Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
This thesis examines irony as a pragmatic mechanism in which the literal content of an utterance conflicts with the context, triggering the inference of a hidden meaning. Using comparative material from Russian and Uzbek speech practice, the following are examined: (1) the cognitive-pragmatic framework for interpreting irony (contextual activation of expectations → detection of discrepancy → pragmatic inference → evaluative effect); (2) typical contextual "triggers" (expectation/result, norm/violation, promise/reality, self-esteem/facts); (3) linguistic and discursive markers (pseudo-praise, hyperbole, rhetorical question, modal particles, digital speech graphics); (4) functions of irony (evaluative, regulatory, phatic, defensive, identification). It is shown that the universal cognitive basis of irony is realized differently in the two linguistic cultures: Russian communication often allows for more explicit, critical-evaluative irony, whereas the Uzbek speech tradition, in a number of contexts, prefers implicit and softened strategies aimed at preserving the interlocutor's face and taking into account status asymmetry. Typical causes of intercultural failures are noted: the perception of Russian irony as harshness and the literal interpretation of Uzbek implicit irony. Key words: irony, implicature, pragmatic inference, context, incongruence, evaluation, (im)politeness, face, discourse, Russian language, Uzbek language.
References
1. Attardo, S. 2000. Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics 32(6). 793–826.
2. Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.
3. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1981. Irony and the use-mention distinction. In: Cole, P. (ed.). Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 295–318.
4. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
5. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1998. Irony and relevance: A reply to Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi. In: Carston, R. & Uchida, S. (eds.). Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
6. Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, R. J. 1984. On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(1). 121–126.
7. Kreuz, R. J. & Glucksberg, S. 1989. How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118(4). 374–386.
8. Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S. & Brown, M. 1995. How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124(1). 3–21.
9. Giora, R. 1998. Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol 13(2). 83–101.
10. Giora, R. & Fein, O. 1999. Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol 14(4). 241–257.
11. Gibbs, R. W. 2000. Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol 15(1–2). 5–27.
12. Gibbs, R. W. & Colston, H. L. (eds.). 2007. Irony in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Science Reader. New York: Routledge.
13. Dynel, M. 2014. Linguistic approaches to (non)humorous irony. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 27(4).
14. Dynel, M. 2017. A battle over the etic and emic “sarcasm” and “irony” labels. Language Sciences 63. 1–17.
15. Toplak, M. E. & Katz, A. N. 2000. On the uses of sarcastic irony. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10). 1467–1488.