Raymond Gibbs, Jr. (1994) has analyzed irony as a figure of thoughtand has noted its ultimate situational basis: “Verbal and situational irony,

28MICHAEL HANCHETT HANSONalthough mostly distinct, are related in one important way, in that speakers’intentional use of verbal irony reflects their conceptualizations of situationsas ironic” (p. 365). In other words, verbal irony is a compressed referenceto a situation.An example of this principle is Shaw’s explanation of the meaning of“Junker” inCommon Sense(1914/1931). Having noted the negative stereo-types of German Junkers as cruel and uncivilized, Shaw suggested that hisEnglish audience “resort to a dictionary” (p. 22). The dictionary definedJunkers as country gentlemen. Based on that definition, Shaw pointed out,“Thus we can see that the Junker is by no means peculiar to Prussia. Wecan claim to produce the article in perfection that may well make Germanydespair of ever surpassing us in that line” (1914/1931, p. 22).He went on to list leaders of the British government who were Junkers.Finally, Shaw remarked that, “of course, the Kaiser is a Junker, though lesstrue-blue than the Crown Prince . . . ” (1914/1931, p. 22). Here we confrontthe difference between overt and covert irony, as well as the importance ofknowing the situation in order to appreciate verbal irony. At an overt level,this irony was the same as the overall situation explicitly described—thepot calling the kettle black. The Crown Prince was a Junker like the Kaiser.With more knowledge of the situation, however, the irony holds addedpunch. The British Royal family was largely of German descent and, in-deed, their name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. During WWI, to distance them-selves from their enemy, the Royal Family would take the name “Windsor”(royal.gov.uk, 2002). The crown prince was not just like a German Junker,hewasa German Junker. In other words, fully appreciating the verbal ironyin the “true-blue” reference, required knowing the situation.From a psychological perspective, the situational root of irony can bedescribed as deviation from standard event scripts. A script is a learnedexpectation about the way the world works (Schank & Abelson, 1977). Forexample, going to a restaurant entails a series of events, a “script”. In therestaurant script, behaviors are linked to goals in ways that are learned andcontextually appropriate to the culture. Research has shown that peopledepend on such scripts to give meaning to narratives. In recall, peopletend to restore missing parts to a script and to reorder a scrambled script.An occurrence that does not fit the script tends to be ignored or givenmeaning specifically in its anomalous relation to the script (Bransford,1979; Ashcraft, 1989).Historical treatment of WWI can be seen as an example of such cog-nitive compensation. Witness historian Esm ́e Wingfield-Stratford’s (1968)comments:It had been assumed by the experts who planned it, and was taken forgranted by the propaganda-drunken masses, that this was going to be