An Analysis of Pragmatic Sarcasm in Political Debate
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study investigates the pragmatic use of sarcasm in the Brexit discussions of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The choice of this subject is based on the presumption that sarcasm has become an important component of political discourse. The objectives of the study are to identify the most prevalent pragmatic structures for using sarcasm in political discussions, to ascertain whether or not using sarcasm in political debates constitutes an act of negativity, and to demonstrate whether or not there are distinctive patterns in the formulation of sarcasm. The following is hypothesized in light of the objectives established: Assuming that the speaker adheres to the CP, several speech acts materialize to produce sardonic statements. 2- Some of the recommended pragmatic sarcasm structures are heavily used in Boris' political debates. 3- Sarcasm is constantly used as a cutting verbal weapon in political debates and is always manufactured on purpose. Sarcasm reflects bad impacts. The data was gathered from political debates in which British Prime Minister Boris Johnson participated, and the sarcastic analysis model was based on the speech act model developed by Searle in 1969, the pragmatic structures of sarcasm model developed by Camp in 2012, and the classification of pragmatic functions of sarcasm developed by Attrado in 2001. The study comes to some notable conclusions, such as the fact that sarcasm can convey a variety of signals, including a negative attitude, and that particular sarcasm structures are employed more frequently than others.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 793–826. doi: 10.1016/ S0378-2166(99)00070-3.
Attardo, S. 2001. Say not to Say: new perspectives in miscommunication. In Anolli L., R.
Camp, (2008): Showing, Telling, and Seeing: Metaphor and ‘Poetic’ Language. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic, and Communication, vol. 3: A Figure of Speech [Online], ed. E. Camp, pp 1–24.
Carston, Robyn (2002): Thoughts and Utterances (Oxford: Blackwell).
Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2011). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Dews, S., Kaplan, J., & Winner, E. (1995). Why not say it directly – The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes, 19, 347–367. doi:10.1080/01638539509544922
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Izett, C. D. (2005). Irony as Persuasive Communication. In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.
Grice, H. (1978), Further Notes on Logic and Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Haiman, J. (1998).Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Katyayan, J. (2019). Sarcasm Detection Approaches For English Language. Smart Techniques for Smarter Planet. Isnb: 978-3-030-03131-2. Pp.167-183
Myers Roy, A. (1981). The function of irony in discourse. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 1(4), 407–423. doi:10.1515/text.1.1981.1.4.407.