. (2014). Humor understanding and knowledge. Language and Dialogue, 4(1), 261–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 121–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (1997). I’ve never seen anything like it: Overstatement, understatement, irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 43–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 341, 111–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B. (1998). You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499–513. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J. (2000a). Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: the pragmatic of accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30(2), 179–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000b). Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language. Anything understatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(11), 1557–1583. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cori, V., Canestrari, C., & Bianchi, I. (2016). The perception of contrariety and the processing of verbal irony. Gestalt Theory, 38(2–3), 253–266.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deckers, L. (1993). On the validity of weight-judging paradigm for the study of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 6(1), 43–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2013). Irony from a neo-Gricean perspective: On untruthfulness and evaluative implicature. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(3), 403–431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Isn’t it ironic? Defining the scope of humorous irony. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27(4), 619–639. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edelman, S., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three – dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32(12), 2385–2400. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 & Cognition, 40(3), 811–828. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. J., & Goldvarg, Y. (2000). Additive effects in the perception of sarcasm: Situational disparity and echoic mention. Metaphor and Symbol, 5(4), 197–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1995). On Irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19(2), 239–264. 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
Giora, R., Balaban, N., Fein, O., & Alkabets, I. (2004). Negation as positivity in disguise. In H. L. Colston & A. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 233–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(4), 241–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Levi, A. N., & Sabah, H. (2005). On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39(1), 81–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T. (1998). Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(2), 83–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O. (2015). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldmeier, E. (1936/1972). Similarity in visually perceived forms. Psychological Issues, 291, Whole No.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hancock, J. T., Dunham, P. J., & Purdy, K. (2000). Children’s comprehension of critical and complimentary forms of verbal irony. Journal of Cognition and Developments, 1(2), 227–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haverkate, H. (1990). A speech act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1), 77–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hempelmann, C. F., & Attardo, S. (2011). Resolutions and their incongruities: Further thoughts on logical mechanisms. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 24(2), 125–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivanko, S. L., & Pexman, P. M. (2003). Context incongruity and irony processing. Discourse Processes, 35(3), 241–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, S. (2002). Antonymy: A corpus-based perspective. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jorgensen, J., Miller, G. A., & Sperber, D. (1984). Test of the mention theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 113(1), 112–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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), 301–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Caucci, G. M. (2009). Social aspects of verbal irony use. In H. Pishwa (Ed.), Language and social cognition: Expression of the social mind (pp. 325–348). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(4), 374–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Link, K. E. (2002). Asymmetries in the use of verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(2), 127–143. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Leggitt, J. S., & Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. & Lehrer, K. (1982). Antonymy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5(4), 483- Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maier, N. R. F. (1932). A Gestalt theory of humour. British Journal of Psychology, 231, 69–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marr, D., & Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three – dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 2041, 301–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1990). Similarity involving attributes and relations: judgments of similarity and difference are not inverses. Psychological Science, 11, 64–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metz-Göckel, H. (1989). Witzstrukturen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Closure as a joke-principle. Gestalt Theory, 30(3), 331–336.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muehleisen, V. (1997). Antonymy and semantic range in English. Doctoral dissertation in philosophy, field of linguistics. Evanston, IllinoisGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, A. R. (1977). Towards a definition of irony. In R. W. Fasold & R. Shuy (Eds.), Studies in language variation (pp. 171–183). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nerhardt, G. (1970). Humor and inclination to laugh: Emotional reactions to stimuli of different divergence from a range of expectancy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 185–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1976). Incongruity and funniness: Towards a new descriptive model. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp. 55–62). London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Okamoto, S. (2006). Perception of hiniku and oseji: How hyperbole and orthographically deviant styles influence irony-related perceptions in the Japanese language. Discourse Processes, 41(1), 25–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osmańska-Lipka, I. (2012). Elements of Gestalt psychology in American cognitive linguistics. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie – Skłodowska Lublin –, 30(2), 47–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, S. E. (1978). Structural aspects of visual similarity. Memory & Cognition, 6(2), 91–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (2008). Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 317–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, C., & Willners, C. (2006). Antonyms and negation: the boundedness hypothesis. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1051–1080. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Negation and approximation as configuration construal in SPACE. In C. Paradis, J. Hudson & U. Magnusson (Eds.), The construal of spatial meaning: Windows into conceptual space (pp. 287–311). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parovel, G., & Guidi, S. (2015). The psychophysics of comic: Effects of incongruity in causality and animacy. Acta Psychologica, 1591, 22–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pexman, P. M., & Olineck, K. M. (2002). Understanding irony how do stereotypes cue speaker intent. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 211, 245–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, R. M., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science, 5(3), 159–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rock, I. (1973). Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, R. E. (1996). Understanding laughter in terms of basic perceptual and response patterns. Humor. International Journal of Humor Research, 9(1), 39–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Savardi, U., & Bianchi, I., (2009). The spatial path to contrariety. In U. Savardi (Ed.), The perception and cognition of contraries (pp. 63–92). Milan: Mc-Graw Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Savardi, U., Bianchi, I., & Burro, R. (2009). From opposites to dimensions: filling in the gaps. In U. Savardi (Ed.), The perception and cognition of contraries (pp. 275–294). Milan: Mc-Graw Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiller, P. (1938). A configurational theory of jokes and puzzles, The Journal of General Psychology, 181, 217–234. Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 151, 47–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, K. (1996). Laughing at the way we see: The role of visual organization principles in cartoon humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 9(1), 19–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation – dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 21 (2), 233–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Utsumi, A. (2000). Verbal irony as implicit display of ironic environment: Distinguishing ironic utterances from nonironic. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(12), 1777–1806. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Stylistic and contextual effects in irony processing. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-six annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1369–1374). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veale, T. (2008). Figure-ground duality in humour: A multi-modal perspective. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4(1), 63–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Viana, A. (2010). Asymmetry in script opposition. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 23(4), 505–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van de Weijer, J., Paradis, C., Willners, C., & Lindgren, M. (2014). Antonym canonicity: Temporal and contextual manipulations. Brain and Language, 128(1), 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willners, C., & Paradis, C. (2006). Antonymy and negation: The boundedness hypothesis. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1051–1080. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2013). Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 591, 40–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Bolognesi, Marianna M., Claudia Roberta Combei, Marta La Pietra & Francesca Masini
2024. What makes an awfully good oxymoron?. Language and Cognition 16:1 ► pp. 242 ff. DOI logo
Bianchi, Ivana, Elena Capitani, Erika Branchini, Ugo Savardi & Roberto Burro
2022. Naïve intuitions about what constitutes “an opposite process”. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 34:3 ► pp. 410 ff. DOI logo
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2022. Figurative thought and language research in the 21st century. In Figurative Thought and Language in Action [Figurative Thought and Language, 16], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bianchi, Ivana, Erika Branchini, Stefania Torquati, Arianna Fermani, Elena Capitani, Veronica Barnaba, Ugo Savardi & Roberto Burro
2021. Non experts’ understanding of terms frequently used by experts to describe the sensory properties of wine: An investigation based on opposites. Food Quality and Preference 92 ► pp. 104215 ff. DOI logo
Capitani, Elena, Erika Branchini, Roberto Burro, Ugo Savardi & Ivana Bianchi
2020. The opposite of a transformation process. An exploration based on diagrams. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 32:7 ► pp. 698 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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