Irony in politeness theories was at first considered as a tool to save the face of the
addressee, but later research challenged this view as will be shown in this paper. The use of
irony can easily become a tightrope walk for the speaker between being friendly and funny or
being rude and offending. Irony can also be challenging for the addressee, if a situation is ambiguous and if he or she therefore must find out how a remark is meant to be understood.
Since irony is an indirect way of saying what one is thinking it often leads to
misunderstandings or awkward situations. However, irony might also be used very well
directed and purposeful. For instance, irony is often used when criticizing someone and can in this case fulfill either the function of enhancing or reducing the criticism. Some researchers, however, disagree about the function of irony in this context. Is irony now a face-saving tool or does it help to attack face? What are the determining factors to decide this, if at all such factors can be found? How do different researchers understand the function of irony in politeness theories, and can some similarities between the different approaches be found?
These are questions that shall be answered in this paper. The politeness theories of Brown and Levinson (1987) and Leech (1991) will provide a basis for these considerations and will be complemented by newer surveys. In spite of the different statements made by various researchers in their theories and surveys, irony seems to not only have a face-saving function. When sarcasm is understood as a subordinate form of irony then irony can be used very well to also attack face.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Irony and Sarcasm
3 Politeness: Face-Saving and Face-Threatening
4 The Interaction of Politeness and Irony
4.1 Mock Politeness
4.2 Mock Impoliteness
4.3 Ironic Criticism and Ironic Compliments
5 Analysis of Two Example Dialogues
6 Conclusion
8 References
Objectives and Research Themes
This paper examines the multifaceted interaction between verbal irony and politeness theory. It investigates whether irony functions primarily as a face-saving mechanism to soften criticism or as a face-threatening tool to enhance offense, exploring the ambiguity inherent in ironic communication.
- Theoretical foundations of irony and sarcasm
- Politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson) and the Politeness Principle (Leech)
- Distinctions between Mock Politeness and Mock Impoliteness
- The pragmatic functions of Ironic Criticism and Ironic Compliments
- Contextual analysis of dialogue using examples from popular media
Excerpt from the Book
4 The Interaction of Politeness and Irony
There are different opinions about how the phenomenon of ironic utterances is to be integrated into theories of politeness. Brown and Levinson chose an approach that agrees with their concept of face-threatening acts. If a speaker wants to do a face-threatening act and chooses to do it indirectly then he or she must give the addressee some hints and hope that the addressee understands and interprets correctly what the speaker actually intends to say (1987: 213). The most obvious way to do this according to Brown and Levinson is to “invite conversational implicatures by violating, in some way, the Gricean Maxims of efficient communication” (1987: 213). The addressee will probably think “Why did the speaker say that that way?” and try to interpret the violation of the Gricean Maxim. Brown and Levinson suggest several strategies to do a face-threatening act indirectly like by giving hints or by being ironic (1987: 213-227). When a speaker is ironic, he can by saying the “opposite of what he means” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 221) indirectly convey his intended meaning. But the addressee must get some hints that the intended meaning is being conveyed indirectly (1987: 221). This can be done in three ways: either by accompanying the ironic utterance with prosodic clues like nasality, or with kinesic clues like smirking or sometimes it is just the context that helps the addressee to understand that the intended meaning is conveyed indirectly (Brown and Levinson 1987: 221-222).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of how verbal irony influences politeness and introduces the core conflict regarding whether irony functions as a face-saving tool or an aggressive device.
2 Irony and Sarcasm: Explores the linguistic and philosophical roots of irony and sarcasm, emphasizing the contrast between literal and intended meaning.
3 Politeness: Face-Saving and Face-Threatening: Details the theoretical framework of Brown and Levinson regarding "face" and Leech’s Politeness Principle as a basis for understanding social interaction.
4 The Interaction of Politeness and Irony: Investigates the strategies behind ironic utterances, specifically addressing Mock Politeness, Mock Impoliteness, and Ironic Criticism.
5 Analysis of Two Example Dialogues: Applies the theoretical findings to practical dialogue examples from the TV-series "Friends" to observe situational effects on irony.
6 Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, noting that irony is a flexible tool whose function depends heavily on context, speaker intent, and the perception of the addressee.
8 References: Lists the academic works consulted for the analysis of linguistic theories and pragmatic functions.
Keywords
Irony, Sarcasm, Politeness, Face-Threatening Acts, Mock Politeness, Mock Impoliteness, Pragmatics, Gricean Maxims, Linguistic Interaction, Ironic Criticism, Ironic Compliments, Social Harmony, Discourse Analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the complex relationship between irony and politeness, specifically analyzing whether irony serves to mitigate or exacerbate face-threats in interpersonal communication.
Which theoretical models are central to this study?
The study relies heavily on the politeness theories established by Brown and Levinson, as well as Geoffrey Leech’s Politeness Principle and his work on pragmatics.
What is the main objective of the author?
The goal is to determine the function of irony in conversation and to explore how different researchers interpret its role as either a face-saving tool or an offensive weapon.
What methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a literature-based theoretical analysis followed by an empirical examination of dialogue extracts from a television series to illustrate the practical application of irony.
What are the primary themes covered in the main body?
The main body covers the definitions of irony and sarcasm, the mechanisms of face-threatening acts, strategies like mock politeness, and the impact of context on how irony is perceived.
What characterises the irony discussed in the text?
Irony is characterized by an opposition between literal and intended meaning, often used to navigate the social tightrope between being funny and being offensive.
How does "Mock Politeness" differ from "Mock Impoliteness"?
Mock politeness uses superficially polite language to deliver a critical message, while mock impoliteness uses superficially offensive language to foster intimacy and social bonding.
How does the situation influence the interpretation of irony in the "Friends" dialogues?
The author demonstrates that factors such as the existing relationship between speakers (close friends vs. strangers) and non-verbal cues (intonation, facial expression) significantly alter how an ironic remark is received.
- Citation du texte
- lic. phil. Yvonne Miller (Auteur), 2006, Irony and Politeness: Softening or Enhancing Face-Threats, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/124534
