Re: Sarcasm

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Rick Nylander:
> Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
> >First, I'd like to point out that what we are discussing here
> >is not "irony" but "sarcasm".  Irony is a semantic thing, and
> >can be expressed honestly, or with no attitudinals at all.
>
> Ah, so the debate takes a new direction, eh? :-)
>
> I was going to use the word sarcasm earlier, but _just in case_, I
> looked "sarcasm" and "irony" up in my little dictionary.  It defined
> sarcasm as: "1. A cutting or contemptuous remark. 2. Ironical criticism
> or reproach."  Irony was defined as "1. the use of words to express the
> opposite of what one really means." (other definition not applicable.)

I was talking about irony, rather than sarcasm, and I understand
irony to be a bit more than the dictionary def you quote.
Essentially irony is quotative; the speaker acts as though
quoting -- or, better, "repeating" -- the utterance of another.
Irony is the borrowing of another's voice.

Contemporary youth culture, at least in Britain, is very ironic
(more so than when I was younger & hipper). For example, "pukka"
is a term of approbation: what is ironic in the choice of pukka
is that it was a term of approbation in higher-class speech
of 80 years ago, and therefore was subsequently profoundly
stigmatized and unfashionable. But it wouldn't be ironic by the
dictionary def. Indeed "wicked" would be ironic by the dictionary
def, but not (necessarily) by the one I give.

--And