University of Zürich

SS 06

English Seminar

Seminar: Politeness

Irony and Politeness: Softening or Enhancing Face-Threats

Yvonne Miller

October 27, 2006

---

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Irony and Sarcasm 2

3 Politeness: Face-Saving and Face-Threatening 4

4 The Interaction of Politeness and Irony 8

4.1 Mock Politeness 9

4.2 Mock Impoliteness 10

4.3 Ironic Criticism and Ironic Compliments 13

5 Analysis of Two Example Dialogues 16

6 Conclusion 20

8 References 21

---

1 Introduction

When someone uses verbal irony it can make us smile, but it can also influence how polite or

impolite this person comes across. Thus irony can be integrated into theories of politeness.

Therefore, this paper will take a closer look at the interaction that takes place between irony

and politeness. In some cases irony is just used to amuse or joke around as for example in the

following situation: Two friends are cooking dinner, and while chatting they forget the roast

in the oven and don′t notice it until the smell of burnt meat fills the kitchen. One of the

friends says jokingly:

(1) Oh oh it smells good!

In other cases, irony is not only used with an amusing intent but also or only with the purpose

to say something indirectly. The irony consequently influences the politeness that comes with

the remark. These cases where irony and politeness interact are the ones this paper will focus

on.

Irony in politeness theories was at first considered as a tool to save the face of the

addressee, but later research challenged this view as will be shown in this paper. The use of

irony can easily become a tightrope walk for the speaker between being friendly and funny or

being rude and offending. Irony can also be challenging for the addressee, if a situation is

ambiguous and if he or she therefore must find out how a remark is meant to be understood.

Since irony is an indirect way of saying what one is thinking it often leads to

misunderstandings or awkward situations. However, irony might also be used very well

directed and purposeful. For instance, irony is often used when criticizing someone and can in

this case fulfill either the function of enhancing or reducing the criticism. Some researchers,

however, disagree about the function of irony in this context. Is irony now a face-saving tool

or does it help to attack face? What are the determining factors to decide this, if at all such

factors can be found? How do different researchers understand the function of irony in

politeness theories, and can some similarities between the different approaches be found?

These are questions that shall be answered in this paper. The politeness theories of Brown and

Levinson (1987) and Leech (1991) will provide a basis for these considerations and will be

complemented by newer surveys. In spite of the different statements made by various

researchers in their theories and surveys, irony can be seems to not only have a face-saving

function. When sarcasm is understood as a subordinate form of irony then irony can be used

very well to also attack face. The next section will therefore show how sarcasm can be related

to irony.

1

---

2 Irony and Sarcasm

The words "irony" and "sarcasm" both have been of interest to philosophers, psychologists

and linguists for over 2500 years and both have an ancient lineage (Katz 2000: 1). The word

irony is rooted in the Greek language and is traceable to the word "eironeia", a word used in

Greek to describe unscrupulous trickery. The word sarcasm is rooted in the Greek word

"sarazein", meaning to speak bitterly (Lee and Katz 1998, quoted from Katz 2000: 1). The

significance of these words has changed slightly over the years and different views about

what their precise meaning is have developed. Researchers of various disciplines have also

proposed differing theories to explain how people use and understand irony and sarcasm. For

linguists, irony is a figure of speech and a "language device in which the real intent is

concealed or contradicted by the literal meaning of words or a situation" (Encyclopædia

Britannica Online 2006). This language device is also often cal ed "verbal irony" (Encyclopædia

Britannica Online 2006). It can be spoken or written and "arises from an awareness of

contrast between what is and what ought to be" (Encyclopædia Britannica Online 2006). This

contrast or incongruity is mentioned in most definitions of irony. Dews et al. (1995: 347) for

example understand irony as a "form of nonliteral language in which the speaker means much

more than he or she says . . . [and it; Y.M] is characterized by opposition between two levels

of meaning: The speaker′s literal meaning is evaluatively the (approximate) opposite of the

speaker′s intended meaning". Already Brown and Levinson (1987: 221) were aware of this

two-leveled meaning in ironic utterances: "By saying the opposite of what he means, . . . S

can indirectly convey his intended meaning, if there are clues that his intended meaning is

being conveyed indirectly". For instance if a speaker says

(2) What lovely weather we are having!

as she or he looks out at a rainstorm, it is obvious for the hearer that the speaker makes an

ironic utterance and in fact expresses his or her dissatisfaction with the weather.

Gibbs (2000) found in a study that examined irony in talk among friends, five main

types of irony; one of them is sarcasm. Thus, sarcasm can be understood as a special form of

ironic language. Long and Graesser (1988: 42) understand sarcasm as a form of ironic

criticism that is intended to chastise. Thus they also think of sarcasm as a form of irony but

add to it the dimension of criticism. Jorgensen (1995: 619) agrees: "The speaker is usually

motivated to make the remark because of a criticism or complaint he or she holds against the

victim". In the opinion of Jorgensen (1995: 619), this victim is commonly addressed directly.

The sarcastic remark is according to Jorgensen actually never made about an absent third

2

---

party, whereas from Haiman′s (1998: 25) point of view "the `other speaker′ may be the

sarcast′s present interlocutor, an absent third person, or a conventional attitude". As an

example of a sarcastic remark, one can imagine an employer saying to his lazy employee:

(3) Don′t work too hard.

This utterance is a clear criticism of the employee′s performance, but it is uttered in an ironic

form, which is marked by the difference between the literal meaning and the intended

meaning of the sentence.

Sarcasm and irony are often confused with each other in popular discourse because

both are indirect forms of speech. Irony generally refers to the literal meaning and the

intended meaning of the words uttered being different, while sarcasm refers to the mocking

intent of an utterance. In addition, people as well as situations may be ironic, but only people

can be sarcastic. Furthermore one can be unintentionally ironic, whereas sarcasm requires

intention (Haiman 1998: 20). In a characterization of sarcasm Haiman (1998: 25) summarizes

the above mentioned importance of criticism and intentionality: "sarcasm is characterized by

the

intentional production

of an

overt and separate

metamessage `I don′t mean this′ in which

the speaker expresses hostility or ridicule of another speaker, who presumably

does

`mean

this′ in uttering an ostensibly positive message".

3

---

3 Politeness: Face-Saving and Face-Threatening

The aim of this section is to give a short overview of Brown and Levinson′s (1987)

perception of politeness and of Leech′s Politeness Principle (1991). These two perceptions

provide a basis for the next section, in which the linkage between irony and politeness is

discussed.

Brown and Levinson (1987: 57) argue that in many languages, when a speaker is

formulating a request, a criticism, a complaint or another type of verbal act, these formulations

seem to share a "strategic orientation to participant′s `face′, the kernel element in folk notions

of politeness". The "face" therefore seems to be a very central element, but what does it exactly

mean? Brown and Levinson derive their concept of politeness from Goffman′s (1967) notion

of face and from the English folk term that associates face with notions of being embarrassed

or humiliated, as known from examples like

losing face.

Face is something that is linked with

emotions, something that can be lost, maintained or enhanced and that must be constantly

attended to in interaction. When people are interacting, they mostly are aware of the

vulnerability of face and know that normally everyone′s face depends on everyone else′s

being maintained. This leads to the interest in maintaining each other′s face "that is to act in

ways that assure the other participants that the agent is heedful of the assumptions concerning

face" (Brown and Levinson 1987: 61). Brown and Levinson′s (1987: 61) assumptions made

about face are the following: they assume that all "competent adult members of a society have

(and know each other to have)" a vulnerable face which can be described as "the public self-

image that every member wants to claim for himself". Also part of this assumption is the idea

that this face consists of two related aspects: the "negative face" and the "positive face". The

negative face stands for the basic claims to territories and to freedom of action and

imposition. The notion of positive face marks the claim for a positive self-image including the

desire that this self-image is also accepted and appreciated. These descriptions of the negative

and positive face were restated by Brown and Levinson because they argue that the aspects of

face are not norms, values or claims but "basic wants, which every member knows every

other member desires, and which in general it is in the interest of every member to partial y

satisfy" (1987: 62). The restated components of face are defined as follows: The negative face

stands for "the want of every competent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by

others" (1987: 62) and the positive face represents "the want of every member that his wants

be desirable to at least some others" (1987: 62). One must bear in mind that the positive face

wants may be for non-material as well as material things and that in general, persons want

4

---