Ironic implicature strength and the test of explicit cancellability

Eleni Kapogianni

doi:10.1515/ip-2017-0028

Artikel

Ironic implicature strength and the test of explicit cancellability

Eleni Kapogianni
Eleni Kapogianni is a lecturer in English Language and Linguistics at the University of Kent (UK). Her research focuses on nonliteral language in discourse and she has worked extensively on the phenomenon of verbal irony within the domain of pragmatics (PhD thesis - University of Cambridge 2013 - and recent/forthcoming publications). Key questions of her current projects concern the scope and cross-cultural characteristics of irony, the interaction between irony, sarcasm, and (im)politeness in different discourse settings, and the factors that influence the strength of inferential meaning.

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 28. Februar 2018

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Informationen für Autor*innen

Aus der Zeitschrift Intercultural Pragmatics Band 15 Heft 1

Abstract

In this paper, the Gricean notion of explicit cancellability ^[1] is used as a testable characteristic, able to indicate different degrees of strength for different types of (ironic) implicatures. According to the definition adopted for this analysis, implicature strength is determined by the likelihood of retrieval of an implicature in a specific context and, essentially, by the degree of certainty that the hearer maintains about the correctness of the inferred interpretation. Ironic implicature strength is considered the product of various factors (“factors of implicature strength”), some of which are always present (such as the type and strength of assumptions on which a derivation is based), while others are optional and appear in tandem with specific irony strategies. Irony strategies are categorized into two general types (meaning reversal and meaning replacement), which are expected to show different degrees of implicature strength, being influenced by different factors. For the experimental testing of the hypotheses, subjects were presented with the task of judging the acceptability of the explicit cancellation of various implicated (ironic, as well as non-ironic) meanings. Findings show significant differences between irony types in terms of cancellability (measured as acceptability of cancellation – AC), under the influence of (i) type of syllogism and associated assumptions, (ii) co-textual cues, and (iii) humorous framing.

Keywords: irony; explicit cancellability; implicature strength; humorous framing; oxymoron

About the author

Eleni Kapogianni

Eleni Kapogianni is a lecturer in English Language and Linguistics at the University of Kent (UK). Her research focuses on nonliteral language in discourse and she has worked extensively on the phenomenon of verbal irony within the domain of pragmatics (PhD thesis - University of Cambridge 2013 - and recent/forthcoming publications). Key questions of her current projects concern the scope and cross-cultural characteristics of irony, the interaction between irony, sarcasm, and (im)politeness in different discourse settings, and the factors that influence the strength of inferential meaning.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was received by the University of Cambridge (test 1) and the University of Kent (test 2). I am grateful to Kasia Jaszczolt and Napoleon Katsos for their feedback on earlier drafts of this paper, as well as to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

References

Åkerman, Jonas. 2014. Infelicitous Cancellation: The Explicit Cancellability Test for Conversational Implicature Revisited. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93(3). 465–474.10.1080/00048402.2014.988738Suche in Google Scholar

Attardo, Salvatore. 2000. Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 793–826.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3Suche in Google Scholar

Attardo, Salvatore, Jodi Eisterhold, Jennifer Hay & Isabella Poggi. 2003. Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor 16(2). 243–260.10.1515/humr.2003.012Suche in Google Scholar

Attardo, Salvatore, Christian Hempelmann & Sara Di Maio. 2002. Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor 15(1). 3–46.10.1515/humr.2002.004Suche in Google Scholar

Blome-Tillmann, Michael. 2008. Conversational implicature and the cancellability test. Analysis 68. 156–160.10.1093/analys/68.2.156Suche in Google Scholar

Borge, Steffen. 2009. Conversational Implicatures and Cancellability. Acta Analytica 24(2). 149–154.10.1007/s12136-009-0049-1Suche in Google Scholar

Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2006. Cancellation and intention. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 12-13. 1–12.10.1057/9780230292352_9Suche in Google Scholar

Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2013. Grice and cancellation. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1). 17–28.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.008Suche in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro. 2003. On Grice’s circle (further considerations on the semantics/pragmatics debate). RASK: International Journal of Language and Communication 19. 1–29.Suche in Google Scholar

Capone, Alessandro. 2009. Are explicatures cancellable?. Intercultural Pragmatics 6. 55–83.10.1515/IPRG.2009.003Suche in Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2010. Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In B. Soria & E. Romero (eds.), Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, 217–285. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230292352_14Suche in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert. H. & Richard J. Gerrig. 1984. On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(1). 121–126.10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121Suche in Google Scholar

Dahlman, Roberta. 2012. Conversatioal Implicatures are still cancellable. Acta Analytica 28. 321–327.10.1007/s12136-012-0177-xSuche in Google Scholar

Dynel, Marta. 2013. Irony from a neo-Gricean perspective: On untruthfulness and evaluative implicature. Intercultural Pragmatics 10(3). 403–431.10.1515/ip-2013-0018Suche in Google Scholar

Feng, Guangwu. 2013. Speaker’s meaning and non-cancellability. Pragmatics and Cognition 21(1). 117–138.10.1075/pc.21.1.05fenSuche in Google Scholar

Geurts, Bart. 2009. Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and language 24. 51–79.10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01353.xSuche in Google Scholar

Geurts, Bart. 2011. Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511975158Suche in Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel. 1995. On irony and negation. Discourse Processes 19. 239–264.10.1080/01638539509544916Suche in Google Scholar

Grice, Paul H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003Suche in Google Scholar

Grice, Paul H. 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, 113–127. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368873_006Suche in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2008. The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In I. Kecskes & J. Mey (eds.).), Intentions, Common Ground and Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, 45–87. Berlin Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2013. Implicature, inference and cancellability. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo & M. Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy, 133–151. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_6Suche in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael & Kasia Jaszczolt. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In K. Allan & K.M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 87–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022453.006Suche in Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 2004. Implicature. In L.R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1111/b.9780631225485.2005.00003.xSuche in Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 2012. Implying and inferring. In K. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 69–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022453.005Suche in Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 1996. Relevance and infinity: Implications for discourse interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 25. 703–722.10.1016/0378-2166(94)00104-9Suche in Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2009. Cancellability and the Primary/Secondary Meaning Distinction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6. 259–289.10.1515/IPRG.2009.015Suche in Google Scholar

Kapogianni, Eleni. 2011. Irony via “surrealism”. In M. Dynel (ed.), The Pragmatics of Humour Across Discourse Domains, 51–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.210.05kapSuche in Google Scholar

Kapogianni, Eleni. 2013. Irony and the literal versus nonliteral distinction: A typological approach with focus on ironic implicature strength. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Suche in Google Scholar

Kapogianni, Eleni. 2015. The ironic operation: Revisiting the components of ironic meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 91. 16–28.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.001Suche in Google Scholar

Kapogianni, Eleni. 2016. The Ironist’s Intentions: Communicative Priority and Manifestness. Pragmatics and Cognition 23. 150–173.10.1075/pc.23.1.07kapSuche in Google Scholar

Katsos, Napoleon. 2008. The semantics/pragmatics interface from an experimental perspective: The case of scalar implicature. Synthese 165. 385–401.10.1007/s11229-007-9187-4Suche in Google Scholar

Kothoff, Helga. 2003. Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35. 1387–1411.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00182-0Suche in Google Scholar

Larson, Meredith, Ryan Doran, Yaron McNabb, Rachel Baker, Matthew Berends, Alex Djalali & Gregory Ward. 2009. Distinguishing the said from the implicated using a novel experimental paradigm. In U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro (eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics. From Experiment to theory, 75–93. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.Suche in Google Scholar

Partington, Alan. 2011. Phrasal irony, its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6). 1786–1800.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.001Suche in Google Scholar

Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. On testing for conversational implicature. In S. Davis (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader, 365–376. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Originally published in P. Cole (ed.) 1978. Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, 281-297. New York: Academic Press.].Suche in Google Scholar

Sanders, Robert E. 2013. The duality of speaker meaning: What makes self-repair, insincerity and sarcasm possible. Journal of Pragmatics 48. 112–122.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.020Suche in Google Scholar

Saul, Jennifer M. 2002. Speaker meaning, what is said and what is implicated. Noûs 36.2. 228–248.10.1111/1468-0068.00369Suche in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1981. Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 295–318. New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan. & Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Weiner, Matthew. 2006. Are all conversational implicatures cancellable?. Analysis 66. 127–130.10.1093/analys/66.2.127Suche in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 1992. On verbal irony. Lingua 87. 53–76.10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-ESuche in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139028370Suche in Google Scholar

Yus, Francisco. 2000. On reaching the intended ironic interpretation. International Journal of Communication 10(1-2). 27–78.Suche in Google Scholar

Ziegeler, Debra. 2000. What almost can reveal about counterfactual inferences. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 1743–1776.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00119-8Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-2-28

Published in Print: 2018-2-23

Sie haben derzeit keinen Zugang zu diesem Inhalt.

Artikel in diesem Heft

https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0028

Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel

irony; explicit cancellability; implicature strength; humorous framing; oxymoron