Purposes of Sarcasm Review of Related Theories
12
cannot be understood as easy as literal language. Thus, the use of pragmatics is needed in this study.
In his paper Logic and Conversation, Grice discusses about how to analyze ironic language by creating a new model in which the literal interpretation
of an utterance is inverted to find its intended meaning. Two major theories which appears are
“mention and pretense theory”. Mention theory, also called echoic
theory, states that a sarcastic utterance does not use language but rather echoes a belief that is not hold by the speaker at the time of the utterance Kreuz
Glucksberg, 1989; Sperber Wilson, 1981; Wilson Sperber, 2002.
Meanwhile, pretense theory, which attempts to
modify Grice’s account, argues that the speaker pretends to be an unwise person by speaking sarcastically and
addressing a naive audience but intends that the hearer will see through the pretense to understand the speaker’s true attitude toward the fictional speaker and
the belief expressed H. H. Clark Gerrig, 1984.
According to Grice 1975, the cooperative principle can be divided into four maxims. The maxims are maxim quality do not say things that are false or
for which you lack evidence, maxim quantity do not give too much or too little information, maxim relation say things that are relevant to the conversation at
hand, and maxim of manner avoid obscurity and ambiguity; be brief and orderly. Speakers are said to be flouting a maxim when they choose not to
follow the rules in order to cue the listener in to a hidden meaning, called an
implicature. This theory proves that sarcasm commonly used by violating maxim
quality since sarcasm often express the opposite of what has been said or happens. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
13
One of the areas that pragmatics concerns about is the contextual meaning 1996: 3. To dig the contextual meaning of a linguistic expression,
some pragmatic tools are needed. Since sarcasm is mostly contextual, it is necessary to know about context and co-text to reveal the meaning behind. Co-
text is any linguistic material that accompanies the referent expression. For example,
“Chelsea plays in Champion Cup 2012”. The word Chelsea above is the referring expression and the co-
text is “plays in Champion Cup 2012.” This co-text will limit the range of possible interpretation
for the phrase Chelsea, making it easier to result a proper interpretation.
Co-text is part of the broader environment where the referring expression is used. This environment is called context
, which is “perhaps more easily recognized as having powerful impact on how referring expressions are to be
interpreted” 1996: 21. As the source data is taken from conversations in TV series, it is
important to relate sarcasm with speech acts which still a part of pragmatics. Mc Donald stated that sarcasm is an indirect form of speech intentionally used to
produce a particular dramatic effect on the listener or sometimes it is used to convey implicit criticism with a particular victim as a target. 1999: 486
However in sarcasm, the action that the speaker wants to show is
performed through utterances that generally called as speech acts. Even though
the speaker wants the listener to do something or have the effect of something, it PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
14
is not by the speaker’s force but it is understood through the utterance that the speaker produces.
According to Krikmann 2005, the incongruity theory presupposes an
inconsistency or contradiction in a humorous text. It is said that the interpreter of a joke will first tackle the discourse on the basis of the most salient or accessible.
After solving the problem successfully, the interpreter experiences emotions of surprise and satisfaction that lead to laughter. Kant 1790 considered that the
element of surprise was necessary to induce laughter. He claimed that laughter occurred when something that we did not expect happened. However, one of the
drawbacks of this theory is that it does not explain other cases of incongruity which do not invoke humour. Other rhetorical figures, such as metaphors or
sarcasm are also considered as instances of incongruity but, unlike jokes, they do not seem to generate humorous effects. It does not account for other cases of
incongruity beyond the realm of humour and, as a result, it needs to be reinforced.