사회적 친밀감 조성/증대를 위한 담화전략으로서의 아이러니 사용과 그 원리, 그리고 적합성
Practising Irony as a Speaker’s Discourse Strategy for Increasing Social Intimacy, and Relevance
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper pursues devising a Relevance-Theoretic account of practicing irony as a speaker’s discourse strategy for reinforcing social intimacy between interlocutors in communication. In general, irony has been regarded as a case of rhetorical figure, which conveys something opposite of what was literally said (see Van Enschot, Hoeken and Van Mulken 2006). With reference to the essence of irony, Sperber and Wilson (1995: 239) hold that “the attitude expressed by an ironical utterance is invariably of the rejecting or disapproving kind.” Including Sperber and Wilson (1981, 1995), in fact, most antecedent pragmatic accounts of irony use have focused on only its sarcastic purpose, which aims to ridicule or blame other’s mistakes and faults. As pointed out in Barbe (1995), Jorgensen (1996), and Culpeper (1996, 2011), however, irony can often be used as non-sarcastic purposes: what is called genteel irony. According to them, when genteel irony is used among close friends, peers or colleagues, it can strengthen their social intimacy and solidarity, instead of insulting or ridiculing each other. Although Sperber and Wilson’s (1981, 1995) previous approaches to irony, which view its nature as ‘echoic mentioning + rejection or dissociation,’ have concentrated their interest on explaining irony of sarcastic purpose, unlike them, I examine how irony can work as a discourse strategy for increasing social intimacy within the same principle of relevance. My approach is, therefore, to make a contribution to the theoretical expandability of Relevance Theory (henceforth RT), in that it verifies that even irony of non-sarcastic purpose can also be treated by a single principle of relevance within the same RT framework.
Abstract
This paper pursues devising a Relevance-Theoretic account of practicing irony as a speaker’s discourse strategy for reinforcing social intimacy between interlocutors in communication. In general, irony has been regarded as a case of rhetorical figure, which conveys something opposite of what was literally said (see Van Enschot, Hoeken and Van Mulken 2006). With reference to the essence of irony, Sperber and Wilson (1995: 239) hold that “the attitude expressed by an ironical utterance is invariably of the rejecting or disapproving kind.” Including Sperber and Wilson (1981, 1995), in fact, most antecedent pragmatic accounts of irony use have focused on only its sarcastic purpose, which aims to ridicule or blame other’s mistakes and faults. As pointed out in Barbe (1995), Jorgensen (1996), and Culpeper (1996, 2011), however, irony can often be used as non-sarcastic purposes: what is called genteel irony. According to them, when genteel irony is used among close friends, peers or colleagues, it can strengthen their social intimacy and solidarity, instead of insulting or ridiculing each other. Although Sperber and Wilson’s (1981, 1995) previous approaches to irony, which view its nature as ‘echoic mentioning + rejection or dissociation,’ have concentrated their interest on explaining irony of sarcastic purpose, unlike them, I examine how irony can work as a discourse strategy for increasing social intimacy within the same principle of relevance. My approach is, therefore, to make a contribution to the theoretical expandability of Relevance Theory (henceforth RT), in that it verifies that even irony of non-sarcastic purpose can also be treated by a single principle of relevance within the same RT framework.
참고문헌 (23)
- Attado, Salvatore, "Irony as Relevant Inappropriatness", Journal of Pragmatics, 32, pp.793~826 (2000)
- Barbe, Katharina, "Irony in Context" (1995), John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Bussman, Hadumod, "Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics" (1996), Routledge
- Culpeper, Jonathan, "Toward and Anatomy of Impoliteness", Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), pp.349~367 (1996)[DOI]
- Culpeper, Jonathan, "Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence" (2011), Cambridge University Press
- Curcó, Carmen, "Irony: Negation, Echo and Metarepresentation", Lingua, 110, pp.257~280 (2000)
- Dews, Selly, "Why Not Say It Directly?: The Social Functions of Irony", Discourse Process, 19(3), pp.347~367 (1995)
- Giora, Rachel, "On Irony and Negation", Discourse Processes, 19(2), pp.239~264 (1995)[DOI]
- Grice, Herbert P., "The Philosophy of Language", pp.156~167 (1975), Oxford University Press
- Haverkate, Henk, "A Speech Act Analysis of Irony", Journal of Pragmatics, 14, pp.77~109 (1990)
- Jorgensen, Julia, "The Functions of Sarcastic Irony in Speech", Journal of Pragmatics, 26, pp.613~634 (1996)
- 김대영, "Verbal Irony as a Strategy for Practising the Virtue of Humility: A Pragmatic Perspective", 언어연구, 29(1), pp.25~50 (2013), 한국현대언어학회[DOI]
- Kreuz, Roger, "How to be Sarcastic: The Echoic Reminder Theory of Verbal Irony", Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(4), pp.374~386 (1989)[DOI]
- Lagerwerf, Luuk, "Irony and Sarcasm in Advertisements: Effect of Relevant Inappropriateness", Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10), pp.1702~1721 (2007)
- Leech, Jeffrey, "Principles of Pragmatics" (1983), Longman
- 이성범, "영어화용론" (2002), 한국문화사
- Seto, Ken-ichi, "Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications", pp.239~255 (1998), John Benjamins
- Sperber, Dan, "Radical Pragmatics", pp.295~318 (1981), Academic Press
- Sperber, Dan, "Relevance: Communication and Cognition" (1995), Blackwell
- Sperber, Dan, "Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications", pp.283~293 (1998), John Benjamins
- Utsumi, Akira, "Verbal Irony as Implicit Display if Ironic Environment: Distinguishing Ironic Utterances from Non-Irony", Journal of Pragmatics, 32, pp.1777~1806 (2000)
- Van Enschot, Renske, "Rhetoric in Advertising:Attitudes towards Schemes and Tropes in Text and Image", Informational Advertising and Communication, 1, pp.141~162 (2006)
- Wilson, Deidre, "On Verbal Irony", Lingua, 87, pp.53~76 (1992)