Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Perspectives on Genre
Edited by Carla Vergaro
[Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3] 2018
► pp. 459–482

Satire as a genre

| University of Pisa
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.
Keywords: complex systems, emergence, genre, pragmatic inferences, satire
Article outline
  • 1.The complexities of satire
  • 2.The complexities of genre
    • 2.1Genres and text types: The text linguistics approach
    • 2.2Genres and pragmatic competence
    • 2.3Genres as cognitive constructs
  • 3.The big family of satire
    • 3.1Keeping satire distinct from parody
      • 3.1.1Satirical parody
  • 4.Genres as emergent patterns
    • 4.1Languages as complex systems
    • 4.2Satirical news or news satire?
      • 4.2.1“Poverty-stricken Africans receive desperately needed bibles”
      • 4.2.2Inferences
      • 4.2.3Attractors
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18023.ber
References (48)
References
Baicchi, Annalisa. 2015. Constructing learning as a complex adaptive system: Psycholinguistic evidence from L2 learners of English. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. The problem of speech genre. In Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (eds.), Speech genres and other late essays, 60–102. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe & Joanna Bybee. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 591. 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertuccelli Papi, Marcella. 2003. Cognitive complexity and the lexicon. In Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi (ed.), Complexity in language and text, 67–116. Pisa: Plus.Google Scholar
. 2018. Irony as a complex attitude. Lingue e Linguaggi 261. 59–80.Google Scholar
Bertuccelli Papi, Marcella & Alessandro Lenci. 2007. Lexical complexity and the texture of meaning. In Marcella Bertuccelli Papi, Gloria Cappelli & Silvia Masi (eds.), Lexical complexity: Theoretical assessment and translational perspectives, 15–33. Pisa: Plus.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27(1) 3–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chandler, Daniel. 1997. An introduction to genre theory. [URL] (28 January 2019).
Dryden, John. 1693. Discourse Concerning the Original and Progress of Satire. In A. 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
Ellis, Nick & Diane Larsen-Freeman (eds.). 2006. Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics – Introduction to the Special Issue. Applied Linguistics 27(4). 558–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fife, Jane. 2016. Peeling The Onion: Satire and the complexity of audience responses. Rhetoric Review 35(4). 322–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, Monika. 1996. Towards a natural narratology. New York/London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Genres, text types or discourse modes? Style 34(2). 274–292.Google Scholar
Fowler, Alastair. 1982. Kinds of literature: An introduction to the theory of genres and modes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. Genre. In Erik Barnouw (ed.), International encyclopedia of communications, vol. 21, 215–17. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frye, Northorp. 1957. The anatomy of criticism. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond & Herbert Colston. 2012. Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Dustin. 1994. Satire: A critical reintroduction. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1988. Emergent grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, 155–175. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. Scott, Narayanan Srinivasan & Cees van Leeuwen (eds.). 2015. The role of complex systems theory in cognitive science. Cognitive Processing 16(4). 16–315. Special Issue on Complexity in Brain and Cognition. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, Roger J. & Richard M. Roberts. 1993. On satire and parody: The importance of being ironic. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 8(2). 97–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuyper, Kathleen (ed.). 2012. Prose literary terms and concepts. Britannica Guide to Literary Elements, New York: Britannica Educational Publishing.Google Scholar
Kuyper, Koenraad. 1984. The nature of satire. Poetics 13(6). 459–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, Elly. 2011. Genres and pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1). 327–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1997. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 181. 141–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Complex dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching 45(2). 202–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Lynne Cameron. 2008. Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert E. 1983. The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia (ed.). 2003. Complexity in language and text. Pisa: Plus.Google Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 1995. Working with genre: A pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 24(4). 393–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfaff, Kerry L. & Raymond Gibbs. 1997. Authorial intentions in understanding satirical texts. Poetics 25(1). 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, David. 2005. Frame shifting in humour and irony. Metaphor and Symbol 20(4). 275–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4(3). 328–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, Michael & Carolyn Watters. 1998. The evolution of cybergenres. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 21, 97–109. Hawaii.Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul. 2003. On the discourse of satire. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deidre Wilson. [1986]1995. Relevance theory. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stam, Robert. 2000. Film theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2011. Genre between the humanities and the science. In Marcus 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen. 2016. Genre in language, discourse and cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
The Onion. 2006. “Poverty-stricken Africans receive desperately needed Bibles” 421:11.Google Scholar
Tsiplakou, Stavroula & Georgios Floros. 2013. Never mind the text type, here’s textual force: Towards a pragmatic reconceptualization of text types. Journal of Pragmatics 45(1). 119–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark. 1994. Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Tunja. 1992. Issues of text typology. Narrative – a “basic”type of text? Text 12(2). 293–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werlich, Egon. 1976. A text grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle&Meyer.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deidre & Dan Sperber. 2012. Explaining irony. In Deidre Wilson and Dan Sperber (eds.), Meaning and Relevance, 123–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2016. Propositional attitude, affective attitude and irony comprehension. Pragmatics and Cognition 23(1). 92–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar