What is the difference between sarcasm and exaggeration

It can also be expressed as an irony which is often associated with a caustic taunt. The word has been derived from French word sarcasme, or via late Latin, from Greek sarkazein, meaning "tear flesh". Sarcasm is often regarded as a form of verbal irony, but they tend to be different in a few contexts.

An irony may or may not include the person who is stating the irony. On the other hand, in sarcasm, the sarcastic person just excludes himself from the situation and usually the subject or target of the sarcasm is another individual. It is a literary form which makes use of irony, sarcasm, wit, derision, humor, exaggeration or ridicule to expose or criticize something which the author or narrator considers to be ridiculous. Irony and sarcasm is often used in satire.

It is used in many artistic forms of expression like literature, plays, commentary, and even media such as lyrics. There are mainly two types of satire in literature. Horatian satire is clever and humorous. It is usually aimed of mocking others. Juvenalian satire exhibits anger and resentfulness. Satire is a way of making fun of people by using silly or exaggerated language.

Politicians are easy targets for satire, especially when they're acting self-righteous or hypocritical. Cracked Magazine July The Business Software Alliance is an an anti-piracy agency that used to pay people to report unlicensed content on the internet. Cracked Magazine July Satire means making fun of people by imitating them in ways that expose their stupidity or flaws. The Observer The late-night talk and news satire is scheduled to return with new episodes in February. Los Angeles Times As with satire, sarcasm depends on the listener or reader to be in on the joke.

Print Definition:. More Commonly Confused Words. Get started. While satire is constructive, sarcasm can be destructive. Although both are aimed at making people see their mistakes through wit and humor, sarcasm can be rude, and it borders on bullying. Satire is more subtle and light so the person to whom it is aimed at does not feel offended. Sarcasm is often done in a conversation between two persons while satire is done with a larger group, usually with a performer and an audience, or a writer and his readers.

It can be found in literature, plays, films, and music. Satire is a literary genre which uses wit and humor to stimulate people towards a positive action while sarcasm is a statement or remark which is harshly aimed at a person. Satire is a constructive way of letting people know about their mistakes and follies while sarcasm can be destructive because of the way it is presented.

Both use humor and wit to let a message reach an audience, but satire can have a larger audience while sarcasm is often done in a person-to-person conversation. Satire is more subtle than sarcasm. In their written forms, satire can be recognized immediately while sarcasm is not because it is sometimes exhibited through voice inflection. Difference Between Sarcasm and Satire. In the example above, this audience was the person spoken to, but in a story or play it could be the reader or theater audience, even if all of the characters are in the dark about what the full extent of the relevant situation happens to be.

And what about my reply "I couldn't agree more! Actually I don't agree at all -- I'm just saying this, to be polite, and to get on my way. Perhaps I'll let my friend in on the irony later on, but not now, since I'm almost late for class. Is this an instance of of "verbal irony"?

It's certainly verbal, and I understand what I say ironically, but it's not something that falls under the concept of verbal irony as that term is conventionally used Note.

Rather it's an instance of a species of hypocrisy that we call "conscious hypocrisy. Note that if we are going to talk this way we are using the term "hypocrisy" in a broader sense than it typically is in today's everyday discourse. There, to call something "hypocritical" is generally to subject it to fairly severe moral censure, whereas the deception here is unlikely to strike us as anything invidious.

It's simply not to the point, in the circumstances of the transaction my friend's elated greeting to call a halt to our other business and instruct her in her error.

The deception was out of consideration to our mutual convenience. Later on, if occasion arises, I can cut her in on the dramatic irony she was involved in, which will probably be as humorous to her as it was to me.

For now, my pretense of agreement is in the spirit of "Let it pass" -- a silent pardon of a humorous faux pas. So when we call this "hypocrisy," we are constructing a more general sense of the term than the one we may be used to in everyday discourse.

We can certainly imagine situations in which morally censurable forms of hypocrisy are at work. They will exhibit the same general form, distinct from that of verbal irony: the speaker knows something about the situation that he obscures from the hearer by putting forth an utterance with a meaning that he doesn't sincerely mean. Whether a speech act of this form we could call it " hypocrisy in the rhetorical sense " counts as hypocrisy in the morally censurable sense what the term typically means in everyday discourse depends on our assessment of the motives of the speaker under the circumstances.

To drive home the idea that verbal irony is not the same thing as hypocrisy, consider these situations. It's certainly verbal, and I understand what I say ironically, but it's not something that falls under the concept of verbal irony as that term is conventionally used. The phrases a community adopts to indicate the notions it finds use for do not always turn out to be suitable for all the situations reality contrives to confront us with.