Journal of Language and Social Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to browse PSPB online!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Colston, H. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 1, 46-65 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X00019001003

"Dewey Defeats Truman"

Interpreting Ironic Restatement

Herbert L. Colston

University of Wisconsin-Parkside, herbert.colston{at}uwp.edu

When a speaker restates another person’s inaccurate remark, for example, "Sure, Ronald Reagan was president during the 1970’s," he or she runs a risk of being misunderstood—people might understand the response as verbal irony, but they also could readily interpret it literally. This study investigated an Ironic Implicature Hypothesis that speakers opt for this form of verbal irony because of the unique pragmatic functions it performs. The hypothesis states that speakers use conversational implicature to suggest that erroneous speakers should not have made the mistake in the first place. Ironic restatement was found to indicate a speaker’s belief that another erroneous speaker actually knew the correct statement that was expected (Experiment 1), which, in turn, suggests that the erroneous speaker should not have committed the speech error (Experiment 2). The implications of these findings for theories of verbal irony are discussed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?