[Vocabulary] second-order? reasoning

[Csika]

Dear Friends,

I know that this will be rather technical and academic but I do believe that there are also academic-minded people here.

I am reading a paper about irony and the author makes a distinction between irony and literal speech. In his example, a couple are watching an awful painting and the wife says:

1. What a beautiful painting. (irony)
2. What an awful painting. (literal speech)

Since in literal understanding we make inferences about the world, in ironic understanding we make inferences about what the speaker (in this case the wife) thinks about the world.
On this basis the author calls literal understanding first-order reasoning, and irony he calls second-order reasoning.

My question is in what (dictionary) sense the author may use "order" here?


Thank you very much.


Csika

 

[Barb_D]

From Merriam-Webster Online


4
a (1) : rank, level <a statesman of the first order> (2) : category, class <in emergencies of this order — R. B. Westerfield>
b (1) : the arrangement or sequence of objects or of events in time <listed the items in order of importance> <the batting order> (2) : a sequential arrangement of mathematical elements
c : degree 12a, b
d (1) : the number of times differentiation is applied successively <derivatives of higher order> (2) of a differential equation : the order of the derivative of highest order

 

[Csika]

Thanks Barb_D but I am aware of these meanings and I also have a dictionary. I even have two! :lol: But, you know, in my understanding none of these meanings would perfectly do in a translation in my language. I posted here to find out what meaning natives prefer.

Thanks, anyway.

Csika

 

[RonBee]

It is unclear to me what the author means by first order reasoning and second order reasoning, but my inference is that neither is necessarily superior to the other, just different. If only we could ask the author what he or she meant by that. (One thing that I am sure of is that in that context "It is a beautiful painting" and "It is an awful painting" mean the same thing.)

 

[Csika]

Thanks RonBee but you may be wrong. In this context the ironic This is a beautiful painting and the literal This is an awful painting may not mean the same, since the ironic remark expresses something extra - that the wife feels bad about the painting (not just a factual assertion as in the case of the literal version).

The "order" issue is still not solved.

Csika

 

[RonBee]

1. What a beautiful painting. (irony)
2. What an awful painting. (literal speech)

Since the first statement is meant ironically, I have to assume that the speaker did not literally mean what she said. In other words she meant that the painting is not beautiful. What I don't get from that is that the wife feels bad about the painting. (There is no reason for me to.)

When I read that the first time I thought it was statements by two different people. That is probably because that is what I expected it to be. More usual would be something like:
.

Two people are looking at a horrid painting:
.

She: That's a beautiful painting, eh? (intending irony)
He: (missing the ironic intent of the first speaker) No, it's perfectly awful.
​

...

 

[Csika]

RonBee, you say don't get that the wife (when using irony) feels bad about the painting. Well, when you use irony, you generally express some negative evaluation. This is the essence of irony. Otherwise you would use literal speech.

Csika

 

[bhaisahab]

RonBee, you say don't get that the wife (when using irony) feels bad about the painting. Well, when you use irony, you generally express some negative evaluation. This is the essence of irony. Otherwise you would use literal speech.

Csika

As Ronbee said, it is unclear what the author means by first order reasoning and second order reasoning. However, the two statements mean the same, the painting is horrible (in the opinion of the two people concerned), if we accept that the first speaker is being ironic.
IMO in the context "order" means what Barb said, "rank".

 

[Csika]

All right, I've been studying irony for years now (doing my PhD) and believe me, irony does not mean the same as literal speech since irony has an extra implication that the speaker generally (but perhaps not exclusively) expresses some negative evaluation. This is what motivates irony. Perhaps, however, in a sense they mean the same but irony has some extra flavour. It depends how we define MEANING.

Csika

 

[RonBee]

From dictionary.com: Irony | Define Irony at Dictionary.com

 

[Csika]

Thank you but there are a plethora of problems with this definition of irony. For example, it says irony is:

"the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning"

Consider this:

A mother instructs her son to clean his room. When she decides to check on things in say an hour and still finds her son's room messy, she says:

"I love chidren who keep their rooms clean"

She does not mean the opposite of what she says, though she uses irony.

Do not believe dictionary definitions of irony.


Csika

 

[5jj]

Well, when you use irony, you generally express some negative evaluation. This is the essence of irony. Otherwise you would use literal speech.

Mr A and President X are bitter political opponents

Mrs A: they have just announced on the radio that President X has been assassinated.
Mr A: Oh, how tragic.

This appears to me to be a not uncommon use of what you are calling irony. Mr A's internal evaluation is far from negative.

 

[Csika]

Check back on my earlier posts. I have indicated somewhere that irony is "generally but perhaps not exclusively" negative. I can recommend you literature on positive irony if interested.

Csika

 

[5jj]

Check back on my earlier posts. I have indicated somewhere that irony is "generally but perhaps not exclusively" negative. I can recommend you literature on positive irony if interested.

Csika

Check back on my previous post:" This appears to me to be a not uncommon use of what you are calling irony" (my emphasis added).

Three native speakers, from both of the major dialect areas of English, all of them professional users of the language have tried to help with your question, and each time you have rejected their efforts in some way. I, also a native speaking professional user of the language, questioned one point you made, and you dismissed it.

None of us claims to be experts in irony, though we certainly know how the word and its derivatives are generally used. It may be that you will find answers to your liking on a forum specialising in irony rather than in using English.

.

 

[RonBee]

Do not believe dictionary definitions of irony.

:roll:

Since the dictionary agrees with what I understand about the use of the word "irony", I will continue to agree with the dictionary despite your adivice.

:shock:

 

[bhaisahab]

:roll:

Since the dictionary agrees with what I understand about the use of the word "irony", I will continue to agree with the dictionary despite your adivice.

:shock:

Perhaps the OP is looking for the psychology behind a person's use of irony rather than the literal linguistic meaning of the word. As a language forum, I don't think we can be of much help (unless there are any psychologist members out there). ;-)

 

[Csika]

Dear Bhaisahab,

No. In my original post I was not interested in the psychology behind irony. I wanted to see how language is used to define it (second-order).

Anyway, I know that though most people do not think of irony in academic terms, they understand ironic speech. This is how things should be. You must not forget, however, that irony is an extremely complex semantic, pragmatic, neurolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neuroanatomical, neurobiological, etc. phenomenon - ALL dictionary definitions fail on irony.

And finally, Bhaisahab you say I am not interested in the "literal linguistic meaning". No, I am not, since along with many scholars I do have doubts about the existence of 'literal meaning'. Noone in linguistics has managed to define it properly.

Csika

 

[5jj]

No. In my original post I was not interested in the psychology behind irony. I wanted to see how language is used to define it (second-order).

Strange. The question in your original post was: in what (dictionary) sense the author may use "order" here?

Incidentally, Barb and Bhaisahab answered that question. Their answers may not have suited you, but they were in line with my use of the word when I was working on my thesis many years ago.

You must not forget, however, that irony is an extremely complex semantic, pragmatic, neurolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neuroanatomical, neurobiological, etc. phenomenon
I think it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that one or two of the members of this forum might have an inkling of this.

ALL dictionary definitions fail on irony.
They do not fail on 'irony'. It is not the job of a dictionary to present and discuss every recorded use of every word it lists.

And finally, Bhaisahab you say I am not interested in the "literal linguistic meaning"
He didn't. He said: "Perhaps the OP is looking for the psychology behind a person's use of irony rather than the literal linguistic meaning of the word". Most scholars and academics of my acquaintance would understand both the absence of any claim of lack of interest and also the tentative implication of the word 'perhaps'.

5

 

[Raymott]

Dear Friends,

I know that this will be rather technical and academic but I do believe that there are also academic-minded people here.

I am reading a paper about irony and the author makes a distinction between irony and literal speech. In his example, a couple are watching an awful painting and the wife says:

1. What a beautiful painting. (irony)
2. What an awful painting. (literal speech)

Since in literal understanding we make inferences about the world, in ironic understanding we make inferences about what the speaker (in this case the wife) thinks about the world.
On this basis the author calls literal understanding first-order reasoning, and irony he calls second-order reasoning.

My question is in what (dictionary) sense the author may use "order" here?


Thank you very much.


Csika

Here is my undertanding
The use "first order", "second order", etc, seems to be a common way of distancing the discourse by a step. It’s similar to the prefix “meta” (beside). There is language, then there is metalanguage, which talks about language.
Thus, a 'first order' response to your question would be one that attempts to answer your question. A 'second order' response might be one in which a person asks you why you want to know. A 'third order' response might involve a dicussion about the motives of posters. A 'fourth order' response might question whether such a 'third order' dicussion belongs in this thread or should be taken elsewhere.
(It would be an interesting exercise to attribute posts in this thread to their respective order of response. Naturally some posts include responses that belong to different orders.)

I'd consider the above a first order response since it attempts to answer your question about ‘order’. The last line above is a higher order response.
Using the example you've given:

What an awful painting. (literal speech) - first order
What a beautiful painting. (irony) – second order

Irony is something which can take on additional layers (orders).
If A says, ironically, “What a beautiful painting!” (second order), B could catch on and play the game, saying “Yes, notice the colourful use of black and white”. This would still be of the same order of irony.
However, B could employ ‘third order’ reasoning (in your system) by ironically pretending that he thinks A is using ‘first order’ reasoning, and replying something like, “Yes, I agree. Some paintings here are quite awful. But this one has a certain resonance, a je ne sais quoi ...”
A is then left to wonder which order of speech/thought/language/reasoning B is using, and might ask the first order question, “Are you being serious?”
And on it goes ...

 

[Csika]

Dear Fivejedjon,

"Strange. The question in your original post was: in what (dictionary) sense the author may use "order" here?"

You are wrong. My question referred to the dictionary sense, not to the literal one. There are dictionary meanings, literal meanings, lexical meanings, encyclopaedic meanings, etc. They are all different.

"I think it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that one or two of the members of this forum might have an inkling of this."

I did not claim with a single word that it is beyond the bounds of possibility that one or two of the members of this forum might have an inkling of the diverse nature of irony.

"They do not fail on 'irony'. It is not the job of a dictionary to present and discuss every recorded use of every word it lists."

I think it is better not to define something rather than doing it in a wrong/misleading way. What is the point in defining it then?

"Perhaps the OP is looking for the psychology behind a person's use of irony rather than the literal linguistic meaning of the word."

Bhaisahab, you are wrong.


Csika