Chapter One Introduction

1.1 Study Background

In the book The Concept of Irony, Kierkegaard states，“As philosophers claim thatno true philosophy is possible without doubt, so by the same token one may claim thatno authentic human life is possible without irony，(1966; 338). Just as Kierkegaard'scomment, irony is a ubiquitous phenomenon in language use. Booth (1974) also holdsthe view that irony is a ubiquitous form of language, frequently used in languageactivities.Because irony is frequently used in everyday discourse，it has been widelyexplored and accounted for in various language-related research fields such as rhetoric,philosophy, literary criticism, semantics and pragmatics, resulting in an ample literatureon irony from different perspectives. For this thesis，we only focus on the studies onirony from semantics and pragmatics.After reviewing previous studies on irony from semantics and pragmatics, thethesis lists some flaws of these studies. In order to avoid these flaws, the thesis exploresirony within the framework of cognitive pragmatics.

…………..

1.2 Rationale of the Study

The reasons for the study can be explained from theoretical and practical aspects.For theoretical aspect, it is necessary to study irony in cognitive pragmaticsbecause cognitive process of understanding is crucial in the analysis of irony. Inaddition, the thesis is a case study of the sitcom Friends, which may makemethodological proposals for analyzing irony based on the data collected from thesitcom.For practical aspect，the thesis is of great benefit to both speakers and hearers. Asto speakers, they can use ironic utterances to achieve some pragmatic functions. As tohearers, they can understand speakers' ironic utterances more effectively within theframework of the echoic theory of irony. Definitions of irony, types of irony, and the notion of the terms speaker/hearer aredefined one by one.Firstly, definitions of irony are discussed. Linguists studying irony have madepainstaking efforts to define irony，but defining irony proves to be challenging. Gibbsand O'Brien comment that “The irony of irony is that we can often recognize ironicsituations and language even though we have a terrible time tying to define irony"(1991: 523). From their remark, it is obvious that defining irony is not an easy task. Some definitions of irony from dictionaries are presented here: (1) According toAdvanced Learner，s English-Chinese Dictionary^ irony is defined as “the use of wordsthat say the opposite of what you really mean，often as a joke and with a tone of voicethat shows this" (2004: 935); (2) According to Longman Dictionary of EnglishLanguage and Culture, irony is defined as “the use of words that are the opposite ofwhat you really mean，in order to be amusing or to show that you 办e annoyed" (2011:976). These definitions are much like the traditional semantic definition of irony inwhich “Irony is defined as the trope in which the figurative meaning is the opposite ofthe literal meaning" (Wilson & Sperber, 1992: 54). None of these definitions gives ussufficient conditions to distinguish irony from non-irony and many cases of irony areout of the scope of these definitions.

……….

Chapter Two Literature Review

2.1 Studies on Understanding Irony

Traditionally, two types of definition have been suggested as to the traditionaldefinition of irony. One is that irony has been identified as saying something other thanwhat one means. The other is that irony has been identified as meaning the opposite ofwhat is said. These definitions can be traced back to Quintilian, a great Romanrhetorician of the first century A.D.. When he defines irony，Quintilian states that "weunderstand something which is the opposite of what is actually said，，(1966: 44). So intraditional studies, the standard view of irony is that irony is defined as a figure ofspeech "in which the figurative meaning is the opposite of the literal meaning" (Wilson& Sperber, 1992: 54). In fact, this view of irony is taken by semantic accounts of irony.Wilson and Sperber (1992) argue that the traditional definition of irony has manyflaws. Firstly，they list many counterexamples to the claim that irony invariablycommunicates the opposite of what is literally said such as ironical understatements,ironical quotations and ironical inteijections. The following examples are given byWilson and Sperber (1992: 54-56).The first example is given in the context: We come across a customer complainingin a shop，blind with fury and making a public exhibition of himself. I speak to you.

………..

2.2 Studies on Pragmatic Functions of Irony

In previous literature, pragmatic functions of irony have been mainly discussedbased on different data, that is, data collected from experiments and data collected fromready-made works. By analyzing the data collected from three experiments about irony，Dews, Kaplan,and Winner (1995) investigate four pragmatic functions of irony, that is, humor, statuselevation, aggression，and emotional control In Experiment 1，twelve collegeundergraduates participate in the experiment. Sixteen scenes each involving 2 peopleare videotaped. These scenes are given by researchers with possible literal or ironiccomment by the hearer. Each scene shows two people interacting in some way and endswith the speaker commenting to the hearer about some action of the hearer. Resultsindicate that two pragmatic functions of irony are found in Experiment 1，that is，humorand status elevation. Experiment 2 tests whether irony sharpens or mutes the level ofaggression communicated by the literal counterpart. In Experiment 2，30 collegeundergraduates participate in the experiment. Sixteen stories are constructed. Each storydescribes a context involving two people, and each story ends with the speakercommenting on the hearer. Results indicate that irony has the pragmatic function ofaggression.

…………..

Chapter Three Theoretical Foundations and Research Data ........19

3.1 Theoretical Foundations........ 19

3.1.1 Relevance Theory........ 19

3.1.2 The Echoic Theory of Irony........ 23

3.1.3 Summaiy ........26

3.2 Research Data ........26

3.3 Summary 30Chapter Four Results and Discussions........ 31

4.1 Understanding Irony within the Echoic Theory of Irony ........31

4.2 Pragmatic Functions of Irony Inferred ........50

4.2.1 Making Criticism........ 51

4.2.2 Showing Power........ 53

4.2.3 Saving Face........ 55

4.2.4 Humor ........57

4.2.5 Discussions........ 58

4.3 Summary 59Chapter Five Concluding Remarks........ 61

5.1 Major Findings........ 61

5.2 Limitations of the Study........ 62

5.3 Suggestions for Further Research ........63

Chapter Four Results and Discussions

4.1 Understanding Irony within the Echoic Theory of Irony

The first research question is how people understand ironic utterances in thesitcom with the help of the echoic theory of irony. In order to answer the first researchquestion，the study explores irony in the sitcom Friends based on the framework ofunderstanding irony established in Chapter Three.As mentioned in Chapter Three, there are three types of irony based on the sourceof echoes. They are irony with direct and immediate echoes, irony with echoes ofattributed thoughts or opinions, and irony with echoes of norms or standardexpectations.In this thesis, as to the first type of irony with direct and immediate echoes, 23instances are collected; as to the second type of irony with echoes of attributed thoughtsor opinions, 53 instances are collected; as to the third type of irony with echoes ofnorms or standard expectations, 11 instances are collected. The following is the analysisof these three types of irony from the sitcom Friends within the echoic theory of irony.

………….

Conclusion

According to the two research questions, major findings of the present researchcan be illustrated from two aspects.The first research question is that how people understand ironic utterances in thesitcom with the help of the echoic theory of irony. In order to answer this question，thepresent research at first reviews semantic and pragmatic accounts of irony and alsopoints out their weaknesses. Compared with these accounts of irony，understandingirony within the echoic theory of irony is more effective. So the present researchexplores irony in the sitcom within the echoic theory of irony. The data related to ironyare collected from the sitcom Friends. Based on the source of echoes，the presentresearch categorizes the collected data into three types. They are irony with direct andimmediate echoes, irony with echoes of attributed thoughts, and irony with echoes ofnorms or standard expectations. With the help of the echoic theory of irony，the thesisestablishes the framework of understanding irony to analyze data related to ironycollected from the sitcom Friends. Results indicate that when people understand ironicutterances in the sitcom, an utterance in the sitcom is at first recognized as echoic，andthen the source of the opinion echoed is identified, including direct and immediateechoes，echoes of attributed thoughts or opinions, and echoes of norms or standardexpectations, and finally, the speaker's attitude to the opinion echoed is recognized asone of rejection or dissociation.

…………

Reference (omitted)