Cover not available
Part of
Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 327–350

Chapter 12
Humour and irony in George Mikes’ How to be a Brit

| University of Zaragoza, Spain
Within relevance theory, and contrarily to classical formalist models, it is claimed that figurative language does not require any special processing route, other than the steps followed in the addressee’s inferential recognition of the speaker’s communicative intention made manifest through the message encoded in a certain context. The present paper sets out to analyse humour and irony as used by Mikes in How to be a Brit as manifestations of figurative language following a relevance-theoretic approach. It will be shown that the inferential steps followed by the addressee in coping with the message communicated by the speaker with different degrees of strength can be exploited for the expression of irony and humour.
Keywords: George Mikes, How to be a Brit, figurative language, humour, irony
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretic framework
  • 3.Analysis: Strategies and purposes for the conveyance of irony and humour in George Mikes’ How to be a Brit
    • 3.1The prefaces
    • 3.2A relevance-theoretic analysis of humour and irony in George Mikes’ How to be a Brit
      • a.Resolution of ambiguities or disambiguation
      • b.Reference assignment
      • c.Enrichment or filling of a semantic gap
      • d.Derivation of implicatures
      • e.Irony and humour resulting from a contradiction of expectations
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.12cas
References (67)
References
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32.6, 793–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001a). Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001b). Humor and irony in interaction: From mode adoption to failure of detection. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not Say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp.165–185). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Intentionality and irony. In L. Ruiz Gurillo & B. Alvarado Ortega (Eds.), Irony and humor. From pragmatics to discourse (pp. 39–57). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revisited: joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor, 4.3–4, 293–347.Google Scholar
Biegajlo, M. (2014). From which position should I get this joke?! A relevance-driven joke interpretation: Naive optimism, cautious optimism, sophisticated understanding. International Studies in Humour, 3(1), 2–14.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Booth, W. (1974). A rhetoric of irony. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1980). Approaches to verbal irony (MA Thesis). London: University College.Google Scholar
(1997). Relevance-theoretic pragmatics and modularity. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 29-53.Google Scholar
(1981). Irony and parody and the use-mention distinction. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 10, 24–35.Google Scholar
(2002a). Thoughts and utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002b). Metaphor, ad hoc concepts and word meaning – More questions than answers. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 83–105.Google Scholar
Carston, R. & Uchida, S. (Eds.) (1998). Relevance Theory. Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. (2013). Relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curcó, C. (1995). Some observations on the pragmatics of humorous interpretations. A relevance-theoretic approach. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 27–47.Google Scholar
(1996). The implicit expression of attitudes, mutual manifestness and verbal humour. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 89–99.Google Scholar
(1997a). The Pragmatics of Humorous Interpretations: A Relevance-Theoretic Account. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation. University College London.Google Scholar
(1997b). Relevance and the manipulation of the incongruous: Some explorations of verbal humour. In M. Groefsema (Ed.), Proceedings of the University of Hertfordshire relevance theory workshop (pp. 68–72). Chelmford: Peter Thomas and Associates.Google Scholar
(1998). Indirect echoes and verbal humour. In V. Rouchota, & A. H. Jucker (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory (pp. 304–325). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furlong, A. (1996). Relevance theory and literary interpretation. PhD. Thesis. University of London.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of the mind: Figurative language, thought and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Evaluating contemporary models of figurative language understanding. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 317–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Irony as persuasive communication. In H. L. Colston, & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative Language Comprehension. Social and Cultural Influences (pp.131–151). Mahwah: L.E.A.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2002). The risks and rewards of ironic communication. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva, Say not to Say: New Perspectives on Miscommunication (pp. 181–194). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across cultures. Translation theory and contrastive text linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.Google Scholar
Jodłowiec, M. (1991). What makes jokes tick. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 241–253.Google Scholar
Mikes, G. (1986 [1946–1977]). How to be a Brit. A George Mikes minibus. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Muecke, D. C. (1969). The Compass of irony. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
(1970). Irony. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
(1982). Irony and the ironic. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Pilkington, A. (2000). Poetic effects. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piskorska, A. (2014). A relevance-theoretic perspective on humorous irony and its failure. Humor 274, 661–685.Google Scholar
(2016). Echo and inadequacy in ironic utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 101, 54–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Rodríguez R. S. (2013). “The power of inversion. Irony, from utterance to discourse.” In L. Ruiz Gurillo, & B. Alvarado Ortega (Eds.), Irony and humour. From pragmatics to discourse (pp. 17–38). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz Gurillo, L., & B. Alvarado Ortega (Eds.) (2013). Irony and Humour. From pragmatics to discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture. A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Claidière, N. (2006). Defining and explaining culture. (comments on Richerson and Boyd Not by genes alone ). Reading available at Cultural Evolution Workshop . Washington University in St. Louis.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1978). Les ironies comme mentions. Poétique, 36, 399–412.Google Scholar
(1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 295–318). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1995). Relevance. Communication and cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Torres S. (1999). Estudio pragmático del humor verbal. M.A. thesis. Cadiz: University of Cadiz.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1999). Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 127–162.Google Scholar
(2006). The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Irony and metarepresentation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 183–226.Google Scholar
(2011). Relevance theory and the interpretation of literary works. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 23, 69–80.Google Scholar
(2013). Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 40–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. R. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2012). Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, F. 1995–96. La teoría de la relevancia y la estrategia humorística de la incongruencia-resolución. Pragmalingüística, 3–4, 497–508.Google Scholar
(1997–98). Irony: context accessibility and processing effort. Pragmalingüística, 5–6, 391–410.Google Scholar
(1999a). Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication. Pragmatics, 9 (4), 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999b). Towards a pragmatic taxonomy of misunderstandings. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 38, 217–239.Google Scholar
(2000). On reaching the intended ironic interpretation. International Journal of Communication, 10 (1–2), 27–78.Google Scholar
(2000–01). Literal/ non-literal and the processing of verbal irony. Pragmalingüística, 8–9, 349–74.Google Scholar
(2003). Humor and the search for relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 359, 1295–1331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Pragmatics of humorous strategies in El club de la comedia . In R. Márquez-Reiter, & M. E. Placencia (Eds.), Current trends in the pragmatics of Spanish (pp. 320–344). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Saturación contextual en la comprensión de la ironía. In L. Ruiz Gurillo, & X. Padilla García (Eds.), Dime cómo ironizas y te diré quién eres. Una aproximación pragmática a la ironía (pp. 309–331). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2013). An inference-centered analysis of jokes. The intersecting circles model of humorous communication. In L. Ruiz Gurillo, & B. Alvarado Ortega (Eds.), Irony and humor. From pragmatics to discourse (pp. 59–82). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016a). Humour and relevance. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b). Relevance theory and contextual sources-centred analysis of irony. Current research and compatibility. In M. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions (pp. 147–171). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016c). Propositional attitude, affective attitude and irony comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition, 231, 92–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016d). Incongruity-resolution and the explicit-implicated-implied interface. Paper delivered at Linguistic Approaches to Funniness, Amusement and Laughter. 4th International Symposium: Theoretical Issues in Humour, Building Bridges across Disciplines. University of Lodz (Poland), March.Google Scholar
(2017a). Relevance-theoretic treatments of humor. In S. Attardo (Ed.), Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 189–203). Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Incongruity-resolution cases in jokes. Lingua, 197, 103–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Attaching feelings and emotions to propositions. Some insights on irony and Internet communication. Russian Journal of Linguistics 22(1), 94–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar