The Cognitive Environment in the Study of Irony

【Abstract】The study of irony has long been considered as a study of a figure of speech. A lot of research was conducted on the relationship between the cognitive mechanism and the interpretation of figurative language. But the present study focuses on the role of cognitive environment in the study of irony， especially in the interpretation process of irony.

【Key words】irony； cognitive environment； context

1. The Definition of Irony

Irony， as a figure of speech， is usually defined as “the expression of meaning using language that normally expresses the opposite， especially the humorous or sarcastic use of praise to imply condemnation or contempt” （see Shorter Oxford English Dictionary）.

In fact， the study of irony in Chinese has a relatively long history. Traditionally， fan yu is equal to fan hua. We can also find in The Contemporary Chinese Dictionary （Chinese-English Edition） the definition of fan hua as follows： words that are the opposite of what is actually meant.

2. Cognitive Environment

There are two kinds of person involved in the interpretation of an irony： the speaker， and the hearer. After the speaker utters an irony， some receivers can recognize it while others cannot. This is because the obstacle， known as cognitive environment influences the understanding of irony.

2.1 Common Ground

A listeners understanding of an ironic utterance depends on the common ground he or she believes is shared by ironist and the audience-their mutual belief， mutual knowledge and mutual suppositions （Clark and Gerrig， 1984， p. 124）.

One reasonable explanation for such misunderstanding is that the speaker has misjudged the common ground that he or she shares with the listener. Here the common ground usually refers to acknowledge， beliefs， experiences and assumptions that shared by the speaker and listener （Clark and Marshall， 1981； Clark， 1996）.

2.2 Example

（1） What a lovely dog！ （Context： The dog is barking at him.）

This example is closely related to the speakers likes and dislikes： if the speaker loves dog or pet， it is not ironic. If he hates dog， it is ironic. So， only when the listener knows the speakers likes and dislikes， can he understand the utterance properly. The utterance entails two possible results： the speaker really loves the dog or the speaker being ironic by saying so.

Because common ground is largely determined by how well people know each other. Generally speaking， the closer the relationship between the speaker and receiver， the larger the amount of shared common background， the more likely the receiver recognizes the meaning of the irony.

2.3 Context

In recent years， context has almost become the core subject of linguistic research； it is seen as a set of variables， such as time， place， participants and their mutual knowledge and so on. That is the exact reason why different people have different understanding in interpreting the same irony. They shared the same context environment， yet they cannot make the same interpretation.

2.4 Example

（2） A： Would you like to go camping with me？

B： Oh， it is my mothers birthday.

In this dialogue， Bs utterance involves several possibilities in different context：

a： B wants to stay with her mother.

b： Going camping is not his option.

c： Going camping will make B unable to be with her Mom.

All these possibilities indicate that B does not want to go camping with A.

Undoubtedly， both the speaker and the listener try to obtain information from the communication. Under this circumstance， Sperber and Wilson conclude that context is the selection of a particular environment upon which the speaker and the listener based their communication. Without context， it is hard to tell whether an irony expresses its literal meaning or not.

3. Conclusion

Irony is something more than a mere rhetorical device. As a matter of fact， the interpretation of irony involves a very complicated cognitive process. In present study， the interpretation of irony has been tackled within cognitive environment. In this view， cognitive theories can provide us with the useful method to explain the complex phenomenon.

References：

[1]Clark，Herbert H.&.Richard J.Gerrig.（1984）.On the pretense theory of irony.Journal of Experimental Psychology：General，113（1），121-126.

[2]Clark，Herbert，and Marchall，C.（1981）.Definite reference and mutual knowledge.In Elements of discourse understanding，ed.by A.K.Joshi，B.L.Webber，and I.A.Sag.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

[3]任崇芬.“正話反說(shuō)”與“反話正說(shuō)”-兼議反語(yǔ)分類(lèi)[J].四川教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)，2006（9），69-71.

作者簡(jiǎn)介：李玲（1987.2-），女，漢族，陜西榆林人，碩士研究生，講師，主要研究方向：外國(guó)語(yǔ)言學(xué)及應(yīng)用語(yǔ)言學(xué)。