Resumen índices de capacidad L1 utilizando el

Below is a summary of the results as they pertain to the predictions made by the

individual theories.

1. Direct Access View

This view (Gibbs, 1986; Gibbs, 2002) did not receive empirical support from the

experiment presented. Sarcastic Prosody interacted with Frequency in the Balanced

homophone reaction time data, indicating that it was being processed with a different

time frame than a Sincere interpretation. Due to the lack of support for this framework

within the analysis, the remaining experiment focused on testing Graded Salience and

2. Graded Salience Hypothesis

Using this hypothesis, (Giora, 1997), several testable predictions were generated

at the onset of the experiment. These predictions followed the notion that salience would

be added to the interpretations in the case of Sarcasm interacting with previous factors,

when discourse interpretations continually compete until participants are forced to make

a choice. The previous cues that Sarcasm was considered to interact with included

Frequency, Dominance, and Social Contextual information.

Biased Homophones: Graded Salience Hypothesis

When examining processing of Biased homophones using the eye-movement

record, no effect of Sarcasm was seen within the data, either in the reported analyses or in

additional behavioral analyses that were carried out including a direct test of Sarcasm as

interacting with Frequency and Dominance. Instead, the effects of Frequency and

Dominance alone persisted in directing attention and choice throughout the spoken

discourse and decision of applicable context. This suggests that Sarcasm does not

contribute salience given these conditions, and in order to be interpreted within the

Graded Salience Framework, one would argue that Sarcasm is not viewed as a salient

cue.

Balanced Homophones: Graded Salience Hypothesis

Within the eye-movement record, when tested Sarcasm did not interact with

Frequency throughout as originally predicted (when tested using alternative models).

Instead, during the processing of Sentence 2, it interacted with variables such as Change,

generating a shorter fixation duration when there will be a shift in viewing contextual

Contextual Ratings scores, increasing fixation time as the score increased. Together, this

suggests participants are considering the Sarcasm they are presented with in the context

of the overall conversation and its social implications, rather than as a highlight for

specific lexical information (such as Frequency classification) as processing unfolds.

However, this interaction does support the Graded Salience (Giora, 1997) prediction of

being considered a salient cue given Balanced homophone conditions. However, given

Sarcasm did not interact with Frequency, the interpretation is not without issue.

Behavioral: Graded Salience Hypothesis

Within the behavioral data, there was again no effect of Sarcasm in the Biased

homophones (only Frequency and Dominance), thus it appears that the Bias or

Dominance itself (Dominant or Subordinate meaning) interacts with Frequency and is

deemed sufficient information to base choice of interpretation on. Or, another way to

view these results in support of a Graded Salience approach (Giora, 1997), is that

Dominance information contributes sufficient salience to choose an interpretation, and

renders Sarcasm unnecessary. This could be an effect of the fact that Sarcasm does not

directly interact with the mention of the homophone in the design.

In the case of Balanced homophones, a poverty of lexical information associated

with the homophone, appeared to increase reliance on the Sarcasm as an informational

cue soon after it was offered in Sentence 2. This was demonstrated through to final

processing, as measured by reaction times. In reaction time measures, Sarcasm did

interact with Frequency, (as was predicted to also occur within the eye-movement

measures, according to Graded Salience). Additionally, the interaction does appear to

Frequency alternative, and increases reaction time when selecting a Low Frequency

alternative (and removes the significant difference between the conditions) as compared

to Sincere prosody, thus reversing the pattern. This suggests that Sarcastic Prosody did

interact with the Frequency information on some level, even though it was not clear in the

eye-movement record.

In summary, this data suggests that Sarcasm is considered useful in particular

situations in the contexts created within the current experiment. As Sarcasm did not

affect final choice for either Biased or Balanced homophones, it appears that as a salience

cue, while in some cases it does appear to highlight an alternative, the alternative only

receives additional consideration. Together, this results in partial support of the Graded

Salience Framework as an explanation for Sarcasm resolution.

3. Relevance Theory

This framework (Sperber & Wilson, 1986; Sperber & Wilson, 1995) also

predicted an interaction between factors Dominance, Frequency, and Sarcasm when

choosing an interpretation of the homophone.

Biased Homophones: Relevance Theory

In the case of Biased homophones, when considering the lexical information

associated with the homophone (Frequency, Dominance status), it appears that these cues

create a discourse interpretation that is difficult to overcome. Indeed, within the data, it

appears that listeners do not require sarcasm to resolve the ambiguous reference, even

when the cue is available. However, Relevance Theory did predict that this was a likely

outcome, since the information provided by Dominance and Frequency was strong.

altered in the case of Biased homophones (as in Experiment 3), sarcasm can serve as a

stronger contextual effect.

Balanced Homophones: Relevance Theory

Relevance Theory framework (Sperber & Wilson, 1986; Sperber & Wilson, 1995)

predicts that only in some cases will sarcasm be beneficial. Here, it is only in the case of

Balanced homophones where we see a strong effect of sarcasm as an informational cue

being considered by listeners. The effect is observable from when Sarcasm is introduced

in Sentence 2 (such that it interacts with Social Contextual Ratings, increasing processing

of highly rated meanings), through to reaction time data (where it reverses the choice

time pattern by Frequency seen in the Sincere prosody), as reported in the previous

section. This singular effect of aiding in one context (Balanced homophones) was

predicted from the Relevance Theory Framework.

Behavioral: Relevance Theory

The null effect of sarcasm in reaction times and final choice of Biased

homophone interpretations is predicted by Relevance Theory by the prediction that the

cue is not relevant enough to listeners. In the case of Balanced homophones, we see an

interaction of Sarcasm and Frequency in reaction time data (again, such that time to

choose between High and Low frequency alternatives is lower in the High Frequency

condition and longer in the Low Frequency condition than the Sincere control). Here, the

information is considered relevant, considering the lack of other available information.

While Relevance Theory would predict differences between the final choice proportions

Summary

Thus, as described above, it appears that both Graded Salience (Giora, 1997) and

Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986; Sperber & Wilson, 1995) receive some

support from the current experimental findings. In the case of Biased homophones, there

was no observed effect of Sarcasm. While predicted by Relevance Theory, it is unclear

whether sarcasm has no effect on highlighting alternatives for interpretation (given the

fairly consistent Frequency by Bias interaction), or the design simply did not render

sarcasm important enough to be considered, given listeners have access to other

information and conversations were short. Thus, it is possible the design encouraged

ambiguity to be resolved in Biased homophones based solely on Frequency and

Dominance information because the homophone was not introduced with Sarcasm. Both

Graded Salience and Relevance Theory predicted increased processing of one alternative

in the Balanced condition, and it was here we observed the increase of processing

meanings which were considered more Socially Contextually relevant.

When a homophone is directly mentioned using Sarcasm, the likelihood a speaker

intends a different interpretation to be considered is elevated. Thus, the design of

Experiment 3 introduced this manipulation, and also reduced the time from the

introduction of the homophone to the decision on a context, to encourage listeners to

utilize the prosody information further as a guiding heuristic in judgment of context.

Additionally, this further differentiates Graded Salience and Relevance Theory

CHAPTER 8

EXPERIMENT 3