The present study examined individual differences in the processing of different forms of figurative language. Sixty participants read sarcastic, metaphorical, and literal sentences embedded in story contexts while their eye movements were recorded, and responded to a text memory and an inference question after each story. Individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC), need for cognition (NFC), and cognitive-affective processing were measured. The results showed that the processing of metaphors was characterized by slow-down during first-pass reading of the utterances, whereas sarcasm produced mainly delayed effects in the eye movement records. Sarcastic utterances were also harder to comprehend than literal or metaphorical utterances as indicated by poorer performance in responses to inference questions. Individual differences in general cognitive factors (WMC and NFC) were related to the processing of metaphors, whereas individual differences in both general cognitive factors (WMC) as well as processing of emotional information were related to the processing of sarcasm. The results indicate that different forms of figurative language pose different cognitive demands to the reader, and show that reader characteristics play a prominent role in figurative language comprehension.

No abstract

Previous eye-tracking studies suggest that when resolving the meaning of sarcastic utterances in a text, readers often initiate fixations that return to the sarcastic utterance from subsequent parts of the text. We used a modified trailing mask paradigm to examine both the role of these look-back fixations in sarcasm comprehension and whether there are individual differences in how readers resolve sarcasm. Sixty-two adult participants read short paragraphs containing either a literal or a sarcastic utterance while their eye movements were recorded. The texts were presented using a modified trailing mask paradigm: sentences were initially masked with a string of x's and were revealed to the reader one at a time. In the normal reading condition, sentences remained visible on the screen when the reader moved on to the next sentence; in the masked condition, the sentences were replaced with a mask. Individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) and the processing of emotional information were also measured. The results showed that readers adjusted their reading behavior when a mask prevented them from re-examining the text content. Interestingly, the readers' compensatory strategies depended on spatial WMC. Moreover, the results showed that the ability to process emotional information was related to less processing effort invested in resolving sarcasm. The present study suggests that look-backs are driven by a need to re-examine the text contents but that they are not necessary for the successful comprehension of sarcasm. The strategies used to resolve sarcasm are mediated by individual differences.

A core feature of sarcasm is that there is a discrepancy between the literal meaning of the utterance and the context in which it is presented. This means that a sarcastic statement embedded in a story introduces a break in local coherence. Previous studies have shown that sarcastic statements in written stories often elicit longer processing times than their literal counterparts, possibly reflecting the difficulty of integrating the statement into the story’s context. In the present study, we examined how sarcastic statements are processed when the location of the local coherence break is manipulated by presenting the sarcastic dialogues either before or after contextual information. In total, 60 participants read short text paragraphs containing sarcastic or literal target statements, while their eye movements were recorded. Individual differences in ability to recognise emotions and working memory capacity were measured. The results suggest that longer reading times with sarcastic statements not only reflect local inconsistency but also attempt to resolve the meaning of the sarcastic statement. The ability to recognise emotions was reflected in eye-movement patterns, suggesting that readers who are poor at recognising emotions are slower at categorising the statement as sarcastic. Thus, they need more processing effort to resolve the sarcastic meaning.

Theoretical models of irony comprehension pose different hypotheses about the time-course of resolving ironic interpretation of an utterance, and propose several context-, phrase-and reader-related factors that influence the ease or difficulty of processing irony. In recent years, these factors have been examined using eye tracking, which allows a detailed analysis of time-course of reading processes. In this paper, we present a meta-analysis of the eye tracking studies on irony, and then present a systematic review of the factors that have been shown to influence the time-course of irony processing.The review will point to future directions in how eye tracking could best be applied to further develop the current theoretical views.