1,573
Views
18
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Irony, Prosody, and Social Impressions of Affective Stance

, & ORCID Icon
Pages 141-157 | Published online: 07 Mar 2019
 

ABSTRACT

In spoken discourse, understanding irony requires the apprehension of subtle cues, such as the speaker’s tone of voice (prosody), which often reveal the speaker’s affective stance toward the listener in the context of the utterance. To shed light on the interplay of linguistic content and prosody on impressions of spoken criticisms and compliments (both literal and ironic), 40 participants rated the friendliness of the speaker in three separate conditions of attentional focus (No focus, Prosody focus, and Content focus). When the linguistic content was positive (“You are such an awesome driver!”), the perceived critical or friendly stance of the speaker was influenced predominantly by prosody. However, when the linguistic content was negative (“You are such a lousy driver!”), the speaker was always perceived as less friendly, even for ironic compliments that were meant to be teasing (i.e., positive stance). Our results highlight important asymmetries in how listeners use prosody and attend to different speech-related channels to form impressions of interpersonal stance for ironic criticisms (e.g., sarcasm) versus ironic compliments (e.g., teasing).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The stimuli are based on materials from the second author’s doctoral dissertation (Vergis, Citation2015).

2. https://osf.io/4geun/?view_only=77cdfba3fed744b6b4eef39976048615. If you wish to access the whole stimuli set for research purposes, please contact the Neuropragmatics and Emotions lab at McGill (https://www.mcgill.ca/pell_lab/).

3. The high t value and degrees of freedom were explained by the null random effects of utterances and speakers in this task. Judgments were so categorical that these random effects were rounded to 0 in the model, thus greatly increasing the degrees of freedom to (3,200 observations – 1) – (40 subjects – 1) = 3,160 dfs.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 192.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.