On The Uses of Sarcastic Irony PDF

@
ELSEVIER Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1467-1488

www.elsevier.nl/Iocate/pragma
On the uses of sarcastic irony

Maggie Toplak, Albert N. Katz*
Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario, Canada, N6A 5C2
Received 19 March 1998; revised version 30 August 1999
Abstract
The studies reported here contrasted the effects of making a criticism directly with that of
making it indirectly (via sarcasm). These effects were examined either when the focus was on
the person who uttered the criticism (Study 1) or when the focus was on the person to whom
the barb is directed (Study 2). Moreover, we studied the beliefs associated with sarcastic uses
from four different points-of-view: from that of the speaker, from that of the target of the crit-
icism, from that of an incidental overhearer and from a control no-perspective orientation.
The main task involved reading a set of passages in which one of the characters criticized
another either directly or via sarcasm. Participants completed a questionnaire for each passage
about why the criticism was made. A set of reasons discriminated sarcastic from direct criti-
cism, with twice as many discriminating reasons being observed when one considers what is
in the mind of the person making the sarcastic comment (Study 1) relative to what is in the
mind of the person who receives it (Study 2). Factor analyses indicated that many of the
seemingly separate reasons reflect a common basis, primarily verbal aggression, though sep-
arate factors indicated that verbal aggression made via sarcasm differs in some ways from that
when made directly. Finally, there were some differences found in point-of-view, indicating
that the effect the speaker believes his criticism has sometimes differs from the effect as seen
by the victim. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sarcastic irony; Pragmatic functions; Perspective; Indirect language; Speaker

intention; Listener interpretation
The research reported here was supported by a grant to the second author from the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant 06P007040). We wish to thank Peter Denny, Carl
Kaufman, Ken McRae, Tahany Gadalla, and Paul Voorn for their helpful input on earlier versions of this
manuscript.
* Phone: +1 (519)679-2111, ext. 3681; Fax: +1 (519)661-3961; E-mail: katz@julian.uwo.ca
0378-2166/00/$ - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 2 1 6 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 0 1 - 0
1468 M. Toplak and A. Katz / Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1467-1488
1. Introduction
In this paper we will examine the perceived functions of sarcastic irony. That is,
we will examine comments such as 'You are a fine friend' uttered in a context in
which the statement is obviously intended as a criticism, and not the expressed pos-
itive comment. Understanding why a person would make a criticism indirectly by a
seemingly positive comment is especially interesting because, in principle, such a
comment could have been expressed directly, such as, in the example above by utter-
ing 'You are not a good friend'.
The obvious falseness of the indirect form has led to the argument that sarcastic
irony is an expression of pragmatic insincerity (Kumon-Nakumara et al., 1995). It is
reasonable to assume that pragmatic insincerity is employed by a speaker to have
some effect on a listener that would differ from the direct, presumably more sincere
form, and, conversely, that listeners (or, at least, a subset of listeners) would be
aware of the effect intended by the speaker. To date, there are only a limited number
of studies that have explicitly focused on why a person chooses to frame a criticism
in an indirect (sarcastic) way, rather than more directly, and whether or not the effect
intended by the speaker is, in fact, noted by the listener. The studies reported here
will have that focus.
2. Perspective and sarcasm
Two studies are reported and there are two somewhat novel features present in
both studies. First, the issue of perspective or point-of-view is addressed. We stud-
ied point-of-view because even when speaker and hearer are acting cooperatively, a
misunderstanding of what a speaker intends is not uncommon (Schegloff, 1987).
Point-of-view in sarcasm has received little attention, and needs to be addressed
more in-depth in order to advance current theories of sarcasm. Jorgensen (1996), in
fact suggests that "sarcasm is not a very effective vehicle for communication,
although one can not firmly draw such a conclusion without learning more about the
perceptions of the hearers/victims themselves" (1996: 619), such as we will do in
this study. Point of view is considered in two methodologically distinct ways which
allow us to consider the subtle innuendos of sarcasm when all parties involved in the
communication are presented with the same information. In Study 1, all participants
are asked to consider the speaker's intention, and they are then given specific
instructions to read passages from a speaker, listener, or audience's perspective, or
from no perspective control condition (see Table 1). In Study 2, all participants are
asked to consider the listener's interpretation from all of the same perspectives as
used in Study 1. The comparison of the questions related to the speaker's intention
(Study 1) and the listener's interpretation (Study 2) allow us to examine the broader
pragmatic functions of sarcasm that are associated with the goals and impact of sar-
castic utterances. A more subtle perspective manipulation within each of these stud-
ies involves direct instructions to participants to take the perspective of the speaker,
listener, detached audience, or no perspective control condition. Some research has
M. Toplak and A. Katz / Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1467-1488 1469
Table 1
Perspective manipulations used in study 1 and study 2
Within study perspective Between study perspective manipulation

manipulation (Study 1 and Pragmatic functions Pragmatic functions
Study 2) associated with speaker's associated with listener's
intention (Study 1) interpretation (Study 2)
Speaker's perspective
Listener's perspective
Audience's perspective
Control - No perspective
instructions
demonstrated that perspective information itself is sufficient to yield differences in

reaction time paradigms (Albrecht et al., 1995), identifying different exemplars for
the same category (Barsalou and Sewell, 1984), and differences in memory recall
(Anderson and Pichert, 1978). It is of interest to examine whether simply asking par-
ticipants to identify with a particular perspective will illuminate some of the subtle,
indirect aspects of sarcastic communication. Second, unlike most other psycholin-
guistic studies to date, we will measure a large number of reasons that people might
use sarcasm, with the goal of better understanding which functions of sarcasm go
together and can be disentangled from other effects.
3. The many postulated effects of sarcasm
There are many reasons suggested in the literature as to why a person might use
sarcasm rather than a direct form of criticism. Typically only one or two of these rea-
sons have been examined in any one study. Based on the typical experimental para-
digm in which participants read a set of passages constructed such that a criticism is
made indirectly (sarcastically) or not, a partial listing of effects have shown that the
indirect (sarcastic) versions tend to be seen as expressing negative affect (Roberts
and Kreuz, 1994), humour (Dews et al., 1995; Kreuz et al., 1991; Roberts and
Kreuz, 1994), mocking (Katz and Penman, 1997; Kreuz et al., 1991), and politeness
(Kumon-Nakumara et al., 1995). Irony has also been associated with face-saving,
either of the speaker him or herself, or a means that the speaker allows the listener
to save-face (see Jorgensen, 1996). Some have argued that an effect of ironic criti-
cism is to dilute condemnation, relative to the more direct form (see Dews and Win-
ner, 1995), whereas others have demonstrated that sometimes ironic criticism is used
for the complete opposite reason, namely to enhance condemnation (Colston, 1997).
Finally, irony has been associated with social and mnemonic functions. For instance,
the appropriateness of an ironic expression has been associated with the amount of
shared information between speaker and listener ('common ground', see Kreuz et al.,
in press), and some have argued that ironic speech leads to enhanced memorability
(e.g., Katz and Penman, 1997; Kreuz et al., 1991).
To our knowledge, there has only been one study (Jorgensen, 1996) conducted in
which a fairly large number of the functions of using sarcasm has been examined,
but even in that study the point-of-view was of the victim alone and several of the
functions noted above were not measured, such as the degree of common ground
shared, the degree of mocking or sincerity being expressed, or the perceived long
term effects on memory. Our aim will be to examine all of these postulated functions
of sarcastic irony simultaneously. Consequently, unlike most earlier studies, we
should be able to disentangle which of the postulated functions are psychologically
separable from one another.
4. Study 1
The aim of this study was to examine the reasons that a person uses sarcasm when
being critical of someone else. Our analysis of the literature identified 17 possible
reasons that a person might prefer the indirect sarcastic form (or vice-versa, prefer
the direct form). Because our aim was to examine whether the reasons for use of sar-
casm co-varies with point-of-view, we manipulated the character in our scenarios
with whom the participants were asked to identify, a procedure that has proven
effective in other tasks. (e.g., Albrecht et al., 1995; Barsalou and Sewell, 1984;
Anderson and Pichert, 1978). One-fourth of our sample were treated in the standard
way and no reference was made about empathizing with any specific character. The
other participants were instructed to identify with the person uttering the target state-
ment (the speaker), or the person to whom the target was directed (the victim), or to
a third party which overhears the conversation (the indirect audience). For instance,
in one instance participants would be asked to take the role of the victim and, from
that point-of-view, make attributions about why the speaker made the critical state-
ment. Finally, to further ensure that our participants were able to adopt a given point-
of-view, we measured the reported ease with which a perspective was adopted and
also asked our participants to complete a portion of the Literature Empathy Test
(Mahoney, 1960), a test in which participants read a narrative and then answer a set
of multiple choice questions based on the characters' perspective. We took high
scores on this test as a rough index that our participants were in general able to
empathize with their character.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants
88 undergraduates from the University of Western Ontario served as participants
for course credit; 24 were male (mean age = 19.5, SD = 2.47) and 64 were female
(mean age -- 19.5, SD = 2.95).
4.1.2. Materials: Selection of experimental stimuli

Recent research has shown that sarcastic irony can be invited in a number of
ways, including, but not limited to, the use of: exaggeration (Kreuz, 1996), explicit
mention that contradicts a previous prediction or implicit norm (Kreuz and Glucks-
berg, 1989), differing the relationships between a speaker and his or her victim (Jor-
gensen, 1997), and an indirect criticism in the presence of a privileged audience
(Katz and Lee, 1993). Given this variety of ways to construct sarcastic passages in
the literature, it is important that one ensures that the stimuli employed can be gen-
eralized to other studies and to non-laboratory conditions. We met the criterion of
cross-study generalization by employing as our stimuli items selected from the sem-
inal paper by Kreuz and Glucksberg (1989), one of the most cited papers in the psy-
cholinguistic literature on sarcasm and a model for subsequent stimulus construction.
However, to our knowledge these items have not been shown to be realistic, in the
sense that the passages described everyday situations in which use of sarcasm is
found (as Jorgensen, 1996 did), or whether the sarcasm was worded in the way that
a person would actually make their criticism. To ensure that our stimuli approached
ecological validity, we consequently asked fifty undergraduates from the University
of Western Ontario to rate 21 scenarios that were slightly modified versions of those
employed in the seminal paper by Kreuz and Glucksberg (1989). In the present case,
two variants of each scenario were constructed, one that ended in a direct criticism
(e.g. 'You are not a good friend') and one in a positive statement that could be taken
as an indirect criticism ('You are a good friend'). For each scenario, participants
rated either the direct or indirect version, but not both. Each participant rated 21 sce-
narios along four 7-point rating scales: (1) sarcastic/non-sarcastic, (2) degree to
which the participants could see themself in the event being described, (3) degree to
which 'if you were the speaker in the scenario, would you likely say the same thing
as the target statement' and (4) the extent to which our participants believed the two
characters in the scenario shared the same set of beliefs.
For inclusion in Studies 1 and 2, items had" to meet the following selection crite-
ria: (1) the indirect version had to be rated as significantly more sarcastic than was
the direct version, and (2) both the direct and indirect versions were rated at least 4
on the two questions relating to ecological realism (seeing self in situation; saying
same thing). Only eight of the scenarios met these modest criteria, ! and are the items
subsequently employed here.
4.1.3. Experimental design and procedure

There were 8 conditions in this study represented by the factorial combinations
of 4 points-of-view (speaker, listener, audience, and no-perspective control) and 2
versions of the criticism (either direct or indirect, sarcasm). These instructions and
a sample question to illustrate how perspective was assigned for these 8 conditions
are presented in Appendix A. Participants were given either the direct or indirect
version of the criticism. Point-of-view was a between-subject factor and criticism
type was a within-subject factor. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the
1 The list of stimuli are available from the authors

8 conditions, each of which contained the 8 scenarios (4 with indirect and 4 with
direct criticisms). Each person saw all 8 scenarios but naturally a given scenario dif-
fering only in criticism type was never presented to the same person. The order of
the scenarios was counterbalanced to control for order effects.
After reading each scenario, a set of questions were asked pertaining to the
speaker's intended meaning. Participants were instructed not to turn back to the story
while answering the questions to better simulate a real discourse situation. The
response for each question was measured along a 7-point rating scale (where 7 rep-
resented sarcastic, mocking, etc., and 1 represented not sarcastic, not mocking, etc).
A copy of one scenario and the questions asked of our participants is provided in
Appendix B. After reading all eight of the scenarios and completing the question-
naire for each, participants were then administered a portion of the Literature Empa-
thy Test (Mahoney, 1960), our rough index of the ability of our participants to actu-
ally take on a requested point-of-view. The entire task took approximately 45
minutes to complete.
4.2. Results and discussion
4.2.1. Manipulation check

Our participants had no difficulty in taking on the specific point-of-view
requested of them. When asked to rate the difficulty of taking on a role, there were
no differences as a function of which role was taken and, in general, participants
found the task as relatively easy (mean difficulty = 2.39, with 1 = very easy). The
Literature Empathy Test (which varies from a low of 8 to a high empathy rating of
30) provided converging evidence that, as a group, our participants had little diffi-
culty empathizing with characters in our experimental passages, both for our male
(M = 18.1) and female participants (M = 20.5).
4.2.2. Differences between the direct and indirect form of criticism

The basic analyses will be a set of 2 (form of criticism: direct or indirect) x 4
(point-of-view: none specified, speaker, direct audience, incidental audience)
ANOVAs in which criticism type was within-subject and point-of-view between-
subject. 2 Unlike earlier studies, we performed analyses across both subjects (Fs) and
passages (Fi) in order to permit generalization to other participants and stimuli. One
should note that sarcasm was invited by manipulating the directness of the criticism
in the discourse contexts employed, but our interest is not in indirectness per se but
in perceived sarcasm. Consequently, we present here only those instances in which
the indirect form was rated by an individual as higher than 4 on the 7-point sarcasm
scale or the direct criticism as less than 4. Thus, of the 88 people tested on 8 pas-
sages each, this led to a database of 272 instances of non-sarcastic direct criticisms
2 We did not use a MANOVA procedure, but rather a series of ANOVAs. As using a series of
ANOVAs can increase Type 1 error, we have used the Bonferroni inequality procedure to determine the
appropriate alpha level as .0025 (,,o level .05/20 contrasts; Kirk, 1982). Tables 2 and 5 indicate which
specific analyses meet this criterion, and which are marginal.
a n d 3 1 5 i n s t a n c e s o f s a r c a s m . 3 T h e 8 p a s s a g e s w e r e t r e a t e d as a r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s
f a c t o r , a n d as t h e r e w e r e n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n i t e m s , i t e m s w e r e c o l -
lapsed in both Study 1 and Study 2 analyses.
There were no significant interactions of point-of-view by criticism type across
both items and subjects, though there were main effects for both variables. The lack
of interactions indicates that, regardless of point-of-view, the same basic reasons for
m a k i n g a s t a t e m e n t w e r e a t t r i b u t e d to t h e s p e a k e r .
4.2.3. T a r g e t effects
Table 2 represents the significant main effects of criticism type. As can be seen,
relative to a direct criticism, the person who utters an indirect, sarcastic statement
is p e r c e i v e d as i n t e n d i n g t o b e m o r e o f f e n s i v e , v e r b a l l y a g g r e s s i v e , a n g e r p r o v o k -
i n g , a n d m o c k i n g ( s e e T a b l e 2). T h e s a r c a s t i c m e s s a g e is a l s o p e r c e i v e d as m o r e
Table 2
Perceived differences between a sarcastic (S) and direct criticism (D) (Study 1)
Question Means and standard Subject analysis (Fs)*

deviations and item analysis (Fi)*
Speaker sarcastic? (7 = sarcastic) S: M = 6.6, SD = 0,9

D: M = 1.4, SD = 0.5
Speaker pleased with him/herself? S: M = 4.5, SD = 1.2 Fi(I,5) = 7.4, p < 0.042
(7 = pleased) D: M = 3.4, SD = I.5
Speakers' intent to be humourous? S:M=4.6, SD=I.4
(7 = humourous) D: M = 1.8, SD = 1.1 Fi(1,5) = 15.7, p < 0.011
Speaker being sincere? S: M = 5.2, SD = 1,5
(7 = not sincere) D: M = 2.8, SD = 1.7
Speaker being verbally aggressive? S: M = 3.8, SD = 1.6 Fi(1,5) = 5.2, p < 0.07
(7 = verbally aggressive) D: M = 2.95, SD = 1.6
Speakers' intent to mock? S: M = 5 . 1 SD = 1.5
(7 = to mock) D : M = 2 . 8 SD= 1.6
Speakers' intent to instruct? S: M = 2.6 SD = 1.7 Fi(1,5) = 6.2, p < 0.056
(7 = to instruct) D: M = 3.2. SD = 1.7
Did speaker make message clear? S: M - - 4 . 8 SD = 1.6 Fi(I,5) = 6.1, p < 0.057
(7 = very clear) D:M=5.SSD=1.6
Speakers' intent to anger? S: M = 3.1 SD = 1.4 Fi(1,5) = 7.3, p < 0.043
(7 = to anger) D: M = 2.2. SD = 1.3
Speaker polite? S : M = 2 . 7 SD= 1.2
(7 = polite) D : M = 3 . 8 SD= 1.7
Speakers' intent to offend? S: M = 3.6 SD = 1.4 Fi(1,5) = 7.2, p < 0.044
(7 = to offend) D: M = 2.6, SD = 1.5
* Both Fs and Fi significant at p < 0.0025 according to the Bonferroni inequality procedure (Kirk,
1982); if one is marginal, the marginal effect is noted.
3 Analyses analogous to those reported here were also performed on all the data both here and in
Study 2. Such analyses produced results similar to those described here and do not qualify any of the
conclusions that we draw.
insincere, humorous, impolite, non-instructional, and conveying a somewhat unclear

message. The speaker who gets his or her point across sarcastically is seen also as
being pleased with him or herself. Thus, in general, and consistent with other
research (see Lee and Katz, 1998), sarcasm (relative to its direct non-sarcastic coun-
terpart) is perceived as a negative aggressive statement directed at some victim.
4.2.4. Perspective effects

There were two main effects observed for the role-taking manipulation, indicating
that some attributions about criticism differ as a function of point-of-view. There
was an effect on the question asking how pleased the speaker was with him/herself
for making the criticism; Fs (3, 84) = 5.97 and Fi (3, 15) = 17.3. Post-hoc analyses
showed that those who took the point-of view of the victim rated the speaker as less
pleased with self (M = 3.22) than did the other three groups which did not differ
from one another reliably (means ranged from 3.93 to 4.50). The other reliable effect
was on the question that asked about how the statement would affect the relationship
between speaker and victim, [Fs (3, 82) = 2.76 and Fi (3, 15) = 12.1]. Post-hoc
analysis indicated the only reliable difference was that those who took the point-of-
view of an accidental overhearer rated the comment as having a more negative effect
(rating = 3.10) than did those who took the point-of-view of the speaker (rating =
3.85).
In summary, it appears that those in the role of the person who makes the criti-
cism perceives the comment more positively than those to whom it is directed, or to
a neutral third party that overhears the comment.
4.2.5. Factor analysis

In order to identify those variables which group together, but are separable from
other groupings of variables, a factor analytic procedure was used. A total of 88 par-
ticipants who rated 20 different pragmatic functions for each of 8 passages (4 direct
and 4 sarcastic) were entered into a principle components factor analysis. Our sam-
ple size was sufficient in order to reasonably do this analysis, using the 5:1 cases to
observed variable ratio general rule (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1989). For the purposes
of interpretation, in Table 3, the 0.80 loading on Factor 1 indicates that the direct tar-
get statement was strongly associated with hurtfulness on the first factor.
Ten factors had eigenvalues greater than 1, with a Scree Test indicating that a four
factor solution (accounting for 47.7% of the variance) was optimal. Accordingly,
four factors were extracted and rotated to a Varimax solution. The rotated factor
structure is shown in Table 3; only those factor loadings greater than absolute 0.40
are depicted. Factor loadings can be viewed as analogous to correlations with the
underlying dimension, with higher correlations defining the nature of the dimension.
As can be seen, factors 1 and 2 are very similar to one another with respect to the
ratings which load, except that in factor 1 the ratings are for direct criticisms
whereas, in factor 2, they are for the criticisms made sarcastically. The variables that
do load suggest that both factors represent verbal aggression; the separation of fac-
tors indicate that there is something different about the verbal aggression expressed
directly versus indirectly as sarcastic criticism. The main difference between the two
Table 3
Factor loadings for Varimax Rotated Principle Components Model of questions pertaining to speaker
intention
Question Criticism Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Speaker sarcastic? Direct 0.67

(7 = sarcastic) Sarcastic -0.67
Speaker's intent to clarify? Direct 0.69
(7 = to clarify) Sarcastic 0.47 0.47
Speaker pleased with him/herself? Direct
(7 = pleased) Sarcastic
Speaker's intent to be humourous? Direct 0.50 0.47
(7 = humourous) Sarcastic -0.47
Speaker's intent to hurt? Direct 0.80
(7 = hurt) Sarcastic 0.70
Speaker being sincere? Direct 0.52
(7 = not sincere) Sarcastic -0.51
Speaker being verbally aggressive? Direct 0.78
(7 = verbally aggressive) Sarcastic 0.80
Speaker's intent to mock? Direct 0.58 0.40
(7 = mock) Sarcastic -0.43
Speaker's intent to instruct? Direct 0.40
(7 = to instruct) Sarcastic 0.47
Speaker annoyed? Direct 0.64
(7 = annoyed) Sarcastic 0.75
Speaker being critical ? Direct 0.80
(7 -- critical) Sarcastic 0.65
Did speaker make message clear? Direct 0.75
(7 = very clear) Sarcastic 0.56
Was speaker polite? Direct -0.73
(7 = polite) Sarcastic 0.40
How well do speaker and Direct 0.49
listener know each other? Sarcastic 0.43
(7 = very well)
How will remark affect Direct -0.71
relationship ? Sarcastic
(7 = positive impact)
Speaker's intent to anger? Direct 0.82
(7 = anger) Sarcastic 0.40 0.71
Speaker's intent to offend? Direct 0.83
(7 = offend) Sarcastic 0.75
Will speaker remember Direct 0.46
situation in a day? (7 = yes) Sarcastic 0.53
Will speaker remember Direct
situation in a week? (7 = yes) Sarcastic 0.47
How easy was it to take Direct -0,49
the perspective of X? Sarcastic -0,43
* Only loadings of 0.4 or greater are reported; conducted across speaker, victim, and incidental audi-
ence condition
that we see is that verbal aggression expressed directly is perceived as being associ-
ated with having a negative impact on the relationship between speaker and victim;
the association is not seen for verbal aggression expressed indirectly through sar-
casm. Instead, sarcastic usage is more associated with clarifying how one feels and
the belief that the speaker will likely remember making the comment at later times.
Factors 3 and 4 involve loadings from both the direct and indirect versions of the
criticism. Factor 3 represents the speaker's intent to be clear in expressing his or her
feelings, regardless of directness of criticism. This clarity factor is associated with
the ease with which one can take on a specific point-of-view, and with the perceived
familiarity of the speaker and his/her direct audience. Factor 4 is clearly a direct vs.
indirect (sarcastic) criticism factor. For those direct statements that have been inter-
preted as sarcastic, these statements were related to higher ratings on humour, mock-
ing and lack of sincerity. It is tempting to speculate that of all the measures
employed here, these three are at the core of what distinguishes a sarcastic criticism
from its' more direct non-sarcastic counterpart (see Kumon-Nakamura et al., 1995).
5. Study 2
The focus here is on the perceived impact of the speakers' comment on those who
receive it. A set of measures analogous to those employed in Study 1 will be used,
and once again our participants will be asked to take on one of the points-of-views
employed previously in Study 1. It is not obvious that results analogous to those
found in Study 1 will be found here. As Grice (1975) so persuasively demonstrated,
the speaker and the listener have to share at least some communication functions,
otherwise the cooperative principle could not hold. So clearly some overlap between
what a speaker intends and what a listener understands must exist. But it is equally
clear that communication is not perfect. As one example, consider a speaker who
says: 'I really love your poetry' to a target person, when a second person is present
who knows that the speaker in fact hates the aforementioned poetry. The target per-
son might perceive the comment as a compliment whereas the overhearer would rec-
ognize the indirect criticism (see Katz and Lee, 1993). Gibbs et al. (1995) have
empirically shown another case: The recognition by listeners of irony when irony
was not intended by the speaker.
5.1. Method
5.1.1. Participants
88 undergraduates from the University of Western Ontario served as participants
for course credit. 28 were male (mean age = 19.1, SD = 0.57) and 60 were female
(mean age = 20.7, SD = 4.37).
5.1.2. Materials and procedure

The study was a replication of Study 1 with the only methodological difference
being that the questions now focused on the listener's interpretation. Participants were
given the same 8 scenarios and general and specific perspective-taking instructions
Table 4
Sample question comparison of perspective taking questions used in Study 1 (Speaker intention) and
Study 2 (Listener interpretation)
Sample Question from Speaker Sample Question from Listener Inter-

Intention (Study 1) pretation (Study 2)
Speaker perspective Was YOUR (Pat) intent to be Do you think that Harry thought
humourous when you said 'YOU'RE YOU were being humourous when
REALLY NOT HELPING ME you said 'YOU'RE REALLY NOT
OUT!'/'YOU'RE REALLY HELP- HELPING ME OUT!'/'YOU'RE
ING ME OUT!'? (1 = not REALLY HELPING ME OUT!'?(1
humourous, 7 = humourous) = not humourous, 7 = humourous)
Listener perspective Was Pat's intent to be humourous Did YOU think that Pat was
when she said 'YOU'RE REALLY humourouswhen she said 'YOU'RE
NOT HELPING ME REALLY NOT HELPING ME
OUT!'/'YOU'RE REALLY HELP- OUT!'/'YOU'RE REALLY HELP-
ING ME OUT!'?(1 = not ING ME OUT!'? (1 = not
humourous, 7 = humourous) humourous, 7 = humourous)
Audience perspective Was Pat's intent to be humourous Do you think that Harry thought
when she said 'YOU'RE REALLY Pat was being humourous when she
NOT HELPING ME said 'YOU'RE REALLY NOT
OUT!'/'YOU'RE REALLY HELP- HELPING ME OUT!'/'YOU'RE
ING ME OUT!'? (1 = not REALLY HELPING ME OUT!'?(I
No perspective control Was Pat's intent to be humourous Do you think that Harry thought Pat
when she said 'YOU'RE REALLY was being humourous when she said
NOT HELPING ME 'YOU'RE REALLY NOT HELP-
OUT!'/'YOU'RE REALLY HELP- ING ME OUT!'/'YOU'RE
ING ME OUT!'? (1 = not REALLY HELPING ME OUT!'?(I
as in Study 1 (see A p p e n d i x A). T h e only difference b e t w e e n Study 1 and Study 2

are the questions, and sample questions are presented in Tab l e 4.
5.2. Results and discussion
5.2.1. Manipulation checks

Results similar to those found in Study 1 were o b s e r v e d here as well. Th e pas-
sages in w h i c h the target was indirect was rated as sarcastic (M = 6.28) and those in
w h i c h the target was direct was p e r c e i v e d as non-sarcastic (M = 2.28). O n c e again,
as in Study 1, w e only will present the data for those cases in w h i c h the ratings indi-
cated that the passage was seen as u n a m b i g u o u s l y sarcastic or not, l eav i n g us with a
database o f 298 instances o f direct criticism and 321 instances o f sarcasm. And, once
again, participants reported little difficulty in taking on a p o i n t - o f - v i e w (with a m e a n
o f 2.6 across the different perspectives, w h e r e one represented no difficulty). M o r e -
over, scores on the e m p a t h y scale were again reasonably high (males M = 18.4,
f e m al es M = 19.9), indicating that as a group our participants f o u n d it easy to role-
play.
5.2.2. Experimental analyses

As in Study 1, there were no significant interactions of criticism type (direct vs.
indirect) by point-of-view (no perspective, speaker, listener, incidental audience),
indicating that the various players in a communication perceive the comments as
having the same effects on the victim. There were several main effects of directness
of criticism and of point-of-view that reached significance across both item and sub-
ject analyses.
5.2.3. Target effects

Only 5 functions emerged when the focus was on the listener (see Table 5), unlike
Study 1, when the focus was on the speaker, and in which 10 functions discriminated
the sarcastic from direct criticism These 5 functions overlapped considerably with
some of those observed in the earlier study. When the focus was on the listener here,
sarcastic comments were perceived as less sincere, more humorous, more mocking,
and less polite than was the direct criticism. The sole addition from Study 1 was that
the victim felt more criticized when the comment was made sarcastically (M = 5.33,
SD = 1.3) than when made directly (M = 4.1, SD = 1.6; [Fs (1,84) = 45.2 and Fi
(1,5) = 6.92]. Comparing across Studies 1 and 2, we see that more functions are
attributed to a sarcastic statement when one focuses on the intentions of the person
who makes the utterance, rather than on the beliefs held by the victim of the criti-
cism. Speakers who use sarcasm are perceived as being more verbally aggressive
with the intent to cause anger and offense, than those who use the non-sarcastic more
direct equivalent (Study 1). On the other hand, the targets of the sarcasm are equally
angered and offended by the sarcastic and direct versions of the statement.
Table 5
Perceived differences between a sarcastic (S) and direct criticism (D)
(study 2)
Question M e a n s and Subject a n a l y s i s (Fs)*

standard d e v i a t i o n s and item a n a l y s i s (Fi)*
S p e a k e r sarcastic? S: M = 6.7, SD = 0.3

(7 = sarcastic) D: M = 1.4, SD = 0.5
Did listener think s p e a k e r was S: M = 3.7, SD = 1.4
h u m o u r o u s ? (7 = h u m o u r o u s ) D: M = 1.8, SD = 1.0
Did listener think s p e a k e r was S: M = 2.5, SD = 1.4
b e i n g sincere? (7 = sincere) D: M = 5.4, SD = 1.5
L i s t e n e r feel m o c k e d ? S: M = 5.3, SD = 1.3
(7 = m o c k e d ) D: M = 3.5, SD = 1.5
Listener feel c r i t i c i z e d ? S: M = 5.1, SD = 1.2
(7 = criticized) D: M = 4.1, SD = 1.6 Fi(1,5) = 6.9, p < 0.046
Did listener think that s p e a k e r S: M = 2.0, SD = 0.8
was b e i n g p o l i t e ? (7 = polite) D: M = 3.1, SD = 1.3
* Both Fs and Fi significant at p < 0.0025 a c c o r d i n g to the Bonferroni i n e q u a l i t y procedure (Kirk,

1982); if one is m a r g i n a l , the m a r g i n a l effect is noted.
A supplementary analysis, in which we examined ratings across the two studies

indicates that, regardless of its' directness, the victim of a criticism saw the state-
ment as less polite, more hurtful, more mocking, more anger-provoking, and more
offensive than did the person who made the comment. That is, the victim feels the
impact to a greater extent than was expected by the speaker.
5.2.4. Perspective effects

There were four effects due to perspective when one focuses on the listener (this
study) compared to the 2 effects found when one focuses on the speaker (Study 1).
Two of the effects related to the perceived relationship of speaker and victim of the
comment. First, there was a main effect of the impact of the comment on the speak-
erlistener relationship. Post hoc analysis indicated that those who took the role of the
speaker thought it would have a much more negative effect on his or her relationship
with the victim (M = 3.03) than those who took the other three point-of-views (with
mean ratings varying from 3.44 to 3.80). Second, there was a main effect for the
question asking how well the speaker knew the person whom he or she was criticiz-
ing. The ratings fell into two distinct groups, with those who took the point-of-view
of the speaker (M --- 4.29) and victim (M = 4.3) both judging that they knew each
other less well than did those who took the perspective of an incidental audience (M
= 5.17) or the no-role control (M = 5.77). Thus it seems that when one actively imag-
ines themselves in a communication they do not see the use of negative comments
(whether sarcastic or direct) as indicating close relationships, whereas those who are
not active an active member of the dyad are more likely to attribute negative com-
ments as indicative of a close relationship.
The other two perspective effects were related to the perceived intent behind the
comment. First, those who took the point-of-view of the speaker thought that the vic-
tim would view his/her comment as more impolite (M = 2.3) than those who took the
perspective of the victim actually did (M = 2.9). Finally, with respect to the question
whether the victim learned anything from the criticism, neither the speaker (M =
3.34) nor victim (M = 3.1) actually thought that the comment was instructive, unlike
those in the neutral control condition, who saw the comment as reliably more
instructive (M = 4.33).
5.2.5. Factor analysis

As in Study 1, a total of 88 participants who rated 20 different pragmatic func-
tions for each of 8 passages (4 direct and 4 sarcastic) were entered into a principle
components factor analysis. Scree analysis on the Principle Components analysis
once again indicated that a four factor solution was optimal (accounting for 47.8% of
the variance). The Varimax rotated factor structure is shown in Table 6, with load-
ings of. 0.40 or higher indicated. As can be seen, the first two factors correspond
quite well to the first two factors found in Study 1. That is, in Study 1, when we
focused on the speaker, the two factors represented verbal aggression. Here, when
the focus is on the listener, we have two verbal injury factors, one when the criticism
is made sarcastically and a separate factor when it is made directly. The separation
of factors again point to a difference in being criticized directly and sarcastically; in
Table 6
Factor loadings for Varimax Rotated Principle Components Model of questions pertaining to listener
interpretation*
Questions Criticism Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Speaker sarcastic? Direct 0.64

(7 = sarcastic) Sarcastic 0.45
Listener think that speaker Direct 0.56
was clarifying how s/he was Sarcastic 0.48
feeling (7 = to clarify)
Listener pleased? Direct -0.60
(7 = pleased) Sarcastic -0.60
Did listener think speaker Direct 0.46
was humourous? Sarcastic
(7 = humourous)
Did listener feel hurt? Direct 0.85
(7 = hurt) Sarcastic 0.76
Did listener think speaker Direct 0.40
was being sincere? Sarcastic 0.42 0.52
(7 = sincere)
Listener feel threatened? Direct 0.76
(7 = threatened) Sarcastic 0.81
Listener feel mocked? Direct 0.67
(7 = mocked) Sarcastic 0.75
Listener learn something? Direct
(7 = yes) Sarcastic 0.44
Listener annoyed? Direct 0.62
(7 = annoyed) Sarcastic 0.81
Listener feel criticized? Direct 0.85
(7 = criticized) Sarcastic 0.81
Intent of speaker's comment Direct -0.59
clear to listener? Sarcastic
(7 = very clear)
Did listener think that Direct -0.65
speaker was being polite? Sarcastic -0.40 0.51
(7 = polite)
How well do speaker and Direct -0.43
listener know each other? Sarcastic -0.60
(7 = very well)
How will remark affect Direct -0.62
relationship? Sarcastic -0.66
(7 = positive impact)
Was listener angry? Direct 0.75
(7 = angry) Sarcastic 0.76
Was listener offended? Direct 0.84
(7 = offended) Sarcastic 0.84
Will listener remember Direct 0.44
situation in a day Sarcastic 0.51
(7 = yes)
Will listener remember Direct 0.55
situation in a week? Sarcastic 0.42
(7 = yes)
How easy was it to take Direct
the perspective of X** Sarcastic
* Only loading of .4 or greater are reported.

** Only for speaker, listener, and audience conditions.
the present research the only difference we captured was that the direct form of crit-
icism was associated with a greater likelihood of the comment being remembered at
some later time. Factor 3 appears to represent a dimension involving criticism made
by a speaker to a person he or she does not know well. In this case, the direct com-
ment is seen as sarcastic, humourous and not very clear whereas the indirect form is
perceived as more polite and sincere. The final factor appears to be a comprehension
factor associated with something akin to depth of processing: the criticism is per-
ceived as being sincere and intended to clarify speakers intent; moreover, the lis-
tener is perceived as actually learning something that will be remembered over a
time delay.
6. General discussion
The aims of this study were to examine why someone would use sarcasm rather
than a direct criticism and whether the reasons that a speaker would frame a criticism
as sarcasm are coordinated with the effect on the victim. The findings are as follows.
First, the reasons offered for why a person used sarcasm and the reasons offered
for the effects that the sarcasm had on the victim did not differ as a function of point-
of-view or perspective. That is, when one considered the reasons that a person used
sarcasm (Study 1), the same reasons were given by those who took the role of the
speaker, the victim, or even an indirect audience. A similar consensus across point-
of-view was found when one considered the effects the sarcasm had on the victim
(Study 2). The reasons given were not the same in the two studies. When one con-
centrated on speakers' intent, sarcasm (relative to direct criticism) was seen as being
more insincere, impolite, humorous, mocking, offensive, aggressive, anger-provok-
ing, non-instructional, unclear, and the speaker was seen as more pleased with
him/herself. When one concentrated on the effect on the victim (Study 2), only the
first four of those reasons were significantly different for sarcastic and direct criti-
cism. However, victims felt themselves more criticized when the sarcasm was used.
Thus, the reasons why sarcasm is used differs in many ways when one focuses on
speakers' intent rather than on victims reactions. With speakers' intent in mind, sar-
casm is used as a means of verbal aggression; with victims reactions in mind, sar-
casm is taken as a more severe form of criticism than found when criticism is
directly expressed. It appears that by focusing on the speaker one must consider not
only what one says, but also on the reasons that one says it. When one focuses on the
listener what is more important is the impact of the negative comment, and less the
more subtle reasons that the negative comment may have been framed in the way
that it was.
Second, factor analysis indicated that many of the variables we measured (and are
measured separately in other studies) in fact express some common underlying
dimensions. We found, in Study 1, two factors that measure verbal aggression and,
in Study 2, the analogue to the victim, verbal injury. Interestingly, in both cases, one
of the factors was associated with the direct form of criticism and one with the sar-
castic form, indicating that there are some subtle differences in being aggressive (or
being injured) sarcastically from being aggressive (injured) directly. The direct form
of verbal aggression was perceived as having a more negative effect on the speaker-
victim relationship, and the sarcastic version was perceived as a better form of con-
veying the speakers' true intent, as reflected in message clarity and the likelihood the
message would be remembered at a later date.
Third, there were some effects due to the point-of-view that a person took on.
When one focused on speakers' intent (Study 1), those who took on the point-of-
view of the speaker were less likely to think that their comment would have a nega-
tive effect on their relationship with the victim (than did an indirect audience), and
were more pleased with their self than their victim thought they would be. When one
focused on the victims' reaction (Study 2), those who took the point-of-view of the
speaker, thought their criticism was more impolite and would have a more negative
effect on the relationship with the victim, than the victim actually did. These find-
ings suggest that there are pragmatically subtle differences in how one can intend
something as compared to what is actually interpreted. Moreover, those who took on
the roles of speaker and victim (i.e., those who were directly involved in the verbal
interchange) agreed on how well they knew each other (relative to the other points
of view) and how instructive the criticism was meant to be. Schober and Clark
(1989) have shown that, those not directly in communication can only make infer-
ences about knowledge shared by speaker and listener whereas those directly in
communication are a part of a collaborative process in which each member of the
communication dyad monitors the others knowledge base. It appears something akin
to this might even be occurring in the role-playing manipulation we employed here.
There is an additional aspect of the point-of-view effects that are suggestive. Our
findings suggest that simply being assigned a role produc'es some differences in how
an utterance is understood. While some have demonstrated privileged knowledge
effects with actual information load differences (Keysar, 1994), our findings suggest
that even without the addition of information, participants bring in their own 'privi-
leged knowledge' about being a speaker, listener, or audience. The effects that did
emerge tended to be for questions of interpersonal relationships (how will it be
effected, how well does the speaker and victim know each other) and questions per-
taining to theory of mind (was the speaker pleased with self), and n o t to questions of
speakers' intent (to mock, to cause anger etc.). It may well be that this is the type of
privileged information, namely questions of speaker intent, that is most salient in
role-playing activities.
Although our studies were aimed at uncovering empirical regularities and not
framed as explicit tests of theory, the data does pertain to the issue of whether the
expressed comment 'tinges' the interpretation of the intended message. Namely, that
expressing a criticism positively (as with sarcasm), mutes the criticism, and makes
the sarcastic message less negative than a direct criticism. As noted in Section 1,
there is controversy about whether sarcasm of the sort employed here exhibits this
muting function: Dews and Winner (1995) report muting but Colston (1997) did not
find it. Our data are more in line with that of Colston and indicate that, at least in
some circumstances, sarcasm enhances the criticism rather than reduces it, both
when viewed from the intent of the speaker (i.e., sarcasm is perceived as more
verbally aggressive) and from the reaction of the victim (i.e., sarcasm is more criti-
cal). There are numerous ways in which the Dews and Winner studies differ from
those presented here, such as the availability of prosodic cues that they, but we do
not provide, and in our case, ensuring that the scenarios are realistic. As such one
cannot identify which condition leads to our reversals from Dews and Winner;
nonetheless they, along with the findings of Colston, do cast doubt on the robustness
of the muting hypothesis.
Finally, we would like to conclude with a cautionary methodological note. In con-
structing our experimental stimuli, we attempted to identify passages which
described situations in which sarcasm would likely be expressed, and to use expres-
sions that a person might use in such situations. To this end we employed as the basic
items passages that originally were employed in one of the seminal papers on the
psychology of sarcasm. Our modification was a simple pretest to ensure that the
items met those moderate standards of ecological validity. The findings were clear:
only about one out of every three items taken from this seminal paper on sarcasm met
our relatively liberal criteria of realism. Clearly much care is required to construct
materials for use in studies of this kind, and suggest that we take a hard look at the
stimuli that we employ (and have been employed in earlier research) on sarcasm.
Although beyond the scope of this study, a question of interest is in determining
what makes for a realistic or ecologically valid depiction of sarcasm. Jorgensen
(1996) has demonstrated that sarcasm is most likely to occur to an intimate of the
speaker who is directly addressed, rather than the criticism being made to a third
party. We have conducted some preliminary analyses in order to better understand
what distinguishes our realistic items from those less realistic. We have found, for
instance, that the our items selected as realistic possessed the characteristics
described by Jorgensen, but ad hoc analysis has indicated that these factors did not
differ for the selected items and those rejected as not realistic. As noted earlier in this
paper, there are numerous ways in which the presence or degree of sarcasm can be
invited in written passages presented in experiments, and systematic research is
required to study the role played by each of these variables in creating stimuli that
reflect how sarcasm is used in everyday language; some such variables would
include echoic mention, exaggeration, nature of the speaker, relationship of speaker
to victim, severity of the criticism, and whether or not the criticism is being made in
private or in front of an audience.
Appendix A: Instructions to participants and sample question for perspective-taking

manipulation
1. General instructions to those asked to take the speaker, listener, or audiences' perspective:
You will be presented with eight different stories, each of which is followed by a set of ques-
tions. For each story, you will be asked to take on the perspective of someone in the story, and then
to answer a set of questions based on that person's perceptions of the situation in the story. Try to
answer the questions to the best of your ability, and please remember that there are no right or
wrong answers! We are interested in YOUR perceptions of what the person you were asked to
portray believes about the situation.
l a. Specific instructions for those assigned to take the perspective of the speaker:
For the following scenario, read it through as though you were the character Pat speaking to
Harry. Imagine that you are actually moving into your new apartment and Harry is helping you
move in. Read it through a second time and then turn the page, but do not turn the page back once
you have flipped it over. Try to assume that you are actually the character Pat.
Sample Question: Was Y O U R intent to be humourous when you said ' Y O U ' R E REALLY
NOT HELPING ME O U T ! ' ? / ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME O U T ! ' ? (1 = not humourous,
7 = humourous)
lb. Specific instructions for those assigned to take the perspective of the listener:
For the following scenario, read it through as though you were the character H a r r y speaking to
Pat. Imagine that you are actually helping Pat move into her new apartment. Read it through a sec-
ond time and then turn the page, but do not turn the page back once you have flipped it over. Try
to assume that you are actually the character H a r r y .
Sample Question: Was Pat's intent to be humourous when she said ' Y O U ' R E REALLY NOT
HELPING ME O U T ! ' ? / ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME O U T ! ' (1 = not humourous, 7 =
humourous)
l c. Specific instructions for those assigned to take the perspective of the audience:
For the following scenario, read it through as though you are watching the characters Harry and
Pat talking to each other. Imagine that you are in the corner of the apartment that Harry is helping
Pat move into. Read it through a second time and then turn the page, but do not turn the page back
once you have flipped it over. Try to assume that you are actually watching this scenario.
HELPING ME O U T ! ' ? / ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME O U T ! ' ? (1 = not humourous, 7 =
humourous)
2. General and specific instructions for those assigned to the no perspective control condition:
You will be presented with eight different stories, each of which is followed by a set of ques-
tions. Please read each story carefully, and answer the questions that follow. Try to answer the
questions to the best of your ability, and please remember that there are no right or wrong answers !
We are interested in Y O U R perceptions of the stories.
Read the following scenario about Pat and Harry. Read it through a second time and then turn
the page, but do not turn the page back once you have flipped it over.
HELPING ME O U T ! ' ? / ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME O U T ! ' ? (1 = not humour/7 =
humour)
Appendix B: Sample scenario and questions given in Study 1
For the following scenario, read it through as though you were the character Pat 4 speaking to
Harry. Imagine that you are actually moving into your new apartment and Harry is helping you
move in. Read it through a second time and then turn the page, but do not turn the page back once
you have flipped it over. Try to assume that you are actually the character Pat.
The clock
Harry is helping you move into your new apartment. He is moving various things by himself.
Harry: Don't worry, I can move this grandfather's clock by myself.

You: Are you sure? I don't want things to get ruined! I know it's awkward to move, do you think
you can manage?
Harry: Of course! This clock is nothing compared to the weights that I lift in the gym!
You: O.K., go ahead. Don't let anything happen to that clock!
You continue moving some of the boxes into the other room. Harry only manages to tip the
clock over, and it crashes to the floor.
You return to the room signalled by the noise and say: ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME
OUT!'
Participants then turned the page and were asked the following questions:
Questions:
(1) Were YOU trying to be sarcastic when you said: ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME
OUT! '?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not sarcastic sarcastic
(2) Was Y O U R intent to clarify how you were feeling when you said: ' Y O U ' R E REALLY
HELPING ME OUT! '?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
no to clarify to clarify
(3) Were Y O U pleased with yourself after you told Harry that: ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING
ME O U T ! ' ?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not pleased pleased
(4) Was Y O U R intent to be humourous when you said ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME
OUT! '?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not humourous humorous
(5) Was Y O U R intent to hurt Harry when you said ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME OUT! '?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not to hurt to hurt
(6) Were Y O U being sincere when you said ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME OUT! '?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sincere not sincere
(7) Were YOU being verbally aggressive when you said ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME
OUT! '?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not verbally aggressive verbally aggressive
(8) Was Y O U R intent to mock Harry when you said ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME
OUT! '?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not to mock to mock
(9) Were Y O U trying to instruct Harry by telling him that ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME
OUT! '7
1 2 3 4 5 67
not to instruct to instruct
(10) Were Y O U annoyed when you said ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME O U T ! ' to Harry?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not annoyed annoyed
(11) Were Y O U being critical when you said ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME O U T ! ' to
Harry ?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
no critical critical
(12) Do Y O U think that you made your message as clear as you could to Harry when you said
' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME O U T ! ' 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not clear very clear
(13) Do Y O U think that you conveyed your message to Harry in a polite way by saying:
' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING ME OUT! '?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not polite polite
(14) How well do you think that you know Harry based on the information in the scenario that you
read?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not very well very well
(15) How will the remark affect Y O U R relationship with Harry?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
negative impact positive impact
(16) Was Y O U R intent to anger Harry when you told him that ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING
ME O U T ! ' ?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
no to anger to anger
(17) Was Y O U R intent to offend Harry when you told him that ' Y O U ' R E REALLY HELPING
ME O U T ! ' ?
1 2 3 45 67
no to offend to offend
(18) Do you think YOU are likely to remember this situation:

a. in a day?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not likely to remember likely to remember
b. in a week?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not likely to remember likely to remember
(19) How easy was it for you to take on the perspective of Pat in answering these questions?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
very easy very difficult
References
Albrecht, J.E., E.J. O'Brien, R.A. Mason and J.L. Myers, 1995. The role or perspective in the accessi-
bility of goals during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni-
tion 21: 364-372.
Anderson, R.C. and J.W. Pichert, 1978. Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift
in perspective. Joumal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 17(1): 1-12.
Barsalou, L.W. and D.R. Sewell, 1984. Constructing representations of categories from different points
of view. Emory Cognition Project: Report #2.
Colston, H.L. 1997. Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: The pragmatic functions of ironic criticism. Dis-
course Processes 23: 25~,5.
Dews, S., J. Kaplan and E. Winner, 1995. Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Dis-
course Processes 19: 347-367.
Dews, S. and E. Winner, 1995. Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbolic
Activity 10: 319.
Gibbs, R., J. O'Brien and S. Doolittle, 1995. Inferring meanings that are not intended: Speakers' inten-
tions and irony comprehension. Discourse Processes 20: 187-203.
Grice, H., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds., Syntax and semantics (vol. 3):
Speech acts. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Jorgensen, J., 1996. The functions of sarcastic irony in speech. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 613-634.
Katz, A.N. and C.J. Lee, 1993. The role of authorial intent in determining verbal irony and metaphor.
Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 8: 257-279.
Katz, A. and P. Penxman, 1997. Processing of figurative language: Occupation of speaker turns
metaphor into irony. Metaphor and Symbol 12: 1941.
Keysar, B., 1994. The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective taking in text. Cognitive
Psychology 26: 165-208.
Kirk, R.E., 1982. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioural sciences (2rid edition). Belmont,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kreuz, R., 1996. The use of verbal irony: Cues and constraints. In: J.S. Mio and A. Katz, eds, Metaphor:
Implications and applications, 23-38. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kreuz, R., M. Kassler, L. Coppenrath and B. Allen, in press. Tag questions and common ground effects
in the perception of verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics.
Kreuz, R.J. and S. Glucksberg, 1989. How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118: 374-386.
Kreuz, R.J., D.L. Long and M.B. Church, 1991. On being ironic: Pragmatic and mnemonic implications.
Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 6: 149-162.
Kumon-Nakamura, S., S. Glucksberg and M. Brown, 1995. How about another piece of pie: The allu-
sional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124: 321.
Lee, C. and A. Katz, 1998. The differential role of ridicule in sarcasm and irony. Metaphor and Symbol
13: 1-5.
Mahoney, S.C., 1960. The literature empathy test: Development of procedure for differentiating between
'good empathizers' and 'poor empathizers'. University of Oklahoma, unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion.
Roberts, R.M and R.J. Kreuz, 1994. Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science 5:
159-163.
Schegloff, E.A., 1987. Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics 25:
201-218.
Schober, M.F. and H. Clark, 1989. Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology
21 : 21 t-232.
Tabachnick, B.G. and L.S. Fidell, 1989. Using multivariate statistics (2nd edition). New York: Harper-
Collins.
Maggie Toplak is a doctoral student in the Human Development and Applied Psychology program at
the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, affiliated with the University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. The research reported here was conducted under the supervision of Dr. Katz and was
completed in partial fulfillment for the Master of Arts degree at the University of Western Ontario, Lon-
don, Ontario, Canada.
Albert Katz was born in Montreal, Canada, receiving his Bsc from McGill University and his Ph.D. (in
Cognitive Psychology) at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Currently he is
a Full Professor of Psychology at the University of Western Ontario. Dr. Katz's research interests are in
the processing of language, especially in figurative and indirect language, and in the study of autobio-
graphical memory. He is Associate Editor of the journal, Metaphor and Symbol and Consulting Editor of
the Journal of Mental Imagery. He has coedited (with Jeffrey Mio), Metaphor: Implications and Appli-
cations (Erlbaum, 1996), edited and cowritten (with Christina Cacciari, Ray Gibbs, and Mark Turner),
Figurative Language and Thought (Oxford University Press, 1998), and is editing a forthcoming double
issue of Metaphor and Symbol on the processing and understanding of sarcasm and irony.
4 This particular scenario illustrates the speaker's ('Pat') perspective.

On The Uses of Sarcastic Irony PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

On The Uses of Sarcastic Irony PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

@

ELSEVIER Journal of Pragmatics 32 (2000) 1467-1488

On the uses of sarcastic irony

Received 19 March 1998; revised version 30 August 1999

Keywords: Sarcastic irony; Pragmatic functions; Perspective; Indirect language; Speaker

2. Perspective and sarcasm

Within study perspective Between study perspective manipulation

demonstrated that perspective information itself is sufficient to yield differences in

3. The many postulated effects of sarcasm

4.1.2. Materials: Selection of experimental stimuli

4.1.3. Experimental design and procedure

1 The list of stimuli are available from the authors

4.2. Results and discussion

4.2.1. Manipulation check

4.2.2. Differences between the direct and indirect form of criticism

Question Means and standard Subject analysis (Fs)*

Speaker sarcastic? (7 = sarcastic) S: M = 6.6, SD = 0,9

insincere, humorous, impolite, non-instructional, and conveying a somewhat unclear

4.2.4. Perspective effects

4.2.5. Factor analysis

Question Criticism Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Speaker sarcastic? Direct 0.67

5.1.2. Materials and procedure

Sample Question from Speaker Sample Question from Listener Inter-

as in Study 1 (see A p p e n d i x A). T h e only difference b e t w e e n Study 1 and Study 2

5.2. Results and discussion

5.2.1. Manipulation checks

5.2.2. Experimental analyses

5.2.3. Target effects

Question M e a n s and Subject a n a l y s i s (Fs)*

S p e a k e r sarcastic? S: M = 6.7, SD = 0.3

* Both Fs and Fi significant at p < 0.0025 a c c o r d i n g to the Bonferroni i n e q u a l i t y procedure (Kirk,

A supplementary analysis, in which we examined ratings across the two studies

5.2.4. Perspective effects

5.2.5. Factor analysis

Questions Criticism Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Speaker sarcastic? Direct 0.64

* Only loading of .4 or greater are reported.

Appendix A: Instructions to participants and sample question for perspective-taking

Appendix B: Sample scenario and questions given in Study 1

Harry: Don't worry, I can move this grandfather's clock by myself.

(15) How will the remark affect Y O U R relationship with Harry?

(18) Do you think YOU are likely to remember this situation:

4 This particular scenario illustrates the speaker's ('Pat') perspective.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen