3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

1/37

The pragmatics of verbal irony: echo or pretence?

Deirdre Wilson

Published in Lingua 116 (2006) 1722-1743

Abstract

This paper considers two post-Gricean attempts to proide an e!planator" account o#

erbal iron"$ The #irst treats iron" as an echoic use o# lan%ua%e in which the spea&er

tacitl" dissociates hersel# #rom an attributed utterance or thou%ht$ The second treats

iron" as a t"pe o# pretence in which the spea&er 'ma&es as i# to per#orm a certain

speech act e!pectin% her audience to see throu%h the pretence and reco%nise the

moc&in% or critical attitude behind it$ The two approaches hae sometimes been seen as

empiricall" or theoreticall" indistin%uishable and seeral h"brid accounts incorporatin%

elements o# both hae been proposed$ * will ar%ue that the echoic and pretence accountsare distin%uishable on both theoretical and empirical %rounds and that while echoic use

is essential to standard cases o# erbal iron" pretence is not$ +oweer the term irony

has been applied to a er" wide ran%e o# phenomena not all o# which can be e!plained

in the same wa" and * will end b" brie#l" mentionin% some less central cases where

arieties o# pretence or simulation do indeed achiee ironical e##ects$

Keywords:

*ron", choic use, .eleance theor", Pretence, /etarepresentation

1. Introduction

+ere are some t"pical e!amples o# erbal iron"

(1) Mary (after a difficult meeting): That went well$

(2) s * reached the ban& at closin% time the ban& cler& help#ull" shut the door in m"

#ace$

(3) Tim +enman is not the most charismatic tennis pla"er in the world$

The point o# these utterances is not to claim what the" would be ta&en to claim i# uttered

literall" (that the meetin% went well the ban& cler& behaed help#ull" and there are

more charismatic tennis pla"ers than Tim +enman) but to draw attention to some

discrepanc" between a description o# the world that the spea&er is apparentl" puttin%

#orward and the wa" (she wants to su%%est) thin%s actuall" were$ hearer who does not

1

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

2/37

reco%nise this will hae misunderstood and a spea&er who doubts the hearers abilit" to

reco%nise it on the basis o# bac&%round &nowled%e alone ma" proide additional clues

(#or instance an ironical tone o# oice a wr" #acial e!pression an incon%ruit" or

e!a%%eration as in (2) or a superlatie as in (3))$ 1 The abilit" to understand simple

#orms o# iron" is normall" present #rom around the a%e o# 6 and is &nown to be

impaired in autism and certain #orms o# ri%ht hemisphere dama%e$ 2 The %oal o#

pra%matics is to describe this abilit" and thus e!plain how iron" is understood$

ccordin% to classical rhetoric erbal iron" is a trope and tropes are utterances with

#i%uratie meanin%s which relate to their literal meanin%s in one o# seeral standard

wa"s$ *n metaphor the #i%uratie meanin% is a simile or comparison based on the literal

meanin%, in iron" proper as in (1) and (2) it is the opposite o# the literal meanin%, and

in ironical understatement as in (3) it is a stren%thenin% o# the literal meanin%$ These

de#initions are part o# estern #ol& lin%uistics and can be #ound in an" dictionar"$ To

turn them into an e!planator" theor" we would need #irst a de#inition o# #i%uratie

meanin% second a method o# deriin% #i%uratie meanin%s #rom their literal

counterparts and third some rationale #or the practice o# substitutin% a #i%uratie #or a

literal meanin%$ *# #i%uratie meanin%s are assi%ned b" the %rammar we need an e!plicit

mechanism #or deriin% them, i# the" are pra%maticall" in#erred we need an account o#

how the in#erence is tri%%ered what #orm it ta&es and what t"pes o# outputs it "ields$

*n a #ew cases what starts out as a creatie use o# iron" ma" become #ull" le!icalised

or %rammaticalised$3 +oweer the interpretation o# tropes in %eneral is so hi%hl"

conte!t-dependent that it is most unli&el" to be dealt with entirel" in the %rammar$

Grices brie# discussion o# tropes (Grice 16751 34) was the #irst serious attempt to

anal"se them usin% pra%matic machiner" independentl" needed #or the anal"sis o#

ordinar" literal utterances$ s is well &nown he treats iron" metaphor h"perbole andmeiosis as blatant iolations o# the #irst ma!im o# ualit" ('8o not sa" what "ou

beliee to be #alse) desi%ned to tri%%er a related true implicature in the case o#

metaphor this would be a simile or comparison based on the literal meanin% in the case

o# iron" it would be the contradictor" or contrar" o# the literal meanin% and in the case

o# understatement it would be somethin% stron%er than the literal meanin%$ 9n this

approach the implicatures o# (1)-(3) aboe would include (4a)-(4c)

2

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

3/37

(4) a$ That meetin% didnt %o well$

b$ s * reached the ban& at closin% time the ban& cler& unhelp#ull" shut the

door in m" #ace$

c$ Tim +enman is #ar #rom bein% the most charismatic tennis pla"er in the

world$

The proposal to replace encoded #i%uratie meanin%s b" pra%maticall" deried

implicatures is a step in the direction o# a %enuinel" e!planator" account o# tropes$ *t is

onl" a #irst step thou%h in other respects Grices account o# tropes is simpl" a modern-

dress ariant o# the classical account and shares man" o# the same wea&nesses$ *n

particular it does not e!plain wh" a rational spea&er should decide to utter a blatant

#alsehood in order to cone" a related true implicature which could :ust as well hae

been literall" e!pressed$ *n later wor& Grice ac&nowled%es that his account o# iron" is

insu##icientl" e!planator" (althou%h he does not seem to hae had similar worries about

his parallel accounts o# other tropes) and mentions some additional #eatures o# iron"

which ma" be seen as intended to supplement his account or point in the direction o# an

alternatie account, * will touch on these brie#l" in discussin% Grices approach to iron"

in section 2$

+oweer m" main concern in this paper is with two post-Gricean attempts to

proide a rationale #or iron" in which the blatant iolation o# a pra%matic ma!im or

principle o# literal truth#ulness pla" no e!planator" role (althou%h as noted aboe the

#act that an utterance would be blatantl" #alse or inappropriate i# literall" understood

ma" be a use#ul clue to the presence o# iron")$ 9ne approach #irst proposed b" ;perber

and ilson (11) treats erbal iron" as a t"pe o# echoic allusion to an attributed

utterance or thou%ht$ 9n this approach the spea&er o# (1) is not hersel# assertin% that themeetin% went well but e!pressin% her own reaction to a thou%ht or utterance with a

similar content which she tacitl" attributes to someone else (or to hersel# at another

time) and which she wants to su%%est is ludicrousl" #alse inade

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

4/37

moc&in% attitude to it$ /ore %enerall" the main point in t"pical cases o# erbal iron"

such as (1)-(3) is to e!press the spea&ers dissociatie attitude to a tacitl" attributed

utterance or thou%ht (or more %enerall" a representation with a conceptual content #or

instance a moral or cultural norm) based on some perceied discrepanc" between the

wa" it represents the world and the wa" thin%s actuall" are (;perber and ilson 11

16 10 1, ilson and ;perber 12)$

The second approach which is su%%ested b" the et"molo%" o# the word irony and

has a much lon%er histor" treats erbal iron" as a t"pe o# pretence$ 9n this approach

the spea&er o# (1) is not assertin% but merel" pretendin% to assert that the meetin% went

well while e!pectin% her audience to see throu%h the pretence and reco%nise the critical

or moc&in% attitude behind it (see #or instance >lar& and Gerri% 14, >urrie in press,

.ecanati 2004, alton 10)$ ;imilarl" the spea&er o# (2) is merel" pretendin% to

hae #ound the ban& cler&s behaiour help#ul and the spea&er o# (3) is merel"

pretendin% to %ie serious thou%ht to the possibilit" that Tim +enman mi%ht not be the

most charismatic tennis pla"er in the world$

?oth echoic and pretence accounts re:ect the basic claim o# the classical and standard

Gricean accounts that the hallmar& o# iron" is to communicate the opposite o# the

literal meanin%$ ?oth o##er a rationale #or iron" and both treat ironical utterances such

as (1)-(3) as intended to draw attention to some discrepanc" between a description o#

the world that the spea&er is apparentl" puttin% #orward and the wa" thin%s actuall" are$

These similarities hae proo&ed con#lictin% reactions$ 9n the one hand the two

approaches are sometimes seen as empiricall" or theoreticall" indistin%uishable, seeral

h"brid ersions incorporatin% elements o# both echoic and pretence accounts hae been

produced and the boundaries between them hae become increasin%l" blurred$ 9n the

other hand some de#enders o# both echoic and pretence accounts see their ownapproach as proin% the &e" to iron" and the other approach as o##erin% at best an

incidental sideli%ht$4 * want to consider whether this is a lar%el" terminolo%ical debate o#

interest mainl" to sociolo%ists o# academic li#e or whether there is some %enuine

substance behind it$

*n rhetorical and literar" studies oer the "ears the term irony has been applied to a

wide ariet" o# loosel" related phenomena ran%in% #rom ;ocratic iron" situational

iron" dramatic iron" .omantic iron" cosmic iron" and iron" o# #ate to erbal iron"

4

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

5/37

and arious #orms o# parod" wit and humour$@ Aot all o# these phenomena #all s

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

6/37

the basic idea that an implicature is an elaboration o# the spea&ers meanin% re

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

7/37

interro%atie in (7b) or the declaratie in (7c) could all be ironicall" intended and

understood althou%h none o# them is blatantl" #alse

(7) a$ 8ont #or%et to use "our indicator$

b$ 8o "ou thin& we should stop #or petrolC

c$ * reall" appreciate cautious driers$

Aotice too that (7a)-(7c) cannot be anal"sed as implicatin% the opposite o# what the"

sa"$ hile the implicatures o# (@a) and (6a) aboe mi%ht well include (@b) and (6b) no

correspondin% implicatures are cone"ed b" (7a)-(7c)$ /ore %enerall" the de#inition o#

iron" as the trope in which the spea&er communicates the opposite o# the literal meanin%

does not do :ustice to the er" rich and aried e##ects o# iron"$ The standard Gricean

approach to iron" thus #ails to e!plain not onl" what tri%%ers the pra%matic in#erence

process but what its output is$

;ome o# these problems could be aoided while preserin% the spirit o# Grices

account b" claimin% that what is oertl" iolated in tropes is not the #irst ma!im o#

ualit" but the #irst ma!im o# uantit" ('/a&e "our contribution as in#ormatie as is

re

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

8/37

that would neer in #act occur$ /oreoer since it applies e

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

9/37

e!pressin% a proposition that is patentl" #alse under-in#ormatie or irreleantC These

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

10/37

utterance H a result predicted b" the echoic account o# iron" but not b" the classical or

Gricean accounts$

nother wa" o# connectin% the presence o# a moc&in% or critical attitude to the

e!pression o# a blatantl" #alse proposition inoles the idea that iron" is a t"pe o#

pretence$ Grice (16751 @4) su%%ests that this mi%ht e!plain wh" a metaphorical

utterance can be pre#aced b" the phrase To speak metaphorically but an ironical

utterance cannot be pre#aced b" the phrase To speak ironically

To be ironical is amon% other thin%s to pretend (as the et"molo%" su%%ests) and

while one wants the pretence to be reco%nised as such to announce it as a

pretence would spoil the e##ect$ (ibid @4)

.epl"in% to or%ensen /iller and ;perber (14) >lar& and Gerri% (14) deelop a

pretence account o# iron" as an alternatie to the echoic account$ >onsider () below

() Trust the eather ?ureauI ;ee what loel" weather it is rain rain rain

or%ensen /iller and ;perber (14 114) treat this as an echoic allusion to a #orecast

#rom the eather ?ureau that the spea&er wants to re:ect as ludicrousl" #alse$ >lar& and

Gerri% treat it as a t"pe o# pretence

ith %ee what lo&ely weather it is the spea&er is pretendin% to be an unseein%

person perhaps a weather #orecaster e!claimin% to an un&nowin% audience how

beauti#ul the weather is$ ;he intends the addressee to see throu%h the pretense H in

such rain she obiousl" could not be ma&in% the e!clamation on her own behal# Hand to see that she is thereb" ridiculin% the sort o# person who would ma&e such

an e!clamation (e$%$ the weather #orecaster) the sort o# person who would accept

it and the e!clamation itsel#$ (>lar& and Gerri% 14 122)

9n this approach the interpretation o# iron" depends on the hearers abilit" to reco%nise

that the spea&er is pretendin% to be a certain sort o# person seriousl" producin% an

10

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

11/37

utterance and simultaneousl" e!pressin% her own attitude to it and to the sort o# person

who would produce or beliee it$

.epl"in% in turn to >lar& and Gerri% ;perber (14) de#ended the echoic account

a%ainst their criticisms and went on to raise some ob:ections to >lar& and Gerri%s

ersion o# the pretence account$ 9ther ersions o# the pretence account hae been

deeloped in the recent philosophical and ps"cholo%ical literature (see #or instance

>urrie in press, >olston and Gibbs in press, JreuF and Gluc&sber% 1, Jumon-

Aa&amura Gluc&sber% and ?rown 1@)$ ;eeral o# these respond to ;perbers

ob:ections b" combinin% elements o# the pretence and echoic accounts and * will loo&

at them more closel" in section 4$ /" main claim will be that unless the notion o#

pretence is stretched incredibl" thin pretence accounts o# iron" with or without an

additional echoic element are both descriptiel" and theoreticall" inade

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

12/37

() a$ ;ome propositions are tautolo%ies$ b$ Bor instance a tall man is a man$

(10) a$ /ost le!ical concepts are atomic$ b$ TKP+9A K>T.9A >??G$

*n other cases the metarepresented thou%ht or utterance is chosen not purel" #or its

lo%ical properties but #or the #act that it has been or mi%ht be produced or entertained

b" a particular person or t"pe o# person (or b" people in %eneral) and a hearer who #ails

to reco%nise this will hae misunderstood$ Bree indirect speech and thou%ht as in (11b)

and (12b) are obious illustrations o# this tacitl" attri$uti&e use o# lan%ua%e

(11) a$ The 8ean spo&e up$ b$ The uniersit" was in crisis$

(12) a$ The students were thou%ht#ul$ b$ *# the" didnt act now it mi%ht be too late$

plausible interpretation o# (11)12 is that the claim that the uniersit" was in crisis (or

some claim similar enou%h in content #or (11b) to be re%arded as an appropriate

paraphrase or summar") is bein% tacitl" attributed to the 8ean$ ;imilarl" a plausible

interpretation o# (12) is that the thou%ht that i# the students didnt act strai%ht awa" it

mi%ht be too late (or some thou%ht similar enou%h in content #or (12b) to be re%arded as

an appropriate paraphrase or summar") is bein% tacitl" attributed to the students$ +ere

(11b) and (12b) are not descriptiel" used the spea&er is not assertin% them and does

not ta&e responsibilit" #or their truth but is metarepresentin% a thou%ht or utterance with

a similar content that she attributes to some identi#iable person or %roup o# people$

ccordin% to the echoic account erbal iron" is a tacitl" attributie use o# lan%ua%e$

choic use is in the second place a particular sub-t"pe o# attributie use$ The main

point o# an echoic use o# lan%ua%e is not simpl" to report the content o# the attributed

thou%ht or utterance but to show that the spea&er is thin&in% about it and wants toin#orm the hearer o# her own reaction to it (;perber and ilson 16 chapter 4 section

)$ >onsider ac&s utterance in (13) and the possible echoic responses in (14a-c)

(13) ack: * had dinner with >homs&" last ni%ht$

(14) a$ %ue: Lou had dinner with >homs&"I hat did he sa"C

b$ %ue: Lou had dinner with >homs&"C *s he in n%landC

c$ %ue: Lou had dinner with >homs&"$ 8ont ma&e me lau%h$

12

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

13/37

*n each case the point o# ;ues response is not to remind ac& o# what he has onl" :ust

said but to show that she is thin&in% about it and to cone" her attitude to it surprise

and pleasure in (14a) puFFlement perhaps tin%ed with scepticism in (14b) and outri%ht

moc&er" and disbelie# in (14c) where ;ue echoes ac&s claim in such a wa" as to

indicate that she does not beliee it and #inds it absurd$ The ran%e o# attitudes that a

spea&er can e!press to an echoed thou%ht or utterance ran%e #rom acceptance or

endorsement o# its descriptie content as in (14a) throu%h

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

14/37

(1) aboe is interpretiel" used the

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

15/37

distinction between the e!amples in (1) (@a) and (6a) but merel" a di##erence in the

e!tent to which the hopes or e!pectations bein% echoed are uniersall" shared$

The utterances in (7a) ( -on!t forget to use your indicator ) and (7b) ( -o you think we

should stop for petrol) li&e Grices e!ample Look, that car has all its windows intact

do not echo widel" shared hopes or e!pectations and re

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

16/37

must all be treated in the same wa"$ The implication #or pretence accounts o# iron" is

that either all these #orms must be anal"sable as cases o# pretence or none are$

To illustrate the %radualness o# the borderline between reportin% and echoin% and

between the arious t"pes o# attitude e!pressed in echoic use consider the e!chan%e in

(1@) where ?umpers the narrator o# a noel b" Peter de Mries is de#endin% his Ph8 on

/auses of -i&orce in %outheastern 0ural #owa a%ainst the criticisms o# the chie#

e!aminer Tim&en

(1@) 1umpers: hat *m tr"in% to sa" %entlemen is that diorce is as complicated as

marria%e and that is a relationship inconceiabl" intricate$

Timken: hich a bachelor li&e m"sel# can be onl" hopelessl" une

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

17/37

(16) a$ +e sa"s he almost won$

b$ +e almost won he thin&s$

c$ Poor #ool$ +e thin&s he almost won$

d$ +e almost won$ lle%edl"$

e$ +e almost won$ Aot$

#$ +e almost won$ +uhI

%$ +e almost won$

*n each o# these utterances /ar" can be understood as e!pressin% a dissociatie attitude

to an utterance or thou%ht that she attributes to Peter$ The main di##erences between

them are in how e!plicitl" the attitude is e!pressed and the attribution made$ *n (16a)

(16b) and (16d) the attribution is lin%uisticall" indicated (b" use o# the words he says

he thinks and allegedly) and the attitude tacitl" cone"ed$ *n (16c) (16e) and (16#) b"

contrast the attitude is lin%uisticall" indicated (b" use o# the e!pressions poor fool

huh2 and not ) and the attribution is tacitl" cone"ed$ *n (16c) both attitude and

attribution are lin%uisticall" indicated and in (16%) both attitude and attribution are

tacitl" cone"ed$ 9nl" (16%) is a t"pical case o# erbal iron" this is the onl" e!ample

inolin% the tacit e!pression o# a dissociatie attitude to a tacitl" attributed utterance or

thou%ht$ +oweer as illustrated in (16a) (16b) and (16d) more e!plicit #orms o#

reported speech and thou%ht ma" also tacitl" cone" a dissociatie attitude and thus

achiee ironical e##ects, moreoer as illustrated b" (16c)-(16#) #ull" conceptual #orms

o# encodin% shade o## into inter:ections (which themseles shade o## into arious

paralin%uistic and non-lin%uistic cues) the borderline between oert and tacit

attributions and e!pressions o# attitude and hence between t"pical and less t"pical caseso# iron" is a %radual one$

* hae treated (16%) as t"pical case o# erbal iron"$ +oweer this is true onl" i# it is

uttered with the #lat low-&e" intonation %enerall" &nown as the 'ironical tone o#

oice$1@ /ar" mi%ht hae e!pressed her sceptical reaction to Peters remar& (and thus

achieed ironical e##ects) b" utterin% (16%) in at least two other wa"s$ *n one she would

parod" or imitate Peter usin% a tone o# oice and manner o# articulation similar to his

perhaps combined with a moc&in% or contemptuous #acial e!pression$ *n the other she

17

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

18/37

would adopt an e!a%%eratedl" bri%ht coninced tone o# oice and the manner o#

articulation that someone would hae i# %enuinel" coninced b" what Peter said$ ?oth

can le%itimatel" be seen as cases o# pretence in the #irst /ar" is pretendin% to be Peter

(or to spea& in the wa" Peter does) and e!pectin% her audience to see throu%h the

pretence, in the second /ar" is pretendin% to beliee Peter and e!pectin% the audience

to see throu%h the pretence$ This raises the lar& and Gerri% 10, >urrie

2002 2004, .ecanati 2000 2004, alton 10, see also Aichols and ;tich 2000)$ /"

concern here is not with these broader theories which proide aluable insi%hts into the

wa"s in which the perception o# resemblances ma" be e!ploited in communication and

e!pression but about the much more limited issue o# whether iron" is best anal"sed as a

t"pe o# simulation or pretence$ * will ar%ue that it is not$

9ne wa" o# reconcilin% Grices ori%inal account o# iron" with his later remar& that

iron" is a t"pe o# pretence (see section 2 aboe and Grice 16751 34 @3-@4 120)

is to assume that he saw 'ma&in% as i# to sa" as a t"pe o# pretence$ Then 'ma&in% as i#

to sa" that Paul is a #ine #riend would amount to pretendin% to sa" that he is a #ine

#riend and Grices account o# iron" would hae been a pretence account all alon%$.ecanati (2004 71) interprets Grice alon% these lines and appears to endorse a similar

ersion o# the pretence account

;uppose the spea&er sa"s *aul really is a fine friend in a situation in which :ust

the opposite is &nown to be the case$ The spea&er does not reall" sa" or at least

she does not assert what she 'ma&es as i# to sa" (Grices phrase)$ ;omethin% is

lac&in% here namel" the #orce o# a serious assertion$ N hat the spea&er does in

1

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

19/37

the ironical case is merel" to pretend to assert the content o# her utterance$ N?"

pretendin% to sa" o# Paul that he is a #ine #riend in a situation in which :ust the

opposite is obiousl" true the spea&er mana%es to communicate that Paul is

eer"thin% but a #ine #riend$ ;he shows b" her utterance how inappropriate it

would be to ascribe to Paul the propert" o# bein% a #ine #riend$

>lar& and Gerri% (14) also trace their ersion o# the pretence account to Grices

ori%inal remar& that iron" is a case o# 'ma&in% as i# to sa" somethin%$

s noted in section 2 (and as seeral o# these authors reco%nise) non-echoic ersions

o# the pretence account do not e!plain wh" a spea&er cannot produce an" blatantl" #alse

or inappropriate utterance and e!pect it to be understood as ironical$ 9ne can pretend to

be an"one at all assertin% or beliein% an"thin% at all$ ;o wh" cant the spea&er in

Grices e!ample Look, that car has all its windows intact be understood as pretendin% to

be the sort o# person who would assert or beliee (in the #ace o# clear counter-eidence)

that the car has all its windows intactC Bor Grice the solution to this problem was

connected with the hostile or dero%ator" attitude that the spea&er is ta&en to e!press$

?ut the most plausible wa" o# lin&in% the e!pression o# a hostile or dero%ator" attitude

with the production o# a mani#estl" #alse under-in#ormatie or irreleant utterance is to

assume that the spea&er is e!pressin% this attitude primaril" to a thou%ht or utterance

with a similar content to the one she has e!pressed and onl" secondaril" to a person$

/oreoer the e!pression o# a hostile dero%ator" or more %enerall" dissociatie

attitude to a possible thou%ht or utterance must hae a point$ s ;perber (14 131)

puts it

bsurdit" o# propositions per se is irreleant$ The absurdit" or een the mereinappropriateness o# human thou%hts on the other hand is o#ten worth remar&in%

on ma&in% #un o# bein% ironic about$ *n other words in order to be success#ull"

ironic the meanin% mentioned must reco%nisabl" echo a thou%ht that has been is

bein% or mi%ht be entertained or e!pressed b" someone$

Thus what is missin% #rom non-echoic ersions o# the pretence account is precisel"

what is emphasised b" the echoic account that the attitude e!pressed in iron" is

1

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

20/37

primaril" to a thou%ht or utterance that the spea&er attri$utes to some identi#iable

person or t"pe o# person or to people in %eneral$

ddin% an echoic element to the pretence account helps to e!plain wh" Grices

e!ample Look, that car has all its windows intact reurrie (in press 116) who ar%ues that in iron" 'one pretends to be doin% somethin% which one is not doin% spea&in% seriousl" and

assertiel" seriousl" as&in% a

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

21/37

stance G (which ma" be identical to B or merel" resemble it) which is the tar%et

o# the ironic comment$ (>urrie in press 11)

>urries account addresses man" o# the ob:ections made b" ;perber (14) to earlier

ersions o# the pretence account$ s he notes it has much in common with the echoic

account (as well as seeral di##erences o# substance or detail which * will hae to leae

to another time)$16 ?oth reco%nise that iron" inoles the attribution o# a thou%ht (or

perspectie or point o# iew) to a speci#ic person or t"pe o# person or to people in

%eneral and the e!pression o# a dissociatie attitude to the attributed thou%ht$ ?oth note

that the thou%ht that is the ob:ect o# the ironical attitude need not be identical to the

proposition e!pressed b" the ironical utterance but ma" merel" resemble it in content$

?oth reco%nise that a %enuine speech act ma" contain a sin%le constituent which is

ironicall" used as in (2) ( s # reached the $ank at closing time, the $ank clerk helpfully

shut the door in my face) a %enuine assertion in which onl" the word helpfully is ironic$

+oweer althou%h allusional pretence accounts deal well with man" o# the ob:ections

to earlier pretence accounts * want to su%%est that the" still encounter a si%ni#icant

problem unless the notion o# pretence is stretched incredibl" thin the standard #orms o#

erbal iron" illustrated in (1)-() aboe are not cases o# pretence$

?oth echoic and pretence accounts are a%reed that the spea&er o# an ironical

utterance does not per#orm the speech act she would standardl" be ta&en to per#orm i#

her utterance were literall" understood$ ?ut it does not #ollow #rom this alone that the"

are cases o# pretence$ >onsider the metaphor in (17a) the h"perbole in (17b) and the

appro!imation in (17c)

(17) a$ That o##ice is a ipers nest$ b$ The article contained millions o# t"pos$

c$ The chairs #ormed a circle$

Aone o# these asserts the proposition literall" e!pressed the spea&er o# (17a) is not

%enuinel" assertin% that the o##ice is a ipers nest and so on #or the other e!amples$

Grice did indeed anal"se metaphor and h"perbole li&e iron" as cases o# 'ma&in% as i#

to sa" (i$e$ as pretendin% in a er" %eneral sense) on a Gricean account o# (17a) and

21

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

22/37

(17b) no speech act o# assertion is per#ormed and the spea&ers meanin% consists solel"

o# implicatures$ +oweer he seems to hae drawn the line at appro!imations

describin% cases similar to (17c) as ma&in% %enuine assertions in which a word is used

'loosel" in a rela!ed wa" which the nature o# the conte!t o# utterance ma&es

permissible (Grice 16751 4@)$ .ecent accounts o# metaphor and h"perbole treat

them as #ormin% a continuum with loose use and rou%h appro!imation and hence as

ma&in% %enuine (thou%h not strictl" literal) assertions (>arston 2002, .ecanati 2004,

;perber and ilson in press, ilson and ;perber 2002)$ *# these accounts are on the

ri%ht lines there is no alid ar%ument #rom the premise 'This utterance does not hae

the #orce o# a serious literal speech act to the conclusion 'This utterance is a case o#

pretence$

The echoic account does not treat iron" as #ormin% a continuum with loose use

metaphor and h"perbole, howeer as ar%ued in section 3 it does treat ironical

utterances as #ormin% a natural class with other t"pes o# interpretie attributie or

echoic use$ *# this account is on the ri%ht lines then either all interpretiel" used

utterances must be treated as cases o# pretence or none can$ * want to ar%ue that none are

appropriatel" anal"sed as cases o# pretence$

The pretence account is particularl" inappropriate #or interpretie uses in which the

spea&er tacitl" or oertl" metarepresents an abstract lo%ical or conceptual content rather

than an attributed utterance or thou%ht$ >onsider the tacitl" metarepresentational () and

(10) (repeated here #or conenience) and the more e!plicit ersions in (1) and (1)

() a$ ;ome propositions are tautolo%ies$ b$ Bor instance a tall man is a man$

(10) a$ /ost le!ical concepts are atomic$ b$ TKP+9A K>T.9A >??G$

(1) The #ollowin% proposition is tautolo%ical a tall man is a man$(1) Ke!ical concepts includin% TKP+9A K>T.9A and >??G are atomic$

*n (b) and (1) the spea&er is not pretendin% to ma&e an assertion or imitatin% some

other person or t"pe o# person$ +er behaiour tone o# oice manner o# articulation

#acial e!pression etc$ are not intended to resemble those o# an" other person or t"pe o#

person she is spea&in% in her own oice and usin% lan%ua%e purel" to pic& out a

proposition that she wants to brin% to her hearers mind$ The same point applies to (10b)

22

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

23/37

and (1) in which the concepts TKP+9A K>T.9A and >??G are mentioned

rather than used$ /" claim is that when the main point o# an interpretiel" used

utterance is to pic& out a content or meanin% H whether a purel" abstract meanin% as in

these e!amples or the meanin% o# an attributed thou%ht or utterance H this is not

appropriatel" described as a case o# mimicr" simulation or pretence$ 9ne cannot mimic

or simulate a content a meanin% or a thou%ht$ The pretence account o# iron" wor&s onl"

#or cases where an element o# mimicr" or simulation o# behaiour is inoled$

To illustrate this point consider the tacitl" attributie utterances in (11b) and (12b)

(repeated here #or conenience) and their more e!plicit counterparts in (20) and (21)

(11) a$ The 8ean spo&e up$ b$ The uniersit" was in crisis$

(12) a$ The students were thou%ht#ul$ b$ *# the" didnt act now it mi%ht be too late$

(20) ccordin% to the 8ean the uniersit" was in crisis$

(21) The students were thin&in% that i# the" didnt act now it would be too late$

The spea&er o# these utterances chooses an indirect rather than a direct #orm o#

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

24/37

+oweer indirect reports o# speech and thou%ht such as (11)-(12) or (20)-(21) need

inole no mimicr" or 'pra%matic insincerit" the spea&er is %enuinel" reportin% a

content or meanin% rather than pretendin% to do somethin% else$

*n #act not een all echoic utterances are plausibl" anal"sed as cases o# pretence$ The

most obious problems #or the pretence account are raised b" echoic onsider ;ues echoic response to ac& in (14b) aboe (repeated here

#or conenience)


(14) b$ %ue: Lou had dinner with >homs&"C *s he in n%landC

*t is hard to see this as a case o# 'pra%matic insincerit" or 'ma&in% as i# to sa"$ ;ue is

echoin% ac&s immediatel" precedin% utterance in order to show that she is thin&in%

about its content and to e!press her reaction to it$ *n the interpretation * am considerin%

here ;ue does not intend to be understood as imitatin% ac& or simulatin% his

behaiour the onl" releant resemblances between her utterances and his are in content

rather than #orm$

Aow consider echoic responses such as (14a) (repeated below)

24

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

25/37


(14) a$ %ue: Lou had dinner with >homs&"I hat did he sa"C

*n (14a) ;ue echoes ac&s precedin% remar& in such a wa" as to indicate that she

accepts it and wants to e!press her surprise and pleasure at the #act that it is true$ *t

seems entirel" inappropriate to treat this as a case o# 'pra%matic insincerit" or 'ma&in%

as i# to sa"$ ;ue is not pretendin% to assert an"thin% she is acceptin% ac&s assertion

and e!pressin% her reaction to it$ 9r consider cases o# dela"ed acceptance or

endorsement such as (23b) (#rom ;perber and ilson 16 23)

(23) a$ *eter: *ts a loel" da" #or a picnic$

DThe" %o #or a picnic and the sun shines$E

b$ Mary: *ts a loel" da" #or a picnic indeed$

+ere /ar" echoes Peters utterance in such a wa" as to ma&e it clear that she is

endorsin% it and complimentin% him on his su%%estion$ ;he need not be imitatin% Peter

or mimic&in% his behaiour what matters (in the interpretation * am considerin% here) is

the resemblance in content between her utterance and his$

choic utterances can cone" a wide ariet" o# attitudes$ Bor instance the echoic

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

26/37

(24) a$ *eter: *ts a loel" da" #or a picnic$

DThe" %o #or a picnic and it rains$E

b$ Mary: *ts a loel" da" #or a picnic indeed$

+ere /ar" echoes Peters utterance in such a wa" as to ma&e it clear that she does not

beliee it and perhaps to criticise him #or his su%%estion$ *n both cases she spea&s in her

own oice and e!presses her own attitude the onl" di##erence between (23b) and (24b)

is in the t"pe o# attitude e!pressed$ ;o i# echoic endorsements such as (23b) are not

anal"sed as cases o# pretence neither should ironical dissociations be$

>urrie (in press 12@) ar%ues that echoic endorsements such as (23b) and ironical

dissociations such as (24b) di##er in one important respect which ma&es it le%itimate to

anal"se ironical dissociations and not echoic endorsements as cases o# pretence$

;uppose that Peter responds to /ar" b" sa"in% (2@)

(2@) Les *m so %lad we decided to come$

s a response to the echoic endorsement in (23b) Peters utterance would be naturall"

understood as a %enuine non-echoic assertion$ s a response to the echoic endorsement

in (24b) howeer it would be naturall" understood as a continuation o# the iron"$ *n

>urries terms iron" 'opens the door to pretendin% and Peters response to /ar"s

ironical utterance 'would naturall" be seen as an elaboration o# /ar"s pretence (ibid

12@)$ +e is thus prepared to treat /ar"s utterance in (24b) as a case o# pretendin% in an

'actie 'substantial sense while ar%uin% that echoic endorsements and other t"pes o#

#ree indirect

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

27/37

b$ +e almost won he thin&s$

c$ Poor #ool$ +e thin&s he almost won$

d$ +e almost won$ lle%edl"$

*t would be

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

28/37

content not in #orm$ *n iron" in #act the spea&er %ies up the opportunit" #or mimicr"

or simulation in order to e!press her own attitude in her own tone o# oice$

This is not to sa" that utterances based on the e!ploitation o# perceptual

resemblances cannot be used to achiee ironical e##ects$ s noted aboe in section 3 a

spea&er ma" adopt the tone o# oice or manner o# articulation o# some other person or

t"pe o# person in order to ma&e #un o# them their wa" o# spea&in% or the thou%hts the"

hae e!pressed (;perber and ilson 11, ;perber 14, ilson and ;perber 12)$

;uch utterances are indeed simulations and are o#ten used to witt" or ironical e##ect$

>onsider (27)-(30)

(27) Punctualit" is the thie# o# time$ (9scar ilde)

(2) mon% the smaller duties o# li#e * hardl" &now an" more important than that o#

not praisin% where praise is not due$ (;"dne" ;mith)

(2) critic is one who leaes no turn unstoned$ (Geor%e ?ernard ;haw)

ach o# these parodies or alludes to another utterance that resembles it in #orm$ *n (27)

ilde ma" be seen as dissociatin% himsel# #rom the sa"in% *rocrastination is the thief

of time and in (2) ;"dne" ;mith ma" be seen as e!pressin% some scepticism about the

idea that we should alwa"s %ie praise where praise is due$ en (2) which could be

seen simpl" as wordpla" ma" be intended to ma&e a more serious point about the

contrast between a drama critics :ob and an ordinar" :ob$ lthou%h these utterances

achiee their e##ects b" e!ploitin% perceptual resemblances or resemblances in #orm

the" are still not appropriatel" anal"sed as cases o# pretence$ *n each case the spea&er

could be usin% them to per#orm a %enuine speech act while simultaneousl" alludin% to

another one$ +ere a%ain ironical e##ects are achieed without an" element o# pretence$The t"pe o# iron" that does inole pretence is the one sometimes described in the

literature as 'impersonation iron" (c#$ ;imonin #orthcomin%) where the spea&er (or

writer) adopts a persona in order to criticise or ma&e #un o# those who spea& or thin& in

similar wa"s$ The best-&nown e!amples are ;wi#ts ' /odest Proposal and 8e#oes

'The ;hortest a" with 8issenters both intended to satirise political iews o# the

time$ ;ince * thin& Aeil ;mith would en:o" it and with man" than&s to the pretence

theorists whose wor& * #ind both enrichin% and proocatie * will end b"

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

29/37

#irst two para%raphs o# ;tephen Keacoc&s essa" re the 0ich Happy, which is indeed a

case o# pretence used to achiee ironical e##ects

Ket me admit at the outset that * write this essa" without adeurrie #or inspiration challen%e and

allowin% me to see an earl" ersion o# his #ascinatin% paper on pretence accounts o#

iron"$ Than&s also to .ob"n >arston and Mladimir e%arac #or insi%ht#ul comments on

an earlier ersion and to two anon"mous re#erees$ This paper is part o# the +.>-#unded pro:ect Q Oni#ied Theor" o# Ke!ical Pra%matics (.163@6), * am er" %rate#ul

to .ob"n >arston and the other members o# the pro:ect team$

2

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

30/37

(eferences

?ar&er ;$ 2004$ .enewin% /eanin% ;peech-ct Theoretic pproach$ >ambrid%e

Oniersit" Press >ambrid%e$

?ooth $ 14$ .hetoric o# *ron"$ >hica%o Oniersit" Press >hica%o$

?r"ant G$ Bo! Tree $ 2002$ .eco%nisin% erbal iron" in spontaneous speech$

/etaphor and ;"mbol 17 -117$

>apelli >$ Aa&a%awa A$ /adden >$ 10$ +ow children understand sarcasm The

role o# conte!t and intonation$ >hild 8eelopment 61 124-141$

>arston .$ 16$ /etalin%uistic ne%ation and echoic use$ ournal o# Pra%matics 2@

30-330$

>arston .$ 2002$ Thou%hts and Otterances The Pra%matics o# !plicit

>ommunication$ ?lac&well 9!#ord$

>lar& +$ Gerri% .$ 14$ 9n the pretense theor" o# iron". ournal o# !perimental

Ps"cholo%" General 113 121-6$

>lar& +$ Gerri% .$ 10$ uotations as demonstrations$ Kan%ua%e 66 764-0@$

>olston +$ Gibbs .$ 2002$ re iron" and metaphor understood di##erentl"C /etaphor

and ;"mbol 17 @7-0$

>olston +$ Gibbs .$ in press$ brie# histor" o# iron"$ To appear in Gibbs .$

>olston +$ (ds$) *ron" in Kan%ua%e and Thou%ht >o%nitie ;cience .eader$

rlbaum +illsdale A$$

>olston +$ 9?rien $ 2000a$ >ontrast o# &ind s$ &ind o# contrast ma%nitude The

pra%matic accomplishments o# iron" and h"perbole$ 8iscourse Processes 30 17-$

>olston +$ 9?rien $ 2000b$ >ontrast and pra%matics in #i%uratie lan%ua%e

n"thin% understatement can do iron" can do better$ ournal o# Pra%matics 32

1@@7-1@3$>reusere /$ 1$ Theories o# adults understandin% and use o# iron" and sarcasm

pplications to and eidence #rom research with children$ 8eelopmental .eiew

1 213-262$

>reusere /$ 2000$ deelopmental test o# theoretical perspecties on the

understandin% o# erbal iron" >hildrens reco%nition o# allusion and pra%matic

insincerit"$ /etaphor and ;"mbol 1@ 2-4@$

>urcR >$ 2000$ *ron" Ae%ation echo and metarepresentation$ Kin%ua 110 2@7-20$

30

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

31/37

>urrie G$ 2002$ .ecreatie /inds *ma%ination in Philosoph" and Ps"cholo%"$ 9!#ord

Oniersit" Press 9!#ord$

>urrie G$ 2004$ rts and /inds$ 9!#ord Oniersit" Press 9!#ord$

>urrie G$ in press$ h" iron" is pretence$ To appear in Aichols ;$ (d$) The

rchitecture o# the *ma%ination$ 9!#ord Oniersit" Press 9!#ord$

8ews ;$ inner $ 1$ 9bli%ator" processin% o# literal and non-literal meanin%s in

erbal iron"$ ournal o# Pra%matics 31 1@7-1@$

Gerri% .$ Goldar% L$ 2000$ dditie e##ects in the perception o# sarcasm ;ituational

disparit" and echoic mention$ /etaphor and ;"mbol 1@ 17-20$

Gibbs .$ $ 16$ 9n the ps"cholin%uistics o# sarcasm$ ournal o# !perimental

Ps"cholo%" General 11@ 3-1@$

Gibbs .$ $ 14$ The Poetics o# /ind Bi%uratie Thou%ht Kan%ua%e and

Onderstandin%$ >ambrid%e Oniersit" Press >ambrid%e$

Giora .$ Bein 9$ 1$ *ron" >onte!t and salience$ /etaphor and ;"mbol 14 241-

2@$

Giora .$ aidel $ ;oro&er A$ ?atori G$ Jasher $ 2000$ 8i##erential e##ects o#

ri%ht- and le#t-hemisphere dama%e on understandin% sarcasm and metaphor$

/etaphor and ;"mbol 1@ 63-3$

Grice +$P$ 167$ Ko%ic and >onersation$ illiam ames Kectures$ .eprinted in

Grice +$P$ 1 pp$ 1-143$

Grice +$P$ 1$ ;tudies in the a" o# ords$ +arard Oniersit" Press >ambrid%e

/$

+appS B$ 13$ >ommunicatie competence and theor" o# mind in autism test o#

releance theor"$ >o%nition 4 101-1$

+u%l" P$ ;a"ward >$ 17$ problem about conersational implicature$ Kin%uisticsand Philosoph" 3 1-2@$

or%ensen $ /iller G$ ;perber 8$ 14$ Test o# the mention theor" o# iron"$ ournal

o# !perimental Ps"cholo%" General 113 112-20$

Jeenan T$ ui%le" J$ 1$ 8o "oun% children use echoic in#ormation in their

comprehension o# sarcastic speechC test o# echoic mention theor"$ ?ritish ournal

o# 8eelopmental Ps"cholo%" 17 3-6$

31

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

32/37

JreuF .$ Gluc&sber% ;$ 1$ +ow to be sarcastic The echoic reminder theor" o#

erbal iron"$ ournal o# !perimental Ps"cholo%" General 11 374-36$

JreuF .$ .oberts .$ 13$ 9n satire and parod" The importance o# bein% ironic$

/etaphor and ;"mbolic ctiit" 7-10$

JreuF .$ .oberts .$ 1@$ Two cues #or erbal iron" +"perbole and the ironic tone

o# oice$ /etaphor and ;"mbolic ctiit" 10 21-31$

Jumon-Aa&amura ;$ Gluc&sber% ;$ ?rown /$ 1@$ +ow about another piece o#

pie the allusional pretense theor" o# discourse iron"$ ournal o# !perimental


Kan%don .$ 8aies /$ >oltheart /$ 2002$ Onderstandin% minds and understandin%

communicated meanin%s in schiFophrenia$ /ind and Kan%ua%e 17 6-104$

Keacoc& ;$ 11$ The Pen%uin ;tephen Keacoc&$ Pen%uin +armondsworth$

Kinat $ 2004$ 9n erbal iron" meta-lin%uistic &nowled%e and echoic interpretation$

Pra%matics and >o%nition 12 @7-70$

/c8onald ;$ Pearce ;$ 16$ >linical insi%hts into pra%matic theor" Brontal lobe

de#icits and sarcasm$ ?rain and Kan%ua%e @3 1-104$

/c8onald ;$ 1$ !plorin% the process o# in#erence %eneration in sarcasm

reiew o# normal and clinical studies$ ?rain and Kan%ua%e 6 46-@06$

/uec&e 8$ 16$ The >ompass o# *ron"$ /ethuen Kondon$

/uec&e 8$ 170$ *ron" and the *ronic$ /ethuen Kondon$

Aa&assis >$ ;nede&er $ 2002$ ?e"ond sarcasm *ntonation and conte!t as relational

cues in childrens reco%nition o# iron"$ *n Greenhill $ +u%hs /$ Kittle#ield +$

alsh +$ (ds$) Proceedin%s o# the Twent"-;i!th ?oston Oniersit" >on#erence on

Kan%ua%e 8eelopment$ >ascadilla Press ;omerille /$ pp$ 42-440$

Aash $ 1@$ The Kan%ua%e o# +umour ;t"le and Techniomic 8iscourse$Kon%man Kondon$

Aichols ;$ ;tich ;$ 2000$ co%nitie theor" o# pretence$ >o%nition 74 11@-47$

Aoh $-$ 1$ cho

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

33/37

Perrin K$ 16$ Kironie mise en trope du sens des SnoncSs h"perboliommunication 3 31-@$

;eto J$ 1$ 9n non-echoic iron"$ *n >arston .$ Ochida ;$ (ds$) .eleance

theor" pplications and implications$ ohn ?en:amins msterdam pp$ 23-2@@$

;hama"-Tsoor" ;$ Tomer .$ haron-PeretF $ 200@$ The neuroanatomical basis o#

understandin% sarcasm and its relation to social co%nition$ Aeurops"cholo%" 1 2-

300$

;imonin 9$ #orthcomin%$ Moices o# iron"$ To appear in ournal o# Pra%matics$

;mith A$ Tsimpli *$-/$ 1@$ The /ind o# a ;aant Kan%ua%e Kearnin% and

/odularit"$ ?lac&well 9!#ord$

;perber 8$ 14$ Merbal iron" Pretense or echoic mentionC ournal o# !perimental


;perber 8$ 2000a$ /etarepresentations in an eolutionar" perspectie$ *n ;perber 8$

(d$) pp$ 117-137$

;perber 8$ (d$) 2000b$ /etarepresentations /ultidisciplinar" Perspectie$ 9!#ord

Oniersit" Press Aew Lor&$

;perber 8$ ilson 8$ 11$ *ron" and the use-mention distinction$ *n >ole P$ (d$)

.adical Pra%matics$ cademic Press Aew Lor& pp$ 2@-31$ (.eprinted in 8ais;$ (d$) 11$ *ragmatics: 0eader. 9!#ord Oniersit" Press 9!#ord pp$ @@0-63$)

;perber 8$ ilson 8$ 16$ .eleance >ommunication and >o%nition$ ?lac&well

9!#ord$ (;econd edition 1@$)

;perber 8$ ilson 8$ 10$ .hetoric and releance$ *n ?ender $ ellber" 8$

(ds$) The nds o# .hetoric +istor" Theor" Practice$ ;tan#ord Oniersit" Press

;tan#ord > pp$ 140-@6$

33

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

34/37

;perber 8$ ilson 8$ 1$ *ron" and releance repl" to ;eto +amamoto and

Lamanashi$ *n >arston .$ Ochida ;$ (ds$) .eleance Theor" pplications and

*mplications$ ohn ?en:amins msterdam pp$ 23-3$

;perber 8$ ilson 8$ 200@$ Pra%matics$ *n ac&son B$ ;mith /$ (ds) 9!#ord

+andboo& o# >ontemporar" nal"tic Philosoph". 9!#ord Oniersit" Press 9!#ord

pp$ 46-@01$

;perber 8$ ilson 8$ in press$ de#lationar" account o# metaphor$ To appear in

Gibbs .$ (d$) /etaphor and Thou%ht (3rd edition)$ >ambrid%e Oniersit" Press

>ambrid%e$

de Mries P$ 176$ * +ear merica ;win%in%$ GollancF Kondon$

alton J$ 10 /imesis as /a&e-beliee 9n the Boundations o# the

.epresentational rts$ +arard Oniersit" Press >ambrid%e /$

iener P$ (d$) 173$ 8ictionar" o# the +istor" o# *deas ;tudies o# ;elected Piotal

*deas$ ;cribners Aew Lor&$

ilson 8$ 2000$ /etarepresentation in lin%uistic communication$ *n ;perber 8$

(d$) pp$ 411-44$

ilson 8$ ;perber 8$ 12$ 9n erbal iron"$ Kin%ua 7 @3-76$

ilson 8$ ;perber 8$ 2002$ Truth#ulness and releance$ /ind 11 @3-632$

inner $ 1$ The Point o# ords >hildrens Onderstandin% o# /etaphor and *ron"$

+arard Oniersit" Press >ambrid%e /$

inner $ Kee&am ;$ 11$ 8istin%uishin% iron" #rom deception$ Onderstandin% the

spea&ers second-order intention$ ?ritish ournal o# 8eelopmental Ps"cholo%"

2@7-270$

Lus B$ 2003$ +umour and the search #or releance$ ournal o# Pra%matics 3@ 12@-

1331$

34

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

35/37

3@

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

36/37

Tel$ U44-16@-62470, #a! U44-16@-62470$

'4mail address: deirdreVlin%$ucl$ac$u& (8$ ilson)$

1 9n the e##ectieness o# di##erent clues in the perception o# iron" see ?r"ant and Bo! Tree (2002)

>olston and 9?rien (2000a b) Gerri% and Goldar% (2000) JreuF and .oberts (1@) and .oc&well

(2000)$2 9n the deelopment o# iron" see >apelli and Aa&a%awa (10) >reusere (1 2000) Jeenan and

ui%le" (1) Aa&assis and ;nede&er (2002) and inner (1)$ 9n impairment or brea&down see

Giora et al$ (2000) +appS (13) Kan%don 8aies and >oltheart (2002) /c8onald and Pearce

(16) and ;mith and Tsimpli (1@)$

3 Possible e!amples include the ironical idioms fat chance and a precious lot presumabl" deried #rom

creatie ironies based on the metaphorical slim chance and a precious little (see ;eto 1 and

;perber and ilson 1 #or discussion)$

4 9n the debate between echoic and pretence accounts see >olston and Gibbs (in press) >urrie (in

press) >lar& and Gerri% (14) JreuF and Gluc&sber% (1) Jumon-Aa&amura Gluc&sber% and

?rown (1@) and ;perber (14)$

@ ;ee #or instance ?ooth (14) >urcR (2000) >urrie (in press) JreuF and .oberts (13) /uec&e

(16 170) Aash (1@) Perrin (16) ;imonin (#orthcomin%) ;perber and ilson (10 1)

iener (173) and Lus (2003)$

6 ;ee #or instance 8ews and inner (1) Gibbs (14) +u%l" and ;a"ward (17) ;perber and

ilson (11 16 200@) and ilson and ;perber (2002)$7 /oreoer since the #irst ma!im o# ualit" has no other pra%matic #unction in Grices #ramewor&

than to be iolated in tropes this raises a %enuine

8/20/2019 3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)

37/37

11 9n metarepresentations see >arston (16 2002) Aoh (2001) ;perber (2000a 2000b) and ilson

(2000)$ Bor eidence that iron" reurries account iron" alwa"s tar%ets a Qrestrictie or de#ectie iew o# the world or part o# the world,

but it is not clear wh" entertainin% a er" %eneral hope or wish that thin%s should %o well the weather

should be nice etc$ should be seen as hain% a restrictie or de#ectie iew o# the world$

17 That is one ma" not actuall" be endorsin% it but onl" pretendin% or seemin% to$

Documents

3 Wilson 06 Irony (1)