Types and definitions of irony

A surprising fact about irony is that, despite vast amounts of research from many disciplinary perspectives, the phenomenon is still considered somewhat elusive. It is often remarked that, although it comes naturally and intuitively as part and parcel of typical communicative competence, there is little consensus regarding its exact definitional properties. Muecke (1970:14) poetically compares the recognition and use of irony by language users to the recognition and creation of beauty by an artist: a property they are fully aware of without being able to define it. Aiming to achieve a comprehensive overview of the phenomenon, this chapter is organized around the premise that the diversity of definitions and models is primarily due to the multitude of questions and angles of analysis one can take when approaching irony (verbal irony in particular) rather than radically different interpretations of its nature and properties. First, there is the question of common denominators and distinguishing properties among the different members of the “irony” family (Section 34. 2). Then, there are the theoretically (and empirically) important questions regarding the meaning of the ironic utterance, the ironist’s attitude towards the content of the utterance, and the ironist’s communicative (evaluative) intentions (Section 34. 3). Moreover, there is the question of which elements of irony are necessary, which are optional, and which are strategy-specific (Section 34. 4). Finally, there is the question of how irony relates to figurative language, sarcasm, and humour (Section 34. 5), which, in reality, is a question about the different levels of a communicative event (the meaning/communicated message, the social and interpersonal effects).