This paper reports the results of an experimental study with a between subject design (N = 122) whose aim was to compare irony comprehension rates in face-to-face (FTF) and computer-mediated communication (CMC), and examine the influence of paraverbal irony signals on irony identification rates. An irony comprehension test was intersemiotically translated to three conditions: FTF (n = 46), paraverbal signal-rich CMC (n = 30), and paraverbal signal-poor CMC (n = 46). The study adopted a relevance theoretic account of irony. There was a statistically significant difference between the signal-rich CMC and FTF conditions - irony identification rates were higher in the signal-rich CMC condition. The results are important since they suggest that paraverbal irony signals are not essential for correct irony identification if relevant contextual information is available, and the CMC medium is not only unlikely to be an obstacle in communicating the ironic intent, but with the addition of the medium-specific irony signals, may be significantly better.
