Minds and Machines

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 635–650 | Cite as

An Ironic Fist in a Velvet Glove: Creative Mis-Representation in the Construction of Ironic Similes

  • Yanfen Hao
  • Tony Veale


Irony is an effective but challenging mode of communication that allows a speaker to express viewpoints rich in sentiment with concision, sharpness and humour. Creative irony is especially common in online documents that express subjective and deeply-felt opinions, and thus represents a significant obstacle to the accurate analysis of sentiment in web texts. In this paper we look at one commonly used framing device for linguistic irony—the simile—to show how even the most creative uses of irony are often marked in ways that make them computationally feasible to detect. We conduct a very large corpus analysis of web-harvested similes to identify the most interesting characteristics of ironic comparisons, and provide an empirical evaluation of a new algorithm for separating ironic from non-ironic similes.


Irony Mis-representation Expectation Pretence Sentiment 


  1. Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11, 211–227.Google Scholar
  2. Bethard, S., Yu, H., Thornton, A., Hatzivassiloglou, V., & Jurafsky, D. (2004). Automatic extraction of opinion propositions and their holders. In Proceedings of the AAAI spring symposium on exploring attitude and affect in text.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2007). A brief history of irony. In H. L. Colston, & R. W. Gibbs Jr. (Eds.), Irony in language and thought. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.) (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grice, H. P. (1978). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 9. Pragmatics. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Kennedy, A., & Inkpen, D. (2006). Sentiment classification of movie reviews using contextual valence shifters. Computational Intelligence, 22(2), 110–125.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 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(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moon, R. (2008). Conventionalized as-similes in English: A problem case. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(1), 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Norrick, N. (1986). Stock similes. Journal of Literary Semantics, XV(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ortony, A. (1979). The role of similarity in similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1–2), 1–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Roncero, C., Kennedy, J. M., & Smyth, R. (2006). Similes on the internet have explanations. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(1), 74–77.Google Scholar
  16. Rubinstein, A. (2003). Using LSA to detect Irony, In Proceedings of the workshop on corpus-based approaches to figurative language, at Corpus Linguistics 2003. Lancaster, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87, 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schwarz, A. (2003). The history of rule changes,, February 4th.Google Scholar
  19. Turney, P. (2002). Thumbs up or thumbs down? Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics, (pp. 417–424).Google Scholar
  20. Veale, T. (2004). WordNet sits the S.A.T.: A knowledge-based approach to Lexical Analogy. In The proceedings of ECAI 2004, the 16th European Conference on artificial intelligence. Valencia, Spain: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Veale, T., & Hao, Y. (2007). Making lexical ontologies functional and context-sensitive. In Proceedings of the 46th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics.Google Scholar
  22. Veale, T., Hao, Y., & Li, G. (2008). Multilingual harvesting of cross-cultural stereotypes. In Proceedings of the 46th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics.Google Scholar
  23. Veale, T., Li, G., & Hao, Y. (2009). Growing fine-grained taxonomies from seeds of varying quality and size. In Proceedings of the 2009 annual meeting of the European association of computational linguistics.Google Scholar
  24. Whissell, C. (1989). The dictionary of affect in language. In R. Plutchnik, & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory and research, (pp. 113–131). New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations