Literal vs. nonliteral language - novelty matters
Rachel Giora, Tel Aviv University
http://www.tau.ac.il/~giorar
Introduction
Nonliteral language has a long lasting reputation for being highly unique - ‘‘the mark of
genius’’ and ‘‘above the commonplace and mean”. In contrast, literal language - “the use
of proper words” – is taken to render language “perspicuous’’ (Aristotle, 350 BCE).
More recent research, however, has witnessed the pervasiveness of nonliteral language in
mundane uses (Gibbs, 1994; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lakoff & Turner, 1989, to cite but a
few). Still, the poetics of everyday language (e.g., the nonliteralness of the “legs” and the
“back” of a chair) is often lost on comprehenders on account of its lack of novelty. At the
same time, however, our passion for novelty (Berlyne, 1950; Freud, 1922; McDougall,
1923; Sheldrake, 1981/2012) forgoes the possibility that literal language may be also
poetic.
Consider, for instance, how highly conventionalized nonliteral expressions1 such
as big shoes to fill or curl up and die may become innovative by resorting to their
alternative literal interpretation, as in “Those are some very big shoes to fill (size 83, in
fact)"2 or curl up and dye.3 Consider also the literal use of “know” in KNOW Pinkwashing
4
, which is used in an innovative way, without resorting to figurativeness. While
highlighting both the literal request to become acquainted with pinkwashing and the
literal need to reject it, this use deautomatizes or rather defamiliarizes the familiar literal
meaning of “know” by fragmenting it, thus bringing to the fore an additional sense of the
word (which now includes rejection).5 Note further the innovativeness of the literal
“know” in the street art of KNOW HOPE6, which deautomatizes the sense of “no”, while
breaking up a familiar literal collocation7 (No hope), enriching it with optimism.
Consider further how (visual) background information in Lahav Halevy’s (2002)
8
art deautomatizes the all too familiar name Sharon Stone (see Figure 1). Deconstructing
a fixed expression by introducing an alternative referent for Sharon and a literal meaning
of Stone results in a novel literal interpretation.
1
An expression becomes conventionalized, or frozen, or fixed through frequent use and habit, to the extent
that it is now listed in our mental lexicon with one or more given meanings.
2
http://designarchives.aiga.org/#/entries/%2Bcollections%3A%2250%20Books%2F50%20Covers%20of%
202010%22/_/detail/relevance/asc/3/7/21564/the-man-behind-the-nose/1
I thank Jenny Birger for this example.
3
http://www.curlupndye.com/
4
http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/news/news/4366-inequality-forum-2012-pinkwashinga-palestinian-queer-community.html
5
Deautomatization is invited once a conventional use is questioned, thus activating a less familiar meaning
or interpretation. On deautomatization, see e.g., Russian formalist Shklovsky, 1917/1965 and Prague
linguist Mukarovský, 1932/1964, 1978).
6
http://www.flickr.com:80/photos/idanska/247228762/
7
A collocation refers to a set of words that frequently co-occur so as to become a conventional fixed
expression.
8
http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/sharon-stone
1
FIGURE 1: Sharon Stone
Can conventional metaphors be also revamped? Consider how, in what Livak
(2008) caught on camera, including the facial expression of the Palestinian, the all too
well-known smiley is deautomatized, rendered into an innovative cryly (Figure 2):
2
Figure 2: Hebron, December, 2008 (© 2014 Haaretz, Israel)
Can innovativeness be both literal and metaphorical? In (Figure 3), using
photomontage techniques, Heartfield (1934) spelt out his anti-Nazi views by
deautomatizing a conventional Nazi symbol - the Swastika - turning its arms into the
executioner‘s blood-dripping axes. Although the novelty is “literal” in that there is no
visual “semantic anomaly” (known to typify metaphors), it nonetheless calls for a
metaphorical interpretation.
3
FIGURE 3: Iron and blood
(© 2014 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn)
4
Similarly, in Figure (4), Heartfield (2391) realizes a metaphor (“swallows gold”).
As a result, the novel literal reading involves a visual “semantic anomaly” which can
only be interpreted metaphorically (expressing the artist’s opposition to Hitler’s gainbased regime):
5
FIGURE 4: Adolf the Superman: Swallows Gold and Spouts Junk
(© 2014 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn)
Can the realistic also be viewed as nonliteral? In addition to Figure 2, consider
how in Livak (2012; see Figure 5) real-life background information - the protest slogans
“Free Palestine” engraved on the road blocks the Israeli soldiers are leaning against ridicule the perceptual figure - the soldiers - by setting up a stark contrast between the
two, allowing a novel sarcastic reading of the percept as a whole:
Figure 5: Israeli soldiers in Hebron 2008 (© 2014 Haaretz, Israel)
These instances suggest that it is innovativeness rather than nonliteralness that
might make a difference. It is via novelty then that both literal and nonliteral
communication could be ‘‘the mark of genius’’.
Novelty matters: The case of comprehension
Behavioral level
According to Aristotle (350 BCE), metaphors (among other “unusual” uses) are difficult
to understand: A text or style is “a riddle, if it [mostly] consists of metaphors”. This view
has been adopted by a number of processing models, not least by the standard pragmatic
model (e.g., Grice, 1975 and Searle, 1979). It has, however, been vastly questioned by
various scholars trying to show that, given various factors, especially specific contextual
information or semantic space, metaphor will be no more difficult to make sense of than
literal counterparts (Gibbs, 1994; Glucksberg, 2001; Glucksberg & Keysar, 1990; Keysar
1989; Kintsch & Bowles, 2002, among others; for a review, see Giora 2003).
6
Contextual considerations momentarily set aside (but see Optimal novelty in
context – the case of sarcasm, below), experimental evidence accumulated in various
laboratories shows that it is not degree of nonliteralness that makes a difference but
degree of novelty; it is the latter that affects processing difficulties (Giora, 1997, 2003;
see also Gibbs, 1980), degree of pleasurability (Brône & Coulson, 2010; Giora, Fein,
Kronrod, Elnatan, Shuval, & Zur, 2004), and the neural substrates involved (Giora, 2009;
Giora, & Stringaris, 2010).
“Degree of nonliteralness” pertains here to the continuum ranging between literal
and nonliteral (idiomatic, metaphoric, ironic/sarcastic, hyperbolic etc.) language. “Degree
of novelty” pertains here to degree of salience.
According to the graded salience hypothesis (Giora 1997, 1999, 2003), a meaning
is salient if it is coded in the mental lexicon and enjoys prominence due to exposure (e.g.,
familiarity, frequency, conventionality) or cognitive factors (e.g., prototypicality),
regardless of degree of nonliteralness (e.g., the nonliteral curl up and die, the literal body
and soul, the literal and metaphoric sharp, the sarcastic big deal, read my lips, the literal
plant meaning of tree). A meaning is less-salient if it is coded but scores low on these
variables, regardless of degree of nonliteralness (e.g., the literal, riverside meaning of
bank; the nonliteral diagram meaning of tree). A meaning or an interpretation that is not
coded is nonsalient; it is novel or derived, regardless of degree of nonliteralness (e.g., the
literal body and sole; the nonliteral Weapons of mass construction).
An interpretation based on the salient meanings of the utterance components,
termed salience-based interpretation, is not coded either. Based on constituents’ salient
meanings, it too is indifferent to degree of nonliteralness. Consider the literal
interpretation of What a lovely day for a picnic, intended sarcastically when said during a
wet and wild weather. This literal interpretation is based on the salient, here literal,
meanings of the individual constituents (e.g., lovely) that make up the utterance (see
Giora, Fein, Laadan, Wolfson, Zeituny, Kidron, Kaufman, & Shaham, 2007). Such is also
the metaphoric interpretation of This one's really sharp, when said of a student and
intended sarcastically, which is based on the salient, here nonliteral, meanings of the
individual constituents (e.g., sharp) that make up the utterance (see Colston and Gibbs,
2002). Such is also the sarcastic interpretation of the nonliteral Weapons of mass
construction,9 which is based on the more familiar nonliteral (Weapons of mass
distraction) and literal (Weapons of mass destruction) collocations (Giora et al., 2004).
With regard to processing, salient and less salient meanings are activated
unconditionally. However, access is ordered: more salient meanings are activated first.
Salience-based interpretations, albeit noncoded, are easier to process (this one is really
sharp said of a bright student) compared to nonsalient interpretations not based on the
salient meanings of their components (this one is really sharp said of a knife that doesn’t
cut at all, see Colston & Gibbs, 2002).
Would any degree of novelty make a difference either processing-wise or
aesthetics-wise? According to Giora et al. (2004), it is “optimal innovativeness” rather
than other degrees of innovation that is singled out in these respects. To be optimally
innovative a stimulus should introduce a nonsalient, novel interpretation (A peace of
paper) while invoking a salient meaning of a familiar stimulus (A piece of paper). Such
innovations are aesthetically favored over both a “familiar” alternative (A piece of paper),
9
http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=90820s
7
a “pure” innovation (a pill of pepper), or a “variant” version (A single piece of paper).
Optimal innovations may be literal (curl up and dye), invoking a conventional collocation
(here idiomatic - curl up and die), metaphoric (pinkwashing), invoking a conventional
expression (here metaphoric - whitewashing), or sarcastic, (Einstein? I don’t think so!),
echoing a familiar expression or thought (here metaphorically attributing to one
Einstein’s ingenuity) while projecting a dissociative, ridiculing stance (Du Bois 2007;
Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995).
Optimal innovations, however, take longer to process than their familiar
counterparts, because they involve activating additional (salient) meanings on top of the
intended novel one. However, they are most pleasurable, regardless of whether they are
literal or nonliteral, verbal or nonverbal (see also Hekkert, Snelders & van Wieringen,
2003; but see Bohrn, Altmann, Lubrich, Menninghaus & Jacobs, 2012, who show that
while pleasure ratings did not single out proverbial optimal innovations compared to
other alternatives, their neural substrates did, indicating activation of the affect-related
medial prefrontal and medial temporal regions). Next in pleasurability are familiar
expressions; least pleasing are variant versions and (even less so) pure innovations (see
Giora et al., 2004).10
And if degree of novelty matters, would any number of evoked salient meanings
matter? According to the account of verbal wittiness as consisting in double grounding
(Brône & Coulson, 2010), pleasure derived from optimal innovations increases when
optimally innovative utterances are “double grounded”. What does double grounding
mean? Consider, for instance, the reference to Bridgestone - a company that
manufactures car tires - in U.S. slowdown punctures Bridgestone’s profits. Here the novel
metaphor “puncture” is double grounded in that its activated salient literal meaning is
relevant to what is said in more than one way. On the one hand, it is related to the profits
in question. On the other hand, it is relevant to the nature of the company, thereby
triggering a number of contextual effects (see Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995). In contrast,
given that Cold Stone is an ice-cream company, the same metaphor (“puncture”) in U.S.
slowdown punctures Cold Stone’s profits is single grounded, its salient literal meaning
being relevant in only one way.
Pleasure derived from double grounded optimal innovations, however, comes
with a cost. Double grounded metaphors are more taxing, taking longer to process than
single grounded ones.
Studies focusing on nonliteral language only also demonstrate the importance of
novelty. For instance, when testing idiomatic language, findings reveal that high-salience
and low-salience idioms involve different processing routes. Whereas shorter response
times and small N400 amplitude were observed for the last word of highly salient idioms,
indicating no processing difficulties, the last word of idioms low on salience prompted an
increased N400 amplitude and longer response times, disclosing processing difficulties
(Laurent, Denhières, Passerieux, Iakimovac, & Hardy-Baylé 2006). Similarly, studies
focusing on metaphor comprehension also indicate different processing routes for novel
compared to familiar metaphors. Whereas nonsalient, novel metaphors were interpreted
10
On gradual increase of aesthetic appreciation vis a vis gradual increase in degrees of
deviation/innovativeness, see van Peer, Hakemulder, & Zyngier (2007) who also show that for a deviation
to be noticeable it must be of a certain magnitude; for different findings showing that the highly novel and
the highly familiar are rated as equally least likable, see, e.g., Berlyne (1971), Wundt (1874), among others.
8
via comparison processes, this trend was shifted to categorization when these items
underwent conventionalization (Bowdle and Gentner 2005).
Differences between novel and familiar metaphors were also demonstrated for
typically developing children. While whether the metaphoric stimuli were visual or
verbal did not make a difference, whether they were familiar or novel did (Mashal &
Kasirer, 2012). And when younger and older individuals were concerned, results showed
that age-related changes were associated with the appreciation of the novelty of the
metaphors. Novelty but not familiarity affected the appreciation of the plausibility of
metaphors (Mashal, Gavrieli, & Kavé, 2011).
Individual differences?
Longer reading times for optimal innovations, whether literal (Tverian
Horse11 invoking Trojan horse) or metaphoric (Dying Star, invoking A born Star - a
popular Israeli TV show), compared to conventional collocations, whether literal
(wooden table) or metaphoric (flower bed), have been also attested to for different groups
(Giora, Gazal, Goldstein, Fein, & Stringaris 2012). In Giora et al. (2012), individuals
with Asperger’s syndrome and typically developing individuals were asked to read such
optimal innovations and conventional collocations for comprehension. Materials were
presented inside and outside context. And although the experimental group took longer to
read the targets overall, both groups exhibited similar patterns of behavior. Both groups
took longer to read novel items compared to familiar ones, regardless of degree of
nonliteralness, thus demonstrating that it is novelty rather than degree of nonliteralness
that is effort-consuming.
In Gold and Faust (2012) too, individuals with Asperger’s syndrome and typically
developing individuals took longer to process novel metaphors compared to conventional
ones. In Colich et al. (2012), who looked into sarcasm interpretation, both the
experimental group with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and the control group
exhibited similar patterns of behavior. Although response times to targets were
significantly faster among participants with ASD compared to control participants, both
groups took longer to process optimally innovative sarcastic utterances than (saliencebased) literal ones. When comparing processing of salient vs. nonsalient stimuli, different
groups may exhibit similar patterns of behavior, suggesting that it is degree of novelty
rather than nonliteralness that matters (as will also be shown in the next section).
Biological level
Research into the neural substrates of nonliteral language (whether with or
without contextual support) also suggests that the relevant distinction which accounts for
hemispheric division of labor has to do with degree of salience/novelty rather than with
degree of nonliteralness (Giora, 2003, 2007). For instance, lesion studies (e.g., Giora et
al. 2000; Kaplan et al. 1990; Winner & Gardner, 1977), studies of individuals with
Alzheimer's disease (Amanzio, Geminiani, Leotta, & Cappa, 2008), as well as studies
involving healthy adults (Eviatar & Just 2006; Kacinik & Chiarello, 2007) demonstrate
that processing nonsalient (novel) nonliteral (sarcastic, metaphoric) interpretations relies
11
Tveria—Hebrew for Tiberias—is an Israeli city.
9
more heavily on the right hemisphere (RH) than on the left hemisphere (LH). In contrast,
processing conventional meanings (both literal and nonliteral) engages the LH to a
greater extent than the RH (Lee and Dapretto, 2006). This has been replicated by using a
variety of technologies. Thus, results obtained from fMRI, DVF, rTMS, and ERP studies
demonstrate increased activation of RH areas during processing of optimally novel
interpretations of figurative language (Arzouan, Goldstein, & Faust 2007; Bottini et al.,
1994; Cardillo, Watson, Schmidt, Kranjec, & Chatterjee, 2012; Faust & Mashal 2007;
Mashal & Faust 2008; Mashal, Faust & Hendler. 2005; Mashal, Faust, Hendler, JungBeeman, 2007, 2009; Pobric, Mashal, Faust, & Lavidor, 2008; Shamay-Tsoory, Tomer,
& Aharon-Peretz, 2005) as well as optimally novel interpretations of literal language –
e.g., the compositional interpretations of idioms (Mashal et al., 2009). And while RH
advantage was demonstrated in processing nonsalient interpretations of metaphors during
first exposure, repeated exposure benefited the LH (Mashal & Faust, 2009) as would be
predicted by the graded salience hypothesis (Giora, 1997, 2003) and the career of
metaphor model (Bowdle and Gentner, 2005). A more recent finding involving
conventionalization of novel metaphors, however, indicates a bilaterally-mediated
process rather than a hemispheric shift across brain areas (Cardillo et al., 2012; for a
different view showing that both novelty and figurativeness engage the RH, see Coulson
& van Petten, 2007; Diaz, Barrett, & Hogstrom, 2011).
How optimal innovations shape their environment: The case of production
Optimal innovations deautomatize salient meanings, whether literal or nonliteral. Their
environment may therefore “resonate” with these salient meanings (Giora, 2011a).
According to Du Bois (2012), “resonance” pertains to “the activation of affinities across
utterances”. As shown by Giora (2007), resonance involves echoing utterances’ salient
meanings and salience-based interpretations by both prior and subsequent context. This
should be true even if these meanings and interpretations are contextually inappropriate
(e.g., the literal meanings or interpretations of metaphors).
As illustration, consider the following example (1) in which fire and its associates
are used both conventionally (here metaphorically, related to shooting; in italics for
convenience) and innovatively (here metaphorically, related to killing via food and water
shortage; in bold for convenience):
(1)
Let's be clear about this: Israel's fire at Gaza has not ceased. There is no Israeli
ceasefire in Gaza. There is no Israeli ceasefire even when Israel's soldiers aren't
shooting a single bullet in Gaza …
There are food shortages in Gaza. Israel is denying Gaza food…
Food shortages kill. Denying food is fire.
There's a shortage of potable water in Gaza. ...
Water shortages kill. Denying water is fire.
Both Gaza and the West Bank will go on igniting under fire, till they kindle
Sderot [an Israeli city] again too. The bullet-less fire that Israel is shooting at the
10
dispossessed of Gaza is fire that it is also shooting, by proxy, at the dispossessed
of Sderot. (Mazali, 2006)
If we focus on the optimally innovative fire-metaphors (in bold) - “Food shortages
kill. Denying food is fire... Water shortages kill. Denying water is fire” - it is obvious
that they resonate with their conventional uses in both their early and late contexts. In
early context, fire is used conventionally to indicate using arms (against the Gazans):
“Israel's fire at Gaza has not ceased. There is no Israeli ceasefire in Gaza”. In late context,
that which follows these novel uses, an additional novel metaphor emerges, constructed
on the basis of this and yet another salient metaphoric meaning, referring to anger as heat
(see Lakoff & Kövecses, 1987): “Both Gaza and the West Bank will go on igniting
under fire”. Here “igniting under fire” is a double or even triple grounded metaphor; it
has first to do with the (salient, metaphoric) rage against oppression which, in turn,
resonates with its salient literal meaning (“kindle”) and then with its salient metaphoric
meaning (“bullet-less”).
Deautomatizing salient meanings via echoing them may render innovative a
conventional use. Consider the following example (2) in which prior literal information
“smeared with mud” deautomatizes the conventional metaphor “dirty” which follows that
headline (and possibly renders metaphoric the literal interpretation of a “face smeared
with mud” as well):
(2)
Imagine this face smeared with mud
Until today, Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, managed to avoid
dirty political confrontations (Mualem, 2007).
In (3) below (a translation of the Hebrew version), which is basically sarcastic,
the metaphorical optimal innovation “on the wings of danger” (which in Hebrew literally
reads carried [to power] on the wings of danger) activates the salient Hebrew idiom
carried on the wings of fame/glory). This metaphorical innovation is related to the next
conventional metaphor clip his wings (which in Hebrew literally reads “collapse/force
down his wings”, meaning “discourage”) via the salient literal meaning of the metaphoric
“wings”. While in the optimally innovative metaphor the “wings” are not those of
whoever is carried on them, in the (Hebrew) metaphor which follows - “clip his wings” they are. In fact, both metaphors rely on different affordabilities of “wings”, and don’t
share a metaphorical sense. Still, juxtaposing these two metaphors deautomatizes them by
foregrounding the salient literal meaning of “wings” which they share, allowing both to
be double grounded, if not poetic:
(3)
The rule of fear
….So what is possible? There is no response. Because what would those who
make threats do without their threats? They may very well be able to deal with
Israel's real problems, like its moral self-image, its refusal to make peace and its
socioeconomic difficulties. But this is not why Netanyahu was elected. He came
to power on the wings of danger. Just don't try to clip his wings lest, God forbid,
this stirs hope (Levy, March 2009).
11
Can an act be an optimal innovation, whether literal or nonliteral?
Can one aim at getting across an optimal innovative message, whether literal or
nonliteral, by tempering with the reality? To be able to answer this question, let’s focus
on a few examples. Consider, first, the following example (Figure 6), titled “MetzerMeisser land exchange”.12 This act enacts a literal interpretation of “land exchange”
focusing on an alternative literal meaning of “land”, which, in Hebrew, also means “soil”,
and on an alternative literal meaning of “exchange”. The more familiar use of the
collocation, which is deautomatized in Figure (6), becomes highly frequent any time
“peace” talks or discussions of a prospective agreement between Palestinians and Israelis
are on the agenda. In such “peace” talks, “land exchange” is used euphemistically to refer
to population exchange, or, put more bluntly, to ethnic cleansing. By enacting an
optimally innovative literal interpretation of the collocation, the artist, Micha Ullman
(1972), registers his objection to its conventional meaning, projecting thereby a sarcastic
viewpoint which ridicules the idea:
12
Metzer, an Israeli Kibbutz, and neighboring Arab villages, including Messer and Kafin, promoted
coexistence and cooperation. Many of the kibbutz members protested the construction of the “security”
fence, which robbed the Palestinians of their lands and olive groves, especially those of Kafin’s.
Eventually, the latter were bulldozed to make way for the fence and the road that ran alongside it.
12
Figure 6: Metzer-Meisser land exchange
Consider, further, the example in Figure (7). While protesting the Israeli war on
Gaza (December 27, 2008 - January 18, 2009), Anarchists Against the Wall - a direct
action group of Israeli activists - made use of metaphorical acts in order to allow Israelis
an experiential insight into the plight of the Palestinian citizens of Gaza. In Figure (7)
they personify dead children of Gaza, compiled on the road.13 This act takes place at the
entrance to Sde Dov Air Force base (in Tel Aviv), thereby also blocking entry to the base.
This action thus sends both a literal and a metaphorical message.14
13
14
http://activestills.org/search/node/blood%20on%20your%20hands
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpeC7P-2LfU
13
Figure 7: Protesting the Israeli war on Gaza
In Figure (8) the Anarchists set up a “military” roadblock in Tel Aviv, so that
Israeli citizens experience, even if momentarily, what it is like to be under the Israeli
occupation and control, which is what Palestinians experience on a daily if not on a
moment-by-moment basis.
14
Figure 8: The Anarchists’ military roadblock in Tel Aviv
Acts too, then, can be optimally innovative, both literally and nonliterally.
15
Optimal novelty in context – the case of sarcasm
Sarcasm (or sarcastic irony), if not conventionalized, is usually rendered optimally
innovative by means of context. It’s in context that it also meets the conditions for
optimal innovation (Giora et al., 2004). Indeed, the interpretation of non-lexicalized
sarcasm is constructed on the fly - derived on the basis of sarcastically biasing
information. Sarcastic remarks, when understood, entertain both the novel/nonsalient
sarcastic interpretation as well as the salient meaning of the sarcastic key word(s) and the
salience-based interpretation of the utterance as a whole (see Giora, 1997, 2003; Giora &
Fein, 1999). Is sarcasm, then, pleasing? Is it more pleasing than an alternative, more
familiar or salience-based interpretation as would follow from the optimal innovation
view (Giora et al., 2004)? Specifically, is interpreting a sarcastic remark embedded in a
strongly supportive context more taxing than interpreting its similarly supported saliencebased interpretation, as would be predicted by the optimal innovation view (Giora et al.,
2004) and by the graded salience hypothesis (Giora, 1997, 1999, 2003)?
Is sarcasm pleasing?
Sarcasm and pleasure have not been as directly assessed as were metaphors and pleasure
(for novel metaphors being more pleasing than their salience-based, often literal
interpretation, see Giora et al., 2004; Giora, Fein, Kotler, & Shuval, in press; Shuval &
Giora, 2009). However, given that sarcasm is intended and considered as humorous
(Dress, Kreuz, Link, & Caucci, 2008; Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 2006; Leggitt & Gibbs,
2000), there is probably some way in which it is pleasing, especially if one is not the
target of the sarcastic remark.
Indeed, van Mulken, Burgers, & van der Plas (2010) found that appreciation of
sarcasm depended on whether the sarcastic intent was recognized, its message acceptable,
and its target excluded the present company’s group members. More recent results
(Drucker, Giora, & Fein, 2013) somewhat support this view. They show that women,
scoring low on a sexism scale, enjoyed sarcasm most when it was directed by women
against men; they enjoyed it least when it was directed by women against women. In
contrast, men, scoring as low on a sexism scale, did not enjoy sarcasm directed against
women as much as they did when it was directed against men, specifically by other men.
It seems that for a powerful group, competing with ingroup members is more enjoyable
than competing with less powerful outgroup members (Drucker et al., 2013). Indeed, as
shown by Bowes & Katz (2011), (self-reported) aggressors perceived their sarcastic
comments as more humorous and less aggressive than the victims. Taking the perspective
of the aggressor, then, allows one to dismiss sarcastic comments as teasing. This ties in
well with previous findings showing that aggressive people are less sensitive to the
negativity displayed in their sarcasm (Blasko & Kazmerski, 2006; Werner & Nixon,
2005).
Sarcasm, then, is pleasing, as would be predicted by the optimal innovation view,
but on condition that one takes the perspective of the aggressor rather than the victim’s.
Is interpreting sarcasm costly?
16
Does (non-lexicalized) sarcasm come with a cost, as would be predicted by the optimal
innovation view? An enduring question debated in the field of nonliteral language is
whether strong contextual support may affect a smooth processing of nonsalient sarcasm
so that it is no more difficult to comprehend than its salience-based (often literal)
interpretation when embedded in a strongly supportive context. Before trying to deal with
this question, one should first clarify the notion of strong contextual support. What
context, then, would count as strong enough to make a sarcastic remark easy to
understand?
According to contextualists, a context that might facilitate sarcasm interpretation
initially is such that induces an expectation for a sarcastic remark. Upon one view,
anticipating a sarcastic remark may be prompted by setting up a contrast between a
protagonist’s expectation and the reality that frustrates it (Gibbs, 1986, 2002). It may also
be induced by a context involving multiple constraints which may cue the addressee as to
the speaker’s sarcastic intent. For instance, in addition to failed expectation, context may
include information about speaker’s occupation, or involve proliferated uses of negations,
negative emotions, or a victim (Campbell & Katz, 2012; Pexman, Ferretti & Katz, 2000).
Note, however, that although, as shown by Campbell & Katz (2012), such hints prevail in
the contexts of sarcasm produced by their participants, the authors conclude that they do
not make up a set of necessary conditions, nor is any of them, on its own, a necessary
condition.
Indeed, as shown by Giora, Fein, Kaufman, Eisenberg, and Erez (2009), a context
featuring a frustrated expectation on its own (4) did neither favor a sarcastic over a
nonsarcastic remark compared to a context featuring a realized expectation (5); nor did it
facilitate sarcasm comprehension compared to a context featuring a realized expectation.
In fact, in both contexts, sarcasm took longer to read than in a context featuring no
expectation (6).
(4) Frustrated expectation
Context:
Sagee went on a ski vacation abroad. He really likes vacations that include sport
activities. A relaxed vacation in a quiet ski-resort place looked like the right thing
for him. Before leaving, he made sure he had all the equipment and even took
training classes on a ski simulator. But already at the beginning of the second day
he lost balance, fell, and broke his shoulder. He spent the rest of the time in a local
hospital ward feeling bored and missing home. When he got back home, his
shoulder still in cast, he said to his fellow workers:
Sarcastic target sentence:
“Ski vacation is recommended for your health”
Final sentence:
Everyone smiled.
Comprehension question:
Do you think Sagee will go for a ski vacation again?
(5) Realized expectation
17
Context:
Sagee went on a ski vacation abroad. He doesn't even like skiing. It looks
dangerous to him and staying in such a cold place doesn't feel like a vacation at
all. But his girlfriend wanted to go and asked him to join her. Already at the
beginning of the second day he lost balance, fell, and broke his shoulder. He spent
the rest of the time in a local hospital ward feeling bored and missing home. When
he got back home, his shoulder still in cast, he said to his fellow workers:
Sarcastic target sentence:
“Ski vacation is recommended for your health”
Final sentence:
Everyone smiled.
Comprehension question:
Do you think Sagee will go for a ski vacation again?
(6) No-expectation
Context:
Sagee went on a ski vacation abroad. He has never practiced ski so it was his first
time. He wasn't sure whether he would be able to learn to ski and whether he will
handle the weather. The minute he got there he understood it was a great thing for
him. He learned how to ski in no time and enjoyed it a lot. Besides, the weather
was nice and the atmosphere relaxed. When he got back home, he said to his
fellow workers:
Literal target sentence:
“Ski vacation is recommended for your health”
Final sentence:
Everyone smiled.
Comprehension question:
Do you think Sagee will go for a ski vacation again?
But even when contexts do, in fact, induce an expectation for a sarcastic
utterance, findings fail to demonstrate initial facilitation of sarcastic interpretation.
Instead, most of the findings in the field show that initial processing of sarcastic remarks
involves activating their contextually inappropriate, salience-based interpretation first.
For instance, Giora et al. (2007) showed that when contexts induced an
expectation for a sarcastic utterance, such expectation did not facilitate sarcastic
interpretation initially. In fact, it was always the contextually inappropriate, saliencebased interpretation that was facilitated first. This has been shown when contexts were
dialogues featuring a sarcastic speaker (shown to prompt an expectation for another such
turn on that speaker’s behalf). This has also been replicated in studies in which
participants read only items that ended in a sarcastic comment (the +Expectation
condition) as opposed to the studies in which only half of the items ended in a sarcastic
remarks and half in a nonsarcastic remark (the -Expectation condition).
18
In the dialogues experiment, target utterances biased toward the sarcastic
interpretation took longer to read than those biased toward the nonsarcastic ones; in the
+/- Expectation experiments, response times to sarcastically related probes were always
longer than those to salience-based related probes, which were always activated initially,
regardless of interstimulus interval (ISI) (750-1000 ms) or strength of expectation.
In a series of follow-up studies, in which contextual strength was reinforced by
multiplying sarcastic cues, these results remained nonetheless constant. In, Fein, Yeari &
Giora (2013; for an initial report, see also Giora, 2011b), dialogues similar to those used
in Giora, Fein, Laadan et al. were furnished with explicit markers. Thus, in the
sarcastically biased dialogues (7), whenever the sarcastic speaker contributed a sarcastic
utterance, an explicit sarcastic marker (e.g., mockingly) was inserted; in the saliencebased biased dialogues (8), speakers’ turns were furnished with an explicit nonsarcastic
marker (e.g., sadly), attesting to their sincerity. (Target utterances in bold, for
convenience):
(7)
Sagi: Yesterday I started working as a security guard at Ayalon
shopping mall.
Yafit: Irit indeed told me she had seen you there.
Sagi (desperate): It turned out it’s quite a tough job, being on your feet
all day.
Yafit: I hope that at least the pay is worth the effort.
Sagi: At the moment I get 18 shekels per hour.
Yafit (mocking): Great salary you’re getting.
Sagi: I know that’s not enough but they promised a raise soon.
Yafit: And how much will you actually get after the raise?
Sagi: In two weeks from now I’ll get 20 shekels per hour.
Yafit (still mocking): Wow, a highly significant raise.
(8)
Sagi: Yesterday I started working as security guard at Ayalon
shopping mall.
Yafit: Irit indeed told me she had seen you there.
Sagi (desperate): It turned out it’s quite a tough job, being on your feet all day.
Yafit: I hope that at least the pay is worth the effort.
Sagi: At the moment I get 18 shekels per hour.
Yafit (sadly): A very low salary.
Sagi: I know that’s not enough, but they promised a raise soon.
Yafit: And how much will you actually get after the raise?
Sagi: In two weeks from now I’ll get 30 shekels per hour.
Yafit (happily): Wow, a highly significant raise.
Results show that reading times of target utterances (measure in the first three
experiments) were always longer following sarcastically biased dialogues than following
salience-based biased dialogues (although only marginally so in the third experiment). In
addition, sarcastically related probes took longer to respond to compared to saliencebased related probes. (This was true at 750 ISI and marginally so at 2000 ms ISI but not
at 1500 ms ISI).
19
Fein et al. (2013) further tested the contextualist approach by strengthening the
contexts in the +Expectation condition (originally in Giora, Fein, Laadan et al., 2007), but
not in the -Expectation condition, by letting participants know that sarcasm interpretation
was tested. Participants were also allowed a great variety of delays for the lexical
decision task (750, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 and 3000 ms ISIs). Results, however, showed
that strengthening the contextual bias (manipulated in Giora, Fein, Laadan et al, 2007) in
favor of a sarcastic interpretation by introducing an additional constraint did not affect
the patterns of results obtained earlier. Despite employing multiple constraints, sarcasm
was not facilitated. Compared to the sarcastic interpretation, however, incompatible
salience-based interpretations were made available initially in both conditions (although
at the longest delay of 3000 ms they began to decay).
Similarly, in Pexman, Ferretti and Katz (2000), contexts were strongly biased in
favor of a sarcastic interpretation. They involved a contrast between what is said by a
target utterance and the contextual information preceding it. In addition, they further
featured a speaker of high-irony occupation (e.g., comedians, factory workers; see e.g.,
Katz, Blasko, & Kazmerski, 2004; Katz, & Pexman, 1997), thus raising an expectation
for a sarcastic remark. Regardless, such strong contexts failed to facilitate sarcastic
interpretations compared to contexts inviting a metaphoric or a neutral reading of the
target. Instead, they exhibited increased reading times of targets relative to the neutral
and no occupation contexts.
Findings in Colston and Gibbs (2002) also showed that nonsalient (sarcastic)
interpretations took longer to process than interpretations based on the salient
(metaphoric) meanings of the utterance constituents. Utterances (This one's really sharp),
whose key word (sharp) has both salient literal and metaphorical meanings, took longer to
read when embedded in sarcastically (9b) than in metaphorically biasing contexts (9a):
(9)
a. You are a teacher at an elementary school.
You are discussing a new student with your assistant teacher. The
student did extremely well on her entrance examinations. You say to
your assistant,
"This one's really sharp."
b. You are a teacher at an elementary school.
You are gathering teaching supplies with your assistant teacher.
Some of the scissors you have are in really bad shape. You find one
pair that won't cut anything.
You say to your assistant,
"This one's really sharp."
In addition, double grounded optimally innovative sarcasm (as
when "This one's really sharp” is said of a student who did extremely poorly
on her entrance examinations) took longer to process compared to single
grounded optimally innovative sarcasm (as in 9b).
Such results demonstrate the cost of processing optimal
innovations which, as predicted, is not alleviated by contextual support.
Interpreting optimal innovations is taxing because, on top of an intended
20
nonsalient interpretation, they invoke salient meanings and salience-based
interpretations, even if inappropriate. Strong contextual support does not
enable bypassing these meanings and interpretations, thus allowing an
aesthetic effect.
Sarcasm and contextual resonance - corpus-based studies
If sarcasm involves activating its salient meaning and salience-based interpretation, its
environment may resonate with these meanings and interpretations. Indeed, corpus-based
studies of spoken interactions and written discourse provide support for the prevalence of
salience-based albeit incompatible interpretations in the environment of sarcastic
remarks. For instance, in Giora and Gur (2003), 75% of the (Hebrew) sarcastic remarks,
exchanged among friends, were responded to by reference to their salience-based but
incompatible interpretations. In Kotthoff (2003), in dinner-table conversations among
friends, responding to the salience-based but incompatible interpretations of the
(German) sarcastic remarks was the norm; responding to the nonsalient compatible
interpretation occurred significantly less frequently. However, the reverse was true of
interlocutors who were adversaries participating in TV talk-shows.
Looking at (Hebrew) newspaper editorials and op-ed articles, written by wellknown sarcastic journalists during 2008-9, revealed a similar trend. On the basis of a
corpus which included 70347 words and 1597 sarcastic utterances (15466 words), Giora,
Raphaely, Fein, and Livnat (2012) showed that salience-based interpretations featured
dominantly in the environment of sarcastic remarks. Although in many cases (43%) the
environment of sarcastic utterances did not reflect any of their meanings or
interpretations, in many other cases (57%) it did. First, in very few cases (3%), the
environment of sarcastic utterances addressed both their sarcastic and salience-based
interpretations; in other cases (10%), these sarcastic utterances induced extended
sarcasm. However, in a great number of cases (36%), the environment (in italics, for
convenience) of the sarcastic utterances (in bold, for convenience) resonated with their
salience-based interpretations exclusively (10a-b); a significantly smaller number of
cases (8%) were echoed via their sarcastic interpretations exclusively (11a-b):
(10) Environment manifesting salience-based resonance
(a) All this really could have been peachy if not for the fact that blindness is dangerous
and the not-so-good ending is known in advance (Levy, July, 2009).15
(b) Most of the tycoons that have borrowed, in recent years, tens of billions of NIS, in
bonds, from the public, find it hard to adjust to the harsh conditions in the First Class
of commercial airlines (Rolnik, 2008).16
(11) Environment manifesting sarcastic resonance
(a) A modest studio of less than 140 square meters with two enormous rooms outfitted
like the most luxurious hotel (Kashua, 2008).
15
On negative understatements being sarcastic, see Giora et al. (2005).
In the original Hebrew version hard and harsh were described by using the same (polysemous) root
(translated by Elad Livnat).
16
21
(b) The man [Olmert] who made a number of courageous statements about peace late in
his tenure has orchestrated no fewer than two wars. Talking peace and making war,
the "moderate" and "enlightened" prime minister [Olmert] has been revealed as one
of our greatest fomenters of war (Levy, January 2009).
Such results support the view that (sarcastic) optimal innovations activate their salient
meanings and salience-based interpretations which are retained even in the mind of their
producers, allowing them to resonate with their own contextually inappropriate
interpretations on account of their relative accessibility.
Conclusions
A vast array of findings supports the view that it is degree of novelty rather than degree
of nonliteralness that matters. Specifically, optimally innovative stimuli (Weapons of
mass construction), which, in addition to their novelty, also invoke some familiarity
(Weapons of mass destruction), affect both pleasure and mode of processing. Whereas
such stimuli have been shown to take longer to process compared to familiar ones, they
have been further shown to be more pleasing compared to other alternatives. Double
grounding - when more than one familiar stimulus is prompted - increases the pleasure
(Brône & Coulson, 2010).
Degree of nonliteralness, however, does not matter. Both literal and nonliteral
optimal innovations are more costly and enjoyable compared to familiar stimuli, whether
literal or nonliteral (Giora et al., 2004; van Mulken et al., 2010; Shuval & Giora, 2009).
The fact that it is degree of novelty rather than degree of nonliteralness that makes a
difference has been shown to be true of different kinds of populations, whether typically
or atypically developing. We all invest more in making sense of novel utterances and
benefit from it (Amanzio et al., 2008; Giora, Gazal et al., 2012; Mashal et al., 2011;
Mashal & Kasirer, 2012).
With regard to enjoying optimal innovativeness such as sarcasm, some social
factors also play a role. For instance, sarcasm is most enjoyable when taking the
speaker’s rather than the victim’s perspective (van Mulken et al., 2010; Drucker et al.,
2013). Where unequal relations are added to the equation, this means that the
disempowered (e.g., women), taking their own group’s point of view, enjoy such
innovations best when the speaker is an ingroup member and the victim - an outgroup
member; they, however, enjoy it least when the speaker and the victim are ingroup
members (Drucker et al., 2013).
Context, however, does not play a role in that it does not facilitate processing of
optimal innovation initially. It does not allow bypassing salient meanings or saliencebased interpretations, even when it is strongly biased in favor of the optimally innovative
target. Even when bias is made apparent as when a relevant occupation is mentioned
(e.g., comedian; see Pexman et al., 2000) or a speaker’s intent is made explicit (by e.g.,
prefacing what is said by cues such as mockingly or by training comprehenders to expect
sarcasm, or by letting them know in advance that what is at stake is sarcasm
comprehension see Fein et al., 2013; Giora et al., 2007), processing effort does not
decrease compared to control conditions. Optimal innovations are always more difficult
22
to process than equivalent but more familiar stimuli involving salient meanings or
salience-based interpretations.
Neural substrates also support the view that it is degree of innovativeness rather
than degree of nonliteralness that matters. Unlike familiar stimuli, which tend to engage
left hemisphere regions (Kana, Murdaugh, Wolfe, & Kumar, 2012), optimal innovations
tend to engage right hemisphere areas, regardless of degree of nonliteralness (e.g.,
Amanzio et al., 2008; Arzouan et al., 2007; Bottini et al., 1994; Cardillo et al., 2012;
Eviatar & Just 2006; Faust & Mashal 2007; Giora et al. 2000; Kacinik & Chiarello, 2007;
Kaplan et al. 1990; Mashal & Faust 2008; Mashal et al., 2005; Mashal et al., 2007, 2009;
Pobric et al., 2008; Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2005; Winner & Gardner, 1977, among others).
Optimal innovations, then, capture processors’ attention and make them invest in
making sense of them, while, in return, they reward them with pleasure. No wonder they
are used so pervasively in propaganda and counterpropaganda of all kinds, including
commercials, newspapers headlines, or books’ titles. Future research should examine
whether beauty we invest so much in “is truth and truth – beauty” (Keats, 1820) both in
language and thought as well as in social and political behavior.
Acknowledgements
The research reported here was supported by THE ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
(grant No. 436/12) and the Vice President for Research and Development at Tel Aviv
University Encouragement Fund. Thanks also go to Lahav Halevy’s (2002) for his
permission to use Sharon Stone, to Keren Manor/Activestills for the permission to cite
Figures (7-8), to Micha Ullman for the permission to use Metzer-Meisser land exchange.
I am also obliged to Vered Heruti and Noa Shuval for introducing me to some of the
works of art used here.
References
Amanzio, M., Geminiani, G., Leotta, D., & Cappa, S. (2008). Metaphor
comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: Novelty matters. Brain and Language,
107(1), 1-10.
Aristotle (350 BCE). Poetics. Translated by Butcher S. H. The Internet Classics Archive
<http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.1.1.html>.
Arzouan, Y., Goldstein, A. & Faust, M. (2007). 'Brain Waves are Stethoscopes': ERP
Correlates of Novel Metaphor comprehension." Brain Research, 1160, 69-81.
Berlyne, D. E. (1950). Novelty and curiosity as determinants of exploratory
behavior. British Journal of Psychology, 41(1-2), 68–80.
Blasko D. G., Kazmerski V. A. (2006). ERP Correlates of individual differences in the
comprehension of nonliteral language. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(4), 267-284.
Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M. (2012). Old
proverbs in new skins - an fMRI study on defamiliarization. Frontiers in
Psychology, 3(204), doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00204
Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., Frackowiak, R.
S. J. & Frith, C. D. (1994). The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation
23
of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation
study. Brain, 117, 1241–53.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review,
112, 193-216.
Bowes A., Katz A. (2011). When sarcasm stings. Discourse Processes, 48(4), 215-236.
Brône, G., & Coulson, S. (2010). Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper
headlines: double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212 -236.
Campbell, J. D. & Katz, A. N. (2012). Are there necessary conditions for
inducing a sense of sarcastic irony? Discourse Processes, 49, 459480.
Cardillo, E. R., Watson, C. E., Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2012).
From novel to familiar: Tuning the brain for metaphors. NeuroImage, 59(4),
3212–3221.
Colich, N. L., Wang, A-T., Rudie, J. D., Hernandez, L. M., Bookheimer, S. Y., &
Dapretto, M. (2012) Atypical neural processing of ironic and sincere remarks in
children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Metaphor and
Symbol, 27(1), 70-92.
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2002). Are irony and metaphor understood differently?
Metaphor and Symbol, 17, 57-60.
Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2007). A special role for the right hemisphere in
metaphor comprehension? ERP evidence from hemifield presentation. Brain
Research, 1146, 128–145.
Diaz, M. T., Barrett, K. T., & Hogstrom, L.J. (2011). The influence of sentence novelty
and figurativeness on brain activity. Neuropsychologia, 49, 320-330.
Dress M. L., Kreuz, R. J., Link, K. E., & Caucci, G. M. (2008). Regional variation in the
use of Sarcasm Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(1), 71-85.
Drucker, A., Giora, R. & Fein, O. (2012). Gender and sarcasm. Ms. in preparation.
Du Bois, W. J. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in
discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139-182). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Du Bois, W. J. (2012). Dialogic syntax. Paper submitted for publication.
Eviatar, Z., & Just, M. A. (2006). Brain correlates of discourse processing: An fMRI
investigation of irony and conventional metaphor comprehension.
Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2348-2359.
Faust FFaust, M., & Mashal N. (2007). The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing
expressions taken from poetry: A divided visual field study. Neuropsychologia, 45(4),
860-870.
Fein, O., Yeari, M., & Giora, R. (2013). Sarcastic irony: Will expecting it make a
difference? Paper submitted for publication.
Freud, S. (1922). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Translated by C. J. M. Hubback.
London, Vienna: Intl. Psycho-Analytical, New York: Bartleby.com, 2010.
Heartfield, J. (July 21, 2391). Adolf the superman: swallows gold and
spouts junk.
http://johnheartfield.tumblr.com/post/203985683/adolf-thesuperman-swallows-gold-and-spouts-junk
24
Heartfield, J. (March 8, 2394). Blood and iron.
http://creatividadnatural.blogspot.co.il/2010_10_01_archive.html
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D. & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). Most advanced, yet
acceptable: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in
industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 111-124.
doi: 10.1348/000712603762842147
Gibbs, R. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in
conversation. Memory & Cognition, 8, 149-156.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and
implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 457-486.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience
hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.
Giora, R. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative
language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919–929.
Giora, R. (2003). On our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative language. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Giora, R. (2007). "A good Arab is not a dead Arab - a racist incitement": On the
accessibility of negated concepts. In I. Kecskes & L. R. Horn (eds.) Explorations
in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects (pp. 129-162).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giora, R. (2009). Irony. In: L Cummings (ed.) Pragmatics Encyclopedia (pp. 265-267).
London: Routledge.
Giora, R. (2011a). "Your baby is no longer an infant". On metaphor as context.
In: M. Gluzman & O. Lubin (Eds.) Intertextuality in literature and culture (pp.
235-247). Tel Aviv: Hakibbuz Hameuchad. (In Hebrew)
Giora, R. (2011b). Will anticipating irony facilitate it immediately? In: M.
Dynel, (ed.). The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains
(pp. 19-31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giora, R. & Fein, O. (1999). Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and
Symbol, 14(4), 241-257.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Laadan, D., Wolfson, J., Zeituny, M., Kidron, R.,
Kaufman, R., & Shaham, R. (2007). Expecting irony: Context vs.
salience-based effects. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 119-146.
Giora, R., Fein, O. Kaufman, R. Eisenberg, D., & Erez, S. (2009). Does an
"ironic situation" favor an ironic interpretation? In G. Brône & J.
Vandaele (Eds.) Cognitive poetics. Goals, gains and gaps, 383399. (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics series). Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kotler, N., & Shuval, N. (In press). Know Hope:
Metaphor, optimal innovation, and pleasure. In: G. Brône, K.
Feyaerts & T. Veale (eds.). Cognitive Linguistics Meet Humor
Research. Current Trends and New Developments. Berlin/New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
25
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., Gazal, O., Goldstein, I., Fein, O., & Stringaris, K. A. (2012).
Salience and context: Interpretation of metaphorical and literal
language by young adults diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome.
Metaphor and Symbol, 27(1), 22-54.
Giora, R., & Gur, I. (2003). Irony in conversation: salience, role, and context effects. In
B. Nerlich (Ed.), Polysemy: flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language
(pp. 297-315). Berlin: De Gruyter
Giora, R., Raphaely, M., Fein, O., & Livnat, E. (2012). Resonating with contextually
inappropriate interpretations: The case of irony. Paper submitted for publication.
Giora, R. & Stringaris, K. A. (2010). Neural substrates of metaphor. In: P. C. Hogan (ed.),
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences (pp. 489-492).
Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors
to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S. and Keysar, B. (1990) Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond
similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3–18.
Gold, R. & Faust, M. (2012). Metaphor Comprehension in persons with Asperger's
Syndrome: Systemized versus non-systemized semantic processing. Metaphor
and Symbol, 27(1), 55-69
Kacinik N.A., Chiarello C. (2007). Understanding metaphors: Is the right hemisphere
uniquely involved? Brain and Language, 100(2), 188-207.
Kana, R. K., Murdaugh, D. L. Wolfe, K. R. & Kumar, S. L. (2012). Brain responses
mediating idiom comprehension: Gender and hemispheric differences. Brain
Research, 1467, 18-26.
Katz, A., Blasko, D. G., Kazmerski, V. (2004). Saying what you don’t mean: Social
Influences on language processing Current Directions in Psychological Science,
13(5), 186-189.
Katz, A. N. & Pexman, P. (1997). Interpreting figurative statements: Speaker
occupation can change metaphor into irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 12,
19-41.
Keats, J. (1820). Ode on a Grecian urn.
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~keith/poems/urn.html
Keysar B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical
interpretations in discourse Journal of Memory and Language, 28(4), 375-385.
Kintsch, W. & Bowles, A. R. (2002) Metaphor comprehension: what
makes a metaphor difficult to understand? Metaphor and Symbolic
Activity, 17, 249–262.
Kotthoff, H. (2003) Responding to irony in different contexts: cognition and
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1387-1411.
Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in
American English. Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195–221).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to
poetic metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Halevy, L. (2002). Sharon Stone. “Terrible days” [also Jewish holidays]
exhibition. Tel Aviv.
Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (2006). Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed
joking among male and female friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(1), 51-73.
Lee S. S., & Dapretto M. (2006) Metaphorical vs. literal word meanings: fMRI evidence
against a selective role of the right hemisphere. NeuroImage, 29(2), 536-544.
Leggitt J.S., & Gibbs Jr. R.W. (2000). Emotional reactions to verbal irony
Discourse Processes, 29(1), 1-24.
Laurent, J.-P., Denhières, G., Passerieux, C., Iakimovac, G., & Hardy-Baylé, M.-C.
(2006). On understanding idiomatic language: the salience hypothesis assessed by ERPs.
Brain Research, 1068, 151–160.
Levy, G. (January 5, 2009). And there lie the bodies. Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/and-there-lie-the-bodies-1.267393
Levy, G. (March 8, 2009). The rule of fear. Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-rule-of-fear-1.271657
Levy, G. (July 19, 2009). Israelis don't pay price for injustice of occupation. Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com:80/print-edition/opinion/israelis-don-t-pay-price-forinjustice-of-occupation-1.280237
Livak, A. (December 12, 2008). The 21st century. Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1366716
Livak A. (April 28, 2012). Israeli soldiers in Hebron. Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/israel64/1.1693359
McDougall, W. (1923). Outline of Psychology. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Mashal, N., & Faust, M. (2008). Right hemisphere sensitivity to novel metaphoric
relations: application of the signal detection theory. Brain and Language, 104(2),
103-112.
Mashal, N., & Faust, M. (2009). Conventionalisation of novel metaphors: A shift in
hemispheric asymmetry. Laterality, 14(6), 573-589.
Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T. (2005). The role of the right hemisphere in processing
nonsalient metaphorical meanings: Application of principal components analysis
to fMRI Data. Neuropsychologia, 43(14), 2084-2100.
Mashal, N., Faust M., Hendler T., & Jung-Beeman M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of
the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions.
Brain and Language, 100(2), 115-126.
Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T. & Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). An fMRI study of
processing novel metaphoric sentences. Laterality, 14(1), 30-54.
Mashal, N., Gavrieli, R., & Kavé, G. (2011). Age-related changes in the
appreciation of novel metaphoric semantic relations. Aging, Neuropsychology,
and Cognition, 18(5), 527–543.
Mashal, N. & Kasirer, A. (2012). Principal component analysis study of visual and
verbal metaphoric comprehension in children with autism and learning
disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 274–282.
27
Mazali, R. (December 2, 2006). Talk for December 2 Demo—Coalition to Stop the
Siege of Gaza. Tel Aviv.
Mualem, M. (January 1st, 2007). Imagine this face smeared with mud (in Hebrew).
Haaretz. http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1375777
Mukařovský, J. (1932/1964). Standard language and poetic language. In P. L. Garvin
(ed.), A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp. 1730). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Mukařovský, J. (1978). Structure, sign and function. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Pexman, P. M., Ferretti, T. R., & Katz, A. N. (2000). Discourse factors that influence online reading of metaphor and irony. Discourse Processes, 29, 201–222.
Pobric, G., Mashal, N., Faust, M., & Lavidor, M. (2008). The causal role of the right
cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions taken from
poetry: A TMS study. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20, 170-181.
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Shamay-Tsoory SG, Tomer R, & Aharon-Peretz J. (2005). The neuroanatomical basis of
understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social
cognition. Neuropsychologia, 19, 288–300.
Sheldrake, R. (1981/2012). Morphic resonance. Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press.
Shklovsky, V. (1917/1965). Art as technique. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds. and
Trans.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 3-57). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Shuval, N. & Giora, R. (2009). Figurativeness, optimal innovation and pleasure.
Oryanut ve'Safa, 2, 111-127. (In Hebrew).
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
van Mulken, M., Burgers, C., & van der Plas, B. (2010). Wolves, confederates,
and the happy few: The influence of comprehension, agreement, and group
membership on the attitude toward irony. Discourse Processes, 48(1), 50-68.
van Peer, W., Hakemulder, J., & Zyngier, S. (2007). Lines on feeling:
foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16(2), 197-213.
Werner, N. E., & Nixon, C. L. (2005). Normative beliefs and relational aggression: An
investigation of the cognitive bases of adolescent aggressive behavior. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 34, 229–243.
Winner, E., & Gardner, H. (1977). The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged
patients. Brain, 100(71), 7-29
28