An eye-tracking investigation of written sarcasm comprehension: The roles of familiarity and context.

Țurcan, Alexandra; Filik, Ruth

doi:10.1037/xlm0000285

Cited by 28 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We replicated the previous findings that sarcastic utterances are more likely to attract look-backs and that readers tend to initiate more look-backs to other parts of text from sarcastic than from literal utterances (Au-Yeung et al, 2015;Filik et al, 2014;Filik & Moxey, 2010;Kaakinen et al, 2014;Olkoniemi et al, 2016;Olkoniemi et al, in press;Turcan & Filik, 2016). In the beginning of the experiment, sarcastic utterances also received longer look-backs from the spillover region, implying increased sentence wrap-up processing (Rayner et al, 2000).…”

Section: Processing Of Sarcasm and Sarcasm Comprehensionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…In this type of setting, a reader must search for an alternative interpretation of the utterance and incorporate this into the memory representation of the text. In support of these theoretical views, recent eye-tracking studies have shown that written sarcastic utterances take more time to process and are harder to comprehend than their literal counterparts (Au-Yeung, Kaakinen, Liversedge, & Benson, 2015;Filik, Leuthold, Wallington, & Page, 2014;Filik & Moxey, 2010;Kaakinen, Olkoniemi, Kinnari, & Hyönä, 2014;Olkoniemi, Ranta, & Kaakinen, 2016;Olkoniemi, Strömberg, & Kaakinen, in press;Turcan & Filik, 2016).…”

Section: Resolving the Meaning Of Sarcastic Utterancesmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of look-backs in the processing of written sarcasm

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Processing Of Sarcasm and Sarcasm Comprehensionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Resolving the Meaning Of Sarcastic Utterancesmentioning

confidence: 94%

The role of look-backs in the processing of written sarcasm

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The above‐mentioned theoretical proposals have been operationalized and translated into experimental predictions that are focused on the temporal dimension of irony interpretation (i.e., when literal and ironic interpretations become available). Behavioral evidence supporting classic modular models showed that the ironic interpretation requires more time and processing costs as compared to the literal/salient interpretation (Dews & Winner, ; Fein, Yeari, & Giora, ; Filik & Moxey, ; Giora et al., ; and Turcan & Filik, for unfamiliar ironic phrases). On the other hand, behavioral findings supporting interactive models showed that, with a facilitating context (usually describing negative events and triggering ironic criticism), the ironic meaning can become available as fast as the literal interpretation (Gibbs, ; Ivanko & Pexman, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

When is irony influenced by communicative constraints? ERP evidence supporting interactive models

Caffarra

Haeri

Michell

et al. 2019

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distinct theoretical proposals have described how communicative constraints (contextual biases, speaker identity) impact verbal irony processing. Modular models assume that social and contextual factors have an effect at a late stage of processing. Interactive models claim that contextual biases are considered early on. The constraint‐satisfaction model further assumes that speaker's and context's characteristics can compete at early stages of analysis. The present ERP study teased apart these models by testing the impact of context and speaker features (i.e., speaker accent) on irony analysis. Spanish native speakers were presented with Spanish utterances that were ironic or literal. Each sentence was preceded by a negative or a positive context. Each story was uttered in a native or a foreign accent. Results showed that contextual biases and speaker accent interacted as early as 150 ms during irony processing. Greater N400‐like effects were reported for ironic than literal sentences only with positive contexts and native accent, possibly suggesting semantic difficulties when non‐prototypical irony was produced by natives. A P600 effect of irony was also reported indicating inferential processing costs. The results support the constraint‐satisfaction model and suggest that multiple sources of information are weighted and can interact from the earliest stages of irony analysis.

show abstract

“…Moreover, some researchers have examined the online processes underlying sarcasm comprehension using eye-tracking (e.g. Au-Yeung, Kaakinen, Liversedge, & Benson, 2018;Deliens, Antoniou, Clin, Ostashchenko, & Kissine, 2018;Filik, Howman, Ralph-Nearman, & Giora, 2018;Filik, Leuthold, Wallington, & Page, 2014;Filik, & Moxey, 2010;Kaakinen, Olkoniemi, Kinnari, & Hyönä, 2014;Olkoniemi, Ranta, & Kaakinen, 2016;Olkoniemi, Johander, & Kaakinen, 2019;Olkoniemi, Strömberg, & Kaakinen, 2019;Țurcan & Filik, 2016;. These studies generally find that comprehending irony incurs higher processing costs than comprehending literal language, suggesting that the salient meaning (i.e.…”

Section: Emotional Processing Of Ironic Vs Literal Criticism In Autimentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotional processing of ironic vs. literal criticism in autistic and non-autistic adults: Evidence from eye-tracking

Barzy¹,

Filik²,

Williams³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typically developing (TD) adults are able to keep track of story characters’ emotional states online while reading. Filik et al. (2017) showed that initially, participants expected the victim to be more hurt by ironic comments than literal, but later considered them less hurtful; ironic comments were regarded as more amusing. We examined these processes in autistic adults, since previous research has demonstrated socio-emotional difficulties among autistic people, which may lead to problems processing irony and its related emotional processes despite an intact ability to integrate language in context. We recorded eye movements from autistic and non-autistic adults while they read narratives in which a character (the victim) was either criticised in an ironic or a literal manner by another character (the protagonist). A target sentence then either described the victim as feeling hurt/amused by the comment, or the protagonist as having intended to hurt/amused the victim by making the comment. Results from the non-autistic adults broadly replicated the key findings from Filik et al. (2017), supporting the two-stage account. Importantly, the autistic adults did not show comparable two-stage processing of ironic language; they did not differentiate between the emotional responses for victims or protagonists following ironic vs. literal criticism. These findings suggest that autistic people experience a specific difficulty taking into account other peoples’ communicative intentions (i.e. infer their mental state) to appropriately anticipate emotional responses to an ironic comment. We discuss how these difficulties might link to atypical socio-emotional processing in autism, and the ability to maintain successful real-life social interactions.

show abstract

An eye-tracking investigation of written sarcasm comprehension: The roles of familiarity and context.

Cited by 28 publications

References 35 publications

The role of look-backs in the processing of written sarcasm

The role of look-backs in the processing of written sarcasm

When is irony influenced by communicative constraints? ERP evidence supporting interactive models

Emotional processing of ironic vs. literal criticism in autistic and non-autistic adults: Evidence from eye-tracking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About