On the Discourse of Satire: Towards a Stylistic Model of Satirical Humor (Linguistic Approaches to Literature, 2)

257 Pages·2016·1.75 MB·English

by  Paul Simpson

<DOCINFOAUTHOR""TITLE"OntheDiscourseofSatire:Towardsastylisticmodelofsatiricalhumour"SUBJECT"LinguisticApproachestoLiterature,Volume2"KEYWORDS""SIZEHEIGHT"220"WIDTH"150"VOFFSET"4">
OntheDiscourseofSatire
Linguistic Approaches to Literature
LinguisticApproachestoLiterature(LAL)providesaninternationalforumfor
researchers who believe that the application of linguistic methods leads to a
deeperandmorefar-reachingunderstandingofmanyaspectsofliterature.The
emphasis will be on pragmatic approaches intersecting with areas such as
discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, ethnolinguistics, rhetoric, philosophy,
cognitivelinguistics,psycholinguisticsandstylistics.
Editors
GerardJ.Steen WillievanPeer PeterVerdonk
FreeUniversityAmsterdam UniversityofMunich UniversityofAmsterdam
AdvisoryEditorialBoard
TimothyR.Austin PaisleyLivingston
LoyolaUniversityChicago UniversityofCopenhagen
DouglasBiber ColinMartindale
NorthernArizonaUniversity UniversityofMaine
LubomirDolezel SaraMills
UniversityofToronto SheffieldHalamUniversity
DonaldC.Freeman MickShort
UniversityofSouthernCalifornia LancasterUniversity
HaraldFricke MichaelToolan
UniversityofFribourg UniversityofBirmingham
RaymondW.GibbsJr. ReuvenTsur
UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz TelAvivUniversity
RachelGiora JeanJacquesWeber
TelAvivUniversity UniversityCentreLuxemburg
Volume2
OntheDiscourseofSatire:Towardsastylisticmodelofsatiricalhumour
byPaulSimpson
On the Discourse of Satire
Towards a stylistic model of satirical humour
Paul Simpson
Queen’sUniversityBelfast
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany
Amsterdam(cid:1)/(cid:1)Philadelphia
TM Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirements
8
ofAmericanNationalStandardforInformationSciences–Permanence
ofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,ansiz39.48-1984.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Simpson,Paul,1959-
Onthediscourseofsatire:towardsastylisticmodelofsatiricalhumour/
PaulSimpson.
p. cm.(LinguisticApproachestoLiterature,issn1569–3112;v.2)
Includesbibliographicalreferences.
1.Discourseanalysis,Literary.2.Satire--Historyandcriticism--
Theory,etc.I.Title.II.Series.
P302.5.S56 2003
808’.0014-dc21 2003055682
isbn9027233330(Eur.)/1588114392(US)(Hb;alk.paper)
isbn9027233349(Eur.)/1588114406(US)(Pb;alk.paper)
©2003–JohnBenjaminsB.V.
Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyform,byprint,photoprint,microfilm,or
anyothermeans,withoutwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCo.·P.O.Box36224·1020meAmsterdam·TheNetherlands
JohnBenjaminsNorthAmerica·P.O.Box27519·Philadelphiapa19118-0519·usa
Table of contents
Preface vii
Acknowledgements xi
Listoffigures xiii
Chapter1
Introduction 1
1.1 Satireashumorousdiscourse 1
1.2 Themodel:Inbrief,andinabstract 7
1.3 Aboutthisbook 11
Chapter2
Linguisticapproachestohumour 15
2.1 Introduction 15
2.2 Linguisticapproachestohumour 16
2.3 TheSemanticScriptTheoryofHumour 29
2.4 TheGeneralTheoryofVerbalHumourandbeyond 37
2.5 Reviewandconclusions 44
Chapter3
Literary-criticalapproachestosatiricalhumour 47
3.1 Introduction 47
3.2 Literary-criticalapproachestosatiricalhumour 48
3.3 Problemsandissuesinliterary-criticalapproaches 57
3.4 Summaryandextension 63
Chapter4
Satireasdiscourse 69
4.1 Introduction 69
4.2 Satireasadiscursivepractice 72
 Tableofcontents
4.3 Satireasironywithinirony 90
4.4 Satire,irony,discourse:Applyingthemodelofanalysis 97
4.5 Summaryandconclusions 108
Chapter5
Waysofdoingsatire 111
5.1 Introduction 111
5.2 Theoreticalpreliminaries:Satire,parodyandirony 113
5.3 Metonymicandmetaphoricsatiricalmethod 125
5.4 Conclusions 149
Chapter6
Satiricaluptake 153
6.1 Introduction 153
6.2 Amodelforsatiricaluptake:Habermasand“universal
pragmatics” 158
6.3 Validityclaimsandsatiricaluptake 165
6.4 Summary 185
Chapter7
Whensatiregoeswrong 187
7.1 Introduction 187
7.2 Developingacasestudy:AlanClarkvs.theEveningStandard 188
7.3 Analysis,overviewandcommentary 194
7.4 Extensionandsummary 205
Chapter8
Analysingsatireasdiscourse 211
8.1 Overview 211
8.2 Extension 214
8.3 Development 218
References 221
Nameindex 233
Subjectindex 237
Preface
I suppose it would be accurate to say that the “idea” for this book arose out
of an experience during a university seminar which took place, alarmingly,
overtwodecadesago.Iwasthenstillafresh-facedandfollically-unchallenged
undergraduate reading a degree in literature and linguistics, and the episode
inquestionoccurredduringtheweekwhenwewere“doing”that(in)famous
Anglo-Irish writer, JonathanSwift. Swift of course cannotbe “done”without
some referenceto his famous skit, the “ModestProposal”,in which an unas-
suming personaurgesthe eating of children in orderto solvethe problemof
Irish overpopulation.A programme advocating the lessening by cannibalism
of“thenumberofPapistsamongus”provedtobeascontentiousahotpotato,
sotospeak,intheNorthernIrelandofthelatenineteenseventiesasitnodoubt
wasineighteenthcenturyDublin.AstoSwift’sironicpurposeintheskit,ev-
eryone, bar one student, reached a satirical interpretation. Unusually for an
otherwise parochial undergraduate community, the student who “didn’t get
it”happenedtohavebeenbornandraisedseveralthousandmilesawayfrom
Northern Ireland. His objection to Swift was resolutely framed: the proposal
was “disgusting” and that if this was the best Ireland could do literary-wise,
thenitwasaverypoorshow.Thetutor’sriposte tothis wasperhapsthepre-
dictableone.ButSwiftdidn’treallymeanit,itwasliterature,itwas,well,ironic.
Towhichthestudentreplied,withinexorablelogic,thatofcoursehemeantit
because hesaid it.Andsoitwenton,asan everwideninginterpretivechasm
pushed the two positions further and further apart. Some twenty five years
later–suchitseemsisthenecessarygestationperiodformyacademicoutput
these days– I came tothe ideaof a project which exploredthe interpretative
chasmbetweenthetwopositionstakenupinthatseminar.No-onewaswrong
in that interchange, although no-onewas completelyright either; both argu-
mentscouldbe sustainedwithsomedegreeofvalidity.Quite whysuch adu-
alityofinterpretationispossible,andwhatthatsaysabouttheparticularform
ofdiscoursethatissatiricalhumour,isoneofthemainpreoccupationsofthis
monograph.
 Preface
Thebookcomesprincipallyoutoftheacademictraditionofmodernstylis-
tics.Thatsimplymeansthatitappliestotextavarietyofmodelsoflanguage,
linguisticsandpragmatics.Whilethattraditionreflectsbestthetypeofmeth-
odsusedandthesortsofanalyticframeworksapplied,thisstudydepartsfrom
muchotherstylisticworkinthatitsprincipalemphasisisneitherspecifically,
nornecessarily,onliterarydiscourse.Theemphasisis,rather,onsatire’sstatus
as a culturally situated discursive practice. This direction has not been taken
becauseofanyantipathytowards“classical”literatureortowardsthepractice
ofliterarycriticism.Itissimplythatsatire’s“everydayness”asavibrantanddy-
namicformofverbalhumourhasbeensignificantlyneglectedintermsofthe
amountofattentionithasreceivedwithin theacademe.Itisindeedacentral
argumentofthisbookthata“non-literarystylistics”ofsatireismuchneeded,
simplybecausecontinuedinterestoverthedecadesincanonicallyliteraryex-
ampleshastendedtodrawaveilovertheday-to-dayfunctionsofsatireincon-
temporarysocialanddiscoursecontexts.Thatsaid,itishopedthatthebroad
designofthe modelproposedissufficientlywatertighttheoretically tobe ap-
pliedacrosstothecanonofclassicalsatire,althoughsuchastudyisofcourse
wellbeyondtheremitofthepresentproject.
Writingabouthumourcanbeastrangeandsomewhatdisorientatingbusi-
ness.Humourisgluedintosocial,culturalandevennationalcontexts,sowrit-
ingamonographwhichhopefullydrawsaninternationalreadershipforcesone
totreadafinelinewhen“unpacking”humourtexts;afinelinethatisbetween,
ontheonehand,statingtheobviousintheexplicationofhumorousmaterial,
or,ontheother,riskinglosingreadersbecausethetopicallyandculturallysitu-
atedreferenceswithinthosetextshavenotbeenmadesufficientlytransparent.
In this book, although the data derives primarily from humour practices in
Britain, Ireland and the USA, the theoretical model advanced is designed to
havegeneralisedapplication.In the designofthat modelIhope tohavecon-
textualisedsufficientlythedatasoastomakeitaccessiblewithoutinsultingthe
intelligenceofmyreaders.ButpleaseforgivemeifIdo.
Another thing about writing about humour, a fact brought home to me
midway through this project, is that while humorous texts become progres-
sivelylessamusingthemoreonepaysattentiontothem,researchonhumour
concomitantly starts to seem very strange indeed. I was struck particularly
by one well-intentioned experimental study, written many years ago, on the
impact of conflict on the basic humour mechanism. Victims of war-induced
traumahadflashedbeforethemaseriesofcardscontaining“jokes”,towhich
theirresponseswerenoted.Asitturnedout,thewarveteransreallydidn’tfind
the experience very funny at all; in any case, the jokes themselves are “clas-
Preface 
sified” and now rest with the relevant Department of Defence of the august
internationalpowerfromwhichtheresearchstemmed.Bydintofcuriousco-
incidence,aroundthetimeofthepublicationofthatarticle, anepisodefrom
the renowned Monty Python television series featured a sketch where some-
one had discovered a joke so funny that it had the power to wipe out entire
armies. So potent was this joke that parts of it had to be shown on cards by
individualsoldiersinrelaysoasnottoendangerthetroopsonone’sownside.
Afterspendingsomuchtimeonhumourresearch,Ifranklycannottellwhich
ofthe twoscenarios,the academicstudyorthe Pythoncomedysketch, isthe
morebizarre.
Such is the nature of research into humour. An editorial commentmade
many years ago in the first issue of the journal Humor points to a central
dilemmainhumourresearch;namely,thathopingtoderiveamusementfrom
an academicstudy of humour is akin tohoping to enjoygastronomicallythe
recipe fordelicious meal.Well, the presentbook offersa fairly largish menu,
comprisingseveralcourses,ofaveryparticulartypeofcuisine.Icanonlyhope
thatthis“foodforthought”doesnotspoilyourfurtherenjoymentofthemeal.