Nghiên cứu phương diện ngữ dụng học của lời nói mỉa mai bằng tiếng anh trong sự liên hệ với tương đương tiếng việt

TABLE OF CONTENTS Certificate of originality ………………………………………………… i Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………… ii Abstract ………………………………………………………………… iii List of tables and figures ………………………………………………….iv Definition of key technical terms ………………………………………….v Chapter 1:INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale for the research 1.2 Aims of the research 1.3 Objectives of the research 1.4 Scope of the research 1.5 Significance of the research 1.6 Structural organization of the thesis Chapter 2: LITERATUREREVIEW 11 2.1 Review of previous studies 11 2.2 Review of theoretical background 14 2.3 Types of Irony 23 2.4 Summary 31 Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY 32 3.1 Research-governing orientations 32 3.2 Research methods 33 3.2.1 Major methods and supporting methods 33 3.2.2 Data collection techniques 34 3.2.3 Data analysis techniques 34 3.3 Summary 35 Chapter 4:FINDING AND DISCUSSION 37 4.1 Pragmatic functions of irony in English 37 4.2 The similarities and differences between English irony and Vietnamese equivalents in terms of pragmatic functions 44 4.2.1 Similarities 45 4.2.2 Differences 50 4.3 Suggesting some possible implications for teaching and learning English irony 55 4.4 Summary 64 5.1 Recapitulation 66 5.2 Concluding remarks 66 5.3 Limitation of the research 67 5.4 Suggestions for further research 67 REFERENCES 70 APPENDICES 77 Chapter INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale for the research Of late, the study of pragmatics has attracted the attention of scholars who focus on language use and linguistic behavior Hence, pragmatics is defined as the study of actual utterance; the study of use rather than meaning; the study of that part of meaning which is not purely truthconditional; the study of performance rather than competence; the study of the intended meaning of speech acts; the study of the speaker's meaning (Lyons, 1977:171; Levinson,1983:32; Yule, 1996:3) Irony has gained an important role in all branches of linguistics in the last decades, though its roots can be traced back to Aristotelian times, when it had a quite negative meaning (Gibbs and Izett, 1994, Sperber and Wilson, 1995: 240) As irony meaning evolved throughout an extended period of time, it has gained different meanings which lead to a certain controversy regarding the actual idea of what irony is Thus, on the one hand, its meaning has lost the negative effect of the classical philosophers on people and achieved another - “saying contrary of what one means” (Muecke, 1980 in Pishbin, 2010:3), indicating that the utterance, if taken literally, is inappropriate to the situation and, therefore, the recipient is compelled to reinterpret it in such a way as to render it appropriate; therefore, the most appropriate way “to interpret it is meaning the opposite of its literal form” (Searle, 1979: 113 in Hutcheon, 1995: 62) Thus, speech act theorists such as Searle (1979) considered that what people called “ironic” was somehow related to the logical contradiction to what was said or to the literal meaning (Hutcheon, 1995: 62) On the other hand, there are theorists such as Hutcheon (1995) and Levinson (1983), who claim that irony is something more than a mere relationship between the said and the unsaid; irony conveys an attitude or a feeling from both the interpreter and the ironist (Hutcheon, 1995: 37- 39) and it may be perceived as a perlocutionary act (in Hutcheon, 1995: 39), introduced by Austin (1975 101) This means that the ironic utterance “brings about certain consequential effects upon the feelings, thoughts, or actions of the audience, or of the speaker, or of other persons” (Levinson, 1983: 236) Thus, irony can be viewed as the expressive tool that the ironist uses in certain situations, which might be perceived either negatively or positively by the interpreter Therefore, irony is not easily definable and its features and classification vary from one author to another For instance, while some linguists (Muecke, 1980; Booth, 1975) consider that irony is not equally understood by all people, who have a choice to accept it or not, or there might be also dangers in earnestness, “in not having a sense of irony” (Muecke, 1969: 245 in Hutcheon, 1995: 44), others, such as Gibbs (1991: 523- 530) and Stanel (2006), assure that nearly everybody is capable of irony understanding, even though sometimes this understanding is unconscious or it completely rests in the interpreter (Hutcheon, 1995: 45) Overall, there are many situations in which irony is not easily perceived, due to the context (Smith, 1989: 73) in Hutcheon (1995: 143), and/or the intentions of the ironist (Grice, 1975; Austin 1975, Searle, 1983) and this may cause problems of misunderstanding between participants in both spoken and written registers Based on the aforementioned definitions and previous studies which have dealt with irony from communicative viewpoint, one of the main assets of pragmatics, there is still a lack of important concerns that are used through irony to convey pragmatic intents such as: the focus on the speaker (the ironist) more than the receiver, and the pragmatic ostensibility of irony As a result, irony, a widely employed figure of speech used in both daily communication and literature, is used differently in English and Vietnamese From a contrastive analysis view, also as a language learner and a teacher-to -be of English, I find out some similarities and differences about pragmatic perspective of irony in English with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents with the hope of enhancing the effect of teaching, learning English or Vietnamese as well as translating literary works 1.2 Aims of the research This research is conducted to aim at pointing out pragmatic functions of irony in English, showing the similarities of differences between English irony and Vietnamese equivalents in terms of pragmatic functions and suggesting some possible implications for teaching the English irony in terms of pragmatic function 1.3 Objectives of the research To achieve the above aims, the three specific objectives have been put forward as follows: (i) Finding out pragmatic functions of irony in English (ii) Showing the similarities of differences between English irony and Vietnamese equivalents in terms of pragmatic functions (iii) Suggesting some possible implications for teaching the English irony in terms of pragmatic function to the Vietnamese learners of English at Dan Phuong high school 1.4 Scope of the research This study is limited to investigating irony in terms of pragmatic theories, i.e., speech act theory, implicature, relevance theory, and verbal theory Through the study, it would like to focus on the pragmatic functions of irony in English and Vietnamese It seeks its aims in the ironic situations in the novel, story, poem, proverb and literal works in general Especially, we will examine the pragmatic functions of irony in English and Vietnamese to find out the similar and different features Speeches are taken from different literal words Belonging to the English and Vietnamese They have been found representative to what is required by the data of the work We show some examples from the poems of Xuan Huong, Nguyen Khuyen, Vu Trong Phung…….and many other writers to make the function of irony more clearly 1.5 Significance of the research In the last decades, the study of irony has played an important role in linguistics, and especially in pragmatics, with focus on the analysis of the purposes and intentions of irony use in both written and oral texts, as well as its identification by the addressees (Muecke, 1980; Barbe, 1995; Stanel, 2006) On the one hand, Muecke‘s (1980: 64 -> 92) study on irony is the first of these and his classification of irony into verbal, dramatic and situational marked a starting point for other contemporary linguists, such as Littman and Mey (1991: 131 -> 151) or Kreuz and Glucksberg (1989: 374 > 386), who provide a more detailed taxonomy of irony usage On the other hand, Barbe (1995: 18 -> 24) highlights the importance of more pragmatic issues of irony such as the meaning, speaker purpose and addressees, whom she denominates victims Other pragmatic approaches on irony have been done by Grice (1975: -> 113) and Lapp (1992) in Stanel (2006: 33 -> 34), where irony is perceived as a substitute of conversational implicature and as a simulation of insincerity, respectively Similarly, Clyne (1974) and Löffler (1975) in Stanel (2006: 40 -> 44) explain several semantic signals of irony, such as the usage of rhetorical questions and polysemy, which might help in the process of irony identification in both written and oral contexts A more general overview of the irony markers is presented by Hutcheon (1995: 156), who argues that irony markers not signal irony by themselves, but their function in context suggests that words/sentences might be ironic Therefore, the five categories of signals that function structurally are: various changes of register, exaggeration, contradiction, simplification and repetition Moreover, This thesis also help learner and teacher use irony more effectively in teaching and learning situations Helping learner avoids misunderstanding when teacher compliments or disparages This thesis also help scholars supplement their theory about irony to make them have more data about irony to study and complete their theories 1.6 Structural organization of the thesis This dissertation consists of five chapters: Chapter one is the introduction to the study, concern detail about rationale, aims, objects, scope, significance and structural organization of the thesis Chapter two concerns the literature of the thesis: This section is concerned with reviewing the literature related to irony It provides a theoretical background of irony as a concept in general, and then demonstrates its pragmatic utilization in particular The pragmatic theories and domains within which irony is included are summarized It also investigates some details defining irony and concentrating on verbal irony which is involved in the current study Chapter three deals with the practical side in this thesis, namely: data collection, description and analysis However, it is worth mentioning the methodology of the analysis Then, there will be some selected examples from the data to be analyzed and selected examples for pragmatic functions of irony analysis Chapter four is finding and discussion, this section concerns the result of the thesis, concern the similarities and differences of irony between English and Vietnamese Finding out the implications for teaching English irony also put in this chapter Chapter five, the conclusion, views major recapitulation, concluding remarks, limitation of the research, the deployment of pragmatics and irony perspective in English, and suggestions for further study 10 Chapter Conclusion 5.1 Recapitulation Irony is one of language tools for people to express their attitude in communication with others Irony can be used to make people laugh But, it can also make people cry So, it’s actually not easy to use this device in daily communication In literature, it is more and more difficult to employ irony efficiently Unsurprisingly, understanding irony’s functions, especially in English literal works, is also a challenge for readers In addition, it’s necessary for us to have knowledge of cultures when learning languages To conclude, I hope that this paper can help learners recognize various functions of irony in two languages and also find it more interesting to use and learn about irony in literal works and daily communication Besides, it may help translators in translating English and Vietnamese when they can master pragmatic functions of irony Moreover, I may also suggest that this paper offer an interesting topic for further researches about irony 5.2 Concluding remarks The study attempts to investigate any aspects around irony, the possibility of understanding irony from the literature, and explicating the gradualness of the ironic insincerity where no enough contextual clues exist To achieve such aims, a model is developed for the analysis of irony in some daily conversations situations of the literature The findings of the analysis verify the similarities and differences pragmatic function of irony, ironic insincerity of the speaker, and irony is an ostensible speech act On 66 the contrary, it rejects the hypothesis of not conveying irony where no enough contextual cues exist 5.3 Limitation of the research Because of limiting time so this thesis can not mention all the aspects of the pragmatic of irony, this only focus on the main elements This study has been limited to an evaluative review of pragmatic studies of irony to date, and has sought only to draw conclusions from modern research in an attempt to advise future studies of which pragmatic approaches to adopt in the future It has been shown that traditional pragmatics is an unsuitable method of approach, matching neither the many varied uses of irony If these two approaches to the pragmatics of figurative language can be merged then a lengthy gap in regards to the pragmatics of irony will have been bridged Under such a framework a specific treatment of irony could be presented via an Echoic Mention approach The creation of an alternative irony framework which adopts the elements of social relations identified in these theories and applies them to the speech goals 5.4 Suggestions for further research To conclude, and briefly restate the main argument of this thesis, future pragmatic studies should adopt a Relevance Theoretic approach to irony which examines the interpretation of irony using Echoic Mention Theory under the two-stage model suggested by the Graded Salience Hypothesis Additionally pragmatic studies of politeness should look to include speaker strategies such as those identified in Chapter If these 67 features can be established in the pragmatics of irony then the field will be a step closer to being able to explain the full ironic process Future pragmatic studies of irony can use the view of irony presented above to focus on several areas which need further clarification Some of these areas regard the testing of the theories judged to be most accurate in this study, for instance a non-cognitive investigation of Relevance Theory via White’s proposals, and a more thorough investigation of what makes an ironic utterance conventional/non-conventional so that the Graded Salience Hypothesis can be more thoroughly tested The pragmatic study of irony will benefit from evidence sourced from a variety of areas, such as cognitive science, observational studies of everyday discourse, and even from seemingly unrelated disciplines such as information science (as shown by White 2007; 2009) Moreover, further research is needed into some other relevant aspects that were not taken into account in the present study It may be suggested that a comparison between American and British sociocultural communities could be made regarding the manners of expression of irony and sarcasm by the members of each, together with the references to social stereotypes in stand-up comedies As noted previously, this could not be achieved in the present study because of the small number of British persons participating as informants Finally, an additional piece of research that could be undertaken is an interlanguage study aiming at the analysis and assessment of the ESL students’ ability, at different levels of proficiency, to interpret the expression of humour by native speakers of the target language This 68 ability may be further compared with the ESL learners’ ability to interpret humorous discourse in their own native language or, alternatively, with the ability of native speakers of English 69 REFERENCES Abrams, M H (1999), A Glossary of Literary Terms (7th Ed) Massachusetts: Heinle and Heinle Ajtony Z (2010), "Humour and Verbal Irony in G B Show's John Bull's Other Island", Philologica, 2: 246 – 258 Anderson, Sherwood (1919) Strength of God Retrieved December 12,2010 Attardo S (2000a), "Irony as relevant inappropriateness" Journal of Pragmatics 6, 32: 793–826 Attardo S (2007), "On the Pragmatic Nature of Irony and Its Rhetorical Aspects" Journal of Pragmatics 4, 32: 139 – 190 Bacolni*, M., & Amenta, S (2008) The Open Applied Linguistics Journal Isn’t it Ironic? An Analysis on the Elaboration of Ironic Sentences with ERPs 1: 9-17 Barbe K (1993), Irony in Context Amsterdam: John Benjamins Bollobas, E (1981), "Who Is Afraid of Irony? An Analysis of Uncooperative Behavior in Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", Journal of Pragmatics, 5: 323 – 334 Brown P and Levinson, S (1987), Universals in Language Use: Politeness Phenomena, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 70 Clark H and Gerrig J (1984), " On The Pretence Theory of Irony ", In Colston H, and Gibbs R (eds.), Irony in Language and Thought York: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC Clark, H and Issac, E (1990), "Ostensible invitations" Language and Society, 19: 493 – 509 Colston H and Gibbs R (2007), "A Brief History of Irony ", Irony in Language and Thought, United States of America: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC Cruse A (2006), A glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Cuddon J (1999), The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory, London: Penguin Books Culter, A (1974) Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chigaco Linguistic Society On Saying What You Mean Without Meaning What You Say, 10, 117-127 Culter A (1996), "On Saying What You Mean with Meaning What You Say" Chicago Linguistic Society, 18: 117 – 127 Dews S and Winner E (2011), "Obligatory Processing of Literal and Nonliterak Meaing in Verbal Irony" Journal of Pragmatics, 43: 1579 – 1599 Dicken C (1907) David Coperfield Everyman’s Library Dicken C (1996) Hard Time W.W Nortan & Company Inc 71 Dicken C (1907) Oliver Twist Everyman’s Library Đinh Trong Lac (1999) Phong cach hoc Tieng Viet Nxb Giao dục Fakhry B (2009), "Irony in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice" Unpublished MA Thesis University of Baghdad Fowler H (1965) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Oxford: Oxford University Press Galperin,I.R (1971) Stylistics Higher School Publishing House Moscow Giora, R (1995) On Irony and Negation Discourse Processes19: 239-264 Gibbs R (1994), “Making Sense of Tropes” In Metaphor and Thought (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Gibbs R (2008), "Introspection and Cognitive Linguistics: Should We Trust Intuition?" Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4: 135 – 152 Gibbs R and Colston H (2001) "The Risks and Rewards of Ironic Communication" Say not to Say: New Perspectives on Communication, 8: 188 – 201 Giora R Zaidel E Soroker N and Kasher A (2005) "Differential Effects of the Right and Left Hemisphere Damage on Understanding Sarcasm and Metaphore" Metaphor and Symbol, 15: 20 – 85 Grice P (1975) "Logic and Conversation" In Cole P and Morgan, J (eds.): Syntax and Semantics Vol III: Speech Acts New York: Academic Press 72 Grice P (1978) "Further Notes on Logic and Conversation" In Cole and Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol New York: Academic Press Happe F (1993) "Communicative Competence and Theory of Mind Autism: A Test of Relevance Thoey" Cognition, 48: 101 -119 Harris M and Pexman P (2003) "Children's Perceptions of Social Functions of Verbal Irony" Discourse Processes, 36: 147 – 165 Hartung M (2011) Ironie in der Alltagssparche, Opladen: Westdeatscher Press Hicks W (2007) English for Journalists (3rd ed.), London: Routlege Hutcheon L (1995) Irony's Edge: The Theory of Politics and Irony, New York: Routledge Kaufer D S (1981), "Understanding Ironic Communication" Journal of Pragmatics, 5: 495-509 Kumo-Nakamura S (1995), "The Allusion Pretence Theory of Irony" Journal of Pragmatics 1, 32: 20 -46 Leech, G and Short, M (1981) Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose London: Longman Group Ltd Levinson S (1983) Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lyons J (1977), Semantics Vol I & II Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Muecke D (1978) Irony, London: Methuen and Co Ltd 73 Nguyen Cu (2002) Giải nghĩa tục ngữ Việt Nam Hanoi: Nxb Giao Duc Nguyen Cong Hoan (2000) Buoc đuong cung Dongnai: Nxb Dong Nai Nhieu tac gia (1998) Van xuoi lang man Viet Nam 1930-1945 Hanoi: Nxb Khoa học Xa hoi Qadir J (2006), A Pragmatic Analysis of Irony in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver's Travels Baghdad: Al-Mustansiriah University Unpublished M.A Thesis Reyes A Rosso P and Buscaldi D (2006), "From Humour Recognition to Irony Detection: The Figrutive Langauge of Social Media" Data and Knowledge Engineering, 74: – 12 Searle J (1991) ''Metaphor" In Steven, D (ed.) Pragmatics: A Reader, 519 – 539 Oxford: Oxford University Press Searle J (1993) "Metaphor" In Metaphor and Thought (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge Sperber D and Wilson D (1981) "Irony and the Use – Mention Distinction" Radical Pragmatics, 36: 295 – 318 Sperber D and Wilson D (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition Oxford: Basil Blackwell Sperber D and Wilson D (1992) “Rhetoric and Relevance” In Wellbery D and Bender J (eds.) The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice, Stanford: Stanford University Press 74 Sperber D and Wilson D (1998) "Irony and Relevance: A reply to Drs Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi" In Carston, R and Uchida, S (eds) Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications Amsterdam: John Benjamins Sperber D and Wilson D (2007) “Irony and the Resemblance- Mention” In Cole, P (ed.) Radical Pragmatics New York: Academic Press Thackeray, W.M (2001) Vanity Fair Wordsworth Editions Limited The New Encyclopedia Britannica (1983) Chicago: University of Chicago Press Thibodeau, R and Boroditsky, L (2011) "Metaphors We Think with: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning" Journal of Plo Son, 5: 1- 17 Vu Trong Phung (1997) Tuyen tap Vu Trong Phung (tap 3) Hanoi: Nxb Van hoc Webster New Word Dictionary (1955) New York: Pocket Books Wilson, D (2006) "The Pragmatics of Verbal Irony: Echo or Pretence?" Lingua, 116: 1722 – 1743 Wilson, D and Sperber, D (1992) "On Verbal Irony " In Coslton, H and Gibbs, R (eds.) Irony in Language and Thought New York: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC Wilson, D and Sperber, D (2004) "Relevance Theory" In Horn, L and Ward, G (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press 75 Sources from the internet Wikipedia (2010) Irony Retrieved December 10, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press http://www.britanicaconciseencyclopedia.com/irony/types (Accessed Nov 6, 2012) http://www.presidentialrhetoric.org/speech-archive/election/barakobama (Accessed April17, 2013) http://www.presidentialrhetoric.org/speecharchive/election/georgewbuhs (Accessed April 14, 2013) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage (Accessed July 28, 2013) 76 APPENDICES Appendix A Sample irony story Karen’s picture Karen is drawing a picture of her family for a class project Karen’s sister Michelle wants to help Karen Karen says okay She lets Michelle paint a picture of their dog Criticism: By accident, Michelle spills water on the painting The painting is ruined When Karen sees the ruined picture, she says to Michelle: ‘‘You sure ARE a GREAT helper!’’ Praise: Michelle draws their dog perfectly Karen likes it very much She says to Michelle: ‘‘You sure ARE an AWFUL painter!’’ 77 Appendix B Questionnaire Critical irony Control questions: Did Michelle help Karen with her picture? Y N What did Karen say to Michelle? ……………………………………………………… Social- cognitive questions: Meaning:…………………………………………… Does Karen mean that? Y N What does she mean? 78 ……………………………………………………… Belief: Does Karen think Michelle is a great helper? Y N Intention: Karen said to Michelle: "You sure ARE a GREAT helper!" Does Karen want Michelle to believe that she thinks that? Y N Motivation/Attitude: Why did she say that? …………………………………………………………… Pragmatic-function questions: Karen said to Michelle: "You sure ARE a GREAT helper!" Pick one of these four glasses on the picture to show (a) How nice was what Karen said? (b) How mean was what Karen said? (c) How funny was what Karen said? 79 80