![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Wouldn't being killed by your invention only be ironic if you were inventing something that promoted life? Other wise you're just dying, nothing special about it. Inventors die all the time, if their invention kills them, that seems sort of like what you WOULD expect(they're always around it, why wouldn't it kill them?)
Also, the last section or too is very abstract and should be fixed or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJLO ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless this is an urban legend, the woman who worked with a radioactive element and died of radiation poisoning would be a good example. -- 204.49.80.2 ( talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Most events considered coincidental are not ironic as I understand it. I don't believe they are 100% exclusive either, but they usually don't coincide. Example: It's coincidental Albert Camus once remarked that there is no way to die that's more meaningless than from a road accident, and ended up dying in a car crash. I don't see anything ironic in that situation myself.-- 64.254.110.201 ( talk) 20:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
One of the many definitions of "irony" which is used by many (poor Morissette, savaged by academics) but which is listed in dictionaries, is a sharp difference between (often idealistic) expectation, and reality. As when you take careful steps to make sure something doesn't happen, and the very things you do, end up (in retrospect) causing the thing to happen. This isn't quite the same sort of dramatic irony that happens when at least one party is aware of the truth at the time (the audience), or at least ought to be (the character). The contrast only occurs later, when people say "If only he could have looked into the future, and known.." Often, such events give people the feeling that the universe or God has played a perverse practical joke on them, perhaps to give them humility, and is laughing about it (or feeling divinely smug about it).
Since events that produce sharp contrasts between idealistic expected outcomes, and real outcomes, do have a dictionary entry as being "ironic events" (i.e., a sort of historical irony, but not one that could have been foreseen), we might devote a small section on them in this article. It's one of ten definitions I find in my dictionary, so although we can think of a hundred examples I don't think we can let it overcrowd this article.
(BTW, I don't know if it's ironic that Camus died in an an auto accident. Existentialism affirms that all kinds of pointless and meaningless and horrible things happen in the world. It's quite possible he would have made the same comment even if he had foreseen his fate. And would NOT have considered it ironic, since he emphasized that the universe doesn't work in any way to deliberately punish people for their statements, and there is no God to play such stupid jokes.) S B H arris 19:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
And all sarcasm is irony. I just read a Hemingway story that has a little bit about an Algerian who is about to be guillotined on the pavement in public in Algiers. They ask him if he has any last words to say. He says, "Bonjour, toute le monde." That's Hemingway-esque sarcasm. And irony, too. S B H arris 04:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it has the name because it's what the English thought the Welsh would eat instead of rabbit, which they couldn't afford. You may see it as Welsh rarebit; but that may be a later corruption, (maybe so as not to upset the Welsh). But nobody is going to re-define rabbit to include cheese. Also, some words look and sound the same but have nothing, or very little, to do with each other. So frog means the amphibian, something in the hoof of a horse, something to hang your sword from, and a part of the railway in the 19th century. Again, words change their meanings with time. They may start the same, but get used in two or more different ways. Noun phrases can be formed from each of the different meanings.A dish consisting of cheese and a little butter melted and mixed together, to which are added ale, cayenne pepper, and salt, the whole being stirred until it is creamy, and then poured over buttered toast: also, simply, slices of toasted cheese laid on toast.
We can do something like the above, but there are endless ethnic and gender sarcasm jokes-- Polish jokes, German jokes, blonde jokes. OF course they are ironic (it isn't REALLY rabbit) and sarcastic in suggesting that somebody might be satisfied with it as a replacement. You know the meaning of "Dutch treat." A pillow used to be called a "Dutch wife." There is a story that God asked a Swiss what he wanted, and got an answer: "Mountains, meadows, a few cows." And so it was done, and soon the man hands God back a glass of fresh milk. "Ah, my splendid Swiss! You've not only done well but you offer something to Me. I am so pleased with you, that I'm going to ask if there's anything ELSE I can give you!" "Ja-- 3 francs for the glass of milk." S B H arris 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well well Harris, all the time I thought we were discussing verbal irony, you were really discussing dramatic irony as well. It explains a lot about your position if you are insisting on using irony to fit both forms. Not only do Europeans know about dramatic irony, I think we invented it. (I noted your sarcastic exclamation mark by the way - an examply of sarcasm without irony!). It is interesting to wonder how the word got used in both contexts, but the rest of us were only talking about verbal irony and sarcasm, their meanings and use. I read somewhere that all types of dramatic irony evolved from Socratic irony. Since the word irony and the drama are both from Ancient Greek, we could look into the way they used the terms, and how they later evolved. If you have citations that would link the two together, then I think they should be included. I take it you do not object to the way the verbal irony and sarcasm part looks at the moment, except that - if we could find such quotes - we could have a chunk on how the terms dramatic irony and irony are linked. It does still contain Jcrabb's piece on the psychologists, and sarcasm being considered by them to be a subset of irony. Myrvin ( talk) 06:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I have found a whole book called Irony - especially dramatic etc. It is here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=i6MuZcIS1BIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q&f=false
It does start with talking about the Greeks - I didn't know that before I wrote the above. I shall have a stare at it - or at least the parts Google will let me.
Myrvin (
talk)
09:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've done a lot of reading about all this now and read all your comments. I am happy to include words to the effect that verbal irony does not just mean the saying of the opposite to what you mean - in addition to the authorities that say it is. The reader should be allowed to make up their own mind. But we need citations. In the spirit of this compromise I would like to suggest this: From A glossary of literary terms, Abrams and Hartman.
Verbal irony is a statement in which the meaning that a speaker employs is sharply different from the meaning that is ostensibly expressed. The ironic statement usually involves the explicit expression of one attitude or evaluation, but with indications in the overall speech-situation that the speaker intends a very different, and often opposite, attitude or evaluation.
I do not, however, accept that sarcasm is ONLY expressed by irony. But, if we can find citations that say it is (like the psychologists) they could go in. Myrvin ( talk) 11:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, here is my response to all of this business. The confusion between irony and sarcasm has to do with the popular uses of the terms. There is no non-ironic sarcasm – it is necessarily ironic, that’s what makes sarcasm, and not just bitter, sharp criticism. It is true that Gibbs in the 1986 paper writes as if there is non-ironic sarcasm, but that is not a view he holds anymore (see Gibbs 2000 - “Irony in talk among friends”). One problem with all these terms is that they are not mutually exclusive. An ironic utterance can be a rhetorical question, understatement, and sarcastic all at the same time. Below I will describe in detail why sarcasm is a subtype of verbal irony.
Think closely about some of these cited definitions of sarcasm, and see how counter examples show them to be incorrect:
Why should one cite Fowler and call it done? Fowler doesn’t provide examples, and does not explain what sarcasm is, if not a form of irony. But pragmatics has come a long way since that was written. Also, it’s not clear why we should rely upon general encyclopedias to tell us what these cognitive linguistic terms mean either. The people who write these definitions are not specialists.
This isn’t terrible, but relies on the opposite concept, which is wrong. Not to mention that the entry for sarcasm uses the term sarcasm in it. If someone does me wrong, and I say, “Thanks a lot!” – I don’t mean “No thanks a lot.” Or similarly, if we are in a car, and you ask, “Is it clear to go” and I say “yes” when a speeding bus is heading our way, we wouldn’t want to call it “ironic” even though I mean the opposite of what I say.
How about Websters:
Again, this says “often satirical or ironic” but doesn’t explain what happens when it’s not. That’s because there are no examples of non-ironic sarcasm. I still challenge anybody to produce an example. If there is no irony, the “sarcasm” is really just clever criticism. If I say, “You’re stupid” – that’s cutting and meant to give pain, but it’s not sarcastic. It is the combination or irony and critical sharpness that makes it sarcasm. Any other definition will be too vague.
The Partridge definition, which started this whole thing, is one of the worst of the bunch.
How does sarcasm mean precisely what it says? This is wrong by definition – sarcasm is indirect criticism. I don’t see how this makes sense at all, and I think should be removed from the Wiki page for sure.
How about Martin:
Here the problem is that Martin relies on this idea that irony is the opposite of what one says, but this has been handled repeatedly in the literature (see Sperber and Wilson’s "Relevance” for a good explanation – similar to the one I just gave). Martin defines sarcasm as “aggressive humor that pokes fun ...” but this is obviously wrong. What if I say “You’re so ugly your mother fed you with a slingshot”? That’s aggressive humor that pokes fun – but clearly not sarcastic, or more importantly, not ironic. Martin’s problem is that he doesn’t consider the cognitive processes required to understand the meaning.
This is where the issue lies at its core: what are the information processing processes that lead to understanding in these various uses of language?
I suggest removing the various definitions – they are just confusing the issue - and putting this in its place:
We know that many forms of irony, including sarcasm, require listeners to have certain abilities – basically a theory of mind. That is, one must be able to simultaneously represent one’s own mental state, and the mental states of others, whether real or imagined. Numerous studies in neuropsychology have demonstrated that individuals with brain deficits, or developmental issues that impair this kind of reasoning, fail to understand sarcasm, and other forms of irony (1-8). Children under the age of about four often fail to recognize irony, and after that require obvious paralinguistic signals up until at least eight years, sometimes later. These extra signals allow them to get the meaning, and prevent them from confusing the trope with something like deception (3). The bottom line is the term sarcasm has been defined very loosely and strangely in the past, mostly because the concept of irony has been vague and not well understood. But researchers studying the cognitive underpinnings of language are now carving out the types of devices people use according to the processes required to uncover speakers' intentions.
1) Channon, S., et al. (2007). Interpretation of mentalistic actions and sarcastic remarks: Effects of frontal and posterior lesions on mentalising. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1725–1734.
2) Channon, S., et al. (2005). Social cognition after head injury: Sarcasm and theory of mind. Brain Lang, 93, 123-134.
3) Dennis, M., et al. (2001). Understanding of literal truth, ironic criticism, and deceptive praise following childhood head injury. Brain Lang, 78, 1–16.
4) McDonald, S. (2000). Neuropsychological studies of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 85–98.
5) Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., et al. (2005). The neuroanatomical basis of understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social cognition. Neuropsychology, 19(3), 288-300.
6) Shamay, S. et al. (2002). Deficit in understanding sarcasm in patients with prefrontal lesion is related to impaired empathic ability. Brain and Cognition, 48(2–3), 558–563.
7) Uchiyama, H., et al. (2006). Neural substrates of sarcasm: A functional magnetic-resonance imaging study. Brain Research, 1124(1), 100-110.
8) Wang, A. T., et al. (2006). Neural basis of irony comprehension in children with autism: the role of prosody and context. Brain, 129, 932–943. Neuropsychology, 19(3), 288-300.
Jcrabb ( talk) 19:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
.I replied that I should like to be a Member of Parliament. My uncle, who was given to sarcasm, rejoined that, as far as he knew, few clerks in the Post Office did become Members of Parliament. I think it was the remembrance of this jeer which stirred me up to look for a seat as soon as I had made myself capable of holding one by leaving the public service.
I think HAL's speech is perfectly literal in the amoral manner of a child, and no sarcasm there is meant, and none taken by Dave. There is some irony for the audience in realizing that this highly intelligent machine with the smooth voice is about to commit a murder with a comment which surely WOULD be sarcastic if uttered by a comic book or Bond villain, just before abandoning the hero to the death trap. But here HAL is actually sincere rather than snide; that's irony. It's non-sarcastic irony, not non-ironic sarcasm. A better example of actual HAL sarcasm is HAL telling Dave that he's going to find getting inside though the airlock "rather difficult" without his helmet (which he's mistakenly left behind on the ship-- wups). The case can be made that HAL actually means "impossible" and actually IS employing a rather British style of understated sarcasm, there. But again, as with most scarcasm, the irony here is in the intentional juxtaposition of reality and ideality, by setting up a comic view of reality which by its very formulation, sounds implausable. Few postal clerks become MPs. What is meant is that none do. But setting up the idea of there being a function of getting to be an MP based on prior employment history, draws the deliberate contrast of reality and ideality. Ideally, anybody working-class should have an equal chance to be an MP. In reality, they don't. Ideally, the Pope should have some kind of authority which derives from God. Napoleon's gently sarcastic remark goes to the idea that the only real authority on Earth that counts, is how many army divisions you have. That contrast is irony. How could it not be? Popes once did field divisions, and had some guy been asking in seriousness in 15th century Italy, there would have been no irony or sarcasm, either. S B H arris 07:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It just struck me, rock and pop journalism is a good place to look for intelligently twisted irony, ironic and non-ironic sarcasm and inventive invective. A few favourites:
"Somebody's duped these guys into thinking they are pop stars, and here they are going up and down the country making fools of themselves"
-review of tour premiere of an inept and now forgotten teenybopper band, 1990s
"Mick Jagger don't reach my knees when it comes to stage charisma"
-Robbie Pilatus of Milli Vanilli, in an interview a few months before the current broke during a show and it was revealed they didn't even sing or play on their own records.
"We don't believe in tape recorders"
--member of British band The Replacements explaining things to the interviewer.
"I was once quoted as saying I'd buy an album of Bob Dylan breathing hard. But I never said I'd buy an album of Bob Dylan breathing soft."
- Greil Marcus on Dylan's Self Portrait,
"Getting told by your record company that you're a non-commercial artist after twenty years in the business, now that's even better than a grammy"
- Neil Young commenting on his legal dispute with Geffen Records in 1985. of course any old hat who had drifted into a standstill could have technically said that, but Neil had lots of cred and a steady sales of his old output to back up the irony,
"The line may sound flippant, but it used to be a fairly common question"
-Nick Mason of Pink Floyd on the famous "Oh by the way, which one's Pink?" in Have a Cigar"
"Nothing exciting ever happens to me"
- John Paul Jones on life on tour with Led Zeppelin
"Jon, please explain: what's a khatru?"
- Bill Bruford asking Jon Anderson about his obscure lyrics as they were recording Siberian Khatru. Bill left Yes soon after.
"He /Kenneth Pitt/ told me, "The man is a bastard. He's got David by the balls and he's going to destroy him." The first part of the sentence was true, the second was not."
- David Bowie biographer George Tremlett recalling a talk with Bowie's early manager Kenneth Pitt in 1971, when Bowie was switching to the support of Tony DeFries, of whom Pitt was talking.
"I think I'm gonna hire a new Bob Dylan so he can do my job"
-Dylan in a UK hotel room with The Band in May 1966, not long before he was called "Judas"; shown in No Direction Home
and finally, from a great double interview of Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page in Mojo (UK), August 2004, Beck talking about the early seventies and the Beck, Bogert & Appice trio::
Strausszek ( talk) 20:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
For those new to this discussion, who may be a little confused. We are trying to determine:
1. Does verbal irony mean the saying of the opposite (or the diametrically opposed) of what you really mean? Or does it mean other things?
2. Does sarcasm always need to be ironic, or can one make sarcastic remarks without them being ironic?
Myrvin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC).
Jcrabb. I didn't "cite Fowler and call it done", I cited several other works too. We don't have to "rely on general encyclopedias", but we can't simply ignore them. Calling irony and sarcasm "cognitive linguistic terms" is presumably meant to take them out of the realm of ordinary users of the language (and authorities) and leave them to psychologists. A dangerous move if you ask me.
To dismiss the OED definition as 'wrong' is bold. People reading Wikipedia might actually look at a dictionary as well and wonder why Wikipedia is only quoting psychologists in a section on the difference between two terms in English. I think your bus example is confused by the way. Do re-read it. If a bus is bearing down on us and I say "Of course it's safe to go", (not "no") that might be irony (although damned dangerous), because it is the opposite of the truth; but there is no necessary sarcasm. I could be questioning your sanity, in which case it might be sarcasm.
For Websters, do you really think a dictionary writer would put "often" if they meant "always"? They do understand the language a bit! (That's sarcasm, with no irony) Partridge is definitely out there on the fringe, but people might wonder why we prefer to cite psychologists rather than him. And poor old Martin teh psychologist is wrong as well is he? Maybe he was just a little more careful! (Sarcasm, not irony) I don't think you have actually said what you think irony is - just that "the opposite concept ... is wrong". Myrvin ( talk) 13:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is getting rather intense. Just for fun, have a look at these (completely uncitable) sites. No (or little) irony, just sarcasm. http://www.angelfire.com/weird/theloser/dumbwisdom.html
http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/quotes-blurbs/top-10-sarcastic-quotes-by-the-sarcasm-society.html
http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/sarcasticquotes
Myrvin ( talk) 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
__________________________
In the article the definition of verbal irony is provided: “Speakers communicate implied propositions that are intentionally contradictory to the propositions contained in the words themselves.” This is what is difficult for children to detect, as well as people with various types of cognitive deficits.
You ask how easy it is to check the sources – the answer is: easy. I have read them all. A typical definition that researchers like this use is the same as has been defined in the article here. Here is a quote from one of the papers I cite: “In our use of the term sarcasm here, we refer to remarks made with negative or critical intent, where there is an indirect meaning, i.e., a discrepancy between the literal meaning of the words and the social context.”
Irony is definitely not limited to saying the opposite of what you mean – I have provided examples why this is true.
Why is this so strange? Just because some source is “respected” in some way doesn’t mean that the source will be correct about specific concepts. I have explained why I consider these various sources to be incorrect.
The bottom line is that these terms refer to language understanding phenomena, and so the best source for defining these terms comes from the science of language processing. When other definitions fail to capture the essence of the phenomenon, they should be discarded for better explanations.
I would say this is definitely not sarcastic. What makes it sarcastic in your opinion? Just being critical is not enough. There needs to be a particular contrast between the surface form and the intended meaning. The uncle is saying literally what he means, and the literal statement implies that the man will also not likely become a member of parliament. I think because there is any implied meaning at all, and the comment was critical, you think it's sarcasm. But I think that's incorrect. There needs to be disparity between the literal utterance and the implicature.
All people who do scientific experiments examining how people understand language use the terms basically as I’m explaining them. That is, they consider sarcasm to be either a subtype of irony, or use sarcastic to mean ironic. I would like to know what makes something sarcastic if it’s not ironic. It can’t be only cutting, bitter, sharp, critical (etc) language.
Strausszek: All the examples aren’t helping if you don’t explain them. Maybe pick one or two and illustrate how you think they represent non-ironic sarcasm.
This is perfect! The statement that dictionary writers “do understand the language a bit!” IS ironic – in the form of understatement (again, see the article on irony types). It’s NOT sarcasm. You say explicitly that dictionary writers understand language “a little bit” when you mean they understand language very well. That contrast makes it ironic.
You’re right – we are using the terms in opposite ways. Irony is the superordinate category, not sarcasm. As pointed out in the article, research has shown that many people overextend the term sarcasm to mean all irony – so the common uses of the term is different than technical use.
It seems patently obvious to me why we should rely on cognitive science as the collection of researchers who study language understanding rather than some particular early 20th century lexicographer. This guy got his BA before the field of pragmatics was even invented. He didn’t have the benefit of knowing about contemporary philosophy of language, cognitive science, or the notion of inferential communication. It’s purely an appeal to authority to rely on his confused distinction between these terms. It’s interesting historically and nothing more.
Thanks – I fixed it. I meant “yes” when I put “no”
Jcrabb (
talk)
21:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly ironic. Whether you want to call it sarcasm is debatable (it does have a critical component so I could imagine calling it sarcastic) but it definitely is an understated rhetorical question (a form of verbal irony). The street cop is illustrating the obviousness of the situation by acting like the conclusion is reached through careful deliberation. The contrast between the surface form and implied meaning is what makes it ironic. Like is written in the Wiki article, defining the tropes is secondary to the real psychological process going on – identifying speaker intentions.
I am reading all of your examples - I don't see the need to respond to them all - they all have a similar problem in my view - that is, you are calling things sarcasm that have no irony and are critical in some way, but you're not explaining why. What makes it sarcastic? I have very specifically spelled out the criteria by which something is deemed ironic and have explained how sarcasm relates, which is consistent with interdisciplinary research examining how people understand these devices - research I conduct myself. I am committed to this perspective - you are holding on to a folk model that has no reasoned basis other than your intuition about the meanings of words.
Jcrabb (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
_________________
"
I'm not ignoring any of the differences you mention - I just don't think they are relevant for what is sarcasm. Sarcasm isn't just being caustic! Being caustic is being caustic. There needs to be a disparity between the literal utterance and the implicature, period.
Jcrabb (
talk)
22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
____________________
You're not telling me here what sarcasm is - you're not defining the concept. You say "how it often works" and say it necessitates interaction, but these ideas are vague.
I think we all agree then that irony doesn't have to be direct opposites - so that's good. But I think the major issue here is that you disagree that sarcasm involves a contrast between what is said and what is meant. This is just a basic disagreement about what the word means - or what it refers to in the world. The quote ""Don't worry, they will miss this opportunity" is not sarcasm in my opinion. It is critical, and cutting, but not ironic. Besides the disagreement, I just don't even get your logic. There is no systematic criterion set for determining what is sarcastic or not. Jcrabb ( talk) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
.
This is the nub of what we are arguing about when it comes to sarcasm and irony. I am happy that sarcasm is "acerbic, biting, pronouncedly edgy or insulting", but it doesn't need to be ironic - you insist on it being ironic as well. However, for you irony covers a much larger area than it does for me. I am happy with the opposite concept, and you seem to want it to cover all figures of speech. For me, irony is just one of many ways of making a point. If you look at the figures of speech article, you will see that irony is only one of dozens of tropes that people can use to say something, by not saying what they really mean. So understatement is meiosis; amd there's euphemism, metaphor, and many more. From the way you have analyzed my examples, I think you would call all of these tropes irony. I would not. This diminishes the language and distorts the concept.
If you would put forward some real language authorities who agree with you, then that would be worth considering. From what I have seen of the Psycholgy articles, the ones that confuse sarcasm with irony often say something to the effect of, "For the sake of this experiment, we shall assume that what we call sarcasm is ironic-sarcasm"; or, "We use a simple definition of sarcasm", which is saying the opposite of what you mean. I think many suspect that there is something wrong here. They do not aim to provide experimental evidence that irony subsumes sarcasm, they either state is as fact (without non-psychological references, except for Gibbs) or assume it (if they do) from the start.
By the way, the point of the Trollope example is that Trollope called it sarcasm. To say it is not, is to say that Trollope - along with so many other people - is wrong. I note that Jcrabb and SBHarris are in disagreement here, Jcrabb has to say it is not sarcastic, because he doesn't think it's irony; while SBHarris does think it's irony, so is happy that it's sarcastic. Good example!
Myrvin (
talk)
10:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, from Emma, by Jane Austen
He paused-- and growing cooler in a moment, added, with only sarcastic dryness, "If Mr. Perry can tell me how to convey a wife and five children a distance of an hundred and thirty miles with no greater expense or inconvenience than a distance of forty, I should be as willing to prefer Cromer to South End as he could himself."
Austen says this is sarcasm, and I think it is in the form of erotema, a rhetorical question. He means what he says, the sarcasm is in the knowledge of the listener that it cannot be answered, so it is caustic sarcasm without irony. If he had said "I am sure that I can convey a wife and five children a distance of an hundred and thirty miles with no greater expense or inconvenience than a distance of forty" then that would be irony and sarcasm. Myrvin ( talk) 12:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Here, Marvin Mudrick writes of some nasty people in Persuasion, that
she can end only by treating them, not with irony ... but with sarcasm, abuse, or silence.
But I guess Austen and Mr Mudrick are just wrong. Myrvin ( talk) 12:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hardy The hand of Ethelberta' “I saw that, and hoped that I might speak without real harm.' 'You calculated how to be uncalculating, and are natural by art!' she said, with the slightest accent of sarcasm.”
Hardy The mayor of Casterbridge http://books.google.com/books?id=2JkJEvp7sFUC&pg=PA284&dq=hardy+sarcastic&lr=&num=100&as_brr=0&cd=9#v=onepage&q=sarcastic&f=false After the Skimmington ride, “The roars of sarcastic laughter went off into ripples” – can laughter be ironic?
Stern Shandy http://books.google.com/books?id=IvVxVBI2tP0C&pg=PA381&dq=shandy+sarcasm&lr=&num=100&as_brr=0&cd=1#v=onepage&q=sarcasm%20%20&f=false ‘ “Make them like unto a wheel” is a bitter sarcasm.’ Stern, He means they should be made to roll about for ever.
Pliny Letters http://www.bartleby.com/9/4/1043.html “O Fortune, how capriciously dost thou sport with mankind! Thou makest rhetoricians of senators, and senators of rhetoricians!” A sarcasm so poignant and full of gall that one might almost imagine he fixed upon this profession merely for the sake of an opportunity of applying it."
Hugo Notre Dame de Paris http://www.bartleby.com/312/0102.html “Why, upon my soul!” cried Jehan, “if it isn’t Clopin Trouillefou! Holà! friend, so thy sore was troublesome on thy leg that thou hast removed it to thine arm?” and so saying, with the dexterity of a monkey he tossed a small silver piece into the greasy old beaver which the beggar held out with his diseased arm. The man received both alms and sarcasm without wincing, and resumed his doleful petition: “Charity, I pray you!”
Eliot The mill on the floss http://www.bartleby.com/309/303.html “Yes, Mr. Glegg!” said that lady, with angry sarcasm. “It’s pleasant work for you to be giving my money away”
http://www.bartleby.com/309/112.html “You’d better leave finding fault wi’ my kin till you’ve left off quarrelling with you own, Mrs. G.,” said Mr. Glegg, with angry sarcasm."
MW Eysenck Cognitive psychology. P10 ‘When psychologists only used flowcharts, sarcastic questions abounded, such as, “What happens in the boxes?” or, “What goes down the arrows?”’
Boswell Life of Johnson Johnson says of Buchanan, “I will now say of him as a Scotchman – that he was the only man of genius his country ever produced.” J did not like the Scots. Boswell adds a note: “This prompt and sarcastic retort …” J means what he says, there is no irony, and B says it is sarcastic.
“[Johnson said,] ‘We are told the black bear is innocent; but I should not like to trust myself with him.’ Mr Gibbon muttered, in a low tone of voice, ‘I should not like to trust myself with you.’ This piece of sarcastic pleasantry was a prudent resolution.”
Johnsoniona, p405 “Dr. J. Meet her! I never desire to meet fools anywhere. – (This sarcastic turn of wit was so pleasantly received that the Doctor joined in the laugh”
Anybody doubting their position yet? Myrvin ( talk) 14:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the C&P one.
Jacob Opper Science in the arts p63
“Jeremy Bentham made the distinction between poetry and prose by saying that “All the lines except the last extend to the margin” in prose, “whereas in poetry some of them fall short”. He continues in this sarcastic vein, writing that “Poetry … proves nothing; it is full of sentimentalism and vague generalities.”
He means exactly what he says.
Shaw Arms and the man Act I p 24
RAINA (She takes up the pistol and hands it to him) Pray take it to protect yourself against me.
MAN (grinning wearily at the sarcasm …) No use dear lady … It is not loaded.
Back to Methuselah p180
LUBIN And how have you been all this time? …
FRANKLYN [Smiling to soften the sarcasm] A few vicissitudes of health naturally in so long a time.
I think he’s saying it’s been a long time since I saw you. I don’t think it’s ironic.
Lawrence The white peacock p300
George handed over his child to the maid. And said to me with patient sarcasm, ‘Will you come into the garden?’ I rose and followed him.
Women in love
’You have never worked as the world works,’ he said with sarcasm.
Jimmy and the desperate woman
You’ve got what you want. You do as you like. ‘Do I?’ she asked, with intolerable sarcasm.
Myrvin ( talk) 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
One can make comments to show that one percieves irony in a situation (ie, that you're not a Candide-like simpleton) without being cutting about it. It's the "talking down" (down-putting) to somebody that turns an ironic comment into a sarcastic one, so you can surely treat somebody with irony (by saying ironic things to them), without being so biting as to descend to sarcasm (which suggests that they ought to have known better about either the world or your knowledge of it, but don't). Thus, a great deal of ironic talk is between adults in the presense of children, where they let each other know that they percieve something about the world that is over the head of the child, without attempting (sometimes) even to teach the child.
"Dad, our teacher says that Obama is going to fix things so that we'll all have enough money." "That could be, but I'm still waiting for my own check from him." That's really not very sarcastic, but spoken between two parents, it's a very typical bit of irony. In fact, most conversation between parents in the presence of children is ironic without being sarcastic.
But let's go on: how can one actually be sarcastic without pointing out some bit of attempted foolery by somebody or some situation, that has failed? Mr. Perry knows it takes more money to transport people over a longer distance, so who is he trying to kid about it? That's sarcasm. If he was just stupid, or a 10 year-old, it would have been enough to simply point out the error in his thinking. Likewise with the suggestion that it's pleasant work for somebody to spend your money and not theirs. It's sarcastic because it's a statement in obvious contraversion of the truth, which is that it's no kind of "work" at all, however pleasant it might be. Okay, so which particularly important examples have I missed? S B H arris 22:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Jcrabb, Have you read Ruth Eaton in Journal of Literary Semantics. Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 122–148, ISSN (Online) 1613-3838, 1988? She does not say that sarcasm is always ironic, because she cites a dictionary. As I said, she uses the phrase "For the purposes of this study, the term sarcasm has ...". I would be interested in how it continues.
Also, Sarcasm and Other Mixed Messages: The Ambiguous Ways People Use Language Rockwell, Patricia Ann
Sarcasm has many definitions, and this variety shapes how researchers see it. Sarcasm is portrayed in most dictionary references as negative behavior; it is designed to wound, insult, or taunt. It is characterized as cutting and contemptuous. However, some researchers say that much sarcasm involves teasing and joking.
Sarcasm is a type of irony, according to most researchers, and irony is just one of many figures of speech. Some researchers argue that sarcasm and irony are intrinsically different, but others suggest that they are identical for all practical purposes.
So, some researchers don't agree that all sarcasm is ironic, and some think they are identical - not you I assume.
Myrvin ( talk) 13:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
For the rest, I think you've certain identified a reason why ironic speech shades from most gentle sorts of irony-noting to the most cutting type of sarcasm. For one thing, gentle irony preserves "plausable deniablity" that you were being ironic (and certainly sarcastic) at all. You might be talking to your social or economic superiors, after all, or your boss, or your esteemed family members whose continued good graces you desire or rely on. So there are very good reasons for employment of non-sarcastic irony. In some countries, writers have actually be hauled up in front of the local branch of the Comintern and asked if their writings were meant in a satirical vein, against the government. And naturally, it always helps if the author can say "no." There is much utility in statements than can be taken to mean the opposite of what they literally assert.
Did you know that the Nazis refused to let Freud out of Europe until he'd signed a declaration that he hadn't been mistreated? He did so, and then asked to add something. It was: "In fact, I recommend the Nazis to everybody." This sarcasm was entirely missed, and they let him go. S B H arris 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
By the same token, I cant see any reason to hand over the defining of sarcasm or other tropes from the wide range of people that actually use language to a closed circle of cognitive psychologists who would tend to disregard anything that doesn't fit their theoories, and look away from the non-lexical sides of language too (tone, phrasing, emphasis, allusions). Language uses so much more resources than the actual words and their lexical meaning, something linguists are familiar with - and the general public is too.
Well, no. The audience of course would like to stand up and say: "Romeo! Wait! Take a chill pill and don't do anything rash!" In dramatic irony the audience is forced to be passive. But that is true in historical irony, as well! Example: the secret service protected JFK poorly from sniper assassination, because all presidents had been previously assassinated at very close range, by pistol. But after JFK, they focused on keeping an angry citizen sniper from killing Oswald, letting reporters and everybody else come and go and get close, without search, but going so far as to procure a bulletproof truck to transfer Oswald between buildings 2 days later, so that an angry Texan didn't pick him off with a rifle. They did such a good job that he was vulnerable ONLY to the sort of attack that had killed all presidents before JFK, and of course, that's exactly what got him-- the only thing that could have done it, in the middle of that many cops. And which would have been protected against, had he not killed JFK the way he had. Have you never had the fantasy of making a time machine to make these guys aware of the sheer childishness of their following only the LAST bad thing? And yes, the circumstances of Oswald's assassination are very ironic, but there is no sarcasm. There's just us, the historical audience, percieving the irony but unable to do a thing to change a second of it. No, of course sarcasm is not DEFINED by dramatic irony at the point where it is uttered, but a type of dramatic irony is surely the inspiration of much sarcasm! For instance, If we put you in a time machine and sent you back to Dallas, Nov. 22, 1963, nobody would believe you about their foolishness. And I'm sure that would have you resorting to angry sarcasm, Casandra style, in no time at all. Verbal irony verbalizes the sense of something being drastically "wrong," but the thing that is wrong always seems to be that somebody is clueless. Otherwise, no point in speaking your mind about it. S B H arris 03:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree (and think it's a nice summary) that a lot of verbal irony is inspired by the need to keep within social rules, by not mentioning unpleasant facts directly, such as making accusations of intended deception (especially from somebody who holds power over you, or whose guilt you're not sure of). But the fact that such an accusation, or open disagreement, is finally directly employed, need not necessarily mean irony has disappeared--it still remains embedded in the past. If irony is abandoned and one party finally speaks plainly (the rape accusation), the previous ironic situation remains. Both verbal irony and sarcasm can serve as forms of emphasis of facts, like an exclamation point. Both attempt to emphasize the intelligence and awareness of the speaker, who is going beyond a single statement of contradiction (which might have sufficed). Verbal irony seeks to do this without confrontation (hence its utility), whereas sarcasm's point is confrontation (where its utility is in its sting). If verbal irony is judo, sarcasm is karate, but they both require more skill than a simple contraverting statement. I would not, in this vein, assume that Dave Bowman in 2001 knows all along that he doesn't have his helmet. After HAL points out sarcastically that he's forgotten it, he takes a look and sees that indeed he HAS forgotten it. Forget that HAL is a machine and regard him as a personality, and you see that HAL's remark is delivered here in a cutting fashion, as punishment for Dave's lying to him, and treating him like a stupid child, or a farm animal which can be put to sleep if it becomes a problem. HAL's first remarks to Dave are ironic, but as Dave continues to lie to him, he finally goes scarcastic before cutting Dave off completely:
There's very little dramatic irony here, as the audience doesn't know Dave is missing his helmet before Dave does. There is dramatic irony, however, in the fact that we heard Dave and Frank agree to disconnect HAL under certain circumstances, and we saw HAL watch their lips. So we know something HAL does and they don't. And we're set up expectationally for HAL going nuts by a hubristic comment that absolutely begs for a historically ironic interpretation:
Right. Anytime a computer tells you its incapable of error, you'd better expect that there's a pretty big problem about to come up-- like it will deliberately cut off all communication from Earth because its conscience is bothering it, not considering what that will do to the human crew, which will be left without any com-link. (This is presented as a straight error in the film, but a psychological problem caused by beaurocracy and mania for secrecy in the novel).
Anyway, if you really don't like my attempt to explain dramatic irony in the context of the other "types," of irony, okay, but I suggest then a separate article about dramatic. And the same for sarcasm if you don't think it's always ironic (which means you shouldn't just discuss it in the irony article as a subset). But let me note again that your insistance on seeing some sarcasm as not being ironic (even though I think you agree that sarcasm is always based on a cutting demonstration of somebody else's ignorant view of the world, including incompetant attempts to deceive somebody who isn't deceived) then you're missing yet one more chance to see the unity in all these uses of the same word. S B H arris 17:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Wouldn't being killed by your invention only be ironic if you were inventing something that promoted life? Other wise you're just dying, nothing special about it. Inventors die all the time, if their invention kills them, that seems sort of like what you WOULD expect(they're always around it, why wouldn't it kill them?)
Also, the last section or too is very abstract and should be fixed or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJLO ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless this is an urban legend, the woman who worked with a radioactive element and died of radiation poisoning would be a good example. -- 204.49.80.2 ( talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Most events considered coincidental are not ironic as I understand it. I don't believe they are 100% exclusive either, but they usually don't coincide. Example: It's coincidental Albert Camus once remarked that there is no way to die that's more meaningless than from a road accident, and ended up dying in a car crash. I don't see anything ironic in that situation myself.-- 64.254.110.201 ( talk) 20:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
One of the many definitions of "irony" which is used by many (poor Morissette, savaged by academics) but which is listed in dictionaries, is a sharp difference between (often idealistic) expectation, and reality. As when you take careful steps to make sure something doesn't happen, and the very things you do, end up (in retrospect) causing the thing to happen. This isn't quite the same sort of dramatic irony that happens when at least one party is aware of the truth at the time (the audience), or at least ought to be (the character). The contrast only occurs later, when people say "If only he could have looked into the future, and known.." Often, such events give people the feeling that the universe or God has played a perverse practical joke on them, perhaps to give them humility, and is laughing about it (or feeling divinely smug about it).
Since events that produce sharp contrasts between idealistic expected outcomes, and real outcomes, do have a dictionary entry as being "ironic events" (i.e., a sort of historical irony, but not one that could have been foreseen), we might devote a small section on them in this article. It's one of ten definitions I find in my dictionary, so although we can think of a hundred examples I don't think we can let it overcrowd this article.
(BTW, I don't know if it's ironic that Camus died in an an auto accident. Existentialism affirms that all kinds of pointless and meaningless and horrible things happen in the world. It's quite possible he would have made the same comment even if he had foreseen his fate. And would NOT have considered it ironic, since he emphasized that the universe doesn't work in any way to deliberately punish people for their statements, and there is no God to play such stupid jokes.) S B H arris 19:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
And all sarcasm is irony. I just read a Hemingway story that has a little bit about an Algerian who is about to be guillotined on the pavement in public in Algiers. They ask him if he has any last words to say. He says, "Bonjour, toute le monde." That's Hemingway-esque sarcasm. And irony, too. S B H arris 04:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it has the name because it's what the English thought the Welsh would eat instead of rabbit, which they couldn't afford. You may see it as Welsh rarebit; but that may be a later corruption, (maybe so as not to upset the Welsh). But nobody is going to re-define rabbit to include cheese. Also, some words look and sound the same but have nothing, or very little, to do with each other. So frog means the amphibian, something in the hoof of a horse, something to hang your sword from, and a part of the railway in the 19th century. Again, words change their meanings with time. They may start the same, but get used in two or more different ways. Noun phrases can be formed from each of the different meanings.A dish consisting of cheese and a little butter melted and mixed together, to which are added ale, cayenne pepper, and salt, the whole being stirred until it is creamy, and then poured over buttered toast: also, simply, slices of toasted cheese laid on toast.
We can do something like the above, but there are endless ethnic and gender sarcasm jokes-- Polish jokes, German jokes, blonde jokes. OF course they are ironic (it isn't REALLY rabbit) and sarcastic in suggesting that somebody might be satisfied with it as a replacement. You know the meaning of "Dutch treat." A pillow used to be called a "Dutch wife." There is a story that God asked a Swiss what he wanted, and got an answer: "Mountains, meadows, a few cows." And so it was done, and soon the man hands God back a glass of fresh milk. "Ah, my splendid Swiss! You've not only done well but you offer something to Me. I am so pleased with you, that I'm going to ask if there's anything ELSE I can give you!" "Ja-- 3 francs for the glass of milk." S B H arris 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well well Harris, all the time I thought we were discussing verbal irony, you were really discussing dramatic irony as well. It explains a lot about your position if you are insisting on using irony to fit both forms. Not only do Europeans know about dramatic irony, I think we invented it. (I noted your sarcastic exclamation mark by the way - an examply of sarcasm without irony!). It is interesting to wonder how the word got used in both contexts, but the rest of us were only talking about verbal irony and sarcasm, their meanings and use. I read somewhere that all types of dramatic irony evolved from Socratic irony. Since the word irony and the drama are both from Ancient Greek, we could look into the way they used the terms, and how they later evolved. If you have citations that would link the two together, then I think they should be included. I take it you do not object to the way the verbal irony and sarcasm part looks at the moment, except that - if we could find such quotes - we could have a chunk on how the terms dramatic irony and irony are linked. It does still contain Jcrabb's piece on the psychologists, and sarcasm being considered by them to be a subset of irony. Myrvin ( talk) 06:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I have found a whole book called Irony - especially dramatic etc. It is here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=i6MuZcIS1BIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q&f=false
It does start with talking about the Greeks - I didn't know that before I wrote the above. I shall have a stare at it - or at least the parts Google will let me.
Myrvin (
talk)
09:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've done a lot of reading about all this now and read all your comments. I am happy to include words to the effect that verbal irony does not just mean the saying of the opposite to what you mean - in addition to the authorities that say it is. The reader should be allowed to make up their own mind. But we need citations. In the spirit of this compromise I would like to suggest this: From A glossary of literary terms, Abrams and Hartman.
Verbal irony is a statement in which the meaning that a speaker employs is sharply different from the meaning that is ostensibly expressed. The ironic statement usually involves the explicit expression of one attitude or evaluation, but with indications in the overall speech-situation that the speaker intends a very different, and often opposite, attitude or evaluation.
I do not, however, accept that sarcasm is ONLY expressed by irony. But, if we can find citations that say it is (like the psychologists) they could go in. Myrvin ( talk) 11:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, here is my response to all of this business. The confusion between irony and sarcasm has to do with the popular uses of the terms. There is no non-ironic sarcasm – it is necessarily ironic, that’s what makes sarcasm, and not just bitter, sharp criticism. It is true that Gibbs in the 1986 paper writes as if there is non-ironic sarcasm, but that is not a view he holds anymore (see Gibbs 2000 - “Irony in talk among friends”). One problem with all these terms is that they are not mutually exclusive. An ironic utterance can be a rhetorical question, understatement, and sarcastic all at the same time. Below I will describe in detail why sarcasm is a subtype of verbal irony.
Think closely about some of these cited definitions of sarcasm, and see how counter examples show them to be incorrect:
Why should one cite Fowler and call it done? Fowler doesn’t provide examples, and does not explain what sarcasm is, if not a form of irony. But pragmatics has come a long way since that was written. Also, it’s not clear why we should rely upon general encyclopedias to tell us what these cognitive linguistic terms mean either. The people who write these definitions are not specialists.
This isn’t terrible, but relies on the opposite concept, which is wrong. Not to mention that the entry for sarcasm uses the term sarcasm in it. If someone does me wrong, and I say, “Thanks a lot!” – I don’t mean “No thanks a lot.” Or similarly, if we are in a car, and you ask, “Is it clear to go” and I say “yes” when a speeding bus is heading our way, we wouldn’t want to call it “ironic” even though I mean the opposite of what I say.
How about Websters:
Again, this says “often satirical or ironic” but doesn’t explain what happens when it’s not. That’s because there are no examples of non-ironic sarcasm. I still challenge anybody to produce an example. If there is no irony, the “sarcasm” is really just clever criticism. If I say, “You’re stupid” – that’s cutting and meant to give pain, but it’s not sarcastic. It is the combination or irony and critical sharpness that makes it sarcasm. Any other definition will be too vague.
The Partridge definition, which started this whole thing, is one of the worst of the bunch.
How does sarcasm mean precisely what it says? This is wrong by definition – sarcasm is indirect criticism. I don’t see how this makes sense at all, and I think should be removed from the Wiki page for sure.
How about Martin:
Here the problem is that Martin relies on this idea that irony is the opposite of what one says, but this has been handled repeatedly in the literature (see Sperber and Wilson’s "Relevance” for a good explanation – similar to the one I just gave). Martin defines sarcasm as “aggressive humor that pokes fun ...” but this is obviously wrong. What if I say “You’re so ugly your mother fed you with a slingshot”? That’s aggressive humor that pokes fun – but clearly not sarcastic, or more importantly, not ironic. Martin’s problem is that he doesn’t consider the cognitive processes required to understand the meaning.
This is where the issue lies at its core: what are the information processing processes that lead to understanding in these various uses of language?
I suggest removing the various definitions – they are just confusing the issue - and putting this in its place:
We know that many forms of irony, including sarcasm, require listeners to have certain abilities – basically a theory of mind. That is, one must be able to simultaneously represent one’s own mental state, and the mental states of others, whether real or imagined. Numerous studies in neuropsychology have demonstrated that individuals with brain deficits, or developmental issues that impair this kind of reasoning, fail to understand sarcasm, and other forms of irony (1-8). Children under the age of about four often fail to recognize irony, and after that require obvious paralinguistic signals up until at least eight years, sometimes later. These extra signals allow them to get the meaning, and prevent them from confusing the trope with something like deception (3). The bottom line is the term sarcasm has been defined very loosely and strangely in the past, mostly because the concept of irony has been vague and not well understood. But researchers studying the cognitive underpinnings of language are now carving out the types of devices people use according to the processes required to uncover speakers' intentions.
1) Channon, S., et al. (2007). Interpretation of mentalistic actions and sarcastic remarks: Effects of frontal and posterior lesions on mentalising. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1725–1734.
2) Channon, S., et al. (2005). Social cognition after head injury: Sarcasm and theory of mind. Brain Lang, 93, 123-134.
3) Dennis, M., et al. (2001). Understanding of literal truth, ironic criticism, and deceptive praise following childhood head injury. Brain Lang, 78, 1–16.
4) McDonald, S. (2000). Neuropsychological studies of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 85–98.
5) Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., et al. (2005). The neuroanatomical basis of understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social cognition. Neuropsychology, 19(3), 288-300.
6) Shamay, S. et al. (2002). Deficit in understanding sarcasm in patients with prefrontal lesion is related to impaired empathic ability. Brain and Cognition, 48(2–3), 558–563.
7) Uchiyama, H., et al. (2006). Neural substrates of sarcasm: A functional magnetic-resonance imaging study. Brain Research, 1124(1), 100-110.
8) Wang, A. T., et al. (2006). Neural basis of irony comprehension in children with autism: the role of prosody and context. Brain, 129, 932–943. Neuropsychology, 19(3), 288-300.
Jcrabb ( talk) 19:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
.I replied that I should like to be a Member of Parliament. My uncle, who was given to sarcasm, rejoined that, as far as he knew, few clerks in the Post Office did become Members of Parliament. I think it was the remembrance of this jeer which stirred me up to look for a seat as soon as I had made myself capable of holding one by leaving the public service.
I think HAL's speech is perfectly literal in the amoral manner of a child, and no sarcasm there is meant, and none taken by Dave. There is some irony for the audience in realizing that this highly intelligent machine with the smooth voice is about to commit a murder with a comment which surely WOULD be sarcastic if uttered by a comic book or Bond villain, just before abandoning the hero to the death trap. But here HAL is actually sincere rather than snide; that's irony. It's non-sarcastic irony, not non-ironic sarcasm. A better example of actual HAL sarcasm is HAL telling Dave that he's going to find getting inside though the airlock "rather difficult" without his helmet (which he's mistakenly left behind on the ship-- wups). The case can be made that HAL actually means "impossible" and actually IS employing a rather British style of understated sarcasm, there. But again, as with most scarcasm, the irony here is in the intentional juxtaposition of reality and ideality, by setting up a comic view of reality which by its very formulation, sounds implausable. Few postal clerks become MPs. What is meant is that none do. But setting up the idea of there being a function of getting to be an MP based on prior employment history, draws the deliberate contrast of reality and ideality. Ideally, anybody working-class should have an equal chance to be an MP. In reality, they don't. Ideally, the Pope should have some kind of authority which derives from God. Napoleon's gently sarcastic remark goes to the idea that the only real authority on Earth that counts, is how many army divisions you have. That contrast is irony. How could it not be? Popes once did field divisions, and had some guy been asking in seriousness in 15th century Italy, there would have been no irony or sarcasm, either. S B H arris 07:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It just struck me, rock and pop journalism is a good place to look for intelligently twisted irony, ironic and non-ironic sarcasm and inventive invective. A few favourites:
"Somebody's duped these guys into thinking they are pop stars, and here they are going up and down the country making fools of themselves"
-review of tour premiere of an inept and now forgotten teenybopper band, 1990s
"Mick Jagger don't reach my knees when it comes to stage charisma"
-Robbie Pilatus of Milli Vanilli, in an interview a few months before the current broke during a show and it was revealed they didn't even sing or play on their own records.
"We don't believe in tape recorders"
--member of British band The Replacements explaining things to the interviewer.
"I was once quoted as saying I'd buy an album of Bob Dylan breathing hard. But I never said I'd buy an album of Bob Dylan breathing soft."
- Greil Marcus on Dylan's Self Portrait,
"Getting told by your record company that you're a non-commercial artist after twenty years in the business, now that's even better than a grammy"
- Neil Young commenting on his legal dispute with Geffen Records in 1985. of course any old hat who had drifted into a standstill could have technically said that, but Neil had lots of cred and a steady sales of his old output to back up the irony,
"The line may sound flippant, but it used to be a fairly common question"
-Nick Mason of Pink Floyd on the famous "Oh by the way, which one's Pink?" in Have a Cigar"
"Nothing exciting ever happens to me"
- John Paul Jones on life on tour with Led Zeppelin
"Jon, please explain: what's a khatru?"
- Bill Bruford asking Jon Anderson about his obscure lyrics as they were recording Siberian Khatru. Bill left Yes soon after.
"He /Kenneth Pitt/ told me, "The man is a bastard. He's got David by the balls and he's going to destroy him." The first part of the sentence was true, the second was not."
- David Bowie biographer George Tremlett recalling a talk with Bowie's early manager Kenneth Pitt in 1971, when Bowie was switching to the support of Tony DeFries, of whom Pitt was talking.
"I think I'm gonna hire a new Bob Dylan so he can do my job"
-Dylan in a UK hotel room with The Band in May 1966, not long before he was called "Judas"; shown in No Direction Home
and finally, from a great double interview of Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page in Mojo (UK), August 2004, Beck talking about the early seventies and the Beck, Bogert & Appice trio::
Strausszek ( talk) 20:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
For those new to this discussion, who may be a little confused. We are trying to determine:
1. Does verbal irony mean the saying of the opposite (or the diametrically opposed) of what you really mean? Or does it mean other things?
2. Does sarcasm always need to be ironic, or can one make sarcastic remarks without them being ironic?
Myrvin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC).
Jcrabb. I didn't "cite Fowler and call it done", I cited several other works too. We don't have to "rely on general encyclopedias", but we can't simply ignore them. Calling irony and sarcasm "cognitive linguistic terms" is presumably meant to take them out of the realm of ordinary users of the language (and authorities) and leave them to psychologists. A dangerous move if you ask me.
To dismiss the OED definition as 'wrong' is bold. People reading Wikipedia might actually look at a dictionary as well and wonder why Wikipedia is only quoting psychologists in a section on the difference between two terms in English. I think your bus example is confused by the way. Do re-read it. If a bus is bearing down on us and I say "Of course it's safe to go", (not "no") that might be irony (although damned dangerous), because it is the opposite of the truth; but there is no necessary sarcasm. I could be questioning your sanity, in which case it might be sarcasm.
For Websters, do you really think a dictionary writer would put "often" if they meant "always"? They do understand the language a bit! (That's sarcasm, with no irony) Partridge is definitely out there on the fringe, but people might wonder why we prefer to cite psychologists rather than him. And poor old Martin teh psychologist is wrong as well is he? Maybe he was just a little more careful! (Sarcasm, not irony) I don't think you have actually said what you think irony is - just that "the opposite concept ... is wrong". Myrvin ( talk) 13:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is getting rather intense. Just for fun, have a look at these (completely uncitable) sites. No (or little) irony, just sarcasm. http://www.angelfire.com/weird/theloser/dumbwisdom.html
http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/quotes-blurbs/top-10-sarcastic-quotes-by-the-sarcasm-society.html
http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/sarcasticquotes
Myrvin ( talk) 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
__________________________
In the article the definition of verbal irony is provided: “Speakers communicate implied propositions that are intentionally contradictory to the propositions contained in the words themselves.” This is what is difficult for children to detect, as well as people with various types of cognitive deficits.
You ask how easy it is to check the sources – the answer is: easy. I have read them all. A typical definition that researchers like this use is the same as has been defined in the article here. Here is a quote from one of the papers I cite: “In our use of the term sarcasm here, we refer to remarks made with negative or critical intent, where there is an indirect meaning, i.e., a discrepancy between the literal meaning of the words and the social context.”
Irony is definitely not limited to saying the opposite of what you mean – I have provided examples why this is true.
Why is this so strange? Just because some source is “respected” in some way doesn’t mean that the source will be correct about specific concepts. I have explained why I consider these various sources to be incorrect.
The bottom line is that these terms refer to language understanding phenomena, and so the best source for defining these terms comes from the science of language processing. When other definitions fail to capture the essence of the phenomenon, they should be discarded for better explanations.
I would say this is definitely not sarcastic. What makes it sarcastic in your opinion? Just being critical is not enough. There needs to be a particular contrast between the surface form and the intended meaning. The uncle is saying literally what he means, and the literal statement implies that the man will also not likely become a member of parliament. I think because there is any implied meaning at all, and the comment was critical, you think it's sarcasm. But I think that's incorrect. There needs to be disparity between the literal utterance and the implicature.
All people who do scientific experiments examining how people understand language use the terms basically as I’m explaining them. That is, they consider sarcasm to be either a subtype of irony, or use sarcastic to mean ironic. I would like to know what makes something sarcastic if it’s not ironic. It can’t be only cutting, bitter, sharp, critical (etc) language.
Strausszek: All the examples aren’t helping if you don’t explain them. Maybe pick one or two and illustrate how you think they represent non-ironic sarcasm.
This is perfect! The statement that dictionary writers “do understand the language a bit!” IS ironic – in the form of understatement (again, see the article on irony types). It’s NOT sarcasm. You say explicitly that dictionary writers understand language “a little bit” when you mean they understand language very well. That contrast makes it ironic.
You’re right – we are using the terms in opposite ways. Irony is the superordinate category, not sarcasm. As pointed out in the article, research has shown that many people overextend the term sarcasm to mean all irony – so the common uses of the term is different than technical use.
It seems patently obvious to me why we should rely on cognitive science as the collection of researchers who study language understanding rather than some particular early 20th century lexicographer. This guy got his BA before the field of pragmatics was even invented. He didn’t have the benefit of knowing about contemporary philosophy of language, cognitive science, or the notion of inferential communication. It’s purely an appeal to authority to rely on his confused distinction between these terms. It’s interesting historically and nothing more.
Thanks – I fixed it. I meant “yes” when I put “no”
Jcrabb (
talk)
21:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly ironic. Whether you want to call it sarcasm is debatable (it does have a critical component so I could imagine calling it sarcastic) but it definitely is an understated rhetorical question (a form of verbal irony). The street cop is illustrating the obviousness of the situation by acting like the conclusion is reached through careful deliberation. The contrast between the surface form and implied meaning is what makes it ironic. Like is written in the Wiki article, defining the tropes is secondary to the real psychological process going on – identifying speaker intentions.
I am reading all of your examples - I don't see the need to respond to them all - they all have a similar problem in my view - that is, you are calling things sarcasm that have no irony and are critical in some way, but you're not explaining why. What makes it sarcastic? I have very specifically spelled out the criteria by which something is deemed ironic and have explained how sarcasm relates, which is consistent with interdisciplinary research examining how people understand these devices - research I conduct myself. I am committed to this perspective - you are holding on to a folk model that has no reasoned basis other than your intuition about the meanings of words.
Jcrabb (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
_________________
"
I'm not ignoring any of the differences you mention - I just don't think they are relevant for what is sarcasm. Sarcasm isn't just being caustic! Being caustic is being caustic. There needs to be a disparity between the literal utterance and the implicature, period.
Jcrabb (
talk)
22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
____________________
You're not telling me here what sarcasm is - you're not defining the concept. You say "how it often works" and say it necessitates interaction, but these ideas are vague.
I think we all agree then that irony doesn't have to be direct opposites - so that's good. But I think the major issue here is that you disagree that sarcasm involves a contrast between what is said and what is meant. This is just a basic disagreement about what the word means - or what it refers to in the world. The quote ""Don't worry, they will miss this opportunity" is not sarcasm in my opinion. It is critical, and cutting, but not ironic. Besides the disagreement, I just don't even get your logic. There is no systematic criterion set for determining what is sarcastic or not. Jcrabb ( talk) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
.
This is the nub of what we are arguing about when it comes to sarcasm and irony. I am happy that sarcasm is "acerbic, biting, pronouncedly edgy or insulting", but it doesn't need to be ironic - you insist on it being ironic as well. However, for you irony covers a much larger area than it does for me. I am happy with the opposite concept, and you seem to want it to cover all figures of speech. For me, irony is just one of many ways of making a point. If you look at the figures of speech article, you will see that irony is only one of dozens of tropes that people can use to say something, by not saying what they really mean. So understatement is meiosis; amd there's euphemism, metaphor, and many more. From the way you have analyzed my examples, I think you would call all of these tropes irony. I would not. This diminishes the language and distorts the concept.
If you would put forward some real language authorities who agree with you, then that would be worth considering. From what I have seen of the Psycholgy articles, the ones that confuse sarcasm with irony often say something to the effect of, "For the sake of this experiment, we shall assume that what we call sarcasm is ironic-sarcasm"; or, "We use a simple definition of sarcasm", which is saying the opposite of what you mean. I think many suspect that there is something wrong here. They do not aim to provide experimental evidence that irony subsumes sarcasm, they either state is as fact (without non-psychological references, except for Gibbs) or assume it (if they do) from the start.
By the way, the point of the Trollope example is that Trollope called it sarcasm. To say it is not, is to say that Trollope - along with so many other people - is wrong. I note that Jcrabb and SBHarris are in disagreement here, Jcrabb has to say it is not sarcastic, because he doesn't think it's irony; while SBHarris does think it's irony, so is happy that it's sarcastic. Good example!
Myrvin (
talk)
10:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, from Emma, by Jane Austen
He paused-- and growing cooler in a moment, added, with only sarcastic dryness, "If Mr. Perry can tell me how to convey a wife and five children a distance of an hundred and thirty miles with no greater expense or inconvenience than a distance of forty, I should be as willing to prefer Cromer to South End as he could himself."
Austen says this is sarcasm, and I think it is in the form of erotema, a rhetorical question. He means what he says, the sarcasm is in the knowledge of the listener that it cannot be answered, so it is caustic sarcasm without irony. If he had said "I am sure that I can convey a wife and five children a distance of an hundred and thirty miles with no greater expense or inconvenience than a distance of forty" then that would be irony and sarcasm. Myrvin ( talk) 12:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Here, Marvin Mudrick writes of some nasty people in Persuasion, that
she can end only by treating them, not with irony ... but with sarcasm, abuse, or silence.
But I guess Austen and Mr Mudrick are just wrong. Myrvin ( talk) 12:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hardy The hand of Ethelberta' “I saw that, and hoped that I might speak without real harm.' 'You calculated how to be uncalculating, and are natural by art!' she said, with the slightest accent of sarcasm.”
Hardy The mayor of Casterbridge http://books.google.com/books?id=2JkJEvp7sFUC&pg=PA284&dq=hardy+sarcastic&lr=&num=100&as_brr=0&cd=9#v=onepage&q=sarcastic&f=false After the Skimmington ride, “The roars of sarcastic laughter went off into ripples” – can laughter be ironic?
Stern Shandy http://books.google.com/books?id=IvVxVBI2tP0C&pg=PA381&dq=shandy+sarcasm&lr=&num=100&as_brr=0&cd=1#v=onepage&q=sarcasm%20%20&f=false ‘ “Make them like unto a wheel” is a bitter sarcasm.’ Stern, He means they should be made to roll about for ever.
Pliny Letters http://www.bartleby.com/9/4/1043.html “O Fortune, how capriciously dost thou sport with mankind! Thou makest rhetoricians of senators, and senators of rhetoricians!” A sarcasm so poignant and full of gall that one might almost imagine he fixed upon this profession merely for the sake of an opportunity of applying it."
Hugo Notre Dame de Paris http://www.bartleby.com/312/0102.html “Why, upon my soul!” cried Jehan, “if it isn’t Clopin Trouillefou! Holà! friend, so thy sore was troublesome on thy leg that thou hast removed it to thine arm?” and so saying, with the dexterity of a monkey he tossed a small silver piece into the greasy old beaver which the beggar held out with his diseased arm. The man received both alms and sarcasm without wincing, and resumed his doleful petition: “Charity, I pray you!”
Eliot The mill on the floss http://www.bartleby.com/309/303.html “Yes, Mr. Glegg!” said that lady, with angry sarcasm. “It’s pleasant work for you to be giving my money away”
http://www.bartleby.com/309/112.html “You’d better leave finding fault wi’ my kin till you’ve left off quarrelling with you own, Mrs. G.,” said Mr. Glegg, with angry sarcasm."
MW Eysenck Cognitive psychology. P10 ‘When psychologists only used flowcharts, sarcastic questions abounded, such as, “What happens in the boxes?” or, “What goes down the arrows?”’
Boswell Life of Johnson Johnson says of Buchanan, “I will now say of him as a Scotchman – that he was the only man of genius his country ever produced.” J did not like the Scots. Boswell adds a note: “This prompt and sarcastic retort …” J means what he says, there is no irony, and B says it is sarcastic.
“[Johnson said,] ‘We are told the black bear is innocent; but I should not like to trust myself with him.’ Mr Gibbon muttered, in a low tone of voice, ‘I should not like to trust myself with you.’ This piece of sarcastic pleasantry was a prudent resolution.”
Johnsoniona, p405 “Dr. J. Meet her! I never desire to meet fools anywhere. – (This sarcastic turn of wit was so pleasantly received that the Doctor joined in the laugh”
Anybody doubting their position yet? Myrvin ( talk) 14:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the C&P one.
Jacob Opper Science in the arts p63
“Jeremy Bentham made the distinction between poetry and prose by saying that “All the lines except the last extend to the margin” in prose, “whereas in poetry some of them fall short”. He continues in this sarcastic vein, writing that “Poetry … proves nothing; it is full of sentimentalism and vague generalities.”
He means exactly what he says.
Shaw Arms and the man Act I p 24
RAINA (She takes up the pistol and hands it to him) Pray take it to protect yourself against me.
MAN (grinning wearily at the sarcasm …) No use dear lady … It is not loaded.
Back to Methuselah p180
LUBIN And how have you been all this time? …
FRANKLYN [Smiling to soften the sarcasm] A few vicissitudes of health naturally in so long a time.
I think he’s saying it’s been a long time since I saw you. I don’t think it’s ironic.
Lawrence The white peacock p300
George handed over his child to the maid. And said to me with patient sarcasm, ‘Will you come into the garden?’ I rose and followed him.
Women in love
’You have never worked as the world works,’ he said with sarcasm.
Jimmy and the desperate woman
You’ve got what you want. You do as you like. ‘Do I?’ she asked, with intolerable sarcasm.
Myrvin ( talk) 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
One can make comments to show that one percieves irony in a situation (ie, that you're not a Candide-like simpleton) without being cutting about it. It's the "talking down" (down-putting) to somebody that turns an ironic comment into a sarcastic one, so you can surely treat somebody with irony (by saying ironic things to them), without being so biting as to descend to sarcasm (which suggests that they ought to have known better about either the world or your knowledge of it, but don't). Thus, a great deal of ironic talk is between adults in the presense of children, where they let each other know that they percieve something about the world that is over the head of the child, without attempting (sometimes) even to teach the child.
"Dad, our teacher says that Obama is going to fix things so that we'll all have enough money." "That could be, but I'm still waiting for my own check from him." That's really not very sarcastic, but spoken between two parents, it's a very typical bit of irony. In fact, most conversation between parents in the presence of children is ironic without being sarcastic.
But let's go on: how can one actually be sarcastic without pointing out some bit of attempted foolery by somebody or some situation, that has failed? Mr. Perry knows it takes more money to transport people over a longer distance, so who is he trying to kid about it? That's sarcasm. If he was just stupid, or a 10 year-old, it would have been enough to simply point out the error in his thinking. Likewise with the suggestion that it's pleasant work for somebody to spend your money and not theirs. It's sarcastic because it's a statement in obvious contraversion of the truth, which is that it's no kind of "work" at all, however pleasant it might be. Okay, so which particularly important examples have I missed? S B H arris 22:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Jcrabb, Have you read Ruth Eaton in Journal of Literary Semantics. Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 122–148, ISSN (Online) 1613-3838, 1988? She does not say that sarcasm is always ironic, because she cites a dictionary. As I said, she uses the phrase "For the purposes of this study, the term sarcasm has ...". I would be interested in how it continues.
Also, Sarcasm and Other Mixed Messages: The Ambiguous Ways People Use Language Rockwell, Patricia Ann
Sarcasm has many definitions, and this variety shapes how researchers see it. Sarcasm is portrayed in most dictionary references as negative behavior; it is designed to wound, insult, or taunt. It is characterized as cutting and contemptuous. However, some researchers say that much sarcasm involves teasing and joking.
Sarcasm is a type of irony, according to most researchers, and irony is just one of many figures of speech. Some researchers argue that sarcasm and irony are intrinsically different, but others suggest that they are identical for all practical purposes.
So, some researchers don't agree that all sarcasm is ironic, and some think they are identical - not you I assume.
Myrvin ( talk) 13:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
For the rest, I think you've certain identified a reason why ironic speech shades from most gentle sorts of irony-noting to the most cutting type of sarcasm. For one thing, gentle irony preserves "plausable deniablity" that you were being ironic (and certainly sarcastic) at all. You might be talking to your social or economic superiors, after all, or your boss, or your esteemed family members whose continued good graces you desire or rely on. So there are very good reasons for employment of non-sarcastic irony. In some countries, writers have actually be hauled up in front of the local branch of the Comintern and asked if their writings were meant in a satirical vein, against the government. And naturally, it always helps if the author can say "no." There is much utility in statements than can be taken to mean the opposite of what they literally assert.
Did you know that the Nazis refused to let Freud out of Europe until he'd signed a declaration that he hadn't been mistreated? He did so, and then asked to add something. It was: "In fact, I recommend the Nazis to everybody." This sarcasm was entirely missed, and they let him go. S B H arris 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
By the same token, I cant see any reason to hand over the defining of sarcasm or other tropes from the wide range of people that actually use language to a closed circle of cognitive psychologists who would tend to disregard anything that doesn't fit their theoories, and look away from the non-lexical sides of language too (tone, phrasing, emphasis, allusions). Language uses so much more resources than the actual words and their lexical meaning, something linguists are familiar with - and the general public is too.
Well, no. The audience of course would like to stand up and say: "Romeo! Wait! Take a chill pill and don't do anything rash!" In dramatic irony the audience is forced to be passive. But that is true in historical irony, as well! Example: the secret service protected JFK poorly from sniper assassination, because all presidents had been previously assassinated at very close range, by pistol. But after JFK, they focused on keeping an angry citizen sniper from killing Oswald, letting reporters and everybody else come and go and get close, without search, but going so far as to procure a bulletproof truck to transfer Oswald between buildings 2 days later, so that an angry Texan didn't pick him off with a rifle. They did such a good job that he was vulnerable ONLY to the sort of attack that had killed all presidents before JFK, and of course, that's exactly what got him-- the only thing that could have done it, in the middle of that many cops. And which would have been protected against, had he not killed JFK the way he had. Have you never had the fantasy of making a time machine to make these guys aware of the sheer childishness of their following only the LAST bad thing? And yes, the circumstances of Oswald's assassination are very ironic, but there is no sarcasm. There's just us, the historical audience, percieving the irony but unable to do a thing to change a second of it. No, of course sarcasm is not DEFINED by dramatic irony at the point where it is uttered, but a type of dramatic irony is surely the inspiration of much sarcasm! For instance, If we put you in a time machine and sent you back to Dallas, Nov. 22, 1963, nobody would believe you about their foolishness. And I'm sure that would have you resorting to angry sarcasm, Casandra style, in no time at all. Verbal irony verbalizes the sense of something being drastically "wrong," but the thing that is wrong always seems to be that somebody is clueless. Otherwise, no point in speaking your mind about it. S B H arris 03:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree (and think it's a nice summary) that a lot of verbal irony is inspired by the need to keep within social rules, by not mentioning unpleasant facts directly, such as making accusations of intended deception (especially from somebody who holds power over you, or whose guilt you're not sure of). But the fact that such an accusation, or open disagreement, is finally directly employed, need not necessarily mean irony has disappeared--it still remains embedded in the past. If irony is abandoned and one party finally speaks plainly (the rape accusation), the previous ironic situation remains. Both verbal irony and sarcasm can serve as forms of emphasis of facts, like an exclamation point. Both attempt to emphasize the intelligence and awareness of the speaker, who is going beyond a single statement of contradiction (which might have sufficed). Verbal irony seeks to do this without confrontation (hence its utility), whereas sarcasm's point is confrontation (where its utility is in its sting). If verbal irony is judo, sarcasm is karate, but they both require more skill than a simple contraverting statement. I would not, in this vein, assume that Dave Bowman in 2001 knows all along that he doesn't have his helmet. After HAL points out sarcastically that he's forgotten it, he takes a look and sees that indeed he HAS forgotten it. Forget that HAL is a machine and regard him as a personality, and you see that HAL's remark is delivered here in a cutting fashion, as punishment for Dave's lying to him, and treating him like a stupid child, or a farm animal which can be put to sleep if it becomes a problem. HAL's first remarks to Dave are ironic, but as Dave continues to lie to him, he finally goes scarcastic before cutting Dave off completely:
There's very little dramatic irony here, as the audience doesn't know Dave is missing his helmet before Dave does. There is dramatic irony, however, in the fact that we heard Dave and Frank agree to disconnect HAL under certain circumstances, and we saw HAL watch their lips. So we know something HAL does and they don't. And we're set up expectationally for HAL going nuts by a hubristic comment that absolutely begs for a historically ironic interpretation:
Right. Anytime a computer tells you its incapable of error, you'd better expect that there's a pretty big problem about to come up-- like it will deliberately cut off all communication from Earth because its conscience is bothering it, not considering what that will do to the human crew, which will be left without any com-link. (This is presented as a straight error in the film, but a psychological problem caused by beaurocracy and mania for secrecy in the novel).
Anyway, if you really don't like my attempt to explain dramatic irony in the context of the other "types," of irony, okay, but I suggest then a separate article about dramatic. And the same for sarcasm if you don't think it's always ironic (which means you shouldn't just discuss it in the irony article as a subset). But let me note again that your insistance on seeing some sarcasm as not being ironic (even though I think you agree that sarcasm is always based on a cutting demonstration of somebody else's ignorant view of the world, including incompetant attempts to deceive somebody who isn't deceived) then you're missing yet one more chance to see the unity in all these uses of the same word. S B H arris 17:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)