IRONY FROM THE COGNITIVE-LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE

IRONY FROM THE COGNITIVE-LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE

Angelina Bakhanovich

graduate student, Minsk State Linguistic University,

Belarus, Minsk

Irony – a fake image of a negative phenomenon in a positive form with the aim of ridiculing and discrediting it, based on the expression of the estimated value terms, contrasting clearly with the literal sense.

The cognitive approach corresponds to the modern view of the world not as separate elements, but as a system of constantly interacting events, phenomena, facts, including a value-based emotional attitude to the world. Linguists place an emphasis on knowledge, and the text is viewed as a kind of hierarchy of knowledge: when we create or decode a text, we are not dealing with the language itself, but with the conceptualization, classification, processing and structuring of existing knowledge.

Considering this approach, irony acts as a complex verbal and mental process, including the interaction of knowledge at various levels, from linguistic to general information about the world, along with the experience of interacting with the environment and in close connection with psychological, communicative and cultural factors.

Today, cognitive linguistics is an independent direction in linguistics, the focus of which is on the questions of how our knowledge about the world is conceptualized when presented in linguistic form, how the text is understood, what processes underlie the construction of an utterance and how linguistic categories are formed.

The main cognitive structures that are relevant for considering irony as a cognitive category: “concept”, “category”, “cognitive model”, “frame”.

The famous linguist E. S. Kubryakova gives the following definition: “a concept is an operational unit of memory, mental lexicon, conceptual system, the whole picture of the world, a quantum of knowledge. The most important concepts are expressed in language” [1, p. 90–91].

V. N. Telia believes that “a concept is always knowledge structured into a frame, which means that it reflects not just the essential features of an object, but all those that in a given linguistic community are filled with knowledge about the essence” [2, p. 96].

Z. D. Popova and I. A. Sternin, define the concept as “a discrete mental formation, which is the basic unit of the human mental code, which has a relatively ordered internal structure, representing the result of the cognitive activity of an individual and society and carrying complex, encyclopedic information about the depicted object or phenomenon, the interpretation of this information by public consciousness and the attitude of public consciousness to this phenomenon or object” [3, p. 24].

Variable interpretations of the term concept allowed us to draw the following conclusions:

• concept – a unit of thought; an element of cognitive consciousness; set of values; element of culture; a way of dividing the world into categories; multidimensional phenomenon;
• the concept is considered in the conceptual apparatus of cognitive science, semantics and cultural linguistics;
• concepts are formed from empirical experience (the result of cognitive activity), objective activity, mental operations with others already existing in consciousness, linguistic communication and independent cognition of linguistic units.

We understand the concept as a theoretical construction that has a linguistic expression and combines the main feature with additional ones.

The structure of the concept is represented by the nucleus (base layer) and the periphery (interpretation layer). According to I. A. Sternin, “this structure is not the same, since any concept is functioning all the time, actualizing in its various components and aspects, connecting with other concepts and repelling them”. The nucleus includes prototypical layers with the greatest sensually visual concreteness, primary vivid images; periphery – those connotative and associative increments that are introduced by culture and are realized with a certain set of representative words (more abstract features). In more complicated concepts, additional conceptual features are superimposed on the basic image. The periphery consists of poorly structured predication, reflecting the interpretation of individual conceptual features and their combinations in the form of statements, attitudes of consciousness arising in a given culture from the mentality of different people [3, p. 32–34].

Irony is often viewed as a phenomenon of combining one's own and someone else's (the object of irony) points of view. Thus, the semantic nucleus of irony is semantic ambiguity arising as a result of intertextual “play” with different codes and languages (“someone else’s” and “one’s own” speech).

Research within the framework of the cognitive-historical conditioning of irony reveals its belonging to complex segment concepts. Its nucleus is represented by the image of a mocking person (for example, Socrates). This is followed by such cognitive features as “latent ridicule”, “feigned praise”, “opposition”, “opposite meaning”, “ambiguity”, “contradiction between form and content”. The peripheral part is a conglomeration of the most varied meanings and connotations associated with irony in its various varieties (tragic irony, comic irony, irony of manner, irony of a situation, etc.).

The content of the concept is formed by cognitive features that reflect individual aspects of the conceptualized object or phenomenon and is described as a combination of these features. The content of the concept is internally ordered according to the field principle – the nucleus, the near, far and extreme periphery. Belonging to a particular area of ​​content is determined primarily by the brightness of the feature in the mind of the native speaker of the corresponding concept. The description is carried out as an enumeration of features from the nucleus to the periphery as the significance of the feature decreases.

Despite the fact that all researchers agree on the definition of the structure of the field, the ways of its presentation are different. One of the first models of the language system is the level model, presented in the form of a spiral, a chain, and other material figures. The most common way to describe a field is to depict it in the form of circles encircling each other in lexemes with differential features.

B. Bara in the cognitive-pragmatic theory of irony explains how the ability to generate and understand irony develops. The approach is based on dividing ironic statements into two classes: simple irony, and complex (indirect) irony, which requires elaborate inference skills to understand. In accordance with this division, the development of the ability to generate and understand irony in discourse is modeled: from simpler, prototypical ironic statements (this is the first stage) to the generation and understanding of more complex forms of irony (this is the second stage of development) [4, p. 55–60].

From the standpoint of the linguo-cognitive approach to the study of the concept of irony, we will try to reflect the prototypical features of the concept of “irony” in the form of the level model presented in terms of the nucleus, marginal zone and periphery (figure 1).

Figure 1. The Concept of irony

It can be concluded that the concept of "irony" has the following prototypical features, depending on their significance, obligatory character:

• nucleus – duality (ambiguity), due to the combination of traditional and ironic pictures of the world. The ambiguity of irony is determined by the presence of literal and ironic meanings. The linguistic component of the concept of irony tends to contrast, allowing to realize the semantic duality of irony in linguistic forms. Prototypical irony is traditionally equated with antiphrasis – the replacement of one meaning with another; incoherence – deliberate violation of semantic integrity; intentionality reflects the state of the ironic addressee, his intention to express one point of view under the guise of another; negative evaluation and emotional coloring, expressing the ironic attitude of the addressee to the surrounding reality; an element of play / pretense, since in everyday communication, irony is opposed to serious communication and is associated with play, pretense, insincerity;
• marginal zone  – the necessity for interpretation / decoding, since irony is addressed to the mind and emotions of the recipient, of course, requires decoding: analysis of strategies and tactics with which ironic imagery is formed, references to the context, consideration of the author's personality. However, if irony is expressed in the text explicitly (he noted ironically, an ironic grin flashed on his face), it will not require interpretive efforts;
• periphery – the degree of implicitness can vary (expressed explicitly – implicitly; explicit irony – subtle / hidden irony).

Taken together, the prototypical features of irony described above form a rather complicated conceptual structure, which, nevertheless, lends itself to analysis within the framework of the cognitive approach.

Many researchers who consider irony through the prism of the linguo-cognitive aspect adhere to a frame approach to describing ironic statements. In this case, the mechanism for the emergence of irony is universal: the contradiction inherent in irony arises due to the collision of two oppositely directed frames; moreover, the first frame implies a stereotypical situation corresponding to the expectations of the reader or listener, and the second frame crosses out these expectations. As a result, two semantic fields that contrast with each other appear in the text.

References:

1. Kratkiy slovar' kognitivnykh terminov / E. S. Kubryakova [i dr.] ; pod obshch. red. E. S. Kubryakovoy. – M. : Mosk. gos. un-t, 1996. – 245 s.
2. Teliya, V. N. Russkaya frazeologiya: semanticheskiy, pragmaticheskiy i lingvokul'turologicheskiy aspekty / V. N. Teliya. – M. : Shk. «Yaz. rus. kul'tury», 1996. – 284 s.
3. Popova, Z. D. Ocherki po kognitivnoy lingvistike / Z. D. Popova, I. A. Sternin. – Voronezh : [b. i.], 2001. – 191 s.
4. Bara, B. Simple and complex speech acts: what makes the difference within a developmental perspective / B. Bara, F. Bosco, M. Bucciarelli // Proceedings of the Twenty-first annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, 19–21 August 1999 / ed.: M. Hahn, S. C. Stoness. – New York, 1999. – P. 55–60.