Can you recognise written sarcasm?

[partington]

" Whats more, since actions strongly determine thoughts and feelings, when a person consistently acts sarcastically it usually only heightens his or her underlying hostility and insecurity.

This, and other quotes like it, are not even relevant. You can't act sarcastically.

Sarcasm is the use of irony to make a critical or derogatory comment. It is not just any old criticism or a harsh comment- irony means that you say the opposite of what you really intend, to emphasise your point. It is a purely verbal construct.

To illustrate: someone does something dopey.

A harsh comment is "Oh that's really stupid!"

A sarcastic comment is "Oh that's clever!"

The reason why it is sometimes misunderstood is because it is, on the surface, saying the exact opposite of what it means. This is why very literal-minded people often miss it completely, but the context always supplies the clue as to whether the comment is serious or sarcastic. Smilies are not generally necessary, as the written word has been used to convey this particular kind of idea for thousands of years.

Jonathan Swift , the notable satirist, once wrote a long article about how the Irish famine could be solved by the Irish eating their own babies. He did not need smilies to convey he was not serious and in fact was making a sarcastic or satirical point designed to illuminate the unfeeling and vicious cruelty of the British upper classes.

[wprime]

Wow what a great idea, because nobody ever picked up sarcasm before your symbol.

[ABCer]

Hey, Clutch, you reminded me of a real case which only sounds as a joke.

Grade 6 class was asked to name at least one capital city in Europe. Most kids did OK.

But one answer was - 'Germany'

Cheers!

[partington]

So how am I supposed to know if the person who wrote, ""Pleeese!! Call it a Cockney accent, but please do not call it a British accent. I speak with a British accent, as does HM Queen Elizabeth,as did Lord Mountbatten... That is a British accent - everything else is a regional English (and often unintelligable) accent :)" was being sarcastic or stupid?

I understand that but that was not the question I was asking. It has nothing to do with the question I was asking. Am I not worthy of an answer?

There is no sarcasm at all involved in the exchange you quoted. There is no irony whatsoever, that is, saying the opposite of what is really meant to emphasise the point. It's not even sarcastic in the sense in which it is sometimes (incorrectly) used of being any kind of harsh or cutting comment.

The way you have quoted it makes it very difficult to understand the context, but I would guess that the second speaker has heard someone describe (another) person's Cockney accent as "British", and is objecting to that.

In Britain there is a very great difference between the accent used by the educated upper/middle classes and the rest. The upper classes often look down on people with Cockney accents, regarding them as poor and uneducated. Therefore this person was saying " don't call a Cockney accent 'British', because that would mean 'British' meant loutish and stupid. Instead call the accent that I, an upper class person, speak with, 'British', because it is the accent that the best and most valuable people like the Queen use, and should be the one that represents Britain!"

A foul opinion, but seriously intended, probably. There's no indication that the second writer is adopting a ludicrously bigoted view in order to satirise ludicrously bigoted views...

[thailiketoo]

There is no sarcasm at all involved in the exchange you quoted. There is no irony whatsoever, that is, saying the opposite of what is really meant to emphasise the point. It's not even sarcastic in the sense in which it is sometimes (incorrectly) used of being any kind of harsh or cutting comment.

The way you have quoted it makes it very difficult to understand the context, but I would guess that the second speaker has heard someone describe (another) person's Cockney accent as "British", and is objecting to that.

In Britain there is a very great difference between the accent used by the educated upper/middle classes and the rest. The upper classes often look down on people with Cockney accents, regarding them as poor and uneducated. Therefore this person was saying " don't call a Cockney accent 'British', because that would mean 'British' meant loutish and stupid. Instead call the accent that I, an upper class person, speak with, 'British', because it is the accent that the best and most valuable people like the Queen use, and should be the one that represents Britain!"

A foul opinion, but seriously intended, probably. There's no indication that the second writer is adopting a ludicrously bigoted view in order to satirise ludicrously bigoted views...

That's what I thought but here is the whole exchange.

Poster #1 "Pleeese!! Call it a Cockney accent, but please do not call it a British accent. I speak with a British accent, as does HM Queen Elizabeth,as did Lord Mountbatten... That is a British accent - everything else is a regional English (and often unintelligable) accent "

Poster #2 "Every accent within Britain is British? Any regional accent within the UK and Northern Ireland; English, Scottish, Welsh or otherwise is just as British as that spoken by yourself and all the other penguins with your snotty nasal beaks up each other's a***holes......Sorry"

Poster #1 retort, "Sigh.... Why oh why is there not a sarcasm smiley and a 'pat on the head' smiley to humour uneducated people...."

[Crazy chef 1]

I'm a non-native English speaker.

I have to admit that I some times have difficulties with recognizing British sarcasm. I also admit that rhyming slang is way beyond me.

However I take offense at being called a brain-dead moron because of it.

Yermanee

would like to know where you're coming from...enough sarcasm?

ps: no offence intended- landsmann

[simon43]

I was going to write a long post to explain my original comments. But I don't really think it would help this discussiion

[partington]

There is no sarcasm at all involved in the exchange you quoted. There is no irony whatsoever, that is, saying the opposite of what is really meant to emphasise the point. It's not even sarcastic in the sense in which it is sometimes (incorrectly) used of being any kind of harsh or cutting comment.

The way you have quoted it makes it very difficult to understand the context, but I would guess that the second speaker has heard someone describe (another) person's Cockney accent as "British", and is objecting to that.

In Britain there is a very great difference between the accent used by the educated upper/middle classes and the rest. The upper classes often look down on people with Cockney accents, regarding them as poor and uneducated. Therefore this person was saying " don't call a Cockney accent 'British', because that would mean 'British' meant loutish and stupid. Instead call the accent that I, an upper class person, speak with, 'British', because it is the accent that the best and most valuable people like the Queen use, and should be the one that represents Britain!"

A foul opinion, but seriously intended, probably. There's no indication that the second writer is adopting a ludicrously bigoted view in order to satirise ludicrously bigoted views...

That's what I thought but here is the whole exchange.

Poster #1 "Pleeese!! Call it a Cockney accent, but please do not call it a British accent. I speak with a British accent, as does HM Queen Elizabeth,as did Lord Mountbatten... That is a British accent - everything else is a regional English (and often unintelligable) accent :)"

Poster #2 "Every accent within Britain is British? Any regional accent within the UK and Northern Ireland; English, Scottish, Welsh or otherwise is just as British as that spoken by yourself and all the other penguins with your snotty nasal beaks up each other's a***holes......Sorry"

Poster #1 retort, "Sigh.... Why oh why is there not a sarcasm smiley and a 'pat on the head' smiley to humour uneducated people...."

Oh well OK so if poster #1 says she was being sarcastic, we have to assume this is the case, and the views expressed were not meant seriously.

But in this case it doesn't work. If the view you are expressing could genuinely be held and does not seem that exaggerated, there just isn't any way of telling. I have heard people express views like this sincerely, and so I don't think that poster #1 has any justification for complaint that the "satire" wasn't recognised.

If I wrote "I hate immigrants" there's no way of telling whether I do or I don't. Plenty of people do. You have to do some work to make the sarcasm /satire apparent. In this case it is the poster's fault that it is not clear.

[Showbags]

^^ was he being sarcastic ?

[MrTee]

Does anyone get the irony of someone talking about sarcasm as though they are discussing something as an intellectual?

[Clutch]

Does anyone get the irony of someone talking about sarcasm as though they are discussing something as an intellectual?

MrTee, cease being sarcastic, we're trying to have a serious intellectual discussion here about not being serious!

[wym]

So how am I supposed to know if the person who wrote, ""Pleeese!! Call it a Cockney accent, but please do not call it a British accent. I speak with a British accent, as does HM Queen Elizabeth,as did Lord Mountbatten... That is a British accent - everything else is a regional English (and often unintelligable) accent :)" was being sarcastic or stupid?

I understand that but that was not the question I was asking. It has nothing to do with the question I was asking. Am I not worthy of an answer?

There is no sarcasm at all involved in the exchange you quoted. There is no irony whatsoever, that is, saying the opposite of what is really meant to emphasise the point. It's not even sarcastic in the sense in which it is sometimes (incorrectly) used of being any kind of harsh or cutting comment.

The way you have quoted it makes it very difficult to understand the context, but I would guess that the second speaker has heard someone describe (another) person's Cockney accent as "British", and is objecting to that.

In Britain there is a very great difference between the accent used by the educated upper/middle classes and the rest. The upper classes often look down on people with Cockney accents, regarding them as poor and uneducated. Therefore this person was saying " don't call a Cockney accent 'British', because that would mean 'British' meant loutish and stupid. Instead call the accent that I, an upper class person, speak with, 'British', because it is the accent that the best and most valuable people like the Queen use, and should be the one that represents Britain!"

A foul opinion, but seriously intended, probably. There's no indication that the second writer is adopting a ludicrously bigoted view in order to satirise ludicrously bigoted views...

Yes, well put, and a great example to parse.

I for one definitely thought the "Call it a Cockney accent, but please do not call it a British accent" was sincere.

Apparently not.

I know many many Brits that truly think their class signifiers have some kind of objective meaning and use them all the time to judge the worth - more usually the lack thereof - of their compatriots.

So how the heck would anyone know that the poster was actually expressing his enlightened egalitarian attitude by pretending to be a classist <deleted>?

Note to all - nothing above is written sarcastically. Perhaps we need a symbol for that.

Conversation here would be much more pleasant and informative if people just said what they thought sincerely. Admittedly some of the "in-crowd" types with superiority complexes wouldn't have quite as much fun, nor an avenue for disowning their opinions when forced to backpedal. . .

[partington]

As a follow up though (if anyone cares!), I admit to being quite wrong about sarcasm being purely verbal.

I've just thought, you can certainly do a sarcastic act- for example applauding when somebody misses a penalty kick at football. Points out their failure by pretending to appreciate it.

[Sigurris]

Oscar Wilde may have said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. But there is an addendum to that. The full quote is:

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence.

Back of the net!

Oscar Wilde didn't say that.

Hmm. Really? I wonder if thats why I used the words "may have said"?

[true blue]

That's fine, Simon.

However, I find your stereotyping of Americans not being familiar with sarcasm obnoxious and ill informed.

It is true many Americans won't get British humor but many Brits won't get American humor either.

There are issues with the written word vs. spoken language. Spoken language often provides more clues. It takes more skill to be sarcastic (and perceived as such) in writing.

you being sarcastic,

[true blue]

There are many different shades of humor.

Sarcasm is only one of them.

One can be mildly humorous, sarcastic, acidic, ironic and so on.

Accordingly, there are different types of jokes resulting in a smile, grin, smirk, laughter, ridicule, roar, rage and so on.

If the humor is not recognized it may be because

- the source is dumb, dull, out of context, too thin, too thick and so on;

- the recipient is dumb, dull, out of context, too thin, too thick and so on;

- any other reason.

In any case, if one has to indicate the humorous aspect of what was written or said - it is a failed communication.

People must get it. If they don't - go back to drawing board.

If it happens too often - change the level. Raise or lower the plank.

One may be too much above or below one's audience. Cheers!

P.S. I was born in the World Capital of Humor. Anybody can name the city?

liverpool.

[RikDao]

There is a very serious in depth thesis at a leading hub university,

However must dash now to help the investigation of a serial hotel smurf.

I think the exegesis is simple simon

Pseudo-intellectual twaddle, this? Must be British...

[HooHaa]

I'm a non-native English speaker.

I have to admit that I some times have difficulties with recognizing British sarcasm. I also admit that rhyming slang is way beyond me.

However I take offense at being called a brain-dead moron because of it.

Yermanee

what is this thing they call British sarcasm?

As far as i am aware that while they actually believe they have a patent on sarcasm they are generally employing the lowest form of it possible.

Sarcasm can be both wonderful and witty, but not when employed by a sneering chav with the intellectual depth of a tear or drop of urine on a toilet seat.

[HooHaa]

"Sarcasm is actually hostility disguised as humor. Despite smiling outwardly, most people who receive sarcastic comments feel put down and usually think the sarcastic person is a jerk. Indeed, its not surprising that the origin of the word sarcasm derives from the Greek word sarkazein which literally means to tear or strip the flesh off. Hence, its no wonder that sarcasm is often preceded by the word cutting and that it hurts."

" Whats more, since actions strongly determine thoughts and feelings, when a person consistently acts sarcastically it usually only heightens his or her underlying hostility and insecurity. After all, when you come right down to it, sarcasm is a subtle form of bullying and most bullies are angry, insecure, cowards. Alternatively, when a person stops voicing negative comments, especially sarcastic and critical ones, he or she soon starts to feel happier and more self-confident. Also, the other people in his or her life benefit even faster because they no longer have to hear the emotionally hurtful language of sarcasm.

So, tone down the sarcasm and work on clever wit instead which is usually devoid of hostility and thus more appreciated by those youre communicating with. In essence, sarcasm is easy (as is most anger, criticism and meanness) while true, harmless wit takes talent.

Also, don't hestate to tell others that you don't appreciate their sarcastic comments because it's just thinly veiled hostility and unacceptable bullying."

The Lazarous Institute.

all that and you couldn't even get the attribution right

http://thelazarusinstitute.com/

the website is an utter delight to peruse, both visually and in terms of content.

[HooHaa]

" Whats more, since actions strongly determine thoughts and feelings, when a person consistently acts sarcastically it usually only heightens his or her underlying hostility and insecurity.

This, and other quotes like it, are not even relevant. You can't act sarcastically.

Sarcasm is the use of irony to make a critical or derogatory comment. It is not just any old criticism or a harsh comment- irony means that you say the opposite of what you really intend, to emphasise your point. It is a purely verbal construct.

To illustrate: someone does something dopey.

A harsh comment is "Oh that's really stupid!"

A sarcastic comment is "Oh that's clever!"

The reason why it is sometimes misunderstood is because it is, on the surface, saying the exact opposite of what it means. This is why very literal-minded people often miss it completely, but the context always supplies the clue as to whether the comment is serious or sarcastic. Smilies are not generally necessary, as the written word has been used to convey this particular kind of idea for thousands of years.

Jonathan Swift , the notable satirist, once wrote a long article about how the Irish famine could be solved by the Irish eating their own babies. He did not need smilies to convey he was not serious and in fact was making a sarcastic or satirical point designed to illuminate the unfeeling and vicious cruelty of the British upper classes.

wonderful, but alas the modest proposal was satire.

and while sarcasm employs irony it is not the same as pure irony.

now this is irony:

Civil Court finds Supodh guilty of being 'unusually rich'

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Civil Court found former permanent secretary for Transport Ministry Supodh Sublom guilty of being unusually rich Friday and ordered the seizure of his assets worth Bt46.14 million. Supodh was charged in court on February 9, 2012 by public prosecutors.

The court reasoned that it was impossible for Supodh to have amassed so much wealth through honest means during his time in government.

Supodh faced a graft investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission after eight suspected thieves broke into his house on Soi Lat Phrao 64 on the night of November 12 2011 and made off with Bt18 million in cash and gold ornaments.

After the arrest of the suspects, Supodh initially claimed that only Bt5 million was stolen from his house and the money was a gift for his daughter's wedding.

Following an investigation, the NACC asked the Civil Court to seize Bt64.998 million worth of Supodh's assets, including savings in nine bank accounts; savings with the Highway Department cooperative; land plots in Bangkok and the provinces; his house; vehicles; and condominiums. The amount included the Bt18 million retrieved from the thieves.

Edited January 31, 2014 by HooHaa

[partington]

" Whats more, since actions strongly determine thoughts and feelings, when a person consistently acts sarcastically it usually only heightens his or her underlying hostility and insecurity.

This, and other quotes like it, are not even relevant. You can't act sarcastically.

Sarcasm is the use of irony to make a critical or derogatory comment. It is not just any old criticism or a harsh comment- irony means that you say the opposite of what you really intend, to emphasise your point. It is a purely verbal construct.

To illustrate: someone does something dopey.

A harsh comment is "Oh that's really stupid!"

A sarcastic comment is "Oh that's clever!"

The reason why it is sometimes misunderstood is because it is, on the surface, saying the exact opposite of what it means. This is why very literal-minded people often miss it completely, but the context always supplies the clue as to whether the comment is serious or sarcastic. Smilies are not generally necessary, as the written word has been used to convey this particular kind of idea for thousands of years.

Jonathan Swift , the notable satirist, once wrote a long article about how the Irish famine could be solved by the Irish eating their own babies. He did not need smilies to convey he was not serious and in fact was making a sarcastic or satirical point designed to illuminate the unfeeling and vicious cruelty of the British upper classes.

wonderful, but alas the modest proposal was satire.

and while sarcasm employs irony it is not the same as pure irony.

now this is irony:

You are absolutely right, and I accept the rebuke. The Jonathan Swift "Modest Proposal" was satire not sarcasm, and I was too loosely using it as an example to illustrate irony.

I totally agree sarcasm is not just irony (but has to have an ironic component.)

I should probably disclaim everything I wrote on this thread, as it all seems to be um.. mistaken.

Edited January 31, 2014 by partington

[thaisaregrt]

what a pisser, if you think thats bad then you should try aussie humour/sarcasm. I always cop flack, one of the guys I know was sidelined because they just didnt get his sarcasm but then in here that is to be expected.

[Soutpeel]

I'm a non-native English speaker.

I have to admit that I some times have difficulties with recognizing British sarcasm. I also admit that rhyming slang is way beyond me.

However I take offense at being called a brain-dead moron because of it.

Yermanee

what is this thing they call British sarcasm?

As far as i am aware that while they actually believe they have a patent on sarcasm they are generally employing the lowest form of it possible.

Sarcasm can be both wonderful and witty, but not when employed by a sneering chav with the intellectual depth of a tear or drop of urine on a toilet seat.

Seeing as the British invented the language, on could suggest that yes they do hold the patent on sarcasm, and they have been using longer than as anybody else, even Shakespeare's plays have some wonderful examples of sarcasm Edited January 31, 2014 by Soutpeel

[EBlair48]

That's fine, Simon.

However, I find your stereotyping of Americans not being familiar with sarcasm obnoxious and ill informed.

It is true many Americans won't get British humor but many Brits won't get American humor either.

There are issues with the written word vs. spoken language. Spoken language often provides more clues. It takes more skill to be sarcastic (and perceived as such) in writing.

Agree, those sarcmarks and insidious smiley icons are truly the lazy writer's tool.

If you cannot get your point across to the seemingly semi - illiterate, beer-gutted, usually whore-mongered, desparate for conflict while aging badly curmudgeons that populate this forum day in and day out....