Processing of Written Irony: An Eye Movement Study (original) (raw)
Related papers
Individual differences in processing written irony
2019
Theoretical accounts of irony comprehension assume that when an ironic utterance is unfamiliar and the context does not prime for ironic interpretation, processing should take longer than when reading the same utterance with a literal meaning. This slowdown reflects problems in integrating the utterance into the developing text representation, which results in a reanalysis of the utterance. Similar assumptions are made about other forms of figurative language, such as metaphors, although studies have shown that there are differences in the cognitive demands of different forms of figurative language. Until fairly recently, most of the studies have ignored possible individual differences in irony comprehension among healthy adults. Recent results have suggested that there might be individual differences in irony comprehension related to working memory capacity (WMC) and emotion processing. In the present thesis, I wanted to answer the following questions: 1) How do readers resolve the meaning of irony? 2) How do individual differences in WMC and the ability to process emotional information affect the processing of irony? and 3) Does the processing of irony differ from the processing of other forms of figurative language, namely metaphors? These questions were examined in four studies using eye-tracking to tap into the detailed time-course of resolving the meaning of irony. The results of these studies showed that readers need to reprocess the ironic utterance to achieve the intended meaning, as suggested by the theories on irony comprehension. WMC aids this process by helping readers to keep contextual information in their mind while they integrate the meaning of the utterance with the context and/or inhibit a more salient literal interpretation while making the inference. Emotion processing abilities help to recognize the emotional cues of irony; readers with a poorer ability to process emotional information need to rely more on textual context to resolve the ironic meaning. Finally, resolving the ironic meaning differs from resolving other forms of figurative language, namely metaphors. Metaphors are easier to comprehend, and the processing of the intended meaning of metaphors starts at an earlier stage of reading. Moreover, emotion processing abilities are related to the processing of irony, but not metaphors. Based on the findings of this thesis, I present a new theoretical framework, the Cumulative Evidence Model.
The on-line processing of written irony
Cognition, 2010
We report an eye-tracking study in which we investigate the on-line processing of written irony. Specifically, participants’ eye movements were recorded while they read sentences which were either intended ironically, or non-ironically, and subsequent text which contained pronominal reference to the ironic (or non-ironic) phrase. Results showed longer reading times for ironic comments compared to a non-ironic baseline, suggesting that additional processing was required in ironic compared to non-ironic conditions. Reading times for subsequent pronominal reference indicated that for ironic materials, both the ironic and literal interpretations of the text were equally accessible during on-line language comprehension. This finding is most in line with predictions of the graded salience hypothesis, which, in conjunction with the retention hypothesis, states that readers represent both the literal and ironic interpretation of an ironic utterance.
The emotional impact of verbal irony: Eye-tracking evidence for a two-stage process
Journal of Memory and Language, 2017
In this paper we investigate the socio-emotional functions of verbal irony. Specifically, we use eye-tracking while reading to assess moment-to-moment processing of a character's emotional response to ironic versus literal criticism. In Experiment 1, participants read stories describing a character being upset following criticism from another character. Results showed that participants initially more easily integrated a hurt response following ironic criticism; but later found it easier to integrate a hurt response following literal criticism. In Experiment 2, characters were instead described as having an amused response, which participants ultimately integrated more easily following ironic criticism. From this we propose a two-stage process of emotional responding to irony: While readers may initially expect a character to be more hurt by ironic than literal criticism, they ultimately rationalize ironic criticism as being less hurtful, and more amusing.
Processing of irony in text: A systematic review of eye-tracking studies
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 2021
Theoretical models of irony comprehension pose different hypotheses about the time-course of resolving ironic interpretation of an utterance, and propose several context-, phrase-and reader-related factors that influence the ease or difficulty of processing irony. In recent years, these factors have been examined using eye tracking, which allows a detailed analysis of time-course of reading processes. In this paper, we present a meta-analysis of the eye tracking studies on irony, and then present a systematic review of the factors that have been shown to influence the time-course of irony processing. The review will point to future directions in how eye tracking could best be applied to further develop the current theoretical views.
Type of evaluation and marking of irony: The role of perceived complexity and comprehension
Journal of Pragmatics
This paper reports on two experiments which demonstrate that textual characteristics of irony (type of ironic evaluation and irony markers – e.g., hyperbole, quotation marks) can influence comprehension, perceived complexity and attitudes towards the utterance and text. Results of experiment 1 show that explicitly evaluative irony is perceived as less complex and is more appreciated than implicitly evaluative irony. In experiment 2, irony markers were found to increase comprehension, reduce perceived complexity and make attitudes towards the utterance more positive. Both experiments also demonstrate that the influence of irony on attitudes depends on comprehension and complexity; if irony is understood or perceived as relatively easy, it is better liked than when it is not understood or perceived as relatively difficult.
Testing theories of irony processing using eye-tracking and ERPs
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2014
Not much is known about how people comprehend ironic utterances, and to date, most studies have simply compared processing of ironic vs. non-ironic statements. A key aspect of the graded salience hypothesis, distinguishing it from other accounts (such as the standard pragmatic view and direct access view), is that it predicts differences between processing of familiar and unfamiliar ironies. Specifically, if an ironic utterance is familiar, then the ironic interpretation should be available without the need for extra inferential processes, whereas for unfamiliar ironies, the literal interpretation would be computed first, and a mismatch with context would lead to a re-interpretation of the statement as being ironic. We recorded participants’ eye movements while they were reading (Experiment 1), and electrical brain activity while they were listening to (Experiment 2), familiar and unfamiliar ironies compared to non-ironic controls. Results showed disruption to eye movements, and an N400-like effect for unfamiliar ironies only, supporting the predictions of the graded salience hypothesis. In addition, in Experiment 2, a late positivity was found for both familiar and unfamiliar ironic materials, compared to non-ironic controls. We interpret this positivity as reflecting ongoing conflict between the literal and ironic interpretations of the utterance.
Expecting Irony: Context Versus Salience-Based Effects
Metaphor and Symbol, 2007
Results from 4 experiments support the view that, regardless of contextual information, when an end-product interpretation of an utterance does not rely on the salient (lexicalized and prominent) meanings of its components, it will not be faster than nor as fast to derive as when it does. To test this view, we looked into interpretations of salience-based (here, literal) interpretations and expectation-based (here, ironic) interpretations in contexts inducing an expectation for irony. In Experiment 1, expectancy was manipulated by introducing an ironic speaker in vivo who also uttered the target utterance. Findings show that ironic targets were slower to read than literal counterparts. Experiment 2 shows that ironies took longer to read than literals and that response times to ironically related probes were longer than to literally related probes, regardless of context. Experiments 3 and 4 show that, even when participants were given extra processing time and were exclusively presented ironically biasing contexts, the expectancy for irony acquired throughout such exposure did not facilitate expectancy-based compared to salience-based interpretations.
This paper presents a contrastive approach to the presence of two distinct types of verbal irony in real (natural, unscripted) versus fictional (scripted) discourse, with a special focus on irony blindness, i.e. the inability to recognize ironic utterances. Irony strategies are categorized into two general types, based on the relationship between the expressed and the intended meaning (Type 1: meaning reversal and Type 2: meaning replacement). First, the differences between these two types are discussed in terms of use, interpretation, and misinterpretation. It is found that the first type of irony strongly prevails in natural discourse, while the second type is considerably more present in fictional discourse than it is in natural discourse. At the same time, the first type of irony appears to be more at risk of misinterpretation in natural discourse, as opposed to the second type, which seems to be a safer (even though less frequently selected) option. These findings are then further analyzed in light of the discussion concerning fictional (comedic, in particular) irony blindness and the construction and role of the irony blind characters. Interestingly, the causes of fictional irony blindness are found to correlate more strongly with the (more humorous) misinterpretation of the second type of irony.
Studying Irony Detection Beyond Ironic Criticism: Let's Include Ironic Praise
Frontiers in psychology, 2017
Studies of irony detection have commonly used ironic criticisms (i.e., mock positive evaluation of negative circumstances) as stimulus materials. Another basic type of verbal irony, ironic praise (i.e., mock negative evaluation of positive circumstances) is largely absent from studies on individuals' aptitude to detect verbal irony. However, it can be argued that ironic praise needs to be considered in order to investigate the detection of irony in the variety of its facets. To explore whether the detection ironic praise has a benefit beyond ironic criticism, three studies were conducted. In Study 1, an instrument (Test of Verbal Irony Detection Aptitude; TOVIDA) was constructed and its factorial structure was tested using N = 311 subjects. The TOVIDA contains 26 scenario-based items and contains two scales for the detection of ironic criticism vs. ironic praise. To validate the measurement method, the two scales of the TOVIDA were experimentally evaluated with N = 154 subjects ...
The role of visual cues in detecting irony
Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 25, 2021
We present four studies that aimed at investigating the contribution of purely visual cues for the detection of irony. In Study 1-3, we presented, without any preceding context, remarks (criticisms and compliments) uttered with sincere and with ironic intent, in three modalities: in the V modality participants could read the comment and see speakers' facial expressions and bodily movements; in the A modality they could only hear the audio tracks of the uttered sentences; in the VA modality, both visual and auditory information were present. We found that purely visual cues were sufficient to discriminate the ironic intent of the speakers. In Study 4 we presented comments in the V modality, without showing the content of the remark: Accuracy in the detection of sarcasm dropped. We discuss that irony in Study 1-3 might have been recognized indirectly, by comparing the polarity of the remark with the polarity of the actors' attitude, and we interpret Study 4 data as casting some doubts on the idea that there exist visual cues that specifically convey the speaker's ironic intent.