Talk:Irony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (April 2008)
Irony is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Literature Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
News On 27 August 2007, Irony was linked from Reddit, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

For archived talk, see /Archive 1

Contents

[edit] This article appears to contradict itself.

That seems ironic.

How does the article contradict itself?--In Defense of the Artist 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who put the contradiction notice up, so I can't say what the reason was, but one self-contradiction I noticed was that one example of Situational Irony says that it's ironic that the one member of ZZ Top who doesn't have a beard is named Frank Beard while the Irony of Fate section says that the fact that a person named Justice was convicted of a crime and executed is NOT ironic, merely coincidental. PotatoKnight 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I put it up. My problem was/is that the article can't seem to agree on whether "killed by a falling safety sign" type incidents are ironic, or merely incongruous. PotatoKnight (who has a freaking awesome username) has put his finger on the issue exactly. Eleland 01:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that is ironic. The story of a man getting hit by a sign is what would be understood by a casual listener of the story of a casual observer of the incident. The fact that it was a safety sign is the ironic part - it is a deeper meaning to the incident. Regardless, I don't see a mention of it anywhere in the story, so we can take the notice down. Rm999 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that is ironic. So called situational irony is still not universally accepted. I would expect to see a caveat explaining that this is an emerging use of the word but not yet standard. 66.43.76.51 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Spinlock

There is no expectation that a man whose last name is beard should have a beard, nor that a name of 'justice' should be carried by an innocent. Killed by a safety sign however... maybe. Irony first requires a conventional meaning attached to class of thing, which is expected, and then contradicted by the actual meaning of the particular something itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.56.161 (talk) 14:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

In fact, by the definition given at the beginning of the article, all of these examples are ironic by its definition of cosmic irony. However, perhaps this should also mention that this higher being or force doesn't have to be a literal entity, but if someone watching could imagine a higher force or being interfering with the person's life to create these settings for their own amusement, the situation is cosmically ironic. The article seems to try to get this across in several discussions of cosmic irony (irony of fate), but never explains it entirely explicitly. Perhaps this explanation should be added? --Haridan 11:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the names stated above: In stories, the first example (with Beard) could be considered ironic, but only by a stretch and not as a general example. The example with JUSTICE, however, would be considered ironic, as names are often considered to be specifically chosen by the author, and can be argued and/or used as a point in a literary analysis. That a person named Justice does not have justice delivered to him is ironic. 24.16.135.149 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't quite think the "No Smoking" example is really ironic. 24.16.135.149 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It IS ironic. How funny it is is subjective, but it could definitely be considered ironic. I'd also like to mention that the higher being or force I was talking about before doesn't actually have to be a higher being or force and could be just whoever created the ironic situation. However, a lower degree of seperation between the force or creator of the ironic situation and the situation being considered can make it less ironic. For example, if Frank Beard gave himself that name it makes it less ironic that he has no beard. However, that could still be very ironic if another member of the band does have a really awesome beard. I'm not really so sure about my previous explanation of cosmic irony though, as the way a higher force or being would interfere with a situation for their own amusement is a bit more specific than just what's funny. Irony is hard to explain. Haridan (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Death by falling safety sign: Yeah, that's ironic. The purpose of a safety sign is to prevent harm, so the prevention of harm is an expectation implicit to the mere existence of such a sign. I'd say anything that causes an event that it was created to prevent would fall under irony, so long as the event is dependent on the object in question. So, while a falling safety sign killing someone would be ironic, being beaten to death by someone who just happened to pick up the nearest object wouldn't be, even if that object was a safety sign. Now, if the fatal bludgeoning object happened to be a Nerf bat, well, I think we're back in ironic territory. Similarly, getting crushed to death by a lifeboat, while sad, is not ironic. On the other hand, getting your lifejacket caught on a sinking lifeboat a hundred feet offshore has irony to spare, especially if the one wearing the lifejacket happens to be, say, a dolphin.

The beardless Beard: I'd give this a pass on irony, too. Being named "Beard" doesn't imply having a beard, but being a member of ZZ Top does. The irony is dependent on the uniqueness of the combination of the name and the facial hairlessness. If Beard was one of two beardless members, or if there were two members named Beard, only one of which was beardless, the situation would fail to be ironic.

Execution of Justice: Not quite. Someone named Justice being convicted of a crime and executed might be of some small semantic amusement, but it's not ironic. Now, someone named Justice being falsely convicted and executed... that would be ironic. -=(Alexis Brooke M (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC))=-

I think Alexis' explanation of those examples is fantastic, better than anything in the main article (is that ironic?) and, should be given an encyclopaedic re-write and incorporated into the article, maybe replacing some of the not so good examples. Jamie 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to try to make similar explanations, but Alexis has done a good job at it. It wouldn't be ironic to be killed by a falling safety sign that said "Warning: This safety sign may fall. Risk of death!" Or would it?

[edit] Daily Show/Colbert Report?

Do they use the Socratic Irony a lot? (Colbert report perhaps more than Daily Show). --81.105.176.121 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Colbert Report goes, that's satire. The Daily Show is just comedy, not really irony or satire. Maybe some segments include those elements, but the show as a whole doesn't. --ErikB 05:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it ironic that there is better programming in a parody? --64.109.56.207 06:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage Controversy

The so called second meaning given seems to me to identify what is essentially irony of fate (cosmic irony) already mentioned. The possible fact that some do not recognize irony beyond this narrow application does not make it an alternate meaning does it? Dainamo 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fowler the Strict?

Regarding this bit:

Other historical prescriptivists have even stricter definitions for the word irony. Henry Watson Fowler, in The King's English, says “any definition of irony—though hundreds might be given, and very few of them would be accepted—must include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same.” Fowler would thus consider the Sullivan example above as incorrect usage.

On the basis of what's quoted here from Fowler, it does not follow that "Fowler would thus consider the Sullivan example above as incorrect usage." The key word here is 'include': a definition that must include something can hardly be said necessarily to exclude what isn't explicitly excluded. Rather, Fowler identifies verbal irony as a necessary component of any acceptable defintion of 'irony'; a sufficient — that is to say comprehensive — definition would be likely to include other shades of meaning besides — as does Fowler's own (in Modern English Usage), which also includes what he terms 'the irony of fate':

Nature persuades most of us that the course of events is within wide limits foreseeable, that things will follow their usual course and that violent outrage on our sense of the probable or reasonable need not be looked for. These 'most of us' are the uncomprehending outsiders; the elect or inner circle with whom Fate shares her amusement at our consternation are the few to whom it is not an occasional maxim, but a living conviction, that what happens is the unexpected.

That strikes me as an apt characterization of the Sullivan example. (Note that The King's English does not develop a definition of irony beyond verbal irony; neither, as noted, does it limit it to that. Also note that it was was co-authored by Fowler's brother, Frank, and therefore should be attributed to both.) So not only does the author's statement not logically hang together, it is contradicted by Fowler himself.

I would strongly suggest striking this paragraph entirely and perhaps replacing it with a discussion of Fowler's (or Fowler & Fowler's) more developed and nuanced views on irony and usage.

I'm also wondering what a 'historical prescriptivist' is, and how Fowler — certainly one to hold strong opinions — can be classed as one. Sneedy (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Futurama's definition

The final episode of the 4th (final?) season entitled 'The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings' contains several jokes dealing with the definition of irony. [transcript] When the Robot-Devil proclaims it ironic that Fry is to receive his own hands randomly selected 'randomly from somewhere in the universe'. Bender counters 'It's not ironic, just coincidental'. It continues with Bender deafening Leela with his new airhorn nose, preventing her from hearing Fry's concert, which he says is not ironic, just mean. Finally during the concert when the Robot-Devil reveals that he helped Leela in return, not literally for her hand, but for her hand in marriage. Bender sings from a dictionary: "The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention, now that is 'irony'!" So how does this usage fit into the definitions given in this article? 61.192.245.168 10:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)urameshiya


isn't that definition the definition of sarcasm, which leads to the irony that bender is actually wrong etc? 203.33.162.55 05:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasm is a form of irony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.169.154.137 (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In just those jokes, I don't see where Bender is ever wrong, used irony, or was sarcastic. As I see it, Bender is plainly pointing out that the Devil used irony (actually dramtic-irony, and it is also verbal-irony), to intentionally mislead Leela as she was unaware of the literal meaning. Bender's quote from the dictionary is a non sarcastic insult at Leela because she had been unware of the irony, and probably too at any viewers who don't know what irony is. 86.14.238.200 (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture is dumb and not ironic

I deleted this picture a while back, but the photographer would have none of it and repeatedly reverted me, suggesting I take to the talk page. Here's how the caption currently reads:

"An example of irony - It is ironic that a 'dead end' sign, used for traffic, would be placed near a cemetery. The expected result - That traffic will know the road is a dead end. The actual result - a comical play on words."

That is an awkward stretch of the definition of irony--not to mention a needless overselling of a not-particularly-funny joke. Puns and coinicdences are not inherently ironic. In order for the placement of a "Dead End" sign to be ironic, it would need to be situated in a place that was quite the opposite of the dead end--say a crossroads, or--along punny lines--in a place that was full of life or birth, the oppposite of death. Unintentionally denoting a place with a lot of dead people a "Dead End" simply isn't ironic.

Naturally, the creator of the photo feels it should stay. What do others think?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - puns are not irony. Unless, of course, someone can provide an explanation for how it falls under any of the categories of irony defined in the article. But I don't see how it does.
Crabula 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is ironic, because it says "Dead End" and really that's where the dead start. This seems to be a resolved topic, but I just wanted to point out what could be seen as irony in the photo. BubbaStrangelove (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article still appears to contradict itself (and that's not ironic)

The material above deals with the primary dictionary meaning of the word irony...It is currently quite common to hear the word ironic used as a synonym for incongruous or coincidental in situations where there is no “double audience,” and no contradiction between the ostensible and true meaning of the words.

And yet, the material above provides Spinal Tap, the chairman of IBM saying, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers," (which is not only not ironic, but was accurate at the time), Ludwig van Beethoven’s loss of hearing, an anti-capitalist selling anti-capitalism T-shirts for a profit, none of which are examples of the "primary dictionary meaning", and many of which are elementary misunderstandings.

My use of the "contradict" tag was not a joke, and the incongruity (not irony) of the act didn't occur to me at the time. Please fix, kthx. Eleland 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There are too many ways to comment the tag. --64.109.56.207 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


This page is still a mess. Nowhere near as clear and concise as most other pages I've seen. What is the point of all the examples? Half of the examples are not really irony. Does anyone know what Irony is? UnPunkMonk 17:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sampling is irony?

I fail to see, or rather the article fails to explain, how the practice of sampling in music is necessarily ironic. — Gwalla | Talk 01:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

ironic means enxpected . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.241.27 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't just mean unexpected. Did you read the article? And anyway, samping is not necessarily unexpected. In genres like hip-hop, it's the norm. I'm going to remove it unless someone can provide an explanation of how it fits the technical (not Alanis Morrisette) definition of irony. — Gwalla | Talk 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sampling is not ironic in itself; rather the irony lies in the sampling of genres which would not be expected from a particular artist, for example if a black rapper were to sample a White American Youth song. 3fingeredPete (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. That wouldn't be ironic. (Although, I guess if the rapper had done it without realising it's origins...) 78.148.103.25 (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely it would be ironic due to the double audience (ie those who are aware of the music and politics of White American Youth and those who are unaware)? Either way, someone needs to make the definition clear.3fingeredPete (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure opinions differ. But as I understand it, it's going to depend on the song. Having two different sorts of appreciation in the audience doesn't make it irony. Either the artist would have to write from a viewpoint of someone who didn't know something about how the audience would view the song (tragic irony); or the song would have to imply the opposite of what he actually meant (verbal irony). So if your black rapper track was about racism, then sampling racist music would certainly be ironic. But I'm not sure just being a black rapper sampling racist music would do it... 78.148.99.182 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Whoever invented the word should be shot for not defining it.3fingeredPete (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aristotle's definition?

In the article we read: "While many reputable critics limit irony to something resembling Aristotle's definition..." and then goed on to describe a differnet, broader view. Yet Aristotle's definition is not mentioned in the article at all. Maybe it is, but in that case it is not attributed to Aristotle. Could someone put the definition is the article, or attribute it to the philospher (along with mentioning what book it comes from), in case it's already in there? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.117.233 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle's definition of irony turns out to be something called "Socratic Irony", which is nothing more than the socratic method and has nothing to do with irony as we currently understand the term. See this. So I'm afraid the reference to Aristotle is a ref herring. 78.150.253.144 (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Links

As of January 8 2008, several of the links in the External Links section are broken. Specifically, the link to the gaurdian story looks like a custom 404 error page, and both links to AHD just give the home page of bartleby.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.105.29 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This definition is completely wrong.

Irony is not something merely incongruous. Irony is when the actual meaning of a word/idea/phrase is the OPPOSITE of the intended/literal/implied meaning. The definition of irony is being perverted to where nearly anything weird can be described as "ironic".--18.127.1.9 (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion, but irony is not merely saying the opposite as what is meant. There's different types of irony, and what you describe isn't necessarily always irony. BubbaStrangelove (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, implying the opposite of what you are literally saying *is* always irony. But irony is not always implying the opposite of what you are literally saying. Is that what you meant? 78.148.105.100 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] example farm

I have removed the example farm, if any individual is of note in relation to Irony then use prose and explain, with reliable sources. Gnangarra 00:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Examples in music:


[edit] OED Definition

There seems to be some argument here about what irony is. We can't use it in the article, obviously, but the OED says:

  1. An expression of meaning [...] by the use of language of a different or opposite tendency,
  2. An ill-timed or perverse arrival or event [...] that is itself desirable.
  3. A literary technique in which the audience can perceive hidden meanings unknown to the characters.
  4. Of or like iron.

Presumably the OED knows what it is talking about. And I'm sure that everyone posting here will follow this definition from now on. 78.148.105.189 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Edit to try and give the thing some internal consistency

Okay, I came back as a user and tried to fix the thing. I hope that no-one is offended. I tried to make the smallest change that resolved all the errors I saw, plus I fixed the fact that there were two 'types of irony' sections, and explained what aristotles' definition of irony was (and why it doesn't help here).

I've left a lot of stuff in that I didn't see was really irony -- the music sampling, for example. I didn't want to rewrite the article in my image, just make it better. ShadowFirebird (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, Derhexter, rather than just reverting me, why don't we talk about it? Wouldn't that be more grown up? ShadowFirebird (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
...many thanks. ShadowFirebird (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I found another reference to "Aristotle's original definition" and removed it. Aristotole's original definition was Socratic Irony, which isn't irony as we currently understand the term. (I'm happy to be proved wrong -- in which case, someone please add to this article what "Aristotle's definition" actually was.) ShadowFirebird (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think that there's plenty to do here.

  • Can anyone tell me why the "dead end" picture is ironic? It seems to me to be a pretty weak example of situational irony. The baker street tube station one if far better. Can I remove it?
  • Can anyone point me to a definition of "ironic art"? Is this really a valid term? I confess that ironic art doesn't seem very ironic to me, and looking at this discussion page, I'm not the only one.
  • The section on dramatic irony needs work -- in fact the introduction to this article seems to do an excellent job of describing dramatic irony. Maybe it should be moved there.
  • The examples in the sections on situational, cosmic etc irony that are fictional in nature are in fact tragic irony, since they rely on an audience to see them. I guess you could argue that all tragic irony is situational, but I think that's needlessly complicating matters (and is probably backwards).

I'll leave the page for a while before I make any more edits. ShadowFirebird (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Gift of the Magi example seems to fit better under the tragic irony section. For situational irony to warrant inclusion, someone needs to directly describe how it and tragic irony differ. At present, the only difference seems to be that situational irony happens in real life, and tragic irony happens in literature. --Kneague (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear you say that. It's my theory that situational irony comes from an understandable but mistaken impulse to apply tragic irony to real life. But, of course, unless someone important says that in writing, I can't put it in the article. OTOH, look at the Baker Street Tube Station picture; there's clearly a disparity between something and something else going on there... ShadowFirebird (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made some more changes: removing a picture and some superfluous examples; moving some examples of "fictional situational irony" into tragic irony; and generally trying to make the section on tragic irony make sense (although, I think it actually needs some creative writing rather than editing ... I'll have a go later on... ShadowFirebird (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've actually written some new sentances. If you're missing something from the introduction, it might have got reworked into the section on tragic irony. Again, I'll leave things for a few days. Next, ironic art. ShadowFirebird (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other thing about tragic irony, is that it's TRAGIC. How you tell Shakespeare comedies from his tragedies: everyone ends up married in the first, and dead in the second. That isn't exactly an artificial and superficial distinction. Tragic irony needs tragedy, whether in reality or art. The Gift of the Magi is art, to be sure, but more comic than tragic. Hint: these involved are married and in love, and the situation is reversible and not fatal. Hence, irony of situation but certainly not irony of tragedy.

I would suggest that irony of tragedy is simply a subset of situational irony, as is irony of comedy. Either can occur in life, or in representational art (plays, stories). Litotes and sarcasm are on a boundary where they aren't meant to be representational art, but more of a sort of performance art, and perhaps (like spontaneous humor) they merit a separate category. SBHarris 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] baker street picture

I've stuck it back in again. If you want to delete it, would you mind explaining why here? Ta. ShadowFirebird (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

I've had a final fiddle, reworking the section on ironic art to make it less ... well, waffly. Tidied up a few references and such.

I've also had the audacity to remove the cleanup tag, which is what WP:Cleanup says to do when you're finished. YMMV. I still think the article waffles in places, but it's no longer confused, wrong, or painful. My 10p, anyway. ShadowFirebird (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ugh

This page is very very sloppy. I don't even know where to begin. There are typos everywhere, and examples/definitions very obviously hobbled together from people with a thin but enthusiastic grasp on what irony actually is. I'm putting the Cleanup tag back on.

Why don't you WP:SOFIXIT instead? It's hard to fix things, easy to point out places where others should fix things. You do that at home, too? How does the family feel about it? SBHarris 23:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not bad

Actually, considering the subject, I think this article is pretty good, although it can be improved of course. Well done editors. Because irony depends on *meaning*, it will always be difficult to find good examples to illustrate it that most people will 'get'. We all bring our own meanings to the table so something obviously very ironic to some will not be so obvious or not be ar all ironic to others.

[edit] Historical Irony

I think a good picture for this section would be that one of the man with one of the first portable telephones with the caption "They'll Never Catch On". Can anyone can find it? ArdClose (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Ironic" similes not ironic

I fail to see how "funny as cancer", "clear as mud" are ironic, they mean exactly what they say, they are purely similes, not even oxymorons. There is no incongruity between the words and the meaning. Just because a single word in the simile has a meaning opposite of the meaning of the whole phrase doesn't make it ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.241.27 (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because cancer isn't funny and mud isn't clear. The examples use a word (e.g.: clear) to mean the exact opposite (that the situation the simil refers isn't clear at all), thus it's verbal irony. Elessar (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dramatic Irony and Tragic Irony

These appear to be two sections again. Could someone explain why they think they are different things? 78.148.103.160 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holes and preditor/prey examples removed

both of those examples are simply coincidences... in 'Holes' the boys did nothing to prevent the area from becoming a girl scout camp, so its just a coincidence that later it actually did become a girls camp. as for the 'hunter becomes the hunted' example, theres no irony there, its just a trick. --Wesman83 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Postmodernistic claptrap

Irony threatens authoritative models of discourse by "removing the semantic security of ‘one signifier : one signified’";[2] Would somebody like to interpret this academic babble? It seems to be some kind of deconstructionist reference to an older theory of semiotics, but I need a little "semantic security" because otherwise I cannot tell what the hell the author means to say here. I suppose it is an authoritative model of discourse to say something clearly? If so, then whoever this is, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. SBHarris 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Folk taxonomies?

Regarding this sentence:

Regardless of the various ways folk taxonomies categorize figurative language types, people in conversation are attempting to decode speaker intentions and discourse goals, and are not generally identifying, by name, the kinds of tropes used.

Two points:

1. 'Folk taxonomy', in this context, is a contentious term, as it basically means a 'non-scientific' taxonomy, and I fail to see how such a distinction is relevant to the discussion. Generally speaking, a taxonomy that doesn't use scientifically accepted terminology and relationships is a 'folk' taxonomy (not to be confused with a 'folksonomy', which might be seen as a type of folk taxonomy). On one reading, virtually any taxonomy used in the humanities, 'social sciences', liberal arts, etc, would be a 'folk taxonomy'; but this seems to unfairly denigrate taxonomies that don't originate in or that aren't aligned to the 'natural sciences', because so-called 'folk' taxonomies can be perfectly rigorous and formal. And even when they aren't, they are still hardly 'folksy' in the way, say, a farmers' almanac treatment of types of pests might be - which is the kind of taxonomy generally referred to as a 'folk taxonomy'. I suspect there are far fewer parsers of ironic tropes than there are farmers who can name you a dozen bugs that can ruin your wheat crop. Did the author mean to imply that the approach of the article and of linguistic analysis or literary criticism are 'unscientific'? If so, how is that defensible on objective grounds, let alone relevant to the topic? The term 'folk taxonomy' is rarely used, even by people (such as myself) who develop them for a living, and in this context the 'folk' qualifier is completely unnecessary (no one would be tempted to think we were borrowing a taxonomy from, say, particle physics) - and therefore needlessly contentious (though I suspect it wasn't intended as such). And if one rejects the identification of 'scientific' with the natural sciences, 'folk taxonomy' is also a misnomer.

2. In an otherwise well-written piece, the sentence stands out a bit awkwardly as undergrad-speak, torturing the painfully obvious, and adds nothing to our understanding of irony.

Therefore, I would suggest removing this sentence altogether. Sneedy (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)