Stylistics and Pragmatics of Artistic Ironic Discourse (English and French Languages)
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2022-11-7-151-173
Abstract
The article is devoted to the display of the stylistic peculiarities of literary ironic discourse in modern English and French prose. The empirical basis of the research is built on the corpus of text fragments containing ironic statements selected from literary works in English and French. The relevance of the study is accounted for by the insufficient study of the interconnections between verbal components and conceptual background of irony — the mental mechanism of second-order empathy — as well as the need to confirm the status of irony as a speech strategy of encouragement, incentive, self-defense, censure, ridicule, discredit, self-justification, self-representation or self-abasement, which is verbalized in fiction literature, thanks to the involvement of a number of stylistic devices of a semantic and syntactic sense. It is shown that in addition to linguistic means that objectify the conceptual structure of an ironic utterance and deictic units that reveal the order and logic of organizing information at the level of second-order empathy, fictional ironic discourse (both English and French) is brightly colored with figurative and expressive means of language, which actualize through ambiguous, voluminous, image-forming semantics and expressive syntax. In the course of comparative analysis, it has also been found out that the French-language fictional ironic discourse has a higher density of stylistic devices and is more expressive than the English-language one.
About the Author
M. S. Sheveleva
Pyatigorsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina S. Sheveleva, Post-graduate student, Department of Theoretical Linguistics and Practices of Intercultural Communication
Pyatigorsk
References
1. Boldyrev, N. N. (2014). Cognitive semantics: an introduction to cognitive linguistics. Tambov: Publishing House of TSU named after G. R. Derzhavin. 236 p. ISBN 978-5-89016-938-9. (In Russ.).
2. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 392 p.
3. Chief, U. (1982). Datum, contrastivity, definiteness, subject, topics and point of view. In: New in foreign linguistics, 11. Moscow: Nauka. 277—317. (In Russ.).
4. Demyankov, V. Z. (1983). Understanding as interpretive activity. Questions of Linguistics, 6: 58—67. (In Russ.).
5. Geeraerts, D. (2020). Empathic Viewpoint and Intersubjective Ambiguity. In: Science without Borders: Synergy of Theories, methods and practices: proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Moscow: MGLU. 12—13. ISBN 978-5-00120-210-3.
6. Genette, Zh. (1998). Figures: Works on poetics, 1. Moscow: Sabashnikov Publishing House. 472 p. (In Russ.).
7. Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax: anaphora, discourse, empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago. 320 p.
8. Nelkenbaum, V. M. (2016). Features of stylistic convergence in a literary text. Bulletin of Bashkir University, 21 (1): 136—139. (In Russ.).
9. Potebnya, A. A. (2010). Theory of literature: Paths and figures. Moscow: KRASAND. 200 p. ISBN 978-5-396-00197-8. (In Russ.).
10. Rosenthal, D. E., Telenkova, M. A. (2003). Dictionary of Linguistic terms. Moscow: Onyx-21st century; World and Education. 623 p. (In Russ.).
11. Sergeeva, Yu. M. (2018). The addressee factor as the cause of ambiguity of dialogic discourse. In: Topical issues of linguistics and linguodidactics: traditions and innovations: in 2 parts, 1. Moscow: MPSU. 81—87. (In Russ.).
12. Sharavyev, E. A. (2008). Hermeneutics of answering. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 28: 142—152. (In Russ.).
13. Shatunovsky, I. B. (2007). Irony and its types. In: Logical analysis of language. Linguistic mechanisms of comedy. Moscow: Indrik. 349—372. ISBN 5-85759-403-0. (In Russ.).
14. Sheveleva, M. S. (2021). Theory of empathy in the analysis of discourse (based on the material of English and French). Philological sciences. Questions of theory and practice, 14 (2): 543—552. DOI: 10.30853/phil210056. (In Russ.).
15. Shilikhina, K. M. (2014). Discursive practice of irony: cognitive, semantic and pragmatic aspects. Doct. Diss. Voronezh. 399 p. (In Russ.).
16. Tunitskaya, E. L. (2019). Linguistic markers of the character — object of author’s empathy. Philological sciences in MGIMO, 1 (17): 120—127. DOI: 10.24833/2410-2423-2019-1-17-120-127. (In Russ.).
17. Zavrumov, Z. A. (2017). The phenomenon of irony in a literary text: pragmasemantic and linguoculturological aspects. Doct. Diss. Makhachkala. 317 p. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Sheveleva M.S. Stylistics and Pragmatics of Artistic Ironic Discourse (English and French Languages). Nauchnyi dialog. 2022;11(7):151-173. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2022-11-7-151-173
Views:
411
Email this article 