What Is The Word For?

September 26, 2006 7:41 PM

Another what-is-the-word-for question...

I just overheard a girl on her cell phone say, "you're cracking me up," but she wasn't. My friend often says, "that's hilarious," but doesn't laugh at all.

Is there a word or expression for when people describe responses like these which they're clearly not actually experiencing? I think it lies somewhere between exaggeration, hyperbole and lying.

posted by The_Partridge_Family to writing & language (25 comments total)

sarcasm?
posted by AlisonM at 7:54 PM on September 26, 2006

I think there's some flattery in there too.
posted by The_Partridge_Family at 8:00 PM on September 26, 2006

overstatement?
posted by easternblot at 8:05 PM on September 26, 2006

Irony, deadpan mode.
posted by googly at 8:11 PM on September 26, 2006

googly: I see where you're coming from, but it has more to do with the idea of thinking that you can experience an emotional state simply by saying it.
posted by The_Partridge_Family at 8:25 PM on September 26, 2006

You mean like people typing LOL and they're not really laughing out loud?
posted by IndigoRain at 8:36 PM on September 26, 2006

If I understand your question, I'd say googly has it.
posted by ludwig_van at 8:50 PM on September 26, 2006

Lying.

Possibly sedition.
posted by oxford blue at 8:56 PM on September 26, 2006

IndigoRain: yeah.
posted by The_Partridge_Family at 8:57 PM on September 26, 2006

Sarc One, just because I read I am Charlotte Simmons.
posted by ontic at 8:59 PM on September 26, 2006

I think the situation you're describing isn't really exaggeration per se, because the notions of 'cracking me up' and 'hilarious' have had their meaning adjusted through long-overuse, such that they now mean simply, 'I find that rather amusing'. So the person certainly isn't lying, as it is clear to their conversation partner that they aren't actually cracking up; the partner understands exactly what is meant.

So perhaps the word or expression you seek is a description for the devaluing of words, or words that have been devalued.

My guess is, it's a symptom of the increasing presence of and competition within the media. TV/radio/journalist types lazily hyperbolize words and expressions into meaninglessness. A similar phenomenon is seen online, with LOL->ROFL->coke through nose->new keyboard->the appaling 'I just threw up a little' thing, each replacing a now devalued term.

Orwell has written somewhat on the use of worn-out expressions - Politics and the English Language. I think 'cracking me up' qualifies as a 'dying metaphor', or perhaps even a stone-dead metaphor.

Though without knowing the context, it's hard to properly say, googly may be right in that the responses were simply ironic/deadpan, but it gave me a chance to rant a little so that's ok.
posted by MetaMonkey at 9:01 PM on September 26, 2006

that's a good point about the media MetaMonkey. Maybe because this is symptomatic of current media, it's a relatively recent condition for which there is no word.

For me, the meaninglessness of the expression is particularly interesting, because saying "you're cracking me up," deadpan style is absurd.

Going back to googly's answer, yeah it is deadpan irony, but I guess I'm thinking more about the intent - the phrase is not delivered to be ironic.

So maybe the question should be, what is deadpan irony when it's not intended to be?
posted by The_Partridge_Family at 9:19 PM on September 26, 2006

politeness?
"yes, what you said was funny, but not funny enough to laugh really loud.. but A for effort"
posted by amethysts at 10:04 PM on September 26, 2006

sounds like they're being facetious, or that you're talking about facetiousness... maybe
posted by punkbitch at 10:17 PM on September 26, 2006

"it has more to do with the idea of thinking that you can experience an emotional state simply by saying it."

So, do you mean to ask for a word that means something like "I'm in an emotional state just because I attribute that state to my self via a simple declaration not because I'm actually feeling the emotion in question"? I don't think you are going to find one.

Since an emotional state has to be experienced to be had, you can't actually do this.

It would be like claiming to see the color of a friend's shirt simply because you say that you do (but your eyes are closed). That is, if a person actually thinks this is possible, they are simply wrong. So, perhaps the word you want is dellusional, or deluded.
posted by oddman at 10:18 PM on September 26, 2006

Hyperbole
posted by willnot at 12:04 AM on September 27, 2006

Well, if you consider a phone call a narrative, maybe you could call it diegesis (defn 2) Telling, recounting, as opposed to showing, enacting. Saying "you're hilarious" (telling she thinks it's funny) would be diegeses; actually laughing (showing she thinks it's funny) would be mimesis.

The exagerration part of it seems like it was the girl being inauthentic. Perhaps the phrases "empty words" or "empty rhetoric" would imply such.
posted by neda at 12:22 AM on September 27, 2006

See also this related thread.
posted by rob511 at 2:00 AM on September 27, 2006

Is there a word or expression for when people describe responses like these which they're clearly not actually experiencing? I think it lies somewhere between exaggeration, hyperbole and lying.

Are there any situations in which you'd use this word where laughter is not involved?
posted by 23skidoo at 6:29 AM on September 27, 2006

"You're cracking me up" counts as a cliché, I think. Just saying "that's hilarious" is maybe not a distinctive enough phrase to count as a cliché, but it's the same basic phenomenon - the words have been overused to the point that they have lost their meaning.
posted by teleskiving at 7:12 AM on September 27, 2006

It is a phatic utterance.
posted by Mocata at 7:34 AM on September 27, 2006 [2 favorites]

I think Mocata has it. Pronounced "fat-ik".
posted by teleskiving at 7:56 AM on September 27, 2006

It might normally be a phatic utterance, but notice that in this question there is also a component that the speaker intends the audience to believe that the speaker is experiencing the condition that the speaker just mentionined. Phatic utterances aren't meant to convey any meaning at all.
posted by oddman at 11:33 AM on September 27, 2006

Not so - it sounds to me as if the speaker is politely acknowledging that a joke has been made without trying to make the joker believe that he/she is cracking up. That kind of acknowledgment is exactly the kind of meaning that phatic utterances convey.
posted by Mocata at 1:42 AM on September 28, 2006

Mocata, see this by the original poster. So, it does seem to be about whether saying it makes it so.

Now that I think of it, it seems that the question is really whether emotions are performatives. Of course emotions aren't perfomatives, thus my initial response.
posted by oddman at 9:37 AM on September 28, 2006