Languages & Linguistics
Verbal Irony
Verbal irony is a literary device where the intended meaning of a statement is different from the literal meaning. It occurs when a speaker says something contradictory to what they actually mean, often for humorous or sarcastic effect. This form of irony relies on the audience's ability to recognize the disparity between the words spoken and the intended message.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
8 Key excerpts on "Verbal Irony"
eBook - PDF- Joana Garmendia(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
2 Irony as Opposition Verbal Irony has classically been conceived of as the act of saying something and meaning the opposite. That, along with certain other features traditionally associated with irony (such as humour or the expression of an attitude), composes the pre-theoretical conception of irony we typically share: The expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. 1 The use of words that are the opposite of what you mean, as a way of being funny. 2 The use of words that mean the opposite of what you really think especially in order to be funny. 3 The idea of opposition has also tinged the rhetorical conception of irony: Irony’s general characteristic is to make something understood by expressing its opposite. (Encyclopedia of Rhetoric 404) While the goal of meaning what one actually believes is repeated in every entry, the definitions are unclear regarding how the speaker achieves this. We are told that the speaker uses language that signifies the opposite, uses words that are (or mean) the opposite or expresses the opposite of what she intends to mean. The attempt to avoid the term included in the classical idea of irony – that the speaker says the opposite of what she means – is blatant at this point. Here we can discern the first challenge set by irony: how can it be possible that we mean the opposite of what we say? 1 Oxford Dictionary of English, ‘irony’, first entry, available at https://en.oxforddiction aries.com/definition/irony (accessed April 2017). 2 Cambridge Dictionary, ‘irony’, second entry, available at http://dictionary .cambridge.org/dictionary/english/irony (accessed April 2017). 3 Merriam-Webster Dictionary, ‘irony’, second entry, available at www.merriam -webster.com/dictionary/irony (accessed April 2017). 17
- Piotr Stalmaszczyk(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
In terms of methodology, it is therefore important to point out that situational irony can only be considered as a feature of the context, and it should not be confused with the deliberate verbal act of being ironic. 34.3 Theoretical Models of Irony An early (possibly the earliest) definition of Verbal Irony, 4 given by the fourth-century BC Greek rhetorician and historian Anaximenes, is “saying something in pretence of not saying (it) or calling things by the opposite.” 5 A search through works that were devoted to rhetorical tropes, dating 3 Regardless of medium or length: Verbal Irony can be used in speech or in writing, as well as ranging in length from one- word utterances to whole essays (e.g. Jonathan Swift’s “ A Modest Proposal”). 4 Having established Verbal Irony as the main object of pragma-philosophical study, all mentions of irony from here onwards will refer to Verbal Irony, unless otherwise specified. 5 Anaximenis ars rhetorica, ch. 21 (1966: 1–97). 624 E L E N I K A P O G I A N N I between the first century BC and the sixth century AD, 6 reveals a very similar treatment of Verbal Irony, the most complete definition being attributed to Georgius Choeroboscus (sixth century AD): 7 “Irony is speak- ing in pretence, saying the opposite through its opposite, and there are four kinds of irony: mockery, sniffing (regarding in a contemptuous man- ner), sarcasm and jest.” It is remarkable that two of the main irony-related keywords that emerge in these early works, pretense and opposition, are in fact representative of two of the main definitional tendencies in modern theory, as it will be explained below. It is also interesting to point out that each of them relates to a different aspect of an ironic act: the ironist’s belief system (and propositional attitude) versus the relation between the content of the utterance and the intended meaning.
eBook - ePubIrony's Edge
The Theory and Politics of Irony
- Linda Hutcheon(Author)
- 2003(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
And it happens in discourse, in usage, in the dynamic space of the interaction of text, context, and interpreter (and, sometimes, though not always, intending ironist). As a response to the extensive literature—in many different fields, from linguistics to psychology, from rhetoric to literary criticism—that sees irony as a straightforward semantic inversion (antiphrasis—or saying one thing and meaning its opposite) and thus as a static rhetorical tool to be used, this chapter expands on the suggestion made earlier in this book that irony is, instead, a communicative process. It is in this framework, then, that I would argue that ironic meaning possesses three major semantic characteristics: it is relational, inclusive and differential. Irony is a relational strategy in the sense that it operates not only between meanings (said, unsaid) but between people (ironists, interpreters, targets). Ironic meaning comes into being as the consequence of a relationship, a dynamic, performative bringing together of different meaning-makers, but also of different meanings, first, in order to create something new and, then, as Chapter 2 explored, to endow it with the critical edge of judgment. As noted, that Greek eiron, from whom irony got its name, was a dissembler, a pretender, and that notion of pretense figures frequently in “performative” theories of irony (Koestler 1964: 73–4; and especially Clark and Gerrig 1984: 121), humor (Douglas 1975), and figurative language, in general. In fact, it seems that children have to learn about pretense in order to understand irony (Winner 1988). The social dimension of this relational aspect of irony is the subject of the next chapter on discursive communities and their role in the enabling and comprehending of irony
- Vladimir R. Rossman(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
17 For a general view of rhetorical irony, see Charles Sears Baldwin, Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic Interpreted from Representative Works (New York: Macmillan, 1924). 18 For example, Boiste writes under ironie only Ironia , raillerie fine; figure de rhéto-rique. P[ierre] C. V. Boiste, Dictionnaire universel de la langue françoise, 2nd edition (Paris: Desray, 1803), 230. See also Le Dictionnaire de l'Académie françoise dédié au roy (Paris: Jean Baptiste Coignard, 1694), I, 612; Walther von Wartburg, Franzö-sisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1952), IV, 814. 20 TOWARD A DEFINITION OF IRONY in the way of which I spoke earlier, when you assert exactly the contradictory, as Crassus did to Lamia, but when the whole tenor of your speech shows you to be solemnly jesting, what you think differing continuously from what you say...[p. 403]) Yet from the viewpoint of their implications, the examples Cicero gives do not justify such a distinction. As verbal witticism, irony figures among devices such as the use of ambiguity, the unexpected, the play on words, quotation of verses or proverbs, words taken literally rather than in the sense intended, allegory, metaphor, and antithetical expressions ( De Ora-tore, lxvi-lxxi, 265-289, pp. 398-418). 19 To illustrate irony as a verbal witticism, Cicero tells a story where Crassus called Lamia, a cripple and a bad orator, first handsome child, then eloquent speaker: Invertuntur autem verba, ut, Crassus apud M. Perpernam judicem pro Aculeone cum diceret, aderat contra Aculeonem Gratidiano L. Aelius Lamia, deformis, ut nostis; qui cum interpellaret odiose: 'Audiamus,' inquit, 'pulchellum puerum,' Crassus. Cum esset arrisum, 'Non potui mihi,' inquit Lamia, 'formam ipse fingere; ingenium potui.' Turn hie, 'Audiamus,' inquit, 'disertum.' Multo etiam arrisum est vehementis.
eBook - PDFProblem of Meaning Behavioural and Cognitive Perspectives
Behavioral and Cognitive Perspectives
- C. Mandell, A. McCabe(Authors)
- 1997(Publication Date)
- North Holland(Publisher)
We suggest, rather, that nonliteral language is one source of ambiguity, and mechanisms that resolve literally intended ambiguities should work equally well for nonliteral language. If irony does not differ from literal language in the processes needed to make sense of it, these two forms of language may differ in the '~roduct of comprehension--that is, in the final understanding of the utterance (Gibbs & Gerrig, 1989). The ambiguity of irony may result in more simultaneously active interpretations than is typically the case with literal language. In some cases, the listener may ultimately select out one meaning. But in other cases, multiple meanings may remain active simultaneously, without any one meaning ever being decided upon. The fact that one may remain unsure of what the speaker meant or that one may realize that the speaker meant to convey a number of meanings simultaneously may account in part for the fact that irony seems special. 408 Dews and Winner CONCLUSIONS We have tried to cover a great deal of ground in this chapter. We first set forth a principled distinction between literal and nonliteral language, and between the two major forms of nonliteral language, metaphor and irony. We then discussed the very different comprehension demands posed by metaphor and irony. These different comprehension demands can account for the diverging developmental courses of metaphor and irony comprehension. We then focused for the rest of the chapter on irony, considering the forms that irony takes in every day usage, and the social payoffs for using an ironic rather than a literal form of discourse. Finally, we discussed some recent evidence from our laboratory showing that, contrary to the prevailing view, the literal meaning of irony must, at some level, be accessed. It is because speakers access the literal meaning of irony that irony is a muted form of criticism or a muted form of praise.
eBook - PDF- Hans Bennis, Frits Beukema(Authors)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter(Publisher)
In many respects they also apply to lies or euphemistic expressions. It is evident, however, that the rhetorical traditions do not pretend to explain what irony really is. To condemn them on methodological grounds is, therefore, too severe a sentence. 1.2. Speech Act Theory The problem of irony has been addressed in what is customarily designated as the Speech Act framework. In a couple of papers by John Searle (1979a, 1979b) and Alice Davison (1975), an impilicit rule of interpretation is assumed to underlie the computation of irony. This rule is believed to compel the hearer of an iron-ical utterance to reinterpret it in terms of the opposite of its literal mean-ing. Searle introduces the notions of 'sentence meaning' and 'utterance mean-ing', in order to account for the contrast between underlying and superficial interpretations or readings. In the case of irony, the speaker is assumed to ar-rive at utterance meaning by going through sentence meaning and then doubling back to the opposite of sentence meaning (Searle 1979a: 115). It is unclear, however, how the nature of this opposite, or the implied contradictory proposi-tion. is to be comprehended, and by what means the doubling back is carried out. The idea that ironic language involves negation appears to be endowed with a pe-culiar survival capacity. Working with a semantic-feature analysis, Amante(1975: 29ff), whose dissertation is founded on the priciples of traditional Speech Act Theory, seeks to elucidate the case in which a man (+ HUMAN, + MALE, + ADULT) is ironically referred to as a boy (- ADULT, ceteris paribus). Surely, one of the differences between man and boy centers around the valency of the marker ADULT. Amante claims the ironic tenor in such an utterance to inhere in the 'misinter-pretation' of that semantic component.
eBook - PDFFor the Love of Language
An Introduction to Linguistics
- Kate Burridge, Tonya N. Stebbins(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
One of us can report the embarrassment felt as a small child when her father, as a dinner guest, would exclaim at the end of the meal, ‘Well, that was bloody awful!’ When people utilise Verbal Irony in this way, they use words that express a meaning that is the opposite of their literal meaning; there is an incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs (usually for humorous or emphatic effect). Ironic statements (especially in harmonious interaction) typically involve the explicit expres- sion of a positive attitude or evaluation, when the situation actually requires a different – indeed 455 CHAPTER 14: Language, context and understanding opposite – attitude or evaluation; an example is ‘Fabulous day for a picnic’, said when looking out the window at a thunderous sky. However, an ironic statement starting with a negative evaluation (such as Well, that was bloody awful ) is a more dangerous type and is more open to misinterpretation (especially by young onlookers, who only partially share the context!). For speakers to pull off this sort of ironic statement, there must be a certain solidarity and closeness in relationship between the interlocutors, often reinforced by shared context on many levels. While studies have shown that children learn to use and interpret non-literal language earlier than was previously thought (well before primary school, it turns out), there is ongoing research on their developing ability to understand these more complex forms. Could I have a lawyer? We’ve seen that interrogatives are often used for purposes other than posing a ques- tion: Do you have the time? is a yes–no interrogative, but it doesn’t require an answer of yes or no; Why don’t you jump in the lake? is probably not seeking information.
eBook - PDFCorpus Linguistics
Readings in a Widening Discipline
- Geoffrey Sampson, Diana McCarthy(Authors)
- 2005(Publication Date)
- Continuum(Publisher)
20 IRONY IN THE TEXT OR INSINCERITY IN THE WRITER? THE DIAGNOSTIC POTENTIAL OF SEMANTIC PROSODIES WILLIAM Louw 1993 Large corpora reveal regular patterns of collocation between words that could not be predicted on the basis of their 'dictionary meanings'. According to Bill Louw, these patterns can be crucial to the success of literary writing. Telling verbal effects in poetry or fiction may often depend on properties of our vocabulary which we unconsciously know, yet do not know we know. Happy (trying to quiet Willy): Hey, Pop, come on now . . . Willy (continuing over Happy's line): They laugh at me, heh? Go to Filene's, go to the Hub, go to Slattery's, Boston. Call out the name Willy Loman and see what happens! Big shot! (Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman, Act I) 0 Introduction As irony is to form the subject of this paper, one can perhaps be forgiven for allowing certain agreeable ironies in the history of stylistics to contextualize this study. In 1970, Donald C. Freeman edited a collection of articles under the general title Linguistics and Literary Style. In his brief introduction, Freeman (1970: 6) alludes to Bernard Bloch's definition of style and criticizes it: Another difficulty in the work of the 'style as deviation' school of linguistic stylistics is its definition of the norm from which an author's style is supposed to differ in certain ways. For example, Bernard Bloch defines style as 'the message carried by the frequency distri-butions and transitional probabilities of [a discourse's] linguistic features, especially as they differ from those of the same features in the language as a whole.' This definition is a chimera.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
