Comparisons of ironic and sarcastic arguments in terms of appropriateness and effectiveness in personal relationships.

• Author: Averbeck, Joshua M.
• Position: Report

Individuals vary greatly in how they approach an argument. Some fear it as though it will kill them, and others seek it out for it may be the only joy they can find in life (Hample, 2005). Some individuals do struggle with the ability to separate arguments against a position from arguments against their character (Rancer, Baukus, & Infante, 1985). Aside from antagonistic approaches to verbal communication, irony has enjoyed a significant amount of attention in the communication discipline. Studies have varied from employing irony as a theoretical lens to examine the discursive space of organizations (Trethewey, 1999) to more specific studies of irony in argumentation (Tindale & Gough, 1987). Despite irony being prevalent in our everyday speech, there is little evidence concerning the efficacy of ironic arguments in everyday speech. Pexman and Olineck (2002) examined irony and insults, specifically. Not only did they find insults that used irony were common, they also found insults are a common way for irony to appear in everyday conversations.

Although there are some people who take ironic statements literally, there are still instances where irony has been of some utility (Tindale & Gough, 1987). Disguising harmful speech in some acceptable form is not a new idea. In fact, devices like humor have been used to bring people together and drive people apart (Miczo, 2004).

The field of argumentation needs to turn its attention to the use of such tropes as irony and humor to examine their potential utility and/or destructive potential. By examining these devices in the context of argumentation, we can begin to understand the process of ironic arguing more fully and develop a broader understanding of argument acceptability by including arguments that use figurative language.

Even though many researchers have studied irony, few have clearly articulated a definition of the concept despite utilizing irony as a central variable. Indeed, Fahnestock (2011) argues the definition of irony is often too loose. Rather, she contends the conceptualization should include some level of understanding of why one meaning would be understood while another meaning would not. Such loose definitions are common problems present in most of the studies of irony (Averbeck & Hample, 2008). Due to a lack of clarity in the understanding of irony, there exists much confusion over how and whether its use differs from sarcasm. Despite irony being prevalent in our everyday speech (Gibbs, 2000; Pexman & Olineck, 2002), there are currently no definitive answers to such questions (Averbeck & Hample, 2008). Due to disagreement over conceptualizations of irony and sarcasm, I offer working definitions to examine whether irony and sarcasm can be distinguished based on people's perceptions of argument effectiveness and/or appropriateness in the interpersonal context.

Others have taken up this task (Roberts & Kreuz, 1994; Kreuz & Glucksberg, 1989), but the findings of such research do not address the effectiveness of these arguments during interpersonal interaction. In general, previous research attempting to distinguish irony from sarcasm has stopped at the point of conceptualization and relied upon research participants to generate examples or define the differences between irony and sarcasm. However useful this descriptive information may be, it does not inform argumentation scholars and users of figurative language which message strategy is more effective and/or appropriate for use in interpersonal situations. The present study seeks to explore such differences in the interpersonal context.

The approach taken here is receiver focused. One of the ways in which an individual can distinguish between ironic and sarcastic arguments is on the basis of appropriateness and/or effectiveness. These two variables are of particular importance because they are indicative of interpersonal argumentative competence (Yingling & Trapp, 1985). According to Hample (2005), effectiveness and appropriateness "provide a standpoint from which we can press ordinary conceptions of arguing into theoretically useful models" (p. 34). By gaining insight into whether irony and sarcasm are acceptable argument strategies one may draw inferences as to whether the receivers perceive differences between them.

DEFINITIONS OF SARCASM AND IRONY

Clearly, irony has an extensive history within academia (see Rorty, 1989; Kierkegaard, 1960). Gibbs (2000) explains that this is probably due to irony's prominence in everyday speech, and explains that most of the studies of irony have actually been studies of sarcasm. The confusion arises from the labels of irony and sarcasm being used interchangeably. Because of this, clear definitions are necessary.

Despite the plethora of definitions available, a distinction is made here between verbal and dramatic irony. This study concerns only verbal irony which centers on the meaning of a message. Dramatic irony consists of unexpected events such a thief being pick pocketed (Karsetter, 1965) or many examples from Alanis Morisette's song 'Ironic.' Shugart (1999) defines irony as an internal contradiction that must be actively detected. While this is helpful, it is symptomatic of other definitions in that it is unclear as to the sender-receiver relationship. Is the contradiction true for the sender, receiver, or both? Perhaps the clearest conceptualization available is: "Verbal irony is a message that is intentionally and transparently inconsistent with attitudes or beliefs held between two or more people" (Averbeck & Hample, 2008). This clearly identifies the roles of sender and receiver in an ironic message, the origin of the inconsistency mention by Shugart (1999), and the conditions under which an ironic message fails to be understood as being ironic. Indeed, Averbeck (2010) extended this by pointing out perceived differences in effectiveness of ironic compliments and ironic criticisms. An important factor for accurately understanding an argument as ironic is the common ground between sender and receiver. The context in which the argument is delivered allows the receiver to comprehend a seemingly incomplete argument by recalling relational history, social norms, and attitudes of the sender (Averbeck & Hample, 2008).

Despite the clarity this brings to the definition of irony, it does little if anything to distinguish irony from sarcasm. Because sarcasm is often the most recognizable form of irony (Gibbs, 2000) sarcasm would certainly fit the definition above. Ironic messages in general have been previously associated with verbal aggressiveness and indirect interpersonal aggression (Averbeck & Hample, 2008). However, Lee and Katz (1998) point out that sarcasm often has more of a negative connotation than irony. This provides one distinguishing characteristic between irony and sarcasm: sarcasm is more negative than simple irony.

Several studies provide evidence for the difference in negativity between the two. Colston and Keller (1998) found that by overstating a description of some event, ironic arguments provided contrast between expected and actual events. When the expectations were highlighted in the ironic arguments they were generally rated favorably. Sarcasm is identified as a common form of contempt that communicates disgust to relational partners wherein the goal of the sarcastic message is to demean the target (Gottman & Silver, 1999). Leggitt and Gibbs (2000) argue that sarcastic arguments are instances of personally critical irony. Across three experiments, they found the sender and receiver were generally aligned in terms of emotional reactions for ironic arguments. However, senders of sarcastic arguments displayed greater negative affect than did the receivers. While this was a somewhat unexpected finding on their part, it is consistent with their operationalizations for both. "Irony was operationally defined as the speaker's observation of a contradictory state of affairs but not directly critical of the addressee. Sarcasm was defined as a statement that clearly contradicts the knowable state of affairs and is harshly critical toward the addressee" (Leggitt & Gibbs, 2000, p. 5).

A key difference between irony and sarcasm appears to be the negativity of the argument and the target of the statement. Given receivers experienced greater negative affect from a sarcastic argument than an ironic argument, the extent to which a message is...