The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prosodic Contrasts in Ironic Speech
Abstract
Prosodic features in spontaneous speech help disambiguate implied meaning not explicit in linguistic surface structure, but little research has examined how these signals manifest themselves in real conversations. Spontaneously produced verbal irony utterances generated between familiar speakers in conversational dyads were acoustically analyzed for prosodic contrasts. A prosodic contrast was defined as a statistically reliable shift between adjacent phrasal units in at least 1 of 5 acoustic dimensions (mean fundamental frequency, fundamental frequency variability, mean amplitude, amplitude variability, and mean syllable duration). Overall, speakers contrasted prosodic features in ironic utterances with utterances immediately preceding them at a higher rate than between adjacent nonironic utterance pairs from the same interactions. Across multiple speakers, ironic utterances were spoken significantly slower than preceding speech, but no other acoustic dimensions changed consistently. This is the first acoustic analysis examining relative prosodic changes in spontaneous ironic speech. Prosodic contrasts are argued to be an important mechanism for communicating implicit emotional and intentional information in speech—and a means to understanding traditional notions of an ironic tone.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Relevance: Communication and Cognition
Meara, P., Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1989) · The Modern Language Review · doi:10.2307/3731158 · Cited by 1,189
Intonation and communicative intent in mothers’ speech to infants: Is the melody the message?
Fernald, A. (1989) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1130938 · Cited by 875
Neural basis of irony comprehension in children with autism: the role of prosody and context
Wang, A. T., Lee, S. S., Sigman, M., & Dapretto, M. (2006) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awl032 · Cited by 447
Egocentrism over e-mail: can we communicate as well as we think?
Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z.-W. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925 · Cited by 425
Cited by
Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2015) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.011 · Cited by 260
Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2016) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12251 · Cited by 252
Towards Multimodal Sarcasm Detection (An _Obviously_ Perfect Paper)
Castro, S., Hazarika, D., Pérez-Rosas, V., Zimmermann, R., Mihalcea, R., & Poria, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1455 · Cited by 243
Metadata
- Authors
- Bryant, G. A.
- Venue
- Discourse Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-10-11
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 545-566
- ISSN
- 0163-853X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6950
- OpenAlex
- W2088945598
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 4.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prosodic Contrasts in Ironic Speech. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01638530903531972
- The paper
- Bryant, G. A. (2010). Prosodic Contrasts in Ironic Speech. Discourse Processes. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903531972
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.