METAPHOR AND SYMBOLIC ACTIVITY 8(2), 97-109 Copyright © 1993, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. On Satire and Parody: The Importance of Being Ironic Roger J. Kreuz and Richard M. Roberts Memphis State University The purpose of this article is to discriminate between the concepts of irony, satire, and parody, We argue that satire and parody are literary genres, whereas irony is not; it is a complex rhetorical device sometimes used by these genres. The concept of irony must be understood in terms of four distinct subtypes: Socratic irony, dramatic irony, irony of fate, and verbal irony. Both parody and satire can be described in terms of three features of irony: pretense, echoic mention, and the maintenance of multiple mental representations. We suggest that pretense is an important part of satire and that echoic mention is an important part of parody. Such discriminations are useful because distinctions among text genres appear to have psychological significance. When readers encounter texts, they bring to these works prior knowledge about texts in general. Expectations about the type of text being read are one component of this prior knowledge. In particular, readers use their expecta- tions about the genre of a text in order to interpret it (Culler, 1981). Genres can be thought of as “explanations and expectations we have and strategies we use in constructing the possible meanings of a text” (Gerhart, 1989, p. 371). It has been empirically demonstrated that these expectations play an important role in text comprehension (Gibbs, Kushner, & Mills, 1991; Rob- erts, Kreuz, Gilbert, & Bainbridge, in press; Zwaan, 1991). Interest in genre, therefore, has moved from classical rhetoric to psychological study as re- searchers attempt to describe the functional distinctions that exist among genres. Although some critics have denied the usefulness of standard generic classifications (e.g., Frye, 1957), other literary scholars have defended this tradition (e.g., Culler, 1975), and indeed, several distinct genres have emerged cover time. These genres include the epic, tragedy, comedy, lyric, novel, and ‘Requests for reprints should be sent to Roger J. Kreuz, Department of Psychology, Memphis, State University, Memphis, TN 38152,98 KREUZ AND ROBERTS short story (Cuddon, 1977). Genres can also be differentiated more dis- cretely. Examples of finer distinctions include fantasy and folktales (Gerhart, 1989), and allegory and detective stories (Culler, 1975). It has been suggested that membership in a genre can be likened to Rosch’s (1978) theory of category membership (Fishelov, 1991). Consequently, there will be prototypical examples of each genre type. Less prototypical examples will be generically categorized on the basis of family resemblance. Confusions about genre classification arise when there is a lack of understanding about the features that define a genre. This confusion has been particularly evident in the case of two closely related genres: satire and parody. Part of the confusion over the concepts of satire and parody results from the fact that they share features of another poorly understood and frequently misinterpreted concept: irony. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, we disambiguate four types of irony, and second, we conceptualize satire and parody in terms of the features that they share and do not share with irony. As Culler (1975) pointed out, “if a theory of genres is to be more than a taxonomy, it must attempt to explain what features are constitutive of func- tional categories, which have governed the reading and writing of literature” (p. 137). We show that such a functional approach is helpful in differentiating the concepts of irony, satire, and parody from each other. Trony is a term that has been used to encompass several related phenom- ena, The term itself takes its name from a stock character in Greek comedy. Known as eiron, this character got the best of opponents through wit and resourcefulness (Beckson & Ganz, 1989). Over time, however, the concept of irony has been expanded to include at least four distinct concepts: Socratic irony, irony of fate, dramatic irony, and verbal irony. Although many other types of irony have been suggested (.g., nihilistic irony, paradoxical irony, and tragic irony; see Wiener, 1973, for a review), the four types of irony described next have emerged as the basic descriptors of ironic states. These four types of irony share only one feature: There is a discrepancy between mental representations and states of affairs. How these discrepancies are made manifest is what distinguishes them. FOUR TYPES OF IRONY Socratic irony refers to the rhetorical technique of pretending ignorance to reveal a flaw in the thinking of another (Beckson & Ganz, 1989). For exam- ple, a law professor might ask a series of seemingly genuine questions of students to get them to realize that they do not understand some point of law. An important aspect of Socratic irony is the notion of pretense; the speaker knows the answer but acts as if he or she does not. A closely related type of irony refers to the tension that is created whenON SATIRE AND PARODY 99 an audience possesses information that characters in a dramatic work do not, (Beckson & Ganz, 1989). The conflict between these two representations is the hallmark of dramatic irony. The audience is required to maintain two disparate mental representations: (a) the knowledge that exists among the characters in the work and (b) the knowledge that only the audience pos- sesses, Dramatic irony could be thought of as “unintentional verbal irony” (see Gibbs & O’Brien, 1991). The prototypical example of the use of dramatic irony can be found in Sophocles’s Oedipus Rex. There is a duality of meaning in the words spoken by the characters. An example of this occurs late in the play, when Oedipus says, “As for my parentage, humble though it may be, I want to know it” (Guerin, Labor, Morgan, & Willingham, 1970, p. 372). The audience knows that Oedipus’s birth was not at all humble and that by Oedipus learning his, parentage he will learn that he is the murderer of his father. Oedipus’s words make clear the discrepancy in knowledge between himself and the audience. Because only the audience is aware of this discrepancy, only the audience is aware of the irony. The irony of fate is used by speakers and authors to call attention to a peculiar relationship between two events (Fowler, 1965). These utterances are usually signaled explicitly, as in “Isn’t it ironic that youth is wasted on the young?” Unlike other ironie utterances, such assertions are literal; the state- ment is veridical It is sometimes the case that utterances become ironic only in light of later events. When Chamberlain spoke of having obtained “peace in our time” after the Munich Pact of 1938, the outbreak of World War I a year later made this utterance ironic in hindsight. There has been a tendency to overuse the irony of fate to refer to any odd or fortuitous series of events (Jones & Wilson, 1987). An example of such misuse might be, “Isn’t it ironic that no ‘one was home when the house burned down?” The irony of fate can be contrasted with verbal irony, in which ironists intentionally make statements opposite to their beliefs (Haverkate, 1990). Most typically, ironists express attitudes toward something by contradicting the true state of affairs. For example, one might express irritation about a downpour by saying, “What perfectly gorgeous weather we're having!” Asin this example, the speaker may employ hyperbole to make an ironic intention clearer (Kreuz, Roberts, Johnson, & Bertus, in press). Verbal irony has long been a topic of interest to researchers in a variety of fields: English (Kaufer, 1981a, 1981b), linguistics (Haverkate, 1990; Roy, 1981; Sperber & Wilson, 1981, 1986), philosophy of language (Grice, 1975, 1978), and rhetoric (Booth, 1974; Muecke, 1969). A subtype of verbal irony is sarcasm, in which the attitude expressed is typically negative and directed toward an individual or a group (Kreuz & Glucksberg, 1989). An example of sarcasm would be the exclamation100 KREUZ AND ROBERTS “You're really brilliant!” about someone who has committed a thoughtless act, Sarcasm has been the focus of empirical investigation by experimental psychologists. Research has shown that sarcastic statements are com- prehended more quickly than literal statements (Gibbs, 1986a, 1986b). Sar- castic comments are also better remembered than are literal statements (Gibbs, 1986a, 1986b; Kreuz, Long, & Church, 1991). The necessary and sufficient conditions for a remark to be perceived as sarcastic have also been explored (Jorgensen, Miller, & Sperber, 1984; Kreuz & Glucksberg, 1989). ‘There has been extensive discussion about which psychological theory best characterizes irony. One prominent theory highlights the role of pretense in verbal irony (Clark & Gerrig, 1984; Fowler, 1965). According to the pretense theory, the ironist pretends to be ignorant and injudicious, but the listener correctly sees through this ploy. In fact, Clark and Gerrig (1984) argued that the ironist is directing his or her remark to an audience that is “present or absent, real or imaginary” (p. 122), that could not understand the intention of the remark, The actual listener, however, correctly interprets the ironist’s, utterance and, together, the ironist and the listener constitute an “inner circle” that is aware of the pretense of the utterance. At this time, however, no empirical work has addressed this theory (Gibbs & O’Brien. 1991, p. 527). Another theory of verbal irony highlights the importance of repeating the words or thoughts of another person (Kreuz & Glucksberg, 1989; Sperber & ison, 1981). For example, an ironist might echo a false predic “Gee, you really aced that chemistry test!” if the listener had previously made the prediction to do well and then did not. It should be clear, however, that parroting back an utterance does not necessarily mean that the utterance is ironie (as in repeating directions). An echoic mention theory of verbal irony has garnered some empirical support (Gibbs, 1986b; Jorgensen et al., 1984; Kreuz & Glucksberg, 1989). Both the pretense and echoic mention theories capture distinct aspects of verbal irony. These two aspects have important implications for the genres, of satire and parody. In particular, the feature of pretense is important for the genre of satire, and the feature of echoic mention is important for the genre of parody. In addition, the maintenance of the dual representations that are necessary for all types of irony are also necessary for satire and parody. In the following sections, we examine how irony, satire, and parody overlap with regard to these concepts. jon, as in SATIRE AND IRONY Satire has been defined as the ridicule of a subject to point out its faults (Beckson & Ganz, 1989), It has been used extensively in Western literature to lampoon subjects as diverse as British society (as in Swift's A ModestON SATIRE AND PARODY 101 Proposal), languages (as in Clemens's The Awyuul German Language), or modern warfare (as in Heller’s Catch-22). At various times, satire has been used by those wishing to avoid censure for a more direct statement of their views (Elliott, 1962). For example, despite the repressive English Licensing Act of 1662, several thousand satires were written during the next 50-year period Bloom & Bloom, 1979). As we have suggested, satire shares with irony the aspect of pretense. In Socratic irony, the pretension of ignorance is used to enlighten. In satire, the author of the work has become the teacher, pretending ignorance to en- lighten the readers. An example of this kind of pretense is used by Swift in A Modest Proposal: He pretends to be serious in his suggestion that Irish children should be fed to the British. At the beginning of this essay, a naive reader might assume that Swift will ultimately make a legitimate suggestion. By the end, however, Swift's true goal is obvious: His intention has been to offer up a scathing critique of the British class system. Like dramatic irony, satire requires an audience to maintain multiple representations of a text, Dramatic irony can be used to build tension within a dramatic work (as in Oedipus Rex or Othello), or in comedy (as in Twelfth Night or The Comedy of Errors, in which certain characters are disguised as others), and in tragedy (as in Oedipus Rex). In satire, the multiple representa- tions are constructed only when the audience goes beyond the narrative and considers issues external to the story (¢.g., the mores of Victorian society in Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest). Satire adds a new representational level to the processing of a text. For example, in Kosinski’s (1970) Being There, only the reader understands that the main character does not intend the meanings that others place on his words. These other characters mistakenly attribute metaphorical interpreta- tions to his literal statements. The reader must maintain representations that specify: (a) what the characters know and believe (in this case, the protago- nist vs. the other characters), (b) the dramatic irony that results from (a), and (©) the satire that results from considering larger societal issues of culture and socialization. Work in psychology has demonstrated that readers do keep track of the knowledge and beliefs of individual characters (Gerrig, in press; Gibbs & O’Brien, 1991). No research exists, however, that specifies when readers consider extratextual factors (such as the satire), Satire, however, does not need to use dramatic irony to be effective. In The Awful German Language, Clemens ridicules German by exaggerating its com- plexities (e.g., “In the hospital yesterday a word of thirteen syllables was successfully removed from a patient. . . .”; cited in Kiley & Shuttleworth, 1971, p. 228). Although dual representations are required to realize the satire (ie., real German vs. Clemens’s satire), Clemens has not created any dra- matic tension for the audience. Satire and irony are distinguishable in other respects. Like the irony of102 KREUZ AND ROBERTS fate, the goal of satire is to comment on a state of the world. Irony of fate is an explicit, terse observation about a state of affairs. Satire, however, accomplishes this commentary implicitly. Instead of directly recounting the many ironies of war (e.g., Isn’t it ironic that, in war, young men die for the mistakes of their elders?), Heller in Catch-22 allows readers to come to these realizations on their own, Like sarcasm, satire is derisive, When someone says, “You're really bril- liant!,” they denigrate by uttering a statement that is the opposite of their true belief. Similarly, in A Modest Proposal, Swift does not really believe his suggestions; they serve as a scornful metaphor for how the English treat the Irish: “T grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children” (cited in Kiley & Shuttleworth, 1971, p. 180). Unlike sarcasm, however, satire typically comments on society rather than an individual, Swit is clearly implicating the wealthy in general (as opposed to one wealthy person) when he writes that: “Those who are more thrifty ‘may flay the carcass: the skin of which, artificially dressed, will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen” (cited in Kiley & Shuttleworth, 1971, p. 181). Clark and Gerrig (1984) referred to A Modest Proposal in terms of pre- tense: “Swift was pretending to speak as a member of the English ruling class to an English audience” (p. 123). In a reply to Clark and Gerrig, Sperber (1984) maintained that a pretense theory of irony is more accurately a theory of parody. We argue that, because A Modest Proposal is not modeled on any specific work and because it ridicules the English ruling class, it is best described as a satire. In this section, we have shown how satire and the forms of irony share many of the same features, especially the use of pretense and the necessity of multiple mental representations. In the next section, we compare parody and the forms of irony. Although parody also requires the construction of multi- ple mental representations, it differs from satire because it relies on echoie mention and not pretense. PARODY AND IRONY Parody can be thought of as imitation, intended to ridicule o to criticize (Holman & Harmon, 1992). Definitions of parody can be confusing; one authority defines parody as a form of burlesque (Beckson & Ganz, 1989), whereas others consider burlesque a form of parody (Highet, 1962). It may be helpful, therefore, to evaluate parody in terms of ironic features, as we have for satire,ON SATIRE AND PARODY 103 Like the Socratic teacher, the author of a parody knows his or her subject, well; however, the parodist does not need to affect a pretension of ignorance. In fact, the parodist makes his or her familiarity with the original work obvious. To be eflective, the parody must “ring true” (Falk, 1955, p. 15) to the original. Rather than expose ignorance, parody criticizes or flatters. For example, Beard and Kenney’s (1969) Bored of the Rings, as its title implies, mocks the length of J. R. R. Tolkien’s trilogy and the reverence in which many hold it. As in works that employ dramatic irony, successful parodies require the audience to construct multiple mental representations. A work of parody may mean nothing to the uninitiated reader because there is no “chorus” written into the parody to make this knowledge manifest. If the reader recognizes the resemblance between the parody and the original work, then the parody can succeed for that reader. This similarity between parody and dramatic irony should not imply that dramatic irony is a necessary feature of parody. The following poem by Furman Haughton (cited in Macdonald, 1960, p. 132) is a nonironic parody of the works of Emily Dickinson: “She Sees Another Door Opening” My fortitude is all awry To sit upon this chair And, idly lifting up my eye, To glimpse the door ajar there. Through that door could come what bother In what undreamed of pelts A cat, a dog, or God the Father, (Or—gulp—somebody else! Without a knowledge of Dickinson’s work, the parody will be unrecogniz- able, Even if the parody is recognized, however, this awareness is not accom- plished through irony; it is simply a clever imitation of Dickinson’s style and ‘themes. Both parody and satire require the reader to construct multiple mental representations. These representations, however, are quite different. In par- ody, the audience does not need to go beyond the boundaries of the original work to consider societal implications as they do in satire. The Haughton poem is not a parody of poets in general but of Dickinson in particular. In contrast, to understand a work as a satire, one must understand the time and place in which it was written (see Wiener, 1973, p. 216). Unlike the irony of fate (and like satire), parody is an implicit commen- tary. For example, instead of commenting directly on Eisenhower's lack of eloquence, Jensen (cited in Macdonald, 1960) chose to tacitly reveal his104 KREUZ AND ROBERTS opinion of Eisenhower by rewriting Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” into “Eisenhowese”: “I haven't checked these figures, but 87 years ago, I think it was. . .” (see Macdonald, 1960, p. 447). Parody is similar to sarcasm in that statements are made that are contrary to fact. In parody, however, the entire subject is treated in a contradictory manner; “elevated” subjects are debased, and “lowly” subjects are elevated. Tn addition, like sarcasm, the parody has a target: the creator of the original work or the style of the work. Although echoic mention and multiple representations are hallmarks of both irony and parody, parody can be accomplished without irony. Because parody relies on an approximation to an original source, it can be considered an instance of echoic mention with the irony removed. SATIRE AND PARODY Is it possible for a satire to also be a parody? The answer is yes, but now the reader must keep in mind at least three simultaneous representations: a representation of the events in the text itself, a representation of how the events in the text imitate the original work, and a representation of how the events in the text have implications both beyond the text and beyond the original work. An example of a parodic satire is John Stuart's (1968) “A Modest Proposal” (cited in Kiley & Shuttleworth, 1971). It is written in the siyle of Swift and offers a “solution” for America’s racial issues: African Americans should be sent to live in Vietnam. The reader of this work must understand (a) the author’s ostensible message (ie., African Americans should be expelled from America); (b) that Stuart is imitating Swift, who also indicted his own uncaring society; and (c) that this outrageous claim is used to indict the uncaring society of Stuart’s time. The satire is effective even without an understanding of the parody; however, the parody cannot be effective without an understanding of Swift’s satiric work. When satire and parody function together within the same work, they achieve their unique goals independent of each other. Parody is only satiric when the target extends beyond one person or style. Therefore, a parodic satire would be the same as a satiric parody. It should be clear, based on this, discussion, that satire and parody are not the same genre ‘As we have shown, satire and parody are independent of irony. However, confusion about these terms has resulted because satires and parodies fre- quently employ irony. In a satiric or parodie work that does not employ irony, however, what cues may a reader use to determine the satiric or parodic intent of the author? In the case of parody, it seems likely that the author will explicitly signal the reader in some way (e.g., by echoing the title of the work to be parodied). Furthermore, in parody, the author may exag-ON SATIRE AND PARODY 105 gerate any distinctive aspect of the original work or the author (¢.g., Dickin- son’s themes and rhyme scheme). In the absence of such cues, parody may be difficult to recognize; in fact, there may exist many unrecognized parodies in world literature (Bakhtin, 1975/1981, p. 374). In a satiric work, the author may rely on the absurdity of his or her creation to prompt the reader to consider issues beyond the text (see Mitchell, in press). Satires may be explicitly signaled by the outrageousness of the author's claims, as in the title of Clemens’s satire The Awfuul German Lan- guage. The presence of satire in a text may be even more difficult to detect than the presence of parody because what is absurd to one reader may be perfectly acceptable to another. SATIRE, PARODY, AND IRONY We believe that it is a mistake to classify any work of literature as simply ironic, Irony is not the name of a genre but rather a method through which certain communicative goals can be accomplished (see Kreuz, Long, & Church, 1991). For example, during the funeral oration in Julius Caesar, Mare Antony repeatedly refers to Brutus as “an honorable man” (Wright, 1936, p, 648). Clearly, Marc Antony is employing verbal irony in his speech, (Holman & Harmon, 1992). However, one would not refer to Julius Caesar as an ironic work; rather, it is a tragedy that employs verbal irony to achieve certain ends. In a similar way, Oedipus Rex is a tragedy that uses dramatic irony to highlight Oedipus’s predicament. It is confusing to refer to Works such as A Modest Proposal as examples of “text-length irony” (see Sperber, 1984, p. 133). The different types of irony should be considered as features within a text. It is possible that these features may build up to create a cumulative effect that suggests an ironic text. However, because the features of irony can be so disparate and mutually exclusive (e.g., pretense and echoic mention), turning irony into a genre seems inappropriate, CONCLUSIONS To clarify the relation between satire and parody, we have described these concepts in terms of aspects they share with irony. From this analysis, we conclude that satire and parody differ from each other in important ways. Even though irony is often found in works of satire and parody, we stress that satire and parody do not require irony. Neither The Avful German Language nor Bored of the Rings, although they function as satire and parody, respec106 KREUZ AND ROBERTS tively, employ ironic features to realize satire or parody. ‘As we have shown, one cannot refer unambiguously to irony as a concept; it is necessary to distinguish among (at least) four different types of irony that use very different methods to achieve very different ends. Features of each of these subtypes can be effectively employed to help bring about satire or parody. Irony, therefore, is not a literary genre but rather a device that can be used in a variety of genres. Because satire and parody are two genres that share several salient features with irony, confusion about these three concepts, has arisen, Frequently in this article, we have mentioned the idea of multiple repre- sentations of a text, The idea that different representations may be extracted from the same text has been frequently demonstrated in psychological litera~ ture (e.g., Anderson & Pichert, 1978). Multiple representations, or as John- son-Laird (1983) might refer to them, “mental models,” are essential in the comprehension of satire and parody. They are also essential in the compre~ hension of other complex genres, such as allegory (Holman & Harmon, 1992). The psychological implications for the maintenance of multiple repre~ sentations are unclear. Gibbs (1986b) showed that people comprehend ironic utterances as quickly as literal restatements. Although multiple rep- resentations are implicit in the understanding of irony, the comprehender need only recognize the discrepancy and does not need to refer to a literal intention. No research exists for the on-line processing of satire or parody. It is essential, however, in the case of satire and parody, to continually access and interpret the text in light of these multiple representations. In reading Haugh- ton’s parody of Dickinson, it is not enough simply to recognize the parody; one must continue to appreciate specific similarities and exaggerations. It could be assumed, therefore, that cognitive load should increase as the num- ber of representations increase. If so, then satires and parodies should be more processing intensive than “normal” texts. Furthermore, parodic satires should be more processing intensive than either satires or parodies alone. This is because, in each case, one must update a larger number of representa tions of the text. ‘As language researchers begin to examine the psychological aspects of genre in discourse comprehension (¢.g., Gibbs et al., 1991; Roberts et al., in press; Zwaan, 1991), it becomes even more important to distinguish those features that separate literary genres. As we have shown, pretense, echoic mention, and multiple text representations can be used to differentiate be- tween the closely related genres of satire and parody. Although irony is a complex rhetorical device that uses these three aspects, irony is not a neces sary feature of satire and parody.ON SATIRE AND PARODY 107 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, Portions of this research were presented at the annual meeting of the Interna tional Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations, Richmond, KY, April 1992 Partial support for the preparation of this article was provided by a Center of Excellence grant from the State of Tennessee to the Department of Psy- chology at Memphis State University. ‘We thank Cathy McMahen, Bob Mitchell, and Wendy Rogers for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. In addition, we are indebted to Don Nilsen for his detailed insights. The names of the authors are listed alphabeti- cally. REFERENCES ‘Anderson, R.C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Reval of previously unrecallable information follow ing a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1-12 Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans}. Austin: University of Texas Press, (Original work published 1975) Beard, H. N., & Kenney, D. C. (1969), Bored ofthe rings. New York: New Ametican Library. Beckson, K., & Ganz, A. (1989). Literary terms: A dictionary (3d ed). New York: Noonday. Bloom, E. A. & Bloom, L. D. (1979). Satire's persuasive voice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Booth, W. C. (1974). 4 rhetoric of irony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clark, H. H., & Gersig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121-126 Cuddon, J. A. (1970). A dictionary of literary terms. London: André Deutsch, Caller, 5. (1975). Struccwalise poetics: Structuralism, linguistics, and the study of literature Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Calier, J (1981). The pursuit of signs: Semiotics, terature, deconstruction. Whaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Elliott, R. C. (1962). The satirist and society. In A. B. Kernen (Bd.), Modern satire (pp. 1487154). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Falk, R. P. (1958). American literature in parody: A collection of parody, satire, and literary Iuresque of American writers past and present. New York: Twayne. Fishelov, D. (1991). Genre theory and family resemblance —revsied. Poetics, 20, 123-138. Fowler, H. W. (1965). 4 dictionary of modern English usage (2nd ed). Oxford, England: Oxford Univesity Press, Frye, N. (1957), Anatomy of ertcism: Four essays, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gethart, M. (1988). The dilemma of the text: How to “belong” to a gente, Poetics, 18, 355- 33. Gerri, R. J. (in press. Participatory aspects of narrative understanding. In R. J. Kreuz & M.S. MacNealy (Eds), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics. Norwood, NI: Ablex Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1986a). Comprehension and memory for nonliteral utterances: The problem of sarcastic indinoot requests. Aeta Psychologica, 62, 41-51.108 — KREUZ AND ROBERTS Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1986b). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm, Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy: General, 115, 3-15. Gibbs, R. W,, Je, Kushner, J. M. & Mills, W. R., II (1991), Authoria intentions and metaphor comprehension, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 11-30. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. & O'Brien, J. (1991). Psychological aspects of irony understanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 523-830 Grice, H. P. (1975). Logie and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 2. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic. Grice, H. P, (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed), Syntax and semantics: Vol 9. Pragmatics (pp. 113-128). New York: Academic. Guerin, W., Labor, E., Morgan, L., & Willingham, JR. (Eds.) (1970), Mandala: Literature for ‘critical analysis. New York: Harper & Row. Haverkate, H. (1990). A speech act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 4, 77-109. Highet, G. (1962). The anacomy of satire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Holman, C. H., & Harmon, W, (1992). A handbook to literature (60h ed). New York: Macril- fan. Johnson-Laird, P, N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Jones, J, & Wilson, W. (1987). Am incomplete education. New York: Ballantine. Jorgensen, J, Miller, G. A., & Sperber, D. (1984) Test ofthe mention theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 112120. Kaufer, D. (198la). Ironie evaluations. Communication Monographs, 48, 25-38. Kanfer, D. (1981b). Understanding ironic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 495- 510. Kiley, F., & Shuttleworth, J. M, (Eds). (1971). Satire: from Aesop to Buchwald. New York: Odyssey. Kosinski, J. (1970). Being there. New York: Bantam. Kreuz, R. J, & Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 374-386 Kreuz, R.J., Long, D. L., & Church, M. B. (1981). On being ironic: Pragmatic and mnemonic implications. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6, 149-162. Kreuz, R. 5., Roberts, R. M., Johnson, B. K., & Bertus, E. L. (in press), Figurative language occurrence and co-occurrence in contemporary literature. In R. J. Kreuz & M. S. MacNealy (E43), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics. Norwood, NB: Able. ‘Macdonald, D. (1960). Parodies: An anthology from Chaucer to Beerbohm—and after. New York: Random House Mitchell, R. W. Gin press) Primate cognition: Simulation, selFknowledge, and knowledge of other minds. In D, Quitt & J. Hani (Eds), Hominid culture in primate perspective. Denver: University Press of Colorado, Muecke, D. C. (1969). The compass of irony. London: Methuen Roberts, R. M., Krouz, R.J., Gilbert, D. K., & Bainbridge, E. A. (in press). Discourse expecta tion and perceived coherence. In H. Van Oostendorp & R. A. Zwaan (Eds), Naturalistic text comprekension, Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Rosch, E. (1978), Principles of categorization. In E, Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, nc Roy, A. M. (1981). The function of irony in discourse. Text, 1, 407-423 Sperber, D. (1984). Verbal irony: Pretense or echoic mention? Jounal of Experimental Psychol- ogy: General, 113, 130-136. Sperber, D., é Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed), Radical pragmatics (pp. 295-318). New York: Academic. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: ‘Harvard University PressON SATIRE AND PARODY 109 Wiener, P. P. (Ed). (1973). Dictionary of the history of ideas: Studies of selected pivotal ideas. ‘New York: Scribner's. Wright, W. A. (Ed.). (1936). The complete works of William Shakespeare. Garden City, NY: Garden City Books. Zwaan, R. (1991). Some parameters of literary and news comprehension: Effects of discourss- ‘ype perspective on reading rate and surface structure representation. Poetics, 20, 139-156.