The following paper aims at finding and examining such communicative functions of irony. It is organised as follows: after providing some specific conditions which are indispensable for a detectability of irony, two different types of irony are presented which differ not only in their relation to the particular context, but also in the strategies that are used to achieve the ironic effect. In the last section, the communicative functions of both types of irony are discussed in more detail. As a result it is shown that the different strategies have a certain impact on the communicative functions of the respective type.
The communicative functions of verbal irony differ significantly from those made in literal language. In contrast to saying what is meant directly, ironic statements generally provide two narratives, always leaving the ironist's "victim" the choice to which to refer. Thus, the evaluative attitude, which is inherent to every ironic utterance, is to be conveyed in a mitigated manner. Such a mitigation of an evaluation is important in social environments where the aspect of saving one's face is of great interest. Whereas criticising or praising literally can negatively affect the speaker's or the hearer's social status, the ironic counterparts predominantly have a positive impact on the relationship between ironist and recipient. In this regard, irony must be considered a highly sociable way of communicating.
Table of Contents
introductory remarks and problem description
1 essential criteria for the presence of irony
2 strategies for meaning derivation
2.1 the meaning reversal type of irony
2.2 the meaning replacement type of irony
3 on the communicative functions of irony
3.1 the communicative functions of meaning reversal irony
3.2 the communicative functions of meaning replacement irony
concluding remarks
list of references
Objectives and Topics
This paper aims to examine the communicative functions of implicit verbal irony, specifically differentiating between the meaning reversal and meaning replacement types of irony. It seeks to understand why speakers choose indirect ironic expressions over literal language and how these strategies impact social interaction and face management.
- Conditions for the detectability of implicit verbal irony
- Distinction between meaning reversal and meaning replacement strategies
- Communicative benefits and face-saving functions of irony
- The role of situational and background knowledge in irony interpretation
- Irony as a tool for humor and indirect criticism
Excerpt from the Book
1 essential criteria for the presence of irony
Despite numerous brilliant linguistic approaches, a definition that explains irony in its entirety has not been achieved yet. Although they are not incompatible with each other (cf. Kapogianni 2011: 4), the fundamental problem with these scientific approaches is that they treat irony as a unified phenomenon and address it for the benefit of merely one aspect. Since it is unfeasible within the scope of this paper to discuss all approaches and finally make an overall definition available, two necessary criteria must suffice whose joint detectability are indicative of the presence of irony. These criteria are the overt simulation of inappropriateness with respect towards the context (cf. Attardo 2000) and, consequentially, the ironist's conveying evaluative implicatures (cf. Dynel 2018) which refer to feelings, attitudes, or evaluations (cf. Grice 1978: 124) that are suggested by the ironic utterance without being overtly expressed or truly implied.
Reconsidering the introductory example (1) with regard to the criteria just indicated, the overt simulation of inappropriateness appears as a gross mismatch between the dictum (1a) and the context (i.e. the congestion) for which the literal meaning of the utterance would be regarded as appropriate (cf. Kapogianni 2014: 3). Therefore, the ironic utterance must be perceived by the audience as completely inappropriate because it apparently flouts the assumptions and expectations usually being associated with the real situation. In that respect it must be emphasised that the term inappropriateness does not necessarily have to refer to a form of incompatibility.
Summary of Chapters
introductory remarks and problem description: Defines implicit verbal irony as a discrepancy between dictum and implicatum and outlines the paper's focus on communicative functions.
1 essential criteria for the presence of irony: Establishes two core criteria for irony: the overt simulation of inappropriateness and the conveyance of evaluative implicatures.
2 strategies for meaning derivation: Categorizes irony into two distinct types—meaning reversal and meaning replacement—based on their semantic derivation processes.
2.1 the meaning reversal type of irony: Explains the most common ironic form where the dictum and implicatum stand in a relationship of semantic opposition.
2.2 the meaning replacement type of irony: Describes irony where no direct semantic link exists, and the dictum is entirely replaced by an ironic implicatum.
3 on the communicative functions of irony: Investigates the motivations behind using irony, focusing on social interaction and rhetorical goals.
3.1 the communicative functions of meaning reversal irony: Analyzes how reversal irony facilitates face-saving and eases interpersonal tensions through humor and cancellability.
3.2 the communicative functions of meaning replacement irony: Explains how replacement irony functions within argumentative structures to mock or invalidate previous utterances.
concluding remarks: Summarizes the findings and suggests that irony is a highly sociable, face-conscious way of communicating, distinct from literal discourse.
list of references: Provides a comprehensive bibliography of the linguistic sources cited in the text.
Keywords
implicit verbal irony, dictum, implicatum, meaning reversal, meaning replacement, evaluative implicatures, face saving, communicative functions, pragmatics, irony strategies, incongruity resolution, humor, linguistic theory, interpersonal tension, rhetorical effectiveness
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines the communicative functions of implicit verbal irony, analyzing why speakers use indirect ironic expressions instead of literal language to convey meaning and evaluations.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Central themes include the linguistic definition of irony, the distinction between meaning reversal and replacement strategies, the role of face-saving in social interaction, and the pragmatic conditions necessary for identifying irony.
What is the main objective of the research?
The research aims to identify and explain the specific communicative payoffs—such as mitigation of criticism, social face-saving, and humorous effect—that characterize the use of ironic discourse.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The paper employs a pragmatic and linguistic analysis, using constructed dialogical fragments and theoretical frameworks from scholars like Kapogianni, Grice, and Attardo to evaluate ironic utterances.
What is covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body defines criteria for irony, differentiates between reversal and replacement types, and investigates the communicative and social motivations for using each of these types in conversation.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include implicit verbal irony, dictum, implicatum, meaning reversal, meaning replacement, face saving, and pragmatic evaluation.
How does the author explain the difference between the dictum and the implicatum?
The dictum is defined as the literal, expressed meaning of an utterance, while the implicatum is the unspoken, intended meaning that the recipient must reconstruct using contextual knowledge.
Why is "face saving" considered important for the use of irony?
Irony allows speakers to convey negative evaluations, such as criticism, in a mitigated, indirect way, which reduces the potential for interpersonal conflict and helps maintain the social status of both the speaker and the recipient.
Can irony of the meaning replacement type be easily canceled by the speaker?
No, the paper argues that unlike reversal irony, replacement irony is difficult to cancel because it relies on clear contradictions with world knowledge or the laws of nature, making the ironic intent immediately apparent.
- Citar trabajo
- Dominik Jesse (Autor), 2018, On the Communicative Functions of Implicit Verbal Irony, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/451768
