Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Salience and Defaultness

  • Chapter
Handbuch Pragmatik

Zusammenfassung

The Graded Salience Hypothesis, introducing the notion of Salience (cf. Giora 1997; 2003), has been recently reviewed and reframed as one of the modules of the Defaultness Hypothesis (cf. Giora/Givoni/Fein 2015a). Whereas the Graded Salience Hypothesis focuses on default, coded and salient meanings, the Defaultness Hypothesis also acknowledges default, even if nonsalient, constructed interpretations. In both cases, however, defaultness is defined in terms of an automatic response to a stimulus. Given their automaticity, default responses will be evoked unconditionally, initially and directly, regardless of degree of nonliteralness (literal vs nonliteral), contextual support (weak vs strong), negation (negation vs affirmation), and, with regards to interpretations, also novelty (high or less-high). As such, default responses are expected to supersede nondefault counterparts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Becker, Israela (2016): The Negation Operator is not a Suppressor of the Concept in its Scope. In fact, quite the Opposite. Unpublished MA thesis. Tel-Aviv University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Israela/Giora, Rachel (in press): The Defaultness Hypothesis: A quantitative corpus-based study of non/default sarcasm and literalness production. In: Journal of pragmatics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Herbert H./Clark, Eve V. (1977): Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colich, Natalie L./Wang, Audrey-Ting/Rudie, Jeffrey D./Hernandez, Leanna M./Bookheimer, Susan Y./Dapretto, Mirella (2012): Atypical neural processing of ironic and sincere remarks in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. In: Metaphor and Symbol 27(1), 70–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colston, Herbert L./Gibbs, Raymond W. (2002): Are irony and metaphor understood differently? In: Metaphor and Symbol 17, 57–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fein, Ofer/Yeari, Menahem/Giora, Rachel (2015): On the priority of salience-based interpretations: The case of irony. In: Intercultural Pragmatics 12(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filik, Ruth/Howman, Hannah/Ralph-Nearman, Christina/Giora, Rachel (2018): The role of defaultness in sarcasm interpretation: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. In: Metaphor and Symbol 33(3), 148–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, Lyn/Rayner, Keith (1990): Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. In: Journal of Memory and Language 29, 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisson, Steven/Pickering, Martin J. (2001): Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. In: Metaphor and Symbol 16(3&4), 149–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, Jerry (1983): The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, Morton Ann (1990): Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, Raymond W. (1980): Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. In: Memory/Cognition 8, 149–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, Raymond W. (1994): The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, Raymond W. (2002): A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. In: Journal of Pragmatics 34, 457–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel (1997): Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. In: Cognitive Linguistics 8/3, 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel (2003): On our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel (2006): Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. In: Journal of Pragmatics 38, 981–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Cholev, Adi/Fein, Ofer/Peleg, Orna (2018): On the speed superiority of defaultness – a divided visual field study. In: Metaphor and Symbol 33(3), 163–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Drucker, Ari/Fein, Ofer/Mendelson, Itamar (2015b): Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. In: Discourse Processes 52(3), 173–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Fein, Ofer (1999a): On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. In: Journal of Pragmatics 31, 1601–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Fein, Ofer (1999b): Irony: context and salience. In: Metaphor and Symbol 14, 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Fein, Ofer/Kaufman, Ronie/Eisenberg, Dana/Erez, Shani (2009): Does an »ironic situation« favor an ironic interpretation? In: Geert Brône/Jeroen Vandaele (ed.): Cognitive Poetics. Goals, Gains and Gaps (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics series). Berlin/New York, 383–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Fein, Ofer/Kotler, Nurit/Shuval, Noa (2015c): Know hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation, and pleasure. In: Geert Brône/Kurt Feyaerts/Tony Veale (ed.): Cognitive Linguistics Meet Humor Research. Current Trends and New Developments. Berlin/New York, 129–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Fein, Ofer/Kronrod, Ann/Elnatan, Idit/Shuval, Noa/Zur, Adi (2004): Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. In: Metaphor and Symbol 19, 115–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Fein, Ofer/Laadan, Dafna/Wolfson, Joe/Zeituny, Michal/Kidron, Ran/Kaufman, Ronie/Shaham, Ronit (2007): Expecting irony: Context vs. salience-based effects. In: Metaphor and Symbol 22, 119–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Gazal, Oshrat/Goldstein, Idit/Fein, Ofer/Stringaris, K. Argyris (2012): Salience and context: Interpretation of metaphorical and literal language by young adults diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. In: Metaphor and Symbol 27, 22–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Givoni, Shir/Fein, Ofer (2015a): Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. In: Metaphor and Symbol 30/4, 290–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Givoni, Shir/Heruti, Vered/Fein, Ofer (2017a): The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited. In: Metaphor and Symbol 32/1, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Livnat, Elad/Fein, Ofer/Barnea, Anat/Zeiman, Rakefet/Berger, Iddo (2013): Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. In: Metaphor and Symbol 28, 89–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel/Meytes, Dalia/Tamir, Ariella/Givoni, Shir/Heruti, Vered/Fein, Ofer (2017b): Defaultness shines while affirmation pales. In: Angeliki Athanasiadou/Herbert Colston (ed.): Irony in Language, Use and Communication. FTL Series. Amsterdam, 219–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Givoni, Shir/Giora, Rachel/Bergerbest, Dafna (2013): How speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. In: Journal of Pragmatics 48(1), 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, Rinat/Faust, Miriam (2012): Metaphor comprehension in persons with Asperger’s syndrome: Systemized versus non-systemized semantic processing. In: Metaphor and Symbol 27(1), 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, Paul H. (1975): Logic and conversation. In: Peter Cole/Jerry Morgan (ed.): Speech acts. In: Syntax and semantics 3. New York, 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasson, Uri/Glucksberg, Sam (2006): Does understanding negation entail affirmation? An examination of negated metaphors. In: Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1015–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivanko, Stacey L./Pexman, Penny M. (2003): Context incongruity and irony processing. In: Discourse Processes 35, 241–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaup, Barbara (2001): Negation and its impact on the accessibility of text information. In: Memory/Cognition 29, 960–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libben, Maya R./Titone, Debra (2008): The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. In: Memory/Cognition 36/6, 1103–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, Maryellen C./Just, Marcel A. (1989): Changes in activation levels with negation. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15, 633–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, Ruth/Schul, Yaacov/Burnstein, Eugene (2004): »I am not guilty« vs »I am innocent«: Successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40, 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peleg, Orna/Eviatar, Zohar (2008): Hemispheric sensitivities to lexical and contextual constraints: Evidence from ambiguity resolution. In: Brain and Language 105(2), 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peleg, Orna/Giora, Rachel/Fein, Ofer (2001): Salience and context effects: Two are better than one. In: Metaphor and Symbol 16, 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swift, Jonathan (1726): Gulliver’s Travels. Ireland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Voort, Marlies E. C./Vonk, Wietske (1995): You don’t die immediately when you kick an empty bucket: A processing view on semantic and syntactic characteristics of idioms. In: Martin Everaert/Erik-Jan van der Linden/Andre Schenk et al. (ed.): Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, John N. (1992): Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence from interrelated meanings. In: Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 21, 193–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Shir Givoni & Rachel Giora

Authors
  1. Shir Givoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel Giora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland

    Frank Liedtke  & Astrid Tuchen  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Givoni, S., Giora, R. (2018). Salience and Defaultness. In: Liedtke, F., Tuchen, A. (eds) Handbuch Pragmatik. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04624-6_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04624-6_20

  • Publisher Name: J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-476-04623-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-476-04624-6

  • eBook Packages: J.B. Metzler Humanities (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation