The objective of this study was to examine Polish and Canadian children’s and adults’ attention to two potential cues to ironic intent: 1) interpretive perspective (addressee versus bystander), and 2) parties present (speaker, addressee, and bystander). Polish participants were 36 9- to 10-year-olds and 36 adults recruited from schools in Poland. Canadian participants were matched from an existing dataset. Participants watched 9 videos containing ironic criticisms, literal criticisms, and literal compliments. Video characters criticized/complimented a present or absent addressee either with or without a bystander in three conditions: private evaluation, public evaluation, and gossip. Participants judged speaker’s intent and humour from the addressee’s perspective, and/or the bystander’s perspective. Interpretative perspective served as a cue to verbal irony only among Canadian adults, who rated ironic criticisms more mean and more serious when interpreting these statements from the addressee’s perspective versus the bystander’s perspective. The number of parties present influenced interpretation of irony’s seriousness for Polish adults, but not their Canadian counterparts. Polish adults rated public ironic criticisms as less serious compared to private ironic criticisms, while Canadian adults rated the conditions similarly. The results show that the relevance of cues in interpreting ironic criticisms is influenced by age and culture. / October 2016

Verbal irony, a form of figurative language, uses the discrepancy between a speaker’s intended meaning and the literal word meanings to achieve social goals. Yet, little research exists on individual differences that may disrupt irony understanding. Verbal irony may challenge shy children, who tend to interpret ambiguous stimuli as being threatening, and who have difficulties with mentalizing in social contexts. This study assessed whether shy children interpret ironic statements differently than do non-shy children. Children (8- to11-year-olds) listened to stories wherein one character made a statement to another character that was a literal or ironic criticism or a literal or ironic compliment. Children appraised the speaker’s belief and communicative intention. Shyness was assessed using self report measures of social anxiety symptoms and shy negative affect. Shy children did not differ from non-shy peers in comprehending speakers’ beliefs. However, shy children rated speakers who made ironic criticisms as being more mean than did children low in shyness. Thus, while understanding that speakers intended to communicate their true beliefs, shy children construed the social meaning of irony differently, indicating difficulties with pragmatics. Such subtle differences in pragmatic understanding may underlie some of the social difficulties facing shy children.

Verbal irony, a form of figurative language, uses the discrepancy between a speaker’s intended meaning and the literal word meanings to achieve social goals. Yet, little research exists on individual differences that may disrupt irony understanding. Verbal irony may challenge shy children, who tend to interpret ambiguous stimuli as being threatening, and who have difficulties with mentalizing in social contexts. This study assessed whether shy children interpret ironic statements differently than do non-shy children. Children (8- to11-year-olds) listened to stories wherein one character made a statement to another character that was a literal or ironic criticism or a literal or ironic compliment. Children appraised the speaker’s belief and communicative intention. Shyness was assessed using self report measures of social anxiety symptoms and shy negative affect. Shy children did not differ from non-shy peers in comprehending speakers’ beliefs. However, shy children rated speakers who made ironic criticisms as being more mean than did children low in shyness. Thus, while understanding that speakers intended to communicate their true beliefs, shy children construed the social meaning of irony differently, indicating difficulties with pragmatics. Such subtle differences in pragmatic understanding may underlie some of the social difficulties facing shy children.

Children and adolescents with autism commonly struggle with social interactions. In particular, it has been found that children and adolescents with autism struggle with verbal irony in face-to-face interactions where there are many competing cues that require their attention (i.e., body language, facial expressions, intonation). This study made use of Bubble Dialogue (Cunningham et al., 1992), a form of computer-mediated communication, to examine how children and adolescents with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s syndrome (HFA/AS) comprehended verbal irony when these competing cues were removed from social interactions. Speaker attribute information has been shown to be beneficial in aiding typically developing children with successful verbal irony comprehension. In this study, participants with HFA/AS and matched typically developing participants were presented with Bubble Dialogue scenarios where speaker attribute was manipulated such that speakers were labelled as a peer, an adult, or without a speaker attribute label. Participants were presented with scenarios where the speaker made either an ironic criticism or a literal compliment in order to assess whether or not the information about the speaker influenced their comprehension and interpretation of speaker belief, speaker intent and speaker humour. Participants with HFA/AS provided responses along similar themes to their typically developing counterparts for both literal compliments and ironic criticisms in each speaker attribute condition. Participants with HFA/AS performed similarly to typically developing participants on their interpretations of speaker belief, speaker intent, and speaker humour. These findings suggest that, within the context of computer-mediated communication, children with HFA/AS are able to perform as well as typically developing participants on measures of verbal irony comprehension.

Children and adolescents with autism commonly struggle with social interactions. In particular, it has been found that children and adolescents with autism struggle with verbal irony in face-to-face interactions where there are many competing cues that require their attention (i.e., body language, facial expressions, intonation). This study made use of Bubble Dialogue (Cunningham et al., 1992), a form of computer-mediated communication, to examine how children and adolescents with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s syndrome (HFA/AS) comprehended verbal irony when these competing cues were removed from social interactions. Speaker attribute information has been shown to be beneficial in aiding typically developing children with successful verbal irony comprehension. In this study, participants with HFA/AS and matched typically developing participants were presented with Bubble Dialogue scenarios where speaker attribute was manipulated such that speakers were labelled as a peer, an adult, or without a speaker attribute label. Participants were presented with scenarios where the speaker made either an ironic criticism or a literal compliment in order to assess whether or not the information about the speaker influenced their comprehension and interpretation of speaker belief, speaker intent and speaker humour. Participants with HFA/AS provided responses along similar themes to their typically developing counterparts for both literal compliments and ironic criticisms in each speaker attribute condition. Participants with HFA/AS performed similarly to typically developing participants on their interpretations of speaker belief, speaker intent, and speaker humour. These findings suggest that, within the context of computer-mediated communication, children with HFA/AS are able to perform as well as typically developing participants on measures of verbal irony comprehension.

Diese Dissertation untersucht das Verstehen figurativer Sprache, im Besonderen die zeitliche Verarbeitung von verbaler Ironie. In sechs Experimenten wurde mittels ereignis-korrelierter Potentiale (EKP) die Gehirnaktivität beim Verstehen ironischer Äußerungen im Vergleich zu entsprechenden nicht-ironischen Äußerungen gemessen und analysiert. Darüberhinaus wurde der Einfluss verschiedener sprachbegleitender Hinweisreize, z.B. von Prosodie oder der Verwendung von Satzzeichen, sowie außersprachlicher Hinweisreize, wie bspw. pragmatischen Wissens, auf das Ironieverstehen untersucht. Auf Grundlage dieser Ergebnisse werden verschiedene psycholinguistische Modelle figurativer Sprachverarbeitung, d.h. 'standard pragmatic model', 'graded salience hypothesis', sowie 'direct access view', diskutiert. / This dissertation investigates the comprehension of figurative language, in particular the temporal processing of verbal irony. In six experiments using event-related potentials(ERP) brain activity during the comprehension of ironic utterances in relation to equivalent non-ironic utterances was measured and analyzed. Moreover, the impact of various language-accompanying cues, e.g., prosody or the use of punctuation marks, as well as non-verbal cues such as pragmatic knowledge has been examined with respect to the processing of irony. On the basis of these findings different models on figurative language comprehension, i.e., the 'standard pragmatic model', the 'graded salience hypothesis', and the 'direct access view', are discussed.

After Donald Trump won the presidency, his use of social media has gotten massive attention because of its incredibly inappropriate content. Many people question how appropriate his use of Twitter is, and in the linguistic field prominent voices point out that the former businessman does not have the skills to speak; he only talks (McWhorter, 2017). As America’s President with views of his own about worldly events, it is of special interest to see how people interact with him online. Because of the low 39% approval rating, one can assume that many disagree with him, possibly in a way involving irony. One sub-type of irony is described as “the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning” (Merriam-Webster, 2018), and it is reasonable to assume that some responses to Trump’s tweets use irony to present an alternative view of his actions or opinions. The study sets out to find replies to Trump’s tweets that are ironic and identify if they correspond to earlier developed theories of irony. The replies are examined to determine which of Grice’s maxims of conversation that is flouted the most. The data included 337 replies of which 78 (23%) were shown to follow an ironical pattern, mostly in order to ridicule and condemn Trump. 88 % of all comments disagree with Trump’s tweets. The most applicable theory of irony is the echoic interpretation theory by Wilson and Sperber, and the most flouted maxim is relevance. / Sedan Donald Trump ställde upp i presidentvalet och till slut vann valet, har hans användning av sociala medier fått mycket uppmärksamhet p.g.a dess olämpliga innehåll. Många har ifrågasatt lämpligheten i hans Twitter-användning, och lingvistiskt sett menar framstående röster att den tidigare företagsmannen inte äger förmågan att tala; han kan bara prata; och det gör han på Twitter som USA:s president och ger sin egen syn på världsliga händelser. Därför är det av intresse att titta på hur människor reagerar och tilltalar honom på nätet. Med tanke på hans låga popularitetssiffra på 39%, kan det förmodas att många inte håller med honom, och att ironi används som ett sätt att uttrycka en annan åsikt. Ironi beskrivs som “användningen av ord för att uttrycka någonting annat eller speciellt det motsatta av den bokstavliga meningen” (översatt från Merriam-Webster, 2018), vilket är hypotetiskt förväntat i svar till Trumps tweets. Denna studie syftar till att identifiera ironiska kommentarer på Trumps tweets och se om de överensstämmer med tidigare utvecklade teorier kring ironi. Även analys av vilken av Grices konversationsmaximer som bryts oftast görs i studien. Studiens data inkluderar 337 kommentarer, av vilka 78 (23%) är ironiska, oftast med intention att förlöjliga och fördöma Trump. 88% av alla kommentarer håller inte med om innehållet i Trumps tweets. Den mest applicerbara ironi-teorin var “echoic interpretation” teorin (Wilson & Sperber), medan den mest ignorerade konversationsmaximen var relevans.