1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 25, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Many scholars have claimed that satire is a genre. At the same time, however, it is also widely acknowledged that satire has changed over the centuries, that it has taken various forms and that it still appears in a variety of other genres. Far from being a drawback in identifying satire as a genre, I will claim that variability is a natural property of genres if the latter are conceived of as dynamic cognitive categories that emerge out of a complex interplay of heterogeneous factors which cluster differently under the effect of different contextual and cotextual attractors. I will assume that, in satire, these factors include a range of linguistic and rhetorical devices which interact in different ways to dynamically bring about specifically intended effects. I will further claim that understanding satire is a context-sensitive complex process which implies setting up and maintaining multiple mental representations, and drawing pragmatic inferences.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18023.ber
2020-01-10
2023-05-28

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.18023.ber
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baicchi, Annalisa
    2015 Constructing learning as a complex adaptive system: Psycholinguistic evidence from L2 learners of English. Heidelberg: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1986 The problem of speech genre. InCaryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (eds.), Speech genres and other late essays, 60–102. Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe & Joanna Bybee
    2009 Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning59. 1–26. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Bertuccelli Papi, Marcella
    2003 Cognitive complexity and the lexicon. InLavinia Merlini Barbaresi (ed.), Complexity in language and text, 67–116. Pisa: Plus.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 2018 Irony as a complex attitude. Lingue e Linguaggi26. 59–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bertuccelli Papi, Marcella & Alessandro Lenci
    2007 Lexical complexity and the texture of meaning. InMarcella Bertuccelli Papi, Gloria Cappelli & Silvia Masi (eds.), Lexical complexity: Theoretical assessment and translational perspectives, 15–33. Pisa: Plus.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, Douglas
    1988 Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  8. 1989 A typology of English texts. Linguistics27(1) 3–43. 10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chandler, Daniel
    1997 An introduction to genre theory. www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/intgenre/chandler_genre_theory.pdf/ (28 January 2019).
  10. Dryden, John
    1693 Discourse Concerning the Original and Progress of Satire. InA. B. Chambers, William Frost, and Vinton A. Dearing (eds.) 1974, The works of John Dryden, vol. 4: Poems 1693–1696, 3–90. Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, Nick & Diane Larsen-Freeman
    (eds.) 2006 Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics – Introduction to the Special Issue. Applied Linguistics27(4). 558–589. 10.1093/applin/aml028
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml028 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fife, Jane
    2016 Peeling The Onion: Satire and the complexity of audience responses. Rhetoric Review35(4). 322–334. 10.1080/07350198.2016.1215000
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2016.1215000 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fludernik, Monika
    1996 Towards a natural narratology. New York/London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203432501
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203432501 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2000 Genres, text types or discourse modes?Style34(2). 274–292.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fowler, Alastair
    1982 Kinds of literature: An introduction to the theory of genres and modes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 1989 Genre. InErik Barnouw (ed.), International encyclopedia of communications, vol.2, 215–17. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Frye, Northorp
    1957 The anatomy of criticism. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400866908
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400866908 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gibbs, Raymond & Herbert Colston
    2012 Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139168779
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168779 [Google Scholar]
  19. Griffin, Dustin
    1994 Satire: A critical reintroduction. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hopper, Paul
    1988 Emergent grammar. InMichael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, 155–175. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Jordan, J. Scott, Narayanan Srinivasan & Cees van Leeuwen
    (eds.) 2015 The role of complex systems theory in cognitive science. Cognitive Processing16(4). 16–315. Special Issue on Complexity in Brain and Cognition. 10.1007/s10339‑015‑0739‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0739-0 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kreuz, Roger J. & Richard M. Roberts
    1993 On satire and parody: The importance of being ironic. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity8(2). 97–109. 10.1207/s15327868ms0802_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0802_2 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuyper, Kathleen
    (ed.) 2012 Prose literary terms and concepts. Britannica Guide to Literary Elements, New York: Britannica Educational Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuyper, Koenraad
    1984 The nature of satire. Poetics13(6). 459–473. 10.1016/0304‑422X(84)90018‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(84)90018-4 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ifantidou, Elly
    2011 Genres and pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics43(1). 327–346. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.016 [Google Scholar]
  26. Larsen-Freeman, Diane
    1997 Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics18. 141–165. 10.1093/applin/18.2.141
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2011 Complex dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics?Language Teaching45(2). 202–214. 10.1017/S0261444811000061
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000061 [Google Scholar]
  28. Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Lynne Cameron
    2008 Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Longacre, Robert E.
    1983 The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia
    (ed.) 2003 Complexity in language and text. Pisa: Plus.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Paltridge, Brian
    1995 Working with genre: A pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics24(4). 393–406. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00058‑M
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00058-M [Google Scholar]
  32. Pfaff, Kerry L. & Raymond Gibbs
    1997 Authorial intentions in understanding satirical texts. Poetics25(1). 45–70. 10.1016/S0304‑422X(97)00006‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(97)00006-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ritchie, David
    2005 Frame shifting in humour and irony. Metaphor and Symbol20(4). 275–294. 10.1207/s15327868ms2004_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2004_3 [Google Scholar]
  34. Rosch, Eleanor
    1973 Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology4(3). 328–350. 10.1016/0010‑0285(73)90017‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  35. Shepherd, Michael & Carolyn Watters
    1998 The evolution of cybergenres. InProceedings of the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol.2, 97–109. Hawaii.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Simpson, Paul
    2003 On the discourse of satire. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.2 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sperber, Dan & Deidre Wilson
    [1986]1995 Relevance theory. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Stam, Robert
    2000 Film theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Steen, Gerard
    2011 Genre between the humanities and the science. InMarcus Callies, Wolfram R. Keller & Astrid Lohoefer (eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive science: Examining the interdisciplinary potential of cognitive approaches in linguistics and literary studies, 21–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.30.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.30.03ste [Google Scholar]
  40. Stukker, Ninke, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen
    2016 Genre in language, discourse and cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110469639
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110469639 [Google Scholar]
  41. Swales, John M.
    1990 Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. The Onion
    The Onion 2006 “Poverty-stricken Africans receive desperately needed Bibles” 42:11.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Tsiplakou, Stavroula & Georgios Floros
    2013 Never mind the text type, here’s textual force: Towards a pragmatic reconceptualization of text types. Journal of Pragmatics45(1). 119–130. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  44. Turner, Mark
    1994 Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Virtanen, Tunja
    1992 Issues of text typology. Narrative – a “basic”type of text?Text12(2). 293–310. 10.1515/text.1.1992.12.2.293
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1992.12.2.293 [Google Scholar]
  46. Werlich, Egon
    1976 A text grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle&Meyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Wilson, Deidre & Dan Sperber
    2012 Explaining irony. InDeidre Wilson and Dan Sperber (eds.), Meaning and Relevance, 123–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008 [Google Scholar]
  48. Yus, Francisco
    2016 Propositional attitude, affective attitude and irony comprehension. Pragmatics and Cognition23(1). 92–116. 10.1075/pc.23.1.05yus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.1.05yus [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18023.ber
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): complex systems; emergence; genre; pragmatic inferences; satire

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error