Cognitive underpinnings of irony understanding in children

We examined the relationship between irony interpretation and Theory of Mind

measures (Strange Stories, Happé, 1994) and the Theory of Mind Inventory (ToMI,

Hutchins et al., 2012), as well as working memory, set shifting and inhibitory

control, whilst controlling for non-verbal IQ. We also examined different types of

irony interpretation. All previous studies have used simple forms of irony, where

the hearer can see from the real world context that the literal meaning cannot be

true (see (1)). We included a complex irony condition, where the non-literal

interpretation cannot be inferred from the visual context (see (2)).

(1) Tom and Sally wanted to go for a picnic. It has just started to rain. Sally: It's a

perfect day for a picnic.

(2) Tom: I have been invited to a party by the most beautiful girl in my class.

Sally: Yeah, and I have been invited to the Queen's party.

We presented children (N=51; aged 6;01 - 9;01) with 5 videos, in both simple and

complex irony conditions. After each short dialogue as in (1) and (2), participants

answered an open-ended question, then a forced-choice (out of three) question

about the speakers meaning. Children selected above chance for simple irony (M

= 76% correct) but significantly below chance for complex (M = 25% correct) irony.

Regression analyses showed that when controlling for age, nonverbal IQ and

formal language, ToM measures related to simple irony interpretation. There was

no relationship found between the EF and ToM measures and complex irony

interpretation.