Cover not available
Part of
The Pragmatics of Irony and Banter
Edited by Manuel Jobert and Sandrine Sorlin
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 30] 2018
► pp. 1–18

Chapter 6
Simulating ignorance

Irony and banter on Congreve’s stage

| University of Lyon 3 – France
This study reflects the importance of in staged discourse. It shows how in late seventeenth-century Restoration comedy, both and rely on the simulation of ignorance in order to achieve a common satirical aim. By offering an opportunity to serve up evaluative comments which when taken literally are erroneous, ironic discourse and serve to expose a from the norm. However, these discourse practices also serve to those who, by failing to detect the discrepancy between literal and intended meaning, fail to question those erroneous evaluations. Ultimately it appears that Congreve’s satirical target is above all those who lack judgement, those who have impaired vision, what Currie (2006) has called “a ”.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Irony and in
  • 3.Impaired vision and erroneous evaluations
  • 4.Irony in : between speaker and audience
  • 5.Irony, , and the simulation of ignorance as a
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.30.06man
References (22)
References
Abrams, Meyer Howard. 1957. A Glossary of Literary Terms. Orlando FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert & Gerrig, Richard. 1984. On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(1): 121–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Congreve, William. 1693. The Old Batchelour. In Herbert Davis (ed.). 1967. The Complete Plays of William Congreve. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1694. The Double-Dealer. In Herbert Davis (ed.). 1967. The Complete Plays of William Congreve. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1695. Love for Love. In Herbert Davis (ed.). 1967. The Complete Plays of William Congreve. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1700. The Way of the World. In Herbert Davis (ed.). 1967. The Complete Plays of William Congreve. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Currie, George. 2006. Why irony is pretence. In The Architecture of the Imagination, Shaun Nichols (ed.), 111–133. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Henry Watson. (1926) 1965. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., O’Brien, Jennifer and Doolittle, Shelley. 1995. Inferring Meanings that are not intended: Speakers’ intentions and irony comprehension. Discourse Processes 20: 187–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 1995. On irony and negation. Discourse Processes 19: 239–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. On our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds), 41–58, New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9: Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 113–128. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel. 1785. A Dictionary of the English Language: in which the words are deduced from their originals, and illustrated in their different significations by examples from the best writers: to which are prefixed, a history of the language, and an English grammar. London [on line], [URL], last accessed 10 December 2015.
Keltner, Dacher, Capps, Lisa, Kring, Ann M., Young, Randall C., & Heerey, Erin A. 2001. Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin 127(2): 229–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mandon, Natalie. 2013. “Polite company”? Offensive discourse in William Congreve’s Comedies. In Aspects of Linguistic Impoliteness, Denis Jamet & Manuel Jobert (eds), 94–108. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul. 2003. On the Discourse of Satire [Linguistic Approaches to Literature 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “That’s not ironic, that’s just stupid”: Towards an eclectic account of the discourse of irony. In The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 210], Marta Dynel (ed.), 33–50, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1981. Irony and the use-mention distinction. In Peter Cole (ed), Radical Pragmatics, p. 295–318. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ubersfeld, Anne. 1996. Lire le théâtre III. Le Dialogue de théâtre. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Statham, Simon & Rocío Montoro
2019. The year’s work in stylistics 2018. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 28:4 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.