Анализ семантических и стилистических особенностей пародию по мотивам произведений

CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Despite the significant number of studies focused on parody, it is still not included in any of the classifications of the expressive means of the English language. That is why the general research of this topic is important, central, interesting, problematic and relevant in some way.

The term paper is devoted to the problem of identification of stylistic and semantic functions of parody as argumentative trope in poetic discourse. Parody was investigated by many researches, for example S. Dentith, M.L. Pratt and L. Hutcheon. The topic itself is very interesting for further research and has a considerable practical value.

The main idea of research is to define the meaning and stylistic role of the parody, the purpose of using it, the results, effects on readers and society, comprehension, and its importance as a stylistic device.

The rationale of the problem is that parody is still not included in any of the classifications of the expressive means of the English language. But notwithstanding the fact that parody is one of the oldest figures speech of art and it was neglected and considered to be unpoetic for a long time it still used in literature, journalism as an important stylistic device. Parody - a favorite subject of many modern writers, singers and comics. And problematique of this topic can be seen and analysed from different points of view.

The main aims of research are considered through investigation of the theoretical material and practical analysis of semantic and stylistic peculiarities of  parody based on works of Margaret A. Rose and using verses of Lewis Carroll and works of Jonathan Swift as for example.

The main objectives of the research:

1. to define linguo-stylistic status of parody as argumentative trope in the              system of expressive means and stylistic devices of the English language;

2. to define major characteristics of the poetic discourse;

3. to define functions of parody in poetic discourse;

4. to illustrate the use of parody in the poetic discourse.

The object of investigation is parody as an argumentative trope and main stylistic functions of the parody in the poetic discourse.

The subject of investigation is defining distinctive linguosemiotic and linguo-stylistic characteristics and functions of parody as argumentative trope.

The data sources of investigation are verses of Lewis Carroll and works of Jonathan Swift.

The methods of investigation are as follows: interpretational-textual, structural-semantic, linguo-cognitive and linguo-semiotic analysis.

The practical importance of investigation is the possibility to use

gained knowledge and experience in translation and ability to analyze and interpret parody in the various types of literary works without miscomprehension of the text.

The structure of the paper has following parts: introduction, 2 chapters, conclusion, the list of the reference sources, list of data sources and summary.

The introduction to this work is based on the choice of this topic, the rationale of the aim and specific problems.

The first chapter consists of three parts and describes linguo-stylistic status of parody in the system of expressive means and stylistic devices of the English language.

The second chapter, consists of two parts, and describes the major characteristics of poetic discourse and the main stylistic functions in it.

The conclusion generalizes all the results of the work and forms its primary conclusions.

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1

                         LINGUO-STYLISTIC STATUS OF PARODY

 

1.1. Parody in the system of stylistic devices and expressive means of the English language

       Language is a means of communication by symbolical sounds. The meaning of these symbols is imposed by the use of stylistic devices which further glorify and clarify them. Effective authors always have always used stylistic devices and accommodative language to liven up their works. Stylistic devices are the tools by which authors create meaning through language, and by which readers get understanding of literary works. Stylistic devices are fundamental in teaching language. Authors use a variety of means to create an emotional mood, an attitude, a setting, and characterization in their works. In other words, in a literary work, the techniques which the writer are important as well as what is going on in the story. To glorify their works authors often use different kinds of literary tropes.

A literary trope is the usage of figurative language in literature, or a figure of speech in which words are used in a sense different from their literal meaning. The term trope derives from the Greek τρόπος (tropos), "turn, direction, way". Rhetoricians have closely analyzed the great variety of "turns and twists" used in poetry and literature and have provided an extensive list of precise labels for these poetic devices. Some examples include:

• metonymy
• irony
• parody
• oxymoron
• hyperbole
• litotes
• antithesis
• synecdoche

Classification of lexical stylistic devices

There are 3 groups:

1. The interaction of different types of lexical meaning.

 a) dictionary and contextual (metaphor, metonymy, irony);

 b) primary and derivative (zeugma and pun);

 c) logical and emotive (epithet, oxymoron);

 d) logical and nominative (autonomasia);

2. Intensification of a feature (simile, hyperbole, periphrasis);

 3. Peculiar use of set expressions (cliches, proverbs, epigram, quotations)

In this work, one of these poetic devices will be examined throughout the verse of Lewis Carroll and works of Jonathan Swift , namely parody.

A parody also called send-up, spoof, pastiche or lampoon, in current use, is an imitative work created to mock, comment on, or trivialise an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. As the literary theorist Linda Hutcheon puts it, "parody … is imitation, not always at the expense of the parodied text." Another critic, Simon Dentith, defines parody as "any cultural practice which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production or practice."

[31, 9] Parody may be found in art or culture, including literature, music. The writer and critic John Gross observes in his Oxford Book of Parodies, that parody seems to flourish on territory somewhere between pastiche ("a composition in another artist's manner, without satirical intent") and burlesque (which "fools around with the material of high literature and adapts it to low ends") According to Aristotle (Poetics, ii. 5), Hegemon of Thasos was the inventor of a kind of parody; by slightly altering the wording in well-known poems he transformed the sublime into the ridiculous. In ancient Greek literature, a parodia was a narrative poem imitating the style and prosody of epics "but treating light, satirical or mock-heroic subjects" [31, 10] Indeed, the apparent Greek roots of the word are para- (which can mean beside, counter, or against) and -ode (song, as in an ode). Thus, the original Greek word parodia has sometimes been taken to mean counter-song, an imitation that is set against the original. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, defines parody as imitation "turned as to produce a ridiculous effect" [34, p 32]

  Roman writers explained parody as an imitation of one poet by another for humorous effect. In French Neoclassical literature, parody was also a type of poem where one work imitates the style of another for humorous effect. Ancient Greece made satyr plays which parodied tragic plays.  Parody is a frequent ingredient in satire and is often used to make social and political points. Examples include Swift's "A Modest Proposal", which satirized English neglect of Ireland by parodying emotionally disengaged political tracts; and, recently, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, which parody a news broadcast and a talk show to satirize political and social trends and events. Some events, such as a national tragedy, can be difficult to handle. Chet Clem, Editorial Manager of the news parody publication The Onion, told Wikinews in an interview the questions that are raised when addressing difficult topics:

    «I know the September 11 issue was an obviously very large challenge to approach. Do we even put out an issue? What is funny at this time in American history? Where are the jokes? Do people want jokes right now? Is the nation ready to laugh again? Who knows? There will always be some level of division in the back room. It’s also what keeps us on our toes».

[32].

  Parody is by no means necessarily satirical, and may sometimes be done with respect and appreciation of the subject involved, while not being a heedless sarcastic attack.

  Parody has also been used to facilitate dialogue between cultures or subcultures. Sociolinguist Mary Louise Pratt identifies parody as one of the "arts of the contact zone", through which marginalized or oppressed groups "selectively appropriate", or imitate and take over, aspects of more empowered cultures. [ 33, 91]

Shakespeare often uses a series of parodies to convey his meaning. In the social context of his era, an example can be seen in King Lear where the fool is introduced with his coxcomb to be a parody of the king.

 

1.2. Parody as argumentative trope

Argumentative discourse brings into relief the contours of its pragmatic aspect: dominant symbols, largely arbitrary, serve to make thought and conduct rational, being linked to human purpose and behavior. Symbols ‘come into existence by developing out of other signs, particularly of icons and from mixed signs partaking of the nature of icons and symbols’. They make semiosis exist in one multidimensional temporal world that exhibits the features of the state of affairs, as well as secures both referential and pragmatic consistency and coherence in speech. Thus texts of requires recourse to convention, can be classified as argumentative discourse – political, diplomatic, business, legal, commercial, military etc. They are ruled by the modalities of permission, prohibition, obligation and necessity. By the way, a vast bulk of religious, or sacred, texts and various formulas of sorcery, that have not been mentioned at all in any functional differentiation speech theory so far, as though they do not exist, rank first in this subdivision and finally acquire their typology. For their major communicative function is to bring home the dualistic vision of the world and to persuade the recipient of its being true. Argument here claims to acquire epistemic value.

  The argumentative trope, as every other, implies traditional modality of tropic substitution – semantic transfer, and in this respect it could classified as a figure of substitution. But the possibility of ambiguity here, being a permanent factor of change, lies in the simultaneous passing through the connotate channel of two different pragmatic meanings of strong evaluative and emotive colouring. We’d rather define this stereosemantic phenomenon as the splitting of the argumentative meaning into opposite functives being simultaneously realized: a radical transfer of properties of an object is based on both identity and difference associations. In other words, the semantic relationship here plays on both equivalence and contrast by the recourse to modalities of goodness and badness. Thus the argumentative trope can be defined as a figure of substitution that implies the recourse to a certain axiological code.

To illustrate this idea let me give an example of J. Thurber’s fable “The Little Girl and the Wolf”:

  “One afternoon a big wolf waited in a dark forest a little girl to come along carrying a basket of food to her grandmother. Finally a little girl did come along and she was carrying a basket food. ‘Are you carrying that basket to your grandmother?’ asked the wolf. The little girl said yes, she was. So the wolf asked her where her grandmother lived and the little girl told him and he disappeared in the wood.

  When the little girl opened the door of her grand-mother’s house she saw there was somebody in bed with a nightcap and nightgown on. She had approached no nearer than twenty-five feet from the bed when she saw that it was not her grandmother but the wolf for even in a nightcap a wolf does not look any more like your grandmother than the Metro- Goldwyn loin like Calvin Coolidge. So the little girl took an automatic out of her basket and shot the wolf dead.”

  Moral: It is not so easy to fool little girls nowadays as it used to be”.     [35, 42]

The text in view unexpectedly reveals unique semantic features of allusion, whose semantic typology seemed to be obscure so far. Obviously, associative culturological juxtaposition (a recourse to different axiological codes), that allusion ensures, happens to enforce an explicitly suggested aesthetically relevant argumentative message, that looks as a peculiar verdict to postmodern culture. Actually allusion is common in the mainstream postmodernist argumentative poetic text. It is of paramount importance in creating the collage semantic technique, one could observe, for instance, in the creative writing of Yu. Andrukhovich, in his “Exotic Birds and Plants” in particular:

ІЄРОНІМ БОШ XX

Наші святочні пориви – палкі та вознеслі,

Ніби й не нам волокти  цю планиду грузьку.

Далі, все далі від  нас рибалки і теслі,

Тільки предвічні сліди  на воді та піску.

 

Годі рибалити, браття,- глибини стемніли:

Риба з морів у  бляшанки тісні запливла.

Наші обійми схололи, обличчя змарніли

В холоді надто блискучих  будівель зі скла.

 

Між синтетичних ялинок шукаємо віху:

Як розпізнати майбутнє, о куле скляна?

Акумулятор для німба  – винахід віку,

На видноколі –  вогнетривка купина.

 

Щось ми згубили ( а може знайшли) на розпутті,

Тут, в епіцентрі іржавих дротів та епох.

З тихим благанням дивиться в  очі майбутні

Наш до ялинки підвішений крихітка-бог.

[36, 38].

 

In the text under consideration allusion creates polyphony that underlies aesthetically dominant pastiche – mild sad irony to mock at or to grieve about the postmodern civilization, so pervasively ruled by the black arts of the politician, the public-relations expert, the advertiser, the salesman and so forth. Misperceiving and misperceived, we are unable to regain the archaic ‘primitive’ insight into old good Christian-based humanitarian values we are becoming more and more irresponsibly alienated from, the collapse of the humanitarian ideals being the bane of our life.

Irony, parody, sarcasm, burlesque, travesty, satire make un group of argumentative tropes. It is amazing, but twofold and manifold application of any of these fundamental semantic patterns proves to lie at the heart of both nomination and signification, beginning with the linguistic sign to an infinite number of texts in verbal culture, archetypal syntactic morphologies being the only bridge to the actual world.

In terms of conclusion let us remind again that the logic of infinite regression of the semiotic universe in creating emergent systems of large-scale differences remains invariable. All thinking is performed in signs, as the Master semiotician put it, but there are no pure signs of any sort, and any classification of semiotic entities must take into account the fact that the feedback semantic technological principle is inherent in the architectonic of any semiotic entity, the discourse included.

Thus, following Peirce’s three-component semantic scheme, an attempt of further disclosure of the linguistic universe has been made. The semiotic typology of discourse, a new semantic classification of tropes being an intermediary presuppositional instantiation, is finally clarified. In the reconstruction of semiotic typology of the poetic text the linguosemiotoc description of previously vague nonsense verses and Russian ‘zaum’ poetry, linguostructuralist poetics failed to elucidate, is given with special attention  to the unique semantic features of allusion as a creating mechanism of the argumentative trope that did not revel itself  so far as a separate semiotic entity.

1.3 The main functions and characteristics of parody

Parody is quite often used as a means to encourage a change in a social, moral, or political process. It is used to criticize social defects without making the reader depressive. Sometimes it even makes people think about problems they would normally ignore completely. Parody is one of the oldest and most sophisticated forms of comedy and therefore it is immortal. As long as there are problems in the world, there will also be parody. Parody as a part of the literary studies was for a long time neglected. It was considered unpoetic.

Parody functions most effectively as a type of satire, mocking not only a specific piece of work, but the broader social trends that work embodies. In so doing, the parody expands its role to become an agent of social change. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," for instance, is on the surface a parody of dry, high-toned political treatises. But in a larger sense, it skewers the inhumanity behind such treatises and the ignorance of pain and suffering upon which their solutions often depend.

The main functions of parody:

• Parody reflects society
• Parody helps people to view others differently
• One of parody’s purpose is to reform or change society
• Parody brings out points generally applicable to everybody
• Where an individual is the parody  target, parody should not be

     libellious

• Parody helps people to work out the difference between folly

and vice

• Parody is particularly concerned with pointing out hypocrisy
• Parody has a lofty aim: to prompt the good to improve the world

The signals by which reader recognizes parody in the above Aristophanic play are to be found within the text or its performance. As a basic premise it will be maintained, that the prime distinguishing feature between the imitation (or the non-ironic, non-critical reproduction of the whole or a part of another literary work in a text) and the literary parody is the effect of comic discrepancy between the original work and its ‘imitation’. Types of discrepancy/ or the signals of parody in a text most frequently to be found by the reader can be broadly listed under the following categories:

1. Changes to the coherency of the text quoted

1. Semantic change

1. apparently meaningless, absurd change.
2. change meaningful  foe the reader’s world (often satiric)

2. Change in literal and metaphoric function of words.

3. Syntactic change ( which may affect the semantic level)
4. Changes in tense, persons or other sentence grammatical features.
5. Changes to the associations of the imitated text by the new context and other co-textual  ( and ‘ beyond the sentence’) changes
6. Changes sociolect, idiolect, or in other elements of the lexicon.

2. Direct statement

1. Comments on the parodied text or on the author of the parody.
2. Comments on the world of the reader.
3. Comments on the parody as the whole text.

3. Effect on the reader

1. Shock or humor from conflict with reader expectations about the text parodied.
2. Change effected in the world of the reader of the parodied text.

Discrepancy may thus be created within the text quoted and between the text and its new context. But the reader may also recognize the ironic use of quotation by finding a significant contrast between the familiar style of the author of the parody and his style in the parody in which he is writing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                             

                                                CHAPTER 2

                        PARODY IN THE POETIC DISCOURSE

       

2.1. Major characteristics of the poetic discourse

Poetic discourse is literary communication in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings, thoughts, ideas or description of places or events by the use of distinctive diction (sometimes involving rhyme), rhythm (sometimes involving metrical composition), style and imagination. [37, 1430].

In the poetic text, where a dash semiotic experiment denudes semiotic phenomena and suggests infinite possibilities for creating more complex forms of order, the controlling semantic role of various types of language signs is especially prominent. In this case one should look for the laws of artistic manipulation of a particular sign. Metaphorically speaking, “it is certainly true of a work of art in a technological sense: viaduct or tunnel, the work of art makes real the simultaneous passing of two actants in conflict (i.e. of equal value): a railway line on the one hand, river or mountain, on the other”.

As a matter of fact, Thom’s formula is a more semiotically strict periphrasis of Jacobson’s ‘canonical parallelism’ idea, i.e. ‘the projection of the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection onto the axis of combination’. Semantic tautology that makes the poetic message, self-contained, self-focusing and autonomic, i.e. speaking mainly of itself or of the relation between signans and signatum, is emphasized again. But Thom’s definition goes further – it is permeated by a sense of stereological structure that gives us the idea how everything is inseparably liked in the poetic text – rhyme and meter, sound and meaning, form and content. The poetic text does not have a logic, it has a rhetoric, that is first of all semiotic machinery.

Let’s consider the most striking examples of medieval romances, manneristic and modernistic poetic text of trope-orientated cultures (T.S. Eliot, Th. Dylon, F. Kafka), where highly intellectual imagery persists. Sophisticated introverted iconic symbols are textually produced. They become textual modalities, textual implicatures. They require specific semiotic strategy – multiple qualitative kaleidoscopically changing formal duplication and replication of the poetic message, being open to infinite semiotic displacement by definition. This is the case of rhematic poetic text.

To understand the rhematic poetic text one should undertake a ‘hermeneutic circle’: one assumes a code, which is verified against similarity, affinity, analogy, rooted in the forms of objectivity, metaphorical conventional transformations being appraised in advance, as in A. Richard’s “Harvard Yard in April” interpretive reading, referring to a fairly unique experiential paradigm:

To and fro

Across the fretted snow

Figures, footprints, shadows go.

Their python boughs a-sway

The fountain elms cascade

In swinging lattices of shade.

Where this or that or the other thought

Might perch and rest.

And rest they ought

For poise and reach.

Not all is timely. See the beech,

In frostly elephantine skin.

Still winter sealed, will not begin,

Though silt the alleys hour on hour

Debris of the fallen flower,

And other flower allure

Lounge sunlit on the steps and there

Degrees of loneliness confer.

Lest, lest…away!

Thou may

Be lost in May!

A sustained metaphore of Harvard yard in April, being a symbol of exquisite pleasures and sorrows, a scholar may have a particular, advantage and mishap to enjoy, so that it were ‘a prophanation to tell the layetie our love’, is culturally coded and largely conventional in its mode of representation. The symbolic mode, undisputedly, proves to be recurrent cultural tendency. But being abductionally established code only at the top of its synthetic structure 9 connotation functive), at the bottom (iconic infrastructure) a complicated image in view is supported by concrete pictures that you have in your mind of ‘their python boughs a-sway’, ‘the other thought might perch and rest’, ‘the beech in frostly elephantine skin’ etc.- the building blocks of culturized go-in-between ‘degrees of loneliness confer’. Thus in the semiotic framework it can be treated as a generic hypoicon dominant relation. The idea of the semiotic plausibility, based on social habits, is highly questioned.

Actually any text of creative writing with a dominant rhematic figure of speech, that implies the substitution of an appropriate term with one that is iconically presentational, be it metaphore or metonymy (or any other trope of the metaphorical or metonymical groups), can be classified as rhematic.

L. Carroll’s eccentric fairy-tales of supreme originality with a logic push beyond the limit “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass”, characterized by the ‘counterpoint’ narrative pattern – the main character remains the unifying factor but the story keeps dramatically changing through the exquisite transition from one setting on to another in a serene discontinuity, reveal the archetypal morphological semantic structure and could be defined as propositional poetic.

 

2.2. Functions of parody in poetic discourse

I use all revised definition of parody to look at the different functions of parody in poetic discourse, an area of inquiry where there seems to be no consensus in the critical literature in any field.

I would like to begin with what seem to be the most benign functions of parody benign in the sense that the affective charge, the critical edge is minimal - and proceed to those functions where it seems to be maximal. This is a progression (on the positively coded side) from the emphatic to the inclusumary and (on the negatively coded one) from the decorative to the exclusionary and elitist. This classification offers a schematic image of these functions and their respective positions:

                     

inclusionary oppositional         a) corrective         b)transgressive subversive provisional self-deprecating distancing (perspective) playful complex emphatic

elitist, exclusionary attacking insulting      a) offensive      b) defensive evasive distancing (indifference) trivializing ambiguous decorative

                    

One of the benign functions of parody is what we could call, in positive terms, the ludic or playful. This is related to humour and wit, of course, and therefore can be seen as a positive characteristic of language usage, close to punning or perhaps even metaphor. But it can also be seen as trivial, empty, superficial, and even silly.

Even without moral dimension parody can be seen as a sign of the trivializing of the essential seriousness of art. The same occurs when the notion of parody functioning as a distancing mechanism is considered, despite the fact that it is by now a commonplace to say that parody is the trope of the detached and the witnessing.

The next, related function would likely be one that is negatively coded as defensive, as a defense mechanism and can be viewed as either warranted or as

aggressively cautious. The more positive coding of this function would be in terms of subversion; of undermining from within. This is the parody of the passive aggressive, to be sure, but also that of the politically repressed - as the early work of Milan Kundera showed so well. Not far from such a function on this scale would be what today we positively code as oppositional parody. This is where what could be called the "transideological" nature of parody is clearest, for, while these are the most easily politicizable functions of parody, they can cut in any direction: "Both conformers and rebels use irony at each other, and

both suffer from it". This may be seen as polemical, transgressive parody; it can also at times be insulting and contemptuous. But then we have moved from oppositional to offensive functions, perhaps. When invective and attack are the ends of parody, then the coding has definitely been negativized at the same time as the affective charge has been increased considerably. The positive version of this last function would likely be the corrective use of parody in satire, for at least it suggests a positive set of values that one is correcting towards. Arguably parody has some corrective function, and since satire is usually corrective or ameliorative in intent, it frequently turns to parody as one way of ridiculing and implicitly correcting the vices and follies of humankind. Clearly there is a wide tonal range possible within this corrective function, as in all the other-from the scorning and disdainful to the playfully teasing.

The sharpest critical edge seems to be reserved not so much for such invective but for that elitist functioning of parody that every discussion of the trope invokes. Parody clearly differentiates and thus potentially excludes: some people are going to "get" it and some are not.

 

 

2.3. Corrective and emphatic functions of parody in poetic discourse

The corrective use of parody in the poetic discourse, at least suggests a positive set of values that one is correcting towards. Arguably all parody has some corrective function, and it frequently uses as one of the ways of ridiculing and implicitly correcting the vices and follies of humankind. Clearly there is a wide tonal range possible within this corrective function, as in all the other - from the scorning and disdainful to the playfully teasing. ‘You Are Old Father William’ is a very clear example of this

Lewis Carroll wrote ‘You Are Old Father William’ as a parody of Robert Southey's ‘The Old Man's Comforts and How He Gained Them’  
‘The Old Man's Comforts’ is precisely the sort of improving verse which Alice (in Wonderland) would have been expected to learn and recite in her lessons.  
Much of the point of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is to poke fun at the very earnest attitude of both Victorian education and literature, and to subvert their intentions to turn children into better people. Instead, Carroll hoped to encourage children to have fun and enjoy words and literature for their own sake. Compare the first two verses of each poem:

Southey 
You are old, Father William, the young man cried,  
The few locks which are left you are grey;  
You are hale, Father William, a hearty old man,  
Now tell me the reason I pray.  

In the days of my youth, Father William replied,  
I remember'd that youth would fly fast,  
And abused not my health and my vigour at first  
That I never might need them at last.

[38, 168-69.]  
     

Carroll 
"You are old, Father William," the young man said,  
"And your hair has become very white;  
And yet you incessantly stand on your head---  
Do you think, at your age, it is right?"  
 
"In my youth," Father William replied to his son,  
"I feared it might injure the brain;  
But now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,  
Why, I do it again and again."

[39, 63-66].

 

In Southey's poem the young man admires his elder, and seeks an explanation as to how William has been so successful, presumably with a view to following the same path himself. Whereas the youth in Carroll's rhyme appears to be admonishing William for his foolishness. Southey's poem continues, in a very earnest tone with the ways in which William has had the good sense to preserve his health (with an implicit suggestion that we, as readers would do well to do the same) but Carroll's verse does no such thing. It is full of silliness and ‘joie de vivre’. “We don't want moral lessons”, Carroll's poem seems to say, “we want head stands!'”

In this way Carroll is rebelling against the stifling attitude that Victorians had towards children, and supplying them instead with fun and laughter.

 

2.4. Attacking and subversive functions of parody

Jonathan Swift's prose has been discussed extensively as satire, but its major structural element, parody, has not received the attention it deserves.

The historical interest lies in the occasions of the parodies: in their relations with the texts and discourses which they quote and distort, and in the way this process reflects on the generation of cultural authority in late Stuart England. The theoretical and interpretative interest lies in tracing the play of language and irony through parody.

In the next passages parody has attacking functions. Jonathan Swift cruelly satirizes the political events in England and Ireland in his day, as well as English values and institutions. He ridicules academics, scientists, and Enlightenment thinkers who value rationalism above all else, and finally, he targets the human condition itself. The more positive coding of this function would be in terms of subversion; of undermining from within. This is the parody of the passive aggressive, to be sure, but also that of the politically repressed.

"Once upon a time there was a man who had three sons by one wife, and all at birth, neither could the midwife tell certainly which was the eldest.”

[40, 56]

In Section 2 of "The Tale of a Tub," Swift is introducing the three brothers who will represent the three forms of Western Christianity: Catholicism, The Church of England, and Protestant Dissenters. "Once upon a time" immediately establishes this text as a kind of allegorical fairy tale. The "tale" presents a consistent satire of religious excess, while the digressions are a series of parodies of contemporary writing in literature, politics, theology, Biblical exegesis, and medicine. The overarching parody is of enthusiasm, pride, and credulity . “A Tale of a Tub” is an enormous parody with a number of smaller parodies within it.

In “A Modest Proposal,” Swift satirizes the English landlords with outrageous humor, proposing that Irish infants be sold as food at age one, when they are plump and healthy, to give the Irish a new source of income and the English a new food product to bolster their economy and eliminate a social problem. Swift also satirizes the Irish themselves in his essay, for too many of them had accepted abuse stoically rather than taking action on their own behalf. The dominant figure of speech in "A Modest Proposal" is parody, in which a writer or speaker says the opposite of what he means. Swift's masterly use of this device makes his main argument - that the Irish deserve better treatment from the English - powerful and dreadfully amusing. For example, to point out that the Irish should not be treated like animals, Swift compares them to animals, as in this example:

"I rather recommend buying the children alive, and dressing them hot from the knife, as we do roasting pigs."

[40, 167]

The idea to compare people with animals is rather offensive, is so extreme that it demonstrates the overall parody of the piece.

 “I can think of no one objection that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged that the number of people will be thereby much lessened in the kingdom.”

[41, 212] 

Up to this point, the parody has derived chiefly from the absurd proposals. When the reader encounters the "unless," the reader might think that the writer is about to acknowledge that, after all, the idea of eating babies is morally wrong. Swift subverts this expectation by continuing the parody, naming the unexpected objection of mere population depletion. Although the Irish are the enemy and it is better to have few of them, at least they help develop the economy and the countryside. With this added irony, Swift is further heightening the parody, suggesting that the writer does not even conceive that the idea of killing and eating Irish one-year-olds could be morally wrong.

 

2.5. Playful and trivializing functions of parody

The most popular critical interpretation of number 130 of Shakespeare’s sonnets is as a parody of the traditional Petrarchan sonnet. In writing this sonnet Shakespeare claims his independence from the standard vocabulary of praise. This interpretation leaves the implications of his mockery to be largely overlooked. The dark lady, as she is popularly referred to, is broken down into body parts as a misogynistic attempt to objectify and claim her as a possession.

In this verse positive playful and trivializing functions of parody are used. Playful function is related to humour and wit, of course, and therefore can be seen as a positive characteristic of language usage, close to punning or perhaps even metaphor. Also parody can be seen as a sign of the trivializing of the essential seriousness of art.

 “My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun; 
Coral is far more red than her lips' red; 
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun; 
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head. 
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white, 
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;  
And in some perfumes is there more delight 
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks. 
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know 
That music hath a far more pleasing sound; 
I grant I never saw a goddess go; 
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground: 
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare 
As any she belied with false compare.”

Lines 1 through 6 divides the dark lady into an object comprised of eyes, lips, breasts, a head, and cheeks. In separating his mistress into parts, he deconstructs her ability to be seen as a person and an individual at that. As the sonnet progresses the lady is deconstructed from her head downward. It is as if the speaker is taking a systematic inventory of the dark lady. In fact the speaker compares her, although in a parodical way, to objects such as the sun, coral, snow, wires, roses, perfumes, and music (Lines 1-10). His mistress is comprised of elements that have nothing to do with one another, making the subject appear disjointed and her parts unrelated to anything specific. With the exception of the wires that represent the lady’s hair, all of the objects are impermanent or intangible insomuch that they are not accessible to all of the five senses thus suggesting that it is without sense to let the heart rule. Love for a woman is an undesirable trait and shows the speaker’s lack of concern for the dark lady as a person.

Furthermore, the lady is only referred to or spoken to in a generic manner. “My mistress” and “my love” are generic terms that strip the subject of her individuality while at the same show her as being in possession of the speaker (Lines 1, 8, 13). “My” denotes the speaker’s possession of the dark lady. At the same time the words “mistress” and “love” betray no specificity as to whom he is speaking of.

The ridiculous comparisons that the speaker makes of his lady belie the comedic aspect. In poking fun of her appearance, the speaker not only ridicules her, but also portrays her in such a way that she cannot be taken seriously.

It is apparent through the use of such language that Shakespeare’s sonnet 130 is a misogynistic attempt to objectify and take in possession of a woman. Notwithstanding the fact that the sonnet is arguably a parody of the traditional Petrarchan sonnet, the subject matter outweighs the form.

CONCLUSION

In my term paper I was defining the main stylistic role and functions of the parody as an argumentative trope in poetic discourse, the purpose of using it, and its effects on readers and society through investigation of the theoretical material and practical analysis of semantic and stylistic peculiarities of the parody based on verses of Lewis Carroll  and Jonathan Swift’ prose. There are a lot of examples, showing us that parody is very important stylistic device which used as a means to encourage a change in a social, moral, or political process. In the text it may causes some semantic changes:

• apparently meaningless, absurd change.
• change meaningful  for the reader’s world (often satiric)
• change in literal and metaphoric function of words.
• syntactic change ( which may affect the semantic level)
• changes in tense, persons, or other sentence grammatical features.
• changes sociolect, idiolect, or in other elements of the lexicon.

With the help of interpretational-textual, structural-semantic, linguo-cognitive and linguo-semiotic analysis, researches discovered that parody has variety of functions in poetic discourse, for example: inclusionary, oppositional, corrective, self-deprecating, playful, attacking, insulting, trivializing, decorative etc. They all have different way of influence, role and importance.

In terms of conclusion let us remind that parody is an argumentative trope which implies traditional modality of tropic substitution – semantic transfer, and in this respect it could classified as a figure of substitution. But the possibility of ambiguity here, being a permanent factor of change, lies in the simultaneous passing through the connotate channel of two different pragmatic meanings of strong evaluative and emotive colouring. We’d rather define this stereosemantic phenomenon as the splitting of the argumentative meaning into opposite functives being simultaneously realized: a radical transfer of properties of an object is based on both identity and difference associations.