Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Feb;21(1):74-92.
doi: 10.3758/s13415-020-00849-7. Epub 2021 Jan 9.

Immediate online use of prosody reveals the ironic intentions of a speaker: neurophysiological evidence

Affiliations

Immediate online use of prosody reveals the ironic intentions of a speaker: neurophysiological evidence

Maël Mauchand et al. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

In social interactions, speakers often use their tone of voice ("prosody") to communicate their interpersonal stance to pragmatically mark an ironic intention (e.g., sarcasm). The neurocognitive effects of prosody as listeners process ironic statements in real time are still poorly understood. In this study, 30 participants judged the friendliness of literal and ironic criticisms and compliments in the absence of context while their electrical brain activity was recorded. Event-related potentials reflecting the uptake of prosodic information were tracked at two time points in the utterance. Prosody robustly modulated P200 and late positivity amplitudes from utterance onset. These early neural responses registered both the speaker's stance (positive/negative) and their intention (literal/ironic). At a later timepoint (You are such a great/horrible cook), P200, N400, and P600 amplitudes were all greater when the critical word valence was congruent with the speaker's vocal stance, suggesting that irony was contextually facilitated by early effects from prosody. Our results exemplify that rapid uptake of salient prosodic features allows listeners to make online predictions about the speaker's ironic intent. This process can constrain their representation of an utterance to uncover nonliteral meanings without violating contextual expectations held about the speaker, as described by parallel-constraint satisfaction models.

Keywords: ERPs; Irony; Nonliteral meanings; Speech communication; Vocal expression.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Alberts, J. K., Kellar-Guenther, Y., & Corman, S. R. (1996). That’s not funny: Understanding recipients’ responses to teasing. Western Journal of Communication, 60(4), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319609374553 - DOI
    1. Anolli, L., Ciceri, R., & Infantino, M. G. (2000). Irony as a game of implicitness: Acoustic profiles of ironic communication. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(3), 275–311. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005100221723 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Argyle, M., Alkema, F., & Gilmour, R. (1971). The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes by verbal and non-verbal signals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(3), 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010307 - DOI
    1. Argyle, M., Salter, V., Nicholson, H., Williams, M., & Burgess, P. (1970). The Communication of Inferior and Superior Attitudes by Verbal and Non-verbal Signals *. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(3), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-­-8260.1970.tb00668.x - DOI
    1. Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., & Poggi, I. (2003). Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor, 16(2), 243–260. - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources