Use Of Verbal Irony Research Articles

Individual Differences in Verbal Irony Use: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Psycholinguistic Studies

ABSTRACT We carried out a systematic review of psycholinguistic, empirical, quantitative studies on verbal irony use and individual differences (i.e. psychological, not demographic, traits that significantly differentiate individuals). Out of 5,967 publications screened, 29, comprising 35 studies in total, were included. Following a qualitative content analysis, six thematic clusters were identified, representing areas of research in individual differences in irony use: (a) psychological well-being, (b) personality traits, (c) humor-related traits, (d) cultural factors, (e) social skills, and (f) cognitive factors. The results of the studies in each cluster are summarized and conclusions for further research are presented. In particular, the systematic review suggests that irony and sarcasm should be clearly delineated as separate, yet related phenomena due to differing patterns of correlations with specific individual differences. Additionally, significant methodological heterogeneity between the studies suggests the need for greater standardization of irony use measures.

Verbal Irony in Translation: LXX Amos 4:4–5, Isaiah 47:12–13, Ezekiel 28:3–5

Abstract This study explores the use of verbal irony in three case studies across the Septuagint Prophets: Amos 4:4–5, Isa 47:12–13, and Ezek 28:3–5. In the MT, all three of these passages make use of verbal irony to express criticism. The prophets’ critiques remain in the LXX versions, but do not contain verbal irony in some cases. This paper aims to discern how each translator has approached rendering the verbal irony of the Hebrew parent text by describing the observable results of the translation process on linguistic and rhetorical levels.

Socio-cultural and individual factors in verbal irony use and understanding: What we know, what we don’t know, what we want to know

AA significant part of everyday verbal communication consists of nonliteral language, including irony (Gibbs 2000). Efficient irony use can serve a wide range of pragmatic goals, while deficits in irony comprehension can have negative social consequences. Whereas a large body of psycholinguistic research has been produced on irony use and understanding by adults, little attention has been paid to the socio-cultural characteristics of this phenomenon so far. Some individual factors that have been identified as correlates of irony use include personality of the speaker, gender, age, or speaking a second language. In this article, we argue that it is necessary to bring the aspects of socio-cultural variables and individual characteristics together in the further study of irony across national cultures. To this end, we present a narrative review of theoretical and quantitative empirical literature from the field of psycholinguistics on both national cultural and individual/psychological factors impacting the use and understanding of verbal irony in communication. Based on the review, we suggest a theoretical model that could guide future quantitative studies on irony use such that both contextual factors (including national cultural dimensions) and individual differences between the speakers are clearly defined and related to one another in terms of their influence.

Stereotype Transmission and Maintenance Through Interpersonal Communication

In interpersonal communication, stereotypes are predominantly transmitted through language. Linguistic bias theory presupposes that speakers systematically vary their language when communicating stereotype-consistent and stereotype-inconsistent information. We investigate whether these findings can be extended to verbal irony use. The irony bias posits that irony is more appropriate to communicate stereotype-inconsistent than stereotype-consistent information. Three experiments support this hypothesis by showing that irony is found more appropriate (Experiments 1-2) and used more often (Experiment 3) in stereotype-inconsistent than in stereotype-consistent situations. Furthermore, linguistic biases have important communicative consequences, because they implicitly serve to maintain stereotypic expectancies. Experiment 4 shows that irony shares this characteristic with other linguistic biases, in that irony—compared to literal language—leads to more external attribution. Taken together, these results indicate that stereotypic expectancies are subtly revealed and confirmed by verbal irony, and that verbal irony plays an important role in stereotype communication and maintenance.

Verbal irony use in personal blogs

Blogs are a widely growing form of computer-mediated communication used to achieve various personal and professional communicative goals. In the present study, we examined previously posted entries from 71 regular bloggers. We examined the blogs for the use of five forms of verbal irony: hyperbole, understatement, rhetorical question, sarcasm and jocularity. In addition, topic and emotional valence of the ironic utterances were examined. Results showed that hyperbole and understatement were more frequently used than the other forms of ironic language. Discussion of hobbies and social outings was the most commonly occurring topic of ironic language, and bloggers used verbal irony to convey both positive and negative intent. The results of this study demonstrated that adult bloggers do use a variety of forms of verbal irony in their personal blogs, despite the potential risk of being misunderstood.

The use of co-textual irony markers in written discourse

AbstractAuthors of written texts may mark the use of verbal irony in a variety of ways. One possibility for doing so is the use of so-called co-textual markers of irony (i.e., support strategies that open up a non-serious frame). This study aims to classify and categorize these co-textual irony markers. A content analysis of 2,042 co-textual utterances of irony across four text genres (advertisements, newspaper columns, book and film reviews, and letters to the editor) shows that three categories of support strategies could be identified: other ironic utterances, tropes and mood markers. The use of irony support strategies was positively related to the genre of newspaper columns: columns used more ironic utterances and tropes as irony support strategies than the other genres in the corpus.

Is Verbal Irony Special?

AbstractThe way we speak can reveal much about what we intend to communicate, but the words we use often only indirectly relate to the meanings we wish to convey. Verbal irony is a commonly studied form of indirect speech in which a speaker produces an explicit evaluative utterance that implicates an unstated, opposing evaluation. Producing and understanding ironic language, as well as many other types of indirect speech, requires the ability to recognize mental states in others, sometimes described as a capacity for metarepresentation. This article aims to connect common elements between the major theoretical approaches to verbal irony to recent psycholinguistic, developmental, and neuropsychological research demonstrating the necessity for metarepresentation in the effective use of verbal irony in social interaction. Here I will argue that verbal irony is one emergent, strategic possibility given the interface between people’s ability to infer mental states, and use language. Rather than think of ironic communication as a specialized cognitive ability, I will claim that it arises from the same set of abilities that underlie a wide range of inferential communicative behaviors.

Why irony sometimes comes to mind

Research on the pragmatics of irony focuses on verbal irony use or on people’s ironic conceptualizations of external events. But people sometimes experience irony within themselves whenever conscious attempts to accomplish something (e.g., fall asleep, quit smoking, not think of a failed relationship) lead to completely contrary results (e.g., staying awake, having a stronger desire to smoke, constant thoughts about the failed relationship). These situations sometimes seem ironic and evoke strong emotional reactions precisely because people understand the incompatibility between what is desired and what has occurred, enough so that the idea of irony may pop into consciousness. Psychological research now reveals that the difficulty in suppressing unwanted thoughts is shaped by distinct “ironic processes of mental control”. This paper describes previous empirical evidence in support of this theory, suggests how this perspective explains why we occasionally recognize irony within ourselves, presents some new data on people’s ironic understandings of and emotional reactions to ironic events, and relates this new work within psychology to contemporary theories of situational irony.

Verbal Irony Use in Face-To-Face and Computer-Mediated Conversations

Speakers use a range of cues to signal ironic intent, including cues based on contrast with context, verbal, and paralinguistic cues. Speakers also rely on cues provided by addressees regarding comprehension of irony. When such cues are unavailable, speakers may be less willing to use irony because of the risk of miscommunication, and addressees may be more likely to misinterpret irony. The present study tested these hypotheses by examining the production and comprehension of irony in multimodal (face-to-face) and unimodal (computer-mediated) conversations. Contrary to expectations, speakers in the computer condition used more irony than face-to-face speakers. Comprehension of irony did not appear to differ across settings, although addressees in the computer condition provided less feedback (positive or negative) to their partners about their comprehension. These surprising results are discussed in terms of possible differences in the discourse goals and relational strategies engendered by computer-mediated and face-to-face communicative settings.

Gender Differences in Verbal Irony Use

Potential causes of gender differences in perceived and reported verbal irony use are investigated. The study first presented written scenarios of speakers with indeterminate gender who made sarcastic comments. These speakers are judged to be more likely male than female, by both male and female participants. In a separate task, male participants also report a greater likelihood of using verbal irony relative to female participants. The study then investigated potential explanations of this gender difference. The results revealed support for an explanation based on a match between the generally greater riskiness of males over females, and a relatively greater risk of miscomprehension of verbal irony, rather than an explanation that males use verbal irony because its pragmatic functions fit better with their discourse goals versus those reported by females. A discussion of other potential underpinnings to gender differences in verbal irony use and a call for further research are presented.

Asymmetries in the Use of Verbal Irony

Three experiments assessed four variables that may affect verbal irony processing: people’s expectations of events, event outcome, evaluations of outcome, and shared common ground. Reading times and rating tasks were used to quantify the interaction of these factors. The failed expectation hypothesis predicts an interaction of expectation, outcome, and evaluation. In contrast, the expectation irrelevance hypothesis states that expectation does not matter—only interactions between outcome and evaluation should result. The results provide support for the expectation irrelevance hypothesis. There were also consistent common ground effects: Statements directed at high common ground targets were read more quickly and rated as more ironic than statements directed at low common ground targets. These studies also provide online evidence of the asymmetry of affect (positive evaluations of negative outcomes are more ironic than negative evaluations of positive outcomes). Together, these experiments further elucidate the complex pragmatic factors that govern verbal irony comprehension.