The Art of the Ironist: Perspectives

Irony is notoriously difficult to define, as it is marked by a strong degree of subjectivity. Attempts to confine such a broad concept within a structured framework have been numerous, and the challenge is particularly acute in literature, where multiple forms of irony have already been contextualized and analyzed by scholars in relation to different authors.

In order to define and abstract the concept of irony, we reviewed various academic resources focusing in on two closely related works: D. C. Muecke’s The Compass of Irony and Inés Lozano-Palacio’s dissertation A Scenario-Based Approach to Irony. Structure, meaning and function, which itself draws heavily on Muecke’s framework. Both Muecke and Palacio approaches irony in a structured and general way, unlike many other studies that focus on specific types of irony — such as Socratic or Byronic irony — which tend to be more descriptive, practical, but less conceptually coherent (for example, texts labeled as “Socratic” may not be written by Socrates himself, so it would first be necessary to clearly define what actually constitutes “Socratic irony” — and what does not.) For this reason, we sought a more general and abstract approach, capable of capturing the underlying mechanisms of irony rather than its manifestations in particular styles or authors.

Muecke's POV

To build the conceptual framework of our ontology, we relied on Muecke’s analytical model of irony, which provided a structured foundation for abstracting and classifying the phenomenon.

As Muecke notes, irony, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder — it depends on an ironist that creates the premises for an ironic event to happen, and an observer who is capable of perceiving the ironist's intentions behind their words.

At the core of his framework lies the principle of duality, or “double exposure”, between two levels of meaning:

1. Level 1 (Appearance): the literal meaning, the immediate perception, or the surface intention of the ironist, which pretends to believe in what he is saying.
2. Level 2 (Reality): the hidden, deeper, or superior understanding of the situation — usually shared by the ironist and the observer (if able to perceive it).

The presence of both levels is essential: irony does not correct falsehood but exposes two realities simultaneously.

Muecke’s classification distinguishes two main forms of irony based on their origin:

• Verbal Irony: a figure of speech in which the intended meaning contrasts with the literal one. It implies an ironist who deliberately constructs this opposition.
• Situational Irony: when the outcome of events contradicts expectations or intentions, producing a figurative sense of incongruity.

He further refines verbal irony through four modes, depending on the ironist’s relationship with their own irony:

1. Impersonal Irony: The irony lies in what is said rather than in who says it; the ironist’s personality remains hidden behind the words.
2. Self-disparaging Irony: The ironist adopts a feigned persona (often naive or ignorant) to mask their real opinion and highlight contrast through self-mockery.
3. Ingénu Irony (Irony of the Naïf): A naive or innocent narrator exposes societal contradictions through literal and unfiltered observations; the victim is often society itself.
4. Dramatized Irony: The ironist disappears almost completely behind the narrative world, allowing irony to emerge from the structure itself, through contradictions embedded in the story.

In addition, Muecke identifies five types of situational irony, based on the nature of the contradiction involved:

1. Irony of Simple Incongruity: Arises from the juxtaposition of parallel incidents or a striking, self-evident incongruity.
2. Irony of Events: When an outcome is contrary to what was intended or expected (e.g., Oedipus ensuring his fate by trying to escape it).
3. Dramatic Irony: When the audience knows something the characters do not, creating a gap in awareness.
4. Irony of Self-betrayal: When an individual’s actions aimed at a goal unintentionally destroy or contradict that goal.
5. Irony of Dilemma (Double Irony): A complex form in which equally valid or invalid terms oppose each other, leaving no superior “reality level” to resolve the tension; it often manifests as paradox or moral ambiguity.

Muecke’s structured typology provided the hierarchical and relational foundation of different kinds of irony within our ontology. The two-level structure at its core,appearance versus reality, is further developed and refined through the framework proposed by Palacio, which deepens the relational and cognitive aspects of irony.

Palacio's POV

Much like Muecke, Palacio aims to find the underlying construction and essence of irony. She uncovers this by performing a meta-analysis from a variety of creative mediums such as literature, television and movies. By extracting examples of irony from a wide array of real-world examples (as opposed to made-up instances), Palacio manages to piece together common patterns in order to extract a generalised structure of irony.

Palacio explains how irony is the product of a clash between an epistemic scenario created by an ironist and an observable scenario perceived by an interpreter.

• Epistemic Scenario - The expectation held about a certain set of circumstances.
• Observable Scenario - What is actually happening in an observed set of circumstances.

Palacio goes into more detail of these scenarios in verbal irony, further breaking down the construction of a verbal epistemic scenario into pretended agreement, ironic markers and echo-building (repeating something related to the pretended agreement).

But what we can see from the most general definition of irony, is the parallel to Muecke’s principle of duality with the epistemic as the appearance and the observable as the reality. Palacio builds upon this by highlighting the importance of the “clash” between these two ideas as the place where irony is actually born. As she explains, “there is no ironic meaning until an interpreter, or a perceiver, detects a clash between two scenarios” (Lozano Palacio, 2020, p. 93). This not only emphasises the communicative nature of irony but also highlights how the interpreter perceives the clash is another fundamental part to the construction of irony.

Follow on from this, Palacio introduces a third element of irony, the target, or rather the object of the ironic instance. The target can vary from the actors involved in the irony, to a political ideology. For this she identifies four broad target types, a person, a state of affairs, an institution or any animate or inanimate object. For our ontology we extended this to seven types, a community, a concept, an institution, a person, the self, a state of affairs or a thing.

Placing these perspectives into the context of our ontology, we modeled irony as the product of an event involving an epistemic scenario and an observable scenario which clash with each other. This event is created by an ironist, and perceived by an interpreter. The ironic instance is then targeted at a particular idea. By placing irony as the product of an event we can reveal both its social context and communicative nature.

We also wanted to extend these reflections on irony by also highlighting the instances which are created when there is no clash between an epistemic and observable scenario. We have defined these instances as sincerity.

Summary in Memes

Ironic Creativity

Now that we have a structured understanding of irony (and sincerity when there is no clash), we can take a look at its creative nature.

In Analysis of Creativity, Mel Rhodes highlights three key qualities of creativity and original ideas:

1. A human mind grasping the elements of a subject
2. Reflection on the parts of the subject, their relationship to each other and to the whole
3. A sustained effort in embodying or articulating the idea effectively

These three points reflect the elements needed to make irony successful. On the part of the ironist, before attempting irony, they need to be aware of the common knowledge between themselves and the interpreter, to play with the expectations which arise from that knowledge, because as Palacio and Muecke point out, irony can only come about when the clash between the expectation and reality has been perceived by an interpreter.

Rhodes continues to synthesise the essence of creativity by introducing four elements he refers to as the 4Ps of creativity - Person, Process, Press, Product.

Person

This refers to all the personal traits that influence a person’s creativity, such as, personality, intellect, value systems, etc. Another aspect of the creative person which Rhodes highlights is “the ability to be puzzled…[and] the ability to accept conflict and tension” (Rhodes, 1961, p. 4). Here we see the qualities of the actors of irony highlighted, particularly that of the interpreter, who is the final actor in this creative process, perceiving a conflict between the epistemic and the observable and therefore fulfilling the ironic idea put forth by the ironist.

Process

Process refers to any act involved in creativity, from thinking and learning to implementing. A key aspect which Rhodes highlights here is that of the process of communicating which aligns with the third key quality of creativity he outlines in the beginning. Creativity is not just a solitary process within the mind of a single creative person, it is rather a manifestation of the interaction and communication between actors and environments. This is particularly true for irony which required both the production of the idea from the ironist as well as the acknowledgement and perception of the idea from the interpreter.

Press

Rhodes uses press to refer to “the relationship between human beings and their environment" (Rhodes, 1961, p. 5). This brings to mind the target or object of an ironic remark. Although the word target may suggest it comes at the end of the ironic process once the irony has been made and perceived, the target actually represents the whole social context in which the irony was created, placing it both at the beginning and end of the ironic process. Like Rhodes explains, “each idea that emerges reflects uniquely upon the originator's self, his sensory equipment, his mentality, his value systems, and his conditioning to the everyday experiences of life” (Rhodes, 1961, p. 5). In the ironic process this extends to making sure that the experiences and value systems of the ironist also somewhat overlap with that of the interpreter.

Product

A product is an idea embodied into a tangible form where “idea refers to a thought which has been communicated to other people in the form of words, paint, clay, metal, stone, fabric, or other material” (Rhodes, 1961, p. 6). In our context the product is the creative work, or more specifically the lyrical work, in which we have found instances of creative ideas in the form of irony and sincerity. By using lyrical works such as poems and songs which are typically shorter than prose and literature, we can study complete works and look at how multiple creative ideas (ironic and sincere) can make up a whole creative product.

Creon Alignment

• cover:Actor -> creon:Agent
• cover:LyricalWork –> creon:CreativeDomain - A creative domain (e.g., music) (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997).
• cover:CreativeIdea –> creon:CreativeIdea - it is typically defined as a novel or divergent concept or thought that arises in the mind of an individual and can be communicated to others.
• cover:CreativeWork –> creon:CreativeProduct- It is something that is produced as a result of the creative process, by a specific Person.
• cover:CreativeEvent -> creon:CreativitySituation - Any situation that involves creative processes, ideas, products, persons, contexts, etc.

Examples of Irony

In our dataset, we included not only poems in the strict sense but also song lyrics (cover:Poem and cover:Song), as irony tends to appear more frequently in the latter. Consequently, the interpreter of potential irony can belong to one of two categories: Reader or Listener. In the case of songs, the performer is not necessarily the author and therefore not always the ironist in the situation. Some instances are not in English and thus include both the original text and its English translation.

Within these instances, we identified both ironic and non-ironic expressions, in order to highlight the distinction between the two and to further emphasize the presence of irony when it occurs. An instance is classified as ironic when it displays a duality of meaning—that is, when the Epistemic and Observable scenarios diverge (in practical terms, when the literals, or strings in the dataset, do not align). Conversely, when such a divergence does not occur (when there is no “clash” between what the ironist states and what the observer perceives), the instance is considered sincere, as the absence of this clash indicates that no irony is involved and that the author’s utterance corresponds to their genuine intent.

Diversity of the Instances: Language and Target Wordclouds

Dataset

ControVerse Ontology

The ontology visualized with OntoGraf in Protégé.
The image itself can be found here along with a more readable version here.

The following section presents the Classes, Object Properties, and Data Properties used in our ontology, which together define the conceptual and relational structure of irony in lyrical works. We also aligned our ontology with Creon, "an integrated ontology of creativity theories".

Classes, Subclasses and Individuals

Classes

• CreativeIdea – Abstract intellectual or artistic concept, such as irony or sincerity.
• CreativeWork – Any artistic or literary product resulting from a creative process.
• LyricalWork – Subclass of CreativeWork representing poetic or musical compositions.
• Song – A lyrical work with a musical structure and performance component.
• Poem – A lyrical work composed of verses and often characterized by rhythm and imagery.
• Actor – Any entity (person or group) involved in a creative or interpretative process.
• Author – The creator of a lyrical or literary work.
• Ironist – A specific type of author who intentionally employs irony.
• Interpreter – The agent who perceives and interprets the ironic meaning.
• Performer – The individual or group that presents or enacts a lyrical work.
• Target – The entity, concept, or individual toward which irony is directed.
• Event – A general occurrence or situation that can be analyzed within an ironic framework.
• CreativeEvent – A specific event involving the creation or expression of an artistic idea.
• IronicEvent – A creative event characterized by the coexistence of contrasting meanings.
• SincereEvent – A creative event lacking the duality typical of irony.
• Irony – The central concept, defined by the tension between appearance and reality.
• Sincerity – The opposite conceptual pole of irony, marked by unity of expression and meaning.
• VerbalIrony – Irony expressed through language and deliberate wording.
• SituationalIrony – Irony arising from events or circumstances that contradict expectations.

Subclasses

• Song ⊆ LyricalWork
• Poem ⊆ LyricalWork
• Author ⊆ Actor
• Ironist ⊆ Author
• Interpreter ⊆ Actor
• Performer ⊆ Actor
• CreativeEvent ⊆ Event
• IronicEvent ⊆ CreativeEvent
• SincereEvent ⊆ CreativeEvent
• VerbalIrony ⊆ Irony
• SituationalIrony ⊆ Irony
• Irony ⊆ CreativeIdea
• Sincerity ⊆ CreativeIdea

Individuals

• Reader, Listener – Actors who interpret or experience the creative idea within a lyrical work.
• ListeningEvent, ReadingEvent – Specific acts of reception tied to interpretation.
• ImpersonalIrony, SelfDisparagingIrony, IngenuIrony, DramatizedIrony – Verbal irony types derived from Muecke.
• IronyOfSimpleIncongruency, IronyOfEvents, IronyOfDrama, IronyOfSelfBetrayal, IronyOfDilemma – Situational irony types derived from Muecke reflecting different narrative or contextual contrasts.
• Institution, Community, Person, Self, Concept, Thing, StateOfAffair – Abstract entities which can be the target (object) of a creative idea (irony or sincerity).

Object Properties

• hasScenario – Connects an event or work to its related scenario.
• hasEpistemicScenario – Links an ironic event to the interpretative (mental) context.
• hasObservableScenario – Links to the perceivable external context.
• hasActor – Associates an event with the involved agent.
• hasTarget – Indicates the object or entity toward which irony is directed.
• hasReceptionEvent – Connects a creative event to the act of reception it was created during.
• createdFrom – Connects a creative idea to the creative event it was produced from.
• hasIronyType – Identifies the verbal or situational irony type of a creative idea.
• interpretedBy – Links an event or work to the interpreting agent.
• initiatedBy – Links the ironic act or work to its creator.
• hasCreator – General property connecting a creative work with its author.
• hasPerformer – Connects a lyrical work (especially a song) to its performer.
• embodiedBy – Indicates the context or source where the irony is manifested.

Data Properties

• hasCreationDate – Specifies when the work or event was created.
• hasTitle – Provides the title of a creative work.
• hasEventLocation – Indicates the location of an event.
• hasCreationLocation – Defines the place where a work originated.
• hasDescription – Gives a textual description of the entity.
• hasLanguage – Specifies the linguistic medium of the work.
• hasPoeticForm – Defines the poetic structure (e.g., sonnet, ode).
• hasGenre – Classifies the lyrical work within a literary or musical genre.
• hasName – Indicates the name of an actor or entity.
• hasTargetDescription – Describes the target of irony in more detail.

Querying the Ontology

Querying the ontology represents the final step in understanding how our model works in practice. By using SPARQL, we can explore the relationships between concepts and individuals, verify connections between authors, works, and events, and test how irony emerges through different contexts. This process transforms the ontology from a simple conceptual map into an interactive knowledge system — a space where data can be questioned, interpreted, and connected in new and creative ways, much like the dynamics of irony itself.

You can find the populated ontology here.

Overview of the ontology structure

The Competency Questions

PREFIX rdf: 
PREFIX owl: 
PREFIX rdfs: 
PREFIX xsd: 
PREFIX cover:  
PREFIX covercore:  
PREFIX : 

SELECT ?inst ?ep ?ob ?clash ?type ?text 
WHERE { 
    VALUES ?type { cover:Irony cover:Sincerity }
    ?inst a ?type ;
        cover:hasText ?text ;
        cover:createdFrom ?CreativeEvent .

    ?CreativeEvent cover:hasEpistemicScenario ?ep ;
                cover:hasObservableScenario ?ob .

    BIND(IF(?ep != ?ob, "Yes", "No") AS ?clash)
}

PREFIX rdf: 
PREFIX owl: 
PREFIX rdfs: 
PREFIX xsd: 
PREFIX cover: 
PREFIX covercore: 
PREFIX : 
SELECT ?inst ?title ?text ?ironyCategory ?ironyType ?target ?targetDesc 
WHERE { 
?inst a cover:Irony ; 
	cover:hasText ?text ; 
	cover:createdFrom ?CreativeEvent ; 
	cover:embodiedBy ?lyricalWork ; 
	cover:hasIronyType ?ironyType ; 
	cover:hasTarget ?target ; 
	cover:hasTargetDescription ?targetDesc . 
?lyricalWork cover:hasTitle ?title . 
?ironyType a ?ironyCategory . 
?ironyCategory rdfs:subClassOf cover:Irony . 
}

PREFIX rdf: 
PREFIX owl: 
PREFIX rdfs: 
PREFIX xsd: 
PREFIX cover: 
PREFIX covercore: 
PREFIX : 
SELECT ?inst ?title ?text ?target ?targetDesc 
WHERE { 
?inst a cover:Sincerity ; 
	cover:hasText ?text ; 
	cover:createdFrom ?CreativeEvent ; 
	cover:embodiedBy ?lyricalWork ; 
	cover:hasTarget ?target ; 
	cover:hasTargetDescription ?targetDesc . 
?lyricalWork cover:hasTitle ?title . 
}

PREFIX rdf: 
PREFIX owl: 
PREFIX rdfs: 
PREFIX xsd: 
PREFIX cover: 
PREFIX covercore: 
PREFIX : 
SELECT ?title ?text ?ironyType ?target ?targetDesc 
WHERE { 
?inst a cover:Irony ; 
	cover:hasText ?text ; 
	cover:createdFrom ?CreativeEvent ;
cover:embodiedBy ?lyricalWork ; 
	cover:hasIronyType ?ironyType ; 
	cover:hasTarget ?target ; 
	cover:hasTargetDescription ?targetDesc . 
?lyricalWork cover:hasTitle ?title . 
}

PREFIX rdf: 
PREFIX owl: 
PREFIX rdfs: 
PREFIX xsd: 
PREFIX cover: 
PREFIX covercore: 
PREFIX : 
SELECT ?title ?text ?target ?targetDesc 
WHERE { 
?inst a cover:Sincerity ; 
	cover:hasText ?text ; 
	cover:createdFrom ?CreativeEvent ;
	cover:embodiedBy ?lyricalWork ; 
	cover:hasTarget ?target ; 
	cover:hasTargetDescription ?targetDesc . 
?lyricalWork cover:hasTitle ?title . 
}

Conclusions

The aim of this project was to develop an ontology capable of capturing how irony operates and is constructed within a literary context, a fertile ground where authors can creatively convey meaning without stating it directly, leaving layers of interpretation for the reader to uncover. Irony, in this sense, exists in the tension between what is said and what is meant, a duality that our ontology was designed to represent. This tension forms the core distinction between ironic and non-ironic instances, reflecting the interplay between the Epistemic and the Observable Scenario.

In designing our ontology, we ensured that the outcomes of our queries would align with the theoretical frameworks proposed by Muecke and Palacio, as well as established structures of irony. Instances were categorized as either Ironic or Sincere, enabling the ontology to identify and differentiate ironic from non-ironic expressions. This approach allows for a systematic exploration of irony within literary texts, highlighting both explicit and subtle forms.

Moreover, the dataset can be further expanded with additional examples to make these distinctions more explicit and robust, improving the ontology’s coverage and applicability. Future work could also explore the integration of context-sensitive features or pragmatic cues, enhancing the system’s ability to model the nuanced mechanisms through which irony is conveyed and interpreted.

References

Bibliography

Lozano Palacio, Inés. "A Scenario-Based Approach to Irony. Structure, meaning and function." Universidad de La Rioja, 2020. https://portalinvestigacion.uniovi.es/documentos/5ecd9f6c2999520eaa95156f

Muecke, D.C. "The Compass of Irony (1st ed.)". Routledge, 1969. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003129905

Rhodes, Mel. "An Analysis of Creativity". The Phi Delta Kappan 42, no. 7 (1961): 305–10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603

Readings

Hutcheon, Linda. “The Complex Functions of Irony.” Revista Canadiense de Estudios Hispánicos 16, no. 2 (1992): 219–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27762900

Karyshyn, Jenifer Reksovna. MLN 110, no. 4 (1995): 971–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3251217

Medium. “The art of Provocation” by T. Fish. Archived February 15, 2025, at https://opengovernance.net/the-art-of-provocation-e9d96b690714

Tools

Canva: https://www.canva.com/

Controverse Ontology (CoVer): https://w3id.org/controverse#

Controverse Ontology Core (CoVer core): https://w3id.org/controverse/

Creative Ontology (Creon): http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/creativity/creon.owl#

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI): https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/

Ezgif: https://ezgif.com/

Make a Meme: https://makeameme.org/

Protégé: https://protege.stanford.edu/

RAWGraphs: https://www.rawgraphs.io/

Resource Description Framework (RDF): https://www.w3.org/RDF/

Resource Description Framework Schema (RDFs): https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/

Web Ontology Language (OWL): https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/

Extensible Markup Language (XML): https://www.w3.org/XML/