Summary
This book tackles various pragmatic issues which are manipulated by politicians in diverse contexts where the principle of being honest is less important than fulfilling their goals. These issues range from Irony to Impoliteness, Deception, Diplomacy, Fallacy, and Political Accusations. Besides, it reveals what pragmatic strategies are appealed to by those politicians to win over their opponents or convince their audience. Revealing those strategies is done by pragmatic analytical models which are applied to verbal and nonverbal data. Thus, the book can be useful to politicians, pragmaticians, and applied linguists. Additionally, the book is indispensable to researchers interested in pragmatics as it suggests different approaches about how to build pragmatic analytical models and how to use them to analyze political data or any other kind of data.
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 1
PREFACE ... 2
CONTRIBUTORS ... 3
CHAPTER ONE A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO
IRONY IN AMERICAN POLITICAL CARTOONS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 11
2. IRONY: DEFINITION, TYPES, AND FUNCTIONS ... 11
2.1 Definition ... 11
2.2 Types ... 12
2.3 Functions ... 15
3. GRADES OF IRONY ... 21
4. INFERENCE ... 22
4.1 Definition ... 22
4.2 Types ... 23
5. DATA DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS ... 25
5.1 Data Description ... 25
5.2 Data Analysis ... 26
5.3 Results ... 43
6. CONCLUSION ... 44
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 46
5
CHAPTER TWO A PRAGMA-RHETORICAL ANALYSIS
OF IMPOLITENESS IN AMERICAN POLITICAL
CONFLICTS ON TERRORISM
ABSTRACT ... 51
1. INTRODUCTION ... 52
2. IMPOLITENESS ... 53
2.1 Definition of Impoliteness ... 53
3. TYPES OF IMPOLITE ACT ... 58
4. DEVELOPING A MODEL OF ANALYSIS ... 59
4.1 Mock-politeness or Sarcasm ... 59
4.2 Jocularity ... 61
4.3 Mimicry ... 62
4.4 Powerful/manipulative Acts ... 65
5. DATA, ANALYTICAL METHODS AND ANALYSIS ... 72
5.1 Data Collection and Description ... 72
5.2 Analytical Methods ... 74
5.3 Data Analysis and Results ... 76
6. CONCLUSION ... 88
REFERENCES ... 89
APPENDIX ... 96
6
CHAPTER THREE THE PRAGMATICS OF
DECEPTION IN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL
POLITICAL ELECTORAL SPEECHES
ABSTRACT ... 103
1. INTRODUCTION ... 104
2. DECEPTION: AN OVERVIEW ... 105
2.1 Types of Deception ... 106
2.2 Motives of Deception ... 107
2.3 Deception and Political Discourse ... 108
3. DECEPTION FROM A PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE ... 109
3.1 Deception as an Insincere Assertion ... 109
3.2 Deception as a Violation of Grice's Maxims ... 110
3.3 Deception: A Relevance Theoretic View ... 112
4. STRATEGIES OF EXPRESSING DECEPTION ... 113
4.1 Deceptive Strategies Resulting from the Violation of Grice's
Maxims ... 113
4.2 Cognitive Strategies ... 115
5. MODEL OF ANALYSIS ... 117
6. DATA AND ANALYSIS ... 118
6.1 Data ... 118
6.2 Analysis ... 119
7. CONCLUSIONS ... 133
REFERENCES ... 135
7
CHAPTER FOUR A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO
DIPLOMATIC ANSWERS OF HILLARY CLINTON'S
POLITICAL PRESS CONFERENCES
ABSTRACT ... 137
1. INTRODUCTION ... 138
2. LITERATURE REVIEW... 139
2.1 Pragmatics ... 139
2.2 Diplomatic Language ... 140
2.3 Pragmatics and Diplomatic Answers ... 141
3. MODEL OF ANALYSIS ... 148
3.1 Grice's (1974) Model of Analysis ... 148
3.2 Sacks,et al's (1974) model of Analysis ... 149
3.3 Fraser's (2010) Model of Hedging ... 150
4. DATA AND ANALYSIS ... 152
4.1 Data Collection and Description ... 152
4.2 Analysis ... 152
4.3 Illustrative Analyzed Examples: ... 152
5. CONCLUSIONS ... 167
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 170
8
CHAPTER FIVE MODELS FOR THE PRAGMATIC
ANALYSIS OF FALLACY IN OBAMA'S POLITICAL
SPEECHES
ABSTRACT ... 173
1. FALLACY: DEFINITION ... 174
2. STRATEGIC MANEUVERING AND FALLACY ... 175
3. STAGES OF ISSUING FALLACY ... 179
3.1 Identifying the Fallacious Argument ... 180
3.2 Pragmatic Strategies of Issuing the Fallacious Argument ... 187
3.3 Types of Fallacious Arguments ... 188
4. PRAGMATIC MODEL OF FALLACY ANALYSIS ... 200
4.1 The Pragmatic Structure of Fallacy ... 200
4.2 The Stages of Fallacy and Their Strategies ... 202
4.3 Data collection and description ... 209
4.4 Data analysis ... 210
5. CONCLUSIONS ... 227
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 228
9
CHAPTER SIX THE PRAGMATICS OF POLITICAL
ACCUSATIONS IN OBAMA AND ROMNEY'S FIRST
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE IN 2012
ABSTRACT ... 230
1. INTRODUCTION ... 231
2. ACCUSATION ... 232
2.1 Functions of Accusation ... 234
3. MODELS TO POLITICAL ACCUSATION ... 235
3.1 Toulmin's Model of Argumentation (2003) ... 236
3.2 Benoit's Functional Model (2007) ... 236
3.3 The Analytical Model ... 237
4. DATA AND ANALYSIS ... 240
4.1 Data ... 240
4.2 Analysis ... 241
5. CONCLUSIONS ... 256
REFERENCES ... 258
10
CHAPTER SEVEN A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF IRONY
IN POLITICAL ELECTORAL SPEECHES
ABSTRACT ... 260
1. INTRODUCTION ... 261
2. IRONY: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 264
2.1 Definition of Irony ... 264
2.2 Verbal Irony ... 266
2.3 Theories of Irony ... 268
3. THE ECLECTIC MODEL ... 273
3.1 Stages of Irony ... 274
4. DATA ANALYSIS ... 281
4.1 Methods of Analysis ... 281
4.2 Selected Examples for Pragmatic Analysis ... 282
4.3 Findings and Discussions ... 299
4.4 Statistical Analysis of the Speeches ... 301
5. CONCLUSIONS ... 302
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 305
11
CHAPTER ONE A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO
IRONY IN AMERICAN POLITICAL CARTOONS
Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawi
Ramia Fua'd Abdulazeez
1. Introduction
This chapter is concerned with pragmatically approaching irony in
American political cartoons. However, this pragmatic approach is not
meant to involve all the well-known pragmatic issues such as speech acts,
politeness, etc. What is basically intended is to investigate how irony is
pragmatically communicated in the aforementioned cartoons in relation to
inference processes. Nevertheless, this chapter extends its concern to
finding out what functions irony performs in the domains of the genre
investigated, i.e. American political cartoons. In order to achieve these
aims, the relevant literature about the meanings, types and functions of
irony will be reviewed. Besides, a model will be developed for the purpose
of analyzing the data of the work which are represented by ten American
political cartoons randomly selected. The point of departure for this chapter
is, therefore, the adage introduced by Zarfesky (2007: 405): a picture is
worth a thousand words.
2. Irony: Definition, Types, and Functions
2.1 Definition
When venturing to find a suitable definition for what irony is, being `lost in
the jungle' has been felt. This is mainly because so many definitions are
put forward to reveal the identity of irony. This is supported by what
12
Hutcheon (1995: 1) mentions about irony: there are 1445 entries listed
under `irony' in the MLA Bibliography. She (ibid.) justifies this by the
various angles from which this topic has been approached: "linguistics and
political science, sociology and history, aesthetics and religion, philosophy
and rhetoric, psychology and anthropology. Irony has been located and
explicated in literature, the visual arts, music, dance, theater, museum
displays, conversation, philosophical argumentation, and the list could go
on and on". This has led Colebrook (2004: 3) to interestingly conclude that
irony despite "the very simplicity of its definition becomes curiously
indefinable", the thing which is itself ironic
(1)
.
Nevertheless, the operational definition of this study is represented by
what Chock (2001: 42), following Wilde 1981, defines irony: "visions of
disparity". Chock (ibid.) asserts that the disparity of people's visions is not
between the real and the ideal; it is "between the competing, partial, and
interested versions of the world embedded in different discourses" (italics
ours).
As a matter of fact, this definition is chosen because it seems to be more
comprehensive than other definitions in not limiting irony to spoken
discourse or uttered words only; rather, it can be applied to different types
of discourse. And this typically suits the data of this work (i.e. cartoons).
2.2 Types
Like its definition, the types of irony have been classified variously by
different scholars. Muecke (1969: 40), for instance, declares that he does
not "know of any book or article, whether English, American, French, or
German, or any European or American dictionary or encyclopedia which
presents a classification of irony one could regard as adequate". He (ibid.)
(1)
For more views, see Muecke (1970: 14-23), Haverkate (1990:77), and Attardo (2009: 405-7).
13
justifies his claim by stating that the taxonomies proposed "either are not
up to date, or reveal national biases and blindspots, or are too broad to be
useful"
(2)
.
However, Muecke (ibid.: 42) assures that there are two basic types of
irony which are familiar to English-speaking people: verbal and situational
irony
(3)
.
2.2.1 Verbal Irony
This type is defined by Abrams (1999: 135) as " a statement in which the
meaning that a speaker implies differs sharply from the meaning that is
ostensibly expressed. The ironic statement usually involves the explicit
expression of one attitude or evaluation, but with indications in the overall
speech-situation that the speaker intends a very different, and often
opposite, attitude or evaluation". Sperber and Wilson (2007: 35), in their
turn, give a `typical' example, as they call it:
Some years ago, a referendum was held on whether Britain should
enter the Common Market. There was a long campaign beforehand:
television programs were devoted to it, news magazines brought out
special issues. At the height of the campaign, an issue of the satirical
magazine Private Eye appeared. On the cover was a photograph of
spectators at a village cricket match, sprawled in deckchairs, heads
lolling, fast asleep and snoring; underneath was the following
caption: "The Common Market--The Great Debate."
(2)
For more details on this point, see ibid.
(3)
Muecke (1969, 1970) additionally comes across two other types of irony without detailing them:
1. Romantic Irony, see Garber (2008) for more details.
2. Dramatic Irony, see Dempster (1932) for more details.
14
2.2.2 Situational Irony
In an attempt to define it, Shelly (2001: 775) views situational irony as
concerned with "what it is about a situation that causes people to describe it
as ironic". This means, he (ibid.: 776) proceeds, that in such a type,
people's "conception of it defies the normal way in which situations fit
with their repertoire of concepts, that this misfit is noteworthy in some
way, that it evokes a particular kind of emotional response, and, perhaps,
that it has a special, moral significance". He (ibid.) cites and comments on
the following example:
There has been a situation of some firefighters, who had a fire in their
kitchen due to some chicken fingers left cooking while they went out to
answer a fire alarm. As the spokesman for the Clark County Fire
Department puts it: "It just shows that if it can happen to us, it can happen
to anyone".
Shelly (ibid.) states that this situation is ironic due to the fact that we
usually think of firemen as people who put out fires, not as people who
start them.
It seems necessary to draw a distinction between these two types of
irony, the thing which Attardo (2007: 136) does. He observes that verbal
irony is a linguistic phenomenon, whereas its situational peer is a state of
the world which is perceived as ironic. It follows that the data of this work
represent verbal irony which is interestingly represented by the captions
accompanying the different cartoons.
15
2.3 Functions
The functions of irony have been approached variously, however,
Hutcheon's (1995) approach seems to be the most comprehensive one as
illustrated below, as such it will be the only one discussed here
(4)
.
To begin, Hutcheon (ibid.: 43) points that the functions she presents are
not hers; they are a review of what has been extensively written on irony
throughout the centuries (and that is why it has been claimed that hers is
the most comprehensive). She (ibid.) asserts that schematic, pragmatic, and
organizational ordering is her own. Figure (1) in the appendix shows the
functions with their sub-divisions. The functions are organized on a kind of
an ascending scale starting from the most benign (minimal effect) both in
tone and inferred motivation, up to the maximal contentious areas where
irony is generally accepted as a strategy of provocation and polemics.
Furthermore, she adds that each of the functions has both a positive (the
left-sided ones) and a negative counterpart (the right-sided one).
(4)
For other approaches see:
1. Dew et al. (2007) for the social functions of irony.
2. Colston (2007) for the pragmatic functions of ironic criticism.
16
Figuree (1) The F
Functions off Irony (Following Hu
utcheon, 19995: 45)
17
Each of these functions has been explained as follows by Hutcheon
(ibid.: 44-53):
By "REINFORCING," is meant the familiar intentional use or
interpretation of irony as being used to underline a point in, say, everyday
conversation. For some, this has a positive function: it is deemed necessary
for emphasis, and often for greater precision of communication, especially
the communication of an attitude. The disapproving stance on this same
function is to say that such reinforcing irony is purely decorative,
subsidiary, non-essential. While most discussions of this reinforcing
function suggest little or no evaluative force behind such a use or
attribution of irony, Hutcheon (ibid.) thinks that even approval or
disapproval of the assumed cleverness of the ironist might constitute some
sort of emotional involvement, or at least response, through evaluation.
Likewise, there must be some space for the not terribly sharp edge of
irony when it operates as verbally or structurally COMPLICATING. In
some critics' eyes, irony is typical of the complexity or richness of all art,
a form of controlled and positively valued ambiguity, that "reservoir of
irony" at the base of all aesthetic discourse. This can include a view of
irony as a reflexive modality, issuing a "call to interpretation" and its
delights. But negative connotations collect around this function too,
concentrating especially in the notion that unnecessary complexity and
(what now becomes misleading rather than enriching) ambiguity can breed
misunderstanding, confusion, or simply imprecision and lack of clarity in
communication.
Another related and also relatively benign function of irony would be the
LUDIC. When viewed favorably, this is seen as the affectionate irony of
benevolent teasing; it may be associated as well with humor and wit, of
course, and therefore be interpreted as an estimable characteristic of
18
playfulness (and so, in language, akin to punning or even metaphor). In the
same vein, irony can imply a negative aspect: irony may be supple and
subtle but it is also superficial. From there it is a small step to seeing irony
as irresponsible, empty, even silly; irony can be seen as trivializing the
essential seriousness of art.
The affective charge associated with irony is going to start to increase
with the use of words like "trivializing" and maybe even "teasing." When
the notion of irony functioning as a DISTANCING mechanism is
considered, it increases even more. Distance can, of course, suggest the
non-committal, the inferred refusal of engagement and involvement and
so its more pejorative associations are with indifference or even Olympian
disdain and superiority. But distancing reserve can also be interpreted as a
means to a new perspective from which things can be shown and thus seen
differently. A related and equally approving reading of the distancing
function of the new perspective induced through irony is the one that sees it
as refusing the tyranny of explicit judgments, especially at a time when
such judgments might not be either appropriate or desirable. In other
words, it indicates the "refusal to be pinned down", that is, a strategic way
to be oppositional by exploiting the discourse of power to different ends.
When irony's workings are seen as SELF-PROTECTIVE, then this
suggests that irony can be interpreted as a kind of defense mechanism. It
can be either self-deprecating: use of irony as a way of signaling people's
reluctant modesty, their self-positioning (as marginalized and maybe self-
marginalizing), their self-doubts, and perhaps even their rejection of the
need to presume or to assume superiority--especially against such
overwhelming odds. Moreover, it can be a form of indirect self-promotion,
even arrogance. However, it seems important to point out that self-
deprecating irony can be seen to replace the aggressive with the
19
ingratiating: it acknowledges the opinion of the dominant culture-- even
appears to confirm it--and allows the speaker or writer to participate in the
humorous process without alienating the members of the majority.
The sixth function is called PROVISIONAL: it is so called because it is
often viewed in the sense of always offering a proviso, always containing a
kind of built-in conditional stipulation that undermines any firm and fixed
stand. The disapproving associations here are with the evasiveness of
equivocation, hypocrisy, duplicity and deception. The positively valued
version of this function is usually framed by some sense that irony's
doubleness can act as a way of counteracting any tendency to assume a
categorical or rigid position of "Truth" through precisely some
acknowledgement of provisionality and contingency. It can either be
undogmatic: a functioning of irony that doesn't reject, refute or turn
upside-down: not evasiveness, lack of courage or conviction, but an
admission that there are times when we cannot be sure, not so much
because we don't know enough as because uncertainty is intrinsic, of the
essence. But when such a provisional position is seen as valuable, it is often
called demystifying.
The same is the case with the OPPOSITIONAL functioning of irony, for
this is where its trans-ideological nature may be most clear, where the
critical edge can be seen to cut both ways. And, in addition, the same
utterance may have opposite pragmatic effects: what is approved of as
polemical and transgressive to some might simply be insulting to others;
what is subversive to some might be offensive to others. In intentional
terms, this is how irony can function for the passive aggressive personality,
but it also works as the undermining-from-within of the politically
repressed. Similarly, This function of irony has specifically been called
`counter-discursive' in its ability to contest dominant habits of mind and
20
expression. For those positioned within a dominant ideology, such a
contesting might be seen as abusive or threatening; for those marginalized
and working to undo that dominance, it might be subversive or
transgressive in the newer, positive senses that those words have taken on
in recent writing about gender, race, class, and sexuality.
The next function is one that Hutcheon calls the ASSAILING one,
because she, as she herself (ibid.) emphasizes, wants to be able to draw
upon the meaning of its Latin root, assilire: to leap upon. The negative
charge here is at its maximal when corrosive invective and destructive
attack become the inferred--and felt ends of irony. In many discussions of
irony, this seems to be the only function considered, especially when it is a
question of appropriateness or, especially, of excess in its use. Yet, there
does exist what could be interpreted as a positive motivation for "leaping
upon" something, however vigorously, and that lies in the corrective
function of satiric irony, where there is a set of values that one is
correcting toward.
Hutcheon (ibid.) places the last function somewhat outside this schema,
but not unrelated in structural and evaluative terms to this continuum of
functions, with their contradictory valuations: this is the AGGREGATIVE
function. In its negative sense, irony is said to play to in-groups that can be
elitist and exclusionary. Irony clearly differentiates and thus potentially
excludes: as most theories put it, there are those who "get" it and those who
do not. Some theorists have felt that the implied superiority/inferiority
dualism is implied in any ironic distancing. This idea of irony functioning
in an elitist way obviously involves an inference about both the ironist (as
feeling superior) and the interpreter, who `gets' the irony and so is said to
feel part of a small, select, secret society. This suggests, however, that as
irony excludes, it can include as well, creating those `amiable
21
communities' between ironist and interpreter and thus recalling the
pleasures of collaboration, even collusion.
Hutcheon (ibid.: 53) concludes her model by stating that "Irony's
edge, then, would seem to ingratiate and to intimidate, to underline and to
undermine; it brings people together and drives them apart".
3. Grades of Irony
Muecke (1969), as Wilcox (2001: 5) argues, "wrestles with the difficulty of
classifying irony". Whether simple or complex
(5)
, Wilcox (ibid.) continues,
the various problems of delimiting the uses of irony will immediately show
up. Consequently, and in response to this predicament, Muecke (ibid.)
offers three grades and four modes
(6)
of irony. Wilcox (ibid.: 5-6) reviews
the grades as follows:
1. Overt Irony: With overt irony the victim (and reader) are made clear
of the situation at once. The irony is blatant and manifest by the
contradictory, ambiguous or paradoxical nature of the situation. This kind
of irony is often associated with sarcasm and may involve the ironist using
gestures such as curled lip or raised eyebrow to reinforce the point. Overt
irony is often overused, and the irony quickly lost. Occasionally, sarcasm
may be so overt; that the irony is lost.
2. Covert Irony: In contradistinction, covert irony, should not be seen,
but detected, this is because "The covert ironist will aim at avoiding any
tone or manner or any stylistic indication that would reveal his irony"
(Muecke,1969: 56). Of course, the covert ironist may go undetected and the
intended effect will be lost on its victim.
(5)
For more details on simple and complex irony, see Bosco and Bucciarelli (2008).
(6)
See Muecke (1969: 61-99) for the full discussion of these modes, as they are out of the scope of this
chapter.
22
3. Private Irony: Private irony is a quite subtle form of irony, because,
as the title suggests it is not meant to be shared with the victim or others for
that matter. The irony is in the eyes of the beholder who gets satisfaction
from being undetected in his or her techniques. Muecke rather cleverly
describes the motives of the private ironist as:
"... contemplative enjoyment at the expense of fools; for others Private
Irony may be a means of release; unable or unwilling to openly express
their bitterness or contempt, their anguish or indignation, they find an outlet
in `that hypocritical figure Ironia." (Muecke,1969: 60 -1).
4. Inference
4.1 Definition
Inference is defined by Brown and Yule (1983: 256) as "that process which
the reader (hearer) must go through to get from the literal meaning of what
is written (or said) to what the writer (speaker) intended to convey". They
(ibid.) cite the following example for more clarification:
- It's really cold in here with that window open.
This utterance is used to communicate the following indirect request,
which is arrived at by the hearer via making inferences worked from the
literal meaning:
- Please close the window.
It is necessary to indicate, as they (ibid.) point out, that the first utterance
does not "mean" the second; it is the hearer who infers the speaker's
intended meaning by depending on a certain context.
On the importance of making inferences, Kecskes and Mey (2008:1)
claim that "Communication is supposed to be smooth if the speaker's
intentions are recognized by the hearer through pragmatic inferences"
(italics ours). Actually, Kecskes and Mey have been quite successful in
23
using the verb "supposed" in this context. This is because the pragmatic
analysis of cartoons with reference to making inferences shows that there
can be some cases of indeterminacy concerning the speaker's (or more
accurately, writer's) intentions as recognized by the hearer (or reader) (see
situations 2 and 6, for example). It follows that communication cannot
always be described as smooth when making inferences; it is more accurate
to claim that communication becomes both smooth and safe when leading
hearers (readers) to making certain inferences. And this is clearly proved
(i.e. the issue of safety) in the genre under investigation, where the onus of
the appropriate interpretation of the oppositional function of irony (see
situation 2 below, for instance) is totally relied on how the reader views
Obama (in the aforementioned situation). As such, the writer is quite safe
as s/he does not declare their personal viewpoint since the interpretation is
totally up to the reader per se.
4.2 Types
There have been several classifications of inferences, most notably are
those mentioned by Levinson (1983: 14ff):
1. Truth-conditions of entailments.
2. Conventional implicatures.
3. Presuppositions.
4. Felicity conditions.
5. Conversational implicature generalized.
6. Conversational implicature particularized; and Inferences based on
7. Conversational structure.
Out of these types, only the third and sixth types will be discussed as
they are the most relevant to the purposes of this chapter.
24
4.2.1 Presuppositions
Pragmatically speaking, "what a speaker (writer) assumes is true or known
by a listener (reader) can be described as a presupposition" (Yule, 2006:
117).
Presupposition is of six types: existential, factive, non-factive, lexical,
structural and counterfactual (Yule, 1996:27-30) [For the definition and
example on each of these types, see ibid].
4.2.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature (PCI)
The term implicature, as Meibauer (2009: 365) indicates, is first used by
Paul Grice to refer to the additional conveyed meaning to what is literally
said. It has various classifications, the most relevant to this chapter is the
particularized
(7)
.
Due to the fact that our conversations take place, most of the time, in
specific contexts, Yule (1996: 42-3) comments, there are locally recognized
inferences to be assumed. He (ibid.) cites the following example for
clarification:
- Carol: Are you going to the party tonight?
- Lara: I've got an exam tomorrow.
At first sight, Lara's statement is not an answer to Carol's question as she
does not say 'Yes' or 'No'. Yet, it is quite understandable that the former
means 'No' or 'Probably not'. This interpretation has been arrived at by
Carol via depending on some assumed knowledge (context) that having an
exam tomorrow involves studying tonight, and this latter precludes going to
party tonight. It can be said, then, that the particularized conversational
(7)
For more details on the different types, see Levinson (1983), Yule (1996), and Meibauer (2009). And
for more details on the relationship between the Gricean maxims and inferences, see Dascal (2003, Ch.
28).
25
implicature (henceforth, PCI) is the additional conveyed meaning by means
of depending on a specific context.
5. Data Description and Analysis
5.1 Data Description
Before embarking on describing the data of this work, it must be mentioned
that the data collected for the analysis are represented by (10) political
cartoons taken from the internet (cited in the web sources indicated with
each of them). This entails that the language subject to the analysis of this
work is a form of written language.
5.1.1 Features of the Data
Cartoons are created to convey messages about ideas and judgments that
the cartoonist is making about people, events or institutions. The message
may be light-hearted, humorous, mocking, savage or sympathetic.
Each cartoon has a number of visual and language features that create
the overall impression and help to communicate the message. These
include the use of symbols, colour, caricature and stereotypes (NEALS,
2011)
(8)
.
Symbols can be objects, signs, logos or animals that indicate ideas and
feelings. Objects are often used as symbols to communicate ideas about
people, places and mood or atmosphere (ibid.). Colours are often
associated with ideas and feelings. A caricature, in turn, is a visual
representation of a person (or group) in which some distinctive physical
feature is deliberately exaggerated or over-emphasized. Caricatures are
(8)
NEALS:
The National Education Access License for Schools (NEALS) is a copyright license for
schools in Australia. The license was introduced by the school education sector to help reduce annual
copyright fees incurred by schools (Web source 11).
26
generally meant to be humorous and are often used to make fun of a
person. Finally, we have stereotypes. Stereotyping refers to forming a
quick, superficial image of a group of people which is usually based on
false or incomplete information. There are stereotypes of men, women,
boys, girls, older people, teenagers, occupations, national and ethnic
groups. Stereotyping implies a value judgment about a person or group and,
because it can give a limited or oversimplistic view of people, it is
generally seen as undesirable. However, in cartoons stereotyping is often
used so that we can identify types of characters quickly because it makes
them easy to recognize (ibid.).
5.2 Data Analysis
The data of this work will be analyzed by means of a model developed for
this purpose. This model is an amalgam of the features identified in 5.1.1,
captions (if there are any), inferences, and the functions pointed out in 2.3.
The mechanism of this model is activated by means of the following steps:
1. The features just referred to will be identified in each of the ten
situations.
2. If there is a caption, then it will be analyzed in each cartoon in
accordance with:
The types of inferences mentioned above (4.2.1 and 4.2.2 respectively).
The features identified in 5.1.1 above. Furthermore, what each cartoon
(whether it contains captions or not) communicates will be discussed. This
is mainly done by means of making inferences via depending on the
features above, or even a particular contextual background if what the
cartoon communicates cannot be adequately understood unless such a
background is manifested; and then. 3. Both the function (determined on
the basis of Hutcheon's 1995 model) and the grades (specified according to
27
Muecke's 1996 taxonomy), which irony serves and falls within
respectively, will be manifested.
The model in question is schematized as shown in Figure 2 in the
appendix.
Needless to recall that all the situations analyzed here are tokens of
verbal irony, since it involves linguistic phenomena (Cf. 1.2.2 above).
Figure (2) A Model for Analyzing Irony in Political Cartoons
28
Situ
In
repr
whic
Trea
infer
be a
carri
cruc
easy
a ba
cons
A
The
a ca
to b
hand
uation (1):
n this exa
resented b
ch is repr
asury, as
rence that
a milch c
ies). Add
cial issue i
y as milkin
ackground
sequently,
Accordingl
first is ac
ll for inter
be interpre
d, is also p
:
ample, the
by Obama
resented b
written in
t Obama i
ow) for v
itionally,
in an easy
ng a cow,
d knowled
, PCI is th
ly, irony p
ccomplishe
rpretation
eted rather
positively
e features
a, with h
by the ski
n the cart
is `over-m
various pu
Obama's
going-man
and that's
dge on wh
e type of i
performs tw
ed by emp
, in which
r than obv
y performe
s of carto
his exagge
inny cow
toon (Cf.
milking' th
urposes (s
grin indi
anner, that
s all. This
hat cows g
inference
wo functio
ploying th
h the pictu
viously re
ed by tacit
(Web s
on emplo
erated gri
that, in t
4.1.1 abo
he US Tre
shown on
icates tha
is to say,
inference
give and w
employed
ons: comp
e positive
ure is full w
evealed. D
tly refusin
ource 1)
oyed are:
in; and a
turn, repre
ove). This
asury (wh
n the buck
t he deals
as if the m
e is worke
what a gri
d in this ex
plicating a
aspect of
with mean
Distancing
ng the inap
: a carica
a stereotyp
esents the
s leads to
hich is use
kets whic
s with su
matter we
ed from ha
in means,
xample.
and distanc
f complica
nings that
g, on the o
ppropriate
ature,
ping,
e US
o the
ed to
h he
uch a
re as
aving
and,
cing.
ating:
need
other
e and
unde
treas
T
by th
Situ
T
com
dem
land
is re
T
corp
far a
the w
shou
poss
(9)
Mc
food r
esirable ju
sury are co
This structu
he skinny
uation (2):
There are th
mbined, a
monstrated
dmark of th
epresented
The captio
poration by
as its field
world toda
uld have a
sible: Oba
cDonald's Cor
restaurants
, se
udgments
oncerned
ure makes
cow (Cf.
:
hree featu
and a c
by the y
he McDon
d by Obam
n in the e
y himself
d is concer
ay, Obama
a hand, in
ama (and c
rporation, also
erving around
which O
(Cf. 2.3 ab
s irony ov
3. above)
ures of cart
caricature.
yellow `M
nald's Cor
ma's face (
example c
(and not a
rned). This
a (who is
n one way
consequen
o referred to a
68 million cu
Obama m
bove).
vertly gra
.
(We
toon empl
. The s
M' with t
rporation
(9
(Cf. 4.1.1 a
communic
an ordinar
s means th
s a repres
y or anoth
ntly the US
as Mickey D's
ustomers daily
makes as f
ded, whic
eb source 2
loyed here
symbol-co
this speci
9)
. The car
above).
cates the
ry one; the
hat, in any
sentative o
her. Anoth
S) is alway
s, is the world
y in 119 countr
far as exp
ch is clear
2)
e: a symbo
olour com
ific shape
ricature, b
following
e largest in
ything whi
of the US
her interpr
ys ready t
's largest chai
ries (Web sou
penditure
rly manife
ol and a co
mbination
e, as it is
by compar
g: Obama
n the worl
ich happen
S governm
retation is
to help as
in of
hamburg
urce 12).
29
and
ested
olour
n is
s the
ison,
is a
ld, as
ns in
ment)
also
he is
ger
fast
30
found almost everywhere, just like the McDonald's. This interpretation is
arrived at by having a presupposition about what the Yellow 'M' refers to
and what that referent does. Besides, PCI is also employed in order to
reveal the intended meaning of the caption in this context.
These two interpretations make irony basically perform the oppositional
function. This is mainly because anyone can interpret this cartoon
depending on whether one likes/dislikes Obama's policy. Besides, irony
performs the complicating function in its positive aspect: the call for
interpretation, where ambiguity enriches the interpretation of the cartoon as
a whole (Cf. 2.3 above).
In accordance with the functions which it has just performed, irony is
covertly graded in this situation (Cf. 3. above). This can be justified by
stating that at the face of it, the cartoon shows nothing obvious which
pinpoints irony other than associating Obama with McDonald's, which
does not connote something negative. Consequently, there must be other
purposes behind this resemblance, which have to be figured out by the
reader.
Situ
T
caric
Oba
head
A
inter
and
pres
shou
deba
(10)
W
Gover
the Un
(11)
B
Carol
source
uation (3):
The only
cature. It
ama holdin
d
(11)
(Cf. 4
Although n
rpreted on
Obama (w
sidentiality
uld public
ates to con
Willard Mitt R
rnor of Massa
nited States
in
Big Bird is a
l Spinney
sin
e 14).
:
feature o
is represe
ng Bin La
4.1.1 above
no captio
n the basi
who was
y. Accord
cally com
nvince peo
Romney (born
achusetts
from
n the
2012 ele
protagonist
o
ce 1969, he i
(
of cartoon
ented by th
aden's hea
e).
n accomp
is of the c
nominated
ding to th
mpete by
ople votin
n March 12, 1
m 2003 to 200
ction
(Web so
f the children
s an eight-foo
(Web sour
n that is
he four ch
ad, and R
panies thi
contextua
d for a se
he norms
engaging
ng for them
1947) is an A
07. He was th
ource 13).
n's television
ot two-inch (2
rce 3)
employe
haracters
Romney
(10)
is cartoon
al backgro
econd turn
of the U
g in what
m. In the f
American busin
he
Republican
show
Sesame
249 cm) tall b
ed in thi
sketched i
holding t
n, yet it
ound. In 2
n) were co
US electio
t is called
first debate
nessman who
Party's
nomin
e Street
. Offic
right primros
is exampl
in the pic
the Big B
can be e
2012, Rom
ompeting
ons, nomi
d preside
e (in whic
o served as th
nee for
Presid
cially perform
se-yellow bird
31
le is
cture:
Bird's
asily
mney
over
inees
ential
ch he
he
70th
dent of
med by
d (Web
32
won)
(12)
, Romney unexpectedly threatened to kill the Big Bird (on which
he was severely attacked).
As people got furious by such a declaration, this cartoon was made to
communicate the following: Obama was able to get rid of Bin Laden (the
representative of terrorism in the world) which is a big accomplishment
that increases his reliability and qualification for being a US president for
the second time. All Romney could do, by contrast, is to threaten to kill that
powerless figure, which presents amusement to (US) children. Hence,
Romney is not a reliable person whose objectives are not planned well.
Accordingly, the inference made in this example is worked from having a
presupposition about the aforementioned figures. It is claimed so because
PCI cannot fit to this situation as there is no caption which conveys any
additional meaning.
In line with such an interpretation, two functions have been
accomplished by irony here: ludic and aggregate (Cf. 2.3 above). The
former is performed in its both aspects the positive and negative. The
positive is represented by attempting to tease Romney; the negative, in
turn, is demonstrated by trivializing what Romney can do in comparison to
Obama. This throws its light on the aggregative function which is achieved
by its negative aspect: it excludes Romney (and probably all those who
stand with him) from the presidential arena, as he does not deserve it.
It is necessary to indicate that the complicating function is not employed
here because the ground on which the interpretation is built is contextual,
and thus, it eliminates ambiguity on which the complicating function feeds.
As a result, this makes irony overtly graded because the context reveals the
ironic tone of the cartoon (Cf. 3. above).
(12)
This cited in web source 15.
Situ
T
exam
by th
the s
pres
stere
expl
prov
T
pers
repla
mak
whe
go r
uation (4):
Two simult
mple: a sy
he donkey
same time
sident Geo
eotyping i
licitly; rath
viding inco
The caption
son, politi
acing card
king is a m
ere he repl
round the
:
taneously
ymbol and
y face whi
e, this don
orge W. B
is shown.
her, it pro
omplete in
n in this ex
ically spea
ds. As suc
matter of p
laces the
bush rathe
(
combined
d a stereot
ich is a sym
nkey shap
Bush, who
This is so
ovides a qu
nformation
xample is
aking. Po
h in Iraq,
playing wi
`Q' by `N
er than co
(Web sour
d features
typing res
mbol of th
pe has the
is a repub
o because
uick and s
n (Cf. 4.1
to be inte
olitics for
the allege
ith words
N'. Worde
onspicuous
rce 4)
s of cartoo
pectively.
he Republ
facial exp
blican, an
the pictur
superficial
.1 above).
erpreted th
him is, a
ed change
(or more
ed differen
sly stating
on are em
The first
ican Party
pressions
nd here is
re does no
l sketchin
hat Bush is
as it were
which he
accurately
ntly, Bush
g what he
mployed in
t is manife
y in the US
of the US
exactly w
ot depict B
ng of him,
s not a rel
e, a matte
declares t
y with lett
h's policy
intends to
33
n this
ested
S. At
S ex-
where
Bush
thus
iable
er of
to be
ters),
is to
o do.
34
This interpretation is drawn on both types of inferences: presupposition and
PCI. The former is resorted to when using the donkey face, which is
presupposedly known as referring to the Republicans. The latter, in turn, is
generated on the basis of the context in which the caption is used.
In accordance with this, complicating, ludic and aggregative are the
three functions which irony achieves (Cf. 2.3 above). Complicating is
achieved in its positive aspect: the call for enriching interpretation. Ludic,
on the other hand, is performed in its positive aspect, shown by playfulness
with words or pun, and the negative aspect manifested by trivializing what
Bush and the Republicans, in general, is doing leading one to infer their
irresponsibility. Accordingly, this excludes the Republicans from the
political process, hence achieving the aggregative function.
These three functions make irony overtly graded, which is made clear by
caricature and the caption employed (Cf. 3. above).
Situ
St
4.1.
fash
W
acce
equi
othe
coun
that
infer
form
Barb
(13)
Ba
March
memb
over f
uation (5):
tereotypin
1 above).
hion.
What this c
essories o
ipments an
er words,
ntry or an
even the
rences ha
mer appea
bie has, an
arbie is a
fas
h 1959. Barbi
bers and colle
fifty years (W
:
ng is the o
It is repr
cartoon co
of clothes
nd kits sup
all what
nother. So
e dolls hav
ave led to
als to the
nd which
hion doll
man
ie is the figur
ctible dolls. M
Web source 16)
(
only featur
resented b
ommunica
s and co
pplied by
the Penta
, wheneve
ve joined
o this inte
e normal
is, further
nufactured by
ehead of a br
Moreover, it h
.
(Web sour
re of iron
by the us
ates is tha
osmetics,
the Pentag
agon does
er it finish
d the war
erpretation
(hence p
r, reinforc
y the America
rand of Mattel
has been an im
rce 5)
ny that exi
e of Barb
at instead
the new
gon, as wr
s is plann
hes one, i
queue. A
n: presup
presuppos
ced by the
an toy-compa
l dolls and ac
mportant part o
sts in this
bie
(13)
, wh
of keepin
w alternati
ritten on th
ning for w
t starts an
Again, the
position a
sed) acces
use of th
any
Mattel, In
ccessories, inc
of the toy fash
s example
hich repres
ng to the u
tives are
he doll bo
wars with
nother so
two type
and PCI.
ssories w
he word 'N
nc.
and launc
cluding other
hion doll mar
35
(Cf.
sents
usual
war
ox. In
one
soon
es of
The
which
NEW'
ched in
family
ket for
36
capitalized in purple, which means that Barbie has some old accessories
replaced now by the new ones by the Pentagon. The latter is communicated
by depending on the context in which the doll, together with the
accompanying caption, are employed.
Irony achieves two functions in this example: complicating and
distancing (Cf. 2.3 above). The former is manifested in its positive aspect
embodied by the call for enhancing interpretation to reveal the relationship
between Barbie and war accessories. The latter, in turn, is represented in its
negative aspect: the refusal to be pinned down. This means that the
Pentagon only considers war and its belongings and nothing else.
As with situation (2) above, irony here is covertly graded. This is so
because associating the Barbie doll with war `accessories' requires further
processing to arrive at irony: it is not clearly demonstrated in the picture
(Cf. 3. above).
Situ
T
stere
the t
fact
seco
T
as lo
old t
take
take
pers
a lon
word
T
func
two
uation (6):
There are tw
eotyping (
two parts
of one's
ond part of
This cartoo
ong as Ob
that he ca
en for gran
e a long tim
sistent per
ng time. T
ds hope an
These two
ction of iro
aspects:
:
wo feature
(Cf. 4.1.1
of the ca
`getting o
f the pictu
on commu
ama is you
an make a
nted, wher
me to be a
son who i
These infe
nd change
o interpre
ony into t
positive a
(
es of carto
above). T
artoon. Th
old' reach
ure (i.e. the
unicates tw
ung, hope
change. P
reas chang
achieved.
insists on
rences are
e in this sp
etations b
the scene.
and negat
(Web sour
oon used i
The first is
he other fe
hed by the
e change p
wo possib
e is always
Put anothe
ge is subje
The other
achieving
e built on
pecific con
bring the
The com
tive. The
rce 6)
n this exa
s revealed
eature is s
e facial ex
part).
le interpre
s there; ye
er way, w
ect to ques
r interpret
g his hope
a PCI gen
ntext.
complica
mplicating
former is
mple: a ca
d by Obam
shown by
xpressions
etations: th
et it is only
ith Obama
tion becau
ation is th
s even tho
nerated by
ating and
function i
s found b
aricature a
ma's pictu
indicating
s found in
the first is
y when he
ma only ho
use it seem
hat Obama
ough they
y the use o
d oppositi
is shown i
by the cal
37
and a
ure in
g the
n the
s that
e gets
pe is
ms to
a is a
take
of the
ional
in its
l for
38
enha
whic
said
whe
inter
How
towa
T
beca
as su
Situ
Sy
It is
and
ancing int
ch breeds
d or writte
ether one t
rpretation
wever, the
ards Obam
These func
ause there
uch nothin
uation (7):
ymbol is t
s instantiat
tyranny r
terpretatio
the oppos
en may ha
trusts/distr
s (the afo
e more ap
ma.
ctions hav
e is no exp
ng can be
:
the only f
ted by the
respective
n; the latte
sitional fu
ave differe
rusts Oba
oremention
ppropriate
ve further
plicit asso
averred (C
feature of
e small bi
ely. Moreo
er involve
unction. A
ent pragm
ama (Cf. 1
ned ones)
e one tota
made iro
ciation be
Cf. 3. abov
(We
cartoon th
ird and th
over, the
es lack of
According
atic interp
1.3. above
) have be
ally relies
ony privat
etween Ob
ve).
eb source 7
hat is used
he cage w
fallen lea
imprecisio
to this fun
pretations
e). And th
en viewed
on the s
tely grade
bama and
7)
d here (Cf.
which stand
aves symb
on and cla
nction, wh
dependin
hat is why
d as poss
stand one
ed. This i
anything
f. 4.1.1 abo
d for free
bolize autu
arity,
hat is
ng on
y two
sible.
e has
is so
else,
ove).
edom
umn,
39
which, in turn, stands for the `end' of something ( be it seasons of the year,
a person's age, etc.) or the waiting for an `end' (which is most commonly
dispreferred). To put it differently, autumn has negative connotations. This,
then, makes one infer that the Arab Spring has been born dead,
metaphorically speaking. Such inference is communicated by employing a
presupposition only. This is because one cannot make such negative
connotations unless one already has some idea on what the Arab Spring is.
Irony performs two functions here: provisional and assailing (Cf. 2.3
above). The first is manifested in its positive aspect, viz. demystifying. This
is so because the Arab Spring (by being depicted as a small bird in a cage)
is rejected, refuted and turned upside down (it has been made an autumn
not a spring), implying a proviso of what Arabs have done to themselves.
This function goes hand in hand with the assailing one, which has been
brought about by indicating an invective attack on this important issue for
Arabs.
This has also resulted in an overtly graded irony (Cf. 3. above), which is
represented by the symbols employed.
40
Si
T
stere
the s
T
(rep
not
noth
repr
Sphi
of a
`med
supe
shou
ituation (
There are
eotyping.
stereotypin
This cartoo
resented b
appear to
hing to do
resented by
inx, yet th
averaged
dia' (repre
erficially,
uld be put
(8):
two feat
The symb
ng is refer
on is inte
by the Sph
o be so at
o with the
y the big c
hey are in
people. F
esented by
it does pa
t at doubt
tures of i
bol is mad
rred to by
erpreted a
hinx, as wr
t face val
eir hidden
claws. So,
fact not;
Furthermo
y the smal
ay attentio
. Both a p
(We
irony in
de by the S
the `big'
as follows
written abo
lue. That
n deeds w
, they seem
they have
ore, this c
ll person s
on to what
presuppos
eb source
this exam
Sphinx wh
claws (Cf
s: the Egy
ve) are da
is, what
which are
m to be sta
e claws wh
cartoon le
saying the
is quite o
ition and
8)
mple: a s
hich points
f. 4.1.1 abo
yptian rad
angerous th
they appa
far more
anding stil
hich are b
eads one
e caption)
obvious, so
PCI are u
symbol an
s out to Eg
ove).
dical Islam
though the
arently do
dangerou
ll, just lik
below the
to infer
tackles th
o its reliab
used to lea
nd a
gypt;
mists
ey do
o has
us, as
e the
sight
that
hings
bility
ad to
the i
latte
T
prov
repr
The
equi
T
to sh
Situ
T
abov
prob
capt
type
interpretat
er by anal
This, in tu
visional r
resented in
provision
ivocation,
These func
how the re
uation (9):
The only f
ve). It is r
blems me
tion. This
es and size
tion cited
lyzing the
urn, make
espectivel
n its posit
nal one i
hypocrisy
ctions mak
elevance o
:
feature em
represente
ant to be
means tha
es of prob
above. Th
caption in
es irony p
ly. As w
tive aspec
s negativ
y, duplicit
ke irony co
of the Sphi
mployed i
ed by the b
e delivered
at what is
lems. This
he former
n this spec
perform t
with the o
ct which c
vely achie
ty and dec
overtly gr
inx to radi
(Web so
in this ca
bag-holde
d to the
delivered
s inferenc
is represe
cific conte
wo functi
other exam
calls for e
ved by s
ception (Cf
raded, as i
ical Islam
ource 9)
artoon is
er, who ha
United S
to the US
ce is comm
ented by th
xt.
ions: com
mples, co
enriching
howing e
f. 2.3 abov
it needs fu
ists (Cf. 3
stereotypi
as differen
tates, as
S is nothin
municated
he Sphinx
mplicating
omplicatin
interpreta
evasivenes
ve).
urther ana
3. above).
ing (Cf. 4
nt-size bag
shown in
ng but diffe
by emplo
41
x, the
and
ng is
ation.
ss of
alysis
4.1.1
gs of
n the
ferent
oying
42
a PC
US.
T
aspe
are
polic
type
A
mad
Situ
C
The
cut t
CI to gene
This brings
ect: impre
given (as
cy, or bec
es of funct
Accordingl
de clear by
uation (10
Caricature
former is
tree whose
erate the i
s about th
ecision an
s to wheth
cause of
tions (Cf. 2
ly, irony i
y symboliz
):
and stereo
s represent
e base is B
intended m
he compli
nd lack of
her these
a certain
2.3 above
s overtly
zing probl
otyping ar
ted by Ob
Bin Laden
meaning o
cating fun
clarity. Th
problems
person, e
e).
graded in
lems (Cf. 3
re the two
ama holdi
n (Cf. 4.1.1
of the deli
nction of
his is so b
are beca
etc.) to he
n this exam
3. above).
(Web
o features
ing a big a
1 above).
ivery of th
irony wit
because no
ause of th
elp one de
mple, the t
b source 1
found in
axe; the la
he bags to
th its neg
o further c
he governm
etermine o
thing whi
10)
this exam
atter by the
o the
ative
clues
ment
other
ch is
mple.
e big
43
This cartoon means that Bin Laden is just the superficial part of Al-
Qaeda which is, in turn, deeply rooted. This also means that Obama with
his big axe cannot get rid of Al-Qaeda in the same way as one is cutting a
tree. This inference is communicated by depending on the presupposition
concerning Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
The functions performed here are: ludic, and provisional. The first is
embodied in its negative aspect: reducing Obama's efforts in getting rid of
Bin Laden. The second is represented in its positive aspect: undogmatic. It
does not reject, refute, or turn upside down; it merely reflects people's
uncertainty of the goodness of the deed, because Al-Qaeda is not an easy
matter to deal with (Cf. 2.3 above).
This, in turn, results in grading irony overtly (Cf. 3. above), this is shown
by the deeply rooted tree of terrorism which cannot be eradicated soon.
5.3 Results
The mathematical statistical analysis arrived at by applying the percentage
equation has shown the following:
1. Features:
- Stereotyping has the highest percentage of occurrence: 70%.
- The percentage of the occurrence of caricature is 50%.
- The percentage of the occurrence of symbols is 40%.
- Colour has the lowest percentage of occurrence: 10%.
2. Types:
1. The employment of both presuppositions and particularized
conversational implicature has the highest percentage of occurrence: 40%.
2. Each of the presupposition and particularized conversational
implicature has equal percentages: 30 % for each.
44
3. Functions:
- The complicating function has the highest percentage: 70%.
- Each of the ludic and provisional functions has equal percentage of
occurrence: 30%.
- Each of the distancing, oppositional, and aggregative functions has an
equal percentage of occurrence: 20%.
- Assailing has the lowest percentage of occurrence: 10%.
4. Grades:
- The overt grade of irony has the highest percentage of occurrence:
70%.
- The percentage of the convert grade is 30%.
- The private grade has the lowest percentage: 10%.
6. Conclusion
In line with the analysis conducted and the results obtained, the following
conclusions have been drawn:
1. Cartoons are pragmatic phenomena by nature, as they communicate
far more than what is written or drawn. This makes them an
important and safe source of disseminating opinions about various
issues.
2. Presuppositions employed in cartoons refer to no specific type; they
merely rely on what is assumed to be already known by the reader.
This is mainly because cartoons do not rely heavily on captions;
rather, they are built on stereotyping and caricature (as they have the
highest percentages, 70 and 50 % respectively) which give a clear
picture of what can be meant.
3. The employment of both presuppositions and particularized
conversational implicature together (as it has the highest percentage,
Details
- Pages
- Type of Edition
- Erstausgabe
- Publication Year
- 2016
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783960675938
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9783960670933
- File size
- 8.4 MB
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2016 (November)
- Keywords
- USA Impoliteness Pragma-rhetorical Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Political conflict United States President Political Speech Campaign speech
- Product Safety
- Anchor Academic Publishing
