In this paper, I want to explore the accounts of irony given by Wilson and Sperber, Blakemore, and Clark. Wilson and Sperber formulated a theory of irony that has been commented on by almost every theorist of irony that came after them. Their notion that irony is echoing interpretive use of language is taken up and modified by Blakemore, who adds further components derived from the concept of weak implicature. The breach between Clark’s and Blakemore’s account of irony is wider than that between the accounts of Sperber and Wilson and Blakemore. Clark introduces a new focus on irony, stressing the fact that every ironical utterance is a joint pretense that requires some sort of coordination of the speaker’s and the hearer’s actions. The descriptions of Sperber and Wilson, Blakemore, and Clark will each be followed by a discussion of their theses in which I will focus on the problems that seem unresolved by the respective theory. I begin with an account and a subsequent short discussion of theories of irony from Cicero to Grice to Sperber and Wilson. [...]
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 From the Semantic Theory to the Pragmatic Theory to the Mention Theory of Irony. From Cicero to Grice to Sperber and Wilson
Discussion
3 Blakemore
Discussion
4 Clark: The Pretense Theory of Irony
Discussion
5 Conclusion
6 Works Cited
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper aims to critically evaluate prominent linguistic theories regarding the nature of irony, specifically analyzing the contributions of Wilson and Sperber, Blakemore, and Clark. The core objective is to move beyond traditional figurative meaning theories by examining the strengths and limitations of the mention theory and the pretense theory, with a specific focus on the function of irony in conversational contexts and the establishment of intimacy between speakers.
- The transition from semantic/rhetorical definitions of irony to pragmatic approaches.
- Evaluation of Sperber and Wilson’s echoic mention theory and its challenges.
- Blakemore’s "intimacy thesis" and the role of poetic effects in ironic communication.
- Clark’s theatrical model and the mechanism of irony as a "staged communicative act."
- The relationship between irony, understatement, and humor.
Excerpt from the Book
Clark: The Pretense Theory of Irony
Clark offers an account of irony that is far less complicated than Blakemore’s and seems less problematic. His account is informed by his general view of language which, it seems to me, is best described as a theatrical view: Speakers are seen as enacting scenes in ensembles. Each communicative act involves both an individual processing of language and a social context in which it is embedded. Clark’s theory of irony seems especially close to the theatrical sphere since it claims that irony means a joint pretense of speaker and listener. The persons involved jointly imagine themselves performing a scene of drama which is not to be taken seriously. Consequently, Clark calls irony a “staged communicative act” (cf. Clark 1996:368).
In such an act, the speaker stages a brief improvised scene for the hearer in which an implied speaker performs a sincere communicative act toward an implied hearer. As author of the scene, the speaker expects the hearer to imagine the scene and to appreciate the purpose in staging it (cf. ibid.). A staged communicative act has several properties:
1. Joint pretense. A engages B in a joint pretense.
2. Communicative act. The joint pretense is that Ai (implied A) is performing a sincere communicative act toward Bi.
3. Correspondence. A is to be taken as Ai, and B as Bi.
4. Contrast. A intends A and B to mutually appreciate the salient contrasts between the demonstrated and actual situations.
5. Deniability. If asked, A would deny meaning for B what Ai means for Bi.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Introduces the scope of the paper, which is to analyze and contrast the irony theories of Wilson, Sperber, Blakemore, and Clark through a critical discussion.
2 From the Semantic Theory to the Pragmatic Theory to the Mention Theory of Irony. From Cicero to Grice to Sperber and Wilson: Examines the evolution from traditional figurative irony definitions toward Grice's pragmatic approach, ultimately analyzing Sperber and Wilson’s echoic mention model and its associated shortcomings.
Discussion: Critically evaluates the flaws in Sperber and Wilson's mention theory, particularly regarding its explanatory power for "novel" ironies and its failure to define criteria for ironic utterances.
3 Blakemore: Explores Diane Blakemore’s expansion of Sperber and Wilson’s framework, focusing on irony as a poetic effect and her theory of irony as a mechanism to increase intimacy.
Discussion: Addresses the limitations of Blakemore’s intimacy thesis, specifically where it struggles to explain examples of irony that lack a clear attitude of rejection or risk of misunderstanding.
4 Clark: The Pretense Theory of Irony: Outlines Herbert Clark’s theatrical view of irony, defining it as a "staged communicative act" based on joint pretense between speaker and hearer.
Discussion: Discusses the advantages of the pretense model in bypassing the need for echoed propositions, comparing irony to humor and jokes.
5 Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings of the paper, concluding that Clark’s pretense model offers a more robust explanation for ironic understatement and the functional aspects of irony than its predecessors.
6 Works Cited: Lists the academic literature referenced in the thesis.
Keywords
Irony, Pragmatics, Mention Theory, Pretense Theory, Figurative Meaning, Echoic Mention, Intimacy, Poetic Effects, Staged Communicative Act, Grice, Sperber and Wilson, Blakemore, Clark, Understatement, Humor.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
This paper focuses on the linguistic analysis of irony, specifically evaluating how different theorists explain ironic utterances and their functions in human communication.
Which specific theories of irony are analyzed?
The work analyzes the semantic and pragmatic theories from Cicero and Grice, the mention theory of Sperber and Wilson, Blakemore's perspective on poetic effects, and Clark’s pretense theory.
What is the central research objective?
The main objective is to determine how well these competing theories account for irony and to argue that the pretense theory provides a superior framework for understanding ironic understatement.
What research methodology is applied?
The author uses a critical literature review methodology, analyzing primary theoretical texts and testing them against examples of ironic conversation and literary satire.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section evaluates how irony functions beyond mere figurative substitution, exploring concepts like "echoic mention," the "intimacy thesis," and irony as a "staged communicative act."
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include irony, pragmatics, mention theory, pretense theory, intimacy, and communicative acts.
How does Clark’s "Pretense Theory" differentiate irony from other communicative acts?
Clark defines irony as a staged communicative act where participants jointly pretend that a second, "implied" reality is taking place, allowing for the appreciation of contrasts between the pretend and actual situations.
What is the "intimacy thesis" as discussed in the context of irony?
Proposed by Blakemore, this thesis argues that the primary function of irony is to increase intimacy between the speaker and the hearer, as the speaker leaves their true attitude implicit, assuming the hearer shares the context to understand it.
How does the author relate irony to humor in the context of Clark’s theory?
The author notes that irony, specifically irony involving understatement, functions similarly to jokes because both rely on a joint pretense, coordination, and a sudden perception of incompatible contexts to achieve a comic effect.
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2005, Ironie -Theorie und Praxis, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/71902
