On the echoic nature of irony

On the Echoic Nature of Irony Marisa Diez Arroyo Universidad de Oviedo This paper deals with the analysis of irony in advertising slogans. Compared with the interest aroused by punning and its derivatives, this figure of speech has received little attention in the domain of advertising. However, the expressive power of irony is a highly useful tool in helping advertisers to change the audience's attitude towards the product or service. The study examines irony from a twofold perspective. On the one hand, it follows classical rhetoric, an approach which finds its justification in the persuasive aim of advertising language. Yet, this traditional trend suffers from some deficiencies. In order to overeóme them, a broader perspective will be adopted. The option chosen is Sperber & Wilson's Relevance Theory, a framework which provides the appropriate tools to characterise irony and to reflect on its consequences for communication. 1. Introduction Consider the following quotation taken from, to my knowledge, the most recent publication on the language of advertising: Make no mistake: advertising works. However, as a culture, we tend to be aloof and not a little snooty about advertisements, pretending that, while they may work on some people, they don't work on us, and dismissing advertising language as trite discourse written for the uneducated. (Goddard 1998:2) These are the words with which Angela Goddard opens up the introduction to her book. Her wish is to alert readers on the big influence that adverts have on our daily uves. Precisely because advertising is all around us we do not pause to think about its nature as a form of discourse, as a system of language use. But I venture to go even further and claim that while many books have looked at advertising, fewer have paid any detailed attention to how messages are constructed from language. It is undeniable that images are powerful attention-seeking devices, nevertheless, advertisers also want to make their texts capture our attention. Bearing all these conditions in mind it is not difficult to see why written advertisements have to compete not only with Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N™ 5 y 6 (1998-1999) 161 Marisa Diez Arroyo each other but also with audiovisual messages. And it is precisely this that makes it interesting to have a look at how copywriters find ways to shout at us from the page. Most of the scholars (Cook 1992; Tanaka 1994) who have devoted their work to the study of the language of advertising have concentrated on punning and its derivatives. I consider, however, that the language of advertising is supported on a wide persuasive system within which plays on words are only one of its possible manifestations. Both the concepts of persuasión and rhetoric are not gratuitous choices. I firmly believe that advertising's first aim is to change the audience's attitude toward the product or service on offer, as a consequence the writer of the message needs to adopt a linguistic strategy that bears some ponderable results. This paper leaves punning aside to deal instead with the persuasive power of irony, a figure of speech that is far from common in the liguistic analysis of this particular field of communication. Perhaps the reason for this lack of interest lies in its somewhat poor manifestation: examples of ironic slogans are not easy to find. However, it is my opinión that in this case, the expressive power and henee the valué of irony as a persuasive strategy very much depend on the limited use of this figure. 2. Methodological issues 2.1. Evaluating approaches to irony Irony may be regarded as one of the biggest issues in traditional rhetoric. In his manual of classical rhetoric, Lausberg (1966: 582) makes two considerations when he comes to the study of irony. Firstly, this figure could be defined as the expression of one thing by means of a word that means its opposite. Henee, the author establishes a relationship between irony and opposition or contradiction. Secondly, Lausberg is also concerned with the way in which the 162 Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N™ 5 y 6 (1998 y 1999) On the Echoic Nature of Irony choice of this particular form of expression affects both speaker and listener, in that the former seems to be specially aware of its persuasive power, and the latter would be impressed by an orator who is so sure of himself. For the time being I would like to concéntrate on point one, that is, on Lausberg's definition of irony and some of its consequences. Following Blakemore (1993: 165), this traditional account of irony presents certain difficulties. On the one hand, it fails to capture the indeterminacy that surrounds ironic utterances. The speaker of (1) will not be understood to be conveying the proposition in (2): (1) (Peter has just made an obvious, thus unnecessary, remark) John: Peter's always so witty! (2) Peter is not a witty fellow. Rather we would like to argüe that in uttering (1), John intends to communicate a wide array of implicatures that go well beyond the proposition shown in (2). This Une of reasoning, however, cannot be pursued within the limited scope of the classical approach. On the other hand, there exist a good number of ironic utterances that do not conform to this analysis. Let us take an example from Blakemore (1993: 163) to make the point clearer. (3) Did you remember to water the garden? The question in (3) cannot be taken as meaning the opposite of what it literally means, and yet, the author remarks, produced on a very rainy day, it would be interpreted as ironic. An attempt at overcoming these problems consists in analysing irony in terms of the notion of «interpretive resemblance», and specially in the notion of echoic use. To Sperber & Wilson (1990), every utterance is an interpretation of the thought that the speaker wishes to communicate. But a thought is a representation too, and as Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N°'* 5 y 6 (1998 y 1999) 163 Marisa Diez Arroyo such it may be presented as an interpretation of another speaker's thought. Again as these authors have shown, an utterance which is intended as an interpretation is not simply relevant in virtue of the fact that it informs that someone said or thought something, rather in reporting someone's thoughts a speaker may indícate his own attitude towards them. Sperber & Wilson cali an utterance that is relevant in this way echóle. In this new context it seems clear that the relevant factor to analyse irony is not opposition but the echóle use. We are now in a good position to examine Sperber & Wilson's (1990: 240) proposal for the study of irony: First, on a recognition of the utterance as echoic; second, on an identif¡catión of the source of the opinión echoed; and third, on a recognition that the speaker's attitude to the opinión echoed is one of rejection or disapproval. My view of irony endorses Sperber & Wilson's, thus I am going to devote soma time to examine the specifics of this definition, a prior step to analyse its use in the language of advertising. 1) Echóle nature. The relevance of the echoic utterance lies in the Information it gives about the speaker's attitude towards the attributed thought. This is important since the speaker informs the hearer that he has in his mind someone else's thoughts, and in expressing them he shows his attitude. 2) Identifying the source of the opinión echoed. An ironic utterance is not necessarily an interpretation of a thought that can be attributed to any specific person, but rather an interpretation of the kind of thought that the speaker believes some people might have. 3) Reprobatory or disapproving nature. 164 Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N" 5 y 6 (1998 y 1999) On the Echoic Nature of Irony As Sperber & Wilson note, irony is related to rejection. By dissociating himself from the opinión echoed, the speaker indicates that he does not hold it himself. Indeed, it may be obvious in the circumstances that he believes the opposite of the opinión echoed. These three characteristics acquire special features within the language of advertising. It is my suggestion that the addressee acknowledges an advertising message as ironic when: a) The set of the propositions activated by such a message belongs to the common ground of the receiver's pragmatic competence. b) This set of activated propositions clashes with some of the presuppositions that belong to the common ground of his advertising competence. The interpretation of advertising irony comprises two steps. The first one, what I have callad «a», is representad by the confirmation of a belief in which the reader can find both the echoic nature of the message and the Identification of the source of opinión. Generally, in my examples the opinión echoed is not an individual thought, rather it is a belief held by a community. During this initial stage, the addresser appears to endorse the proposition contained in the message, a belief that, nevertheless, reflects the consumer's experience about the real worth of the products (i.e. washing powder does not wash that clean; what banks are really interested in is our money, in spite of their emphasis on personal attention, etc.). The reader then feels that the advertiser agrees with him, when in fact the proposition only shows a partial truth. Parallelly, the reader knows that this is not the way advertising works. The aim of advertising is to persuade in order to make the addressee change his attitude and buy the product on offer. But when the ad echoes a commonly held opinión that usually goes against the advertiser's interest, it is obvious that the slogan is not complying with the requirements it should. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N"' 5 y 6 (1998 y 1999) 165 Marisa Diez Arroyo There is then a clash. The addressee's experience as receiver of advertising messages indicates him that an addresser does not pay a considerable amount of money for a slogan that damages his image. This fact makes the reader uneasy, raises his suspicion and puts him on alert. This is what I mean by part «b» in my definition. I would like to put forward the hypothesis that advertising irony includes a last characteristic. The disconfirmation effect takes place when the reader comes across a word or an expression that belongs either to the slogan itself or to the bodytext. This element usually discloses a garden-path effect, i.e., gives way to a reconsideration of a slogan that initially was assigned a wrong interpretation. In this sense, I claim that the concept of garden-path has a wider application than the one originally due to Bever (1970). Thus meanings of lexical Ítems and not only constituent grouping can be responsible for a garden-path effect. Ultimately then, the correct interpretation of the initially echoic utterance will be as the addresser's own opinión. This regression effect has its origin in the presence of Information which is not available from the beginning. On the contrary, what was initially relevant (what the reader identifies as his opinión and that the addresser seems to endorse) turns out to be irrelevant when it is processed in the light of the new circumstances. If we assume this explanation of ironic slogans, it is obvious that the reader must invest a great deal of processing effort. However, this effort is rewarded by extra con textual effects. The notion of contextual effect is deeply imbricated in Sperber & Wilson's theory, as such it represents a key feature of indirect communication. In agreement with the authors, contextual effects can be obtained in three different ways: i) contextual implication: further Information that cannot be deduced from either existing assumptions or the new Information alone; ii) stregthening of existing assumptions; contradiction and elimination of oíd assumptions. The processing effort needed to derive contextual effects is crucial. This leads to the idea that relevance is a matter of degree: the 166 Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N°' 5 y 6 (1998 y 1999) On the Echoic Nature of Irony greater the contextual effects of a newly presented item of information, the more relevant it is. 2.2. Irony, indirect communication and politeness I would like to start this section with an aspect which has been left behind, namely, the connection Lausberg established between the use of irony and the effect it has in both speaker and listener. The author remarks that this figure of speech is likely to impress the Ustener since it is considered as a demonstration of self confidence by the orator. Simultaneously, the speaker's intention is to reject a third party's beliefs. Unfortunately, the author does not develop these ideas any further, however, I think that the framework adopted in this paper offers the possibility of dealing with these points in some depth. The speaker of an ironic utterance does not simply reject the opinión that his utterance echoes, but he usually rejects it with scorn or makes fun of it. Therefore, it can arguably be said that the addresser adopts an attitude of superiority. Parallelly, Sperber & Wilson's theory predicts that most ironies will have victims, at least in the sense that an implicit victim is whoever (mistakenly) believes the echoed proposition (or holds the expectation). Given these premises one would be tempted to conclude that irony is offensive, or either that it involves aggression. Nevertheless, this is not the case for the existent connection between irony and indirect communication on the one hand, and irony and politeness on the other. Since there is always more than one way to say or write something, we cannot view the writer's cholee of style independently of the message he wishes to convey, thus his decisión to express his attitude implicitly by means of an echoic utterance contributes to the interpretation of such utterance. As Blakemore (1993: 171), notes the notion of interpretation is not equivalent to a specific set of propositions that the speaker intended to communicate, it may well inRevista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N™ 5 y 6 (1998 y 1999) 167 Marisa Diez Arroyo elude a whole range of propositions no single one of which is particularly meant. Thus while it may be going too far to characterise irony as an attempt to ridicule the reader (or a third party) for entertaining such a thought —given that the notion of ridicule is a very vague one, it does seem reasonable to view irony at least as an attempt to produce as much impact on the reader as possible (Chen & Houlette 1990). The impact (psychological, rhetorical or otherwise) is the result of relying on implicatures to communicate. Irony strikes a fine balance between strong and weak communication because the addresser manages to strongly communicate some assumptions, but at the same time he weakly implicates a range of contextual effects than can be derived from these assumptions. The immediate consequence is that the addressee is encouraged to think along certain Unes without necessarily coming to any specific conclusión; to put it differently, the advertiser places on the reader a great deal of responsibility for deriving certain implicatures. As irony relies so much on implicatures it can be regarded as an indirect form of communication. Further, an addresser who leaves his attitude implicit knows that he shares with the addressee certain assumptions (common beliefs) which will be accessible without being made explicit. In other words, using Jorgensen's (1996) terminology, the writer of an ironic utterance transmits a level of complicity. For such communication to be successful, the addresser has to estímate the reader's contextual resources. That is, he will leave his attitude implicit only if he believes that the reader has access to a context in which it can be identified with less effort than would be needed to process an explicit statement. The writer needs to help his reader in obtaining contextual effects. Once the link between irony and indirect communication has been examined, I would like to turn to the relationship between irony and politeness. Leech (1983), possibly following Lakoff (1977), was one of the first authors to relate irony and politeness. In 168 Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N"" 5 y 5 (1998 y 1999) On the Echoic Natura of Irony clash between what the reader finds and his knowledge about what he should find, he is moved to proceed in his reading, and thus he comes across the second part of the ad. The second sentence disconfirms the initial interpretation thus creating a garden-path effect. The slogans that follow obey the same structural pattern: (8) If you want to stay warm this winter, spend it around Rio. <Glen> She November 1997. (9) If you thought sugar was made in manufacturing plants, you were right. She April 1991. In (8), the beginning of the conditional sentence opens up expectations about what is to follow: to keep warm one needs heat, comfortable clothes, etc. But instead of this solution it is suggested that the reader should «spend winter around Rio», which is interpreted as going over to Brazil (where instead of the European winter one can find summer). Obviously, this solution is many people's dream, henee its echoic nature; the thing is that the ad is not signed by a travel agency or an airliner but by Glen, a trademark for electric heating, being Rio the ñame of its latest model of radiators. The trademark has been responsible for the garden-path effect of the ironic utterance, which in this particular example made use of punning. We can wonder whether the processing effort is worth while. It is very useful indeed because the weak implicatures activated by the Brazilian summer (happy days, enjoyable weather, etc.) are associated now wiht the electric radiator. The easily bought product inherits the characteristics of a place reserved to a privileged few. Double meaning is also the key to the slogan in (9). Its beginning (If you thought ...) makes quite clear its echoic status: in a modern world invaded by technology it may be thought that sugar is obtained from industrial companies. However, this echoic interpretation does not fit in with the drawings of flowers, bears, bees, etc. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N™ 5 y 6 (1998 y 1999) 175 Marisa Diez Arroyo that illustrate the page. To solve the inconsistency, the reader will move to the bodytext where he is informed that sugar is one hundred per cent a natural product. Therefore the echoic interpretation (based on the ambiguity of the term plants) has to be discarded. The addresser is softly scorned for entertaining such a thought. The example that follows does equally make use of conditional sentences: (10) If you're looking for fluff, try your dryer. If you want something to put you to sleep, get some warm milk. If you want something tame, visit a pet store. Harlequim. Not the same oíd story. Family Cirde 28th June 1994. The advertísement can be regarded as containing four sentences which in the source quoted appear in four different pages. The first three can be considered echoic in that they reflect common knowledge or beliefs (i.e. popular tradition has it that some warm milk helps put one to sleep, etc.). These opinions that the writer seems to endorse do not fit well within the advertising framework, since it is difficult to see how they fulfill the ultímate function of selling, on the contrary, the addressee (you) is treated carelessly. Given this state of affairs, the reader comes to the last part of the ad where he finds the expression not the same oíd story, which implies that the writer rejects the opinions stated, provoking a garden-path effect. The product on offer, Harlequin, supposedly has fluff, helps you to go to sleep and is something tame; but the addresser wants that these qualities be understood in a new context (that of romantic novéis), which no doubt makes the reader wring many other weak inferences. 4. Concluding remarks In this paper, Sperber & Wilson's concept of echoic irony has been adapted to the language of advertising. The echoic dimensión 176 Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N"' 5 y 6 (1998 y 1999) On the Echoic Nature of Irony is particularly relevant in this specific field of expression since it produces a propositional clash between the propositions that conform the addressee's pragmatic competence and those that make up his competence as receiver of advertisements. The expressive impact of such a clash has a slightly negative consequence for the analyser, because it very much lies in a scarcity of examples. Despite this drawback, I hope to have made clear that irony's persuasive power rests on its connection with politeness on the one hand, and its characterisation as indirect communication on the other. Irony is not offensive, on the contrary, it suggests criticism mollified by an understanding and reasonable addresser. Another important aspect that has been highlighted is the processing effort involved in the interpretation of these slogans. Initially, the reader goes through a confirmation stage, but the propositional clash impels him to look for more Information, which in fact provokes a garden-path effect. This additional Information can be contained in the slogan itself (it has been observed how most slogans appear neatly divided into two parts) or in the bodytext, which implies directing the reader to a section of the advert not direcdy appealing. The effort the reader invests is doubly rewarding. Firstly for the reader himself, because it yields extra contextual effects; secondly for the copywriter, since it guarantees the addressee's attention and involvement in a message that will not pass unnoticed. WORKS CITED Bever, T. 1970. «The cognition basis for linguistic structures». Hayes, J. (ed). Cognition and the development of language. New York. John Wiley and sons. Bex, Tony. 1996. Varieties in written English. London. Routledge. Blakemore, Diane. 1993 (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford. Blackwell. Brown, Paul & Levinson, Samuel. 1987. Politeness: some imiversals in language usage. Cambridge. CUP. Cook, Guy. 1992. The discourse of advertising. London. Routledge. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N°^ 5 y 6 (1998 y 1999) 177 Marisa Diez Arroyo Chen, Rong & Houlette, F. 1990. Towards a pragmatic account of irony. Language and style, 23, 1, 29-37. Goddard, Angela. 1998. The language of advertising. London. Routledge. Jorgensen, Julia. 1996. The functions of sarcastic irony in speech. Journal of pragmatics, 26, 613-634. Lakoff, Robín. 1977. What can you do with words: politeness, pragmatics and performatives. Rogers, A. et al. (eds). Proceedings of the Texas conference on performatives, presuppositions, and implicatures, pp. 79-106. Centre for applied linguistics. Lausberg, H. 1966. Manual de retórica literaria. Vols. I, II, III. Madrid. Credos. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principies of pragmatics. London. Longman. Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1990 (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford. Blackwell. Tanaka, Keiko. 1994. Advertising language. London. Routledge. 178 Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos N"" 5 y 6 (1998 y 1999)