Finding Irony: An Introduction of the Verbal Irony Procedure (VIP)

Burgers, Christian; Mulken, M.J.P. van; Schellens, Peter Jan

doi:10.1080/10926488.2011.583194

Cited by 91 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, we aimed to create a reliable tool for the semiotic analysis of deliberate metaphor in which analysts' intuitions do not play a role, and that can therefore yield reproducible results. In this respect, our method can be compared to other identification procedures, such as MIP (Pragglejaz Group 2007) and MIPVU (Steen et al 2010) for linguistic metaphor identification; VIP for verbal irony identification (Burgers et al 2011), and HIP for hyperbole identification (Burgers et al 2016).…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

DMIP: A Method for Identifying Potentially Deliberate Metaphor in Language Use

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper introduces the Deliberate Metaphor Identification Procedure (DMIP), a method for the systematic and reliable identification of potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. We take a semiotic approach to deliberate metaphor, and propose that, on a semiotic level, the distinction between potentially deliberate and non-deliberate metaphor hinges on the question whether the source domain functions as a distinct referent in the meaning of a metaphorical utterance. We present DMIP and illustrate the procedure in practice on the basis of the analysis of a series of real-world examples. We also report on inter-rater reliability testing. Finally, we discuss the implications of adopting DMIP as a tool for deliberatemetaphor analysis, and point out how this approach can contribute to the further development of Deliberate Metaphor Theory.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

DMIP: A Method for Identifying Potentially Deliberate Metaphor in Language Use

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Colston 1997Colston , 2002Colston and Keller 1998;Colston and O'Brien 2000;Burgers et al 2011Burgers et al , 2012Kapogianni 2011Kapogianni , 2013Kapogianni , 2016a, whether verbal or non-verbal, necessarily as recognised by the speaker (vide the notion of truthfulness and the belief-based approach endorsed here). 23 As is argued here, the latter aspect translates into the speaker's overt untruthfulness (transparent to the hearer who shares the same context).…”

Section: What Verisimilar Irony Is Notmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, even to date, most of the theoretically-oriented linguistic literature, in tandem with experimental research, devoted to irony has been based on isolated examples, invented or anecdotal, which are further taken for granted and circulated in the scholarship. Nonetheless, recent years have seen a steady flow of corpora-based research on irony, which can be divided into several strands depending on the authors' data collection methods (see also Burgers et al 2011). Some studies (e.g.…”

Section: Corpus Data In the Research On Ironymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likely, in order to avoid this personal bias, Burgers et al (2011Burgers et al ( , 2012Burgers et al ( , 2013) propose a discourse selection procedure, based on several interpretative steps: dividing discourse into units of analysis, determining that a unit is evaluative, constructing a scale of evaluation about the referent and placing on it the intended and literal evaluation, and deciding if the intended evaluation is relevant to the context and co-text (if it is, the clause is ironic). However, the model is premised on an assumption that ironic utterances are inherently evaluative (see also Partington 2006Partington , 2007.…”

Section: Corpus Data In the Research On Ironymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Irony of Irony: Irony Based on Truthfulness

Dynel

2017

Corpus Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on a corpus of academic examples, this paper addresses the vexing notion of ''verisimilar irony'' from a philosophical-pragmatic perspective. This species of irony escapes a neo-Gricean definition of prototypical irony based on the assumption that the speaker utters what he/she believes to be false (cf. untruthfulness) in order to convey an implicit message which is to be gleaned on the basis of meaning opposition. Verisimilar irony, as defined here, relies on the speaker's expression of his/her evaluative belief at the level of Grice's what is said or implicated (if another figure is involved). A proposal is put forward that verisimilar irony does rest on untruthfulness, manifesting itself in as if implicature (untruthful implicature serving as an intermediate interpretative step) caused by flouting the Relation maxim. This as if implicature, in turn, necessitates meaning reversal so that the ultimate evaluative implicature can be inferred. In the course of the paper, the previous examples of verisimilar irony found in the scholarship (constituting the present corpus) are critically revisited to indicate that the spectrum of forms the focal type of irony can take is narrower than other authors have suggested. It is shown that some of the examples claimed to represent what is here called ''verisimilar irony'' either are not irony at all or represent other categories of the focal figure.

show abstract

“…In contrast, other scholars have proposed that the description of irony in thought can be simplified to not necessarily include constructs like echoes and sources of statement or pretended and real speakers. These approaches propose to view irony in thought as a certain propositional structure, involving a shift in evaluative valence (Burgers et al, 2011;Kapogianni, 2016;Partington, 2007), and this is the perspective we will be developing in the rest of this chapter.…”

Section: Irony In Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%