Analogy and Irony: Rebuttal to "Rebuttal Analogy"

A recent theoretical note published in Metaphor and Symbolic Activity (Whaley & Holloway, 1996) argued for a distinction between analogies used for persuasion, or rebuttal analogies, and standard forms of analogy such as explanatory or expressive ones (Gentner, 1982, 1983). Whaley and Holloway proposed that two characteristics distinguish rebuttal analogies--argument and social attack. In this article, we take up these claims concerning rebuttal analogy and argue for an alternative, more encompassing view that distinguishes rebuttal analogies from other forms of analogy via the presence of irony. We propose that the two distinguishing factors suggested by Whaley and Holloway are instead reflecting the operation of irony in analogy. Noting the fundamental importance of irony in rebuttal analogies enables us to account for the various pragmatic functions of rebuttal analogies and why these forms express negative emotions.