Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 615–624 | Cite as

Using Sarcasm to Compliment: Context, Intonation, and the Perception of Statements with a Negative Literal Meaning

  • Daniel Voyer
  • Janie P. Vu


The present study extended findings of contrast effects in an auditory sarcasm perception task manipulating context and tone of voice. In contrast to previous research that had used sarcastic and sincere statements with a positive literal meaning, the present experiment examined how statements with a negative literal meaning would affect the results. Eighty-four undergraduate students completed a task in which an ambiguous, positive, or negative computer-generated context spoken in a flat emotional tone was followed by a statement with a negative literal meaning spoken in a sincere or sarcastic tone of voice. Results for both the proportion of sarcastic responses and response time showed a significant context by tone interaction, reflecting relatively fast sarcastic responses for the situation in which sarcasm would turn the statement into a compliment (positive context, sarcastic intonation) and fast sincere responses when the literal insult was emphasized (negative context, sincere intonation). However, the ambiguous context produced a pattern of results modulated by the tone of voice that was similar to that observed when the context/intonation pairing could not be interpreted as a compliment or an insult (negative context/sarcastic intonation or positive context/sincere intonation). These findings add to the body of literature suggesting that situational contrast, context, and intonation influence how sarcasm is perceived while demonstrating the importance of the literal meaning in sarcasm perception. They can be interpreted in the context of models of sarcasm comprehension that postulate two stages of processing.


Sarcasm Auditory perception Contrast effects 


  1. Anolli, L., Ciceri, R., & Infantino, M. G. (2002). From “blame by praise” to “praise by blame”: Analysis of vocal patterns in ironic communication. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 266–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attardo, S. (2000). Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask, 12, 3–20.Google Scholar
  3. AT&T Labs. (2010). Natural voices\(^{\textregistered }\) text-to-speech demo. Retrieved from
  4. Boylan, J., & Katz, A. N. (2013). Ironic expression can simultaneously enhance and dilute perception of criticism. Discourse Processes, 50, 187–209. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2012.747041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgers, C., van Mulken, M., & Schellens, P. J. (2011). Finding irony: An introduction of the verbal irony procedure (VIP). Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 186–205. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2011.583194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capelli, C. A., Nakagawa, N., & Madden, C. M. (1990). How children understand sarcasm: The role of context and intonation. Child Development, 61, 1824–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheang, H. S., & Pell, M. D. (2011). Recognizing sarcasm without language: A cross-linguistic study of English and Cantonese. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19, 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colston, H. L. (2002). Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 111–142. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80008-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernald, A. (1989). Intonation and communicative intent in mothers’ speech to infants: Is the melody the message? Child Development, 60, 1497–1510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardner, H., & Brownell, H. H. (1986). The right hemispheric communication battery. Boston: Psychology Service.Google Scholar
  11. Gerrig, R. J., & Goldvarg, Y. (2000). Additive effects in the perception of sarcasm: Situational disparity and echoic mention. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 197–208. doi: 10.1207/S15327868MS1504_1.
  12. Gibbs, R. W. (1994). Figurative thought and figurative language. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 411–446). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giora, R., Zaidel, E., Soroker, N., Batori, G., & Kasher, A. (2000). Differential effects of right- and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 63–83. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katz, A. N. (2005). Discourse and sociocultural factors in understanding nonliteral language. In H. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 183–207). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Kreuz, R., & Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 374–386. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.118.4.374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M. (1995). How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 3–21. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Persicke, A., Tarbox, J., Ranick, J., & St. Clair, M. (2013). Teaching children with autism to detect and respond to sarcasm. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 193–198. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2012.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pexman, P. M., Whalen, J. M., & Green, J. (2010). Understanding verbal irony: Clues from interpretation of direct and indirect remarks. Discourse Processes, 47, 237–261. doi: 10.1080/01638530902959901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sabbagh, M. A. (1999). Communicative intentions and language: Evidence from right-hemisphere damage and autism. Brain and Language, 70, 29–69. doi: 10.1006/brln.1999.2139.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-prime user’s guide: Version 1.0. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-prime reference guide: Version 1.0. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Utsumi, A. (2000). Verbal irony as implicit display of ironic environment: Distinguishing ironic utterances from nonirony. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1777–1806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Voyer, D., & Techentin, C. (2010). Subjective acoustic features of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 25, 1–16. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2010.510927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Voyer, D., Thibodeau, S.-H., & Delong, B. J. (2014). Context, contrast, and tone of voice in auditory sarcasm perception. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. doi: 10.1007/s10936-014-9323-5.
  27. Woodland, J., & Voyer, D. (2011). Context and intonation in the perception of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 227–239. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2011.583197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations