Means of realization of irony

Contents.

 

Introduction____________________________________________________3

Chapter I The notion of irony

                1.1. The etymology of irony_______________________________5

                1.2. The approaches to irony_______________________________9

                1.3. The classification of irony____________________________13

                1.4. The content and the form of irony______________________23

Chapter II Realization of irony in the text

                2.1. The scheme of analysis______________________________28

                2.2. Realization of irony by stylistically neutral means_________29

                2.3. Realization of irony by stylistically colored means_________36

Conclusions___________________________________________________50

Bibliography__________________________________________________52

List of literature________________________________________________54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction.

 

     Among the existing cultural phenomena there are several which being widespread, nevertheless remain mysterious. One of these phenomena is irony. We willingly use it in our speech, we easily notice it in literary texts, but trying to uncover its inner mechanisms, we face difficulties.

     The problem of irony has been worked at by great many linguists, but its topicality is still unquestionable. It is very closely connected with the expression of one’s evaluation, one’s attitude to life and certain people.

     The aim of the given research is to describe and to analyze the means of realization of irony.

     The aim of the research determined the following tasks of the work:

     1) to present the etymology of irony;

     2) to describe various approaches to irony in modern linguistic literature;

     3) to discuss the problem of the classification of irony;

     4) to consider the interaction between the form and the content of irony;

     5) to elaborate the model of analysis of ironic utterances;

     6) to analyze stylistic means of expressing ironical meaning;

     7) to study the form of reproducing the ironical meaning by stylistically neutral means.

     As the methodological basis of the paper served the papers on Stylistics (Moren M.K., Teterevnikova N.N. [1960], Kuznec M.D., Screbnev Y.M. [1960; 1975], Rubailo A.T. [1961], Arnold I.V. [1973; 1981], Galperin I.R. [1977], Malcev V.A. [1980], Potockaya N.P. [1990]); papers on Text Interpretation (Pospelov G.N. [1983], Domashnev A.I., Shishkina I.P., Goncharova E.A. [1989]); papers on Irony (Muecke D.C. [1969], Zaleçki J. [1984], Pohodnya S.I. [1989], Limareva T.F. [1997]).

     The method of linguistic research used in the work is contextual analysis.

     As the material of the research served short stories and novels of English and American writers of the 20^th century. 

     The structure of the work is determined by the tasks set. The work consists of the introduction, two chapters, conclusions, bibliography and the list of literature.

     In the 1^st chapter we present the etymology of irony, the approaches to it, the problem of its classification and the interaction between the content and the form of irony.

     The 2^nd chapter is devoted to the various means of realization of ironical meaning. In this chapter we studied such stylistic means of realization of irony as lexical stylistic devices, syntactical stylistic devices, lexico-syntactical stylistic devices and phonetic stylistic devices. Here we also analyze stylistically neutral means of realization of irony.

     The conclusions present the basic results of our research.

    The bibliography consists of 27 papers of foreign and Russian linguists.

     The list of literature includes 14 literary works of English and American authors of 20^th century.

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter I The notion of irony.

1.1. The Etymology of irony.

   

     Irony is believed to come to English from the Latin “ironia” in 1502, after the Greek “eironeia” (concealed mockery), a conjugation of eiron - to dissemble, such as lying by the omission or concealing of the truth. During the Latin use, the lie by the omission of the truth was dropped from the meaning of the word; ironia is simply lying by concealing the truth (some linguists group these two phenomena under the term “affected ignorance”.) In English, the definition of irony has been expanded to include not only lies, but some jokes of subtlety [3].

     Thus, taking its name from the Greek “eironeia” (dissimulation), irony consists of purporting a meaning of an utterance or a situation that is different, often opposite, to the literal one [6].

     Irony came from a particular figure of speech, which was already known to ancient authors. The ancient Greeks called so a verbal dissimulation, when a person wants to be more foolish than he is. The eiron, a master of irony, was good at proving the truth from the contrary. Plato in one of his dialogues describes how Socrates, pretending to be a like-minded person, said ditto to his opponent and finally developed his views to absurdity [2].

     The "eiron", a character in Greek comedies characteristically spoke in understatement and who deliberately pretended to be leas intelligent than he was, yet who triumphed over the "alazon" - a self-deceiving and stupid braggart.  Since that time the term "irony" has come to denote "a figure of speech" in which what is stated is not what is meant. A typical example of such irony is Mark Antony's funeral oration in which he refers to Brutus and other assassins as "honorable men" while meaning to say that they are dishonorable and not to be trusted [Zaleçki, 1984, 25]. The subsequent monologue uses extensive irony to glorify Caesar; Antony selects words that seem to support the assassins, while his purpose and his effect is to incite the crowd against them [4].

     In Roman epoch, irony was used in public speaking and rhetoric, in which the words used were opposite their meaning or intent [4].

     After Aristotle, from the 5th century B.C. till the 19th century AD, irony was interpreted in poetics as a rhetorical figure, which called things by their counter names. A consistent application of it was used in Lucian’s satires, “Moriae Encomium, sive Stultitiae Laus” by Erasmus, Swift’s works.

     During Classicism irony was understood as an attribute of comic, a device of risorial critique in satire. Irony definitely belonged to low style, at the same time there was such an expression as "irony of fate" – a fatal discrepancy between a person’s plans and what Heavens foretold him. "Irony of fate" corresponded not to a comic collision, but to a tragic one [2].

     Under the influence of Romanticism at the end of the 18 -19th centuries views on irony radically altered. Romanticist raised irony to the level of philosophical position of life, generally identifying it with a reflexion. They put a special emphasis on the fact that irony could generate not only comic but also tragic effect. Romantic irony was framed by Schlegel, the German philosopher. According to him, in irony “everything should be all jest and all seriousness, everything guilelessly open and deeply hidden... It contains and arouses a sense of the indissoluble antagonism between the absolute and the relative, between the impossibility and the necessity of complete communication. It is the freest of all licences, because through it one transcends oneself, but at the same time it is the most prescribed, because it is absolutely necessary.” The point with Schlegel was that irony would give you a divided self, which in turn gives you a multiplicity of perspectives, which is the only way you will unlock the truth of the whole. This romantic (or "philosophical") irony had a great influence on the English Romantic poets [6].

     Instead of the romantic subjective theory a number of objective irony concepts appeared in 20th century. The best-known of them is “epic irony” by Thomas Mann, who insisted that irony was necessary for art, as the widest and the freest from any morality view on reality. 

     For almost 100 years irony has been a subject of investigation interest of psychologists, linguists, logicians, the representatives of such new spheres of humanities, as semiotics (the study of signs and symbols, both individually and grouped into sign systems; includes the study of how meaning is constructed and understood) and theory of communication (the study of communication laws). These sciences helped to discover many secrets. Psychologists, for example, made an attempt to define the degree of conscious and unconscious in a specific risorial reaction to ironical utterance. Logicians established the connection between irony and wit.

     With the advent of semiotics it was studied in detail how irony is “coded” and “decoded” in a text. Theory of communication established the dialogic nature of irony and analyzed the relation between the author, the recipient and the object of ironic utterance. The result of half a century dispute is the belief that for explaining the essence of irony it is very important to draw attention to its sign nature and paradoxicality.

     The data of linguistics, logic and semiotics shows that the meaning of ironical figurativeness is unstable and individual in every case. While the function of irony is always stable – to join the things that cannot be joined [2].

     Thus, having characterized the main historical stages of the notion “irony”, we can observe that the ironical is present at all phases of the history of the European literature. It is important to bear the history of the notion in mind when one attempts to nail down what irony is, as it clears up why the word means specifically things phrased to bury connotation behind denotation. The understanding of the history of irony helps to disclose the modern comprehension of the essence of irony.

1.2. The approaches to irony.

 

     Muecke calls the attempts at a classification of this figure a "desperate adventure". He also adds that in literature on irony we find such a diversity of typology that one is scarcely able to provide a single definition that would cover all of its modes, forasa, functions and techniques [Muecke, 1969, 2].

     The essence of this stylistic device consists in the foregrounding not of the logical but of the evaluative meaning. The context is arranged so that the qualifying word in irony reverses the direction of the evaluation, and the word positively charged is understood as a negative qualification and vice versa.

     Thus, irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says, and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history). Irony may also arise from a discordance between acts and results, especially if it is striking, and known to a later audience. A certain kind of irony may result from the act of pursuing a desired outcome, resulting in the opposite effect, but again, only if this is known to a third party. In this case the aesthetic arises from the realization that an effort is sharply at odds with an outcome, and that in fact the very effort has been its own undoing.

     More generally, irony is understood as an aesthetic evaluation by an audience, which relies on a sharp discordance between the real and the ideal, and which is variously applied to texts, speech, events, acts, and even fashion. All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap, between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens [4].

     Many scholars in the field of Stylistics have approached the concept of irony from different angles. There are two main approaches to irony: some linguists include in the notion of irony two cases – criticism disguised as praise and praise disguised as criticism; other refer to irony only criticism disguised as praise.  

     Professor Galperin is one of the followers of the latter approach.  According to him irony implies only criticism concealed by praise.

    I.R. Galperin believes that irony is a stylistic device also based on the simultaneous realization of two logical meanings – dictionary and contextual, but the two meanings stand in opposition to each other. Thus in the passage, “You seem so sad Eeyore!” - “Sad? Why should I be sad? It’s my birthday, the happiest day of the year”, the word “happiest” acquires a meaning quite the opposite to its primary dictionary meaning [5]. Professor Galperin claims that irony is generally used to convey a negative meaning. Therefore only positive concepts may be used in their logical dictionary meaning. The contextual meaning always conveys the negation of the positive concepts embodied in the dictionary meaning [Galperin, 1977, 148].

     The definition given by V.A. Kukharenko is very close to I.R. Galperin’s one: irony is a stylistic device in which the contextual evaluative meaning of a word is directly opposite to its dictionary meaning [5].

     Professor Nicolina also considers that the only aim of irony is criticism. Nicolina N.A. believes that “irony is understood as a masked light mockery, where the latent meaning is a negation of a literally pronounced phrase” [Николина, 1979, 79].

     Y.M. Skrebnev considers irony to denote a trope based on direct opposition of the meaning to the sense. The semantic essence of irony consists in replacing a denomination by its opposite. Irony is a transfer, a renaming based upon the direct contrast of two notions: the notion named and the notion meant. Y.M. Skrebnev states that “irony is the clash of two diametrically opposite meanings within the same context, which is sustained in oral speech by intonation” [Скребнев, 1994, 129].

     But unlike professor Galperin, professor Skrebnev states that the notion of irony comprises both cases: criticism disguised as praise and praise disguised as criticism. According to him irony is used with the aim of critical evaluation of the thing spoken about. The general scheme of this variety is: “praise stands for blame”. Very seldom do we observe the opposite type: coarse, rude, accusing words used approvingly (“blame stands for praise”). The corresponding term is astheism: Clever bastard! [Скребнев, 1994, 129].

     Irony is a use of words, word-combinations or sentences in the sense, opposite to those directly expressed by them, with the aim to bring critically-evaluative characteristics of the object of speech. So, irony represents a transfer of word meaning, based on the contrasting opposition of the form of the utterance and its content. For example, Dickens, describing subhuman living conditions in workhouses, exclaims:

     What a noble illustration of the tender laws of this favoured country! – they let the paupers go to sleep! (Dickens) [Кузнец, Скребнев, 1960, 35].

     M.K. Moren and N.N. Teterevnikova view ironical word usage in two senses: narrow and broad. First, in a narrow sense, it is a usage of a word, which usually conveys a positive evaluation, for a negative evaluation. Coming into conflict with a situation, a real fact or a context, the word gains a meaning, opposite to its usual meaning. Stylistic efficacy of irony is explained by the clash of the nominative and the contextual meanings of the word, emphasizing their contradictoriness.

     Second, in a broad sense, architecture of a speech is called ironical, when the utterance as a whole, as if denoting positive or neutral attitude of the speaker toward the event, expresses in essence more or less negative valuation. The character of evaluative utterance is clear from the context [Морен, Тетеревникова, 1960, 219].

    Professor Domashnev and professor Shishkina also bind irony with ambiguity: “irony in Stylistics is understood as a trope, which is distinguished by equivocality, where what is told directly is not true, but the opposite is true, the implying sense; the more contradiction between them, the stronger is the effect of irony” [Домашнев, Шишкина, 1989, 91].

     Professor Razinkina distinguishes between two types of ironical meaning: subject-logical and contextual. According to her irony represents a stylistic device, based on the interaction of two types of lexical meaning: subject-logical and contextual.

     … the evidence of what is really a very beautiful theory fails to carry conviction to us. Doubtless our “threshold of sensibility” has gone wrong in some unaccountable way, and we have not enough of the Subject on this side of it, to estimate the pearls at their true worth.

      In this example a number of words (beautiful; has gone wrong; the pearls) realize two opposite meanings, one of which is subject-logical and the other one is contextual: it is obvious that the author of the article doesn’t think that the theory is beautiful, doesn’t think that his own threshold of sensibility has gone wrong and, finally, he doesn’t admit the transcendentalism of the philosophic theory [Разинкина, 1972, 123].

     H.W. Fowler, in Modern English Usage, gives an interesting definition of irony from the point of view of its audience: irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more and of the outsiders’ incomprehension [4].

     In our work we keep to the following definition of irony: irony denotes a trope based on direct opposition of the meaning to the sense. Irony is a transfer, a renaming based upon the direct contrast of two notions: the notion named and the notion meant.

     Thus, some linguists refer to the notion of irony only criticism disguised as praise, other include in the notion of irony both criticism disguised as praise and praise disguised as criticism. All linguists believe that irony is generally used to convey a negative meaning. Irony is also usually comprehended as a usage of words, word-combinations or sentences in the sense, opposite to those directly expressed by them.

1.3. The classification of irony.

 

    D. Muecke, whose Compass of Irony seems to be the most exhaustive study on the literary use of irony, confesses that “getting to gripe with irony seems to have something in common with gathering the mist” [Muecke, 1969, 3].

     The literary critics speak of such “kinds” of irony as tragic irony, cosmic irony, practical irony, dramatic irony, verbal irony, rhetorical irony, sentimental irony, irony of fate, irony of chance, irony of character, etc. Scholars distinguish between the irony of Ariosto and Molière, Hardy and Proust. The Socratic irony has become a class of its own, so also has Romantic irony. Drama has its own set of classifications including such types as dramatized irony, self-disparaging irony, invective and sarcasm [Muecke, 1969, 99].

     Socratic irony is feigning ignorance in order to expose the weakness of another’s position.

Socratic irony involves a profession of ignorance that disguises a skeptical, non-committed attitude towards some dogma or universal opinion that lacks a basis in reason or in logic. Socrates’ “innocent” inquiries expose step by step the vanity or illogicality of the proposition by unsettling the assumptions of his dialogue partner by questioning or simply not sharing his basic assumptions. Many have interpreted Socrates as not feigning ignorance so much as expressing a form of philosophical skepticism.

     Television journalist Louis Theroux demonstrated expert use of Socratic irony to his audience, by interviewing a number of diverse individuals with an air of relaxed naïveté and appreciative curiosity. This has led to his subjects becoming less guarded and more open in answering questions than they would have been in a more adversarial dialogue, while more often than not also granting Theroux subtle control of the interview.

     Shakespeare imitated Roman irony in his play “Julius Caesar” in Mark Antony’s speech: “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears! I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him” [4].

     Metafiction (or “romantic irony” in the sense of roman the prose fiction) is a kind of fiction which self-consciously addresses the devices of fiction. It usually involves irony and is self-reflective. It refers to the effect when a story is interrupted to remind the audience or reader that it is really only a story. Examples include Henry Fielding’s interruptions of the storyline to comment on what has happened, or J.M. Barrie’s similar interjections in his book, Peter Pan. A similar example occurs in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy novel where the narrator reveals in advance “in the interest of reducing stress” that nobody will get hurt by a pair of incoming nuclear warheads, but that he will leave some suspense by stating that he would not reveal whose upper arm would get bruised in the process. The irony is that no suspense is caused due to the fact that only one character in the story has an upper arm. A notable attempt to sustain metafiction throughout a whole novel is Christie Malry's Own Double Entry by B.S. Johnson, in which we are frequently reminded that none of the characters are real and exist only within the author's imagination [4].

     The OED makes the basic distinction of irony into verbal irony and situational irony. The verbal irony is a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used.  The situational irony is a condition of affairs or events of a character opposite to what was or might naturally be expected: a contradictory outcome of events as if mockery of the promise and fitness of things. Muecke quotes an interesting example of situational irony believed to have been cited by Aristotle. It was ironic that the statue of Mitys at Argos killed the very man who had murdered Mitys, by falling upon him as he was surveying it [Zaleçki, 1984, 27].

     One classic example of verbal irony is a speaker saying, “What lovely weather we are having!” as she looks out at a rainstorm intending to express her dissatisfaction with the weather. However, there are examples of verbal irony that do not rely on saying the opposite of what one means, and there are cases where all the traditional criteria of irony exist and the utterance is not ironic.

     Verbal irony is distinguished from related phenomena such as situational irony and dramatic irony in that it is produced intentionally by speakers. This distinction gets at an important aspect of verbal irony: speakers communicate implied propositions that are intentionally contradictory to the propositions contained in the words themselves.

     Situational irony occurs when the results of a situation are far different from what was expected. This results in a feeling of surprise and unfairness due to the odd situation.

     Examples:

     - A situation immortalized in O. Henry's story “The Gift of the Magi”, in which a young couple is too poor to buy each other Christmas gifts. The man finally pawns his heirloom pocket watch to buy his wife a set of combs for her long, prized, beautiful hair. She, meantime, cuts her hair to sell to a wigmaker for money to buy her husband a watch-chain. The irony is twofold: the couple, having parted with their tangible valuables, is caused by the act to discover the richness of the intangible.

     - A man goes over a giant waterfall e.g. Niagara Falls in a barrel and survives, only to take a cleanup shower where he slips on the soap and dies from trauma and drowning.

     - An ambulance runs over someone [4].

     Some linguists refer to situational irony also irony of fate, or cosmic irony.

The expression “irony of fate” stems from the notion that the gods (or the Fates) are amusing themselves by toying with the minds of mortals, with deliberate ironic intent. Closely connected with cosmic irony, it arises from sharp contrasts between reality and human ideals, or between human intentions and actual results. Minor examples are daily life situations such as the rain that sets in immediately after one finishes watering one’s garden, following many days of putting off watering in anticipation of rain. Sharper examples can include situations in which the consequences are more dramatic.

     For example:

     - Years before his death, at the age of 23, basketball star "Pistol" Pete Maravich told a Pennsylvania reporter, "I don't want to play 10 years in the NBA and then die of a heart attack when I'm 40." In 1988 he collapsed and died of a heart attack at age 40, after playing 10 NBA seasons.

     - In fiction a typical use of irony of fate occurs in the climax of Disney’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

     Frollo, the villain, stands upon a gargoyle. He raises his sword to strike Esmeralda, and says, “And He shall smite the wicked and plunge them into the fiery pit!” At that moment, the gargoyle breaks off, sending Frollo falling to his death into the courtyard, filled with molten lead that Quasimodo had spilled to stop the oncoming guards. The irony is that Frollo’s line is used in reference to Esmeralda, but instead it winds up applying to Frollo himself as he plunges into the fiery pit of molten lead.

     Cosmic irony through time is also called historical irony. When history is seen through modern eyes, it sometimes happens that there is an especially sharp contrast between the way historical figures see their world and the probable future of their world, and what actually transpired. When the World War which began the 20^th century was called The War to End All Wars, this later became an example of historical irony. Historical irony is therefore a subset of cosmic irony, but one in which the element of time is bound up. Examples:

     Contrasting statements were made at the dawn of computers, which were initially thought to be devices never capable of use outside a government or academic setting.

     Historical irony is often encapsulated into statement:

     "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." Nearly the last words of American Civil War General John Sedgwick. 

     In response to Mrs. Connally's comment, "Mr. President, you can't say that Dallas doesn't love you." John F. Kennedy uttered his last words, "That's very obvious" [4].

     If this kind of situational irony or irony of fate becomes an axis of a plot in a drama it is called dramatic irony [Zaleçki, 1984, 27].

     Dramatic irony is also called tragic irony.

     In tragedy, what is called "tragic irony" becomes a device for heightening the intensity of a dramatic situation. Tragic irony particularly characterized the drama of ancient Greece, owing to the familiarity of the spectators with the legends on which so many of the plays were based. In this form of irony, the words and actions of the characters belie the real situation, which the spectators fully realize. It may take several forms: the character speaking may realize the irony of his words while the rest of the characters may not; or he or she may be unconscious while the other actors share the knowledge with the spectators; or the spectators may alone realize the irony. Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex provides a classic example of tragic irony at its fullest and finest.

     Another famous case of tragic irony occurs in the William Shakespeare’s play, “Romeo and Juliet” when Romeo finds Juliet in a drugged death-like sleep; he assumes her to be dead and kills himself. Upon awakening to find her dead lover beside her, Juliet kills herself with his knife. Also the play “Richard III” is full of dramatic irony, many of the lines Richard says are the complete antithesis of what he and the audience know he is thinking.

     They also distinguish comic irony. Layers of comic irony pervade (as an example) Jane Austen’s novels. The first sentence of “Pride and Prejudice” famously opens with a nearly mathematical postulate. “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.” The scene that follows immediately betrays the proposal. “No, a rich young man moving into the neighborhood did not come to seek a wife.” In fact, it soon becomes clear that Austen means the opposite: women (or their mothers) are always in search of, and desperately on the lookout for, a rich single man to make a husband. The irony deepens as the story promotes his romance and ends in a double wedding.

     Comic irony from television sketch-comedy has the distinction over literary comic irony in that it often incorporates elements of absurdity [4].

     Pospelov G.N. suggests distinguishing between irony as a philosophical category of romantic aesthetics and irony as a trope [Поспелов, 1983, 183].

     According to Y.M. Screbnev there are at least two kinds of irony.

     The first represents utterances the ironical sense of which is evident to any native speaker-utterances that can have only an ironical message; no one would ever take them at their face value. The peculiar word-order and stereotyped words make up set phrases implying just the opposite of what they seem to manifest. By some authors this kind of irony is called antiphrasis.

     A few examples: That’s a pretty kettle of fish! A fine friend you are!

     The reader will agree that the utterances adduced can only be used in an unfavourable (never in a favourable) sense.

     To the second variety we can refer the overwhelming majority of utterances which can be understood either literally, or ironically, especially when we deal with written texts. Thus we cannot say if the speaker is serious or ironical when he says:

    But of course we know, his a rich man, a millionaire [Скребнев, 1975, 116].

     Y.V. Ryibnikova states that in modern linguistics it is the most common to distinguish between two types of irony – irony as a stylistic device and irony as a textual category. In researchers’ works they are called differently.

S.I. Pohodnya calls them situational and associative irony [1].

      Josef Zaleçki, making a work of the classification problem, formed the opinion that if situational irony can be introduced by the phrase "It is ironic that ... ", verbal irony requires an introductory paraphrase in the form "He is being ironic when he says that ..." [Zaleçki, 1984, 27]. This distinction helps D. Muecke to find a principle of irony typology.

     D. Muecke distinguishes in irony three modes and four grades. The modes or ways of being ironical, range from overt irony through covert irony to private irony, the difference between them being in the amount of evidence the reader or listener is provided within the utterance itself or in the context that gives him a hint at detecting the discrepancy between the literal and intended meaning of the speaker.

     The other typology is lodged within the ironist's attitude towards his ironical utterance and it may range from purely impersonal, objective statement, through self-disparaging irony and ingénue irony to dramatized irony in which the ironist's engagement into the ironic situation comes last on the scale of commitment .

     In most types of verbal irony distinguished by literary criticism one can point out the following formal elements:

     - double-levelledness,

     - opposition,

     - correctiveness/victimizing over the target of irony.

     Irony is a double-layered or two-storey phenomenon: at the lower level there is the situation as it appears to the “victim” of irony, or as it is deceptively presented by the ironist; at the upper level it is the situation as it appears to the observer or the ironist, generally, to the intelligent listener who is in the know of the intended meaning.

    In irony there is always some kind of opposition between the two levels. It is not necessary for irony to be marked with a direct apposition. Many ironic uses are signalled through subtle or implied or presupposed incompatibilities that occur on the line between what is said and what is ostensibly the case.

     There is also in irony an element of "victimizing" over the victim who is confidently unaware of the very possibility of there being an upper level or point of view [Muecke, 1969, 19-20].

     Irony can also be broken up into types according to the volume of context thus employed.

     The classification of context is the following:

     - microcontext – within the sentence;

     - macrocontext – within the paragraph;

     - megacontext (thematic context) – out of the paragraph [Колшанский, 1980, 47].

     According to the volume of context irony can be divided into following types:

     - situational irony,

     - associative irony,

     - global ironical implication.

     Situational irony is an evident emotionally colored type of irony; this is irony, which is immediately realized. The contrast between situational context and direct meaning of the word, phrase (sentence) immediately generate the meaning, opposite to the direct one. This type of irony is realized in microcontexts and more often in macrocontexts. It is realized by means of lexical level (a word, a phrase), and also syntactical level (detached syntactical constructions, transposition of syntactical structures). By means of these two levels a relatively simple context with a double structure: the presentation of the situation (by a part of sentence, paragraph) and commentary, its evaluation by the author or a character. Both elements of the structure are always situated in contact. Situational irony is used to create bright details, momentary sketches in the system of fiction. Most often it is used in dialogues. As a rule this type of irony depends on linear context, which rarely exceeds the limits of a paragraph [Походня, 1989, 62-63].

     Assoсiative irony is a concealed delicate type of irony, figurative meaning in this case is realized insensibly, and new meanings appear gradually. Gradual augment of new meanings needs large contexts, that’s why most often associative irony is realized in megacontexts (within several supraphrasal units, the whole story, novel and so on). When associative irony takes place we deal with structurally complicated contexts with contact and distant disposition of important elements. Using the means of different linguistic levels (from lexical to textual), functioning during the development of the whole text, associative irony serves as an efficient method of creating fiction characters, expressing the author’s characterization of personages and his own outlook [Походня, 1989, 62-63].

     We speak about global ironical implication, when the whole literary work is ironical. In this case the artist has an inner aim to bring everything into challenge or negation. Being not bound by any final “truth”, the author easily passes from one opinion to another, underlining relativity and limitation of all “rules” established by man [Кожевникова, Николаева, 1987, 132].

     According to the object of irony direction, it is possible to distinguish three types of it:

     - irony, directed at the person (including speaker, addressee and third person);

     - irony, directed at the object or the phenomenon;

     - irony, directed at the event or the situation.

     According to the direction of influence, irony can be divided into:

     - irony of the author (author     reader; author       character);

     - irony between the communicants (character   another character; character       himself; character       third person).

     Irony can also be subdivided into two types, according to the possibility of perception of literal meaning of the utterance: in language ironical utterance can not be interpreted differently, in speech interpretation of both literal and ironical meaning of the utterance is admissible.

     So, in our work we distinguish between the situational irony and the associative irony. We didn’t take into consideration global ironical implication, as we didn’t analyze literary works as a whole. We also held the classification of irony according to the direction of influence, which divides irony into two types: irony of the author and irony between the communicants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.4 The content and the form of irony

 

     The basic mechanism of creation the ironical meaning – is inconsistency between the form and the content of the utterance. The content of the ironical meaning may be the following:

     - criticism disguised by praise;

     - conflict between the ideal and the real.

     Irony can be realized either by stylistic means or stylistically neutral means. In both cases ironical utterance possesses a specific intonation [Охримович, 2004, 5].

     When we deal with stylistically neutral means of realization of irony, it is realized whether by intonation or by the context or situation.

     H. Paul Grice claims with regard to ironical intonation, “I am doubtful whether the ironical tone exists as a specific tone: I suspect that an ironical tone is always contemptuous, or an amused tone, or some other one connected with one or more particular feelings or attitudes; what qualifies such a tone as ironical is that it appears on this and other occasions, when an ironical remark is made… If speaking ironically has to be, or at least to appear to be the expression of a certain sort of feeling or attitude, then a tone suitable to such a feeling or attitude seems to be mandatory, at any rate for the least sophisticated examples” [Grice, 1979, 124-125].

     Concerning ironical context professor Skrebnev indicates that sometimes irony is not pointed out at all: its presence in the text is deduced only by reasoning. The reader cannot possibly believe that the author can be praising the object of speech in earnest. Sometimes the whole of the narrative is ironical as in the case with William Thackeray’s “Vanity Fair” [Скребнев, 1994, 130].

     Y.M. Skrebnev points out that in writing irony more often expressed by general situation which makes the reader guess the real view-point of the writer [Скребнев, 1994, 129].

     Irony can also be realized by stylistically colored means; the most typical signs of irony are graphical stylistic devices: inverted commas or italics.

     When quoting is used for separate words and phrases inverted commas point out at the re-comprehension and at the fact that the word is used in the meaning which it gains in the described milieu or in the meaning which is typical for the speech or the ideology of the character. Such a harshly ironical effect of inverted commas may be intensified by the distortion of orthography. For example:

     And then they had luv. They “luved” each other. Luv was enough, luv covered a multitude of ignorances, luv would provide, luv would strew their path with roses and primroses [Арнольд, 1973, 20].

     Dickens, writing of the Old Bailey, the main criminal court of London, as it was in 1780, says:

     It was famous for the pillory, a wise old institution, that inflicted a punishment of which no one could foresee the extent; also, for the whipping-post, another dear old institution, very humanising and softening to behold in action; also for extensive transaction in blood-money, another fragment of ancestral wisdom, systematically leading to the most frightful mercenary crimes that could be committed under heaven.

     The italicized words are used ironically in this extract [Мальцев, 1980, 17].

     Some linguists consider irony as a subjective factor of changing a word meaning and it is illustrated by separate examples. Changing a meaning, in this case, is a result of a definite stylistic evaluative device.

     Word-formation stylistic devices:

     There are several evaluative suffixes, which give an ironic sound to a word. Sometimes a suffix and a root (base) meaning of a word are interconditional. For example (from the French language):

     barbouilleur (a vapid painter)

     écrivailleur (a scribbler)

     flicaille (an espionage gang)

     musiquer (to play badly (about music)

     Adding the suffix -ish to nominal bases (in the English language) forms adjectives with negative modality: bookish, childish, doggish, goatish, sheepish, womanish. The negative appraisal is strengthened if the suffix -ish is added to compound bases such as stand-offish, come-hitherish, honey-moonish.

    The most important nominal suffixes of negative evaluation are: -ard, -ster,

-aster, -eer and a semiaffix -monger: drunkard, coward, gangster, hipster, oldster, poetster, profiteer, black-marketeer, scare-monger, war-monger, panic-monger [Арнольд, 1981, 117].

     The diminutive suffix forms words with indication to the small size and simultaneously endearment, sounding humorously and disdainfully ones: -kin (lambkin), -let (chicklet, starlet) -ling (weakling), -y (daddy), -ie (lassie, oldie) [Арнольд, 1981, 119].

     The formation with a prefix may serve to express irony in the context: Elle était mariée, démarie comme toutes les jeunes filles d'aujour-d'hui. (She married, divorced and married again (remarried) like all of modern young ladies). The verb "démarier" is not registered by lexicography.

     Changing the meaning of a word by narrowing may be used as an author's stylistic neologism to reproduce irony. Ironic re-comprehension of a word is realized in the context:

     Qu'aillé au diable avec sa serenade; ce n'est qu'une aubade (Let him go to the devil with his serenade; it's just a hooting).

     Sometimes irony is expressed by an unusual combination of words or a phrase:

     II n'as pas un sou ce Cresus de nos jours (He is penniless, Cresus of our days).

     Irony is expressed by the discrepancy between the phraseologism's meaning and the proper name Cresus [Потоцкая, 1990, 204-205].

     Formally irony may be expressed by any trope. So any word, any locution may take ironic characteristics. For example, the epithet “formidable” used to describe the lines of soldiers going to a battle or a fighting ship, sounds differently than when it is used as an epithet, describing an appearance of a fighting chicken [Рубайло, 1961, 52-53].

     N.P. Pototzkaja points out the following syntactical devices' forms of realization of irony:

     Antithesis - contrast, which is based on contradiction. Antithesis is comparison of opposite phenomena in sense and meaning or contrary to the degree of one and the same action, condition, qualities or property [Рубайло, 1961, 63]. For Example:

     II travaillait d'arrache-pied, tout en faisant la grasse matinée et en se baladant dans les rues de Paris toute la sainte journée (He was working tooth and nail, sleeping long in morning and hanging about the Paris streets for days).

     Hyperbole - a figurative expression, in which the real size, quality and condition of the described phenomenon are exaggerated [Рубайло, 1961, 73].