Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  • Cited by 12
    • Show more authors
    • You may already have access via personal or institutional login
    • Select format
    • Publisher:
      Cambridge University Press
      Publication date:
      18 January 2023
      02 February 2023
      ISBN:
      9781009234566
      9781009234542
      Dimensions:
      Weight & Pages:
      Dimensions:
      (229 x 152 mm)
      Weight & Pages:
      0.15kg, 78 Pages
    You may already have access via personal or institutional login
  • Selected: Digital
    Add to cart View cart Buy from Cambridge.org

    Book description

    Ironic language is a salient reminder that speakers of all languages do not always mean what they say. While ironic language has captured the attention of theorists and scholars for centuries, it is only since the 1980s that psycholinguistic methods have been employed to investigate how readers and hearers detect, process, and comprehend ironic language. This Element reviews the foundational definitions, theories, and psycholinguistic models of ironic language, covering key questions such as the distinction between literal and ironic meaning, the role of contextual information during irony processing, and the cognitive mechanisms involved. These key questions continue to motivate new studies and methodological innovations, providing ample opportunity for future researchers who wish to continue exploring how ironic language is processed and understood.

    References

    Akimoto, Y., Sugiura, M., Yomogida, Y. et al. (2014). Irony comprehension: Social conceptual knowledge and emotional response: Comprehending Irony. Human Brain Mapping, 35(4), 1167–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22242.
    Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793826.
    Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., & Poggi, I. (2003). Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor, 16(2), 243–60. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2003.012.
    Baptista, N. I., Manfredi, M., & Boggio, P. S. (2018). Medial prefrontal cortex stimulation modulates irony processing as indexed by the N400. Social Neuroscience, 13(4), 495510. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2017.1356744.
    Bell, N. D. (2015). We are not amused: Failed humor in interaction. Mouton de Gruyter.
    Bezuidenhout, A., & Cutting, J. C. (2002). Literal meaning, minimal propositions, and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 433–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00042-X.
    Bosco, F. M., Parola, A., Valentini, M. C., & Morese, R. (2017). Neural correlates underlying the comprehension of deceitful and ironic communicative intentions. Cortex, 94, 7386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.06.010.
    Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–07.
    Caffarra, S., Michell, E., & Martin, C. D. (2018). The impact of foreign accent on irony interpretation. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0200939. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200939.
    Caffarra, S., Motamed Haeri, A., Michell, E., & Martin, C. D. (2019). When is irony influenced by communicative constraints? ERP evidence supporting interactive models. European Journal of Neuroscience, 50(10), 3566–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14503.
    Caillies, S., Gobin, P., Obert, A. et al. (2019). Asymmetry of affect in verbal irony understanding: What about the N400 and P600 components? Journal of Neurolinguistics, 51, 268–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2019.04.004.
    Campbell, J. D., & Katz, A. (2012). Are there necessary conditions for inducing a sense of sarcastic irony? Discourse Processes, 49(6), 459–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.687863.
    Cheang, H. S., & Pell, M. D. (2008). The sound of sarcasm. Speech Communication, 50(5), 366–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.11.003.
    Cheang, H. S., & Pell, M. D. (2009). Acoustic markers of sarcasm in Cantonese and English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(3), 1394–405. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3177275.
    Chen, A., & Boves, L. (2018). What’s in a word: Sounding sarcastic in British English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 48(1), 5776. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100318000038.
    Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 121–26.
    Colston, H. L. (2015). Using figurative language. Cambridge University Press.
    Colston, H. L. (2017). Irony and sarcasm. In Attardo, S. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 234–49). Routledge.
    Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2002). Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 5780. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1701_5.
    Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2021). Figurative language communicates directly because it precisely demonstrates what we mean. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 75(2), 228–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000254.
    Cornejol, C., Simonetti, F., Aldunate, N. et al. (2007). Electrophysiological evidence of different interpretative strategies in irony comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36(6), 411–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-007-9052-0.
    Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press.
    Delogu, F., Brouwer, H., & Crocker, M. W. (2019). Event-related potentials index lexical retrieval (N400) and integration (P600) during language comprehension. Brain and Cognition, 135, 103569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.05.007.
    Eviatar, Z., & Just, M. A. (2006). Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2348–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.05.007.
    Fein, O., Yeari, M., & Giora, R. (2015). On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of sarcastic irony. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0001.
    Ferreira, F., & Yang, Z. (2019). The problem of comprehension in psycholinguistics. Discourse Processes, 56(7), 485–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1591885.
    Filik, R., Howman, H., Ralph-Nearman, C., & Giora, R. (2018). The role of defaultness and personality factors in sarcasm interpretation: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3), 148–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1481258.
    Filik, R., Ingram, J., Moxey, L., & Leuthold, H. (2021). Irony as a test of the presupposition-denial account: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50(6), 1321–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09795-y.
    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, and Cognition, 40(3), 811–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035658.
    Filik, R., & Moxey, L. M. (2010). The on-line processing of written irony. Cognition, 116(3), 421–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.005.
    Filik, R., Ţurcan, A., Ralph-Nearman, C., & Pitiot, A. (2019). What is the difference between irony and sarcasm? An fMRI study. Cortex, 115, 112–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.01.025.
    Frith, C., & Frith, U. (2005). Theory of mind. Current Biology, 15(17), R644R645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.08.041.
    Gallagher, H. L., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Functional imaging of “theory of mind.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 7783. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00025-6.
    Garmendia, J. (2014). The clash: Humor and critical attitude in verbal irony. HUMOR, 27(4), 641–59. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2014-0094.
    Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 275304.
    Gibbs, R. W. (1986a). Comprehension and memory for nonliteral utterances: The problem of sarcastic indirect requests. Acta Psychologica, 62(1), 4157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(86)90004-1.
    Gibbs, R. W. (1986b). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.3.
    Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.
    Gibbs, R. W. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 457–86.
    Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Literal and nonliteral meanings are corrupt ideas: A view from psycholinguistics. In Coulson, S. & Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Eds.), The literal and nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 221–38). Peter Lang.
    Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (Eds.). (2007). Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge University Press.
    Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2020). Pragmatics always matters: An expanded vision of experimental pragmatics. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1619. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01619.
    Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19, 239–64.
    Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183206.
    Giora, R. (2002). Literal vs. Figurative language: Different or equal. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 487506.
    Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford University Press.
    Giora, R. (2021). The creativity of negation. In Wen, X. & Taylor, J. R. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (1st ed., pp. 127–41). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-9.
    Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., & Mendelson, I. (2015). Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173200. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.954951.
    Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(4), 241–57.
    Giora, R., Fein, O., Laadan, D. et al. (2007). Expecting irony: Context versus salience-based effects. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(2), 119–46.
    Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T. (1998). Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(2), 83101.
    Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O. (2015). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804.
    Giora, R., Jaffe, I., Becker, I., & Fein, O. (2018). Strongly attenuating highly positive concepts: The case of default sarcastic interpretations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 1947. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00002.gio.
    Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O. et al. (2013). Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(2), 89115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768510.
    Giora, R., Raphaely, M., Fein, O., & Livnat, E. (2014). Resonating with contextually inappropriate interpretations in production: The case of irony. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 443–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0026.
    Glenwright, M., & Pexman, P. M. (2010). Development of children’s ability to distinguish sarcasm and verbal irony. Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 429–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909009520.
    Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., Morgan, J. L., & Kimball, J. P. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 4158). Academic Press.
    Grice, P. (1978). Some further notes on logic and conversation. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics (Vol. 9, pp.113–27). Academic Press.
    Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.
    Heredia, R. R., & Cieślicka, A. B. (2015). Bilingual figurative language processing. Cambridge University Press.
    Ivanko, S. L., Pexman, P. M., & Olineck, K. M. (2004). How sarcastic are you?: Individual differences and verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(3), 244–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X04266809.
    Kaakinen, J. K., Olkoniemi, H., Kinnari, T., & Hyönä, J. (2014). Processing of written irony: An eye movement study. Discourse Processes, 51(4), 287311. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.870024.
    Katz, A. (2005). Discourse and sociocultural factors in understanding nonliteral language. In Colston, H. L. & Katz, A. (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 183207). Routledge.
    Katz, A. (2017). Chapter 11. The standard experimental approach to the study of irony: Let us not be hasty in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In Athanasiadou, A. & Colston, H. L. (Eds.), Figurative Thought and Language (Vol. 1, pp. 237–54). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.12kat.
    Katz, A., Blasko, D. G., & Kazmerski, V. A. (2004). Saying what you don’t mean: Social influences on sarcastic language processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(5), 186–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00304.x.
    Katz, A., & Pexman, P. M. (1997). Interpreting figurative statements: Speaker occupation can change metaphor to irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 1941. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1201_3.
    Katz, A., & Reid, N. J. (2020). Tests of conceptual metaphor theory with episodic memory tests. Cognitive Semantics, 6(1), 5682. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00601003.
    Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2018). Reading comprehension theories: A view from the top down. In Schober, M. F., Rapp, D. N., & Britt, M. A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed., pp. 721). Routledge
    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), 301–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.799934.
    Kreuz, R. J. (2020). Irony and sarcasm. The MIT Press.
    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), 321.
    Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 621–47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123.
    Kutas, M., Van Petten, C. K., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics Electrified II (1994–2005). In Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 659724). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50018-3.
    Li, S., Gu, W., Liu, L., & Tang, P. (2020). The role of voice quality in Mandarin sarcastic speech: An acoustic and electroglottographic study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(8), 2578–88. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00166.
    Lœvenbruck, H., Jannet, M. A. B., D’Imperio, M., Spini, M., & Champagne-Lavau, M. (2013). Prosodic cues of sarcastic speech in French: Slower, higher, wider. Interspeech 2013, 3537–41. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2013-761.
    Lucariello, J. (1994). Situational irony: A concept of events gone awry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(2), 129–45.
    Matsui, T., Nakamura, T., Utsumi, A. et al. (2016). The role of prosody and context in sarcasm comprehension: Behavioral and fMRI evidence. Neuropsychologia, 87, 7484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.04.031.
    Mauchand, M., Caballero, J. A., Jiang, X., & Pell, M. D. (2021). Immediate online use of prosody reveals the ironic intentions of a speaker: Neurophysiological evidence. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21(1), 7492. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00849-7.
    Mauchand, M., Vergis, N., & Pell, M. (2018). Ironic tones of voices. Speech Prosody 2018, 443–47. https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-90.
    McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 297384). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2.
    Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental pragmatics: The making of a cognitive science (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316027073.
    Obert, A., Gierski, F., Calmus, A. et al. (2016). Neural correlates of contrast and humor: Processing common features of verbal irony. PLOS ONE, 11(11), e0166704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166704.
    Olkoniemi, H., Johander, E., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2018). The role of look-backs in the processing of written sarcasm. Memory & Cognition, 47, 87105. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0852-2.
    Olkoniemi, H., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2021). Processing of irony in text: A systematic review of eye-tracking studies. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 75(2), 99106. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000216
    Olkoniemi, H., Ranta, H., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2016). Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(3), 433–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000176.
    Olkoniemi, H., Strömberg, V., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2019). The ability to recognise emotions predicts the time-course of sarcasm processing: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1212–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818807864.
    Dictionary, Oxford English. (2022). Irony, n. In Oxford English Dictionary.
    Pexman, P. M. (2005). Social factors in the interpretation of verbal irony: The roles of speaker and listener characteristics. In Colston, H. L. & Katz, A. (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 209–32). Routledge.
    Pexman, P. M. (2008). It’s fascinating research: The cognition of verbal irony. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 286–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00591.x.
    Pexman, P. M., Ferretti, T. R., & Katz, A. (2000). Discourse factors that influence online reading of metaphor and irony. Discourse Processes, 29(3), 201–22.
    Pfaff, K. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (1997). Authorial intentions in understanding satirical texts. Poetics, 25, 4570. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(97)00006-5.
    Regel, S., Coulson, S., & Gunter, T. C. (2010). The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain Research, 1311, 121–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.10.077.
    Regel, S., Gunter, T., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Isn’t it ironic? An electrophysiological exploration of figurative language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(2), 277–93.
    Rivière, E., Klein, M., & Champagne-Lavau, M. (2018). Using context and prosody in irony understanding: Variability amongst individuals. Journal of Pragmatics, 138, 165–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.006.
    Roberts, M. (2014). What everybody gets wrong about Alanis Morissette’s “Ironic.” Salon. www.salon.com/2014/05/08/what_everybody_gets_wrong_about_alanis_morissettes_ironic_partner/.
    Rothermich, K., & Pell, M. D. (2015). Introducing RISC: A new video inventory for testing social perception. PLOS ONE, 10(7), e0133902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133902.
    Rothermich, K., Schoen Simmons, E., Rao Makarla, P. et al. (2021). Tracking nonliteral language processing using audiovisual scenarios. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 75(2), 211–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000223.
    Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K. (2000). Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 4761.
    Shelley, C. (2001). The bicoherence theory of situational irony. Cognitive Science, 25(5), 775818. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2505_7.
    Simpson, P. (2003). On the discourse of satire: Towards a stylistic model of satirical humour. John Benjamins.
    Skalicky, S. (2019). Investigating satirical discourse processing and comprehension: The role of cognitive, demographic, and pragmatic features. Language and Cognition, 11, 499525. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.30.
    Skalicky, S. (2020). Exploring perceptions of novelty and mirth in elicited figurative language production. Metaphor and Symbol, 35(2), 7796. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2020.1820763.
    Skalicky, S. (In press). Modeling satirical uptake using discourse processing methods. Discourse Processes. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2022.2128182
    Skalicky, S. (2022, July). Recognising satirical intent in satirical news discourse: Effects of reading behaviour and need for cognition [Standard Presentation]. 2022 Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Virtual Conference. https://osf.io/e8qj7/?view_only=8673be1971cb4886801e55f5a4c693ab.
    Skalicky, S., & Crossley, S. A. (2019). Examining the online processing of satirical newspaper headlines. Discourse Processes, 56(1), 6176. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1368332.
    Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use mention distinction. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 295318). Elsevier
    Spotorno, N., Cheylus, A., Van Der Henst, J.-B., & Noveck, I. A. (2013). What’s behind a P600? Integration operations during irony processing. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066839.
    Spotorno, N., Koun, E., Prado, J., Van Der Henst, J.-B., & Noveck, I. A. (2012). Neural evidence that utterance-processing entails mentalizing: The case of irony. NeuroImage, 63(1), 2539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.046.
    Spotorno, N., & Noveck, I. A. (2014). When is irony effortful? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1649–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036630.
    Thompson, D., Leuthold, H., & Filik, R. (2021). Examining the influence of perspective and prosody on expected emotional responses to irony: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 75(2), 107–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000249.
    Țurcan, A., & Filik, R. (2016). An eye-tracking investigation of written sarcasm comprehension: The roles of familiarity and context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(12), 1867–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000285.
    Țurcan, A., & Filik, R. (2017). Chapter 12. Investigating sarcasm comprehension using eye-tracking during reading: What are the roles of literality, familiarity, and echoic mention? In Athanasiadou, A. & Colston, H. L. (Eds.), Figurative Thought and Language (Vol. 1, pp. 255–76). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.13tuc.
    Uchiyama, H., Saito, D. N., Tanabe, H. C. et al. (2012). Distinction between the literal and intended meanings of sentences: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of metaphor and sarcasm. Cortex, 48(5), 563–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.01.004.
    Uchiyama, H., Seki, A., Kageyama, H. et al. (2006). Neural substrates of sarcasm: A functional magnetic-resonance imaging study. Brain Research, 1124(1), 100–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.088.
    Utsumi, A. (2000). Verbal irony as implicit display of ironic environment: Distinguishing ironic utterances from nonirony. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1777–806.
    Voyer, D., & Techentin, C. (2010). Subjective auditory features of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 25(4), 227–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2010.510927.
    Weissman, B., & Tanner, D. (2018). A strong wink between verbal and emoji-based irony: How the brain processes ironic emojis during language comprehension. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0201727. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201727.
    Wikipedia. (2022). Ironic (song). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_(song).
    Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87(1), 5376.

    Metrics

    Altmetric attention score

    Full text views

    Total number of HTML views: 0
    Total number of PDF views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    Book summary page views

    Total views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    * Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

    Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

    Accessibility standard: Unknown

    Why this information is here

    This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

    Accessibility Information

    Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.