David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Noûs 46 (4):587 - 634 (2012)
Traditional theories of sarcasm treat it as a case of a speaker's meaning the opposite of what she says. Recently, 'expressivists' have argued that sarcasm is not a type of speaker meaning at all, but merely the expression of a dissociative attitude toward an evoked thought or perspective. I argue that we should analyze sarcasm in terms of meaning inversion, as the traditional theory does; but that we need to construe 'meaning' more broadly, to include illocutionary force and evaluative attitudes as well as propositional content. I distinguish four subclasses of sarcasm, individuated in terms of the target of inversion. Three of these classes raise serious challenges for a standard implicature analysis
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Anne Bezuidenhout (2001). Metaphor and What is Said: A Defense of a Direct Expression View of Metaphor. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 25 (1):156–186.
Emma Borg (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford University Press.
Robert Brandom (1983). Asserting. Noûs 17 (4):637-650.
Elisabeth Camp (2006). Contextualism, Metaphor, and What is Said. Mind and Language 21 (3):280–309.
Citations of this work BETA
Andreas Stokke (2014). Insincerity. Noûs 48 (3):496-520.
Similar books and articles
Elisabeth Camp, Version Presented at the 2006 Pacific APA Why Isn't Sarcasm Semantic, Anyway?* Nearly Everyone Assumes That Sarcasm is a Pragmatic Phenomenon. But We Can Also Construct a Prima Facie Plausible..
Robyn Carston (2008). Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Synthese 165 (3):321 - 345.
J. R. Jenkinson (1974). Sarcasm in Lucan I. 33–66. The Classical Review 24 (01):8-9.
Albert N. Katz (2009). On the Science and Art of Sarcasm. In Leslie Anne Boldt-Irons, Corrado Federici & Ernesto Virgulti (eds.), Disguise, Deception, Trompe-L'oeil: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Peter Lang.
Jay David Atlas (2005). Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface. Oxford University Press.
François Récanati (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Francois Recanati (2004). Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Napoleon Katsos (2008). The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface From an Experimental Perspective: The Case of Scalar Implicature. Synthese 165 (3):385 - 401.
Patrick Hawley (2002). What is Said. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (8):969-991.
Charles Sayward (1974). The Received Distinction Between Pragmatics, Syntax and Semantics. Foundations of Language 11:97-104.
Nathan U. Salmon (2007). Content, Cognition, and Communication. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2010-11-15
Total downloads88 ( #15,692 of 1,101,814 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #28,656 of 1,101,814 )
How can I increase my downloads?