Sociocultural and linguodiscursive characteristics of irony

Gornostaeva Anna Alekseevna PhD in Philology Associate Professor, Department of Translation and Pedagogical Skills, Moscow State Linguistic University 119526, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Prospekt Vernadskogo, 105-4, sq. 299 anngornostaeva@yandex.ru

Introduction

Irony is a multifaceted phenomenon that goes far beyond language. Scientists consider irony from the point of view of a philosophical and aesthetic approach, as a category of comic, as well as in literary and linguistic aspects. Domestic and Western researchers talk about the totality and ubiquity of irony: It is present in interpersonal communication, art, journalism, advertising, politics, science and in general in almost all areas of cultural interaction. This article presents a look at irony as an element of discourse and as a discursive tactic.

Interpretation of the concept of "irony"

The word "irony" itself has meanings that go beyond the concept of figures of speech. F. Schlegel defines it as "a mood that looks at everything from a height and infinitely elevates above everything conditioned, including its own art, virtue or genius" ^{[10, p. 283]}.

The understanding of irony changes over time, it is interpreted differently not only by representatives of different cultures, but also within the same culture, "scientists and people outside of science imagine it differently" ^{[18, p. 9]}. F. Yous emphasizes that irony certainly needs a certain background (so the so–called "echo" - echo), which reinforces it: an opinion, norm, thought or statement with which it is associated ^{[20, p. 100]}. R. Chambers calls irony a phenomenon of "unspoken understanding" ("a matter of unspoken understandings") and a phenomenon of "ideological complexity", i.e. based on a common understanding of the structure of the world ^{[12, p. 19]}. In the above definitions, it seems especially important to emphasize the evaluativeness that irony possesses and which manifests itself in the modality of irony (positive or negative).

In early interpretations of irony, it was recorded that irony is a kind of lie, since the speaker expresses something opposite to what he thinks, therefore, he is not telling the truth. This understanding is reflected in etymology: in ancient Greek, "to ironize" meant "to tell lies", "to mock", "to pretend". Yu. N. Varzonin suggests combining irony and lies on the grounds that they were not originally present in the language, more precisely, they were not human information techniques: once they they appeared in the arsenal of personality, then naturally found a language coding method. According to this researcher, a person learns to lie by himself, in the same way he comprehends the mechanisms of irony; therefore, "there is nothing closer to a lie than irony" (Varzonin, Yu. N. Communicative acts with an irony mindset : specialty 02/10/19 "Theory of language" : dissertations for the degree of Candidate of Philological sciences / Varzonin Yuri Nikolaevich. – Tver, 1994. – p.30). This observation, in our opinion, is only partially true, namely that the art of lying and irony is not taught, but comes in the process of life experience. We share N. N. Panchenko's point of view that lies and deception are not always destructive ^[4], this also shows the similarity of irony and lies. Often, lying, like irony, is a tool for manipulating the opinion of the interlocutor, which also brings these concepts closer. We share the opinion that an ironic statement is always false from the point of view of logic. Nevertheless, irony and falsehood are different in their essence due to the difference in the communicative intentions of the authors of the ironic/false statement.

The connection of irony with intentional insincerity has been noted by many authors ^{[5, p. 14-15]}; ^{[11, p. 117]}; ^{[13, p. 57-58]}; ^{[17, p. 83]}, who, in particular, pay attention to the deceptive nature of irony (“the deceitful nature of irony”) and believe that that "the indirection of irony is a shield masking the true intention, which can be regarded by the speaker as risky" ^{[14, p. 165]}.

Despite the fact that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish irony from lies, there are obvious differences between them, which have been pointed out by many researchers of irony [1-3, 5-7, 15, etc.]. Lies in most cases have a selfish purpose and hide under the mask of truth; irony, explicit or implicit, is designed to understand the hidden meaning of the interlocutor – without this, the ironic statement loses its meaning. Losev writes about this: "Irony, unlike deception, not only hides the truth, but also expresses it <...> The essence of irony lies in the fact that when I say "yes", I do not hide my "no", namely, I express, reveal it" ^{[3, p. 73]}. It is noted that irony, unlike simple deception, appears as if in a double exposure, when the statement and the negation removing it are expressed explicitly ^[6]. In contrast to lies, irony has no intention of passing itself off as the truth, the author of the ironic statement intentionally conveys information about his insincerity. Being an expression of the speaker's insincerity, irony goes further, it is not so much an expression as a transfer of insincerity. In our opinion, the main difference between irony and falsehood lies in the speaker's communicative intention: the liar's goal always lies outside the utterance, while the ironic phrase, in which the speaker's pretense is obviously an end in itself (an expression of attitude towards the object of irony).

In addition to insincerity, it is also necessary to note such a property of irony as its ambiguity. D. S. Khramchenko rightly points out the variation of irony from subtle mockery expressed in a hidden form, antiphrasis, to a way of worldview ^[8]. This ambiguity is also associated with the variety of its types: verbal, situational, structural, cosmic, irony of fate, etc., which determines the choice of approach to the analysis of one or another of its varieties.

Linguists distinguish between rhetorical-stylistic, structural and pragmatic approaches to the study of irony, the latter of which considers it in the aspect of the theory of speech activity, in the aspect of speech acts, maxims and the principle of cooperation. According to E. A. Bryukhanova, irony is a segmental concept, and three components should be distinguished in it: philosophical and aesthetic (worldview) irony, literary criticism (as part of the comic) and stylistic irony (Bryukhanova, E. A. Cognitive-historical conditionality of irony and its expression in the language of English fiction (based on the works of O. Wilde, S. Maugham, J. Barnes) : specialty 10.02.04 "Germanic languages" : dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Philological Sciences. – Moscow, 2004. – 170 p.).

The researcher of irony S.I. Pokhodnya ^[7] identifies two main types within the framework of literary irony: irony as a stylistic device (ironic mockery) and irony as an effect produced on the reader (or viewer, since this type of irony is often found in dramatic works). This makes it possible to talk about the difference in terms of "irony-reception" and "irony-effect": "The approach to irony as a way of perceiving the world has led both literary critics and linguists to the need to distinguish between two concepts: irony as a means, technique, stylistic device and irony as a result – an ironic meaning created by a number of multi-level means language" ^{[7, p. 16]}.

Speaking of discursive irony, that is, the irony that is possible only with the joint participation of the author and the addressee of an ironic utterance, we mean the meaning of "irony-effect", referring to the effect that occurs in the process of interaction between interlocutors.

The ethnostilistic labeling of irony

Just like humor, irony has a national and cultural specificity. Humor is a national treasure of every nation, it manifests itself in the way of life and ways of interacting with the surrounding reality, in the relationships between people and, of course, in language. Representatives of different cultures laugh at different things: what is considered funny by one people may not seem so to another. Since humor is an integral part of the linguistic picture of the world, it is necessary to know and understand its mechanisms in order to communicate effectively. Similarly, it is necessary to take into account the factors that determine the features of the use of irony in different ironic genres: ethnostille, idiostille and situational context. Irony often serves as a kind of filter to identify "their own", i.e. those who understand and correctly interpret the speaker's words. According to L. Hutcheon, irony divides listeners into the target audience and "victims", provoking an emotional reaction in both the former and the latter ^{[16, p. 2]}. Irony is a subtle communication tool and is used by the speaker to observe the interlocutor's reaction and assess his intelligence, which can be divided into verbal and emotional, which determines the assessment of "verbal intelligence: linguistic abilities and talents, as well as emotional intelligence: emotional reaction to an ironic statement" ^{[2, p. 91]}.

The correct interpretation of irony can bring interlocutors closer together, create the effect of "involvement", and ensure comfortable and fruitful communication. Misunderstood or inappropriate irony, on the contrary, leads to the destruction of understanding, deterioration of interpersonal relationships. In other words, understanding irony "leads either to chaotic or to the harmonization of communication" ^{[12, p. 179]}.

Results

Summarizing all of the above, we can define the role of irony in communication as follows: irony is an important component of communication that adds emotions and shades to the process of interaction of communication participants. Using the metaphor proposed by K. M. Shilikhina, we join the opinion that "irony is a seasoning that gives a dish taste and piquancy" ^{[9, p. 31]}. Developing this idea, we can add that the effect of communication can both improve (with the correct and appropriate use of irony) and worsen (with inept, excessive, unjustified use of this tool).

In this study, irony is understood as a characteristic of modern political communication, manifested in the ironic image of the speaker. The nature of the irony used, the frequency of ironic statements and their functions are determined by national and cultural specifics, individual characteristics of the ironic personality and situational context. Irony performs a variety of functions, obeys certain mechanisms of generation and is expressed using an extensive set of linguistic means.

Conclusion

Summing up the main socio-cultural and linguodiscursive characteristics of irony, we note the most important of them: deliberate insincerity, ambiguity, ethnodiscursivity, duality (irony-reception and irony-effect). The duality of irony is taken into account when considering it as a discursive practice and as a property of discourse arising from the interaction between the author and the addressee.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.