Strongly attenuating highly positive concepts

IF 0.6 4区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
R. Giora, Inbal Jaffe, Israela Becker, Ofer Fein
{"title":"Strongly attenuating highly positive concepts","authors":"R. Giora, Inbal Jaffe, Israela Becker, Ofer Fein","doi":"10.1075/RCL.00002.GIO","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n What are the constraints rendering stimuli, such as Alert he is not; He is not the most organized person around; Hospitality is not his best attribute; Do you really believe you are sophisticated? sarcastic by default? Recent findings (Filik, Howman, Ralph-Nearman, & Giora, in press; Giora et al., 2005, 2013, 2015a, 2015b, in progress a) suggest that strongly attenuating a highly positive concept, e.g., alert, sophisticated, most organized, best attribute (associated here with hospitality), induces sarcastic interpretations by default. To be interpreted sarcastically by default, items should be construable as such in the absence of factors inviting sarcasm.1 They should, thus, be (i) novel, noncoded in the mental lexicon, (ii) potentially ambiguous between literal and nonliteral interpretations, so that a preference is allowed, and (iii) free of specific and biasing contextual information. Online and offline studies, collecting self-paced reading times, eye-tracking data during reading, sarcasm rating, and pleasure ratings, alongside corpus-based studies, further support this view.2\n","PeriodicalId":51932,"journal":{"name":"Review of Cognitive Linguistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/RCL.00002.GIO","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Cognitive Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/RCL.00002.GIO","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

What are the constraints rendering stimuli, such as Alert he is not; He is not the most organized person around; Hospitality is not his best attribute; Do you really believe you are sophisticated? sarcastic by default? Recent findings (Filik, Howman, Ralph-Nearman, & Giora, in press; Giora et al., 2005, 2013, 2015a, 2015b, in progress a) suggest that strongly attenuating a highly positive concept, e.g., alert, sophisticated, most organized, best attribute (associated here with hospitality), induces sarcastic interpretations by default. To be interpreted sarcastically by default, items should be construable as such in the absence of factors inviting sarcasm.1 They should, thus, be (i) novel, noncoded in the mental lexicon, (ii) potentially ambiguous between literal and nonliteral interpretations, so that a preference is allowed, and (iii) free of specific and biasing contextual information. Online and offline studies, collecting self-paced reading times, eye-tracking data during reading, sarcasm rating, and pleasure ratings, alongside corpus-based studies, further support this view.2
强烈削弱高度积极的概念
提供刺激的约束是什么,比如警告他不是;他不是周围最有组织的人;好客并不是他的最佳品质;你真的相信自己很老练吗?默认讽刺?最近的研究结果(Filik,Howman,Ralph Nearman,&Giora,出版中;Giora等人,200520132015a,2015b,进展中a)表明,强烈削弱一个高度积极的概念,例如,警觉、老练、最有组织、最好的属性(此处与好客相关),默认情况下会引发讽刺性的解释。默认情况下,为了进行讽刺性解释,在没有引起讽刺的因素的情况下,项目应该是可解释的。1因此,它们应该(i)新颖,在心理词典中没有编码,(ii)字面和非字面解释之间可能存在歧义,以便允许偏好,以及(iii)没有特定和有偏见的上下文信息。在线和离线研究,收集自定节奏的阅读时间、阅读过程中的眼动追踪数据、讽刺评级和愉悦评级,以及基于语料库的研究,进一步支持了这一观点。2
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信