Obligatory Processing of the Literal Meaning of Ironic Utterances: Further Evidence

By John Schwoebel, Shelly Dews, Ellen Winner, Kavitha Srinivas. 2000

132 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective (2013, result): “Moreover, experimental studies suggest that at least some figurative interpretations are no harder to construct than literal interpretations, contrary to the predictions of this ‘literal-first’ model (Gibbs, 1986, 1994; Dews and Winner 1999; Schwoebel et al., 2000; Giora, 2003; Glucksberg, 2001).”
Expecting Irony: Context Versus Salience-Based Effects (2007, background): “For instance, in Giora et al. (1998) and Schwoebel et al. (2000), reading times of ironic utterances were longer than their (salience-based) literal interpretations.”
Moment-By-Moment Reading of Proverbs in Literal and Nonliteral Contexts (2001, background): “…same context but changing the target items, such as occurs when one contrasts the reading of two utterances that differ along some theoretical dimension of importance (e.g., nonliteral targets and their literal paraphrases as in Ortony, Schallert, Reynolds, & Antos, 1978; Schwoebel et al., 2000).”
Intuition in Judgment and Decision Making: Extensive Thinking Without Effort (2010, background): “Nevertheless, comprehension is a very quick process in natural settings and can be performed in less than 600 to 800 ms (eg, Schwoebel, Dews, Winner, & Srinivas, 2000 ).”