Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II The Scope of Irony
- Part III Irony’s Impact
- Part IV Irony in Linguistic Communication
- 8 Constructions in Verbal Irony Production: The Case of Rhetorical Questions
- 9 Tracking the Ironical Eye: Eye Tracking Studies on Irony and Sarcasm
- 10 Inferring Irony Online
- 11 Irony and Thought: Developmental Insights
- 12 Vocal Strategies in Verbal Irony
- 13 Great Expectations and EPIC Fails: A Computational Perspective on Irony and Sarcasm
- Part V Irony, Affect, and Related Figures
- Part VI Irony in Expressive, Nonlinguistic Media
- Index
- References
10 - Inferring Irony Online
from Part IV - Irony in Linguistic Communication
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2023
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II The Scope of Irony
- Part III Irony’s Impact
- Part IV Irony in Linguistic Communication
- 8 Constructions in Verbal Irony Production: The Case of Rhetorical Questions
- 9 Tracking the Ironical Eye: Eye Tracking Studies on Irony and Sarcasm
- 10 Inferring Irony Online
- 11 Irony and Thought: Developmental Insights
- 12 Vocal Strategies in Verbal Irony
- 13 Great Expectations and EPIC Fails: A Computational Perspective on Irony and Sarcasm
- Part V Irony, Affect, and Related Figures
- Part VI Irony in Expressive, Nonlinguistic Media
- Index
- References
Summary
The versatility of irony is evident in the variety of ways and places in which it is used. This chapter considers some of the complexities of ironic language on the internet (e.g., social media, messaging apps). Yus views irony as being associated with making a reference to some state of affairs that can be criticized or mocked, and which communicates a speaker’s attitudes toward that situation, including others who adopt a similar point of view. He embraces a “relevance theory” perspective to emphasize the prominence of echoic mention as a key source of pragmatic information when determining an ironic speaker’s dissociative attitude. Yus details the range of contextual information that enables successful irony use, even in situations where individuals do not share the same immediate physical space. This information includes widely held encyclopedic background knowledge, speaker-specific encyclopedic knowledge, previous utterances, particular linguistic cues, and information from the current physical setting. These different sources of contextual information are combined in specific ways to enable ironic meaning interpretation when people are not physical co-present (e.g., when posting messages or writing email on the internet).
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought , pp. 160 - 180Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Aguert, M., Laval, V., Gauducheau, N., Atifi, H., & Marcoccia, M. (2016). Producing irony in adolescence: A comparison between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Psychology of Language and Communication, 20(3), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alba-Juez, L., & Attardo, S. (2014). The evaluative palette of verbal irony. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L. (Eds.), Evaluation in Context (pp. 93–115). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, G. A., & Fox Tree, J. E. 2005. Is there an ironic tone of voice? Language and Speech, 48(3), 257–277.Google Scholar
Chovanec, J. (2018). Irony as counter positioning reader comments on the EU migrant crisis. In Jobert, M. and Sorlin, S. (Eds.), The pragmatics of irony and banter (pp. 165–194). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2000). On necessary conditions for verbal irony comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition, 8(2), 277–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2020). Operationalization challenges in experimental research on irony identification in computer-mediated communication. Paper delivered at the 9th International Symposium on Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics: “Communication in the 21st Century: Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics.” Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain.Google Scholar
Eneroth, F. (2017). “Ooooh, so strong”: Ironic responses to Donald Trump’s presidential tweets. Student’s paper. Karlstad University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
Faina, J. M. (2014). New media is a joke: Tracing irony, satire, and remediation in online discourse (PhD thesis, The University of Texas).Google Scholar
Filik, R., T¸urcan, A., Thompson, D., Harvey, N., Davies, H., & Turner, A. (2016). Sarcasm and emoticons: Comprehension and emotional impact. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(11), 2130–2146.Google Scholar
Gal, N. (2019). Ironic humor on social media as participatory boundary work. New Media & Society, 21(3), 729–749.Google Scholar
Gal, N., Kampf, Z., & Shifman, L. (2020). SRSLY?? A typology of online ironic markers. Information, Communication & Society, 25(3): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1814380Google Scholar
Hallmann, K., Kunneman, F., Liebrecht, C., van den Bosch, A., & van Mulken, M. (2016). Sarcastic soulmates: Intimacy and irony markers in social media messaging. LiLT, 14(7). https://doi.org/10.33011/lilt.v14i.1405Google Scholar
Hancock, J. T. (2004). Verbal irony use in face-to-face and computer-mediated conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(4), 447–463.Google Scholar
Kovaz, D., Kreuz, R. J., & Riordan, M. A. (2013). Distinguishing sarcasm from literal language: Evidence from books and blogging. Discourse Processes, 50, 598–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunneman, F., Liebrecht, C., van Mulken, M., & van den Bosch, A. (2015). Signaling sarcasm: From hyperbole to hashtag. Information Processing and Management, 51, 500–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwick, A., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.Google Scholar
McCulloch, G. (2019). Because internet. In Understanding the new rules of language. Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Pano Alamán, A. (2015). Ironía verbal y actividad de imagen en el discurso de políticos y ciudadanos españoles en Twitter. Sociological Pragmatics, 3(1), 59–89.Google Scholar
Pano Alamán, A., & Mancera Rueda, A. (2014). Identidades falsas en Twitter: La ironía y el humor verbal como mecanismos paródicos. Discurso & Sociedad, 8(3), 507–536.Google Scholar
Pexman, P. M., & Zvaigzne, M. T. (2004). Does irony go better with friends? Metaphor and Symbol, 19(2), 143–163.Google Scholar
Popa-Wyatt, M. (2014). Pretence and echo: Towards an integrated account of verbal irony. International Review of Pragmatics, 6, 127–168.Google Scholar
Romm, C. (2016, May 3). Has social media changed how we use sarcasm? The Cut. www.thecut.com/2016/05/has-social-media-changed-how-we-use-sarcasm.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ruhl, M. (2016). Pragmatics of the keyboard: An analysis of orthographic conventions on Tumblr (MA thesis, San Francisco State University).Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thompson, D., & Filik, R. (2016). Sarcasm in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 105–120.Google Scholar
Vengaliene, D. (2014). On some social functions of irony in politicised internet discourse. Inter-studia humanitatis, 16, 105–119.Google Scholar
Vicary, S., & Murru, M. F. (2020, July–September). One platform, a thousand worlds: On Twitter irony in the early response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Social Media + Society, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120948254Google Scholar
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90.Google Scholar
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B., & D’Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 324–347.Google Scholar
Weissman, B., & Tanner, D. (2018). A strong wink between verbal and emoji-based irony: How the brain processes ironic emojis during language comprehension. PLoS ONE, 13(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. (2009). Irony and metarepresentation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 183–226.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2013). Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(A), 40–56.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2004). Pragmatics of humorous strategies in El Club de la Comedia. In Márquez-Reiter, R. and Placencia, M. E. (Eds.), Current trends in the pragmatics of Spanish (pp. 320–344). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2005). Attitudes and emotions through written text: The case of textual deformation in internet chat rooms. Pragmalingüística, 13, 147–174.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2009). Saturación contextual en la comprensión de la ironía. In Ruiz Gurillo, L. and Padilla García, X. (Eds.), Dime cómo ironizas y te diré quién eres: Una aproximación pragmática a la ironía (pp. 309–331). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics. Internet-mediated communication in context. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2014). Not all emoticons are created equal. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 14(3), 511–529.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2016b). Propositional attitude, affective attitude and irony comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23(1), 92–116.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2016c). Relevance theory and contextual sources-centred analysis of irony. Current research and compatibility. In Padilla Cruz, M. (Ed.), Relevance theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future Directions (pp. 147–171). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2019). Multimodality in memes. A cyberpragmatic approach. In Bou-Franch, P. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (Eds.), Analyzing digital discourse: New insights and future directions (pp. 105–131). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2021a). Incongruity-resolution humorous strategies in image macro memes. Internet Pragmatics, 4(1), 131–149.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2021b). Cyberpragmatics in the age of locative media. In Xie, C., Yus, F., & Haberland, H. (Eds.), Internet pragmatics: Theory and practice (pp. 75–105). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. (2021c). Smartphone communication: Interactions in the app ecosystem. Routledge.Google Scholar
Yus, F., & Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2023). Interpreting Covid-related memes: The role of inferential strategies and context accessibility. In Linares Bernabéu, E. (Ed.), The pragmatics of humor in interactive contexts (pp. 6–31). John Benjamins.Google Scholar