Expecting irony: Context versus salience-based effects
Expecting irony: Context versus salience-based effects
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/10926480701235346
复制
发表时间：
2007-01-01
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
Shaham, Ronit
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Giora, Rachel;Fein, Ofer;Shaham, Ronit
从4个实验的结果支持这样的观点，即，无论上下文信息，当一个最终产品的解释话语不依赖于其组件的显着（词汇化和突出）的意义，它不会更快，也不快，因为当它这样做。为了验证这一观点，我们研究了基于突显性的解释（这里是字面解释）和基于期望的解释（这里是讽刺解释），在诱导对讽刺的期望的语境中。在实验1中，期望被操纵，引入一个具有讽刺意味的扬声器在体内谁也说出了目标话语。研究结果表明，具有讽刺意味的目标比字面对应的阅读速度慢。实验2表明，讽刺花了更长的时间比字面阅读，反应时间讽刺相关的探测器比字面相关的探测器，无论上下文。实验3和4表明，即使当参与者被给予额外的处理时间，并专门提出了具有讽刺意味的偏见的情况下，在整个这样的曝光获得的讽刺的预期并没有促进基于预期相比，基于显着性的解释。
Results from 4 experiments support the view that, regardless of contextual information, when an end-product interpretation of an utterance does not rely on the salient (lexicalized and prominent) meanings of its components, it will not be faster than nor as fast to derive as when it does. To test this view, we looked into interpretations of salience-based (here, literal) interpretations and expectation-based (here, ironic) interpretations in contexts inducing an expectation for irony. In Experiment 1, expectancy was manipulated by introducing an ironic speaker in vivo who also uttered the target utterance. Findings show that ironic targets were slower to read than literal counterparts. Experiment 2 shows that ironies took longer to read than literals and that response times to ironically related probes were longer than to literally related probes, regardless of context. Experiments 3 and 4 show that, even when participants were given extra processing time and were exclusively presented ironically biasing contexts, the expectancy for irony acquired throughout such exposure did not facilitate expectancy-based compared to salience-based interpretations.