أ.م.د. جمعة قادر حسين
Irony Markers: A pragmatic perspective
علامات المفارقة: رؤية براغماتية
ا. م. د. جمعة قادر حسين
https://www.uoanbar.edu.iq/English/staff-page.php?ID=239
As irony is closely related to one's intended meaning; it is used to achieve certain pragmatic functions. Such pragmatic functions cannot be interpreted out of context. In order to make sure that no misunderstanding takes place in the communication process, speakers may signal their ironical intent with a number of markers. In this regard, it is necessary to distinguish between indices of irony and irony itself.
There has been some confusion between ironical markers and ironical utterances. Some scholars identify irony in terms of some ironical indictors. irony markers/ indicator alerts the reader that a sentence is ironical. However, an utterance would be ironical even without being accompanied by a marker. Therefore, one must distinguish between irony markers and irony factors. That is, a marker may be removed without affecting the presence of the irony (only, perhaps, its recognition), while a factor may not be removed without destroying the irony (Attardo 2000).
The following is a review of some of the frequent and/or clear markers of irony discussed in Attardo (2000):
1- Intonation: The most common index of ironical intent is intonation. The ironical intonation has been described as a flat (neither rising nor falling) contour.
2- Nasalisation: Several authors report that nasalization is a marker of ironical intent.
3- Exaggerated Stress: Stress patterns broader than usual are also reported by several authors.
4- Other Phonological Means: Among other phonological markers of irony, the following have been reported: slowed rate of speaking, syllable lengthening, pauses, laughter and a flat intonation pattern.
5- Morphological Means: Expressions such as ‘so to speak’ and ‘one might say as well as’, ‘as everybody knows’, may indicate irony. Haiman and Mason (1998) reports on the usage of various quotative and evidential moods and of lexicalized quotative particles.
6- Typographical Means: The written transcription of spoken language being the rough approximate, that is, typographical conventions are a poor substitute for the ironical intention. ‘Scare quotes’ are used to convey a certain detachment from a written utterance and hence irony. Other markers are [sic], or [!], and [?] and combinations of ([sic!], [!?], etc.). The exclamation mark is used to express emphasis. In the right context, it can underscore other means to highlight irony. Dots (‘…’) mark a suspended utterance, thus, alerting the reader to other potential meanings left unsaid.
7- Kinesic Markers: These are the irony markers that people commonly think of, such as winks, nudges, tongue-in-cheek, etc.
8- Co-text: irony can be signaled by its co-occurrence with incompatible elements in the same sentence, paragraph, or lager textual units, in which an utterance occurs.
9- context: irony can be signaled by its co-occurrence with its compatible elements in the context of utterance.
One may conclude that providing irony markers in communication process contributes essential role in avoiding misunderstanding irony. However, irony may be processed successfully without the presence of irony markers due to the context.
Key words: Irony: irony markers: context:
References
Attardo, Salvator (2000b). “Irony Markers and Functions: Towards a Goal –Oriented Theory of Irony and its Processing”. Journal of RASK, 12,3-20.
Hatim, B. and I Mason (1998). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman Group Ltd.