2.2 Classification of irony
The classification of irony is presented in different ways by those who work on it. Booth identifies quite a number of types: tragic irony, comic irony, stable irony, unstable irony, dramatic irony, situational irony, verbal irony, rhetorical irony so on and so forth. Kreuz and Roberts distinguish four types of irony: Socratic irony, dramatic irony, irony of fate and verbal irony.
In general, irony involves a contradiction between appearance and reality. Irony results where there is a difference in point of view between a character and the narrator or reader. Traditionally, there are four major types of irony: verbal, dramatic, situational and comic. 2.2.1 Verbal irony
Verbal irony refers to spoken words only. Verbal irony occurs when a character says one thing, but suggests or intends the opposite. The contrast is between what the speaker says and what he actually means. For example, in Julius Caesar, Mark Antony repeats the words “ and Brutus is an honorable man” in the famous “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” speech. Mark Antony’s meaning, however, is that Brutus is completely dishonorable because Brutus, Caesar’s best friend, joined the other conspirators and plunged a knife into Caesar’s chest.
In this paper, the discussion is laid upon this type of irony, verbal irony. 2.2.2 Dramatic irony
Dramatic irony involves more than just spoken words. Dramatic irony occurs when the meaning intended by a character’s words or actions is opposite of the true situation. The contrast is between what the character says, thinks, or does and the true situation. Further, the character cannot see or understand the contrast, but the audience or reader can. For example, in Othello, dramatic irony occurs when Othello refers to Iago as “honest Iago”.[10] Unknown to Othello, Iago is a villain who deceives him into thinking that Desdemona (Othello’s wife) has been unfaithful. For this, Othello unjustly kills his wife, believing the whole time in Iago’s honesty.
The difference in examples for verbal and dramatic irony: Antony calls Brutus “honorable” and knows he is not honorable, while Othello calls Iago “honest” and does not know of Iago’s deceit. 2.2.3 Situational irony
Situational irony defies logical cause/ effect relationships and justifiable expectations. For example, if a greedy millionaire were to buy a lottery ticket and win additional millions, the irony would be situational because such a circumstance cannot be explained logically. Such a circumstance seems “unfair”. This sense of being “unfair” or “unfortunate” is a trademark of situational irony. Because people cannot explain the unfairness, it causes them to question whether or not the word makes sense. 2.2.4 Comic irony (or Irony of fate)
Some irony goes beyond being unfair and is morally tragic. Such irony is often so severe that it causes people to question God and see the universe as hostile. For example, if an honest, hardworking, and generous person buys a lottery ticket and wins ten million dollars, only to die in an auto crash two days later, the irony would reach tragic proportions. When situational irony reaches this scale, it is often called comic irony or irony of fate. Such irony typically suggests that people are pawns to malicious forces. 3. Irony and the Cooperative Principle
3.1 The Cooperative Principle
“American philosopher H.P. Grice made an attempt to explain the course of natural conversation, in which implied messages are frequently involved. His idea is that in making conversation, the participants must first of all be willing to cooperate; otherwise, it would not be possible for them to carry on the talk. This general principle is called the Cooperative Principle, abbreviated as CP. It goes as follows:
Make your conversational contribution such as required at the stage at which it occurs by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.
The principle breaks down into particular maxims that summarize particular assumptions about conversation. Different pragamaticists propose different numbers of these maxims but as originally proposed by Grice, the Principle contained four sets of maxims:
The maxims of quantity
a). Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)
b). Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
The maxims of quality
Try to make your contribution one that is true:
a). Do not say what you believe to be false.
b). Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
The maxim of relation
Be relevant.
The maxims of manner
Be perspicuous:
a). Avoid obscurity of expression.
b). Avoid ambiguity.
c). Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
d). Be orderly.” [11] |
