![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aruanTo me and mine, sarcasm is more than simply a feature of our highly versatile and idiomatic English language; it's a way of life. As there are no specific semantic or syntactic constructions that in and of themselves can be construed as sarcastic, we owe our fun to that feature of language we acquire even before we can utter its words, that telling and essential suprasegmental, intonation. So much of what we communicate to other people is nonverbal, and it's just as well as they only truly hear (and by that, I mean understand) 10% of what we say anyway. With odds distinctly out of our favor, we should strive to include as much information in what we say as we possibly can so that our words make a more clear impression of our intent; hence intonation, the rise and fall of pitch over a given stretch of speech. It can signal the ending of a sentence (falling pitch on the last word), the asking of a question (rising pitch on the last word), or items in a list (constant pitch on all items, then falling pitch on the final element). However, all of these functions can be expressed without the help of intonation: a sentence signals its own conclusion with a period, an inquiry with a question mark (though the distinction can also be made in the specific context), items in a list with commas in between and an 'and' before the final item. While helpful, intonation is not necessary to convey these – sarcasm has no such markers. Unlike intonation, sarcasm is not a natural language phenomenon. It requires an intimate knowledge of culture and understanding of context as well as knowing the language itself. Despite all that, even native speakers can have trouble interpreting the nature of a statement as sarcastic: among the most earnest of us, sarcasm is often taken seriously and can cause serious confusion and hurt feelings, while among the more hardened, jaded crowd, it's as natural to their lips as oxygen to their lungs. If I said 'Oh yeah, that's a great idea' evenly, without encoding anything between the lines via intonation, it would probably be taken at purely face value as complementary, when the meaning I was trying to get across was really 'That's suicidal, splitting up in the middle of the Amazon jungle so that we have a greater chance of one of us surviving, I can't even believe your survival instinct let that one slip past your reticular formation, much less your mouth.' We can see where this can get intricate. Had I merely said 'Oh yeah, that's a great idea,' perhaps punctuated with an eyeroll or a pointedly dirty look, my meaning would've been as aptly taken as if I had said that convoluted mess of a run-on sentence above.
Sarcasm is also a staple of polite society. With a simple 'How nice,' you've expressed no direct (literal) disapproval, yet you've made your true opinion known more civilly, concisely, and unmistakably than a crude 'It sucked' or nonchalant 'Whatever' ever could've done. Did I just succeed in making sarcasm a feature of etiquette? Someone stop me.
Sarcasm must not always be utilized in a wounding way or with bitter intent. For those of us who love (read: are rabid about) our television shows too much to simply tune in and be content at that until the next installment, there exists a capital forum, and as luck would have it, a like example of first-rate sarcastic wit. This haven goes by the apt title of 'Television Without Pity' and features many fine writers who 'pen' reviews of their respective favorite programs. Courtesy of Pamie, in charge of the 'Queer as Folk' episode recaps: "Wow! Michael's dating someone who had sex with Brian Kinney? What are the odds?" Knowing the context, which is that the aforementioned Brian Kinney is somewhat of an Adonis in a society of mere mortals, the one who gets all the boys and has all the luck (he's been described as being made of Teflon, in that nothing sticks to him) and does nothing but take advantage of those two attributes as often as he can, we add the proper intonation (or purposely omit it altogether for a 'duh' effect so even those not in the know will get that we’re being facetious) and the fact that a friend of his (Michael) could be dating a guy he's been with is not at all remarkable, and even funny in that it hasn't happened sooner. No direct mention of Brian's handsomeness or promiscuity, yet its meaning is perfectly taken by those who follow the show. In the forums, the users have even taken a bit of liberty in exercising their English language-granting right to Coinage: this kind of funny sarcasm does to an extent deviate from the original meaning of 'sarcastic,' which in spirit is defined as 'sharply taunting,' and they've therefore coined an entirely new verb which expresses their more playful approach (after all, they love their subject matter): 'to snark.' A comment can be 'snarky' (affixation) and a statement that is sarcastic with loving intent (as it were) can just be 'snark' (functional shift).
In conclusion, while most language phenomena have their own vocabulary or syntax to convey them, sarcasm is more purely dependent on intonation. Whether purposely inflicted or omitted, intonation is integral to our perception of a phrase as sarcastic.
Sarcasm is also a staple of polite society. With a simple 'How nice,' you've expressed no direct (literal) disapproval, yet you've made your true opinion known more civilly, concisely, and unmistakably than a crude 'It sucked' or nonchalant 'Whatever' ever could've done. Did I just succeed in making sarcasm a feature of etiquette? Someone stop me.
Sarcasm must not always be utilized in a wounding way or with bitter intent. For those of us who love (read: are rabid about) our television shows too much to simply tune in and be content at that until the next installment, there exists a capital forum, and as luck would have it, a like example of first-rate sarcastic wit. This haven goes by the apt title of 'Television Without Pity' and features many fine writers who 'pen' reviews of their respective favorite programs. Courtesy of Pamie, in charge of the 'Queer as Folk' episode recaps: "Wow! Michael's dating someone who had sex with Brian Kinney? What are the odds?" Knowing the context, which is that the aforementioned Brian Kinney is somewhat of an Adonis in a society of mere mortals, the one who gets all the boys and has all the luck (he's been described as being made of Teflon, in that nothing sticks to him) and does nothing but take advantage of those two attributes as often as he can, we add the proper intonation (or purposely omit it altogether for a 'duh' effect so even those not in the know will get that we’re being facetious) and the fact that a friend of his (Michael) could be dating a guy he's been with is not at all remarkable, and even funny in that it hasn't happened sooner. No direct mention of Brian's handsomeness or promiscuity, yet its meaning is perfectly taken by those who follow the show. In the forums, the users have even taken a bit of liberty in exercising their English language-granting right to Coinage: this kind of funny sarcasm does to an extent deviate from the original meaning of 'sarcastic,' which in spirit is defined as 'sharply taunting,' and they've therefore coined an entirely new verb which expresses their more playful approach (after all, they love their subject matter): 'to snark.' A comment can be 'snarky' (affixation) and a statement that is sarcastic with loving intent (as it were) can just be 'snark' (functional shift).
In conclusion, while most language phenomena have their own vocabulary or syntax to convey them, sarcasm is more purely dependent on intonation. Whether purposely inflicted or omitted, intonation is integral to our perception of a phrase as sarcastic.
