Reading response LN 3 - Essay Example

Reading response LN 3 affiliation Reading response LN 3 In the piece, the most significant aspect is the fact that the author accepts to the fact that humor comprises of semantics and pragmatics while irony is purely pragmatic (Attardo, 2001). For the part of semantics, the authors is correct indicating that humor is semantic in form as all forms that shape humor can be categorized under humor amongst them irony. This is to mean that in spite of humor not being ironical and all not ironies being funny, there is a close interlink between the two that can be explained through semantics.

Humor and irony, indeed, have to go through a successful semantic process that leads to the identification of concepts that shape them (Attardo, 2001). If the speaker possesses semantic prowess then they can automatically depict irony and humor in a phrase. Pragmatically, humor may be described as differing from other means of communication as its major purpose lies on amusing its audience. It is evident that humor is proactive as it forms a major part of communication. This results from the fact that people can cooperate to tell jokes.

It is through inferences and implicatures as Attardo (2001) indicates that irony is created. This fact validates the fact that irony is pragmatic. Yet another interesting fact is the verity that irony is pragmatic. Attardo (2001) indicates that it is extremely fallacious to view irony as merely a processing of texts and thrusting aside the original meanings. Evidently, the ironical interpretations of irony can be understood immediately even without focusing on the literal meaning (Attardo, 2001).

With this in perspective, it is worth validating the verity that irony is pragmatic. Even in statements that are forced to be ironical, the meanings are immediately deduced. However, it is validated to question on what needs to be termed as ironical and what is not ironical. It is also important to inquire what aspect of irony can be described as contextual inappropriate. Is it when the irony does not relay the intended meaning and create general implicature? The author also focuses on the reaction of humor and irony an attempt to assess the various responses that emanate from the same (Attardo, 2001).

This aspect is very intriguing as not all persons will appreciate humor and irony. Some persons will choose to ignore, other will laugh while others will continue the humor or irony in question. It is this verity that validates the author’s choice of topic. Humor and irony interrelate but the same is not detected by all persons. The reactions that are displayed in the context of humor and irony are also worth analysis (Attardo, 2001). I continually agree with the author’s argument that humor and irony have a great relationship despite both of them violating the graded requirement of informing the intended audience.

Further research may focus on, “what are the major drivers that produce humor and what determines adoption or ignoring humor?” ReferenceAttardo, S. (2001). Humor and Irony in Interaction: From Mode Adoption to Failure of Detection. In Say not to Say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp.166-185). L. Anolli, R. Ciceri and G. Riva (Eds.) Burke: IOS Press.