Isn’t It Ironic?

“I can’t, um, really define irony, but I know when I see it!” –Winona Ryder’s character, Lelaina Pierce, in Reality Bites (1994)

Like Lelaina Pierce, we all have a sense of what irony is, but perhaps we’ve forgotten our grade 10 English lessons and can’t quite remember how to define it. We know it usually makes us laugh or roll our eyes and that it’s somehow related to sarcasm, but beyond that, things get a little fuzzy. In other words, we know it when we see it.

At least, we think we do. But it is surprising how many of us aren’t actually sure, and instead, many people tend to use it in the following way:

First Person: “I was running late for work today when I had a really important meeting, and got stopped by a damn train!”
Second Person: “Ah, the irony.”

You aren’t alone if you’re left scratching your head, but I’m afraid that this is not irony. How do I know? Let’s start with the definition in Merriam-Websters and the Oxford English Dictionary to clear up our confusion.

Merriam-Websters:

: the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really think especially in order to be funny
: a situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that seems to be the opposite of what you expected

Oxford English:

The expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect:‘Don’t go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony.

Notice that I highlighted the word opposite in each of these definitions. The real key to spotting irony is to find that unexpected reversal in a situation or statement. In the train example above, there is nothing opposite to our expectations. The train wasn’t doing anything a train doesn’t normally do. It was just bad luck.

But now that we have the definition, let’s see if we can recognize irony when we see it. Take Alanis Morissette’s song “Ironic”, for example (Sorry, but a conversation about irony simply isn’t complete without a stab at Alanis. If I didn’t mention her, I would be rather poor company to every other blog post and website discussion on this topic):

It’s like rain on your wedding day ⇒  Ironic? No. There is no reversal of expectations.
It’s a free ride when you’ve already paid  ⇒  Ironic? No. It’s just bad luck.
It’s the good advice that you just didn’t take  ⇒  Ironic? Again, no irony there.
Who would’ve thought … it figures

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation explains what went so terribly wrong with that catchy song:

When something is ironic, it has a grimly humorous or paradoxical twist, as if the universe were playing a wicked practical joke. Thus, it is ironic if a speeding car crashes into a “drive safely” sign, or if someone named Joe Friendly turns out to be a serial killer …. Do not use irony or ironic to describe a simple coincidence.

It’s unfortunate that Alanis’s lyrics in “Ironic” are decidedly not ironic, but what she has described are merely coincidental circumstances to someone’s detriment. I guess if you find someone else’s misfortune funny, you might find humour in those situations, but no irony, I’m afraid. There seems to be so much confusion about this concept that websites are now devoted to the debate. IsItIronic.com allows people to post their questions about irony and readers then vote as to whether they think it is ironic or not. While I’m not sure popular vote really accounts for much when you don’t know who your readers are or their experience in parsing ironic situations, but it makes for some humorous reading. For example:

Is it ironic that I can’t go to church because I have a theology test to study for?
Reader’s Verdict: 95% NOT IRONIC; 5% IRONIC. Final Verdict: NOT IRONIC.

What do you think? Is there irony hiding in there? One astute reader points out that it depends on how the situation is framed:

“I can’t go to church because I have a theology exam to study for” isn’t ironic–because there is no appearance clearly contraposed to the reality. But if the sentence were “I chose to study for my theology exam rather than go to church,” I think there clearly is a difference between the appearance (I am a devout person who values religious practice) and the reality (I am willing to forego religious practice in the pursuit of good grades in my religious studies program). ^[1]

I completely agree. Lots of things aren’t ironic until we set them within the right parameters. Rain on your wedding day is just bad luck, unless you planned your wedding to be in the desert to avoid the chance of rain. I mean, you would never expect rain in the desert, and then the one day it rains all year … well, that’s ironic. You see what I mean? Poor Alanis just didn’t have enough room in each stanza to fully explain what made her lyrics ironic*. She’s just misunderstood.

Now sarcasm is a different beast altogether! I even love the etymology of the word: from the Greek sarkasmos, meaning “to tear flesh, bite the lip in rage, sneer” (according to the Oxford English Dictionary). Ouch! Here are some examples:

Please, keep talking. I always yawn when I am interested.

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

If I want to hear the pitter patter of little feet, I’ll put shoes on my cats.

Does your train of thought have a caboose?

Although sarcasm is considered verbal irony, one of the three main types of irony**, not all verbal irony is sarcastic. But is all sarcasm ironic? The examples above are obviously sarcastic, but I don’t consider them particularly ironic, if we stick to the dictionary definitions of irony. There is no reversal of expectations, just biting tone of voice and the intent to ridicule. Not a problem, says the Sarcasm Society, because verbal irony isn’t limited to oppositeness. “It can also be used to over-emphasize, embellish or make light of an idea or circumstance.” So irony and sarcasm can go hand in hand. Here are some examples taken from sarcasmsociety.com:

“I wish we were better strangers.”

“You have delighted us long enough.” –Jane Austen

“I am not young enough to know everything.” –Oscar Wilde

“He was happily married – but his wife wasn’t.” –Victor Borge

“He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.” –William Faulkner

“Well, that was fun!”

So, I’m sure I’ve managed to illuminate my readers on the subtleties of irony (Not!) But I do hope I’ve managed to waste a few moments of your busy day making you smile. In case I’ve failed to manage that, I’d like to draw your attention to one last, related topic: Air Quotes.

Air quotes, also called “finger quotes” or “ersatz quotes” are virtual quotation marks formed in the air with one’s fingers when speaking…. Air quotes are often used to express satire, sarcasm, irony or euphemism, among others, and are analogous to scare quotes in print. ^[2]

Here are some links to some wonderfully misused air quotes that will surely bring joy to your sarcastic heart.

____________________________

[1] http://www.dailywritingtips.com/what-is-irony-with-examples/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_quotes

*Check out this attempt on Huffington Post to take Alanis’s song and make it ironic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/its-finally-ironic_n_3580371.html

**The three types of irony are verbal, situational and dramatic, but dramatic irony only occurs in works of art, such as movies, books, poems and plays, so we aren’t really touching on that in this post. For more examples and some clarity, check out this fun infographic from the artists/grammar geeks at The Oatmeal.

Are We Literally Going to Hell in a Handbasket?

As I often do when contemplating the beginning of a new blog post, I looked to The Oatmeal for some inspiring words of wisdom. They are literally the best medicine for the Monday blues.

If you are one of the few who question (or possibly abhor) my usage of the word literally in the previous sentence, then prepare yourself for some major irritation. I just learned that we’ve been using the word incorrectly for, like, ever.

Well, not literally. In fact, only recently. To many of us, literally means free from exaggeration or embellishment, actually. It is usually contrasted with the word figuratively, as in a figure of speech. He’s a sailor who knows his ropes, literally and figuratively. But recently, the dictionary gods have decided to play a mean little trick on us. Literally can now also be used to mean figuratively.

Dana Coleman of the Salon website says this:

Thanks in part to the overuse of “literally,” Merriam-Webster says the word can now mean its exact opposite. Huh? Webster’s first definition of literally is, “in a literal sense or matter; actually.” Its second definition is, “in effect; virtually.” In addressing this seeming contradiction, its authors comment:

“Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposition of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.”

So it’s okay to use literally to mean figuratively as long as you really, really, really need to do so? Hmph.

The Guardian took their exasperation a little further:

It’s happened. Literally the most misused word in the language has officially changed definition….”Literally”, you see, in its development from knock-kneed, single-purpose utterance, to swan-like dual-purpose term, has reached that awkward stage. It is neither one nor the other, and it can’t do anything right.

It does seem rather, I dunno, capricious. Just because some people couldn’t get the hang of using a simple term correctly, doesn’t seem reason enough to change the rules completely. What about the integrity of the English language?

Caroline Chin from BooksonFirst.com was flabbergasted when she heard someone on public radio say, “Hearing that literally struck terror in my heart.” She tried to think of what to use instead, but soon realized she couldn’t:

No one says, “Hearing that figuratively struck terror in my heart.” No, he would say, “Hearing that struck terror in my heart.” No “literally” and no “figuratively,” because “struck terror in my heart” is already a figure of speech. It suddenly struck me (figuratively): “Literally” is being used as emphasis. It really, really, really did strike terror in my heart — no ifs, ands or buts about it….And, I thought, welcome to the 21st century, where language along with civil society has been going to hell in a handbasket for over twenty centuries, while those advocates of living language say, “Fuhgeddaboudit.”

Being a former student of linguistics, I am an advocate of living language (meaning that the only constant you can rely on with language is that it is going to change and develop with each new generation or group of speakers) but I can’t quite “fuhgeddaboudit.” I prefer descriptivism (observing and describing actual language use) to prescriptivism (setting out hard-and-fast rules for how the language ought to be), but I am not in favor of lazy language usage that causes confusion for its speakers. Both the term literally and its root, literal, seemed quite obvious and useful to me. Honest, even. And figures of speech seemed to work smoothly on their own, helping speakers express their ideas through metaphor. What possible purpose could there be for changing the meaning of a fully functioning word to its exact opposite?

There isn’t one. The word has not taken on a better, more effective use for communication; it’s just a fad. A trend. A slang usage. That in itself is not surprising. Language is always being used and changed for fun. What is surprising is that the dictionaries and the respected institutions behind them, decided to jump on that bandwagon. Perhaps the about-face of the word literally is an indicator of lowered standards and expectations in academics, or perhaps it reflects the increased consumerism and use of shock-value marketing in western society. Everything has to be bigger and better, more bang for your buck. “It’s raining cats and dogs out there!” is no longer strong enough to describe a downpour. No! Instead, we need to hyperbolize an already hyperbolic figure of speech and say, “It’s literally raining cats and dogs out there!”

And while my gut tells me to argue, my dictionary says, Don’t bother. It’s perfectly acceptable to say that cats and dogs are literally falling from the sky.

I guess all I can do is blame it on climate change.

Miss Spellings and Miss Used Words Part 2

As promised, here is the continuation of my last post. I’ve attempted to explain the confusion that arises with some of the most common errors. There is no shortage of words to choose from!

1. Misused words

a, an – Okay, let’s get this straight once and for all. We all know to use a when the following word starts with a consonant and an when the following word starts with a vowel, but what we should really say is when the following word starts with a vowel sound or a consonant sound. 

cat           [k] ⇒ a cat
apple     [a] ⇒ an apple

Easy enough. But what about these:

unit          [y] ⇒ a unit
uncle       [uh] ⇒ an uncle
historic  [h] ⇒ a historic (unless you pronounce it “istoric”)
hour        [ow] ⇒ an hour

Or depending on your specific pronunciation:

herb          [h] ⇒ a herb
or                [er] ⇒ an herb

among, between – between you and me, but among the three of us. The rule: between two, among more than two. That’s it! (And if you are wondering why it’s between you and me not between you and I, see this previous post.)

and/or – Strunk and White call this “A device, or shortcut, that damages a sentence and often leads to confusion or ambiguity.” ^[1] They suggest using the term that best clarifies the sentence. A few solutions present themselves:

You can choose cake, pie and/or brownies. You can choose cake and/or pie. line

⇒ ⇒ ⇒

You can choose cake, pie or brownies. You can choose cake or pie or both. You can choose either cake or pie.

That being said, it is in the dictionary as an acceptable English conjunction. I’m not convinced that it causes confusion for most people, but I definitely think it lacks style. I would use it sparingly or avoid it altogether.

because, since – These conjunctions can be used interchangeably when showing a causal relationship, although because is often considered a little stronger. ^[2] The confusion comes from the two meanings of since, both causal and temporal. When the sentence is ambiguous, because is preferred.

Ambiguous: Since the judge called a recess, counsel headed outside for a cigarette.
Causal: Because the judge called a recess, counsel headed outside for a cigarette.
Temporal: Since the moment the judge called a recess, counsel has been outside for a cigarette.

compared to, compared with – “To compare to is to point out or imply resemblances between objects regarded as essentially of a different order; to compare with is mainly to point out the differences between objects regarded as essentially of the same order. Thus, life has been compared to a pilgrimage, to a drama, to a battle; Congress may be compared with the British Parliament. Paris has been compared to ancient Athens; it may be compared with modern London.” ^[3]

couple (of) – couple (n): two people or things that are together; a couple of (adj phrase): an indefinite small number

A couple of days ago, he saw a couple walking hand in hand.

He spent a couple of bucks on a coffee. (not a couple bucks)

different from, different than – Different from is the standard phrase, according to all sources I’ve checked. Different than is more common in America than Britain, but as The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation points out, “…many fine writers have had no problem steering clear of different than for their entire careers.” ^[4]

disinterested, uninterested – “You can be both uninterested and disinterested, or one but not the other. Disinterested means ‘impartial’; uninterested means ‘unconcerned’ or ‘apathetic.’ Many would interpret The judge was disinterested to mean that the judge didn’t care. But the sentence actually means that the judge was unbiased. Huge difference there. Would you rather a have a judge who’s fair or one who wants to go home?” ^[5]

fewer, less – “If you can count the commodity, less will be wrong. You have less justification, but fewer reasons.” ^[6]

guilty, liable – “In the law, guilty specifically refers to having been found by a jury to have committed a crime. The term guilty is properly used only in the criminal context. By contrast, liable refers to the condition of being legally responsible or obligated to do or refrain from doing something.

• The jury found the defendant guilty as charged of first-degree murder.
• If my dog bites someone, I will be liable for the person’s medical bills.” ^[7]

infer, imply – “Infer means to deduce or to draw a conclusion. Imply means to suggest or hint…

• The jury could infer from Mr. Smith’s testimony that he knew the gun was loaded.
• Mr. Smith’s testimony implied that he knew the gun was loaded.” ^[8]

irregardless – “This nonsense word results from confusing and combining regardless and irrespective. If people would just think about it, what’s that silly ir- doing there?” says The Blue Book. “In technical terms, ir- is an initial negative particle. So if irregardless means anything, it means ‘not regardless’ when the person using it is trying to say the exact opposite.” ^[9]

unique – without like or equal; the only one

Strunk and White point out that if something is the only one, there can be no degrees of uniqueness. The Blue Book explains further, “Unique belongs to a group of words called absolutes or incomparables. Examples include dead, equal, essential, eternal, opposite, supreme. Such words resist being modified. Modifiers like more, most, absolutely, rather, and very either strip them of their strength or result in foolishness.” ^[10]

And a few fun and misused phrases:

bated breath (not baited breath) – to hold one’s breath; a variant of abated, meaning lessened in intensity or restrained

champing at the bit (not chomping at the bit) – to show impatience; champ means to bite or chew noisily; a bit is the part of a horse’s harness that goes in its mouth;

couldn’t care less (not could care less) – If you couldn’t care less, then you are completely uninterested in something. If you could care less, then you still have some interest.

for all intents and purposes (not for all intensive purposes) – Confession: this one came as a surprise when I first started copyediting, having never seen this expression written before. If you’d asked, I couldn’t have explained what an intensive purpose would be, but cut me some slack; this is the language where you might find one in the same, a blessing in the skies, and a doggy-dog world.

hold one’s peace, but speak one’s piece – easily confused, but sometimes we just need to give someone a piece of our mind before we can have peace of mind.

There are so many of these, I could go on forever.

 2. Redundancies

It is my personal opinion that completelyeradicating redundancies will vastlyimprove your writing. I will warn you in advance that my ultimate goal is to make each and every one of you aware of these issues so you can avoid making unintentional mistakes. Don’t make me repeat it again. Here are a few more, just for fun!

all-time record
basic necessities
close proximity
depreciate in value
enclosed herein
first and foremost
grow in size
habitual custom
important essentials
joint collaboration
knowledgeable experts
local residents
merge together
natural instinct
originally created
plan ahead
revert back
still persists
true facts
unexpected emergency
visible to the eye
whether or not

As I mentioned in Part 1 of this post, I have no illusions that I will ever be able to remember all of these distinctions, but my job as a copyeditor is to recognize the problem words and consult with the authorities to make sure they are spelled correctly or are being used properly. Now I hope we are all a little more aware of these potential pitfalls.

I would love to hear from our readers if there are any favourites that I’ve missed!

 

_____________________

[1] Strunk and White, The Elements of Style, 4th ed (Boston: Pearson, 2000) 40
[2] Einsohn, Amy. The Copyeditor’s Handbook (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006) 374
[3] Strunk and White, The Elements of Style, 43
[4] Straus, Jane, The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, 11th ed (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2014) 79
[5] Straus, Jane, The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, 80
[6] Straus, Jane, The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, 84
[7] Vanwinkle, Jessie, “Commonly Confused and Misused Words in Legal Writing”, online: https://suite.io/jessie-vanwinkle/55yt2as.
[8] Vanwinkle, Jessie, “Commonly Confused and Misused Words in Legal Writing”
[9] Straus, Jane, The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, 93
[10] Straus, Jane, The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, 119

Miss Spellings and Miss Used Words Part 1

Let’s begin with this tasty morsel by Margo Roark ^[1]:

Eye halve a spelling checker
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques for my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it to say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
It’s rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
Eye am shore your pleased two no
It’s letter perfect awl the weigh
My checker tolled me sew.

How do I organise a post about a topic as big as misspellings and misused words in English without crippling myself with doubt about misusing a word in it? I could try to be pithy and write an entire post in the format of the poem above and see if my readers could decipher it. But that sounds like a lot more effort than I want to expend, and a lot more creative than I feel. Still, the mass confusion continues, so I thought it might be fun to add my voice to this comedy of errors.

In every grammar reference book and website I’ve consulted, there are lists and lists of words that are “commonly misused” for various reasons. Most of these materials lay out long alphabetical lists that you can search, much like a dictionary, but I find that method unhelpful unless you know exactly which word you are looking up. I know from experience that I will never internalize all the correct spellings and uses of the million or so words that exist in the English language ^[2], so what I need are categories of words to watch for. And once again I lean on my Bible, Amy Einsohn’s The Copyeditor’s Handbook.

In the chapter “Spelling and Hyphenation”, she calls attention to the gaps left by spellcheckers:

…spellcheckers do not distinguish between homophones (principal and principle), do not account for spellings determined by usage (resume and résumé), and may allow variant spellings (catalog and catalogue) in the same document. And, of course, spellcheckers do not highlight a misspelled word if the misspelling is itself a word (from and form).

From this quote, I’ve collected a number of great categories to start with: homophones, variant spellings, and misused words and phrases. To this list, I will add redundancies, which continually plague our otherwise concise writing. Considering the amount of material I had to choose from, I’ve split this topic into two posts, Homophones and Variants in Part 1, and Misused Words and Phrases along with Redundancies in Part 2. Enjoy!

Part 1

1. Homophones (and other similar-sounding words)

In case we’ve forgotten, homophones are words that sound the same but differ in meaning (caret, carrot, karat). A subcategory of homophones are homonyms, words that share the same spelling and pronunciation but that have different meanings (rose, the flower, and rose, the past tense of rise). All homonyms are homophones, but not all homophones are homonyms. I’ve added a few words that aren’t exactly homophones, but are similar enough to cause confusion.

accept (v), except (prep)	Except for part two, I accept the terms of the agreement.
adverse (adj), averse (adj)	Because he enjoyed a challenge, he was not averse to the adverse conditions he was facing.
advice (n), advise (v)	She tried to advise her client, but her advice fell on deaf ears.
affect (v), effect (n or v)	The advice affected her client, but the effect was not what she had predicted. The protesters were trying to effect a change to the policy.
allude (v), elude (v)	The lawyer alluded to a previous witness’s testimony without directly naming the witness. The drug dealer eluded the police vehicle by turning down a back alley.
ascent (n), assent (n or v)	The royal assent was given to the new legislation. His ascent up the corporate ladder was not without personal sacrifice.
assure (v), ensure (v), insure (v)	The counsellor assured his client that she would have time to ensure that her property was insured before the hearing.
cite (v), sight (n), site (n)	Lawyers must learn to cite their sources correctly. He caught sight of the historical site from the bus window.
compliment (n or v), complement (n or v)	She gave her mother a compliment on her new hairstyle. Her scarf complemented the colour of her suit.
council (councillor), counsel (counsellor)	The council members gathered in the boardroom. She called her legal counsel to discuss the progress of her case.
dependant (n), dependent (adj)	The woman’s dependants were all dependent on her single income.
elicit (v), illicit (adj)	In the course of the trial, the lawyer elicited a confession of the illicit dealings of the accused.
farther (physical distance), further (time or quantity)	He pushed his chair farther away from the table. She needed to do further research into the topic.
its (possessive pronoun), it’s (contraction of it is)	It’s impressive to see how the chimpanzee takes care of its young.
principal (n), principle (n or adj)	The principal’s principle rule of thumb was to follow the principle of fairness.
wave (v), waive (v)	The accused waved to his family as he entered the courtroom. The accused waived her right to counsel when she refused to call a lawyer.

2. Variant Spellings

For Canadian spelling, we find ourselves caught between two superpowers: British English and American English. The Canadian Style recommends using the Gage Canadian Dictionary, which it says reflects most federal government departments and agencies, more so than the two big guns: Oxford (British) or Merriam-Websters (American). As Canadians, I feel we are certainly aware of this dichotomy, but that doesn’t mean we are any less confused by it! When in doubt, check your dictionary! Here is a sample of the big differences (British on the left, American on the right). Canadian spelling usually leans toward the British variants.

Nouns ce/se	Nouns re/er	Verbs single l/double ll
defence, defense offence, offense pretence, pretense	centre, center metre, meter theatre, theater	instil, instill fulfil, fulfill enrol, enroll

Nouns our/or	Verbs ise/ize	Past tense verbs double ll/single l
behaviour, behavior colour, color favour, favor neighbour, neighbor	civilise, civilize organise, organize specialise/specialize	counselled, counseled labelled, labeled travelled, traveled

Other variants that have developed over time and are not considered wrong in any way. They represent preferences expressed by specific publishers or others, and many have developed into industry standard spellings, ultimately causing the others to be less used and appear more like relics. Here are a few examples from Einsohn ^[3] (I’ve put my own preferences on the left and italicized any that are considered industry standard):

acknowledgment afterward, backward, forward, toward amid, among catalogue grey judgment mustache resume*

acknowledgement afterwards, backwards, forwards, towards amidst, amongst catalog gray judgement moustache résumé

*I prefer resume without the accents because I find they create a cluttered look if the word is used too frequently in a paragraph. Besides that, the context will always clarify the pronunciation between the noun and the verb of this homograph (words that are spelled the same but have different meanings or pronunciations), much like other pairs of this type.

After the interruption, she was ready to resume composing her resume.
The record label chose to record the band’s first album.
She was content to find the content of her manuscript unchanged.

In the next post, we’ll continue this theme and look at all those tricky misused words that we can’t keep straight. Stay tuned!

_______________________

[1] The English Spelling Society, “Poems showing the absurdities of English spelling” online. Accessed June 20, 2014. http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php
[2] Global Language Monitor http://www.languagemonitor.com/number-of-words/number-of-words-in-the-english-language-1008879/
[3] Einsohn, Amy, The Copyeditor’s Handbook, 125