The Art of Satire during Hard Times: The Pragmatics of Sociopolitical Criticism in Ahmed Hassan Al-Zoubi’s Articles ()
1. Introduction
Whether verbal or non-verbal, a considerable portion of communication occurs indirectly and implicitly. Implicit means of verbal communication are utilized for a variety of purposes and to produce various effects on the addressee. Implied messages are found abundantly in everyday spontaneous discourse, where speakers spontaneously imply pieces of information, and hearers spontaneously interpret them upon receiving them. Implicit messages take more effort to produce from the speaker than explicit messages, just as they take more processing effort from the hearer to interpret. In return, they create a more significant amount of positive cognitive effects on the hearer (Sperber & Wilson, 1996; Wilson & Sperber, 2012). Producing more positive cognitive effects is considerably more important in written discourse as it is permanent and non-spontaneous in that the author has significantly more time to create, revise, and improve it. This is even more important in opinion-based, critical, and fictional writing as they are designed to leave a lingering effect on their audience (Furlong, 1996; Mohammadpanah et al., 2018; Mohammadpanah, 2018; Hamzehei, 2019; Mohammadpanah & Hamzehei, 2020).
In verbal communication, implicit messages are communicated in the form of conventional and conversational implicata. It is by means of implicata that a lot more is communicated than what is said. Typically, implicata are tied to individual words or utterances. In opinion-based, critical, and literary discourse, they can run through supra-sentential levels such as paragraphs, sections or even entire works. Conversational implicata need to be calculated based on the context of the utterance that includes them and that of the situational setting of the act of communication. In fictional and critical discourses, they are used to convey the author’s opinion and ideology as well as to influence the minds of the readers by targeting theirs. In this paper, I will examine how the well-known Jordian satirist and column-writer Ahmed Hassan Al-Zoubi uses conversational implicata to criticize certain social viewpoints and promote those aligned with his line of thinking. After reviewing the relevant literature on the linguistic foundations of implicata and the previous applications of analyzing messages conveyed through the use of implicata in fictional and literal media, we will go through various samples of conversational implicata collected from articles authored by Al-Zoubi. Following that will be a discussion of the social aspects of his style of advertising self-opinion and criticizing opinions.
2. Review of Literature
2.1. Implicature
In any act of communication, the process of inferring the addresser’s messages depends heavily on their intentions, which can be determined from the context in which the speech is said. It is communicatively and pragmatically expected of the addresser to be adequately expressive of their intentions, thus easing the task of correctly calculating and interpreting the intended message for the addressee. Effective communication is brought about as a result of a bargain between the speaker and the hearer by correctly expressing the communicative intention and message at one end and correctly interpreting them at the other (Strawson, 1964; Grice, 1957). Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle (CP) delineates the mechanisms of such expectations in terms of four conversational maxims. Briefly, the maxim of Quality requires the speaker to state only what they believe to be accurate, and the maxim of Quantity requires the speaker to be as informative as necessary without saying more than is necessary. The maxim of Relation requires them to state what is relevant to the current context and what has been said up to that point in an attempt to comply with what Schwarzschild (1999) labels as respecting the established common ground. Finally, the maxim of Manner requires them to be brief, orderly, clear and unambiguous. Any non-observance of one or more of these maxims, intentional or otherwise, will result in an implicature.
Various possible ways of interacting with the maxims give rise to different types of non-observance (Levinson, 1983; Kroeger, 2022). One can violate a maxim by lying, which involves intentionally and covertly breaking it to mislead or deceive the addressee, hoping that they do not notice (Birner, 2021). Cases of this can be observed in parliamentary speeches and arguments, as per Thomas (1995). Flouting or exploiting a maxim occurs through intentionally and overtly breaking it to create extra meaning. According to Grice (1975), a flout is so blatant that the interlocutor is supposed to know for sure that an implicature is generated, even if they are not sure what those implicatures are. A flout occurs when the addresser conspicuously fails to observe a maxim, not with any intention of deceiving or misleading the addressee. However, when they want him/her to look for a meaning that is different from, or that can be added to the expressed literal meaning, A maxim can be infringed by the speaker unintentionally breaking a maxim due to a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge or awareness, in which case a clarification reverts the communication to its normal course. A maxim can also be opted out of when an interlocuter disengages from an act of communication, as in a speaker purposefully choosing silence as a response to an addresser to make a point implicitly.
Non-observance of maxims is not the only generator of implicata. Implied messages can also be conveyed by observing a maxim. Implicata can also be caused by the overt observance of a maxim in a way that the hearer comes to realize that the speaker must be observing a particular maxim in their utterance; otherwise, they would have made it known that they were breaking it (Birner, 2021). When a speaker states that they have two cars in response to the question of how many they have, they imply that they possess two and only two by observing the maxim of Quantity, leaving the hearer to assume that if they had more than two cars, they would have said so.
Since the author counts on the readers to figure out the purposefully implied messages for greater and stronger effect, any instance of imparting extra meaning through employing discursive and literary devices—including the samples of implicata analyzed in this research—constitutes a flouting of maxims. These instances are not considered violations of maxims as the author does not attempt to conceal a lie, hoping that readers will not discover their lie. With the written work having already been produced, opting out of maxims is not a possibility either. Unlike most spoken discourse which is spontaneous and is produced on the spot, written works, especially those intended for publishing purposes, are non-spontaneous discourse because the author has the luxury of contemplating, reviewing, and revising their work before publishing. This rules out the possibility that such instances result from mistakes and involve infringing maxims. As such, this study is centered on floutings of maxims, rather than violations, infringements, and opting out.
In addition to the different ways of producing implicatures, there is another fundamental distinction in the concept of implying between conventional and conversational implicatures. Commonly exemplified by the negation implied in the use of a word such as “but”, conventional implicatures are tied to specific words and phrases and part of their conventional meaning. Consequently, they are not tied to the context and are always conveyed whenever the word is used. Conversational implicatures are divided into generalized and particularized conversational implicatures. The former is implied by certain words but not part of their conventional meaning, such as using the word ‘warm’ to describe something that is not hot, a word that the speaker would have used if the described item was, in fact, hot. Particularized conversational implicatures, on the other hand, are not tied to wording and are only calculable from the context (Huang, 2007). In the utterance “I have an exam in the morning,” as a response to a friend’s invitation to a party in the evening to imply one’s inability to attend, there is no word or phrase which semantically and literally means “I cannot come to the party.” Nevertheless, the hearer can calculate the implicature from the context. This lack of time makes a particularized conversational implicata paraphrase, as any wording of the same semantic content will carry the implicature. The utterance “I am required to take a test tomorrow morning” conveys the implied message equally well.
In addition to non-conventionality (context-dependency), calculability and appropriability, implicatures of this type are cancellable and reinforceable through the extension of utterance. The implicature can be strengthened through the continuation of the utterance, as in, “I have an exam tomorrow. In fact, I will be studying through the night.” The implied message can be cancelled by continuing the utterance as “I have an exam tomorrow, but I could use some cheering up beforehand.” The context-dependency of such implicata does not allow them to survive a change of context. When provided as an answer when asked, “What is on your schedule tomorrow?”, the utterance “I have an exam in the morning” does not imply that the speaker cannot attend a party in the evening. Since in this research, we are mainly concerned with particularized conversational implicata, for the sake of economy, I will use “conversational implicature” to refer to them from this point onwards and throughout the paper.
As comprehensive and intuitive as it is, CP has received a fair amount of criticism on specific grounds, the most important of which is the overlap between some of the maxims. In particular, the maxim of Quantity appears to cover at least one submaxim of Manner. Being brief can be considered to be the same as saying only as much as necessary or not saying more than is necessary. Another cause of overlap is between the maxim of Relation and another sub-maxim of Manner, namely clarity. Being irrelevant to the context can lead to obscurity and can thus be one of the causes of unclarity. We must point out that obscurity and ambiguity, as addressed by two different submaxims of Manner, are different. As a linguistic concept, ambiguity is tied to wording and sentential structure, which occurs when a particular word or structure can be interpreted in two different ways and two different senses. Obscurity, however, occurs when vague words and ideas are used in discourse which are difficult to interpret but not with multiple equally sensible interpretations.
Mainly due to the overlap, CP has undergone criticism from three major reductionist views, leading to three reduced models. As the most prominent Neo-Griceans, Levinson (1983) reduced the model to three maxims based on Grice’s Quantity and Manner, while Horn (1984) reduced the model to two Quantity-based maxims. Apart from Quantity, Levinson’s model made use of notions of informativeness and markedness, requiring the speaker to be as informationally strong in their contributions to the context of communications and to use marked language only when describing a marked (unusual) situation. Horn’s model captured cooperativeness in terms of two principles: The principle covering Grice’s first submaxim of Quantity, and R, the principle covering Grice’s second submaxim of Quantity, the maxim of Relation, and Manner (Birner, 2021; Kroeger, 2022). As the original Post-Griceans, Sperber and Wilson (1996) capture all four of the Gricean maxims in a single maxim of Relevance, according to which, in a given context, an utterance is relevant to the extent that it makes a change to the hearer’s perception of the world measured by the amount of positive cognitive effect, which decides whether it is worth processing on the hearer’s part. This single maxim requires speakers to be as relevant as possible while posing as little processing effort on the hearer as possible.
Even though the points made by these three models are intuitive and feasible, with certain adjustments, CP is not only convincingly defensible, but it better demonstrates the variety involved in the mechanisms of generating implicata. This is key in research such as this study, where the focus is on the various ways of creating implicit messages in a specific genre of discourse and the devices behind them. Despite these seemingly valid shortcomings of CP, the alternative models are too simplified for this research. Nevertheless, the overlap in the original CP poses serious challenges to its suitability and implementation in research such as this, which aims to objectively determine the specific maxims that lay the foundations of the devices and in doing so, contribute to the discursive and satirical style of an author. To address and counter these challenges, I will use a revised overlap-free version of the original CP, which associates only one maxim with each implicature rather than two maxims without specifying the main one. It includes the original four maxims with specific changes to Quantity and Manner. Being brief will be excluded from the maxim of Manner and will be handled by Quantity. As a result, whenever an utterance is purposefully unnecessarily too long, the maxim of Quantity will be considered flouted rather than Manner. The maxim of Manner will only involve vagueness, order, and ambiguity. The distinction between irrelevance and vagueness should also be noted. If an utterance is challenging to understand but still relevant to the context of communication, it will be taken to flout the maxim of Manner. However, if it is irrelevant to the context of communication (including the topic at hand), it will be taken to flout the maxim of Relation. Table 1 shows the maxims and submaxims of the revised model of CP used in this study:
Table 1. Maxims and submaxims of the revised version of CP.
Maxim |
Requirement (s) |
Quality |
Say what you believe to be true. |
Quantity |
1) Say as much as necessary. 2) Do not say more than is necessary. |
Relation |
Be relevant to the context. |
Manner |
1) Avoid vagueness. 2) Avoid ambiguity. 3) Be orderly |
As speakers, we rely pretty heavily on implicatures in our everyday lives without realizing it. In fact, we may find communication relatively uninteresting, colorless and boring, if not impossible. Discourse without implicata sounds noticeably weird as they not only add a great deal of creativity to language but also give speakers access to new levels of expression. Some meanings are just impossible to communicate without implicatures. No matter how many times one repeats the phrase “I love you” to their lover, it still falls short of communicating the love in utterances such as “You are the blood in my veins,” or “You are my moon and stars,” as a result of flouting the maxim of Quality by purposefully saying what we know to be untrue literally. This shows how essential the concept of implicature is in written discourse, which is permanent and much more contemplatable than spoken language, especially in literary and fictional texts or genres of written discourse that primarily rely on literary devices. Suffice it to say that many of the most commonly used literary and discursive devices, including irony, sarcasm, metaphor, and hyperbole, are prime examples of conversational implicata.
2.2. Satire
Different genres of written discourse use literary and discursive devices to define themselves and identify with a form of expression. With humor at its core, comedy is one of the most potent and unique forms of expression and genres, which makes heavy use of these tools to imply messages. Provoking a comic atmosphere can be employed as a weapon to fight oppression and power misuse. Comedy allows those who reject the misuse of power to express their views loudly and freely. As an inherently critical form of comedy, satire is characterized by the use of figurative devices such as irony, exaggeration, and metaphor to criticize social, political, and economic issues within a society (Claridge, 2011). As confirmed by Vance (2013) and Ibrahim (2014) in the case of irony and sarcasm, the fact that these devices constitute conversational implicatures alone justifies pragmatic analysis of satirists as a prolific source for finding patterns in utilizing the concept of implicature strategically to convey critical messages implicitly.
Different satirical techniques convey messages in different ways. Exaggeration, for instance, depends on presenting a problem or condition in a magnitude comically beyond norms to make it seem much more serious than it is generally believed to be. Satirical articles use exaggeration to spice up the story and mock the lack of attention to the target problem or condition. A second technique is incongruity, which presents unreached imagery of a situation as if it were real by using figurative tools such as metaphor and irony, each of which is further divided into more subtypes. For example, performing irony can include the use of verbal irony, situational irony and dramatic irony. As a third satirical technique, parody presents a new version of a personage’s style or work through imitation to mock the original. It is considered a satirical tool in the sense that it mimics popular political personalities to produce a comical effect on the audience. The fourth satirical technique is known as reversal, which tends to present the exact opposite of an actual situation by interfering in the sense of order. The variety represented in these techniques adds a significant quantity of variety and depth to the art of satire. It requires some pretty imaginative as well as pragmatic proficiency on the part of satirists.
2.3. An Accomplished Implicature-Friendly Satirist
This study, however, tends to highlight how the notion of conversational implicature is implemented by the well-known Jordanian satirist Ahmed Hassan Al-Zoubi, who tends to make heavy use of implicata to criticize modern-day issues in Jordanian society and, more generally, the Arab world, and by provoking laughter, load his messages with extra critical effects. In addition to writing a daily column in Al-Ra’i (الرأي)newspaper, he presents the popular show Muni’a fi-Si:n (منع في الصين). In 2008, he started his website Sawalief (سوالیف), where he publishes his articles. He prefers to imply his intended messages rather than stating them directly and openly to give them satirical weight. Al-Zoubi usually addresses the law, governmental policies, the economy, and other sensitive political and societal issues. His articles usually include three main sections: a) the title, b) a theme, and c) a narrative or discussion.
His humor is intentional, strong but implicit, and not grasped until placed in the context of the situation, which, in a way, attaches more value to his messages. Commenting on satire in Jordan in a debate, Al-Zoubi (2014) remarked, “Jordanians do not laugh at clowns; they do have a real appreciation of constructive comedy, as they think it provides an outlet for them,” highlighting the importance of satire in offering an escape from daily pressures. However, his satirical writings often emphasize the role of irony and satire in providing relief from daily challenges and addressing societal issues. They also employ black humor to reflect societal realities, serving as both a form of self-expression and a means to critique social conditions (Shalan & Muhilan, 2021).
Exploring the strategic use of implicata by such a notable author can enlighten us as to any potential patterning in the use of conversational implicatures in satire to enhance the influence of implied messages. With that as the overall goal, this study sets out to answer five main questions:
1) How did Al-Zoubi employ the Gricean maxims to direct heavy criticism at the government during a politically eventful and controversial period?
2) How frequently were the Gricean maxims flouted in his discourse for satirical criticism?
3) Which maxim was flouted most frequently for satirical criticism in his articles?
4) What literary and discursive were used as satirical techniques in his articles?
5) How do the conversational implicature and the literary and discursive devices and resulting satirical techniques contribute to and shape his style of writing and satire?
Predicting the results of corpus searches for pragmatic phenomena does not tend to be straightforward, which makes hypothesizing all the more difficult. Keeping in mind specific predictions in the literature as to the higher potential of Quantity for satire (Ibrahim, 2014; Al-Hamadi & Muhammed, 2009), the above questions will evaluate the veracity of the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: There will be a considerable difference in the frequency of various conversational maxims.
Hypothesis 2: Given the genre, the irony will be ubiquitously shared by all the articles.
Hypothesis 3: Besides the interaction between Quality and irony, other patterns and trends will be observed between different maxims and literary and discursive devices.
Hypothesis 4: There will be a considerable difference in the number and types of maxims flouting and utilized devices.
3. Methods
To answer the outlined research questions, this study investigated a set of articles by Al-Zoubi that dealt with particularly heated issues. The year 2012, especially the first nine months, was significant in Jordanian society as it hosted specific controversy-sparking political and economic issues, which paved the way for ample critical writing in columns and articles. Out of the thirty-two articles published by Al-Zoubi in Sawalief (سوالیف) in 2012, the nineteen articles published over the period between January and September were analyzed. Published within weeks of one another, several of the articles overlapped to a small extent regarding the general issues they addressed, but each managed to separate its independence in the specific issue it targeted.
1The use of this term is due to the fact that it is feasibly difficult to separate social and political issues as they interact constantly. It is, however, possible to determine whether the political or the social aspects of an issue are being addressed in an article.
2Henceforth referred to simply as devices for the sake of economy.
A preliminary analysis showed that all the articles used conversational phrases heavily. These phrases, such as “not on my own” and “broader discussion”, were observed in the selected articles, each covering a lot when considered individually1. Whether it was a political issue, a primarily social one, or a combinatory issue involving aspects of both, this study left no stone unturned. Examples of conversational implicata were observed in all three sections, which necessitates an examination of every section for samples of them. To answer the outlined research questions, all the articles were meticulously examined to identify and document all instances of the maxims (as outlined in Table 1) being flouted or observed to create satire-implementing conversational implicata. Due to the context-dependency of conversational implicata, understanding the implied message within each sample requires readers’ awareness of the sample-specific context against which the implicature needs to be interpreted, as well as the political, social, and economic background of Jordan, including the particular issue the author is criticizing (cf. Scollon et al., 2012). Specifically, every article was subjected to a nine-step analysis involving:
highlighting the three sections,
establishing the scope of the article in terms of in terms of the type of the addressed issue(s)—social, political, or socio-political,
extracting the contextual specifications, including the targeted issue, from the theme section,
identifying all the instances of conversational implicata within each article,
establishing and listing the maxim(s) involved/flouted in each implicature,
developing a justificatory and descriptive account of the involvement of the identified maxim(s),
determining the literary and discursive device(s) used as satirical technique(s) for the criticism in each article,
developing a justificatory description for the involvement of the identified literary and discursive devices,
determining the contribution of the identified implicate and techniques to account for the author’s style of writing by analyzing the patterns between his maxim flouting and use of literary and discursive devices as satirical techniques.
The literary and discursive devices2 Implemented as satirical techniques, which were considered in the analysis of each article included:
We should note that code-switching is exclusive to situations where more than one language or dialects of a language are spoken in the same community. This applies to Jordanian society, where the community uses formal Arabic and a colloquial Jordanian dialect. Evidenced by Al-Gweirien et al.’s study of diglossic code-switching within Al-Zoubi’s written discourse, this plays an important role in our study as Al-Zoubi has a history of switching between the two by using specific colloquial Jordanian phrases and expressions amid standard formal Arabic.
4. Analysis
There are two matters to consider regarding the identified samples of conversational implicata. With each article including a narrative or a lengthy discussion to make a statement against an issue, at the general level, the maxim of Quantity is uniformly flouted in all articles as much more is said that the mere criticism against the target issue adds more profound meaning and achieves a more substantial impact on the reader. Therefore, for the sake of the economy, this general flouting instance will only be mentioned on the list of the implicata for each article as another article-specific flouting of maxims will be manoeuvred on in more detail. Nevertheless, any case of Quantity being flouted at a more specific level was considered separately and independent of its more general flouting.
The second issue is the omnipresence of irony or sarcasm in all the articles, which is reasonably expected. They are the defining requirements of satire, as it is neither feasible nor likely to be satirical without inherently being ironic or sarcastic. However, we must heed the fact that these are not mutually exclusive. It is definitely possible for satire to include both irony and sarcasm but unlikely, if not impossible, to be without one or the other. In light of these considerations, this section will provide a detailed account of the analysis that was conducted. Tables 2-20 exhibit the specifics and results of the analysis of each article in the systematic chronological order of publication
4.1. Article 1 (Al-Zoubi, 2012a)
Table 2. Metadata and analytical results of Article 1.
Title |
مش لحالي! /miʃ læhæ:li/—Not on My Own! |
Date of Publication |
Jan 6, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
This article addressed a gathering of influential Jordanian diplomats in Amman where they praised the status and dignity of Jordan as a country and their contribution to it. In response, in an announcement titled “Not on My Own”, several Jordanian
ex-politicians, who had been accused of wrong decisions and incompetent running of the country in their time, each insisted that they should not be held accountable alone. The article targets several ex-politicians, including the former Head of Security, who smuggled crucial documents to an undisclosed European capital and threatened to
expose secrets if he is made a scapegoat, echoing the same “Not on my own”, and the former Minister of Planning, who in his office in Jeddah denied any suggestion of
corruption and maintained that his decisions were not his alone but part of a broader discussion within Jordanian decision-making circles. Chief among them was the former Prime Minister who, while relaxing in Switzerland, threatened to publish confidential documents that would expose and implicate
high-rank authorities, if he was investigated, documents to prove that the actions and decisions they were accused of were not taken by them alone in an announcement were not taken solely. In its everyday use, the article’s title means that the speaker is not the only one to blame for something that has gone wrong and is used to escape
responsibility. These illustrate the tension between personal responsibility and a broader system of collective decision-making while pointing to a sense of national crisis or betrayal. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Manner |
Though it has a more direct referent in its colloquial sense, the title of the article flouts the maxim of Manner as it is ambiguous and can communicate any of three distinct meanings. It can
refer to the self-praising diplomats saying they worked
harmoniously to get Jordan to the commendable state they think it is in. It can refer to the ex-diplomats threatening to
reveal other guilty politicians. It can also refer to Al-Zoubi
himself and other concerned Jordanian citizens, as he states in the article that the actions of the current and ex-politicians and the current state of the country have left his face covered in tears. The phrase can imply that the author is not alone in
shedding tears for his country. |
Quality |
The author exaggerates when he says that as a concerned citizen, his face is covered in tears, as he is not literally crying at the time of writing. Thus, he flouts the maxim of Quality to emphasize how lamentable the country’s state is. |
Quality |
The author’s image of loyal politicians gathered to praise their country flouts the maxim of Quality, as he believes praising
politicians is quite the opposite of loyalty. |
Quantity |
Al-Zoubi criticizes the commonality of justice not being served in Jordan through a lengthy description of one specific case. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Irony |
By describing the praising politicians as loyal, the author uses irony for satirical effect. |
Exaggeration |
The author exaggerates when he states that he is a concerned citizen who is weeping, saying that he is not crying. |
Code-Switching |
Throughout the article, Al-Zoubi switches between standard
Arabic and the Jordanian dialect to make the article more
relatable for the lay community. |
Metaphor |
By describing himself as a concerned citizen who is crying over the country’s lamentable status, Al-Zoubi represents all
Jordanians who are oppressed and dissatisfied with the
government and its administration. |
Repetition |
Throughout the article, Al-Zoubi repeatedly mentions the phrase “in Amman” to emphasize that what is happening in
Amman is not usual. |
4.2. Article 2 (Al-Zoubi, 2012b)
Table 3. Metadata and analytical results of Article 2.
Title |
مشان یمینک /miʃæ:n jæmi:næk/—Because You Swore. |
Date of Publication |
January 8, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Sociopolitical |
Contextual Background |
In the culture of Jordan, the concept of swearing someone to do something refers to the idea of a speaker insisting or imploring a hearer to do something, usually by swearing on one’s own life, God, or another sacred religious being, meaning that the requester is asked to do the requested action for the sake of God, the spiritual figure, or the requester’s life. This article targets the famous Jordanian multi-millionaire businessman and former finance minister, Khaled Shaheen, who was accused of corruption and mismanagement in Jordan’s energy sector, particularly concerning the Jordan Petroleum Refinery. He was indicted for embezzlement and fraud related to a €1.6 billion-dollar deal
concerning the refinery, which was significant. One notable instance was the Disi
project, which was designed to supply water from an aquifer in southern Jordan.
However, this initiative became mired in scandals involving Shahin and others, raising concerns about governance and transparency within state-owned enterprises.
Although initially captured and imprisoned, he was granted medical leave and left
Jordan. When summoned to attend an investigation session, he kept moving from one country to another to avoid arrest by the Jordanian authorities. The incident sparked public outrage when he was seen dining in London, underscoring a perceived lack of accountability for the politically connected elite in Jordan. This is particularly
concerning in light of escalating economic challenges and the perceived favoritism shown towards private sector elites closely associated with the royal court. Al-Zoubi opens his article with a detailed account of the situation of a well-known tale, namely the account of Fazzah’s husband (زوج فزة), who attends a get-together with relatives. The host welcomes him and offers him a sweet dessert/snack in the form of small balls called عوامة (ʕæwæmmæ) as a way of showing hospitality and respect. Fazzah’s
husband, however, keeps refusing the offer by saying: “No thanks, I do not feel like having any; I am full right now.” The host coaxes him again, insisting and telling him to eat or try one. Finally, he agrees and starts with a bite. As time passes, he finishes the whole dish without hesitation and returns the empty container, expressing that he did not intend to eat but was forced to eat because of their insistence and swearing. |
He utters, “This is just because you swore!” Al-Zoubi then mentions Shaheen’s going on a trip in response to being summoned—insisting that he did not want to travel but ended up doing was “forced" due to family issues and medical reasons—and links it to the tale, meaning that Khaled’s case reflects a sense of frustration with making up excuses or justifications for such behavior. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi flouts the maxim of Quality in the article’s title, as he does not indeed mean that Khaled’s actions were the result of coercion as if sworn to. |
Quality |
Towards the end of the article, Al-Zoubi uses the sentence “Let us eat together!” and states that if we are sworn to eat (commit crimes), why not do it together? Through irony, he flouts the maxim of Quality as he does not mean to join Khaled in his
actions. |
Manner |
The utterance “Because you swore” is vague since it is unclear whether the host represents the public or the officials who
allowed or probably even facilitated Khaled’s act of stealing. |
Relation |
On the face of it, there is no clear relation between the tale and the target of the criticism. The reader is kept in the dark until Khaled Shaheen is mentioned, and they have to work out the relationship for themselves. |
Quantity |
The maxim of Quantity is flouted as the author recounts the whole tale to criticize only some government officials’
self-entitlement for engaging in corruption and stealing from the public. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Irony |
The use of the utterance “Only because you swore” is ironic since Al-Zoubi means quite the opposite: Shaheen took his
actions just because he wanted and could, not because he was forced or sworn to. |
Irony |
Al-Zoubi’s offer to join Khaled in his actions via the utterance ‘Let us eat together!’ is ironic in that he not only does not want to join Shaheen, but he wants him to stop. |
Allusion |
Fazzah’s husband represents Khaled Shaheen. |
Allusion |
The host in the story represents the public or the officials who allowed or probably even facilitated Khaled’s actions. |
4.3. Article 3 (Al-Zoubi, 2012c)
Table 4. Metadata and analytical results of Article 3.
Title |
شو فیه؟ /ʃu: fi:h/—What’s Going On? |
Date of Publication |
February 1, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
This article targets the issue of the Jordanian government hiding the reality, keeping essential secrets from the public, and keeping them in the dark as to what it is doing and what is happening. Al-Zoubi tells the story of a feeble older man confined to his bed who does not fully understand what goes on around him. He constantly asks his children and visitors what is happening. However, every time he asks, someone
responds, ‘Nothing, old man,’ (ولا اشي يا حجي) implying that they brush off his inquiry. The phrase ولا اشي (nothing) serves as a kind of social pacifier—an answer that avoids the truth and further details. After making several attempts, he receives a more
substantial response: “Nothing, old man. Just go to sleep” (ولا اشي يا حجي انت بس نام).
Al-Zoubi likens him to the public, including himself, who are always in the dark about what the government is doing and keep asking what is going on, highlighting a sense of frustration and helplessness when one’s attempts to know are met with repetitive dismissive rejection. For example, Al-Zoubi refers to the Palestinian president’s visit to Jordan without any announcements or remarks as to the goal of the visit. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
The title flouts the maxim of Quality as an insincere request
because the author is not genuinely asking what is happening; he already knows and is telling people about it. |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi exaggerates in likening himself and the public to the feeble older man, as they are not totally unaware of what is
happening around them. They do have some awareness of what is happening in the country, but they are kept in the dark about a reasonable amount. |
Quantity |
By telling a narrative to make a statement, the author flouts the maxim of Quantity to make his criticism more impactful. |
Quantity |
The repeated conversation between the older man and a
succession of addressees flouts Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Irony |
The title of the article is an insincere question and, thus, ironic because Al-Zoubi already knows what is going on (the
government’s crimes) and only wants to emphasize and remind the government that the public knows about the crimes. |
Exaggeration |
Al-Zoubi likening himself and the public to a feeble, blind older man is exaggerated. |
Metaphor |
The older man represents the Jordanian public. |
Metaphor |
The older man’s children represent the government. |
Repetition |
By going through several addressees for the older man’s question and giving the same response, the author emphasizes that the government denies every public attempt to find out what is
happening in the country. |
4.4. Article 4 (Al-Zoubi, 2012d)
Table 5. Metadata and analytical results of Article 4.
Title |
عجب هظاك؟! /ʕæjæb hæðˤæ:k/—What About That One?! |
Date of Publication |
February 14, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
3Whenever used with regard to the published papers, temporal markers such as “recent”, “previous”, and “former” are interpreted in relation to the time of the publication of the article.
The target of this article is the issue of the corrupt former head of the Intelligence
Department who has recently3 been prosecuted, tried, and convicted alone, with no investigation being conducted on the activities of any other party involved in the
corruption case. The author recounts the story of a noisy class that their angry teacher punished. At first, the teacher beats only one student instead of the whole class. The unfairness infuriates the punished student and causes him to inquire about the teacher’s reason for punishing only him. In contrast, the entire class was involved by asking, “What about that one?” (عجب هظاك). After each strike, the student repeats the phrase as if trying to make a point or communicate something beyond physical punishment. This causes the teacher to start punishing the other students one by one. About halfway through, the bell rings, making him realize that he has spent the entire session
punishing the class. Through an irrelevant story, the author associates the classroom with the state of the country and people’s annoyance at the fact that while others are being punished, certain people are exempt from punishment. He implies that the government should bring
anyone involved in the case to trial and convict them. He demands that corruption be tackled across the board without exceptions, stressing that everyone—whether it be “this one” (هذا), “that one” (هظاك), or “these” (هاي هظول)—should be spared. However, he also implies that inconsistency and corruption are so rampant in the system that even if the government does so, it is going to take the expenditure of so much time, focus and resources for justice to be served, and it might be used as an excuse to justify not addressing current pressing issues in society. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi does not mean that the other corrupt officials should not be punished because it will prevent the government from its duties. He implies that the government should punish the others as well. |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi exaggerates when he says that the punishment will take all the government’s time. He implies that there are so many
corrupt officials that it will take a long time to bring them all to justice. |
Quantity |
Recounting the whole classroom narrative to criticize the many corrupt officials evading punishment involves saying more than is necessary to have a more profound effect on the reader. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Irony |
Even though he emphasizes that if the government decides to punish all the guilty officials, it will take all of its time and focus, he means that the government should bring them to justice. |
Exaggeration |
The idea that the punishment will take up all the government’s time, preventing it from attending to its other duties, is
exaggerated. |
Metaphor |
The teacher represents the government. |
Metaphor |
The punished student represents the former Chief of the
Intelligence Department. |
Metaphor |
The other noisy and naughty students in the class represent the other guilty, corrupt officials. |
Repetition |
The student’s repeated use of ‘What about that one/the other one?’ the author shows that for any individual corrupt
politician that is punished, so many go unpunished,
emphasizing the considerable number of punishment-deserving but unpunished officials. |
4.5. Article 5 (Al-Zoubi, 2012e)
Table 6. Metadata and analytical results of Article 5.
Title |
بنفهم عربي. /binifhæm ʕæræbi/—We Understand Arabic. |
Date of Publication |
February 25, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
This article critiques the government’s recent practice of accompanying each of its
announcements, declarations, and conference reports with clarifications to explain their meaning and true purpose. This trend undermines the public’s intellectual
capacity. The author emphasizes that the government should reconsider this approach to coherence in discourse rather than the public. It specifically targets a recent
declaration from the Minister of Finance, who stated that Jordan’s economy would likely collapse like Greece’s if reforms were delayed. After he met with public outcry, he quickly backtracked on his remark and blamed the public for misinterpreting his statement. Al-Zoubi suggests that with a bigger budget, the government could supply the public with earphones to ensure everyone “hears” and understands the true
meaning of the statements, implying that government communications have become so convoluted that they require translation and interpretation. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
The article’s title flouts the maxim of Quality because Al-Zoubi is not seriously informing the government of what language the public speaks. |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi is not seriously recommending that the government supply the public with earphones. |
Quantity |
Al-Zoubi explains at some length that the government’s
unnecessary clarificatory explanations have caused the public to no longer trust and rely on their ears to figure out what is going on with the government as if their comprehension capacity has deteriorated. |
Quantity |
By discussing the case of the Minister of Finance, Al-Zoubi flouts Quantity to strengthen his claim. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Sarcasm |
Informing the government of the language of the public involves mockery and is sarcastic. |
Sarcasm |
The suggestion that the government supply the public with
earphones is insincere and sarcastic. |
Code-Switching |
Throughout the text, the author switches from standard Arabic to the colloquial Jordanian dialect to further affect his readers, who are almost all Jordanians. |
4.6. Article 6 (Al-Zoubi, 2012f)
Table 7. Metadata and analytical results of Article 6.
Title |
من هون لهون؟ /Min hu:n læ hu:n/—Would You Change Your Mind? |
Date of Publication |
March 17, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
The target of this article is an announcement from an essential military authority,
Lieutenant General Hussein Majali, in his official conference. Over fifteen months
before the announcement, Jordanians had protested publicly against the government, and al-Majali announced that the protests and demonstrations cost the government almost 29 million Jordanian Dinars for transportation, fuel, and meals for the security forces. Following up on the title, the author challenges the accuracy of this figure. For example, he argues that the troops had the same minimum food as the protestors. After falsifying Al-Majali’s numbers and providing more accurate ones, he politely asks the general to change his mind. He continues to remind him that whatever amount of money the protests cost, the government wasted it because if they had not wronged the public and maintained a good status for the country, people would not have protested in the first place. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
The request for al-Majali to change his mind flouts Quality since Al-Zoubi does not sincerely mean to be so polite to the general he harshly criticizes. |
Quality |
In response to Al-Majali’s pointing out the high cost of
supplying the security forces with fuel during the protests,
Al-Zoubi suggests that the government could use aviation fuel instead of petrol because it has raised high petrol prices—this flouts Quality, as al-Zoubi is not sincere in recommending it. |
Quantity |
Al-Zoubi’s targeting of al-Majali and negotiating the figures against his claims indicate that the government is wasting money by opposing the public flout Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Irony |
Al-Zoubi’s request for al-Majali to change his mind and tone throughout the article is ironically and intentionally too polite, whereas he means to be the opposite. |
Sarcasm |
Al-Zoubi suggestion that the government use aviation fuel
instead of petrol is insincere and sarcastic. |
Code-Switching |
On several occasions, the author switches between standard
Arabic and colloquial Jordanian to engage the general public more in his mockery-based criticism of the issue at hand and elicit more reaction from them. |
4.7. Article 7 (Al-Zoubi, 2012g)
Table 8. Metadata and analytical results of Article 7.
Title |
الله يكبر واجبک! /ællæh yukæbbir wæ:jibæk/—Thanks! |
Date of Publication |
March 24, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Sociopolitical |
Contextual Background |
This article criticizes the fact that the public and their opinions do not play a role in the decisions and activities of the government and that even when the government asks for people’s views, such as in elections, the decision has already been made. The whole thing is only for keeping up appearances. It addresses the Prime Minister’s recent
meeting with representatives of two political parties to discuss election laws, whereas the laws had already been passed and were in effect. Al-Zoubi starts his article by
narrating the story of a man who visited his daughter’s uncles (both his brothers and brothers-in-law) to ask their opinion about his daughter’s marriage and which of her suitors is the worthiest and best for her. However, he has already made up his mind and is only pretending that their opinions are valuable to him and actually matter to him. Ultimately, accepting their roles and that the meeting was only a formality, the uncles acknowledge their roles as merely respectful bystanders by saying, “God bless your duty” (الله يكبر واجبك), congratulating the father on his decision, and thank him for asking for their opinions. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
The title of the article is a colloquial expression used to thank and praise the addressee. It flouts Quality in that the author does not truly mean to thank and praise the government, as the
officials do not value their opinions. |
Quality |
He exaggerates in saying that the views of the political parties are of zero importance to the government. |
Relation |
The narrative and the acts of thanking and praising the father are not directly relevant to election laws in Jordan. |
Quantity |
Al-Zoubi flouts Quantity by examining an entire narrative to strengthen his claim that the government ignores the public’s opinions. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Irony |
The narrative and the title are both ironic in that the uncles do not mean to thank the father in the slightest for valuing their opinion. It resembles the context of thanking someone for something negative or using the expression “Thanks for nothing!” |
Exaggeration |
The zero importance of the opinions of the public and the
political party to the government is exaggerated. |
Metaphor |
In the narrative, the father represents the Prime Minister and, generally, the government. |
Metaphor |
The uncles in the narrative represent the representatives of the political parties and, generally, the public. |
4.8. Article 8 (Al-Zoubi, 2012h)
Table 9. Metadata and analytical results of Article 8.
Title |
بنطقطق! /bintægtig/—We Are Doing Unimportant Temporary Work! |
Date of Publication |
March 29, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
This article is written to address the issue of the government stating that solving the country’s problems will take time and that, with time, the situation will change for the better. Rather than taking responsibility for handling the issues, it relies on time and others to handle them. The title is a colloquial expression used to express one’s
unwillingness or inability to change something. It does not, however, have a close and true English equivalent. Within the article, the author tells two similar narratives about two characters who have a problem to resolve but keep repeating the expressions “بنطقطق عليها تا توقف لحالها” (We will keep tapping on it until it stops on its own,) and “بنطقطق تا يفرجها الله” (We will keep tapping until God makes it work,) until they become their slogan. The first is about a man whose car consistently breaks down, and the
second is about a shop owner who is dissatisfied with the returns of his business. By repeating the expressions, they continuously express their inability to solve the issue because they have decided not to try to and prefer to rely on other people to do so. It represents a coping mechanism of procrastination or ignoring problems, hoping that something will eventually change without any effort. In this case, the phrase expresses that the situation (whether it is a broken-down car, business inactivity, or governmental inaction) will eventually “fix itself” with time or divine intervention, without immediate action or effort. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
The expression used can be interpreted as “We cannot do
anything about it”, though roughly, which conveys that the
government keeps saying that it is unable to resolve the
country’s issues. In doing so, he disregards Quality as he means the opposite, that the government CAN do something about the problems and is supposed to but will not. |
Relation |
The title “We are doing temporary unimportant work” is not relevant to the government announcing that it cannot do
anything to solve the country’s problems. |
Quantity |
By criticizing the government’s pretend self-claimed inability to solve the country’s problems through two lengthy stories,
Al-Zoubi flouts Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Exaggeration |
The statement that the characters/government can do nothing about the encountered issues is an exaggeration. One can do something, but it may be ineffective. |
Irony |
The use of the phrase “بنطقطق عليها تا توقف لحالها” to criticize the government is ironic since Al-Zoubi means the opposite, that only the government has the power to put things right. |
Metaphor |
The two men in the story represent the government, which
responds to the country’s myriad problems by saying nothing can be done about them. |
Metaphor |
The car breaking down and the dissatisfactory sales and returns of the shop represent the country’s problems. |
4.9. Article 9 (Al-Zoubi, 2012i)
Table 10. Metadata and analytical results of Article 9.
Title |
بشري سارة! /buʃræ særræh/—Good News! |
Date of Publication |
April 10, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Sociopolitical |
Contextual Background |
In this article, Al-Zoubi targets the officials who clap after any political declaration or announcement to applaud the politicians and the government. He describes different types of clapping and discusses the health benefits of clapping by referring to a thesis by Dr. Cho Young-Chang as referenced by Chun-Seok (2008), an online Korean article entitled “Let’s Clap” on koreatimes.com. He goes further than the article to list some exaggerated benefits ranging from curing vision problems to improving heart conditions to eliminating body fat. The discussion shifts to criticizing society’s valuing of
performative, perhaps superficial, actions. He humorously lists different ways of
“clapping” or engaging in certain gestures, each claiming to serve some specific health benefit. This is an allegory for how people, particularly in certain social or political
situations, engage in actions such as clapping or other meaningless gestures to fulfil social expectations. He ironizes that at least the clapping is good for the officials’ bodies. Things take a more serious turn when he takes his irony up a notch when he states that because the scientific article claims that clapping with both palms stretched open
prevents heart diseases, it would even be more beneficial for the hypocritical officials to clap for the politicians and government with their legs wide open. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
The title flouts Quality in that Al-Zoubi does not mean that
clapping is suitable for applauding officials, which is good news. |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi says that the applauding officials are clapping because it benefits their health. However, he does not honestly believe that it is the reason. He implies that many officials are
hypocritical sycophants who do nothing but praise whatever the government does and that their clapping is not beneficial for the country. |
Quality |
When he advises the flattering officials to clap for the politicians and the government with their legs open, as he does not believe it is suitable for their health. |
Relation |
The benefits of clapping for the human body are irrelevant to many officials, who are sycophants. |
Quantity |
By including a discussion of the scientific article and the benefits of clapping rather than just expressing his criticism of the
rampant presence of sycophants within the government,
Al-Zoubi flouts Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Irony |
Al-Zoubi uses irony by discussing the benefits of clapping not to encourage but to discourage the flattering officials from praising everything the government says or does. |
Sarcasm |
By describing a made-up chemical process that stimulates the body, especially the intestines, Al-Zoubi mockingly juxtaposes it with the common social practice of performing actions that seem aimless but are framed as vital to daily life, particularly for making a living (السعي وراء أكل العيش). |
Exaggeration |
He exaggerates through his advice to the hypocritical officials to clap for the government with their legs open. |
Exaggeration |
By adding the made-up benefits, Al-Zoubi exaggerates the
merits of clapping. |
Code-switching |
In his advice to the flattering officials to clap for the politicians and the government with their legs open, he switches to the
colloquial dialect. He uses the term “مفاحيج” (mafaahij), meaning “with legs open wide”. The term is likely derived from “فاجئة” (faj’a) or “مفاجئة” (mufaji’a), which means “surprise” or “shock,” with a conversational twist. In this case, the word “مفاحيج” could be interpreted as “stimulating factors” or “things that cause
excitement”. |
Parody |
In discussing the health benefits of clapping, Al-Zoubi writes in a formal academic style as if he were a Doctor of Medicine,
imitating the academic medical genre of discourse. |
4.10. Article 10 (Al-Zoubi, 2012j)
Table 11. Metadata and analytical results of Article.
Title |
انت هون! /ɪntæ hu:n/—You Are Here! |
Date of Publication |
April 23, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
In this article, Al-Zoubi recounts the Lebanese anecdote involving a politician named Sheikh Rashid Al-Khazen who, worried about losing his position, goes to visit the newly appointed governor in his region to serve the dual purposes of congratulating him on his assignment and secure his position. In their conversation, the governor repeatedly assures Al-Khazen that he will keep his position by tapping his back pocket and saying, “انت هون” (You are here), pointing out that he has a recommendation from the French ambassador for him in his pocket. Al-Khazen pulls out a roll of paper that the governor suspects to be a bribe. Still, Sheikh coolly explains that it is just “شربة ملح انجليزي” (English saltwater), which is humorously recommended to help one out of a difficult or
precarious situation—a symbolic “get-out-of-jail” solution. Through this, the author criticizes the spread of nepotism and cronyism in the country and the difference
between how the government tries to calm its officials down and how it calms the public down [by hanging them] and the recent protests against the hanging of some opposers of the government. The article’s title is a colloquial expression used to indicate
somebody’s location. However, he utters it as if from the new governor to Al-Khazen to calm him down and put his worries away by assuring him that he will keep his
position. Thus, Al-Zoubi targets nepotism and cronyism in the government. The story is an allegory for how politicians make repeated promises or gestures to alleviate public concern without any natural or effective action to follow through. Rashid’s calmness in accepting the reassurances mirrors the public’s increasing cynicism toward political promises in Jordan, where corruption is a significant concern, but real accountability is often lacking. In the conclusion of his article, Al-Zoubi discusses the effects of English salt, which is known in the Arab world, on stomach problems such as constipation and infection by causing diarrhea. He implies that Al-Khazen is worrying about his position has made him sick, and English salt can help him. He also suggests that the government can use English salt to solve its current problem, which is the recent protests against the
hangings. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Relation |
The concept of English salt(water) is seemingly irrelevant to nepotism, cronyism, and undeserved executions. |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi flouts the maxim of Quality when he advises
Al-Khazen and the government to consume English salt, as he does not honestly want them to do so. |
Quality |
When he mentions that English salt will help resolve the protests and Al-Khazen’s worries, Al-Zoubi does not honestly believe that the substance can solve the problems. |
Quantity |
The governor’s repeated attempts at reassuring Al-Khazen flout Quantity. |
Quantity |
An entire discussion of English salt and its benefits to criticize rather than a simple statement that nepotism, cronyism, and
undeserved executions are rampant within the government flouts Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Exaggeration |
Stating that salt consumption will solve monumental issues such as subsiding protests and sustaining one’s political career is an example of exaggeration. |
Irony |
Recommending that the government and Al-Khazen consume salt instead of taking serious action in the face of serious
problems is an ironic suggestion. AL-Zoubi means that the
government should take more severe actions to address the country’s serious issues. |
Repetition |
The governor’s repeated assurances of Al-Khazen’s secure
position, using the exact words and gestures, employ repetition to highlight the gravity of cronyism in the government. |
Code-Switching |
To leave the severe and somewhat academic tone of the article, Al-Zoubi code-switches several times. In particular, he switches to the Lebanese dialect when the governor suspects that
Al-Khazen is about to bribe him and inquires, “ايش هايدي يا شیخ؟” (Ɂi:sh hæ:idi jæ ʃæjχ?). |
4.11. Article 11 (Al-Zoubi, 2012k)
Table 12. Metadata and analytical results of Article 11.
Title |
ول!! /wæl/—Oops!! |
Date of Publication |
April 29, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Sociopolitical |
Contextual Background |
The article targets the issues of rapid changes in the government during the previous seven months, showing the instability of the Jordanian government, the public’s
ignorance and inability to understand the government’s actions and the broader
societal response to ongoing political and social issues, in part due to the government’s avoidance of clarity in communication with them. Al-Zoubi tells a story about a man who covered the entire right half of his face only to cover an acne spot. |
In doing so, he also criticizes the government’s overemphasizing and taking extreme measures against insignificant issues to conceal and overlook significant problems. The second character of the story is a man named “Faleh Al-Atram” who is trying to make sense of what is happening around him, including why the first character has covered his face only to hide an acne spot. In the colloquial Jordanian dialect, “Al-Atram” is an expression which means “deaf”—figuratively meaning ignorant—and the word “Faleh” is used to refer to someone who is not able to do anything properly. The two characters symbolize the government and the public, respectively, which implies that the
government is purposefully making massive efforts against minor issues to
deemphasize the significant problems, be able to ignore them and keep the public guessing at what is happening. Faleh, symbolizing the public, implies that people
cannot perceive the government’s mistakes and irresponsibility due to their ignorance and lack of awareness. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
In naming his character, Al-Zoubi flouts Quality as he does not honestly believe that anyone could have such a nonsensical name. |
Quality |
Associating the action of covering to the public and government flouts Quality as they are not taking such extreme measures for minor problems and are not that deaf (ignorant). |
Quality |
Likening the problems at hand to acne flouts Quality, Al-Zoubi does not believe that the issues are as insignificant as an acne spot on one’s face. |
Manner |
The story’s character and his thinking and actions can have two interpretations as they can symbolize either the government or the public. Though two submaxims of Manner (avoiding
vagueness and avoiding ambiguity) appear to be involved here, we are more likely to deal with vagueness here because there is no semantic or structural ambiguity in the utterance. |
Quantity |
By providing a whole narrative criticizing the government’s purposeful inclination to make considerable efforts to address minor issues while neglecting the more significant, more
important issues, Al-Zoubi flouts the maxim of Quantity. |
Quantity |
In the narrative, Faleh Al-Atram repeatedly asks, “What is the matter with him [the man covering his face]?”, which defies Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Sarcasm |
Analogizing the government to a character so obsessed with something as insignificant as an acne spot entails mockery and sarcasm. |
Code-Switching |
The article’s title is a Jordanian colloquial, from which Al-Zoubi switches to Standard Arabic at the start of the article. |
Code-Switching |
Using the Jordanian colloquial dialect in the character’s name is an example of code-switching. |
Exaggeration |
The main character’s name and his action of covering his face to hide an acne spot. Involve exaggeration because it is almost impossible for someone to have such a name or take such an action. |
Exaggeration |
Al-Zoubi exaggerates by likening the problems at hand to trivial things such as an acne spot. |
Metaphor |
The man covering his face represents the government. |
Metaphor |
The acne spot represents the problems that the country is facing. |
Metaphor |
Faleh Al-Atram represents the public. |
Repetition |
Through Faleh repeatedly asking what the matter is with the man covering his face, Al-Zoubi emphasizes the public’s
ignorance. |
4.12. Article 12 (Al-Zoubi, 2012l)
Table 13. Metadata and analytical results of Article 12.
Title |
نشرة جوية! /næʃræh ʤæwwijæ/—Weather Forecast! |
Date of Publication |
May 18, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
This article centres around a comparison between then-Prince Charles’ visit to a TV station in England and that of an Arab official to one in his [Arab] country. It focuses on the notion that corrupt political attitude can impact even concepts as small as a sudden visit to a TV station. The author then continues to make a comparison between two concocted weather forecasts, one from the first world and one from the third world. He shows that in the third world, even scientific facts such as the weather of the world can be tampered with and falsified if the corrupt politicians desire, a case in point being the government manipulating the reports of the results of the recent elections. Al-Zoubi uses weather forecasts as a metaphor to explore how politicians and
government officials present information to the public without providing meaningful clarity or solutions. He humorously contrasts the fancy, vague terms used in weather forecasts like “partly cloudy” or “chance of rain”, which do not provide clear, actionable information, used in weather reports with the similarly vague language and hollow
predictions of hope and incoming solutions in the government’s communications with the public, especially regarding political, economic, or social issues, which has led to widespread cynicism among the public. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi flouts Quality in that he does not actually believe
scientific facts can be falsified. |
Relation |
That there is no apparent relation between a weather forecast and the government tampering with the election results is a flouting of the maxim of Relation. |
Quantity |
They elaborate on a comparison between two instances of
governments reporting to their public rather than simply
expressing that the government’s dishonesty with the public flouts Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Exaggeration |
The corrupt government’s ability to falsify facts of science is an exaggeration. |
Metaphor |
Weather forecasts represent the vague and misguided
information the government shares with the public, including the election results. |
Irony |
The falsifiability Al-Zoubi attributes to scientific facts such as the weather is ironic because he means that such facts cannot be falsified. |
Analogy |
By comparing the two scenarios of TV presentations, the author highlights the difference between how the media addresses the public in the two countries. |
Analogy |
By comparing a weather forecast to how the government
communicates with the public, Al-Zoubi highlights how the government keeps the public in the dark regarding political, economic, or social issues. |
4.13. Article 13 (Al-Zoubi, 2012m)
Table 14. Metadata and analytical results of Article 13.
Title |
ضربة شمس /ðærbæt ʃæms/—Sunstroke |
Date of Publication |
June 2, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
This article addresses the recent rise in the prices of many goods. It warns the
responsible officials against the continued rise of prices, saying that as prices keep
rising, people are losing their patience. Al-Zoubi warns that as temperatures rise with the advent of summer, people will take things into their own hands and take them to the streets. After warning that the government is about to suffer from sunstroke soon, he continues to discuss the severe symptoms of sunstroke. He compares them to the symptoms (consequences) of people’s unrest. The heat represents the public’s intense frustration of enduring inflation. The fact that sunstroke is caused by prolonged
exposure to high temperatures implies that people have endured inflation and
economic hardships for a long time. The “long wait” and the “exposure to heat”
symbolize the “growing impatience” of the people who have been silently suffering
under these economic conditions. The “redness” of the skin in the metaphor refers to the “increasing anger” of the public, and the “headaches” and “abdominal issues” point to the “social unrest” and the growing sense of injustice. The “sunstroke” metaphor is a warning to the government: If these issues are not addressed, the public might reach a point of “loss of consciousness”, meaning a more profound social collapse or an
irreversible stage of revolt. He then warns the government that if it does not address the issue soon, people will rid themselves of the oppression as abdominal pain is
alleviated through diarrhea. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Relation |
The article’s title, more specifically, the concept of sunstroke, is not apparently relevant to economic hardship and the rising prices of goods. |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi flouts Quality in that he does not honestly believe that the government will suffer an actual sunstroke. |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi believes that the government is going to face a much more severe comeuppance from the people than sunstroke. |
Quantity |
The lengthy discussion of the symptoms of a medical condition to object to the rising prices instead of simply expressing one’s objection is a flouting of Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Sarcasm |
The concept that the government can be threatened or
jeopardized by just sunstroke is mocking and sarcastic. |
Metaphor |
Sunstroke represents the potential comeuppance in the sense that the government will face unrest and retaliation from the public. |
Metaphor |
The prolonged heat represents the public’s frustration of
enduring inflation. |
4.14. Article 14 (Al-Zoubi, 2012n)
Table 15. Metadata and analytical results of Article 14.
Title |
اللي بالي بالك! /ɪl-li bæ:li bæ:læk/—We Both Know! |
Date of Publication |
June 12, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
This article addresses the announcement from the Head of the Independent Electoral Commission, Dr Abdul Illah Al-Khateb, about the government’s intention to use new magnetic election cards for the seventeenth election to avoid the forgery of votes,
preventing any manipulation of the ballots by voters. This was in response to the faking of the results of the previous election. Al-Zoubi starts by telling the story of a
shopkeeper who was so worried about getting robbed that he installed cameras to
monitor who was passing in front of his shop. One day, while he was paying full
attention to the security camera footage, someone stole his money box, which was right on the counter. He concludes that whereas the man should have been watching what he was afraid of being robbed, i.e., the money box, he was watching the wrong place. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
The author flouts Quality by likening the main character’s act of watching the traffic in front of his shop to the government using magnetic voter cards. The author does not believe that the
government is monitoring the wrong people unknowingly, like the shopkeeper. He actually believes that, unlike the shopkeeper, the government is overlooking the responsible officials on
purpose. |
Quantity |
By choosing to narrate an entire story rather than explicitly
stating that the government should be watching the individuals organizing and running the election, the author flouts the maxim of Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Irony |
Associating the shopkeeper’s character with the government is ironic because Al-Zoubi does not really believe that the
government is making a mistake like the shopkeeper. On the contrary, he means that the government is monitoring the wrong people on purpose. |
Metaphor |
In the story, the shopkeeper represents the government, and the thief represents the government officials who tampered with the election results. |
Metaphor |
In the story, the thief represents the government officials who tampered with the election results. |
4.15. Article 15 (Al-Zoubi, 2012o)
Table 16. Metadata and analytical results of Article 15.
Title |
روبن هود /ru:bin hud/—Robin Hood |
Date of Publication |
June 13, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
The article addresses the issue of the recent rise in the prices of essential goods. It
elaborates on a conversation between an investor and a businessman who describes himself as the cartoon character Robin Hood. The investor responds to his
interlocutor’s metaphor by remarking that unlike the original Robin Hood, who stole from rich oppressors and thieves to feed the poor, the businessman is stealing from the poor and their rights to feed oppressors, thieves, and outlaws. Al-Zoubi mentions two other cartoons and cartoon characters to refer to real-world people. He mentions the character of Little Sameer to refer to the former Prime Minister, Sameer Al-Refa’i. He also uses the term “Casanova”, an altered version of the name of the famous Italian adventurer Giacomo Casanova, to refer to a casino-related crime involving illegal
gambling another former Prime Minister, Ma’arouf Al-Bakhet, was involved in.
Additionally, Al-Zoubi uses the character of SpongeBob as a satirical metaphor to
represent a fictional or idealized character that serves as a distraction or relief from real issues. Specifically, the line “حطيلي على سبونج بوب. فقعت مرارتي!” (Translated as ‘Put on SpongeBob [on TV] for me. I am fed up!) implies that the character is a source of
temporary escapism. This is a commentary on how people sometimes retreat to lighter, more entertaining content like cartoons to cope with frustration or overwhelming
real-world issues, such as political corruption or economic hardship. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
The article’s title flouts the maxim of Quality in that it refers to the businessman. Nevertheless, we know that, just like the
investor, Al-Zoubi believes that he actually stands for the
opposite of Robin Hood. |
Relation |
The title of the article is not ostensibly relevant to the criticized politicians and their actions. |
Quantity |
Rather than simply addressing the targeted corrupt politicians and their actions, Al-Zoubi metaphorically uses cartoon
characters for ironic effects, which in turn flouts Quantity. |
Quantity |
By providing a debate between two people rather than simply criticizing the target politicians who claim to be serving the
public through their wrong actions, Al-Zoubi flouts Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Irony |
The title of the article is ironic because Al-Zoubi means that the businessperson representing Sameer Al-Refa’I is the exact
opposite of Robin Hood. Unlike Robin Hood, who stole from wealthy, corrupt people to give to the poor, the businessman steals from the poor. |
Sarcasm |
The reference to SpongeBob and the request to put it on are used sarcastically to mean that the public is so fed up with the current circumstances that they prefer to resort to light-headed
escapism rather than think and care about serious political
issues. |
Metaphor |
The businessman represents Sameer Al-Refa’i. |
Allusion |
Al-Zoubi alludes to the character of Little Sameer to refer to Sameer Al-Refa’I. |
Allusion |
The use of the famous fictional character, Robin Hood, to refer to real people is an example of allusion. |
Allusion |
Al-Zoubi uses the word “Casanova” to allude to the famous Italian adventurer Giacomo Casanova. |
Code-switching |
The author switches from standard Arabic to Jordanian colloquial several times to make the article and criticism more relatable to the Jordanian public. |
Malapropism |
Using the word “Casanova” rather than the correct term “Casanova” is an instance of malapropism. |
4.16. Article 16 (Al-Zoubi, 2012p)
Table 17. Metadata and analytical results of Article 16.
Title |
رأيك؟ هیک /hi:k ræʔjæk/—Is That What You Think? |
Date of Publication |
August 11, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Social |
Contextual Background |
This article is about the country’s celebration for the students who recently passed the national General Secondary Certificate Examination, known as Tawjihi, to enter
college/university. In Jordanian society, after the examination, the family and relatives of those who pass the test meet with them to guide them as to what degree and
significance to pursue, followed by certain expressions such as “هذا لمصلحتك فقط” )This is only for your benefit). The author tells a story about a student named “Shlaash” who is not only going through the struggle and conflict of choosing what academic route to take but also having to deal with the unsolicited advice and interventions of their family and relatives in their decision. Al-Zoubi is not only the mediator for intervening with the students’ decisions but also the students, and the new generation in general, for lacking the confidence to take charge of their lives and prevent others from meddling in their decisions. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
The article’s title asks a question directed at the interfering
family and relatives, but this is an insincere question. The
author does not really want to know what the students think and advises them not to care about their opinions, either. Due to the insincerity of the inquiry, Quality is flouted. |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi names the student ‘Shlaash’ but does not mean that someone could have such a name in real life. This is because the student represents the new generation that lacks self-confidence and has a jiggly and unstable personality. |
Quantity |
In telling Shlaash’s story, Al-Zoubi uses repetitive lines of
conversation between the student and his father and relatives to show the frenzy and confusion in the student’s mind as the
others influence him. The repetitiveness of the conversations flouts the concept of Quantity. |
Quantity |
I was using an entire narrative instead of simply remarking that family and relative interference is unhelpful and irritating and flouts the maxim of Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Irony |
The title of the article is ironic and insincere because the point of asking a question is to find out an unknown or unconfirmed
answer, yet the author, and in a way, the student) does not wish to know what the relatives think and does not care about the answer. |
Metaphor |
‘Shlaash’ represents the entire new generation of students who lack the self-confidence to choose their paths and stop others from interfering in their decisions. |
Exaggeration |
The student’s name in the story is exaggerated because it is
almost impossible for someone to have such a name or take such action. |
4.17. Article 17 (Al-Zoubi, 2012q)
Table 18. Metadata and analytical results of Article 17.
Title |
دير بالک شايفک! /di:r bæ:æk ʃæjfæk/—Watch Out! I Know What You’re Doing! |
Date of Publication |
August 30, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Sociopolitical |
Contextual Background |
The article addresses an environmental issue and an announcement that any citizen who is caught littering or polluting the environment would be penalized according to a new set of ecological laws. For that purpose, the Greater Amman Municipality
installed CCTV cameras all over Amman. The article targets A) the manner in which the announcement was made and B) the degeneration of the environmental condition in Amman after it. The announcement involved a caricature of an intimidating man saying: “Watch out! You are being watched!” Through the title, Al-Zoubi imitates and mocks the Municipality, thus criticizing the threatening tone of the announcement. He acknowledges that Jordanians do pollute the environment but continues to point out that the environmental condition has actually worsened after the announcement,
leading to the smell of sewage waste covering the scent of jasmine and old traditional houses that are usually around Amman. The article concludes with a call for the
municipality to focus on improving the city’s waste management systems rather than monitoring small acts of littering. The author suggests that instead of surveilling
citizens for minor violations, the municipality should “watch itself” and address its
failures in managing urban cleanliness and waste disposal. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Manner |
Al-Zoubi’s criticism is directed at two addresses: the Municipality and the public. On the one hand, he mocks the style of the
Municipality’s announcement. On the other hand, he criticizes the people for polluting the environment. This makes the article’s title (I know what you are doing!) ambiguous in that we do not know who the pronouns refer to. It is unclear whether “I” refers to the
Municipality or Al-Zoubi himself. It is also unclear whether “you” refers to the people or the Municipality. In other words, is Al-Zoubi warning the government that he knows what they are doing, is he warning the citizens that he knows what they are doing, or is the
government warning the citizens that it knows what they are doing? |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi does not really mean that he and the people are
monitoring the government’s every move as if through cameras. |
Quantity |
Instead of merely saying that people polluting the environment and the style of the Municipality’s announcement are wrong, he appears to impersonate the character in the caricature to make his statement and also discusses what the situation used to be and should be now. This is much longer than a direct statement and flouts Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/
Technique |
Specifications |
Sarcasm |
By imitating the Municipality’s discourse to reverse the
warning, Al-Zoubi utilizes sarcasm to ridicule the style. |
Parody |
Al-Zoubi imitates the style of the Municipality’s announcement to mock the manner in which it was initially made. |
Exaggeration |
Al-Zoubi exaggerates by stating that he and the public are watching the government and its every move. |
4.18. Article 18 (Al-Zoubi, 2012r)
Table 19. Metadata and analytical results of Article 18.
Title |
يسلموا اديک! /jislæmu: Ɂædi:k/—Good Job! |
Date of Publication |
September 1, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Political |
Contextual Background |
This article is aimed at the recent rise in the prices of fuel. Al-Zoubi wrote a thank-you letter to the Prime Minister, Fayez Tarawneh, recommending that he should not stop there and raise the prices of other goods as well. Throughout the letter, he keeps
thanking Tarawneh and refers to him as “Your Highness”. In the end, he signs the letter as “راعي عايش” /ræ:ʔi ʔæ:jish/, which roughly translates as “The one who is still alive,” to represent the citizens who, despite their cynicism and resigned endurance, acknowledge and accept the current situation as it is and want to live peacefully. The letter is a playful but biting commentary on the state of affairs in Jordan, particularly regarding economic challenges, governmental incompetence, and the disconnection between officials and ordinary citizens. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Quality |
As the article is addressed to Tarawneh, the title flouts Quality because Al-Zoubi does not sincerely want to thank him. |
Quality |
The use of ‘Your Highness’ also flouts the maxim of Quality as the term is only used when addressing royalty and is intended to pay high respect and regard to the addressee. However, not only does Al-Zoubi NOT respect Tarawneh much at all, but, in fact, he means to condemn him. |
Quality |
The gratitude expressed throughout the letter is entirely
insincere and lacks Quality, as we know that Al-Zoubi does not mean to thank Tarawneh. |
Quality |
Al-Zoubi’s recommendation of increasing the prices of other goods flouts Quality as he means the exact opposite. |
Quality |
By addressing the letter only to Tarawneh, Al-Zoubi is flouting Quality because he knows that Tarawneh has not raised the prices on his own. By targeting him, he is criticizing every
official involved in the decision and act of raising the prices. |
Quantity |
Instead of stating that the rising prices and the country’s
economic condition are regrettably unsatisfactory, Al-Zoubi writes an entire letter of sarcastic gratitude, thus flouting
Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Irony |
The title is ironic since the author means the opposite of
thanking. |
Irony |
The gratitude expressed throughout the letter is insincere and ironic since the author means the exact opposite of thanking. |
Sarcasm |
The use of “Your Highness” is sarcastic as Al-Zoubi means to mock Tarawneh as if he were royalty. |
Irony |
Al-Zoubi’s recommendation to raise the prices is ironic, as he means the opposite: that the prices be lowered, or at least not raised any further. |
Metaphor |
By signing the letter as “راعي عايش”, Al-Zoubi intends to
represent all the citizens who are content and negligent of the country’s problems. |
Metaphor |
Tarawneh advocates for the whole government, which the
author criticizes because he cannot raise the price alone. |
Exaggeration |
By only addressing Tarawneh, Al-Zoubi assumes that he has the power to control and increase prices. |
4.19. Article 19 (Al-Zoubi, 2012s)
Table 20. Metadata and analytical results of Article 19.
Title |
لازم حدا يقله! /læ:zim hædd jigulluh/—Someone Has to Tell Him! |
Date of Publication |
September 17, 2012 |
|
Scope |
Sociopolitical |
Contextual Background |
This article discusses the fact that the public is not allowed to openly and frankly
express their opinions and thoughts on the government, politicians, and the problems their country faces. Al-Zoubi tells the story of a teacher who was busy teaching at a fast pace and in such a focused manner that he did not realize his fly open. After a few failed implicit and hinted attempts at communicating the issue to him, a student boldly stands up and openly tells the teacher about it. Even though he was punished and asked to leave, the student sacrificed himself to end secretive and mischievous laughter going around the classroom and risking more students being punished. |
Conversational Implicata |
Flouted Maxim |
Specifications |
Relation |
There is no ostensive relation between a teacher’s fly being open and the government not allowing the people to speak their minds publicly. |
Quality |
Even though the students silently laugh at the teacher’s open fly and refer to members of the public who are aware of the
government’s crimes and wrongdoings but do not object,
Al-Zoubi exaggerates in likening their reaction to laughter. He does not really mean that they amuse them. He implies that keeping silent when oppressed is as bad as laughing at it or being entertained by it. He suggests that the public’s reaction is far from what it should be. |
Quantity |
By recounting the whole classroom narrative instead of simply stating that the government’s refusal to give the public freedom of speech is wrong, Al-Zoubi flouts Quantity. |
Satirical and Discursive Devices/Techniques |
Device/Technique |
Specifications |
Sarcasm |
Comparing the government to a teacher who does not realize his fly is open includes mockery and sarcasm. |
Exaggeration |
The idea of the public laughing at and being amused by the
government’s wrongdoings is exaggerated as they do not amuse them. They do not object. |
Metaphor |
The teacher represents the government. |
Metaphor |
The teacher’s open fly represents the crimes and wrongdoings. |
Metaphor |
The punished student represents Al-Zoubi, who criticizes the teacher openly. |
Metaphor |
The other noisy and naughty students in the class represent the uncaring portion of the public who do not criticize the
government and its mistakes. |
5. Discussion
Regarding the scope of the articles, of the nineteen examined articles, twelve were political, one social, and six were sociopolitical. This shows that as a satirist, Al-Zoubi used his comedy to target politics rather than social issues primarily. This makes sense, given that in his writings, he mainly portrays the public as the oppressed and the government as the oppressor. Thus, he generally defends the people and criticizes the government. Establishing whether favoring political issues is a universal trend in satirical criticism requires a much larger corpus. The fact that the sociopolitical articles outnumber exclusively social ones six to one shows that even when he criticizes the public, Al-Zoubi still puts some blame on the government alongside it, also suggesting that politics and the government are much more important to him than social issues.
The type and frequency of the flouted maxims revealed some interesting trends. Al-Zoubi utilized the entire diverse range of conversational implicatures as there were cases of flouting each of the four maxims, though with differing frequencies. This added significant variety to his criticism and prevented any potential monotony of repetitive use of the same type of implicature. A total of 75 flouting maxims were observed throughout the corpus. Quality was by far the most frequently flouted maxim, with 37 instances, followed by Quantity, with 25 cases. The majority of Quantity flouting was due to the inclusion of either a narrative or a lengthy discussion in each article. Only in six articles was Quantity flouted twice rather than once. The maxims of Relation and Manner were flouted considerably fewer times, with 9 and 4 instances, respectively (Table 21).
Table 21. Number and Frequency of Flouting of Conversational Maxims.
Flouted Maxim |
Quality |
Quantity |
Relation |
Manner |
Total |
Flouting Count |
37 |
25 |
9 |
4 |
75 |
Percentage |
49.33% |
33.33% |
12% |
5.33% |
100 |
The satirical nature of the articles necessitates indirect criticism. That considerably more flouting of Quality shows that satire relies heavily on the notion of saying what one does not believe, whether wholly or partially. The more substantial impact of satire and indirect criticism prevents the author from straightforwardly pointing out the criticism-deserving issue, leaving them no option but to resort to longer pieces of text such as narratives and lengthy discussions, which automatically flout Quantity. In the corpus, this is at times accomplished by flouting Relation through titles, narratives, and discussions, which are seemingly irrelevant to the targeted criticized issue, which leads to two powerful impacts on the reader. The first is arousing the reader’s sense of curiosity. Knowing the author as a satirist, when the reader encounters a title or narrative that does not have any apparent relation to the problems of the country or the incompetence of those in power, they become more curious. The second is the impact of giving the reader a sense of discovery when the reader is expected to work out the relevance by the end of the article. A similar effect is also achieved in the corpus through flouting Manner by either ambiguous terms and references or vague descriptions.
In addition to the above samples, a few instances of a unique subtype of conversational implicature, namely non-conventionalized indirect directives, where a speaker requests or commands an addressee to act without explicitly telling them to do it (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; Culpeper & Archer, 2008; Mohammadpanah, 2024). Using the identification and verification procedures proposed by Mohammadpanah (2024), I identified a few samples where Al-Zoubi indirectly asked either the government or the public to (not) perform specific actions. An example of the former is Article 13, in which, by describing the dangers of sunstroke, he asks the government to stop raising prices or prepare for unrest. An example of the latter occurs in Article 16, where, via magnifying the frustrating interference of family and relatives in deciding the future of students, he tells the students who have passed the Tawjihi to disregard their opinions and suggestions and take control of their future. There are also certain cases where a combination of irony and indirect directives leads to a kind of reverse non-conventional indirect directives. In Article 9, by discussing the benefits of clapping, he ironically encourages certain government officials to clap (praise the government) more when he means the opposite and indirectly tells them to stop praising the government at every turn.
The patterns of the said flouting interestingly go hand-in-hand with the literary and discursive devices employed to achieve satirical effects. Throughout the corpus, a total of 91 instances of various devices were observed. Metaphor was the most commonly used device with 27 cases. Throughout the corpus, the author targeted real politicians and government officials through anecdotal or fictional characters which represented them. Not only does this add to the effect left on the reader to figure out who is who, but it also makes the criticism more memorable due to the association the reader makes between the characters and the real people they represent. When there is a noticeable disparity and paradox between the characters and the real people they represent, the metaphor is accompanied by irony, which is, in part, why the latter is the second most common satirical device in the corpus with 17 instances.
Closely related to irony is exaggeration, which was observed 15 times. Some cases of exaggeration, especially when the opposite of a characteristic attributed to the criticized figure, was exaggerated to emphasize either the lack of it in the targeted person or excessive possession of the opposite characteristic. The fourth most frequent device was sarcasm, which is justified by the requirement of satirical writing for irony and/or sarcasm to identify as such. Code-switching was next in line with 8 uses. The author switched between Standard Arabic and colloquial Jordanian dialect for either of two goals. The first was making some of the included criticism grounds more relatable to all members of the public. The second was the existence of an exclusive and special word or expression in colloquial Jordanian to describe the target of criticism, a certain aspect of it, or a concept the author associated with it. It goes to show that the author is making optimal use of the language variants their readership speaks. It would not be surprising to see such a strategy when writing for an audience that speaks two different languages.
With five instances, the sixth most frequent technique was allusion, where Al-Zoubi referred to famous fictional characters and cartoons to address real-life situations in association with his targets of criticism. Most of the instances being cartoon characters were especially effective for satire because it led to mockery and, in turn, to sarcasm. Repetition was used 4 times, mainly to overemphasize a certain aspect of the issue under criticism or an expression by continuously and repeatedly referring to it in a fixed fashion. This spotlights the issue and makes it stick out as a major takeaway for the reader.
Parody and analogy were equally frequent with two uses apiece. Though both were ultimately used for sarcasm, the two uses of parody were in minor contrast, showing the diversity potential of parody. With the first, Al-Zoubi ostentatiously mocked the way the government by pretending to assume the role and discourse of the government in their act of solemnly issuing a warning against the public. The second instance was to assume an academically projected but pretentious style to advertise the scientific and serious nature of the claims and, at the same time, add to the sarcastic load of the criticism. The two uses of analogy were a refreshing departure from the considerably more frequent metaphor with an extra tone of seriousness and less subtlety. As the least frequent device, with only one instance, malapropism was used to modify the name of a famous show in such a way that it could be associated with a crime allegedly committed by his target of criticism. This suggests that irony, metaphor and exaggeration are more reliable and relatable tools for satire, which in turn explains why Quality was the most frequently flouted maxim in the corpus (Table 22).
Table 22. Count and frequency of discursive devices as satirical techniques.
Device/
Technique |
Metaphor |
Irony |
Exaggeration |
Code-
Switching |
Sarcasm |
Allusion |
Parody |
Malapropism |
Repetition |
Analogy |
Total |
Item Count |
27 |
17 |
15 |
8 |
10 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
91 |
Percentage |
29.67% |
18.68% |
16.48% |
8.79% |
11% |
5.49% |
2.20% |
1.10% |
4.39% |
2.20% |
100 |
6. Summary and Conclusion
To obtain an idea of the strategies utilized by masterful satirists in high-stakes situations when one’s freedom can be jeopardized to have a more impactful influence on the entire readership—including both those who advocate the author’s viewpoint and those who oppose it, this study analyzed 19 satirical articles by a Jordanian author in one of the most politically controversial and complicated periods in his country’s recent history. As an accomplished satirist belonging to people going through challenging times and face-to-face with a suppressive government, Al-Zoubi strategically deployed a variety of maxim flouting to strengthen the impact of his criticism both on the public and the government as the primary target of criticism.
With the majority of the articles having a political scope, our search of the corpus for instances of conversational implicata and the satirical and discursive techniques and devices yielded interesting patterns. Due to indirectness and inclusion of implicit ridicule, the maxim of Quantity is automatically flouted at a general level in satirical articles. Those aside and at the more specific and text-related level, the author relied significantly more heavily on flouting the maxim of Quality as opposed to Relation, Manner, and Quantity. Through flouting Quality, the author provided exaggerated descriptions of concepts or statements which expressed the exact opposite of what he meant. By flouting Relation, the author used titles or narratives that were seemingly irrelevant to the target of his criticism. Through flouting Manner, Al-Zoubi, at times, provided terms or expressions which could have two distinct interpretations.
Al-Zoubi utilized a whole range of literary and discursive devices and resulting satirical techniques, which lent his satire refreshing diversity. The metaphor was used the most frequently, only comparable to irony, exaggeration, and sarcasm in frequency. These go hand-in-hand with the flouted maxims as heavy reliance on these, especially the latter two, conforms to Quality being the most frequently flouted maxim. We must, however, note the difference between flouting Quality and irony. Not all instances of Quality flouting are ironic. While sarcasm flouts Quality due to mockery-driven insincerity, irony is achieved through flouting Quality only if the speaker means the opposite of what they say. The same goes for exaggeration in that not all flouting of Quality are exaggerations. It is possible to flout Quality without irony, sarcasm, or exaggeration. As the fifth technique, code-switching was used in moderation to make the criticism more relatable to a wider audience. Also used in moderation were allusion and repletion, primarily for mockery and emphasizing, or rather over-emphasizing, the target of the criticism, respectively. Parody was used infrequently as a departure from the author’s usual style to either ridicule that of the government, or to strengthen academic claims to mock the actions of governmental officials. Though only sparingly, malapropism was used to associate the targets of criticism with well-known fictional figures and incidents, mostly for mockery.
The overall findings of this research suggest that even in high-stakes settings with serious issues to criticize, flouting the maxim of Quality is by far the most impactful element in strengthening the influence of the criticism both on the readership and on the targeted criticized entities or concepts. The flouting of Quality leads to prominent use of techniques and devices such as irony, sarcasm, and exaggeration, which are only second in frequency by metaphor as the most influential satirical technique. Whether these patterns hold universally in satirical writings across different societal settings and languages requires analyzing and manually searching through significantly more sizable corpora, which can be pursued in future research. Though most of the findings of this study fall specifically within an author-specific scope, certain predictions can be made. Satire and sarcasm being inherently ridicule-based, the maxim of Quality is highly expected to be flouted in any satirical writing. However, how heavily other satirists rely on it, and what configurations of maxims combined with Quality in their style is yet to be researched. To strengthen these expectations, Al-Kayed & Kitishat (2015) suggested that as a form of non-verbal satire, Jordanian cartoonists flout Quality to convey their criticism.
Also worth considering for future research is how the concept of speech acts fares in highly critical writings. A third avenue for future research would be exploring maxim-flouting mechanisms in non-verbal visual satire. It begs the question of what patterns can be observed in more extensive compilations of cartoons and caricatures. Going beyond the scope of this research, the implemented design and methodology present two implications. The first is the applicability of CP as a model despite the more recent replacement models, provided that the overlap element is resolved. In cases where the specific grounds on which implicata are made, the revised version can be more suitable and intuitive than the competing neo- and post-Gricean models which are oversimplified for the purpose of establishing an author’s style of writing. Through defining the different configurations of combinational floutings of maxims, it can be used to determine the stylistic specifications of any work of satire by any author.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply indebted to my parents, Sadeq Herzallah and Sameera Al-Khalaileh, whose unyielding love and support have been the bedrock of my academic journey. Their belief in the transformative power of education, especially for women, ignited a passion within me that continues to fuel my aspirations. Their sacrifices and encouragement have been instrumental in shaping me into the person I am today.
I extend my heartfelt thanks to my siblings, Rawan, Maram, Mohammed, and Ahmed, for their constant love, support, and understanding. Their presence in my life has been a source of joy and strength, inspiring me to persevere through challenges and celebrate triumphs.
A special acknowledgement goes to my dear friend, Shefa’ Shehadeh, whose unwavering friendship and belief in me have been a beacon of light. Her insightful advice and continuous support have been invaluable, particularly during challenging times.
I am thankful to the spirited people who kindled positivity in me through the vagueness of my rainy days. I also owe deep gratitude to myself for never giving up on dreams and ambitions. Even in the darkest times, my sun always managed to rise, shining through the shadows with strength and determination.
Finally, I am filled with immense gratitude and excitement to share this work with the world. This achievement marks a significant milestone in my academic journey, and I am optimistic about its future possibilities. I am eager to continue exploring new horizons and contributing to the field of English linguistics and beyond.