irony :: essays research papers

Abstr encounter My musical composition deals with responses to conversational mockery in devil diametrical contexts. As an interaction analyst I am interested in how interlocutors co-construct the whole conversational sequence, in what they do with the ironic act in reacting to it. I combine data analytic methods from reciprocal sociolinguistics with questions from cognition theory. I shall point out how the interaction analysis of different response types contributes to the development of banter theory. A look at two data sets (informal conversations among friends and pro- and con-TV-discussions) provides interesting differences in responses to irony in these contexts. One meaning(a) difference in responding appears to depend on whether the irony is framed and tacit as critical or as friendly. From the format of the responses we can often access the processing of the ironic (though not al bureaus). If there are responses to the misprint meaning and to the implicatum, we ca n take this as evidence that principally twain the implicated and the literal message is processed. We find five response types Responses to the literal, to the implicated, complicated types, just express feelingster and ambiguous types which do not allow us to assign a meaning. The data further confirm that the different types of responses to irony create different activity types Responses to the literal develop a pleasing discourse type of joint teasing. These are highly frequent during the dinners among friends. In the context of pro and con debates responses within the group differ in connection to the line of arguing. Responses to the implicatum are much more frequent here. They recontextualize the paginate 2serious debate. Very often, those who share the general opinion of the ironist, laugh - those who do not reject the implication of the ironic act. 1. IntroductionThis paper is contributing to a neglected area of irony research, the reception of irony in contexts of fac e-to-face interaction. I would like to show that the reception of irony in different conversational contexts can give us insights into the way irony is processed. I cast a critical glance at cognition-oriented irony research which works with data from lab settings. The greatest differences amongst lab state of affairss and natural conversations are (a) in the first type of situation the irony recipients are not affected by the ironic act and (b) have no opportunity to continue the interaction and thus to manikin and co-construct it. I have reason to think that the way an addressee is