Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements.

Abstract

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.

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

“…According to this framework, readerrelated factorssuch as how frequently a person uses sarcasm influence the likelihood that different interpretations (literal, sarcasm, or white lie) are active in the reader's mind. In line with this, recent eye-tracking studies have suggested that individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) and the ability to process emotional information impact the likelihood of re-reading sarcastic texts (Kaakinen et al, 2014;Olkoniemi et al, 2016;Olkoniemi et al, in press).…”

“…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).…”

“…Even though previous studies suggest that readers tend to do more first-pass re-reading and later looking back to the sarcastic utterance and, occasionally, to the preceding context (Kaakinen et al, 2014;Olkoniemi et al, 2016;Olkoniemi et al, in press), the time-course of resolving sarcasm is still unclear. If readers already tend to do more re-reading of the sarcastic utterance during the first-pass, why do they still look back to it from subsequent parts of the text?…”

“…What previous eye-tracking studies show about the processing of sarcasm is that readers tend to do more re-reading of sarcastic than literal utterances during first-pass reading (Kaakinen et al, 2014;Olkoniemi et al, 2016, Olkoniemi et al, in press). Moreover, readers tend to look back to the sarcastic utterance from subsequent parts of the text (Kaakinen et al, 2014;Olkoniemi et al, 2016;Olkoniemi et al, in press) and to initiate a look-back from the sarcastic utterance to the preceding context (Olkoniemi et al, 2016;Olkoniemi et al, in press). From a theoretical point of view, these look-backs may reflect that readers are trying to integrate the sarcastic utterance with the developing text representation, which requires a reanalysis of the utterance (e.g., Grice, 1975).…”

Emotional Processing of Ironic Versus Literal Criticism in Autistic and Nonautistic Adults: Evidence From Eye‐Tracking

“…More recently, a few studies have applied online measures, such as eye‐tracking and event‐related brain potentials (ERPs), to investigate how readers keep track of temporal and emotional shifts in stories, and have demonstrated that readers are sensitive to mismatches between a character's expected and described emotional states [Carminati & Knoeferle, 2013, 2016; Komeda & Kusumi, 2006; Leuthold, Filik, Murphy, & Mackenzie, 2012; Munster, Carminati, & Knoeferle, 2014; Ralph‐Nearman & Filik, 2018; Rinck & Bower, 2000; Vega, 1996; Zwaan, 1996]. Moreover, some researchers have examined the online processes underlying sarcasm comprehension using eye‐tracking [e.g., Au‐Yeung, Kaakinen, Liversedge, & Benson, 2015; 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, 2017]. These studies generally find that comprehending irony incurs higher processing costs than comprehending literal language, suggesting that the salient meaning (i.e., the most familiar, frequent, and conventional meaning) is activated by default and must be overridden to interpret ironic statements, irrespective of how biasing the context is [Giora, 1997, 2003].…”