Sarcasm

Erika Lombart, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium
erika.lombart@uclouvain.be

The scientific literature helps to distinguish sarcasm from similar forms such as irony. These forms are so regularly confused that they have become - wrongly - synonymous. Although Moreall states they are both based on an intentional lack of sincerity, the two phenomena do not behave in the same way, either in terms of intention or the relationship between what is said and thought. Firstly, Haiman finds irony can be unintentional and qualify a situation, which is never the case with sarcasm. Secondly, for Charaudeau irony is based on an inversion of meaning between what is said and what is thought, whereas sarcasm hyperbolises the negative aspect of the flaw it points out in its target without there being, strictly speaking, any discrepancy between what is said and what is thought.

Unlike irony, sarcasm does not necessarily rely on figurative language, but on an amplification of Face Threatening Acts (FTAs). Irony and sarcasm are both an attack on the principles of politeness theorised by Brown and Levinson, according to which communication can only take place properly if each speaker respects the other ‘faces’. Sarcasm takes different forms, but it always has a perlocutionary intention that runs counter to the relational management of communication, since it always aims to harm the positive side of its target, claims Lombart. There is therefore no such thing as ‘positive’ sarcasm, although there are forms of positive irony - albeit rather rare - which do not intend to attack the faces of their target. When the object of sarcasm is a third party (person, concept, institution, etc.), the speaker seeks the audience’s complicity in the denigration, resembling gossip. When it targets the interlocutor, it becomes a direct provocation, as sarcasm leaves no ambiguity and compels the other to respond.

To illustrate the concepts of sarcasm and irony, consider the following examples. The statement ‘crazy to have an ugly face like yours’; can be interpreted as sarcasm, as it attacks the other person’s appearance without using a common trope. On the other hand, the statement ‘You look really good this morning’; made to someone who is ill, can be seen as a form of irony, as it employs an antinomic trope to convey the opposite meaning of the words used. It is evident that the speaker’s face is under threat; however, the intensity of the attack is comparatively lower than the previous example.

Keywords: face-threatening acts, pragmatics, politeness theory

Related Entries: Face, Face-threatening Act, Irony

References:
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage, 4. Cambridge University Press.
Charaudeau, P. (2011). Des catégories pour l’humour. Précisions, rectifications, compléments. In M. D. Vivero Garcia (Ed.), Humour et crise sociale (pp. 9-43). L’Harmattan.
Haiman, J. (1998). Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford University Press.
Lombart, E. (2022). L’implicite sur les réseaux sociaux: Entre les lignes des forums de discussion. L’Harmattan
Morreall, J. (2020). The good, the bad, and the funny: An ethics of humor. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 58(4), 632-647. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12390