Colston y Gibbs. (1998). Analogy and Irony. Rebutal to 'Rebutal Analogy'.

8/12/2019 Colston y Gibbs. (1998). Analogy and Irony. Rebutal to 'Rebutal Analogy'.

1/8

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Nacional Colombia]On: 08 March 2012, At: 12:45Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Metaphor and SymbolPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmet20

Analogy and Irony: Rebuttal to "Rebuttal

Analogy"Herbert L. Colston & Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.

Available online: 17 Nov 2009

To cite this article:Herbert L. Colston & Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. (1998): Analogy and Irony: Rebuttal to

"Rebuttal Analogy", Metaphor and Symbol, 13:1, 69-75

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1301_5

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand,or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1301_5http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmet20


2/8

METAPHOR AND SYMBOL, 13 1),69-75CopyrightO 1998,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

METAMETAPHORICAL ISSUES

Analogy and Irony:Rebuttal to Rebuttal AnalogyHerbert L Colston and Raymond Mr Gibbs, Jr.

University o Califarnia Santa Cruz

A recent theoretical note published in Metaphor and Symbolic Activity (WhaleyHolloway, 1996 argued for a distinction between analogies used for persuasion, orrebuttal analogies and standard forms of analogy such as explanatory or expressiveones (Gentner, 1982,1983 .Whaley and Holloway proposed that two characteristicsdistinguish rebuttal analogies-argument and social attack. In this article, we take upthese claims concerning rebuttal analogy and argue for an alternative, more encom-passing view that distinguishes rebuttal analogies from other forms of analogy viathe presence of irony. We propose that the two distinguishing factors suggested byWhaley and Holloway are instead reflecting the operation of irony in analogy. Notingthe fundamental importance of irony in rebuttal analogies enables us to account forthe various pragmatic functions of rebuttal analogies and why these forms expressnegative emotions.

Whaley and Holloway (1996) recently argued that rebuttal analogies should bedistinguished from more traditional kinds of analogies in that rebuttal analogieshave the unique features of argument and social attack. For instance, an economistmight use the analogy Giving t x breaks to the rich is like putting sprinklers in arainforest to argue with or socially attack an advocate of trickle-down economics.Although defining rebuttal analogies in this way highlights some of the importantpragmatic functions these unique analogies can perform, such as to persuade, argue,or socially attack another person and his or her view, Whaley and Holloway didnot explain why these analogies have these particular properties. We propose that

Requests for reprints should be sent to Raymond W Gibbs, Jr., Department of Psychology,University of California,SantaCruz,CA 95064


3/8

7 COLSTON ND GIBBS

these features are symptoms of a broader distinguishing characteristic of rebuttalanalogies-ironyIrony functions in rebuttal analogies in much the same way that familiarityfunctions in explanatory analogies. In an explanatory analogy, less familiar orless well-understood domain is paired with a better understood or more familiardomain to explain the nature of that poorly understood domain (Gentner, 1982,1983). The more familiar and specific domain is considered the base domain andthe less understood domain is called the target domain The base domain is usuallythe latter domain mentioned in the analogy, and it extends its structure toward thetarget domain. The target domain in turn is usually mentioned first in the analogyand typically borrows the structure of the base domain.For instance, if someone wanted to explain computer software to a lawyer, heor she might use the analogy An operating system is to software as a constitutionis to law. These separate domains, law and software, share an internal structuralpattern. Constitutions are central bodies of law that control how other laws andgovernmental institutions and procedures function. Operating systems are centralbodies of software that control how other software applications and documentsfunction. In using this analogy to explain computer software, the relation betweenthe elements in the base domain (law) will come to be seen between the elementsin the target domain (software).In rebuttal analogies a similar process occurs, but here the relation between theelements is ironic. That is, in rebuttal analogies a seemingly nonironic, unseen-as-ironic, or simply less ironic target domain is paired with a clearly ironic basedomain, so that the ironic relation between the base domain elements is extendedto the target domain elements.

In every one of the examples cited by Whaley and Holloway (1996, seefollowing), the base domains exhibit clear and poignant cases of situational irony(Gibbs, 1994; Lucariello, 1994). The base domains contain some characteristicsthat in some way are contradictory to or incompatible with some other charac-teristics of that domain, such that an ironic state of affairs exists. The ironicstructures from each of these base domains are then extended to point out theanalogous, although less obvious, ironic structure in the corresponding targetdomains. For instance:

1. Besides, it's absurd that we only have an oral tablet to treat vomiting. It'slike treating diarrhea with a suppository (Hecht, 1991, p. 10).Base: Treating diarrhea with a suppositoryTarget: Treating vomiting with an oral tablet


4/8

Irony The irony in both domains lies in administering a medication viameans that the ailment, by its very nature, will nullify.

2. 'We may disagree as to just how much a 1,000-year-old tree is worth, butit sure as hell isn't 'zero.' A 1,000-year-old tree is not 'replaced' by five orsix seedlings. That's like saying your grandmother is 'replaced' by sixsperm cells (Roberts, 1992, p. 20).Base Replacing your grandmother with six sperm cellsTarget Replacing a 1,000-year-old tree with six seedlingsIrony As it is ironic to equate the rich experience and wealth of a seniorcitizen with that of some unfertilized eggs, so is it ironic to equate the valueof a 1,000-year-old tree with a few seedlings.

3 Secretary of State George Schultz is raising the possibility that the admini-stration will seek authority for a quick vote on military aid if the currentcease-fire in Nicaragua breaks down. But house speaker Jim Wright says'That's like discussing terms for divorce during a wedding ceremony '(Associated Press, 1988).Base Discussing terms of divorce during a wedding ceremonyTarget Discussing military aid during a cease-fireIrony It is ironic to discuss the terms of ending a relationship during aceremony that involves exchanging vows of long-term commitment to thatrelationship. Analogously, it is ironic to discuss the use of weapons whileunder an agreement to not fight.

4. Northwestern University economist Robert Eisner, on Clinton's proposedspending cuts: 'It's like curing an overweight person by saying you'll cutoff his legs ' ( Clintonomics, 1992, p. A-14).Base Curing an overweight person by cutting off his legsTarget Curing a budget deficit by cutting growth investmentsIrony It is ironic to reduce a person's weight by removing the primaryanatomical structures with which the person could achieve that weight loss,as it is ironic to cut a budget deficit by reducing spending that would helpthat deficit.

5 'The White House trotted out Dick Darman, the budget director, to blastGovernor Clinton's deficit reduction. This is a man who's run $1 trillion


5/8

72 COLSTON ND GIBBS

238 million of deficits. Isn't that a little like the Boston Strangler criticizingstreet crime?'(Cable News Network, 1992 .Base The Boston Strangler criticizing street crimeTarget A person who ran huge deficits criticizing overspendingIrony It is ironic for a criminal to condemn crime because crime is thebehavior in which a criminal engages. It is analogously ironic for a personguilty of overspending to criticize that very behavior.

6 Lee Iacocca responds: 'And finally, they [Japanese automakers] say all ofour problems are our fault. That's like blaming our Army and our Navy forPearl Harbor because they weren't ready ' (National Broadcasting Com-pany, 1992 .

Base Blaming the U.S. Army and Navy for Pearl Harbor because theyweren't readyTarget Blaming the U.S. automakers for Japanese automakers' unfairbusiness practicesIrony It is ironic to blame the victim of an unwarranted preemptive attackfor receiving that attack just as it is ironic to blame the victim of unfairbusiness practices for suffering from those practices.

7 An inexperienced Secretary of Defense getting 'on-the-job training' is liketaking your first drink of water from a fire hose (National Public Radio,1989 .Base Taking your first drink of water from a fire hoseTarget An inexperienced Secretary of Defense getting on-the-job train-ingIrony Taking one's first drink of water from a fire hose is ironic becauseone cannot expect to get nourishment, especially for the first time, at thedelicate task of drinking when the water will be forthcoming with enoughpressure to knock a person down. It is equally ironic for a person to expectto gain job experience by taking on the enormously important task ofmanaging the world's most powerful armed forces.

8. 'Rape is rape,' Tess said. 'That's the damn trouble-people talk as if itwere some kind of sex, only less pleasant. It's like saying that if a guy jamsa hot dog down your throat and holds your nose until you swallow, that'sjust another way of having lunch ' (Friedman, 1992,p. 233 .


6/8

N LOGY ND IRONY 7

Base Calling a hot dog jammed down someone's throat with her nose heldshut until she swallows ust another way of having lunchTarget Calling rape just an unpleasant kind of sexIrony It is ironic in both domains to refer to a drastically violent behaviorwith euphemistically pleasant terms.

These observations strongly suggest that irony is a fundamental component ofrebuttal analogies. In fact, the very recognition of the incompatibility of what isexpected and what is presented motivates speakers in an argument to create rebuttalanalogies.Creating and appreciating any verbal irony, such as is seen in rebuttal analogies,requires a recognition of pretense (Clark Gerrig, 1984; Gibbs, 1994). Forexample, when a speaker says in the context of a rainstorm, What lovely weatherwe're having, he or she pretends to be an unseeing person (e.g., a weatherforecaster) and pretends to be talking to some person other than the actual listener(e.g., someone listening to the weather forecaster). When actual listeners recognizethis pretense, they should understand that the speaker is expressing a derogatoryattitude toward the idea expressed (e.g., that the weather is lovely), the imaginaryspeaker (e.g., the weather forecaster who gave the wrong forecast), and theimaginary listener (e.g., the person who heard the forecast and was gullible enoughto believe that it would hold true).As instances of verbal irony, rebuttal analogies should also involve recognitionof pretense for their creation and interpretation. Consider the example An inexpe-rienced Secretary of Defense getting 'on-the-job training' is like taking your firstdrink of water from a fire hose (National Public Radio, 1989). In making thisassertion, the speaker or writer has constructed a pretend, hypothetical scenario thathe or she wishes us to immediately recognize (e.g., that the Secretary of Defensereceiving on-the-job training is a similar domain to that of taking a drink from afire hose). The speaker is suggesting that, given this hypothetical scenario, onemight seriously assert that it is reasonable to take adrink from a fire hose. However,as we readily understand this level of meaning (the pretense), we contrast it withthe reality of knowing that taking a drink from a fire hose is, in most situations,patently absurd. Consequently, we recognize the irony of adopting the pretendcourse of action and by analogy infer that it is equally absurd for the Secretary ofDefense to receive on-the-job training.

In this general manner, rebuttal analogies such as those previously listed expresstheir ironic nature through pretense that speakers and listeners must mutuallyrecognize in order to interpret the speaker's rebuttal message.Several recent studies have demonstrated that irony is especially valuable incommunicatingridicule, condemnation, criticism, impoliteness, and other negative


7/8

7 COLSTON ND GIBBS

emotions (Clark Gerrig, 1984; Colston, 1997a, 1997b; Colston O'Brien, 1998;Dews Winner, 1995; Jorgensen, 1996; Roberts Kreuz, 1994). These findingsdovetail nicely with the idea that rebuttal analogies achieve many negative prag-matic goals including, as mentioned by Whaley and Holloway (1996), to argue orchallenge an opponent's claims and to socially attack or challenge an opponent. Itmakes good sense that rebuttal analogy conveys negative feelings given that ironyoften expresses negative emotions on the part of the speaker to the listener. Whaleyand Holloway made the claim that The level of attack on the opponent relatesdirectly to the degree of exaggeration in the base of the analogy. The moreexaggerated the base, the more ridicule the analogy creates (p. 165). This claim isexactly what one would predict from the nature of irony per se. Several recentstudies have also demonstrated that the extent to which many pragmatic functionsare performed is a direct function of the degree of contrast between the elementsof an ironic remark (Colston Keller, 1998; Colston O'Brien, 1998; RobertsKreuz, 1994).Given this pattern of similarity between irony by itself and irony usedin analogies, it may be t i t f u l to investigate if other such patterns exist.Although all cases of rebuttal analogy involve irony, it is not likely that all usesof irony in an analogy are rebuttals. There are cases in which speakers use analogyto highlight the irony of some assertion that is not strictly a rebuttal. Several ofthe examples listed previously fit this pattern. For instance, the use of oraltreatments for vomiting may not strictly be a claim made by a person that invitesa rebuttal. It could simply be a somewhat ironic state of affairs that exists in theworld. Therefore, the use of analogy to point out this irony is not strictly a caseof rebuttal against an overt claim; it is merely the use of analogy to point out asituational irony. However, had a doctor made a claim that an ill patient shouldtake an oral medication for vomiting, a frustrated companion might rebut thisadvice by using the analogy That's like prescribing a suppository for diarrhea.Here the analogy is clearly a case of rebuttal. In general, one type of analogy isironic (distinguishable, albeit with possible overlap, from explanatory and expres-sive analogy), and one type of ironic analogy rebuts arguments, but there are othertypes of ironic analogy.Our look at rebuttal analogies was motivated by a desire to point out the role ofirony in this kind of analogy. We feel it is important to consider the ironic natureof rebuttal analogies, for it explains not only the particular pragmatic functions thatthe analogies perform but also the magnitude with which they will be performed.We nevertheless wish to acknowledge the insights concerning rebuttal analogiesreported by Whaley and Holloway (1996). The distinction between rebuttal andother forms of analogy is an important contribution to the understanding ofanalogies and, as Whaley and Holloway pointed out, can help lead to betterunderstanding of the role of rebuttal analogies in persuasion.


8/8

ANALOGY AND IRONY 7

CKNOWLEDGMENTHerbertL. Colston is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Wiscon-sin-Parkside, Kenosha, W I 53141-2000 E-mail: [email protected] .

REFERENCESAssociated Press. (1988, March 25 ). Newswatch. Washin gton, DC: Author.Cable News Network. (1992, June 27). CNN capital gang. Atlanta, GA: Au thor.Clark, H. H., Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Jounurl of Experimental

Psychology: General, 113, 121-126.Clintonom ics made simple. (1992, November 1 5).San Franci sco Examiner, p. A-14.Colston, H. L. (1997a). I've never seen a n y h n g like it : Overstatement, understatemen t, and irony.Metaphor and Symbol, 12,43-58.Colston, H. L. (19 97b). Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: The pragmatic functions of ironic criticism.Discourse Processes, 23 25-45.Colston, H. L., Keller, S. B. (1998). You ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbo le in expressing

surprise. Manuscript submitted for publication.Colston, H. L., O'Brien, J. (1998). Contrast and pragmatics in Bgurative language: W hateverunderstatement can do, irony can do better. Manuscript submitted for publication.Dews, S., &W inner, E. (1995). Muting the m eaning: A social function of irony.Metaphorand SymbolicActivity, 10 3-19.Friedman, P. (1992). Inadmissible evidence. New York: Fine.Gentner, D. (1982). Are scientific analogies metaphors? In D. S.Miall (Ed.), Metaphor: Problems andperspectives (pp. 1 06 13 2) . Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities.Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapp ing: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7155-170.

Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Hecht, B. (1991, July). Ou t of joint. The New Republic, pp. 7-10.Jorgensen, J. (1996). The functions of sarcastic irony in speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 613 634 .Lucariello, J. (1994). Situational irony: A concept of events gone awry. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: General, 123, 129-145.National Broadcasting Company. (1992, January 10). NBC nightly news. New York: Author.National Public Radio. (1989, March 11). Weekend edition (No. 89031 1). Wash ington, DC: Auth or.Roberts, P. (1992, November 4). Zero-cut. Seattle Weekly, p. 20.Roberts, R. M., Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Why do people use figurative language? Psychological Science,5 159-163.Whaley, B. B., Holloway, R. L. (1996). Rebuttal analogy: A theoretical note. Metaphor andSymbolic Activity, 1 1, 161-167.

Colston y Gibbs. (1998). Analogy and Irony. Rebutal to 'Rebutal Analogy'.

Documents

Transcript of Colston y Gibbs. (1998). Analogy and Irony. Rebutal to 'Rebutal Analogy'.