MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414137660 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1672104

The importance of intonation for children’s understanding of verbal irony

2025· review· en· W4414137660 on OpenAlexaff
Jordanna Smith, Melanie Glenwright

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIronyIntonation (linguistics)UtteranceMeaning (existential)NarrativeTask (project management)Sarcasm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Verbal irony refers to any utterance in which the speaker's words mean something different from their intended meaning (e.g., "You're really on top of things" said to a disorganized person). For children who are just learning to recognize verbal irony, a crucial cue to the ironist's intended meaning is their intonation. In this narrative review, we describe research methods for examining how intonation influences children's understanding of verbal irony and the task demands researchers need to consider when designing these studies. Next, we examine how children weigh different cues to verbal irony as they grow older, and we identify cross-linguistic factors that can impact children's use of intonation for irony comprehension. We offer suggestions for planning future studies on this topic by stressing the importance of reducing task demands, acoustically analyzing directional frequency changes, examining children's intonation consideration in languages other than English, and comparing across tonal and non-tonal languages.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychology→Same topicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition→French-language works237,207→