"Irony"

[Chatter]

You're a brainwashed moronIrony meter and all that jazz.I have always been confused when irony meters get mentioned on the internet. What is the intended meaning of irony in comments like the above? It looks to me like hypocrisy is what is actually intended.

Generally, I have not been able to match up the usage of irony on internet fora with any definition I have read. Here's Merriam Webster's definition:

1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic ironyCan someone explain which of these, if any, is assumed in comments like the above, and how it applies?

[viscousmemories]

Maybe it's 2a, "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning".

"It's off-the-charts ironic that you would call me a brainwashed moron when in fact it is you who is a brainwashed moron."

:shrug:

[Chatter]

Maybe it's 2a, "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning".

"It's off-the-charts ironic that you would call me a brainwashed moron when in fact it is you who is a brainwashed moron."

:shrug:In this case, the person is expressing that his or her interlocutor is a brainwashed moron, and this is the literal meaning of the words used, so it seems definition 2a does not apply. Whether or not the interlocutor is in fact a brainwashed moron is surely irrelevant.

[BracesForImpact]

“If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck was delivering insulin, ah! Then he is the victim of an irony.”

-George Carlin

[viscousmemories]

In this case, the person is expressing that his or her interlocutor is a brainwashed moron, and this is the literal meaning of the words used, so it seems definition 2a does not apply. Whether or not the interlocutor is in fact a brainwashed moron is surely irrelevant.
I'm not sure about that. I think maybe when people use the irony meter expression as in the case above they mean to imply that the writer was unintentionally ironic. A way of saying "You think the literal meaning of the words you're using is that I am a brainwashed moron, but in fact you are revealing yourself to be a brainwashed moron."

I'm just guessing here... I don't recall ever using the irony meter expression myself.

[Dragar]

It's ironic that none of the examples in Allanis Morissette's song Ironic are actually ironic.

[Chatter]

In this case, the person is expressing that his or her interlocutor is a brainwashed moron, and this is the literal meaning of the words used, so it seems definition 2a does not apply. Whether or not the interlocutor is in fact a brainwashed moron is surely irrelevant.
I'm not sure about that. I think maybe when people use the irony meter expression as in the case above they mean to imply that the writer was unintentionally ironic. A way of saying "You think the literal meaning of the words you're using is that I am a brainwashed moron,That is the literal meaning of the words, and it is what the person means when saying them.

but in fact you are revealing yourself to be a brainwashed moron."It's not revealed by the person writing "You are a brainwashed moron." It appears it was revealed by earlier remarks in this case.

I'm just guessing here... I don't recall ever using the irony meter expression myself.I know there's some controversy over the word, especially in its contrast from sarcasm. And I think we generally use the word nowadays to mean the irony of fate as in BracesForImpact's example. However, I think people are using the word incorrectly with the term irony meter.

There is, of course, the Simpson's definition of irony:

"So it seems the cat burglar was caught by the very person who was trying to catch him."

[viscousmemories]

I think you're right, Chatter. The whole discussion of what is and isn't irony has been boggling my mind since all the debate around Morrisette's song when it came out, truth be told. For some reason I find it very hard to wrap my brain around what it all means.

[lisarea]

I'm tired and busy, so I haven't read everything all careful-like yet, but in a nutshell, irony, in any of its forms, is something that could be directed at two discrete audiences: One informed, and one uninformed, conveying an additional layer of meaning (very often an element of hypocrisy or unintended consequence, but not always) to the informed audience. So the uninformed audience would see the event as simply what it is at face value, while the informed audience has some special knowledge that adds an element of, well, you know. Irony.

There are four general categories:

1. Verbal irony. This is the cheap, throwaway version, and is basically the same thing as sarcasm. Like saying, "Oh, that's great," when you mean something sucks. Enough about that. It's out of the way.

2. Socratic irony. As described in the dictionary definition up in there, a teacher adopts a position of ignorance, thus requiring the student to examine their own perceptions and flesh them out further. This is also what artful trolls do.

3. Irony of fate. This is a naturally occuring incidence of irony. Like the insulin truck example, like a guy being rescued from a shipwreck, then taking a nice warm bath to relax after his ordeal and drowning in the tub.

4. Dramatic irony. Well, it's like irony of fate, except it's fictional and intentional, and thus usually more artful. Like Oedipus vowing to kill the king.

Anyways, usually, dictionaries aren't the best place to look for specialized information like that. If you're looking for rhetorical devices and stuff, check references specifically devoted to rhetoric. Dictionaries are almost always descriptive these days, so they'll list definitions as they're used commonly, which isn't always accurate in a prescriptive sense. You know, descriptively, Alanis Morrisette's definition would bear a mention, at least.

Ironimical, don't you think? Well, no. No, it isn't.

Oh, wait. Now it is.

[Chatter]

I'm tired and busy, so I haven't read everything all careful-like yet, but in a nutshell, irony, in any of its forms, is something that could be directed at two discrete audiences: One informed, and one uninformed, conveying an additional layer of meaning (very often an element of hypocrisy or unintended consequence, but not always) to the informed audience. So the uninformed audience would see the event as simply what it is at face value, while the informed audience has some special knowledge that adds an element of, well, you know. Irony.

There are four general categories:

1. Verbal irony. This is the cheap, throwaway version, and is basically the same thing as sarcasm. Like saying, "Oh, that's great," when you mean something sucks. Enough about that. It's out of the way.

2. Socratic irony. As described in the dictionary definition up in there, a teacher adopts a position of ignorance, thus requiring the student to examine their own perceptions and flesh them out further. This is also what artful trolls do.

3. Irony of fate. This is a naturally occuring incidence of irony. Like the insulin truck example, like a guy being rescued from a shipwreck, then taking a nice warm bath to relax after his ordeal and drowning in the tub.

4. Dramatic irony. Well, it's like irony of fate, except it's fictional and intentional, and thus usually more artful. Like Oedipus vowing to kill the king.

Anyways, usually, dictionaries aren't the best place to look for specialized information like that. If you're looking for rhetorical devices and stuff, check references specifically devoted to rhetoric. Dictionaries are almost always descriptive these days, so they'll list definitions as they're used commonly, which isn't always accurate in a prescriptive sense. You know, descriptively, Alanis Morrisette's definition would bear a mention, at least.

Ironimical, don't you think? Well, no. No, it isn't.

Oh, wait. Now it is.My real question is whether the use of irony in the example can be justified. I used Merriam-Webster to get things started, but I am happy for people to refer to other sources. Here is what Fowler has to say:

...any definition of irony -- though hundreds might be given, and very few of them would be accepted -- must include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same.It would therefore seem that Fowler would have regarded the usage of irony in the example as invalid, as well as the usages in virtually every other utterance of "you broke my irony meter" I have come across.

Eric Partridge's Usage and Abusage has an entry on irony, which divides it into Alexander Bain's "...stating the contrary of what is meant, there being something in the tone or the manner to show the speaker's real drift," Socratic irony and dramatic irony. He also says that "irony must not be confused with sarcasm", since "sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, bitter, caustic or acerb manner [...] whereas irony is one of the vehicles of wit."

[lisarea]

My real question is whether the use of irony in the example can be justified.

I'd assume the implication in calling irony is that the person calling someone a braindead moron or whatever is in fact, a braindead moron themselves.

It's not particularly artful or anything, but I don't think it's necessarily an invalid call.


...any definition of irony -- though hundreds might be given, and very few of them would be accepted -- must include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same.It would therefore seem that Fowler would have regarded the usage of irony in the example as invalid, as well as the usages in virtually every other utterance of "you broke my irony meter" I have come across.

Well, I take a little exception to 'not the same.' They don't necessarily mean different things entirely. It's just that the informed audience sees additional meaning that the uninformed doesn't.

So, if someone were to call someone a braindead moron, the uninformed interpretation is that, in fact, the person on the receiving end is a braindead moron.

Where irony could come in is with the informed audience, who knows that the speaker, in fact, is a braindead moron him or herself, and that their opinion of others' intelligence is of little value.

So, while I'd agree that it's not quality irony, it could be construed as valid, workmanlike irony all the same.


Eric Partridge's Usage and Abusage has an entry on irony, which divides it into Alexander Bain's "...stating the contrary of what is meant, there being something in the tone or the manner to show the speaker's real drift," Socratic irony and dramatic irony. He also says that "irony must not be confused with sarcasm", since "sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, bitter, caustic or acerb manner [...] whereas irony is one of the vehicles of wit."

Well, then, Partridge is using an unusual definition of sarcasm. While not all sarcasm is irony, verbal irony (described in Bain's definition) is a form of sarcasm, according to pretty much every other definition I've seen.

[Chatter]

I'd assume the implication in calling irony is that the person calling someone a braindead moron or whatever is in fact, a braindead moron themselves.That's what I would assume.

It's not particularly artful or anything, but I don't think it's necessarily an invalid call.


...any definition of irony -- though hundreds might be given, and very few of them would be accepted -- must include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same.It would therefore seem that Fowler would have regarded the usage of irony in the example as invalid, as well as the usages in virtually every other utterance of "you broke my irony meter" I have come across.

Well, I take a little exception to 'not the same.' They don't necessarily mean different things entirely. It's just that the informed audience sees additional meaning that the uninformed doesn't.

So, if someone were to call someone a braindead moron, the uninformed interpretation is that, in fact, the person on the receiving end is a braindead moron.

Where irony could come in is with the informed audience, who knows that the speaker, in fact, is a braindead moron him or herself, and that their opinion of others' intelligence is of little value.Where is the informed interpretation? The informed still interpret the speaker's comment as saying that his interlocutor is a braindead moron; they just believe the speaker is wrong. The interpretation of what is said remains the same.

So, while I'd agree that it's not quality irony, it could be construed as valid, workmanlike irony all the same.


Eric Partridge's Usage and Abusage has an entry on irony, which divides it into Alexander Bain's "...stating the contrary of what is meant, there being something in the tone or the manner to show the speaker's real drift," Socratic irony and dramatic irony. He also says that "irony must not be confused with sarcasm", since "sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, bitter, caustic or acerb manner [...] whereas irony is one of the vehicles of wit."

Well, then, Partridge is using an unusual definition of sarcasm. While not all sarcasm is irony, verbal irony (described in Bain's definition) is a form of sarcasm, according to pretty much every other definition I've seen.It agrees with my dictionaries and Merriam-Webster:

1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>.(emphasis mine)

And from Wikipedia's article on Sarcasm:

The term is frequently misused as a synonym for irony. Irony refers however to the literal meaning and the intended meaning of the words uttered being different, while sarcasm refers to the mocking intent of the utterance. It is possible to be ironic without being sarcastic, and to be sarcastic without being ironic.(emphasis mine)

[erimir]

3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

I think it is related to 3b. Except this is real life and not a play, so it's slightly different, but it is not unusual for such a shift in meaning to occur - I don't think you should be nitpicky about that they're not using it in reference to a play.

So, the incongruity is that the brainwashed moron is calling someone a brainwashed moron, and the audience obviously thinks he is wrong (or we might say, he IS wrong) because they just disagree, or because they don't take his opinion seriously since he's a brainwashed moron. The audience, being the other people reading the thread who know that person, understand this incongruity, but the "character in the play," the poster who made the supposedly ironic statement, does not.

Or at least, that's how I see it.

[lisarea]

Where is the informed interpretation? The informed still interpret the speaker's comment as saying that his interlocutor is a braindead moron; they just believe the speaker is wrong. The interpretation of what is said remains the same.

Actually, maybe uninformed 'audience' isn't all that clear, as the uninformed audience is sometimes only imagined. That is, the intent is so clear that nobody would reasonably miss it, but it's implied, anyway. And to clarify further, let's think instead of the 'informed' audience as the intended audience for a moment. They're not necessarily fully informed or objective in any sense. They're just the intended audience for the implied meaning. All we assume they're 'informed' of is the speaker's intent. If you want to add a third, even more objective audience to the interpretation, that would properly be classified as Double-Dog-Reverse-Meta-Irony. By the sixth layer of interpretation, it becomes Infinite-Loop-Pomo-Irony, after which it swallows its own tail and goes back to just being regular irony again.

So to address the example specifically, the interpretation still implies irony, in that the original speaker's intention is to characterize the target as a brainwashed moron or whatever that was, the target turns the interpretation back on the original speaker, implying that the speaker is a brainwashed moron, thus rendering his judgement meaningless, and turning the accusation around.

So, while the classic Oedipus example is definitely cleverer manifestation, it follows an almost identical model.


It agrees with my dictionaries and Merriam-Webster:


You do notice that both definitions of sarcasm you quoted also equate it with irony, and neither backs up the claim that sarcasm must be literal.

In fact, I'm not really sure how what I said differs substantively from either of those definitions. Not all sarcasm is irony, and not all irony is sarcasm, but neither precludes the other, as the quote from Partridge would imply.

We draw a Venn diagram here. Verbal irony, a subset of irony, is frequently used in an insulting, or sarcastic, fashion. Sarcasm frequently manifests as verbal irony.

And, while it's kind of crude and hamhanded, verbal irony certainly fulfills the requirements for irony. That is, the putative uninformed audience might interpret verbal irony literally, while the informed, or intended, audience recognizes that the speaker is dissembling, saying one thing in a tone or context that makes it obvious they mean the opposite.

I'd like to see the context of what Partridge is saying. I do have Usage and Abusage, but I don't know where it is right now. I'd be interested to see how he justifies saying that sarcasm must be literal, when every other reference I've seen says otherwise.

[lisarea]

I think it is related to 3b. Except this is real life and not a play, so it's slightly different, but it is not unusual for such a shift in meaning to occur - I don't think you should be nitpicky about that they're not using it in reference to a play.

Depending on how you look at it, it's probably irony of fate. That's basically just when something would be characterized as dramatic irony, except it's not fictional.

But the categories do blur and overlap sometimes, and there are other specialized categories beyond the basic four, such as romantic irony.

But the variety of irony is almost insignificant, and IMO, tends to muddy the distinctions. What's important, rhetorically, is the bones.

[Petra]

:laugh:


Why, oh why, do I allow myself to read and get caught up in silly flame wars when there are posts of Lisarea's to read 'round here!

:D

[Megatron]

How ironic, a thread entitled "Irony" where the purpose is to actually determine what is NOT irony.

* Zero Angel gets pelted with tomatoes.

[Dragar]

None of you poeple can make posts without typos!

[Chatter]

So, the incongruity is that the brainwashed moron is calling someone a brainwashed moron, and the audience obviously thinks he is wrong (or we might say, he IS wrong) because they just disagree, or because they don't take his opinion seriously since he's a brainwashed moron. The audience, being the other people reading the thread who know that person, understand this incongruity, but the "character in the play," the poster who made the supposedly ironic statement, does not.

Or at least, that's how I see it.How would this not make any instance of an uninformed person making an incorrect claim an example of irony?

[Chatter]

Actually, maybe uninformed 'audience' isn't all that clear, as the uninformed audience is sometimes only imagined. That is, the intent is so clear that nobody would reasonably miss it, but it's implied, anyway. And to clarify further, let's think instead of the 'informed' audience as the intended audience for a moment. They're not necessarily fully informed or objective in any sense. They're just the intended audience for the implied meaning.Who is implying the meaning? The speaker has only one intended meaning.

All we assume they're 'informed' of is the speaker's intent. If you want to add a third, even more objective audience to the interpretation, that would properly be classified as Double-Dog-Reverse-Meta-Irony. By the sixth layer of interpretation, it becomes Infinite-Loop-Pomo-Irony, after which it swallows its own tail and goes back to just being regular irony again.

So to address the example specifically, the interpretation still implies irony, in that the original speaker's intention is to characterize the target as a brainwashed moron or whatever that was, the target turns the interpretation back on the original speaker, implying that the speaker is a brainwashed moron, thus rendering his judgement meaningless, and turning the accusation around.My point is that there is only one interpretation of "You are a brainwashed moron." The two audiences do not interpret the statement differently, one audience just thinks the statement is wrong. The speaker does not have two possible interpretations in mind.

So, while the classic Oedipus example is definitely cleverer manifestation, it follows an almost identical model.


It agrees with my dictionaries and Merriam-Webster:


You do notice that both definitions of sarcasm you quoted also equate it with irony, and neither backs up the claim that sarcasm must be literal.I'm not sure he means that. Perhaps he is being ironic.

In fact, I'm not really sure how what I said differs substantively from either of those definitions. Not all sarcasm is irony, and not all irony is sarcasm, but neither precludes the other, as the quote from Partridge would imply.You said that verbal irony is "basically the same thing as sarcasm," which Partridge and all the other definitions would disagree with. The caustic component is required for sarcasm.

We draw a Venn diagram here. Verbal irony, a subset of irony, is frequently used in an insulting, or sarcastic, fashion. Sarcasm frequently manifests as verbal irony.

And, while it's kind of crude and hamhanded, verbal irony certainly fulfills the requirements for irony. That is, the putative uninformed audience might interpret verbal irony literally, while the informed, or intended, audience recognizes that the speaker is dissembling, saying one thing in a tone or context that makes it obvious they mean the opposite.The point is that you would almost never describe "Oh...you are so clever!" as ironic when meant as an insult, and we would almost never describe Mark Anthony's "honourable men" in his speech as sarcastic.

I'd like to see the context of what Partridge is saying. I do have Usage and Abusage, but I don't know where it is right now. I'd be interested to see how he justifies saying that sarcasm must be literal, when every other reference I've seen says otherwise.I'm not sure that is what he is saying. But since you are so busy and couldn't possibly find time to look for the book, I'll just type the whole paragraph out for you[1]:

Irony must not be confused with sarcasm, which is direct: sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, bitter, cutting, caustic or acerb manner: it is the instrument of indignation, a weapon of offence, whereas irony is one of the vehicles of wit. In Locke's `If ideas were innate, it would save much trouble to many worthy persons', worthy is ironical; the principal clause as a whole is sarcastic -- as also is the complete sentence. Both are instruments of satire and vituperation.But the principal clause and sentence both have intended interpretations which differ from the literal meaning. I am not sure how to understand "sarcasm means precisely what it says"; I just wanted to draw attention to sarcasm as "sharp, bitter, cutting, caustic or acerb". I would never understand sarcasm as being literal, and I cannot imagine Partridge doing so either.

[1]I guess this could be taken as sarcasm, although since I am not actually intending it to be read as an offence, perhaps it's just ironic.

[lisarea]

Actually, maybe uninformed 'audience' isn't all that clear, as the uninformed audience is sometimes only imagined. That is, the intent is so clear that nobody would reasonably miss it, but it's implied, anyway. And to clarify further, let's think instead of the 'informed' audience as the intended audience for a moment. They're not necessarily fully informed or objective in any sense. They're just the intended audience for the implied meaning.Who is implying the meaning? The speaker has only one intended meaning.

Well, in the example you provided, the irony centers around an event rather than a figure of speech, so I guess the 'speaker' part isn't really relevant, because nobody has to be speaking at all. The irony doesn't lie in the fact that the second person pointed out that it was ironic, but supposedly in the events themselves--that a brainwashed moron him or herself called someone else a brainwashed moron. The second party puts himself in the role of the informed audience and the speaker in the role of the uninformed, but the alleged irony was a preexisting irony of fate.

Just to put it in terms of the speaker roles, the original speaker would be the uninformed audience, and the irony citer the informed.

And, of course, none of this implies that either speaker is correct or anything. The claim is subjective. The point, though, is that in their opinion, the statement is ironic.

My point is that there is only one interpretation of "You are a brainwashed moron." The two audiences do not interpret the statement differently, one audience just thinks the statement is wrong. The speaker does not have two possible interpretations in mind.

But the validity of the statement differs depending on the speaker.

I have another example. I watched Rush Limbaugh's old TV show for a week back when it was on to test an unrelated hypothesis I had about some unrelated stuff, and I heard him several times say things like (paraphrased, of course), "Those feminazis can't even make a coherent argument for their case, so they resort to namecalling!"

That is self-contained irony. There is no uninformed audience. An uninformed audience is impossible, because the information is contained in the statement itself. But there are two meanings. There is the face-value claim that feminists don't have coherent arguments and as such, resort to slinging epithets at their opponents. And then, there's the ironic element, that Limbaugh, in his criticism, resorted to precisely what he's accusing others of. So his criticism, that their arguments are invalid because of the ad homs, is turned back onto his own argument.

That's the same model as your example. It also qualifies as hypocrisy, but it's ironic in that there are two levels of understanding possible.

You said that verbal irony is "basically the same thing as sarcasm," which Partridge and all the other definitions would disagree with. The caustic component is required for sarcasm.

Yeah, that was my bad. Awkward wording, plus I was having a hard time thinking of examples of verbal irony that weren't also sarcastic, so I equated them and should not have.

Verbal irony and sarcasm are not equivalent. They just overlap a lot.

Of course, irony and sarcasm are completely different categories of things. Irony is a rhetorical construction, and sarcasm is a tone or intent.

The point is that you would almost never describe "Oh...you are so clever!" as ironic when meant as an insult, and we would almost never describe Mark Anthony's "honourable men" in his speech as sarcastic.

Yes, I would. I'm no big fan of the concept of verbal irony, which should be obvious from my first post in this thread, but that's what it means.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen Shakespeare's "honourable men" used as a example of verbal irony.

Yep. Searching Google for the terms antony and irony results in tons of pages citing just that. (You can narrow it to only that example by adding 'honourable men' to the search terms.)

I'm not sure that is what he is saying. But since you are so busy and couldn't possibly find time to look for the book, I'll just type the whole paragraph out for you[1]:

The book is pretty likely in my garage, in a box on a shelf, behind a mountain of boxes and furniture and things. It's not anywhere accessible, and the time required to locate the book would probably be several hours. And it might not even be there.

Not sure what you're getting all punchy about.

Irony must not be confused with sarcasm, which is direct: sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, bitter, cutting, caustic or acerb manner: it is the instrument of indignation, a weapon of offence, whereas irony is one of the vehicles of wit. In Locke's `If ideas were innate, it would save much trouble to many worthy persons', worthy is ironical; the principal clause as a whole is sarcastic -- as also is the complete sentence. Both are instruments of satire and vituperation.But the principal clause and sentence both have intended interpretations which differ from the literal meaning. I am not sure how to understand "sarcasm means precisely what it says"; I just wanted to draw attention to sarcasm as "sharp, bitter, cutting, caustic or acerb". I would never understand sarcasm as being literal, and I cannot imagine Partridge doing so either.

Ah. I think I get it. The sarcasm itself means precisely what it says because sarcasm isn't tied to the content, but is simply a tone. So the content is ironic, where the tone is sarcastic.

Anyway, I think I'm done. Clearly, you're taking some kind of offense or something here. I assumed that you were actually asking a sincere question, and I'm trying to articulate it in a way that makes sense.

[Chatter]

Well, in the example you provided, the irony centers around an event rather than a figure of speech, so I guess the 'speaker' part isn't really relevant, because nobody has to be speaking at all. The irony doesn't lie in the fact that the second person pointed out that it was ironic, but supposedly in the events themselves--that a brainwashed moron him or herself called someone else a brainwashed moron. The second party puts himself in the role of the informed audience and the speaker in the role of the uninformed, but the alleged irony was a preexisting irony of fate.

Just to put it in terms of the speaker roles, the original speaker would be the uninformed audience, and the irony citer the informed.

And, of course, none of this implies that either speaker is correct or anything. The claim is subjective. The point, though, is that in their opinion, the statement is ironic.I can accept this. If the dialogue appeared in a play, we would say that the author wants the audience to reflect on the speaker's own idiocy, rather than that of the target. Since this is not a play, we take the intended author to be fate.

But the validity of the statement differs depending on the speaker.

I have another example. I watched Rush Limbaugh's old TV show for a week back when it was on to test an unrelated hypothesis I had about some unrelated stuff, and I heard him several times say things like (paraphrased, of course), "Those feminazis can't even make a coherent argument for their case, so they resort to namecalling!"This is slightly different because the statement itself exhibits what it is criticising while "You are a brainwashed moron" does not. Dragar gave a similar statement with

"None of you poeple can make posts without typos!"

This would certainly be a case of Dragar being ironic, since he does not intend his audience to reflect on other people's posts, but instead his own.

That is self-contained irony. There is no uninformed audience. An uninformed audience is impossible, because the information is contained in the statement itself. But there are two meanings. There is the face-value claim that feminists don't have coherent arguments and as such, resort to slinging epithets at their opponents. And then, there's the ironic element, that Limbaugh, in his criticism, resorted to precisely what he's accusing others of. So his criticism, that their arguments are invalid because of the ad homs, is turned back onto his own argument.

That's the same model as your example. It also qualifies as hypocrisy, but it's ironic in that there are two levels of understanding possible.

Yeah, that was my bad. Awkward wording, plus I was having a hard time thinking of examples of verbal irony that weren't also sarcastic, so I equated them and should not have.

Verbal irony and sarcasm are not equivalent. They just overlap a lot.

Of course, irony and sarcasm are completely different categories of things. Irony is a rhetorical construction, and sarcasm is a tone or intent.

The point is that you would almost never describe "Oh...you are so clever!" as ironic when meant as an insult, and we would almost never describe Mark Anthony's "honourable men" in his speech as sarcastic.

Yes, I would. I'm no big fan of the concept of verbal irony, which should be obvious from my first post in this thread, but that's what it means.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen Shakespeare's "honourable men" used as a example of verbal irony.It is, and it is an example from Usage and Abusage. But I said that it would not be referred to as sarcasm.

Yep. Searching Google for the terms antony and irony results in tons of pages citing just that. (You can narrow it to only that example by adding 'honourable men' to the search terms.)

I'm not sure that is what he is saying. But since you are so busy and couldn't possibly find time to look for the book, I'll just type the whole paragraph out for you[1]:

The book is pretty likely in my garage, in a box on a shelf, behind a mountain of boxes and furniture and things. It's not anywhere accessible, and the time required to locate the book would probably be several hours. And it might not even be there.

Not sure what you're getting all punchy about.There was a footnote there.

Ah. I think I get it. The sarcasm itself means precisely what it says because sarcasm isn't tied to the content, but is simply a tone. So the content is ironic, where the tone is sarcastic.Seems reasonable.

Anyway, I think I'm done. Clearly, you're taking some kind of offense or something here. I assumed that you were actually asking a sincere question, and I'm trying to articulate it in a way that makes sense.I left a footnote saying there was no offence intended. The punchy remark I made was an example of sarcasm or irony I threw in for humour. It's my fault for refusing to use smilies.

[livius drusus]

:sadno:

[Chatter]

:sadno:Okay, okay. I admit some of them are quite cute.

[livius drusus]

One small step for man... Next thing we know you'll be posting up a storm in the communicate using smilies only thread. :damnemo:

[lisarea]

This is slightly different because the statement itself exhibits what it is criticising while "You are a brainwashed moron" does not.

No, "You are a brainwashed moron" wouldn't be self-contained irony, but in the context of a discussion, if someone really were a brainwashed moron and accused another of being one, it does add an additional layer of meaning beyond the assessment.

So, there are two levels of interpretation:

Literal: Speaker B is a brainwashed moron.

Ironic: Speaker A, who is a brainwashed moron, has assessed Speaker B as a brainwashed moron. Speaker A's assessment, however, is rendered both invalid and hypocritical due to his own brainwashed moronicness. Moronicity. Moronia.

It is a kind of difficult distinction to make, just because of the inherent subjectivity and non-literal nature of the claims there. But if we assume that it's actually literal--that Speaker A literally has a moron-level IQ, and has literally been brainwashed to some point of view--it's a little easier to argue.

The fact that Speaker A has the mental capacity of a 7-to-12 year old child (I just looked that up) and has been subjected to psychological control causing him to adopt his perspective, his opinion is of little if any value, and his argument that Speaker B's opinion is irrelevant because Speaker B is "a brainwashed moron" actually end up shooting Speaker A in the foot, as the assessment, if of any value at all, only serves to argue against his own position.

That's the important part. Speaker A is sort of in the role of the uninformed audience. He does not recognize that he's a brainwashed moron when he characterizes such qualities as evidence of invalidity.


In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen Shakespeare's "honourable men" used as a example of verbal irony.It is, and it is an example from Usage and Abusage. But I said that it would not be referred to as sarcasm.

Meep. Yep. You did.

I'd say both qualify as both, though. When Antony refers to 'honourable men,' he does mean it sarcastically in addition to ironically. In addition to implying the opposite of what he's saying, he means the implication as an insult.

And in the other example, "Oh, you're so clever" is an example of verbal irony. It's just a kind of stupid one, like when someone says, "Yeah, right" to express disbelief. The literal meaning is different from that intended, which is really all that's required of verbal irony.

It does pain me to see crap like that being lumped in with more artful examples of irony, but I can't argue that it's technically incorrect. I can and will argue that it's dumb, though.

Earlier, I was trying to think of examples where the sarcasm and verbal irony didn't overlap, and I was a little hard pressed. I guess if one were to say to a friend something like "You're so [ugly|stupid|incompetent]" intending the opposite, that would be verbal irony and not sarcasm, I guess.

And sarcasm is certainly pretty broad. But colloquially, I haven't seen it used to describe anything but verbal irony. I do see the difference, but that's why I mentioned earlier that I was busy and tired or whatever. It's my way of planting an out for myself later that I can point to when I say something I have to correct later.

So: Neener.

There was a footnote there.

Oh, well since you've so nicely pointed that out, I apologize for my hasty assessment of your no doubt honorable intentions, Sir.

I left a footnote saying there was no offence intended. The punchy remark I made was an example of sarcasm or irony I threw in for humour. It's my fault for refusing to use smilies.

Oh. Now you're just being glib.

GLIB, you hear me? GLIB!

(Actually, my bad again. I didn't read your whole post thoroughly before responding. And I rarely use smileys myself, so I have to resort to exclamation points and swears.)

[erimir]

And then I remembered that even if we're using irony in a way that is "wrong" it doesn't matter since we all know what is meant.

But then again, I'm a linguist and we tend to not be very prescriptive with language use.

[lisarea]

And then I remembered that even if we're using irony in a way that is "wrong" it doesn't matter since we all know what is meant.

But then again, I'm a linguist and we tend to not be very prescriptive with language use.

I make a distinction between additive and reductive semantic descriptivism.

Using a word like irony to describe something that doesn't fit the technical definition is reductive, in that it renders the original meaning useless. It's one thing to consciously use a non-standard meaning to describe something entirely different, and another thing entirely to mistakenly use a term incorrectly. So, the mojo meaning of 'cool' doesn't interfere with the temperature meaning. Not so with a misuse of the original term, as in 'irony.'

I'm not a prescriptivist either, by any means. However, there are certain technical terms and terms of art that lose their meaning eventually through colloquial misuse. Like when people say 'penultimate' to mean 'ultimate,' or when people, ignorantly or disingenuously, conflate the colloquial and scientific meanings of 'theory.'

What is the real added value of using the term 'ironic' to mean 'something that sucks,' as in the Alanis Morrisette (sp?) song? Pretty much nothing. She just thinks it sounds smarter or something.

I'd argue that the concept of irony is valuable and irreplaceable enough to be prescriptive about.

[erimir]

Well, I didn't mean that I thought that Alanis Morissette (proper spelling, since you were wondering) was using it correctly. I just meant that I don't find the irony meter thing to be troublesome.

Plus the explanation I gave.

[Chatter]

No, "You are a brainwashed moron" wouldn't be self-contained irony, but in the context of a discussion, if someone really were a brainwashed moron and accused another of being one, it does add an additional layer of meaning beyond the assessment.

So, there are two levels of interpretation:

Literal: Speaker B is a brainwashed moron.

Ironic: Speaker A, who is a brainwashed moron, has assessed Speaker B as a brainwashed moron. Speaker A's assessment, however, is rendered both invalid and hypocritical due to his own brainwashed moronicness. Moronicity. Moronia.This is an evaluation of Speaker A's statement, not an interpretation of it. You have pointed out that the assessment is invalid and hypocritical, but not stated what its ironic meaning is.

It is a kind of difficult distinction to make, just because of the inherent subjectivity and non-literal nature of the claims there. But if we assume that it's actually literal--that Speaker A literally has a moron-level IQ, and has literally been brainwashed to some point of view--it's a little easier to argue.

The fact that Speaker A has the mental capacity of a 7-to-12 year old child (I just looked that up) and has been subjected to psychological control causing him to adopt his perspective, his opinion is of little if any value, and his argument that Speaker B's opinion is irrelevant because Speaker B is "a brainwashed moron" actually end up shooting Speaker A in the foot, as the assessment, if of any value at all, only serves to argue against his own position.How does his assessment argue against his own position? Even if Speaker A is a brainwashed moron, he can still make truthful assessments. And there is no way to tell whether "You are a brainwashed moron" is truthful or not from its utterance alone.

That's the important part. Speaker A is sort of in the role of the uninformed audience. He does not recognize that he's a brainwashed moron when he characterizes such qualities as evidence of invalidity.I'm having difficulty parsing that last sentence. But I cannot see how the divide into an informed and uninformed audience is relevant here. Whenever Speaker A makes a claim, there is an audience that recognises him as a brainwashed moron and an audience which does not, but this does mean that everything he says is ironic.

The explanations of irony in terms of audience that I have read are always in terms of intended audiences. These audiences are expected to interpret what is said differently. But in this case, both audiences interpret what is said in the same way, only the uninformed regard it as truthful while the informed regarded it as the worthless utterance of a brainwashed moron.

Meep. Yep. You did.

I'd say both qualify as both, though. When Antony refers to 'honourable men,' he does mean it sarcastically in addition to ironically. In addition to implying the opposite of what he's saying, he means the implication as an insult.It's more a mimicking of Brutus' own speech, and he's certainly not insulting his audience with it. I'm not sure if I would regard it as sarcasm.

And in the other example, "Oh, you're so clever" is an example of verbal irony. It's just a kind of stupid one, like when someone says, "Yeah, right" to express disbelief. The literal meaning is different from that intended, which is really all that's required of verbal irony.

It does pain me to see crap like that being lumped in with more artful examples of irony, but I can't argue that it's technically incorrect. I can and will argue that it's dumb, though.Agreed.

Earlier, I was trying to think of examples where the sarcasm and verbal irony didn't overlap, and I was a little hard pressed. I guess if one were to say to a friend something like "You're so [ugly|stupid|incompetent]" intending the opposite, that would be verbal irony and not sarcasm, I guess.What about the comment "Oh, what a lovely day!" when there is torrential rain outside.

And sarcasm is certainly pretty broad. But colloquially, I haven't seen it used to describe anything but verbal irony. I do see the difference, but that's why I mentioned earlier that I was busy and tired or whatever. It's my way of planting an out for myself later that I can point to when I say something I have to correct later.

So: Neener.

There was a footnote there.

Oh, well since you've so nicely pointed that out, I apologize for my hasty assessment of your no doubt honorable intentions, Sir.

I left a footnote saying there was no offence intended. The punchy remark I made was an example of sarcasm or irony I threw in for humour. It's my fault for refusing to use smilies.

Oh. Now you're just being glib.

GLIB, you hear me? GLIB!

(Actually, my bad again. I didn't read your whole post thoroughly before responding. And I rarely use smileys myself, so I have to resort to exclamation points and swears.)Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt by reading my last reply. I think you can pretty much associate all my posts with a big happy smiley. And no, that doesn't mean I drop pills before going online.

[Chatter]

Well, I didn't mean that I thought that Alanis Morissette (proper spelling, since you were wondering) was using it correctly. I just meant that I don't find the irony meter thing to be troublesome.

Plus the explanation I gave.What is the meaning of remarks about irony meters? It seems that each one follows a comment that is hypocritical, and so "hypocrisy meter" would be more accurate and clearer, and wouldn't risk further watering down the term irony, a word regarded by Fowler as "one of the worst abused in the language" -- and that was in 1906.

[erimir]

Yes, but it refers specifically to hypocrisy from a person who doesn't realize he's being hypocritical.

As opposed to say, a priest who has adulterous affairs where he would HAVE to realize the incongruity of his preaching against it while doing it himself.

[viscousmemories]

Is it really hypocrisy for someone to claim to have a belief, feeling or virtue they don't really have even if they don't realize they don't have it? I tend to think of hypocrisy as making a conscious choice to misrepresent your beliefs or virtues. If it's possible to be a hypocrite without even knowing it, it doesn't compute that so many people use the term as an insult. Which is to say if someone doesn't even know their statements contradict their beliefs or values, how is doing so a personal failing on their part?

[Chatter]

Is it really hypocrisy for someone to claim to have a belief, feeling or virtue they don't really have even if they don't realize they don't have it? I tend to think of hypocrisy as making a conscious choice to misrepresent your beliefs or virtues. If it's possible to be a hypocrite without even knowing it, it doesn't compute that so many people use the term as an insult. Which is to say if someone doesn't even know their statements contradict their beliefs or values, how is doing so a personal failing on their part?I think you are correct.

So the original statement is not an example of hypocrisy. But I still don't see how it can be justified as irony.

What about using the phrases "The pot's calling the kettle black" and "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?

[seebs]

It's ironic because, to us, seeing the conflict, it's funny, whereas to the speaker, ignoring the conflict, it's very serious. "Wouldn't it be funny if he understood the context" is generally irony.

[Chatter]

It's ironic because, to us, seeing the conflict, it's funny, whereas to the speaker, ignoring the conflict, it's very serious. "Wouldn't it be funny if he understood the context" is generally irony.So would you put this as some combination of dramatic irony and irony of fate? Again from Usage and Abusage:

Dramatic irony is that which consists in a situation -- not in words; or rather, not in words alone, but in words plus situation; where the audience in a theatre or the reader of a book perceives a crux, a significance, a point, that the characters concerned do not percieve.The difference here being that the dialogue does not appear in an actual play or book.

[Paul H.]

"Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?"

"Yeah, it's just like goldy, and bronzey, but it's irony."

[Chatter]

"Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?"

"Yeah, it's just like goldy, and bronzey, but it's irony."I was hoping someone would get that in somewhere.

[seebs]

It's ironic because, to us, seeing the conflict, it's funny, whereas to the speaker, ignoring the conflict, it's very serious. "Wouldn't it be funny if he understood the context" is generally irony.So would you put this as some combination of dramatic irony and irony of fate? Again from Usage and Abusage:

Dramatic irony is that which consists in a situation -- not in words; or rather, not in words alone, but in words plus situation; where the audience in a theatre or the reader of a book perceives a crux, a significance, a point, that the characters concerned do not percieve.The difference here being that the dialogue does not appear in an actual play or book.

Sounds about right. It strikes me as being in essence a dramatic irony. We are entertained by our knowledge of the relevance of a circumstance or event that the speaker is unaware of.

Complaining about high insurance premiums while, unbeknownst to you, your house is burning down, is ironic. Complaining about the ills of idiots on the internet while, unbeknownst to you, you are one, is ironic.

If the comment changes meaning dramatically in light of information available to the listener but not to the speaker, that's a kind of dramatic irony. In the common case of hypocritical complaints, that information is "your own behavior fits the description you complain about".