Comprehending Speaker Intent in Rebuttal Analogy Use: The Role of Irony Mapping, Absurdity Comparison and Argumentative Convention

Abstract

Rebuttal analogies (e.g., “Politicians arguing over the renaming of an airport is like watering your petunias when your house is on fire”) are commonly used as responses in verbal conflicts. The following study investigated the role that irony mapping, absurdity comparison, and argumentative convention play in interpreters' derivations of speaker`s intentions in using rebuttal analogies. In general, these intentions are to demonstrate the unsoundness of the opposed proposition (“argument”) and its advocate (“social attack”), (Whaley & Holloway, 1996). Three rebuttal analogy types were rated on argumentativeness and social attack in verbal conflict and nonverbal conflict scenarios. The results of six experiments on 120 participants found that analogies with ironic bases (e.g., “Doubling the defense budget in order to intimidate North Korea is like u sing a chainsaw to file your nails”) were perceived as more of a social attack and as more argumentative than analogies with absurd(e.g.,“…u sing ketchup to wax your car” )and nonironic(e.g.,“…u sing a nailfile to file your nails”) bases. No difference was found between the two scenario types. Norming data confirmed equivalence of absurdity of ironic and absurd bases, and greater irony of ironic over absurd bases. The results thus implicate hearers' use of the ironic structure between bases and targets in the interpretation of rebuttal analogies rather than mere absurdity comparison or argumentative convention.