Dan Sperber (1984) Verbal Irony: Pretense or Echoic Mention?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(1), 130-136.

According to the mention theory of irony put forward by Sperber and Wilson and tested by Jorgensen, Miller, and Sperber, verbal ironies are implicit echoic mentions of meaning  conveying a derogatory attitude to the meaning mentioned. In their criticisms, Clark and Gerrig misrepresent mention theory. The pretense theory, which they offer as  a superior alternative, might provide a plausible description of parody, but it fails to account  for many types and many properties of irony proper.

Julia Jorgensen, George Miller, Dan Sperber (1984) Test of the Mention Theory of Irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(1), 112-120.

The traditional theory of irony, which assumes that an ironist uses a figurative meaning opposite to the literal meaning of the utterance, is shown to be inadequate; an alternative theory is presented, which assumes that the ironist mentions the literal meaning of the utterance and expresses an attitude toward it. Although the implications for understanding irony are difficult to test, the two theories do make testable predictions about the conditions under which irony is perceived: The mention theory requires antecedent material for the ironist to mention, whereas the standard theory does not. A reading comprehension test was conducted involving anecdotes that satisfied the traditional criterion for irony but could include or omit antecedents for echoic mention. Results favored the mention theory of irony.