1

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 pro ide 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 ha e sometimes been seen as empiricall" or theoreticall" indistin%uishable) and se eral h"brid accounts incorporatin% elements o# both ha e been proposed$ * will ar%ue that the echoic and pretence accounts are distin%uishable on both theoretical and empirical %rounds) and that while echoic use is essential to standard cases o# erbal iron") pretence is not$ +owe er) 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 achie e ironical e##ects$ Keywords: *ron", -choic use, .ele ance theor", Pretence, /etarepresentation 1. Introduction +ere are some t"pical e!amples o# erbal iron"0 (1) (2) (3) Mary (after a difficult meeting): That went well$ 1s * reached the ban& at closin% time) the ban& cler& help#ull" shut the door in m" #ace$ 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& beha ed 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$ 1 hearer who does not

2 reco%nise this will ha e misunderstood) and a spea&er who doubts the hearer2s abilit" to reco%nise it on the basis o# bac&%round &nowled%e alone ma" pro ide 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 superlati e) 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$2 The %oal o# pra%matics is to describe this abilit" and thus e!plain how iron" is understood$ 1ccordin% to classical rhetoric) erbal iron" is a trope) and tropes are utterances with #i%urati e meanin%s which relate to their literal meanin%s in one o# se eral standard wa"s$ *n metaphor) the #i%urati e 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# 3estern #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%urati e meanin%) second) a method o# deri in% #i%urati e meanin%s #rom their literal counterparts) and third) some rationale #or the practice o# substitutin% a #i%urati e #or a literal meanin%$ *# #i%urati e meanin%s are assi%ned b" the %rammar) we need an e!plicit mechanism #or deri in% 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 creati e use o# iron" ma" become #ull" le!icalised or %rammaticalised$3 +owe er) the interpretation o# tropes in %eneral is so hi%hl" conte!t-dependent that it is most unli&el" to be dealt with entirel" in the %rammar$ Grice2s brie# discussion o# tropes (Grice) 1467514640 34) was the #irst serious attempt to anal"se them usin% pra%matic machiner" independentl" needed #or the anal"sis o# ordinar" literal utterances$ 1s is well &nown) he treats iron") metaphor) h"perbole and meiosis as blatant iolations o# the #irst ma!im o# 7ualit" ('8o not sa" what "ou belie e to be #alse()) desi%ned to tri%%er a related true implicature0 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) abo e would include (4a)-(4c)0

3 (4) a$ b$ c$ That meetin% didn2t %o well$ 1s * reached the ban& at closin% time) the ban& cler& unhelp#ull" shut the door in m" #ace$ Tim +enman is #ar #rom bein% the most charismatic tennis pla"er in the world$ The proposal to replace encoded #i%urati e meanin%s b" pra%maticall" deri ed implicatures is a step in the direction o# a %enuinel" e!planator" account o# tropes$ *t is onl" a #irst step) thou%h0 in other respects) Grice2s account o# tropes is simpl" a moderndress 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 con e" a related true implicature which could :ust as well ha e 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 ha e 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 alternati e account, * will touch on these brie#l" in discussin% Grice2s approach to iron" in section 2$ +owe er) m" main concern in this paper is with two post-Gricean attempts to pro ide 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 abo e) 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 3ilson (1461)) 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 the meetin% 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<uate or inappropriate$ Thus) /ar" mi%ht use (1) to communicate that it was ridiculous o# her to thin& that the meetin% would %o well) stupid o# her #riends to assure her that it would %o well) na= e o# her to belie e their assurances) and so on$ /ar" echoes a thou%ht or utterance with a similar content to the one e!pressed in her utterance) in order to e!press a critical or

4 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&er2s dissociati e 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 percei ed discrepanc" between the wa" it represents the world and the wa" thin%s actuall" are (;perber and 3ilson) 1461) 1466) 1440) 1446, 3ilson and ;perber) 1442)$ 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%) 1464, >urrie) in press, .ecanati) 2004, 3alton) 1440)$ ;imilarl") the spea&er o# (2) is merel" pretendin% to ha e #ound the ban& cler&2s beha iour help#ul) and the spea&er o# (3) is merel" pretendin% to %i e 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 ha e pro o&ed con#lictin% reactions$ 9n the one hand) the two approaches are sometimes seen as empiricall" or theoreticall" indistin%uishable, se eral h"brid ersions incorporatin% elements o# both echoic and pretence accounts ha e been produced) and the boundaries between them ha e become increasin%l" blurred$ 9n the other hand) some de#enders o# both echoic and pretence accounts see their own approach as pro in% 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 o er 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"

@ and arious #orms o# parod") wit and humour$@ Aot all o# these phenomena #all s<uarel" within the domain o# pra%matics) de#ined as a theor" o# o ert communication and comprehension$ ;ome are clearl" #orms o# echoic allusion) others are more closel" related to pretence, some in ol e both echoin% and pretence) while others ha e no more in common with (1)-(3) than the e ocation o# a similar attitude or the presence o# some percei ed discrepanc" between representation and realit"$ There is no reason to assume that all these phenomena wor& in the same wa") or that we should be tr"in% to de elop a sin%le %eneral theor" o# iron" tout court, based on either the pretence or the echoic account0 in other words) iron" is not a natural &ind$ 3hat * do want to ar%ue is that the echoic account o# iron" is both theoreticall" and empiricall" distin%uishable #rom most ersions o# the pretence account) and that t"pical cases o# erbal iron" such as (1)-(3) are best anal"sed as cases o# echoic allusion and not o# pretence$ 2. rice on verbal irony Bor Grice) the interpretation o# tropes depends on the hearer2s abilit" to reco%nise that the spea&er has o ertl" iolated the #irst ma!im o# 7ualit" ('8o not sa" what "ou belie e to be #alse() in order to con e" a related true implicature) which in the case o# iron" is the contradictor" o# the proposition literall" e!pressed (Grice) 1467514640 34) 120)$ *n the last twent"-#i e "ears) this approach to tropes in %eneral) and to iron" in particular) has been <uestioned on both descripti e and theoretical %rounds$6 9ne problem is that in order to reanal"se #i%urati e meanin%s as implicatures) Grice had to e!tend both his notion o# implicature and his account o# how implicatures are deri ed$ 1 spea&er2s meanin% t"picall" consists o# what is said) to%ether with an" implicatures$ .e%ular implicatures are added to what was said) and their reco er" either restores the assumption that the spea&er has obe"ed the >o-operati e Principle and ma!ims in sa"in% what she said (in those particular terms)) or e!plains wh" a ma!im has been iolated (as in the case o# a clash)$ *n Grice2s account o# tropes) howe er) nothin% is said$ The spea&er2s meanin% consists onl" o# an implicature) and the reco er" o# this implicature neither restores the assumption that the >o-operati e Principle and ma!ims ha e been obe"ed (i# the spea&er has said somethin% she belie es to be #alse) the situation cannot be remedied b" the reco er" o# an implicature) nor e!plains wh" a ma!im has been iolated$ *n order to accommodate tropes) Grice thus had to abandon

6 the basic idea that an implicature is an elaboration o# the spea&er2s meanin% re<uired to brin% the o erall interpretation o# the utterance as close as possible to satis#"in% the >ooperati e Principle and ma!ims$ There are more speci#ic problems with the anal"sis o# tropes as o ert iolations o# the #irst ma!im o# 7ualit"$ 9ne has to do with how the ma!im itsel# should be understood$ 8oes sa"in% somethin% amount simpl" to e!pressin% a proposition) or does it amount to asserting a proposition) with a commitment to its truthC This ma&es a di##erence in the case o# tropes$ *# sa"in% somethin% is simpl" e!pressin% a proposition) then the #irst ma!im o# 7ualit" is certainl" iolated in Grice2s own ironical e!amples (@a) and (6a)) which he treats as implicatin% (@b) and (6b) (Grice) 1467514640 34) 120)0 (@) (6) a$ b$ a$ b$ +e is a #ine #riend$ +e is not a #ine #riend$ Palmer %a e Aic&laus <uite a beatin%$ Aic&laus an<uished Palmer with some ease$

+owe er) i# sa"in% somethin% is assertin% a proposition) with a commitment to its truth) then the #irst ma!im o# 7ualit" is not iolated in (@a) and (6a)) since the spea&er is patentl" not committin% hersel# to the truth o# the propositions literall" e!pressed$ -lsewhere in his #ramewor&) Grice treats sa"in% as not merel" e!pressin% a proposition but assertin% it$ +e re%ularl" describes the spea&er in tropes not as sa"in% somethin%) but merel" as 'ma&in% as i# to sa"( somethin%) or as 'purportDin%E to be puttin% #orward( a proposition (Grice) 14675640 34)$ ?ut i# nothin% is said) then the #irst ma!im o# 7ualit" is not iolated) and Grice2s account o# tropes does not %o throu%h$7 The anal"sis o# tropes as o ert iolations o# the #irst 7ualit" ma!im is inade<uate #or other reasons$ Bor instance) ironical understatements such as (3) abo e (Tim Henman is not the most charismatic tennis player in the world) are not blatantl" #alse) but merel" blatantl" unin#ormati e) or under-in#ormati e$ The same point applies to ne%ati e metaphors (e$%$ The agenda for the meeting is not written in stone)) and to man" cases o# erbal iron" proper$ ;uppose ?ill is a neuroticall" cautious dri er who &eeps his petrol tan& #ull) ne er #ails to indicate when turnin% and repeatedl" scans the horiFon #or possible dan%ers$ Then his companion2s utterance o# the imperati e in (7a)) the

7 interro%ati e in (7b) or the declarati e in (7c) could all be ironicall" intended and understood) althou%h none o# them is blatantl" #alse0 (7) a$ b$ c$ 8on2t #or%et to use "our indicator$ 8o "ou thin& we should stop #or petrolC * reall" appreciate cautious dri ers$

Aotice) too) that (7a)-(7c) cannot be anal"sed as implicatin% the opposite o# what the" sa"$ 3hile the implicatures o# (@a) and (6a) abo e mi%ht well include (@b) and (6b)) no correspondin% implicatures are con e"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 a oided while preser in% the spirit o# Grice2s account b" claimin% that what is o ertl" iolated in tropes is not the #irst ma!im o# 7ualit" but the #irst ma!im o# 7uantit" ('/a&e "our contribution as in#ormati e as is re<uired() or the ma!im o# .elation ('?e rele ant()$ 1#ter all) i# nothin% is said) then the spea&er2s contribution is neither in#ormati e nor rele ant) and the ma!ims o# 7uantit" and .elation are certainl" iolated$ /oreo er) these ma!ims (unli&e the 7ualit" ma!ims) appl" not merel" to what is said but to the spea&er2s whole contribution (what is said) plus what is implicated)) so that the reco er" o# an appropriate implicature could restore the assumption that these ma!ims ha e been obe"ed$ The %eneral pattern #or the interpretation o# tropes would then be 'The proposition literall" e!pressed is blatantl" irrele ant, b" deri in% an appropriate implicature) * can preser e the assumption that the ma!ims o# 7uantit" and .elation ha e been obe"ed($ +owe er) this mo e would create a ran%e o# #urther problems that are much harder to sol e$ Bor one thin%) whate er implicature is deri ed) the resultin% interpretation would irre ocabl" iolate the /anner superma!im ('?e perspicuous()) since the most strai%ht#orward wa" o# con e"in% this implicated in#ormation would ha e been to e!press it directl"$ Bor another) the proposed pattern o# deri ation is so widel" applicable that it would astl" o er-%enerate) predictin% potential uses o# iron"

6 that would ne er in #act occur$ /oreo er) since it applies e<uall" well to the interpretation o# metaphor and h"perbole (which are also treated in Grice2s #ramewor& as blatant ma!im iolations desi%ned to con e" a related implicature)) it would %i e no insi%ht into the intuiti e di##erences between iron" and other tropes$ (Bor #urther discussion o# this point) see 3ilson and ;perber) 2002$) *n later wor&) Grice ac&nowled%es that his ori%inal account o# iron" is descripti el" inade<uate$ +e considers an utterance which satis#ies his proposed conditions on iron" but would not normall" be intended or understood as ironical0 1 and ? are wal&in% down the street) and the" both see a car with a shattered window$ ? sa"s) Look, that car has all its windows intact. 1 is ba##led$ ? sa"s) ou didn!t catch on" # was in an ironical way drawing your attention to the $roken window. (Grice 14675640 @3) +ere) ?2s utterance is blatantl" #alse and is alle%edl" intended to implicate the opposite o# the proposition ? has e!pressed$ +owe er) as Grice points out) e en i# uttered in an ironical tone o# oice in a culture where iron" is #amiliar and #re<uentl" used) this e!chan%e would be absurd$ +e su%%ests that what was missin% #rom his ori%inal account is the idea that iron" in ol es the e!pression o# a certain sort o# critical :ud%ment or attitude0 The absurdit" o# this e!chan%e is * thin& to be e!plained b" the #act that iron" is intimatel" connected with the e!pression o# a #eelin%) attitude) or e aluation$ * cannot sa" somethin% ironicall" unless what * sa" is intended to re#lect a hostile or dero%ator" :ud%ment or a #eelin% such as indi%nation or contempt$ (ibid0 @4) 3hat ma&es it hard to interpret the utterance Look, that car has all its windows intact as ironical is that it is hard to see what could ha e :usti#ied this critical :ud%ment or attitude in the circumstances described$ The idea that iron" is lin&ed to the e!pression o# a certain t"pe o# dero%ator") hostile or contemptuous attitude raises se eral #urther <uestions$ 3hat is the ob:ect o# this attitude) and what is the connection between communicatin% such an attitude and

4 e!pressin% a proposition that is patentl" #alse) under-in#ormati e) or irrele antC These <uestions are not tri ial$ *# the ob:ect o# the attitude is a person or a piece o# beha iour) wh" is it possible to con e" it b" sa"in% somethin% blatantl" #alse) under-in#ormati e or irrele antC 3hen some hooli%an brea&s m" car window) * ma" well #eel critical o# him (or his beha iour)$ +owe er) in normal circumstances) * could not rationall" attempt to con e" this #eelin% b" sa"in%) in an ironical tone o# oice) Look, my car has all its windows intact$ ?ut i# the ob:ect o# the critical attitude or :ud%ment is not (or not primaril") a person or a piece o# beha iour) what is itC 1nd wh" can it be con e"ed b" producin% an utterance that would be pra%maticall" inappropriate i# literall" understoodC 9ne possible connection between the presence o# a critical) dero%ator" or moc&in% attitude and the e!pression o# a #alse) under-in#ormati e or irrele ant proposition was su%%ested b" ;perber and 3ilson (1461)$ The" ar%ued that the spea&er in iron" does not use the proposition e!pressed b" her utterance in order to represent a thou%ht o# her own which she wants the hearer to accept as true) but mentions it in order to represent a thou%ht or utterance she tacitl" attributes to someone else) and which she wants to su%%est is ludicrousl" #alse) under-in#ormati e or irrele ant$ 9n this account) the interpretation o# iron" does not depend on the abilit" to reco%nise that the spea&er means the opposite o# what she has said, it depends on the abilit" to reco%nise that she is mentionin% or echoing a thou%ht she attributes to someone else (or to hersel# in the past) in order to e!press a certain t"pe o# dissociati e attitude to it$ -arl" e!periments b" Gor%ensen) /iller and ;perber (1464) con#irmed that iron" is easier to understand when there is an e!plicit prior utterance that the spea&er can be ta&en to echo and re:ect$6 1nd indeed) all that is needed to rescue Grice2s e!ample Look, that car has all its windows intact is an appropriate prior utterance o# this t"pe$ ;uppose that be#ore 1 and ? set out on their wal&) ? has complained that her street has become a dumpin% %round #or bro&en-down cars) and 1 has reassured her that he sees no e idence #or this$ *n these circumstances) when the" come upon a car with a bro&en window) ?2s remar& Look, that car has all its windows intact would be easil" understood as an ironical echo o# this prior utterance) intended to e!press a moc&in% or critical attitude to it$ Thus) the interpretation o# iron" is #acilitated b" the presence o# an ob ious source #or the echoic

10 utterance H a result predicted b" the echoic account o# iron") but not b" the classical or Gricean accounts$ 1nother wa" o# connectin% the presence o# a moc&in% or critical attitude to the e!pression o# a blatantl" #alse proposition in ol es the idea that iron" is a t"pe o# pretence$ Grice (1467514640 @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 ironically0 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$ (ibid0 @4) .epl"in% to Gor%ensen) /iller and ;perber (1464)) >lar& and Gerri% (1464) de elop a pretence account o# iron" as an alternati e to the echoic account$ >onsider (6) below0 (6) Trust the 3eather ?ureauI ;ee what lo el" weather it is0 rain) rain) rain

Gor%ensen) /iller and ;perber (14640 114) treat this as an echoic allusion to a #orecast #rom the 3eather ?ureau that the spea&er wants to re:ect as ludicrousl" #alse$ >lar& and Gerri% treat it as a t"pe o# pretence0 3ith %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 ob iousl" could not be ma&in% the e!clamation on her own behal# H and 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%) 14640 122) 9n this approach) the interpretation o# iron" depends on the hearer2s abilit" to reco%nise that the spea&er is pretendin% to be a certain sort o# person seriousl" producin% an

11 utterance) and simultaneousl" e!pressin% her own attitude to it and to the sort o# person who would produce or belie e it$ .epl"in% in turn to >lar& and Gerri%) ;perber (1464) de#ended the echoic account a%ainst their criticisms and went on to raise some ob:ections to >lar& and Gerri%2s ersion o# the pretence account$ 9ther ersions o# the pretence account ha e been de eloped in the recent philosophical and ps"cholo%ical literature (see) #or instance) >urrie) in press, >olston and Gibbs) in press, JreuF and Gluc&sber%) 1464, JumonAa&amura) Gluc&sber% and ?rown) 144@)$ ;e eral o# these respond to ;perber2s 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 descripti el" and theoreticall" inade<uate$ 3hile echoin% and pretence can combine to produce occasional ironical e##ects) echoic use is essential to t"pical cases o# erbal iron" such as (1)-(6)) and pretence is not$ !. Irony and echoic use 'choic use is a technical term in rele ance theor"$ -choic use is) in the #irst place) an interpreti e rather than a descripti e use o# lan%ua%e$4 1n utterance is descripti el" used when it is used to represent a possible or actual state o# a##airs, it is interpreti el" used when it is used to represent another representation (#or instance) a possible or actual utterance or thou%ht) that it resembles in content$10 *nterpreti e uses o# lan%ua%e re<uire a hi%her order o# metarepresentational abilit" than descripti e uses$ *n order to understand an interpreti el"-used utterance) the hearer must reco%nise that the spea&er is thin&in% not directl" about a state o# a##airs) but about another utterance or thou%ht$11 This ma" be e!plicitl" communicated b" use o# parenthetical comments such as # think) he claims, where no o ert lin%uistic indication is %i en) it must be in#erred$ ;ome interpreti e uses o# lan%ua%e are based on rather abstract properties o# the metarepresented utterance or thou%ht$ *n (4b) and (10b)) #or instance) the spea&er is tacitl" metarepresentin% a purel" lo%ical or conceptual content rather than a datable thou%ht or utterance that she wants to be understood as attributin% to someone0

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

(10) a$ /ost le!ical concepts are atomic$ b$ T-K-P+9A-) -K->T.9A) >1??1G-$ *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 ha e misunderstood$ Bree indirect speech and thou%ht) as in (11b) and (12b)) are ob ious illustrations o# this tacitl" attri$uti&e use o# lan%ua%e0 (11) a$ The 8ean spo&e up$ b$ The uni ersit" was in crisis$ (12) a$ The students were thou%ht#ul$ b$ *# the" didn2t act now) it mi%ht be too late$ 1 plausible interpretation o# (11)12 is that the claim that the uni ersit" 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 didn2t 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 descripti el" used0 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$ 1ccordin% to the echoic account) erbal iron" is a tacitl" attributi e use o# lan%ua%e$ -choic use is) in the second place) a particular sub-t"pe o# attributi e 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 to in#orm the hearer o# her own reaction to it (;perber and 3ilson) 1466) chapter 4) section 4)$ >onsider Gac&2s utterance in (13) and the possible echoic responses in (14a-c)0 (13) (ack: * had dinner with >homs&" last ni%ht$ (14) a$ b$ c$ %ue: Lou had dinner with >homs&"I 3hat did he sa"C %ue: Lou had dinner with >homs&"C *s he in -n%landC %ue: Lou had dinner with >homs&"$ 8on2t ma&e me lau%h$

13

*n each case) the point o# ;ue2s response is not to remind Gac& o# what he has onl" :ust said) but to show that she is thin&in% about it) and to con e" her attitude to it0 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 Gac&2s claim in such a wa" as to indicate that she does not belie e 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 descripti e content) as in (14a)) throu%h <uestionin%) puFFlement or desire #or con#irmation) as in (14b)) to arious shades o# scepticism) moc&er" or re:ection) as in (14c)$ Gust as attributions ma" be more or less e!plicit) so in echoic use the spea&er ma" %i e an o ert lin%uistic indication o# her attitude) or lea e the hearer to in#er it #rom paralin%uistic or conte!tual clues$ The main claim o# the echoic account is that erbal iron" is a sub-t"pe o# echoic use in which the spea&er (%enerall" tacitl") e!presses one o# a ran%e o# dissociati e attitudes (scepticism) moc&er") re:ection) etc$) to a (%enerall" tacitl") attributed utterance or thou%ht$ The main point o# iron" is to dissociate the spea&er #rom an attributed thou%ht or utterance which she wants to su%%est is more or less ob iousl" #alse) irrele ant or under-in#ormati e$ To illustrate) let2s consider how e!amples (1)-(7) mi%ht be anal"sed on this approach$ /ar"2s utterance in (1) (That went well) said a#ter a di##icult meetin%) mi%ht be understood as echoin% /ar"2s earlier hopes or e!pectations) or the reassurances o# her #riends) that the meetin% would %o well) in order to show that she now #inds them ridiculousl" o er-optimistic or ill-#ounded$ The utterance as a whole is echoicall" used0 /ar" is not assertin% that the meetin% went well) but) on the contrar") tacitl" dissociatin% hersel# #rom a thou%ht or utterance with a similar content (e$%$ a hope) desire) e!pectation or reassurance that the meetin% would %o well)$ To claim that iron" is echoic is to claim that it is closel" related to other tacitl" attributi e uses o# lan%ua%e such as #ree indirect speech or thou%ht$ *# erbal iron" is a case o# echoic use) the spea&er o# (1) abo e should no more be automaticall" committed to the claim that the meetin% went well than would be the spea&er in cases o# #ree indirect speech or thou%ht such as (11b) or (12b) abo e (The uni&ersity was in crisis, #f they didn!t act now, it might $e too late)$ 1ttributi e uses o# lan%ua%e in %eneral are constrained b" considerations o# #aith#ulness rather than truth#ulness$ 3hen a whole utterance such as

14 (1) abo e is interpreti el" used) the <uestion o# whether the spea&er has obe"ed a ma!im) norm or con ention o# literal truth#ulness should not arise$ ?" contrast) (2) ()s # approached the $ank at closing time, the $ank clerk helpfully shut the door in my face) is a re%ular (i# h"perbolic) assertion in which onl" the word helpfully is echoicall" (and dissociati el") used$ The spea&er commits hersel# to the claim that the ban& cler& closed the door be#ore she %ot there) but not to the claim that this beha iour was help#ul$ +ere) the word helpfully mi%ht be seen as ironicall" echoin% the e!pectations we ha e when choosin% a ban&) the claims to help#ulness and consideration that ban&s o#ten ma&e in their ad erts) or the more %eneral norm that people should beha e help#ull" to each other) which is widel" shared and has clearl" been iolated in this particular instance$ 1s noted abo e) ironical understatements such as (3) (Tim Henman is not the most charismatic tennis player in the world) could well be literall" true) and this presents problems #or the standard Gricean account$ +owe er) (3) could be re%arded as in#ormati e or rele ant onl" b" the most de otedl" blin&ered #an or publicist o# the %i#ted but er" -n%lish +enman$ 3hen ironicall" used) it can be seen as echoin% and dissociatin% the spea&er #rom :ust such blin&ered claims as ludicrousl" irrele ant or under-in#ormati e) and ma&in% #un o# the people who would ma&e or accept them$ Grice2s (@a) (He!s a fine friend) is a classic case o# erbal iron"$ 1lthou%h not traditionall" anal"sed as in ol in% the tacit e!pression o# a dissociati e attitude to a tacitl" attributed thou%ht) it is intuiti el" <uite closel" related to (1) (That went well)) which is plausibl" seen as echoin% a more or less speci#ic hope) desire or e!pectation that /ar" mi%ht ha e had be#ore %oin% into the meetin%$ 3hen we ma&e a #riend) we ha e certain hopes) desires or e!pectations about how thin%s will %o0 we ma" thin& we ha e made a #ine #riend who will treat us well) ima%ine people con%ratulatin% us later on ha in% made such a #ine #riend) and so on$ 1s a classic case o# erbal iron") (@a) echoes hopes or e!pectations o# #riendship which are er" widel" shared) and re<uires no particular scene-settin% to be understood as ironical$ ?" contrast) Grice2s (6a) (*almer ga&e +icklaus ,uite a $eating) does not echo uni ersal human hopes or aspirations) and to be appropriate as a case o# erbal iron") it must be understood as echoin% somethin% more speci#ic0 #or e!ample) the predictions o# sports commentators) the boasts o# Palmer2s supporters) and so on$ 1ccordin% to the echoic account) there is no principled

1@ 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 uni ersall" shared$ The utterances in (7a) (-on!t forget to use your indicator) and (7b) (-o you think we should stop for petrol.)) li&e Grice2s e!ample Look, that car has all its windows intact) do not echo widel" shared hopes or e!pectations) and re<uire a certain amount o# scenesettin% in order to be understood as echoic or ironical$ *# we ima%ine them addressed to ?ill) the neuroticall" cautious dri er described in section 2 abo e) it is eas" to see them as ironicall" echoin% thou%hts which the spea&er attributes to him ('*t alwa"s helps to indicate() '*t2s ne er too earl" to stop #or petrol()) and which she wants to su%%est he is ta&in% much too seriousl"$ (7c) (# really appreciate cautious dri&ers) can be interpreted alon% similar lines) as a moc&in% echo o# a speci#ic thou%ht o# ?ill2s ('People will reall" appreciate me #or ta&in% such care()$ *n di##erent circumstances) howe er (#or instance) when used to comment on a particularl" rec&less piece o# dri in%)) it would be understood as an ironical echo o# a more %eneral hope or e!pectation that other dri ers will not ta&e ris&s on the roads$ This account is based on a clear-cut theoretical distinction H re#lected in truth or satis#action conditions H between descripti e and interpreti e use$ 3ithin the ran%e o# interpreti el"-used utterances) howe er) the borderline between attributi e and echoic use) between ironical and non-ironical attitudes) and between tacit and o ert attributions and e!pressions o# attitude are much less clear-cut$ *n the #irst place) an utterance which is primaril" intended as a report o# speech or thou%ht ma" be incidentall" used to con e" some in#ormation about the spea&er2s attitude0 the borderline between reportin% and echoin% is a %radual one$ *n the second place) the protot"pical ironical attitudes shade o## into other t"pes o# dissociati e or sceptical attitude) and a sin%le utterance can con e" a <uite comple! mi!ture o# attitudes0 the borderline between iron" and other t"pes o# echoic use is a %radual one$ *n the third place) the %ap between #ull" e!plicit conceptual encodin%s o# attribution and attitude and purel" tacit attributions and e!pressions is #illed b" a wide ariet" o# paralin%uistic and peripheral lin%uistic #orms (intonation) #acial e!pressions) %estures) inter:ections) discourse particles) <uotation mar&s) parentheticals) etc$)0 the borderline between o ert and tacit attributions and e!pressions o# attitude is a %radual one$ 1ll this su%%ests that iron" is not a natural &ind) and belon%s to%ether with other #orms o# echoic) attributi e and interpreti e use) which

16 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 no el 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&en0 (1@) 1umpers: 3hat *2m tr"in% to sa") %entlemen) is that di orce is as complicated as marria%e) and that is a relationship inconcei abl" intricate$ Timken: 3hich a bachelor li&e m"sel# can be onl" hopelessl" une<uipped to understand$ (Peter 8e Mries0 6) To understand Tim&en2s response as ironical) we would ha e) in the #irst place) to decide that he is not ma&in% an assertion in his own ri%ht but interpretin% what he ta&es to be an implication o# ?umpers2 remar&$13 3e would ha e) in the second place) to decide that his utterance is intended to achie e most o# its rele ance b" e!pressin% Tim&en2s attitude to this attributed thou%ht) rather than merel" reportin% its content$ 3e would ha e) in the third place) to decide that he is dissociatin% himsel# #rom this attributed thou%ht rather than endorsin% it or remainin% neutral about it (and i# the ironical attitudes are onl" a subset o# the dissociati e ones) we would ha e to decide that he is e!pressin% one o# this subset o# attitudes)$14 Aone o# this in#ormation is lin%uisticall" encoded$ Brom the pra%matic point o# iew) this introduces a massi e element o# underdeterminac" into the utterance$ Brom the theoretical point o# iew) it ma&es it inad isable to treat iron" as belon%in% in a separate cate%or" #rom other t"pes o# echoic) attributi e or interpreti e use$ To illustrate the %radualness o# the borderline between o ert and tacit attribution and e!pression o# attitudes (and also the %radualness o# the distinction between reportin% and echoin%)) consider the #ollowin% scenario$ /ar" and a #riend ha e been watchin% Peter lose er" badl" at tennis$ 1t the end o# the match) Peter comes up to them and

17 sa"s (seriousl") # almost won$ /ar" turns to her #riend and sa"s) wr"l") one o# the #ollowin%0 (16) a$ b$ c$ d$ e$ #$ %$ +e sa"s he almost won$ +e almost won) he thin&s$ Poor #ool$ +e thin&s he almost won$ +e almost won$ 1lle%edl"$ +e almost won$ Aot$ +e almost won$ +uhI +e almost won$

*n each o# these utterances) /ar" can be understood as e!pressin% a dissociati e 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" con e"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" con e"ed$ *n (16c)) both attitude and attribution are lin%uisticall" indicated) and in (16%) both attitude and attribution are tacitl" con e"ed$ 9nl" (16%) is a t"pical case o# erbal iron"0 this is the onl" e!ample in ol in% the tacit e!pression o# a dissociati e attitude to a tacitl" attributed utterance or thou%ht$ +owe er) as illustrated in (16a)) (16b) and (16d)) more e!plicit #orms o# reported speech and thou%ht ma" also tacitl" con e" a dissociati e attitude) and thus achie e ironical e##ects, moreo er) as illustrated b" (16c)-(16#)) #ull" conceptual #orms o# encodin% shade o## into inter:ections (which themsel es shade o## into arious paralin%uistic and non-lin%uistic cues)0 the borderline between o ert and tacit attributions and e!pressions o# attitude) and hence between t"pical and less t"pical cases o# iron") is a %radual one$ * ha e treated (16%) as t"pical case o# erbal iron"$ +owe er) this is true onl" i# it is uttered with the #lat) low-&e" intonation %enerall" &nown as the 'ironical tone o# oice($1@ /ar" mi%ht ha e e!pressed her sceptical reaction to Peter2s remar& (and thus achie ed ironical e##ects) b" utterin% (16%) in at least two other wa"s$ *n one) she would

16 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 would adopt an e!a%%eratedl" bri%ht) con inced tone o# oice and the manner o# articulation that someone would ha e i# %enuinel" con inced b" what Peter said$ ?oth can le%itimatel" be seen as cases o# pretence0 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 belie e Peter) and e!pectin% the audience to see throu%h the pretence$ This raises the <uestion o# whether the utterance o# (16%) in an ironical tone o# oice H and more %enerall") t"pical cases o# erbal iron" such as (1)(6) H mi%ht not also be le%itimatel" seen as cases o# pretence$ ". Irony and pretence The central idea behind pretence accounts o# erbal iron" is that the spea&er is not hersel# per#ormin% a speech act such as ma&in% an assertion or as&in% a <uestion) but pretendin% to per#orm it (or) in more elaborate ersions) pretendin% to be a certain t"pe o# person per#ormin% it)$ This idea has been #leshed out in arious wa"s) o#ten within broader theories o# mimesis) simulation or pretence (>lar& and Gerri%) 1440, >urrie) 2002) 2004, .ecanati) 2000) 2004, 3alton) 1440, see also Aichols and ;tich) 2000)$ /" concern here is not with these broader theories) which pro ide 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% Grice2s ori%inal account o# iron" with his later remar& that iron" is a t"pe o# pretence (see section 2 abo e) and Grice) 1467514640 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 Grice2s account o# iron" would ha e been a pretence account all alon%$ .ecanati (20040 71) interprets Grice alon% these lines) and appears to endorse a similar ersion o# the pretence account0 ;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

14 she does not assert) what she 'ma&es as i# to sa"( (Grice2s phrase)$ ;omethin% is lac&in% here) namel" the #orce o# a serious assertion$ N 3hat the spea&er does in 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 ob iousl" true) the spea&er mana%es to communicate that Paul is e er"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% (1464) also trace their ersion o# the pretence account to Grice2s ori%inal remar& that iron" is a case o# 'ma&in% as i# to sa"( somethin%$ 1s noted in section 2 (and as se eral 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 belie in% an"thin% at all$ ;o wh" can2t the spea&er in Grice2s e!ample Look, that car has all its windows intact be understood as pretendin% to be the sort o# person who would assert or belie e (in the #ace o# clear counter-e idence) 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#ormati e or irrele ant 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$ /oreo er) the e!pression o# a hostile) dero%ator") or more %enerall" dissociati e attitude to a possible thou%ht or utterance must ha e a point$ 1s ;perber (14640 131) puts it) 1bsurdit" o# propositions per se is irrele ant$ The absurdit") or e en the mere inappropriateness) 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$

20 Thus) what is missin% #rom non-echoic ersions o# the pretence account is precisel" what is emphasised b" the echoic account0 that the attitude e!pressed in iron" is primaril" to a thou%ht or utterance that the spea&er attri$utes to some identi#iable person or t"pe o# person) or to people in %eneral$ 1ddin% an echoic element to the pretence account helps to e!plain wh" Grice2s e!ample Look, that car has all its windows intact re<uires a certain amount o# scene settin% in order to be understood as ironical) while other ironical utterances can be uttered 'out o# the blue() in an" discourse conte!t$ 1ccordin% to the echoic account) an ironical utterance must be reco%nisable as echoin% a thou%ht or utterance (or more %enerall" a representation with a conceptual content) attributable to some identi#iable person or %roup o# people) or to people in %eneral$ >ultural norms are widel" represented in human minds) and are alwa"s a ailable #or ironical echoin%$ This is what happens in (2) ()s # reached the $ank at closing time, the $ank clerk helpfully shut the door in my face)) where the ban& cler&2s beha iour (which clearl" iolates a cultural norm) is ironicall" described as help#ul$ ?" the same to&en) it mi%ht also be rele ant) on seein% a car with a bro&en window) which has patentl" not been well loo&ed a#ter) to sa" ironicall") The cars are well looked after around here$ ?oth these utterances are ironical allusions to cultural norms) and can be used without an" scene settin%) to echo a widel" shared norm that has been bro&en in a particular instance$ ?" contrast) the #act that a car has a bro&en window doesn2t iolate an" cultural norm) and #or the utterance Look, that car has all its windows intact to be echoic) some more speci#icall" identi#iable source #or the metarepresented thou%ht or utterance is re<uired$ Jumon-Aa&amura) Gluc&sber% and ?rown (144@) accommodate these points b" proposin% an 'allusional pretence( theor" in which an ironical utterance must not onl" be 'pra%maticall" insincere( (that is) a case not o# sa"in% but o# 'ma&in% as i# to sa"() but also allude to a '#ailed e!pectation or norm( (144@0 14)$ 1 #uller and richer account on similar lines is proposed b" >urrie (in press0 116)) who ar%ues that in iron") 'one pretends to be doin% somethin% which one is not doin%0 spea&in% seriousl" and asserti el") seriousl" as&in% a <uestion) seriousl" e!pressin% distaste() in order to tar%et 'a restricti e or otherwise de#ecti e iew o# the world(0

21 N what matters is that the ironist2s utterance be an indication that he or she is pretendin% to ha e a limited or otherwise de#ecti e perspecti e) point o# iew or stance) B) and in doin% so puts us in mind o# some perspecti e) point o# iew or stance) G (which ma" be identical to B or merel" resemble it) which is the tar%et o# the ironic comment$ (>urrie in press0 116) >urrie2s account addresses man" o# the ob:ections made b" ;perber (1464) to earlier ersions o# the pretence account$ 1s he notes) it has much in common with the echoic account (as well as se eral di##erences o# substance or detail which * will ha e to lea e to another time)$16 ?oth reco%nise that iron" in ol es the attribution o# a thou%ht (or perspecti e) or point o# iew) to a speci#ic person or t"pe o# person) or to people in %eneral) and the e!pression o# a dissociati e attitude to the attributed thou%ht$ ?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 $ank clerk helpfully shut the door in my face)) a %enuine assertion in which onl" the word helpfully is ironic$ +owe er) 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 problem0 unless the notion o# pretence is stretched incredibl" thin) the standard #orms o# erbal iron" illustrated in (1)-(6) abo e 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)0 (17) a$ b$ c$ That o##ice is a iper2s nest$ The article contained millions o# t"pos$ The chairs #ormed a circle$

22 Aone o# these asserts the proposition literall" e!pressed0 the spea&er o# (17a) is not %enuinel" assertin% that the o##ice is a iper2s 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)0 on a Gricean account o# (17a) and (17b)) no speech act o# assertion is per#ormed and the spea&er2s meanin% consists solel" o# implicatures$ +owe er) he seems to ha e 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) 1467514640 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 3ilson) in press, 3ilson and ;perber) 2002)$ *# these accounts are on the ri%ht lines) there is no alid ar%ument #rom the premise 'This utterance does not ha e 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, howe er) as ar%ued in section 3) it does treat ironical utterances as #ormin% a natural class with other t"pes o# interpreti e) attributi e or echoic use$ *# this account is on the ri%ht lines) then either all interpreti el" 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 interpreti e uses in which the spea&er tacitl" or o ertl" metarepresents an abstract lo%ical or conceptual content rather than an attributed utterance or thou%ht$ >onsider the tacitl" metarepresentational (4) and (10) (repeated here #or con enience) and the more e!plicit ersions in (16) and (14)0 (4) a$ ;ome propositions are tautolo%ies$ b$ Bor instance) a tall man is a man$

(10) a$ /ost le!ical concepts are atomic$ b$ T-K-P+9A-) -K->T.9A) >1??1G-$ (16) The #ollowin% proposition is tautolo%ical0 a tall man is a man$ (14) Ke!ical concepts) includin% T-K-P+9A-) -K->T.9A and >1??1G-) are atomic$

23 *n (4b) and (16)) the spea&er is not pretendin% to ma&e an assertion) or imitatin% some other person or t"pe o# person$ +er beha iour) tone o# oice) manner o# articulation) #acial e!pression) etc$ are not intended to resemble those o# an" other person or t"pe o# person0 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 hearer2s mind$ The same point applies to (10b) and (14)) in which the concepts T-K-P+9A-) -K->T.9A and >1??1G- are mentioned rather than used$ /" claim is that when the main point o# an interpreti el" 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# beha iour is in ol ed$ To illustrate this point) consider the tacitl" attributi e utterances in (11b) and (12b) (repeated here #or con enience) and their more e!plicit counterparts in (20) and (21)0 (11) a$ The 8ean spo&e up$ b$ The uni ersit" was in crisis$ (12) a$ The students were thou%ht#ul$ b$ *# the" didn2t act now) it mi%ht be too late$ (20) 1ccordin% to the 8ean) the uni ersit" was in crisis$ (21) The students were thin&in% that i# the" didn2t act now) it would be too late$ The spea&er o# these utterances chooses an indirect rather than a direct #orm o# <uotation) which %i es her audience some idea o# the content o# the thou%hts or utterances she is metarepresentin%) but not necessaril" o# their #orm$ ;he is not mimic&in% the 8ean or the students) or pretendin% to ma&e an assertion) but simpl" drawin% the audience2s attention to a meanin% or content that she wants to attribute to the students or the 8ean$ ;ome pretence theorists (#or instance) ?ar&er) 2004, 3alton) 1440) seem tempted to treat such utterances as cases o# pretence$ 1ccordin% to 3alton (14400 224)) *n <uotin% a person indirectl" ('+e said that$$$() one does not use the er" words he did$ ?ut it ma" be #ictional that one endorses a certain thou%ht)17 thereb" indicatin% that the <uoted person) usin% his own words) endorsed it$ ;uch

24 participation ma" occup" less than whole sentences) e en a sin%le word or phrase$ $$$ The scare <uotes) or an ob iousl" e!a%%erated) sarcastic tone o# oice ser e both to ma&e it clear that the spea&er is en%a%in% in this pretense and to betra" it) to indicate that the spea&er is only pretendin%$( +owe er) indirect reports o# speech and thou%ht such as (11)-(12) or (20)-(21) need in ol e no mimicr" or 'pra%matic insincerit"(0 the spea&er is %enuinel" reportin% a content or meanin% rather than pretendin% to do somethin% else$ *n #act) not e en all echoic utterances are plausibl" anal"sed as cases o# pretence$ The most ob ious problems #or the pretence account are raised b" echoic <uestions such as (22b)0 (22) a$ b$ *eter: *2ll be arri in% there around si!$ Mary: Lou2ll %et here at si!ishC

+ere) /ar" echoes Peter2s assertion to show that she is thin&in% about it) and perhaps to as& him to con#irm that she has heard and5or understood it correctl" (Aoh) 1446) 2001, 3ilson) 2000)$ ;he is not pretendin% to ma&e an assertion or to as& a <uestion (i# an"thin%) she is as&in% a %enuine <uestion)) and in the interpretation * am considerin% here) she is not mimic&in% Peter or imitatin% his utterance) but merel" interpretin% it and as&in% him to con#irm her interpretation$ +er utterance does not repeat a sin%le word that he used) but paraphrases the content o# his utterance0 the intended resemblances between her utterance and his are entirel" in content and not in #orm$ ;imilar points appl" to man" echoic <uestions that closel" resemble a precedin% utterance in #orm as well as content$ >onsider ;ue2s echoic response to Gac& in (14b) abo e (repeated here #or con enience)0 (13) (ack: * had dinner with >homs&" last ni%ht$ (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% Gac&2s immediatel" precedin% utterance in order to show that she is thin&in%

2@ 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% Gac& or simulatin% his beha iour0 the onl" rele ant resemblances between her utterances and his are in content rather than #orm$ Aow consider echoic responses such as (14a) (repeated below)0 (13) (ack: * had dinner with >homs&" last ni%ht$ (14) a$ %ue: Lou had dinner with >homs&"I 3hat did he sa"C

*n (14a)) ;ue echoes Gac&2s 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%0 she is acceptin% Gac&2s assertion and e!pressin% her reaction to it$ 9r consider cases o# dela"ed acceptance or endorsement such as (23b) (#rom ;perber and 3ilson 14660 234)0 (23) a$ b$ *eter: *t2s a lo el" da" #or a picnic$ DThe" %o #or a picnic and the sun shines$E Mary: *t2s a lo el" da" #or a picnic) indeed$

+ere /ar" echoes Peter2s 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 beha iour0 what matters (in the interpretation * am considerin% here) is the resemblance in content between her utterance and his$ -choic utterances can con e" a wide ariet" o# attitudes$ Bor instance the echoic <uestions in (14b) ( ou had dinner with /homsky.) or (22b) ( ou!ll get here at si3ish.) ma" con e" a touch o# scepticism) and thus a touch o# iron") while the main point o# ironical <uestions such as (7b) (-o you think we should stop for petrol.) is to dissociate the spea&er entirel" #rom the attributed thou%ht$ 1s noted abo e in section 3) the borderline between %enuine speech acts with a tin%e o# iron" and utterances whose main point is to dissociate the spea&er #rom the attributed thou%ht is a %radual one$ *t would

26 be hard to ar%ue that ironical <uestions such as (7b) are cases o# pretence while ordinar" echoic <uestions such as (14b) and (22b) are not$ 1ccordin% to the echoic account) ironical utterances such as (24b) are interpreted on e!actl" the same pattern as echoic endorsements such as (23b) (#t!s a lo&ely day for a picnic)0 (24) a$ b$ *eter: *t2s a lo el" da" #or a picnic$ DThe" %o #or a picnic and it rains$E Mary: *t2s a lo el" da" #or a picnic) indeed$

+ere) /ar" echoes Peter2s utterance in such a wa" as to ma&e it clear that she does not belie e 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 attitude0 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 press0 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@)0 (2@) Les) *2m so %lad we decided to come$ 1s a response to the echoic endorsement in (23b)) Peter2s utterance would be naturall" understood as a %enuine) non-echoic assertion$ 1s a response to the echoic endorsement in (24b)) howe er) it would be naturall" understood as a continuation o# the iron"$ *n >urrie2s terms) iron" 'opens the door to pretendin%() and Peter2s response to /ar"2s ironical utterance 'would naturall" be seen as an elaboration o# /ar"2s pretence( (ibid0 12@)$ +e is thus prepared to treat /ar"2s utterance in (24b) as a case o# pretendin% in an 'acti e() 'substantial( sense) while ar%uin% that echoic endorsements and other t"pes o# #ree indirect <uotation are not cases o# pretence (or in ol e pretendin% onl" in a 'thin) atrophied( sense (ibid0 126))$

27 Aotice) thou%h) that e en e!plicit reports o# speech or thou%ht) which clearl" ma&e %enuine assertions) can be used with ironical o ertones which a hearer ma" pic& up and respond to in &ind$ .ecall the scenario abo e (section 3) where Peter) a#ter a %ame o# tennis) sa"s) seriousl") # almost won) and /ar" turns to her #riend and sa"s) wr"l") one o# (16a-d)0 (16) a$ b$ c$ d$ +e sa"s he almost won$ +e almost won) he thin&s$ Poor #ool$ +e thin&s he almost won$ +e almost won$ 1lle%edl"$

*t would be <uite le%itimate #or /ar"2s #riend) noticin% /ar"2s tone o# oice and dissociati e attitude) to respond ironicall") in a similar tone o# oice) as in (26a)-(26c)0 (26) a$ b$ c$ Les) it was a reall" close thin%$ ;uch a shame that he didn2t <uite ma&e it$ >ould "ou ima%ine an"thin% closerC

These are %enuine cases o# iron") as e idenced b" the spea&er2s ironical tone o# oice$ Aeither spea&er is simulatin% a piece o# beha iour0 in the interpretations * am considerin%) the onl" rele ant resemblances are in content) not in #orm$ #. $oncluding remar%s: parody& allusion and pretence *n this paper) * ha e raised two main points which * see as presentin% problems #or pretence accounts o# iron"$ Birst) in order to e!plain central cases o# iron" such as (1)(6) abo e) pretence accounts ha e to be supplemented with somethin% li&e the notion o# echoic use0 the" are not alternati es to the echoic account but e!tensions o# it$ ;econd) central cases o# iron" #orm a natural class with interpreti e) attributi e and echoic utterances such as (4)-(16) abo e) some o# which ma" carr" ironical o ertones0 the borderline between central and peripheral cases o# iron" is a %radual one$ *t #ollows that either all interpreti el" used utterances should be anal"sed in terms o# pretence or none should$ Ki&e most pretence theorists) * see pretence as a t"pe o# simulation or mimesis

26 which cruciall" in ol es the e!ploitation o# resemblances$ Onli&e them) * ha e ar%ued that t"pical ironical utterances such as (1)-(6) abo e are not cases o# pretence$ *ron" in ol es the attribution o# a thou%ht) a propositional or conceptual content or a meanin%$ ;uch abstract ob:ects cannot be mimic&ed) simulated or imitated$ ;imulation in ol es perceptual similarit" or resemblance in #orm$ 1s * ha e tried to show in section 4) the onl" t"pe o# resemblance rele ant to the interpretation o# central cases o# iron" is in content) not in #orm$ *n iron") in #act) the spea&er %i es 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 achie e ironical e##ects$ 1s noted abo e 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" ha e e!pressed (;perber and 3ilson) 1461, ;perber) 1464, 3ilson and ;perber) 1442)$ ;uch utterances are indeed simulations) and are o#ten used to witt" or ironical e##ect$ >onsider (27)-(30)0 (27) Punctualit" is the thie# o# time$ (9scar 3ilde) (;"dne" ;mith) (Geor%e ?ernard ;haw)

(26) 1mon% the smaller duties o# li#e) * hardl" &now an" more important than that o# not praisin% where praise is not due$ (24) 1 critic is one who lea es no turn unstoned$

-ach o# these parodies or alludes to another utterance that resembles it in #orm$ *n (27)) 3ilde ma" be seen as dissociatin% himsel# #rom the sa"in% *rocrastination is the thief of time) and in (26)) ;"dne" ;mith ma" be seen as e!pressin% some scepticism about the idea that we should alwa"s %i e praise where praise is due$ - en (24)) which could be seen simpl" as wordpla") ma" be intended to ma&e a more serious point about the contrast between a drama critic2s :ob and an ordinar" :ob$ 1lthou%h these utterances achie e 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 achie ed without an" element o# pretence$

24 The t"pe o# iron" that does in ol e 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#t2s '1 /odest Proposal( and 8e#oe2s 'The ;hortest 3a" 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 pro ocati e) * will end b" <uotin% the #irst two para%raphs o# ;tephen Keacoc&2s essa" )re the 0ich Happy., which is indeed a case o# pretence used to achie e ironical e##ects0 Ket me admit at the outset that * write this essa" without ade<uate material$ * ha e ne er &nown) * ha e ne er seen) an" rich people$ Mer" o#ten * ha e thou%ht that * had #ound them$ ?ut it turned out that it was not so$ The" were not rich at all$ The" were <uite poor$ The" were hard up$ The" were pushed #or mone"$ The" didn2t &now where to turn #or ten thousand dollars$ *n all the cases that * ha e e!amined this same error has crept in$ * had o#ten ima%ined) #rom the #act o# people &eepin% #i#teen ser ants) that the" were rich$ * had ima%ined that because a woman rode down-town in a limousine to bu" a #i#t"dollar hat) she must be well-to-do$ Aot at all$ 1ll these people turn out on e!amination to be not rich$ The" are cramped$ The" sa" it themsel es$ Pinched) * thin&) is the word the" use$ 3hen * see a %litterin% %roup o# ei%ht people in a sta%e bo! at the opera) * &now that the" are all pinched$ The #act that the" ride home in a limousine has nothin% to do with it$ (Keacoc& 1417514610 110) Ac%no'ledgements /an" than&s to Aeil ;mith #or discussions on this and other topics o er the "ears) to 8an ;perber #or illuminatin% con ersations on iron") parod" and pretence) man" o# which are re#lected in this paper) and to Gre% >urrie) #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 Pe%arac #or insi%ht#ul comments on an earlier ersion) and to two anon"mous re#erees$ This paper is part o# the 1+.>-

30 #unded pro:ect Q1 Oni#ied Theor" o# Ke!ical Pra%matics2 (1.163@6), * am er" %rate#ul to .ob"n >arston and the other members o# the pro:ect team$

31 (eferences ?ar&er) ;$) 2004$ .enewin% /eanin%0 1 ;peech-1ct Theoretic 1pproach$ >ambrid%e Oni ersit" Press) >ambrid%e$ ?ooth) 3$ 1464$ 1 .hetoric o# *ron"$ >hica%o Oni ersit" Press) >hica%o$ ?r"ant) G$) Bo! Tree) G$) 2002$ .eco%nisin% erbal iron" in spontaneous speech$ /etaphor and ;"mbol 17) 44-117$ >apelli) >$) Aa&a%awa) A$) /adden) >$) 1440$ +ow children understand sarcasm0 The role o# conte!t and intonation$ >hild 8e elopment 61) 1624-1641$ >arston) .$) 1446$ /etalin%uistic ne%ation and echoic use$ Gournal o# Pra%matics 2@) 304-330$ >arston) .$) 2002$ Thou%hts and Otterances0 The Pra%matics o# -!plicit >ommunication$ ?lac&well) 9!#ord$ >lar&) +$) Gerri%) .$) 1464$ 9n the pretense theor" o# iron". Gournal o# -!perimental Ps"cholo%"0 General 113) 121-6$ >lar&) +$) Gerri%) .$) 1440$ 7uotations as demonstrations$ Kan%ua%e 66) 764-60@$ >olston) +$) Gibbs) .$) 2002$ 1re iron" and metaphor understood di##erentl"C /etaphor and ;"mbol 17) @7-60$ >olston) +$) Gibbs) .$) in press$ 1 brie# histor" o# iron"$ To appear in0 Gibbs) .$) >olston) +$ (-ds$)) *ron" in Kan%ua%e and Thou%ht0 1 >o%niti e ;cience .eader$ -rlbaum) +illsdale) A$G$ >olston) +$) 92?rien) G$) 2000a$ >ontrast o# &ind s$ &ind o# contrast ma%nitude0 The pra%matic accomplishments o# iron" and h"perbole$ 8iscourse Processes 30) 174-44$ >olston) +$) 92?rien) G$) 2000b$ >ontrast and pra%matics in #i%urati e lan%ua%e0 1n"thin% understatement can do) iron" can do better$ Gournal o# Pra%matics 32) 1@@7-1@63$ >reusere) /$) 1444$ Theories o# adults2 understandin% and use o# iron" and sarcasm0 1pplications to and e idence #rom research with children$ 8e elopmental .e iew 14) 213-262$ >reusere) /$) 2000$ 1 de elopmental test o# theoretical perspecti es on the understandin% o# erbal iron"0 >hildren2s reco%nition o# allusion and pra%matic insincerit"$ /etaphor and ;"mbol 1@) 24-4@$ >urcR) >$) 2000$ *ron"0 Ae%ation) echo and metarepresentation$ Kin%ua 110) 2@7-260$

32 >urrie) G$) 2002$ .ecreati e /inds0 *ma%ination in Philosoph" and Ps"cholo%"$ 9!#ord Oni ersit" Press) 9!#ord$ >urrie) G$) 2004$ 1rts and /inds$ 9!#ord Oni ersit" Press) 9!#ord$ >urrie) G$) in press$ 3h" iron" is pretence$ To appear in Aichols) ;$ (-d$)) The 1rchitecture o# the *ma%ination$ 9!#ord Oni ersit" Press) 9!#ord$ 8ews) ;$) 3inner) -$) 1444$ 9bli%ator" processin% o# literal and non-literal meanin%s in erbal iron"$ Gournal o# Pra%matics 31) 1@74-1@44$ Gerri%) .$) Gold ar%) L$) 2000$ 1dditi e e##ects in the perception o# sarcasm0 ;ituational disparit" and echoic mention$ /etaphor and ;"mbol 1@) 147-206$ Gibbs) .$ 3$) 1466$ 9n the ps"cholin%uistics o# sarcasm$ Gournal o# -!perimental Ps"cholo%"0 General 11@) 3-1@$ Gibbs) .$ 3$) 1444$ The Poetics o# /ind0 Bi%urati e Thou%ht) Kan%ua%e and Onderstandin%$ >ambrid%e Oni ersit" Press) >ambrid%e$ Giora) .$) Bein) 9$) 1444$ *ron"0 >onte!t and salience$ /etaphor and ;"mbol 14) 2412@6$ Giora) .$) Paidel) -$) ;oro&er) A$) ?atori) G$) Jasher) 1$) 2000$ 8i##erential e##ects o# ri%ht- and le#t-hemisphere dama%e on understandin% sarcasm and metaphor$ /etaphor and ;"mbol 1@) 63-63$ Grice) +$P$) 1467$ Ko%ic and >on ersation$ 3illiam Games Kectures$ .eprinted in0 Grice) +$P$) 1464) pp$ 1-143$ Grice) +$P$) 1464$ ;tudies in the 3a" o# 3ords$ +ar ard Oni ersit" Press) >ambrid%e) /1$ +appS) B$) 1443$ >ommunicati e competence and theor" o# mind in autism0 1 test o# rele ance theor"$ >o%nition 46) 101-14$ +u%l") P$) ;a"ward) >$) 1474$ 1 problem about con ersational implicature$ Kin%uistics and Philosoph" 3) 14-2@$ Gor%ensen) G$) /iller) G$) ;perber) 8$) 1464$ Test o# the mention theor" o# iron"$ Gournal o# -!perimental Ps"cholo%"0 General 113) 112-20$ Jeenan) T$) 7ui%le") J$) 1444$ 8o "oun% children use echoic in#ormation in their comprehension o# sarcastic speechC 1 test o# echoic mention theor"$ ?ritish Gournal o# 8e elopmental Ps"cholo%" 17) 63-46$

33 JreuF) .$) Gluc&sber%) ;$) 1464$ +ow to be sarcastic0 The echoic reminder theor" o# erbal iron"$ Gournal o# -!perimental Ps"cholo%"0 General 116) 374-366$ JreuF) .$) .oberts) .$) 1443$ 9n satire and parod"0 The importance o# bein% ironic$ /etaphor and ;"mbolic 1cti it" 6) 47-104$ JreuF) .$) .oberts) .$) 144@$ Two cues #or erbal iron"0 +"perbole and the ironic tone o# oice$ /etaphor and ;"mbolic 1cti it" 10) 21-31$ Jumon-Aa&amura) ;$) Gluc&sber%) ;$) ?rown) /$) 144@$ +ow about another piece o# pie0 the allusional pretense theor" o# discourse iron"$ Gournal o# -!perimental Ps"cholo%"0 General 124) 3-21$ Kan%don) .$) 8a ies) /$) >oltheart) /$) 2002$ Onderstandin% minds and understandin% communicated meanin%s in schiFophrenia$ /ind and Kan%ua%e 17) 66-104$ Keacoc&) ;$) 1461$ The Pen%uin ;tephen Keacoc&$ Pen%uin) +armondsworth$ Ki nat) P$) 2004$ 9n erbal iron") meta-lin%uistic &nowled%e and echoic interpretation$ Pra%matics and >o%nition 12) @7-70$ /c8onald) ;$) Pearce) ;$) 1446$ >linical insi%hts into pra%matic theor"0 Brontal lobe de#icits and sarcasm$ ?rain and Kan%ua%e @3) 61-104$ /c8onald) ;$) 1444$ -!plorin% the process o# in#erence %eneration in sarcasm0 1 re iew o# normal and clinical studies$ ?rain and Kan%ua%e 64) 466-@06$ /uec&e) 8$) 1464$ The >ompass o# *ron"$ /ethuen) Kondon$ /uec&e) 8$) 1470$ *ron" and the *ronic$ /ethuen) Kondon$ Aa&assis) >$) ;nede&er) G$) 2002$ ?e"ond sarcasm0 *ntonation and conte!t as relational cues in children2s reco%nition o# iron"$ *n0 Greenhill) 1$) +u%hs) /$) Kittle#ield) +$) 3alsh) +$ (-ds$)) Proceedin%s o# the Twent"-;i!th ?oston Oni ersit" >on#erence on Kan%ua%e 8e elopment$ >ascadilla Press) ;omer ille) /1$) pp$ 424-440$ Aash) 3$) 146@$ The Kan%ua%e o# +umour0 ;t"le and Techni<ue in >omic 8iscourse$ Kon%man) Kondon$ Aichols) ;$) ;tich) ;$) 2000$ 1 co%niti e theor" o# pretence$ >o%nition 74) 11@-47$ Aoh) -$-G$) 1446$ -cho <uestions0 /etarepresentation and pra%matic enrichment$ Kin%uistics and Philosoph" 21) 603-626$ Aoh) -$-G$) 2001$ /etarepresentation0 1 .ele ance-Theoretic 1pproach$ Gohn ?en:amins) 1msterdam$

34 Perrin) K$) 1446$ K2ironie mise en trope0 du sens des SnoncSs h"perboli<ues et ironi<ues$ JimS) Paris$ .ecanati) B$) 2000$ 9ratio 9bli<ua) 9ratio .ecta0 The ;emantics o# /etarepresentations$ /*T Press) >ambrid%e) /1$ .ecanati) B$) 2004$ Kiteral /eanin%$ >ambrid%e Oni ersit" Press) >ambrid%e$ .oc&well) P$) 2000$ Kower) slower) louder0 Mocal cues o# sarcasm$ Gournal o# Ps"cholin%uistics .esearch 24) 463-44@$ ;cott) ?$) 2004$ Picturin% iron"0 The sub ersi e power o# photo%raph"$ Misual >ommunication 3) 31-@4$ ;eto) J$) 1446$ 9n non-echoic iron"$ *n0 >arston) .$) Ochida) ;$) (-ds$)) .ele ance theor"0 1pplications and implications$ Gohn ?en:amins) 1msterdam) pp$ 234-2@@$ ;hama"-Tsoor") ;$) Tomer) .$) 1haron-PeretF) G$) 200@$ The neuroanatomical basis o# understandin% sarcasm and its relation to social co%nition$ Aeurops"cholo%" 14) 266300$ ;imonin) 9$) #orthcomin%$ Moices o# iron"$ To appear in Gournal o# Pra%matics$ ;mith) A$) Tsimpli) *$-/$) 144@$ The /ind o# a ;a ant0 Kan%ua%e Kearnin% and /odularit"$ ?lac&well) 9!#ord$ ;perber) 8$) 1464$ Merbal iron"0 Pretense or echoic mentionC Gournal o# -!perimental Ps"cholo%"0 General 113) 130-6$ ;perber) 8$) 2000a$ /etarepresentations in an e olutionar" perspecti e$ *n ;perber) 8$ (-d$)) pp$ 117-137$ ;perber) 8$ (-d$)) 2000b$ /etarepresentations0 1 /ultidisciplinar" Perspecti e$ 9!#ord Oni ersit" Press) Aew Lor&$ ;perber) 8$) 3ilson) 8$) 1461$ *ron" and the use-mention distinction$ *n0 >ole) P$) (-d$)) .adical Pra%matics$ 1cademic Press) Aew Lor&) pp$ 24@-316$ (.eprinted in0 8a is) ;$) (-d$)) 1441$ *ragmatics: ) 0eader. 9!#ord Oni ersit" Press) 9!#ord) pp$ @@063$) ;perber) 8$) 3ilson) 8$) 1466$ .ele ance0 >ommunication and >o%nition$ ?lac&well) 9!#ord$ (;econd edition) 144@$) ;perber) 8$) 3ilson) 8$) 1440$ .hetoric and rele ance$ *n0 ?ender) G$) 3ellber") 8$) (-ds$)) The -nds o# .hetoric0 +istor") Theor") Practice$ ;tan#ord Oni ersit" Press) ;tan#ord) >1) pp$ 140-@6$

3@ ;perber) 8$) 3ilson) 8$) 1446$ *ron" and rele ance 1 repl" to ;eto) +amamoto and Lamanashi$ *n0 >arston) .$) Ochida) ;$) (-ds$)) .ele ance Theor"0 1pplications and *mplications$ Gohn ?en:amins) 1msterdam) pp$ 263-43$ ;perber) 8$) 3ilson) 8$) 200@$ Pra%matics$ *n0 Gac&son) B$) ;mith) /$ (-ds)) 9!#ord +andboo& o# >ontemporar" 1nal"tic Philosoph". 9!#ord Oni ersit" Press) 9!#ord) pp$ 466-@01$ ;perber) 8$) 3ilson) 8$) in press$ 1 de#lationar" account o# metaphor$ To appear in Gibbs) .$ (-d$)) /etaphor and Thou%ht (3rd edition)$ >ambrid%e Oni ersit" Press) >ambrid%e$ de Mries) P$) 1476$ * +ear 1merica ;win%in%$ GollancF) Kondon$ 3alton) J$) 1440) /imesis as /a&e-belie e0 9n the Boundations o# the .epresentational 1rts$ +ar ard Oni ersit" Press) >ambrid%e) /1$ 3iener) P$) (-d$)) 1473$ 8ictionar" o# the +istor" o# *deas0 ;tudies o# ;elected Pi otal *deas$ ;cribner2s) Aew Lor&$ 3ilson) 8$) 2000$ /etarepresentation in lin%uistic communication$ *n0 ;perber) 8$ (-d$)) pp$ 411-446$ 3ilson) 8$) ;perber) 8$) 1442$ 9n erbal iron"$ Kin%ua 67) @3-76$ 3ilson) 8$) ;perber) 8$) 2002$ Truth#ulness and rele ance$ /ind 11) @63-632$ 3inner) -$) 1466$ The Point o# 3ords0 >hildren2s Onderstandin% o# /etaphor and *ron"$ +ar ard Oni ersit" Press) >ambrid%e) /1$ 3inner) -$) Kee&am) ;$) 1441$ 8istin%uishin% iron" #rom deception$ Onderstandin% the spea&er2s second-order intention$ ?ritish Gournal o# 8e elopmental Ps"cholo%" 4) 2@7-270$ Lus) B$) 2003$ +umour and the search #or rele ance$ Gournal o# Pra%matics 3@) 124@1331$

36

Tel$0 U44-166@-662470, #a!0 U44-166@-662470$ '4mail address: deirdreVlin%$ucl$ac$u& (8$ 3ilson)$

1

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

>olston and 92?rien (2000a) b)) Gerri% and Gold ar% (2000)) JreuF and .oberts (144@)) and .oc&well (2000)$
2

9n the de elopment o# iron") see >apelli and Aa&a%awa (1440)) >reusere (1444) 2000)) Jeenan and

7ui%le" (1444)) Aa&assis and ;nede&er (2002)) and 3inner (1466)$ 9n impairment or brea&down) see Giora et al$ (2000)) +appS (1443)) Kan%don) 8a ies and >oltheart (2002)) /c8onald and Pearce (1446)) and ;mith and Tsimpli (144@)$
3

Possible e!amples include the ironical idioms fat chance and a precious lot) presumabl" deri ed #rom

creati e ironies based on the metaphorical slim chance and a precious little (see ;eto) 1446) and ;perber and 3ilson) 1446 #or discussion)$
4

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

press)) >lar& and Gerri% (1464)) JreuF and Gluc&sber% (1464)) Jumon-Aa&amura) Gluc&sber% and ?rown (144@)) and ;perber (1464)$
@

;ee) #or instance) ?ooth (1464)) >urcR (2000)) >urrie (in press)) JreuF and .oberts (1443)) /uec&e

(1464) 1470)) Aash (146@)) Perrin (1446)) ;imonin (#orthcomin%)) ;perber and 3ilson (1440) 1446)) 3iener (1473)) and Lus (2003)$
6

;ee) #or instance) 8ews and 3inner (1444)) Gibbs (1444)) +u%l" and ;a"ward (1474)) ;perber and /oreo er) since the #irst ma!im o# 7ualit" has no other pra%matic #unction in Grice2s #ramewor&

3ilson (1461) 1466) 200@)) and 3ilson and ;perber (2002)$

7

than to be iolated in tropes) this raises a %enuine <uestion about whether this ma!im (as opposed to the superma!im o# truth#ulness ('Tr" to ma&e "our contribution one that is true()) is needed at all$ Bor more detailed de elopment o# this ar%ument in relation to Grice2s anal"sis o# metaphor) see 3ilson and ;perber (2002)$
6

Burther e!perimental e idence is pro ided in >olston and Gibbs (2002)) >reusere (2000)) Gerri% and

Gold ar% (2000)) Gibbs (1466) 1444)) Jeenan and 7ui%le" (1444)) JreuF and Gluc&sber% (1464)) and Jumon-Aa&amura) Gluc&sber% and ?rown (144@)$
4

9n descripti e and interpreti e dimensions o# lan%ua%e use) see ;perber and 3ilson (14660 chapter 4) 1lthou%h * will not discuss this here) an" representation with a conceptual content is a potential

sections 7-10)$
10

ob:ect o# iron"$ Bor interestin% discussion o# iron" in photo%raphs) see ;cott (2004)$

11

9n metarepresentations) see >arston (1446) 2002)) Aoh (2001)) ;perber (2000a) 2000b)) and 3ilson

(2000)$ Bor e idence that iron" re<uires a hi%her order o# metarepresentational abilit" than metaphor) see >olston and Gibbs (2002)) >urcR (2000)) +appS (1443)) Kan%don) 8a ies and >oltheart (2002)) Ki nat (2004)) /c8onald (1444)) ;hama"-Tsoor" et al$ (200@)) 3inner (1446)) and 3inner and Kee&am (1441)$
12

Thou%h not) o# course) the onl" one0 (11b) or (12b) could be descripti el" used to ma&e an assertion

in the spea&er2s own ri%ht) and her meanin% on a particular occasion o# use must be pra%maticall" in#erred$
13

Ose o# the terms Qin the #irst place2) etc$ should not be ta&en to su%%est that these decisions ha e to There is also a <uestion about how #aith#ull" he is interpretin% the attributed thou%ht$ 3ho ta&es

be made in an" particular order$ (;ee >arston) 2002) 3ilson and ;perber) 2002 #or discussion$)
14

responsibilit" #or the description 'hopelessl" une<uipped(0 is it part o# the thou%ht Tim&en is attributin% to ?umpers) or merel" an e!a%%eration o# Tim&en2s) desi%ned to underline the implausibilit" o# this attributed thou%ht) and hence ma&e the iron" more apparentC
1@

1ccordin% to the echoic account) the 'ironical tone o# oice( is simpl" the ordinar" tone o# oice

used to con e" dissociati e attitudes o# the appropriate t"pe (;perber) 1464, ;perber and 3ilson) 1461)$
16

Bor instance) the echoic account predicts that it should be possible to #ind ironical echoes o# %eneral

hopes or wishes (e$%$ that thin%s should alwa"s %o well) the weather should alwa"s be nice) etc$) that ha e been disappointed in particular instances$ *n this case) the iron" will ha e no speci#ic tar%et or ictim) because no-one has entertained a speci#ic e!pectation about this particular case$ 1ccordin% to >urrie2s account) iron" alwa"s tar%ets a Qrestricti e or de#ecti e iew o# the world or part o# the world2, 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 ha in% a restricti e or de#ecti e iew o# the world$
17

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