31.2553, Review: Applied Linguistics; Cognitive Science; Discourse Analysis: Athanasiadou, Colston (2020)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-31-2553. Tue Aug 11 2020. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 31.2553, Review: Applied Linguistics; Cognitive Science; Discourse Analysis: Athanasiadou, Colston (2020)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Lauren Perkins, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Joshua Sims
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:57:14
From: Claudia Lehmann [claleh at uni-bremen.de]
Subject: The Diversity of Irony

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36612517


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/31/31-1107.html

EDITOR: Angeliki  Athanasiadou
EDITOR: Herbert L.  Colston
TITLE: The Diversity of Irony
SERIES TITLE: Cognitive Linguistics Research [CLR]
PUBLISHER: De Gruyter Mouton
YEAR: 2020

REVIEWER: Claudia Lehmann, Universität Bremen

SUMMARY

As stated by the editors, Angeliki ATHANASIADOU and Herbert L. COLSTON, in the
INTRODUCTION, the volume THE DIVERSITY OF IRONY aims at showing the diversity
of phenomena that can be assigned to the umbrella term ‘irony’. The editors
summarize many, if not all, respects in which irony shows heterogeneity,
including the forms it may take (e.g. situational irony, dramatic irony, or
verbal irony), the different functions it may fulfil within and across
cultures, and its constructional and co-speech markers, to name but a few.
Abstracting away these differences evidenced by the introduction and the
contributions, the editors draw a fundamental conclusion about ‘irony’: As
diverse as it may seem, irony is a central cognitive and communicative mode,
just like other figures of speech.

PART I, diversity across figures, is concerned with the figure of speech
‘irony’ itself, i.e. with the way it is constructed and embedded in context
and its relation to other figures of speech, particularly metaphor and
hyperbole.

In the first contribution to Part I, uniting irony, hyperbole and metaphor in
an affect-centred, pretence-based framework, John Barnden provides a model
that attempts to unify three seemingly different figures of speech, namely
irony, hyperbole and metaphor based on the pretence account first introduced
by Clark and Gerrig (2007 [1984]). Barnden shows that these three figures are
based on the same principle cognitive mechanisms, i.e. particular mappings he
calls ‘view-neutral mapping adjuncts’ (VNMA), which specify possible default
mappings between a pretence and the real world. In particular, Barnden assumes
a ‘within-scenario affect VNMA’ to be at work for irony, hyperbole and
metaphor, which specifies the affective attitude that is transferred from the
pretence world to the real world. His model is explicitly based on his own
works on irony and metaphor as well as on the cognitive modelling approach to
hyperbole forwarded by Peña and Ruiz de Mendoza (2017).

The second contribution, how defaultness affects text production, by Rachel
Giora, Shir Givoni and Israela Becker, is a report on a corpus-based study
investigating aspects of the Defaultness hypothesis. The Defaultness
hypothesis claims that some (linguistic) constructions generate
interpretations by default, i.e. “automatically, immediately, and directly,
regardless of other factors assumed to affect processing” (66). The
constructions that are considered in this contribution all generate a
sarcastic interpretation by default. The Defaultness hypothesis has gained
support by numerous studies, and so the present report aims at testing one
particular prediction of the Defaultness hypothesis, namely that the default
interpretation of the construction resonates with adjacent linguistic material
in natural discourse. Using a corpus-based experimental method, Giora, Givoni
and Becker can indeed show that the default sarcastic interpretation of the
constructions under consideration is taken up in previous or following parts
of the context in 71% of cases, which lends further support to the Defaultness
hypothesis.

The third contribution, irony in constructions, by Angeliki Athanasiadou, also
analyses particular linguistic constructions that are often associated with
irony and resonate with the surrounding context. This corpus-based study pays
particular attention to several ‘if’-constructions and their embedding in
ironic contexts using frame semantics as a framework. Athanasiadou analyses
several ‘if’-constructions and shows that constructions like ‘if ever’ or ‘if
at all’ serve to enhance an ironic effect by two means. She argues that, on
the one hand, the ‘if’-constructions introduce alternative views on particular
state-of-affairs and, on the other hand, that they also express some kind of
dissociative attitude towards the alternant mentioned first.

The fourth contribution, hyperbolic figures, by Mihaela Popa-Wyatt, sheds some
light on hyperbolic metaphors and hyperbolic irony. Popa-Wyatt argues that
these figures work differently from compound figures, like ironic metaphors,
in which one figure (here: metaphor) serves as an input to the other (here:
irony) to get a particular intend across. The author first shows that the main
point of hyperbole is emphasis and goes on to demonstrate that both hyperbolic
metaphor and hyperbolic irony are primarily metaphor and irony, respectively,
with an extra emphatic “tinge” (91). Crucially, she argues with the help of
some examples that there is no necessary order of interpretation whatsoever,
but rather that the interpretive processes in hyperbolic figures work in a
parallel fashion.

The fifth contribution, denying the salient contrast, by Graham Watling, is
concerned with hyperbole, like the preceding contribution. It builds on
Walton’s (2017) notions of the ‘explicit content’ (i.e. what is said), the
‘assertive content’ (i.e. what is meant) and, crucially, the ‘salient
contrast’ (i.e. what is denied). Since Walton’s observations are based on
hyperboles alluding to quantities, Watling extends the analysis to qualitative
measures and frequencies in his contribution. In doing so, he shows that the
speaker chooses an explicit content that lies in the opposite direction of the
scale where the salient contrast can be found, thereby locating the assertive
content somewhere in between. Using hyperboles including ‘never’ and ‘always’,
he further argues that considering the speaker attitude is a useful tool to
identifying a possible salient contrast. And, finally, Watling emphasizes the
role context plays in deriving the salient contrast, which also may help in
distinguishing pure hyperbole from hyperbolic irony.

PART II, diversity across languages, concerns itself with irony in languages
other than English.

The first contribution of the second part, Thai irony as an indirect
relational tool to save face in social interactions, by Patrawat Samermit and
Apinan Samermit, offers an insight into irony used in Thai – a language which
is different from English in many respects. Samermit and Samermit analyse 227
instances of irony from a Thai cooking show and assign them to the different
forms of irony identified in Gibbs (2000). In doing so, they show that Thai
irony is more than just sarcastic irony, which has been, according to the
authors, the primary focus of studies analysing irony in Thai in the past.
This is followed by an in-depth qualitative discourse analysis of several
examples, illustrating the use of these different forms of irony in Thai
interactions. Samermit and Samermit conclude that Thai irony is specifically
used for facework and the maintenance of social norms in Thai, much more so
than in English.

The second contribution to part II, England is an appendix; corrupt officials
are like hairs on a nation’s arm: Sarcasm, irony and self-irony in figurative
political discourse, by Andreas Musolff and Sing Tsun Derek Wong, report on
the results of a questionnaire designed to elicit examples of the
NATION-AS-BODY metaphor, which included a considerable number of ironic
examples. Resorting to allusional accounts of irony, the authors argue that
the ironic examples in their corpus allude to the positively connoted
NATION-AS-BODY metaphor and that the producers of these ironic examples
distance themselves from such a positive conceptualisation of their respective
nation. The authors further show cross-linguistic differences between their
English and Chinese samples of ironic metaphors in term of quantity (49% of
the English sample included ironic criticism opposed to 4% in the Chinese
sample) and quality. The main qualitative difference the authors found was a
more extensive use of pejorative wordings in the English sample.

The third contribution to Part II, grammatical emphasis and irony in Spanish,
by Victoria Escandell-Vidal and Manuel Leonetti, concerns itself with
syntactic marking of Spanish irony. The authors claim that there are
particular grammatic patterns in Spanish that cue an ironic interpretation by
encoding either intensification (e.g. wh-exclamatives) and/or emphasis (e.g.
fronting) and predict that “the more emphatic a sentence, the greater the
likelihood that it can receive an ironic interpretation” (206). In doing so,
the authors explicitly speak against a view in which the ironic meaning might
be encoded in the grammatic construction itself and so their contribution
stands somewhat in contrast to what Giora, Givoni and Becker (same volume, see
above) claim. They report on a study aiming at testing their prediction. For
this study, they created a set of stimuli that differ with regard to their use
of intensity and emphasis markers, which were rated for their likelihood of
being interpreted ironically. Overall, Escandell-Vidal and Leonetti have found
supportive evidence for their claim, but also had to acknowledge some
confounding factors.

PART III, diversity across media, shows the diversity of how irony can be
marked in face-to-face conversations.

The first contribution to Part III, Eye-rolling, irony and embodiment, by
Herbert L. Colston, discusses eye-rolling as a stand-alone disapproval display
and a marker of irony. Colston first argues that eye-rolling can be seen as an
umbrella term covering a variety of movements the eye can perform and shows
that language users tend to correlates eye-rolling with negative concepts. The
author continues by reviewing possible accounts of eye-rolls: eye-rolling as a
cue to irony, eye-rolling as part of pretend play, and various accounts that
view eye-rolls as an embodied process. This review is followed by the report
of a study asking participants to rate the degree of approval/disapproval of a
person’s image overhearing news while the person’s image was manipulated for
gaze direction. The results of this study suggest that people looking in an
upward direction were considered to be most disapproving. Colston argues that
an upward gaze aversion is most likely associated with disapproval because it
is also the least ambiguous direction.

The second contribution to Part III, experimental investigations of irony as a
viewpoint phenomenon, by Vera Tobin, reports on a study that provides some
evidence for a cognitive account of irony, the ‘viewpoint account’. According
to this view, irony is a viewpoint phenomenon where the hearer understands an
ironic remark essentially by “zooming out” to a higher-level perspective,
identifying an incongruence and reassessing this remark in the given context.
Such a process necessarily involves at least two viewpoints: one at the lower
and another at the higher level of attention. This account was tested on the
presumption that these cognitive viewpoints can be made accessible by
presenting (line drawings of) actual people with their actual inherent
viewpoints. The study showed that potentially ambiguous utterances made
between two interactants were rated higher on sarcasm than those between three
conversational participants or by a person alone. Tobin argues that this
result could be explained by the fact that the two-participant setting mirrors
the prototypical viewpoint setting best and rejects traditional views on irony
that stipulate an in- and outgroup as a necessary feature of irony.

The third contribution to Part III, faces of sarcasm, by Sabina Tabacaru,
deals with raised eyebrows accompanying sarcastic utterances. Tabacaru argues
that interactions are essentially multimodal and that every aspect of delivery
might serve as a meaning-making resource. One such resource she explores in
more detail is the raised eyebrow. Analysing data from the French presidential
television debate in 2017, she shows that speakers often make use of the
raised eyebrow when being sarcastic and that they do so to shift the frame
from the serious to a pretence frame.

The last contribution, a pilot study on the diversity in irony production and
irony perception, by Hannah Leykum, reports on a production and a perception
study investigating the contribution of paraverbal and nonverbal cues to irony
comprehension. The production study uses a female speaker acting out ironic
and non ironic stimuli. Its results are mainly in line with previous research,
showing that the ironic utterance compared to its non ironic counterpart is
longer, lower in pitch, quieter and noisier, while nonverbally it is marked by
less smiling, raised eyebrows and frowning. These stimuli were presented in
different conditions (audio-only, visual-only, and audio+video) to a group of
normal-hearing participants and two participants with cochlear implants, who
had to categorize them. The results of this perception study revealed that one
of the two participants with a cochlear implant was as accurate as the
participants without hearing impairment at detecting irony. It further showed
that both groups basically relied on the same cues for detecting irony.
Specifically, no audio-visual synergy effect for the group with cochlear
implants could be shown.

EVALUATION

The editors of this volume, Angeliki Athanasiadou and Herbert L. Colston, set
themselves high aims. The first of which is collecting works which testify to
the diversity of irony, while the second is to further “an increased
understanding of irony as a potentially fundamental mode of thought and
communication” (9). Overall, the volume lives up to both expectations set in
the introduction.

The volume shows indeed how diverse irony is, in particular with regard to the
languages that use this figure of speech. Most of the studies of the past four
decades in irony research have been working with English data and so almost
our entire understanding of this figure is based on one language. The present
volume, however, features examples from French, Spanish, Chinese, Thai,
Hebrew, and Austrian German and thus shows different nuances of irony.
Furthermore, the volume is a showcase for highlighting the diverse markers
hearers may use in detecting irony. Next to the grammatical markers (or
constructions) discussed in the second and third contribution of Part I it
also shows a diverse range of kinesic cues in Part III. Even though the volume
can, by no means, show the full range of diversity exposed in the
introduction, it provides a glimpse at its potential heterogeneity.

Beyond the said heterogeneity, the volume allows the reader to get indeed an
idea about irony being a fundamental cognitive mode shared by all language
users. The theoretically oriented works of Part I already give an impression
of how irony might be related to other figures of speech and what its
cognitive working might be like. But, despite all the diversity the volume
presents, it also shows how similar irony is across languages and modes. One
example is the grammatical constructions that have been under scrutiny in some
of the works collected here, which have striking similarity to constructions
in other languages (compare e.g. ‘She is not the most mesmerizing person
around’ analysed in Hebrew by Giora, Givoni and Becker, which seems to be
derived by default in English, too, or the ‘if’ constructions analysed by
Athanasidou, which seem to be similar to their German counterparts). Another
example, which shows how similar ironic utterances are, concerns the functions
irony fulfils. There may be differences with regard to the delivery of irony
and the contexts it may occur in, but it usually fulfils social management
functions. A third example is the para- and nonverbal markers of irony. Some
works in the collection rightfully stress differences in marking irony, but
there are markers which seem to be associated with irony irrespective of the
language (e.g. raised eyebrows). Taken together, the contributions of this
volume suggest, in fact, that irony might be a fundamental cognitive and
communicative mode.

Two minor weaknesses of the volume can be identified, though. The first
weakness concerns the relevance of some contributions. The contributions by
Popa-Wyatt, Watling and Colston, while unquestionably interesting, discuss
topics only peripherally related to irony, i.e. hyperbole and eye-rolling, but
less so in the latter case. All of these, in fact, briefly refer to irony and
thus justify their occurrence in the volume, but this reference is not
pronounced enough. It is left to the reader to identify the relevance of these
contributions to a volume entitled the diversity of irony, which sets the
expectation that all contributions are centrally related to irony.

The other weakness, though also minor, is related to the methodological
diversity of the contributions. The research on irony in the past four decades
has been dominated by works in the philosophy of language, theoretic
pragmatics, and psycholinguistics with some influence by conversation analytic
works. This dominance is reflected in the contributions of the present volume,
which are theoretic, experimental or qualitative in nature. The work by Giora,
Givoni and Becker being an exception, there are no quantitative studies using
balanced samples represented in the volume, although there is a growing body
of these. It would have been desirable to include some of these to show that
findings on the diversity of irony also extend to larger samples.

REFERENCES

Clark, Herbert H & Richard J Gerrig. 2007 [1984]. On the pretense theory of
irony. Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader, ed. by R.W.
Gibbs & H.L. Colston, 25-33. New York/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gibbs, Raymond W. 2000. Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol
15.5-27.

Peña, M. Sandra & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza. 2017. Construing and
constructing hyperbole. Studies in Figurative Thought and Language, ed. by A.
Athanasiadou, 42-73. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Walton, Kendall L. 2017. Meiosis, hyperbole, irony. Philosophical Studies
174.105-20.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Claudia Lehmann holds a postdoc position in Multimodal Linguistics at the
University of Bremen. She received her PhD in February 2019 at the University
of Osnabrück. Her research interests include irony, the prosody-pragmatics
interface, the prosody-syntax interface, and multimodal construction grammar.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
               https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-31-2553	
----------------------------------------------------------