Means of realization of irony

Contents.

 

Introduction____________________________________________________3

Chapter I The notion of irony

                1.1. The etymology of irony_______________________________5

                1.2. The approaches to irony_______________________________9

                1.3. The classification of irony____________________________13

                1.4. The content and the form of irony______________________23

Chapter II Realization of irony in the text

                2.1. The scheme of analysis______________________________28

                2.2. Realization of irony by stylistically neutral means_________29

                2.3. Realization of irony by stylistically colored means_________36

Conclusions___________________________________________________50

Bibliography__________________________________________________52

List of literature________________________________________________54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction.

 

     Among the existing cultural phenomena there are several which being widespread, nevertheless remain mysterious. One of these phenomena is irony. We willingly use it in our speech, we easily notice it in literary texts, but trying to uncover its inner mechanisms, we face difficulties.

     The problem of irony has been worked at by great many linguists, but its topicality is still unquestionable. It is very closely connected with the expression of one’s evaluation, one’s attitude to life and certain people.

     The aim of the given research is to describe and to analyze the means of realization of irony.

     The aim of the research determined the following tasks of the work:

     1) to present the etymology of irony;

     2) to describe various approaches to irony in modern linguistic literature;

     3) to discuss the problem of the classification of irony;

     4) to consider the interaction between the form and the content of irony;

     5) to elaborate the model of analysis of ironic utterances;

     6) to analyze stylistic means of expressing ironical meaning;

     7) to study the form of reproducing the ironical meaning by stylistically neutral means.

     As the methodological basis of the paper served the papers on Stylistics (Moren M.K., Teterevnikova N.N. [1960], Kuznec M.D., Screbnev Y.M. [1960; 1975], Rubailo A.T. [1961], Arnold I.V. [1973; 1981], Galperin I.R. [1977], Malcev V.A. [1980], Potockaya N.P. [1990]); papers on Text Interpretation (Pospelov G.N. [1983], Domashnev A.I., Shishkina I.P., Goncharova E.A. [1989]); papers on Irony (Muecke D.C. [1969], Zaleçki J. [1984], Pohodnya S.I. [1989], Limareva T.F. [1997]).

     The method of linguistic research used in the work is contextual analysis.

     As the material of the research served short stories and novels of English and American writers of the 20^th century. 

     The structure of the work is determined by the tasks set. The work consists of the introduction, two chapters, conclusions, bibliography and the list of literature.

     In the 1^st chapter we present the etymology of irony, the approaches to it, the problem of its classification and the interaction between the content and the form of irony.

     The 2^nd chapter is devoted to the various means of realization of ironical meaning. In this chapter we studied such stylistic means of realization of irony as lexical stylistic devices, syntactical stylistic devices, lexico-syntactical stylistic devices and phonetic stylistic devices. Here we also analyze stylistically neutral means of realization of irony.

     The conclusions present the basic results of our research.

    The bibliography consists of 27 papers of foreign and Russian linguists.

     The list of literature includes 14 literary works of English and American authors of 20^th century.

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter I The notion of irony.

1.1. The Etymology of irony.

   

     Irony is believed to come to English from the Latin “ironia” in 1502, after the Greek “eironeia” (concealed mockery), a conjugation of eiron - to dissemble, such as lying by the omission or concealing of the truth. During the Latin use, the lie by the omission of the truth was dropped from the meaning of the word; ironia is simply lying by concealing the truth (some linguists group these two phenomena under the term “affected ignorance”.) In English, the definition of irony has been expanded to include not only lies, but some jokes of subtlety [3].

     Thus, taking its name from the Greek “eironeia” (dissimulation), irony consists of purporting a meaning of an utterance or a situation that is different, often opposite, to the literal one [6].

     Irony came from a particular figure of speech, which was already known to ancient authors. The ancient Greeks called so a verbal dissimulation, when a person wants to be more foolish than he is. The eiron, a master of irony, was good at proving the truth from the contrary. Plato in one of his dialogues describes how Socrates, pretending to be a like-minded person, said ditto to his opponent and finally developed his views to absurdity [2].

     The "eiron", a character in Greek comedies characteristically spoke in understatement and who deliberately pretended to be leas intelligent than he was, yet who triumphed over the "alazon" - a self-deceiving and stupid braggart.  Since that time the term "irony" has come to denote "a figure of speech" in which what is stated is not what is meant. A typical example of such irony is Mark Antony's funeral oration in which he refers to Brutus and other assassins as "honorable men" while meaning to say that they are dishonorable and not to be trusted [Zaleçki, 1984, 25]. The subsequent monologue uses extensive irony to glorify Caesar; Antony selects words that seem to support the assassins, while his purpose and his effect is to incite the crowd against them [4].

     In Roman epoch, irony was used in public speaking and rhetoric, in which the words used were opposite their meaning or intent [4].

     After Aristotle, from the 5th century B.C. till the 19th century AD, irony was interpreted in poetics as a rhetorical figure, which called things by their counter names. A consistent application of it was used in Lucian’s satires, “Moriae Encomium, sive Stultitiae Laus” by Erasmus, Swift’s works.

     During Classicism irony was understood as an attribute of comic, a device of risorial critique in satire. Irony definitely belonged to low style, at the same time there was such an expression as "irony of fate" – a fatal discrepancy between a person’s plans and what Heavens foretold him. "Irony of fate" corresponded not to a comic collision, but to a tragic one [2].

     Under the influence of Romanticism at the end of the 18 -19th centuries views on irony radically altered. Romanticist raised irony to the level of philosophical position of life, generally identifying it with a reflexion. They put a special emphasis on the fact that irony could generate not only comic but also tragic effect. Romantic irony was framed by Schlegel, the German philosopher. According to him, in irony “everything should be all jest and all seriousness, everything guilelessly open and deeply hidden... It contains and arouses a sense of the indissoluble antagonism between the absolute and the relative, between the impossibility and the necessity of complete communication. It is the freest of all licences, because through it one transcends oneself, but at the same time it is the most prescribed, because it is absolutely necessary.” The point with Schlegel was that irony would give you a divided self, which in turn gives you a multiplicity of perspectives, which is the only way you will unlock the truth of the whole. This romantic (or "philosophical") irony had a great influence on the English Romantic poets [6].

     Instead of the romantic subjective theory a number of objective irony concepts appeared in 20th century. The best-known of them is “epic irony” by Thomas Mann, who insisted that irony was necessary for art, as the widest and the freest from any morality view on reality. 

     For almost 100 years irony has been a subject of investigation interest of psychologists, linguists, logicians, the representatives of such new spheres of humanities, as semiotics (the study of signs and symbols, both individually and grouped into sign systems; includes the study of how meaning is constructed and understood) and theory of communication (the study of communication laws). These sciences helped to discover many secrets. Psychologists, for example, made an attempt to define the degree of conscious and unconscious in a specific risorial reaction to ironical utterance. Logicians established the connection between irony and wit.

     With the advent of semiotics it was studied in detail how irony is “coded” and “decoded” in a text. Theory of communication established the dialogic nature of irony and analyzed the relation between the author, the recipient and the object of ironic utterance. The result of half a century dispute is the belief that for explaining the essence of irony it is very important to draw attention to its sign nature and paradoxicality.

     The data of linguistics, logic and semiotics shows that the meaning of ironical figurativeness is unstable and individual in every case. While the function of irony is always stable – to join the things that cannot be joined [2].

     Thus, having characterized the main historical stages of the notion “irony”, we can observe that the ironical is present at all phases of the history of the European literature. It is important to bear the history of the notion in mind when one attempts to nail down what irony is, as it clears up why the word means specifically things phrased to bury connotation behind denotation. The understanding of the history of irony helps to disclose the modern comprehension of the essence of irony.

1.2. The approaches to irony.

 

     Muecke calls the attempts at a classification of this figure a "desperate adventure". He also adds that in literature on irony we find such a diversity of typology that one is scarcely able to provide a single definition that would cover all of its modes, forasa, functions and techniques [Muecke, 1969, 2].

     The essence of this stylistic device consists in the foregrounding not of the logical but of the evaluative meaning. The context is arranged so that the qualifying word in irony reverses the direction of the evaluation, and the word positively charged is understood as a negative qualification and vice versa.

     Thus, irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says, and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history). Irony may also arise from a discordance between acts and results, especially if it is striking, and known to a later audience. A certain kind of irony may result from the act of pursuing a desired outcome, resulting in the opposite effect, but again, only if this is known to a third party. In this case the aesthetic arises from the realization that an effort is sharply at odds with an outcome, and that in fact the very effort has been its own undoing.

     More generally, irony is understood as an aesthetic evaluation by an audience, which relies on a sharp discordance between the real and the ideal, and which is variously applied to texts, speech, events, acts, and even fashion. All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap, between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens [4].

     Many scholars in the field of Stylistics have approached the concept of irony from different angles. There are two main approaches to irony: some linguists include in the notion of irony two cases – criticism disguised as praise and praise disguised as criticism; other refer to irony only criticism disguised as praise.  

     Professor Galperin is one of the followers of the latter approach.  According to him irony implies only criticism concealed by praise.

    I.R. Galperin believes that irony is a stylistic device also based on the simultaneous realization of two logical meanings – dictionary and contextual, but the two meanings stand in opposition to each other. Thus in the passage, “You seem so sad Eeyore!” - “Sad? Why should I be sad? It’s my birthday, the happiest day of the year”, the word “happiest” acquires a meaning quite the opposite to its primary dictionary meaning [5]. Professor Galperin claims that irony is generally used to convey a negative meaning. Therefore only positive concepts may be used in their logical dictionary meaning. The contextual meaning always conveys the negation of the positive concepts embodied in the dictionary meaning [Galperin, 1977, 148].

     The definition given by V.A. Kukharenko is very close to I.R. Galperin’s one: irony is a stylistic device in which the contextual evaluative meaning of a word is directly opposite to its dictionary meaning [5].

     Professor Nicolina also considers that the only aim of irony is criticism. Nicolina N.A. believes that “irony is understood as a masked light mockery, where the latent meaning is a negation of a literally pronounced phrase” [Николина, 1979, 79].

     Y.M. Skrebnev considers irony to denote a trope based on direct opposition of the meaning to the sense. The semantic essence of irony consists in replacing a denomination by its opposite. Irony is a transfer, a renaming based upon the direct contrast of two notions: the notion named and the notion meant. Y.M. Skrebnev states that “irony is the clash of two diametrically opposite meanings within the same context, which is sustained in oral speech by intonation” [Скребнев, 1994, 129].

     But unlike professor Galperin, professor Skrebnev states that the notion of irony comprises both cases: criticism disguised as praise and praise disguised as criticism. According to him irony is used with the aim of critical evaluation of the thing spoken about. The general scheme of this variety is: “praise stands for blame”. Very seldom do we observe the opposite type: coarse, rude, accusing words used approvingly (“blame stands for praise”). The corresponding term is astheism: Clever bastard! [Скребнев, 1994, 129].

     Irony is a use of words, word-combinations or sentences in the sense, opposite to those directly expressed by them, with the aim to bring critically-evaluative characteristics of the object of speech. So, irony represents a transfer of word meaning, based on the contrasting opposition of the form of the utterance and its content. For example, Dickens, describing subhuman living conditions in workhouses, exclaims:

     What a noble illustration of the tender laws of this favoured country! – they let the paupers go to sleep! (Dickens) [Кузнец, Скребнев, 1960, 35].

     M.K. Moren and N.N. Teterevnikova view ironical word usage in two senses: narrow and broad. First, in a narrow sense, it is a usage of a word, which usually conveys a positive evaluation, for a negative evaluation. Coming into conflict with a situation, a real fact or a context, the word gains a meaning, opposite to its usual meaning. Stylistic efficacy of irony is explained by the clash of the nominative and the contextual meanings of the word, emphasizing their contradictoriness.

     Second, in a broad sense, architecture of a speech is called ironical, when the utterance as a whole, as if denoting positive or neutral attitude of the speaker toward the event, expresses in essence more or less negative valuation. The character of evaluative utterance is clear from the context [Морен, Тетеревникова, 1960, 219].

    Professor Domashnev and professor Shishkina also bind irony with ambiguity: “irony in Stylistics is understood as a trope, which is distinguished by equivocality, where what is told directly is not true, but the opposite is true, the implying sense; the more contradiction between them, the stronger is the effect of irony” [Домашнев, Шишкина, 1989, 91].

     Professor Razinkina distinguishes between two types of ironical meaning: subject-logical and contextual. According to her irony represents a stylistic device, based on the interaction of two types of lexical meaning: subject-logical and contextual.

     … the evidence of what is really a very beautiful theory fails to carry conviction to us. Doubtless our “threshold of sensibility” has gone wrong in some unaccountable way, and we have not enough of the Subject on this side of it, to estimate the pearls at their true worth.

      In this example a number of words (beautiful; has gone wrong; the pearls) realize two opposite meanings, one of which is subject-logical and the other one is contextual: it is obvious that the author of the article doesn’t think that the theory is beautiful, doesn’t think that his own threshold of sensibility has gone wrong and, finally, he doesn’t admit the transcendentalism of the philosophic theory [Разинкина, 1972, 123].

     H.W. Fowler, in Modern English Usage, gives an interesting definition of irony from the point of view of its audience: irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more and of the outsiders’ incomprehension [4].

     In our work we keep to the following definition of irony: irony denotes a trope based on direct opposition of the meaning to the sense. Irony is a transfer, a renaming based upon the direct contrast of two notions: the notion named and the notion meant.

     Thus, some linguists refer to the notion of irony only criticism disguised as praise, other include in the notion of irony both criticism disguised as praise and praise disguised as criticism. All linguists believe that irony is generally used to convey a negative meaning. Irony is also usually comprehended as a usage of words, word-combinations or sentences in the sense, opposite to those directly expressed by them.

1.3. The classification of irony.

 

    D. Muecke, whose Compass of Irony seems to be the most exhaustive study on the literary use of irony, confesses that “getting to gripe with irony seems to have something in common with gathering the mist” [Muecke, 1969, 3].

     The literary critics speak of such “kinds” of irony as tragic irony, cosmic irony, practical irony, dramatic irony, verbal irony, rhetorical irony, sentimental irony, irony of fate, irony of chance, irony of character, etc. Scholars distinguish between the irony of Ariosto and Molière, Hardy and Proust. The Socratic irony has become a class of its own, so also has Romantic irony. Drama has its own set of classifications including such types as dramatized irony, self-disparaging irony, invective and sarcasm [Muecke, 1969, 99].

     Socratic irony is feigning ignorance in order to expose the weakness of another’s position.

Socratic irony involves a profession of ignorance that disguises a skeptical, non-committed attitude towards some dogma or universal opinion that lacks a basis in reason or in logic. Socrates’ “innocent” inquiries expose step by step the vanity or illogicality of the proposition by unsettling the assumptions of his dialogue partner by questioning or simply not sharing his basic assumptions. Many have interpreted Socrates as not feigning ignorance so much as expressing a form of philosophical skepticism.

     Television journalist Louis Theroux demonstrated expert use of Socratic irony to his audience, by interviewing a number of diverse individuals with an air of relaxed naïveté and appreciative curiosity. This has led to his subjects becoming less guarded and more open in answering questions than they would have been in a more adversarial dialogue, while more often than not also granting Theroux subtle control of the interview.

     Shakespeare imitated Roman irony in his play “Julius Caesar” in Mark Antony’s speech: “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears! I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him” [4].

     Metafiction (or “romantic irony” in the sense of roman the prose fiction) is a kind of fiction which self-consciously addresses the devices of fiction. It usually involves irony and is self-reflective. It refers to the effect when a story is interrupted to remind the audience or reader that it is really only a story. Examples include Henry Fielding’s interruptions of the storyline to comment on what has happened, or J.M. Barrie’s similar interjections in his book, Peter Pan. A similar example occurs in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy novel where the narrator reveals in advance “in the interest of reducing stress” that nobody will get hurt by a pair of incoming nuclear warheads, but that he will leave some suspense by stating that he would not reveal whose upper arm would get bruised in the process. The irony is that no suspense is caused due to the fact that only one character in the story has an upper arm. A notable attempt to sustain metafiction throughout a whole novel is Christie Malry's Own Double Entry by B.S. Johnson, in which we are frequently reminded that none of the characters are real and exist only within the author's imagination [4].

     The OED makes the basic distinction of irony into verbal irony and situational irony. The verbal irony is a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used.  The situational irony is a condition of affairs or events of a character opposite to what was or might naturally be expected: a contradictory outcome of events as if mockery of the promise and fitness of things. Muecke quotes an interesting example of situational irony believed to have been cited by Aristotle. It was ironic that the statue of Mitys at Argos killed the very man who had murdered Mitys, by falling upon him as he was surveying it [Zaleçki, 1984, 27].