Upload
others
View
14
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ROMANIAN – AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
CROSSING BOUNDARIES IN CULTURE
AND COMMUNICATION
VOLUME 3, NUMBER 2
2012
EDITURA UNIVERSITARĂ
2
Crossing Boundaries in Culture and Communication
Journal of the Department of Foreign Languages, Romanian-American University
Scientific Board: Professor M. Lucia Aliffi, Ph.D., University of Palermo, Italy
Professor Martin Heusser, Ph.D., University of Zürich, Switzerland
Professor Monica Bottez, Ph.D., University of Bucharest, Romania
Professor Angela Bidu-Vrănceanu, Ph.D., University of Bucharest, Romania
Professor Coman Lupu, Ph.D., University of Bucharest, Romania
Professor Adriana Chiriacescu, Ph.D., The Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies,
Romania
Associate Professor Otilia Doroteea Borcia, Ph.D., “Dimitrie Cantemir” Christian
University, Romania
Cristina Ivanovici, Ph.D., University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
Associate Professor Elena Museanu, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Romania
Editorial Board:
Coordinator: Elena Museanu, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest
Members: Gabriela Brozbă, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest
Mihaela Ciobanu, Ph.D. Candidate, Romanian-American University, Bucharest
Mariana Coancă, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest
Andreea Raluca Constantin, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest
Ioana Dascalu, Ph.D. Candidate, Romanian-American University, Bucharest
Mihaela Istrate, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest
Vanesa Magheruşan, Romanian-American University, Bucharest
Alexandra Mărginean, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest
Editing:
Doroty Ionescu
The publisher and the Editorial Board wish to inform that the views expressed in
this journal belong to the contributors, each contributor being responsible for the opinions,
data and statements expressed in the article.
ISSN 2248 – 2202
ISSN-L = 2248 – 2202
3
Contents
Editorial ............................................................................................................................. 5
LINGUISTICS
Despre unele eufemisme ratate ale limbii române de azi
Laurenţiu Bălă ........................................................................................................................ 8
How Is the Ironic Meaning Made? Ruxandra Buluc .................................................................................................................... 15
The Moralization of English Terms Denoting an Inferior Social Role
in the Medieval Period
Iulia Cristina Burlacu ........................................................................................................... 25
Romanian, English and our Roman Ancestors
Nicholas Dima ...................................................................................................................... 39
Complementul prepoziţional şi completiva prepoziţională
Gyongyver Măduţa ............................................................................................................... 48
Competenţa comunicativă în discursul jurisdicţional
Mariana Preda ...................................................................................................................... 57
Derivate i compuse româneşti în trend
Anca-Anne-Marie Tudor ...................................................................................................... 65
TRANSLATION STUDIES
Crossing Boundaries – Intercultural Interaction in Tourism
Roxana Bîrsanu .................................................................................................................... 78
The Impact of Cultural Translations on Albanian Students: Theory versus Practice
Ilda Kanani ........................................................................................................................... 83
Translation Studies and Reception Studies. Intersections and Overlaps
Ana-Magdalena Petraru (Mitocaru) ..................................................................................... 89
Crossing Boundaries in Children’s Literature
Gabriela Stoica ..................................................................................................................... 97
Loss and Gain when Translating Somatic Idioms
Mihaela Raluca Ştefan ....................................................................................................... 105
4
LITERARY STUDIES
The Communist Regime through Malcolm Bradbury’s eyes
Elena Cigăreanu ................................................................................................................. 114
Écrivains minimalistes et personnages en mouvement.
Fuir de Jean Philippe Toussaint
Iuliana Paştin ...................................................................................................................... 121
Twilight, a Popular Culture Product
Alexandra-Patricia Puşcă ................................................................................................... 128
From Folkloric Demon to Contemporary Vampire
Alexandra-Patricia Puşcă ................................................................................................... 136
Love, Identity and Place in Nadine Gordimer’s The Pickup
Cătălin Tecucianu............................................................................................................... 144
Making It in America
Claudia Ţîţu ........................................................................................................................ 151
CULTURAL STUDIES
Fantastic Journeys in Angela Carter’s Nights at the Circus
Irina Bocianu ...................................................................................................................... 158
God in Absentia – John Fowles’ The Collector from a Christian Perspective
Iulia Drăghici ..................................................................................................................... 163
Ethics in the Romanian Academic System
Vanesa Magherusan ........................................................................................................... 173
The Ideological Epistolary Space of Otium
Alexandra Roxana Mărginean ............................................................................................ 179
Incursiune în geografia ecleziastică a spaţiului eladitic.
Lăcaşuri de cult şi icoane – filiaţii onomastice
Maria-Cătălina Muraru ....................................................................................................... 183
The Chart of Human Rights and the Chart of Transdisciplinarity
Adrian Petrariu ................................................................................................................... 190
The Image of the Contemporary British Monarchy: Between the Influence
of Television and the Democratization and Commodification Discourse
Marina-Cristiana Rotaru ..................................................................................................... 198
Storytelling in Fiction and Film: “Auggie Wren’s Christmas Story” versus Smoke
Daniela Tecucianu .............................................................................................................. 211
5
Editorial
“Crossing Boundaries in Culture and Communication”, the journal of
the Department of Foreign Languages of the Romanian-American University in
Bucharest, is a professional publication meant to bring together the
preoccupations and contributions of those interested in human communication and
cultural phenomena in the global context: foreign language educators, academic
researchers, journalists and others, from schools, universities or alternative areas
of humanistic approach around this country and abroad.
The 2nd
international conference with the same name facilitated the issuing
of this journal, by reuniting it topically under the umbrella-theme Journeys from
Europe to Other Continents and Back. The articles published here represent a
selection of the Conference presentations; they reflect a variety of perspectives and
innovative ideas on topics such as linguistics, FLT, literary / Canadian / cultural
studies and their related fields, providing opportunities for professional
development and research.
The editorial board considers that the personal contributions included in
this issue as well as in the next ones, come in support of multilingualism and
multiculturalism due to their variety of topics and linguistic diversity. This would
be, in fact, the challenge we are faced with: to put forth a journal which, in spite of
its heterogeneous blend, should serve the goal of gathering under its covers the
results of the pursuits and concerns of those interested in the ongoing development
of culture and in the interpersonal communication which have been subject to
various mutations as an effect of an ever-changing globalized world.
This unity in diversity should be achieved by connections established
within and among a variety of fields which often blend into each other, proving the
interdisciplinarity of modern research: education, teaching, literature, media etc.
which also allow complementary approaches in linguistics, rhetoric, sociology etc.
6
The present issue includes four sections: linguistics, translation studies,
literary studies and cultural studies. All the contributions published here share
their authors’ ideas in what we hope to become a large cross-boundaries “forum”
of communication, debate and mutual cultural interests.
As we don’t want to reveal too much right from the beginning, and in the
hope that we have stirred your curiosity, we are inviting you to discover the
universe the authors have shaped and described, the view upon life that they are
imagining, which might be considered, in fact, the overall desideratum of our
Journal.
Thanking all contributors, the editorial board welcomes your presence in
this volume and invites the interested ones to unravel the various topics which put
forward the concerns and the findings of a challenging professional community.
Editorial Board
8
Despre unele eufemisme ratate ale limbii române de azi
Bălă Laurenţiu
Universitatea din Craiova
Rezumat Această lucrare prezintă unele eufemisme ratate ale limbii române de azi. Fiind prezent în
toate limbile pentru a aborda subiecte tabu, eufemismul este o expresie care este mai puţin
ofensatoare pentru ascultător decât cuvântul sau fraza pe care o înlocuieşte.
Cuvinte cheie eufemisme, limba română, eufemistic
Cu toţii folosim deseori eufemisme atunci când ni se întâmplă să abordăm
subiecte tabu sau sensibile. Eufemismul este, în acest caz, o expresie pe care o
considerăm ca fiind mai puţin ofensatoare, deranjantă, pentru ascultător decât
cuvântul sau fraza pe care o înlocuieşte. Acest fenomen este prezent dintotdeauna
şi în toate limbile. Cuvinte considerate iniţial eufemisme îşi pot pierde această
valoare, dobândind conotaţii negative, ceea ce implică înlocuirea lor cu alte
eufemisme. Aşa s-a întâmplat în limba engleză cu toilet room (eufemism, la
origine), care a fost înlocuit cu bathroom, apoi cu water closet [1] şi, în sfârşit, cu
rest room.
Lazăr Şăineanu, marele lingvist român, într-un studiu dedicat limbajului
parizian din secolul al XIX-lea [2], observa încă de acum aproape o sută de ani
existenţa unui dublu procedeu folosit pentru evitarea termenilor triviali. Primul, de
ordin formal, consta în atenuarea acestora (de exemplu bougre „sodomit”, era
înlocuit cu bigre), în timp ce al doilea, de ordin lexicologic, mai des întâlnit,
însemna înlocuirea termenului vulgar printr-un cuvânt echivalent, mai mult sau mai
puţin potrivit. Astfel, de exemplu, pentru frecventul şi vulgarul merde „căcat”, el
menţiona, ca termeni echivalenţi miel „miere”, moutarde „muştar” şi, mai ales,
mince „subţire”!
Atenuarea sau deghizarea formală le întâlnim pe scară largă în celebrele
sacres din zona Quebecului, înjurături populare de natură religioasă, care sunt
eufemizate prin acest procedeu. Astfel, pentru (Jésus) Christ se folosesc termeni
precum crisse, Christophe, crime, criffe, cristi etc. Şi în cazul românei întâlnim un
procedeu asemănător, dar nu în ceea ce priveşte atenuarea termenilor religioşi
folosiţi în înjurături (românii nu au astfel de probleme!), ci în afereza verbului
9
vulgar provenit din lat. futuere (aproape nelipsit din înjurăturile româneşti de orice
fel, de la cele „de mamă”, la cele religioase)! Aceasta duce la forme prescurtate de
genul …tu-ţi, …tu-vă, …tu-i, …tu-le etc.
Asupra celui de-al doilea procedeu, cel lexicologic, cu referire la limba
română, ne vom opri în cele ce urmează. În exemplul citat de Şăineanu aveam de-a
face cu înlocuirea cuvântului considerat vulgar (merde) prin mai multe eufemisme
care, dincolo de sensurile lor de bază total diferite, aveau două trăsături comune:
1. începeau cu aceeaşi literă ca şi termenul pe care îl înlocuiau;
2. aveau un corp fonetic aproape la fel de redus, compus dintr-o singură
silabă (cu excepţia lui moutarde, compus din două silabe).
Acelaşi fenomen îl întâlnim şi în limba română, în cazul unei serii destul
de largi de sinonime eufemistice (în intenţia utilizatorilor) pentru varianta vulgară a
termenului ştiinţific penis, termen foarte prezent nu numai în înjurăturile româneşti,
ci şi în vorbirea cotidiană, căci expresia (în) p…a mea! pare a fi expresia favorită a
românilor, răspunsul lor la toate întrebările şi problemele existenţiale…
La fel ca în exemplul lui Şăineanu, şi în cazul termenului românesc supus
unei masive eufemizări, cel puţin în ultimele decenii, avem de-a face cu o serie
întreagă de sinonime care au în comun cele două trăsături menţionate mai sus:
încep toate cu litera /p/ şi au corpul fonetic, în general, la fel de scurt ca termenul
pe care îl înlocuiesc. Rodica Zafiu preluând, după spusele sale, o sintagmă a lui
Alexandru Graur dintr-un articol publicat în 1949, numeşte un astfel de joc de
cuvinte deraiere lexicală, care „constă în substituirea unui cuvânt (care poate face
parte dintr-o expresie) prin altul doar pe baza asemănării formale, fără legătură
semantică, a segmentului iniţial” [3].
În exemplele care urmează, am subliniat atât eufemismul în chestiune, cât şi
contextul în care apare, căci altfel, „legătura dintre ele nu ar putea fi reconstituită” [4],
cuvintele în sine, izolate sau folosite în alte împrejurări, neavând absolut nimic
vulgar. Astfel, în ordine strict alfabetică, eufemismele… înlocuitoare sunt:
pana
În primul rând, de ce pana mea nu si-a amintit lumea ca e ziua lui
Eminescu? De ce pana mea avea atata dreptate? (codrinscutaru.blogspot.ro)
Nu ştim dacă autorul acestor fraze avea în gând primul vers din Scrisoarea
II a lui Mihai Eminescu (De ce pana mea rămâne în cerneală, mă întrebi?), cert
este că termenul în cauză înlocuieşte, destul de frecvent în româna vorbită (şi scrisă,
cel puţin pe internet!), vulgarul echivalent al lui penis. De remarcat existenţa unui
blog intitulat chiar „În pana mea” şi care, dacă ar fi avut o cât de mică legătură cu
pana eminesciană, ar fi putut să se numească altfel!
10
papuci(i)
Reprezintă unul dintre eufemismele folosite la plural, pentru a înlocui un
termen utilizat îndeobşte la singular! Poate fi întâlnit atât în varianta nearticulată:
da-l in papuci ca ma doare capul cat am stat ieri cu el... ms de ajutor dar
renunt
(gpszone.ro)
cât şi articulată:
Cn [cine, n.m., LB] papucii mei ma deranjaza la ora asta?
(mikutzuldracushor.sunphoto.ro)
Ce papucii mei vrei de la mine? (filiera.fr)
pălăria
Ce palaria mea face asta de castiga mai mult decat un presedinte??
(impact-est.ro)
Du-te-n palaria mea, bai, simpaticule! (colegii.cc)
Contextele în care apare acest termen, în exemplele de mai sus, sunt cât se
poate de edificatoare pentru sensul care îi este atribuit.
pielea
- Mai baiete, stii ceva? Ia mai du-te-n pielea mea. (tpu.ro)
Du-te in pielea mea de idiot cretin care nu ai o chifla in burta si nu mai
comenta aiurea (yoda.ro)
Dacă în cazul termenilor de mai sus, explicaţia pentru folosirea lor ca
eufemisme pentru penis este pur formală, în cazul acestuia se poate face o legătură
cu sintagma argotică pielea p…ii („Persoana fara importanta in societate restu va
imaginati voi cum e sa fi pielea si nu restu'”, cf. 123urban.ro).
pisici(i)
Este un alt termen folosit la plural, ca şi papuci, atât în varianta
nearticulată:
da'l in pisici. barbatii sunt precum autobuzele, la fiecare 2 min vine altul:))
(sfaturi.eva.ro)
(de remarcat că fraza aceasta îi aparţine unei femei!), cât mai ales în cea articulată:
Dă-l în pisicii mamei lui de contract, doar nu s-o prinde lumea că nu s-a
parafat la timp. (gorj-domino.com)
11
Folosirea eufemistică a acestui termen datează dinainte de 1989, iar faptul
că prima silabă coincide cu primele două litere ale echivalentului vulgar pentru
organul sexual feminin a făcut să fie folosit pe scară largă de vorbitorii de ambele
sexe. Este interesant că pe internet, la întrebarea „Ce cuvinte folosiţi zilnic cel mai
des?” lansată pe un forum o participantă răspunde:
Du-te-n pisicii mei de retardat mintal
Ce pisicii mei vrei măă?
şi, concluzionând:
Ceva ce contine pisici (tpu.ro)
pix(ul)
Pe lângă faptul că începe cu litera /p/ şi că are un corp fonetic redus, în
cazul acestui termen se poate vorbi şi de o analogie de formă şi, deci, de un simbol
falic. De aceea şi este utilizat cu sensul de penis în argoul românesc (cf. Volceanov).
Termenul poate fi întâlnit atât în forma sa nearticulată:
Mai da-l in pix si pe bukale asta, cat de frig poa sa fie iarna?
(forum.softpedia.com)
Ma doare-n pix de salariul de la primarie (ziare.com)
cât şi în cea articulată:
Gigi Becali, mai du-te-n pixul meu! (gtd.ro)
De remarcat şi existenţa construcţiei rimate fix în pix, al cărei caracter
comic este evident:
Ma doare fix in pix de raportul pe care-l faci, poti comunica companiei
numele meu si parerea mea despre eveniment. (expresuldebuftea.ro)
De ce îmi este fix în pix de adoptarea Legii antidiscriminare (curaj.net)
puii
Este vorba de un nou plural folosit pentru a înlocui un singular, pe care,
personal, nu l-am întâlnit decât la forma articulată. Un termen mai special, care a
cunoscut o utilizare excesivă în ultimii ani şi datorită (din cauza?) unei emisiuni
intitulate În puii mei! şi difuzate de un post de televiziune naţional, Antena 1, fără
ca această eufemizare a binecunoscutei expresii triviale să deranjeze in vreun fel
Consiliul Naţional al Audiovizualului! Să nu-i cunoască oare sensul membrii
CNA-ului? Greu de crezut, din moment ce într-un raport de monitorizare emis de
12
aceeaşi instituţie, o emisiune radio în care este folosită expresia Ce puii mei!
(explicată de către unul din realizatori astfel: O înjurătură clasică, nu se poate să
treacă o zi fără să o auzi, pe stradă, în birou.) este incriminată, căci pe lângă
expresia respectivă mai sunt citate şi altele „Du-te-n pisicii mă-tii!”, „Ce puşca
mea!”, „Pana mea!” etc. [5]. De altfel, explicaţii foarte la îndemână ar fi putut
găsi şi pe internet:
puii mei
1. Expresie ce denotă enervarea celui care o foloseşte; la naiba; fir-ar să fie.
2. Exemple: Ce puii mei ai luat aici? Ţi-am zis cheie de şaişpe sau nu?
3. expresie eufemistică; substituie termenul vulgar care denumeşte
organul sexual masculin
4. Exemple: Dă-o in puii mei de treabă... ti-am zis să mergi dimineată la
magazin si tu ai dormit pană la 12.
5. varianta „soft” pentru expresia „p…a mea”, folosita in cele mai diverse
feluri.
Exemple: Ce puii mei vrei? / Mai da-te-n puii mei. / Puii mei... Ce ma
intrebi pe mine? (123urban.ro)
Este interesant că într-o serie întreagă de construcţii cu acest termen
eufemistic, menţionate în unele dicţionare de argou al limbii române (cf. Volceanov),
echivalentul său este tot un eufemism, naiba, una din denumirile populare pentru
drac, diavol. Astfel, construcţii de genul când/cine/cum/de unde puii mei? au ca
echivalent „când/cine/cum/de unde naiba?”, iar o exclamaţie precum ce puii mei!
este explicată, şi ea, prin „ce naiba!” La fel se întâmplă şi cu alte construcţii
sinonime din această serie, cum ar fi când/cine/cum/de unde pălăria/pielea/puşca
mea, echivalate tot prin „când/cine/cum/de unde naiba”.
puşca
În cazul acestui termen, ca şi în cel al eufemismului pix, intervine analogia
de formă, simbolul falic fiind transparent, lui adăugându-i-se şi metafora
„descărcării” ce funcţionează şi pentru un alt termen care înseamnă în argou penis,
şi anume pistol (cf. Ţânţaş).
Acum, ca i-am facut indeajuns reclama ma intreb, iar, cine pusca mea e
omul asta si de ce merita sa fie presedinte? (erepublik.com)
13
Eu ştiu că tu nu ţii la mine, că de Gerula-ţi place Şi te văd intrând cu el în
şură, da’ ce puşca mea îţi face?
Taci în puşca mea din gură, nu vezi că-ncerc să scriu / Ăsta-i Gerula care
urlă în spate, l-am legat de frână / L-am lovit cu levieru’ peste gură şi i-am rupt şi-o
mână
Fără Zahăr – Sandu (versuri.ro)
Ioan Milică asimilează construcţii de genul în puşca mea, ce puii mei unor
„structuri interjecţionale complexe, care au valoare emfatică sau persuasivă.” [6]
Pe lângă toţi aceşti termeni care se supun deraierii lexicale menţionate de
Graur şi Zafiu, există în limba română şi alţi termeni în cazul cărora aceasta nu se
aplică. Din lipsă de spaţiu, iată doar câţiva dintre aceştia:
chilu(’), var. kilu(’): hai, da-va-n chilu’ meu, va las! va pup pa portofel,
ma duc sa dau o geana la cocalarii mei de la Imagistica sa nu cumva sa se dea pa
net pa ziaru’ Dilema. (liviualexa.ro)
da-te-n kilu’ meu! ca nu-ti merge nou’ sait. (piticigratis.blogspot.ro)
cucii: când/cine/cum/de unde cucii mei? echivalate, şi acestea, prin
„când/cine/ cum/de unde naiba?” Expresii construite după modelul puii mei,
avându-se poate în vedere şi faptul că în argou cuc înseamnă şi „penis (de copil)”
(cf. Volceanov).
spume(le) (mării): Termenul argotic spumă (spume) este folosit încă
dinainte de 1989, iar astăzi intră în componenţa mai multor construcţii: a face (pe
cineva) o spumă „a invita (pe cineva) la o bere”; a face spume la gură „a se
enerva, a se înfuria”; naşpa cu spume „foarte rău”; spuma mării! „nu spui nimic!”.
Un alt sens argotic este „spermă”, sau, la pl., „stare de enervare” (cf. Volceanov).
Taranul ala morosan trebuie dat in judecata, da-l in spume! (m.evz.ro)
Du-te-n spumele marii si tu, ba parlamentar peremist de trei bani.
(reportervirtual.ro)
Concluzii
După părerea noastră, toate aceste construcţii eufemistice sinonime pot fi
considerate, aşa cum le-am numit în titlul acestui articol, nişte eufemisme ratate,
căci departe de a atenua sau de a deghiza expresia vulgară pe care o înlocuiesc, ni
se pare că, dimpotrivă, sporesc vulgaritatea exprimării cotidiene a românilor.
Şi aceasta atât prin numărul lor foarte mare, cât mai ales prin transparenţa evidentă
nu a termenilor în sine, ci a contextelor în care aceştia apar, a intonaţiei uşor de
14
descifrat atunci când aceste construcţii sunt rostite public, sau uşor de intuit atunci
când ele apar în scris. Consecinţa cea mai gravă a acestor eufemisme ratate este că
dacă înainte expresia înlocuită era utilizată numai de bărbaţi (e adevărat, existau şi
mai există unele excepţii!), aceste construcţii eufemistice au ajuns să fie utilizate de
toată lumea, fără deosebire de sex!
Note
[1] Din pronunţarea românească a iniţialelor w[ater] c[loset] a rezultat în limba noastră
vece, cu varianta veceu, dar şi closet, toate având acelaşi sens. Şi în română se poate
vorbi de o serie eufemistică, la fel ca în engleză, la termenii menţionaţi mai sus
adăugându-se baie şi toaletă.
[2] Le langage parisien au XIXe
siècle: facteurs sociaux, contingents linguistiques, faits
sémantiques, influences littéraires, Paris: E. de Boccard, Éditeur, 1920, pp. 413-414.
[3] 101 cuvinte argotice, Bucureşti: Humanitas, Col. „Viaţa cuvintelor”, 2010, p. 81.
[4] Ibidem.
[5] Raport de monitorizare, p. 5.
[6] Expresivitatea argoului, Prefaţă de D. Irimia, Iaşi: Editura Universităţii „Alexandru
Ioan Cuza”, 2009, p. 138.
Bibliografie
1. Milică, Ioan. Expresivitatea argoului, Prefaţă de Dumitru Irimia, Iaşi: Editura
Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, 2009.
2. Sainéan, Lazare. Le langage parisien au XIXe
siècle: facteurs sociaux, contingents
linguistiques, faits sémantiques, influences littéraires, Paris: E. de Boccard, Éditeur,
1920.
3. Ţânţaş, Viorel Horea. Dicţionar de puşcărie. Limbajul de argou al deţinuţilor din
România, Cluj-Napoca: Editura Napoca Star, 2007.
4. Volceanov, Anca; George Volceanov. Dicţionar de argou şi expresii familiare ale
limbii române, Bucureşti: Editura Livpress, 1998.
5. Volceanov, George. Dicţionar de argou al limbii române, Bucureşti: Niculescu, 2006.
6. Zafiu, Rodica. 101 cuvinte argotice, Bucureşti: Humanitas, Col. „Viaţa cuvintelor”, 2010.
7. Raport de monitorizare. URL: <http://www.cna.ro/IMG/pdf/RADIO-Sinteza_matinale
- ianuarie _280312.pdf>.
8. 123urban.ro. URL: <http://www.123urban.ro>.
15
How Is the Ironic Meaning Made?
Ruxandra Buluc
National Defense University ‘Carol I’
Abstract Irony is the most difficult to define of all speech acts. First and foremost it is the matter of
stated versus implied meaning (which are different or opposite), secondly, it is always
ideologically laden, and, last but not least, not all readers are able to decode the ironic
meaning. Some readers can only interpret the surface, obvious meaning and the irony, the
underlying meaning, remains unperceived. The present paper explains why there is this gap
in interpretation and the theory put forth is based on the concept of discursive communities
and on the shared knowledge that the ironist and interpreter must possess in order for the
irony to be transmitted and decoded properly.
Keywords irony, discursive communities, ideal reader, intentio auctoris, intentio operis, intentio
lectoris, shared background knowledge
Motto: ‘Reading [...is] as creative a process as writing,
sometimes more so. When we read of the dying rays of
the setting sun or the boom and swish of the incoming
tide, we should reserve as much praise for ourselves
[the readers] as for the author. After all, the reader is
doing all the work – the writer may have died long
ago.’ (Jasper Fforde First among Sequels)
When discussing irony several aspects must be taken into consideration.
Irony is the one speech act whose whole meaning is not readily available in the
text. An ironic message consists of two separate meanings: the obvious, textual one
that can be perceived by any reader, and the underlying one, the ironic meaning
itself that is obtained only by analysing the discourse itself and the ideology, world
view, opinions, comments it denotes.
Consequently, I have chosen to refer to ironic meaning as being made,
rather than discovered in a narrative since it is at the meeting point between an
author‟s intentions, the text/message as such, a reader‟s decoding that this meaning
arises and the context in which it was uttered/written.
To begin with, Eco [3, 62] states that when a text is produced and intended
not for one reader, but for a community of readers, the author knows that he/she will
be interpreted not according to his/her intentions, but as a result of a complex
16
network of interactions which involves both the readers and their competence with
respect to language as part of a common social framework. He also refers to
language not solely as a linguistic instrument made up of phonology, morphology
and syntax, but as a construct created by history and by previous literary knowledge.
When he speaks about the intention of the author (intentio auctoris), Eco
points out the fact that he is referring mainly to the intentions of the text and to the
intentions of the Model Author „to the extent that the reader is able to recognize in
terms of textual strategy.‟ [3, 63] This type of author has also been termed Liminal
or Threshold Author, „as the threshold existing between the intention of a certain
human being and the linguistic intention demonstrated by a textual strategy.‟ [3,
64] This tenet means that not only the reader interacts with the text, but also the
author expresses his/her intentions and awaits to see how the words transmit them.
Interpretation does not arise in the reader‟s mind if not prompted by the
text. For this reason, Eco feels safe in arguing that beside the intentions of the
author and those of the reader, one can also speak about the intentions of the text,
i.e. about intentio operis.
A text is a machine able to produce its own Model Reader. This reader is not
the one that makes the unique right assumption. A text may require a Model
Reader to try infinite assumptions. (…) The intention of the text is mainly to
produce a Model Reader able to make assumptions based on it, and this
reader‟s initiative is to imagine a Model Author who is not the empirical one
and who, in the end, coincides with the intention of the text. Consequently,
the text is not so much a parameter used to validate an interpretation, but an
object built by, interpretation in the circular attempt to validate itself on the
basis of what it construes as its own result. [3, 59-60]
The text‟s intention must not be neglected in the reading process since it is,
on the one hand, the intermediate step between the empirical reader and the text,
and on the other hand, the means of extracting from the written words the implied
author‟s intentions. Intentio operis is in fact a „semiotic strategy‟ [3, 60] that
enables the reader to construct meaning and authorial intentions by employing the
clues and information in the text. The validity of this concept is attested by the fact
that in order to evaluate whether the interpretation of a part of the text is
appropriate (I try to avoid the word correct since it implies uniqueness of
interpretation), another position of the text must come to confirm it, otherwise it
needs to be dismissed. It is in this respect that the internal coherence of the text
controls the reader‟s impulses, which would otherwise run amok.
17
In conclusion, one may argue that no text leaves its reader unguided, free
to make any presuppositions he feels like, and turn the text into something it is not.
Interpretations may vary greatly, according to which paradigm of comprehension
each reader chooses when approaching the text, but all these paradigms have been
introduced in the text by the author, who thus controls the reader‟s understanding.
Textual intention is very important not only in the discussion of novels in
general, but also in the interpretation of irony. Many critics have argued that the
literal meaning of an ironic utterance needs to be discarded completely in order for
the ironic meaning to be instantiated. [6, 12] On the other hand, it is widely known
and accepted that the ironic meaning as such is not readily available in the text;
after all, irony is an indirect figure of speech. Consequently, the reader cannot
discard the literal meaning immediately and start looking beyond it for a possible
interpretation. As Linda Hutcheon explains:
The ironic meaning is inclusive and relational: the said and the unsaid
coexist for the interpreter, and each has meaning in relation to the other
because they „literally‟ interact to create the real ironic meaning. The ironic
meaning is not then simply the unsaid meaning, and the unsaid is not
always a simple inversion or opposite of the said: it is always different –
other than and more than the said. [6, 12]
The ironic meaning actually stems from the interaction of what is said and
what is implied; it cannot exist outside of what is spoken directly. Irony destroys
the dichotomy „one signifier – one signified‟ and replaces it with a complex
interaction of meaning that, nonetheless, cannot ignore the stated in favour of the
implied. In order for the ironic meaning to be different from what is overtly stated,
it means that this literal meaning needs to be taken into account and analysed, and,
on its basis, the ironic meaning is perceived and understood. Of course, this ironic
meaning is not the same as the literal one, but the overtly stated message plays an
important part in creating the tension and even frustration of interpretation that is
the trademark of irony.
Every text predicates an implied reader. However more needs to be said
about this reader in the context of interpreting irony. The implied author is a
construct used mainly in narratology and referring to the instance in the text to
whom all of the implied author‟s intentions are addressed. On the other hand, the
Ideal/Model Reader that Eco and others propose is more than a mere addressee; it
is the one who actively participates in the making of the text, by discovering the
principles of the work and arranging them according to the text‟s intention.
18
As Eco points out [4, 203], a text which has a clear aesthetic aim
constructs, in fact, two Model Readers. The first-level Model Reader is the one
interested in how the story presented will end, what outcome the unfolding events
will create. This type of reader is called the „semantic reader.‟ [4, 203] The second-
level reader, also called the „semiotic or aesthetic reader,‟ is the one who „asks
himself what kind of reader that particular story was asking him to become, and
wants to know how the Model Author who is instructing him step by step will
proceed.‟ [4,203]In other words, the first reader wants to know what will happen,
while the second wants to know how what happens is presented in the text, how it
is narrated. In order to become a proficient second-level reader one needs first of
all to be a good first-level reader. Every reader first re-constructs the narrative
events and then looks at the construction of the narrative.
In light of this theory, I would argue that the Ideal Reader, especially in the
case of ironic pieces of fiction, is the second-level Model Reader. This reader is
neither an abstraction, nor an actual living reader, but a hybrid, a real reader who
does everything in his power to be informed.
Yet, when speaking about irony, one cannot limit oneself to a discussion of a
hypothetical Model/Ideal Reader. One needs to take into consideration a larger
audience, a multitude of receivers of the ironic message. One single reader may not
and cannot determine on his/her own if an ironic reading is appropriate or not. As
Waugh argues, any type of fiction (experimental and metafiction in particular)
requires an audience that is „self-conscious about its linguistic practices‟ [7, 64]. But
this audience also has some requirements, the most important one being that the text
must be familiar or it will be rejected as incomprehensible: „(i)n metafiction it is
precisely the fulfilment as well as the non-fulfilment of generic expectations that
provides both familiarity and the starting point for innovation. [7, 64]
Therefore, some conventions of realistic or popular fiction need to be
employed in the text to facilitate the readers‟ understanding. The decoding of an
ironic meaning is more or less a collective decision, one that implies a communion
of interests, goals and knowledge and that allows for this meaning to be considered
as such. An individual interpretation of a word, phrase, sentence, or discourse as
ironic cannot guarantee that the context has an ironic meaning. Irony is a collective
endeavour. It can be seen as either creating communities of understanding or as
being based on/born in the midst of pre-existing communities.
This brings to the fore another matter. Does irony appear in pre-existing
communities based on a shared system of knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions
which allow for the ironic meaning to be transmitted and comprehended? Or does
19
irony facilitate the formation of communities by gathering those who understand
irony and excluding those who do not? Both of the two views have been espoused
by literary critics, and arguments have been brought in their favour. The present
paper analyzes the tenets of these two opinions and synthesises them into a unitary
theory meant to better understand how and why irony is decoded/made correctly by
some interpreters and missed by others.
In A Rhetoric of Irony, Wayne Booth states that irony builds „amiable
communities‟ between an ironist and an interpreter who experience the pleasure of
„joining, of finding and communing with kindred spirits‟ [1, 28]. Thus irony
becomes a „communal achievement.‟ [1, 13] However, the question is whether
irony indeed builds bridges of comprehension among people, or if it benefits from
pre-existing connections among people belonging to the same community.
Fish also claims that communication can only occur within a system of
intelligibility, which is hard to define since it cannot be reduced and applied to a
limited number of situations.
Communication occurs only within such a system (or context, or situation,
or interpretive community) and the understanding achieved by two or more
persons is specific to that system and determinate only within its confines.
[5, 304]
The public and the norms (of language and understanding) are not embedded
or inherent in language. Their origin lies in an institutional structure. He considers
the structure to be the meeting point of context and interpretive communities.
According to Hutcheon [6], irony has a transideological nature as well as
many complex functions and effects. It could be assumed that it does more than
create amiable communities. As Hutcheon suggests, and her idea bears
resemblance to Fish‟s:
irony does not so much create “amiable communities” as itself comes into
being in “contact zones” as the “social spaces where cultures meet, clash,
grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations
of power.” [Pratt qtd in 6, 93]
These „contact zones‟ facilitate communication, be it ironic in nature or
not. If overlapping between different communicative communities did not exist,
meaning could not be transmitted, and we would all live in a world of monologues.
Even within each community, there is a great diversity of speech, and
different people live in different worlds of discourse. The whole communication
process depends on these worlds. The communication process is also enabled by
20
these different worlds. They help readers develop expectations, make assumptions,
and process that very complex discourse they are confronted with every day, and
which is commonly referred to as language in use.
Within this world of everyday speech, irony distinguishes itself quite
clearly, since interpreters are more likely to fail when attempting to comprehend it.
Irony is not simple communication. It entails semantic reinterpretations, emotions
and evaluations, it has a cutting edge that may hurt some, annoy others, entertain
some more or exclude the rest. Nobody likes to feel left out of a communicative
situation. As Hutcheon claims:
Irony is more often a semantically complex process of relating,
differentiating, and combining said and unsaid meanings and doing so with
some evaluative edge. It is also, however, a culturally shaped process. No
theorist of irony could dispute the existence of a special relationship in
ironic discourse between the ironist and the interpreter; but for most it is
irony itself that is said to create that relationship. (…) It is community that
comes first and in fact enables irony to happen. [6, 89]
Hutcheon points out that irony does not form communities, but appears as
a result of the ironist and interpreter sharing the ideological beliefs of one pre-
existing community. She goes on to combine the idea of community with the fact
that irony appears in the context of one particular discourse which, by definition, is
ideologically laden and requires an evaluative interpretation. In other words, irony
is bound by and in a discourse, and the discourse exhibits the ideological features
of one particular community. Therefore, in interpreting irony one may speak about
discursive communities, since the focus is no longer on who uses irony, but on
what discursive community is able to understand it.
Hutcheon defines discursive communities in general by the „complex
configuration of shared knowledge, beliefs, values and communicative strategies.‟
(6, 91) Discursive communities are dynamic, subtly differentiated. The constraints
that govern them may not be overt or readily apparent to the members of that
particular community. They become manifest when discursive communities are
faced with one another in communication. Then the constraints become obvious.
These constraints of discursive contexts refer to and foreground
the particularities not only of space and time, but of class, race, gender,
ethnicity, sexual choice – not to mention nationality, religion, age,
profession, and all the other micropolitical groupings in which we place
ourselves or are placed by our society. [6, 92]
21
This enumeration of possible traits, defining discursive communities, helps
to further clear up what exactly determines our belonging to a certain community.
At the same time, as Hutcheon stresses, „we belong to many overlapping
(and sometimes even conflicting) communities or collectives‟ [6, 92]. This
overlapping enables the transmission and interpretation of irony, no matter how
dented, partial or incomplete it may be as a consequence of the differences among
the characteristics of various communities.
This theory has another advantage: it demolishes the elitist views of irony
that were put forth by the German theorists. They proclaimed the superiority of the
ironist as he was the producer of irony, and the submission of the audience,
whether or not they understood irony. Irony was seen not as a shared experience,
but as a hierarchy of understanding and of intellectual powers. One could even
speak of a hierarchy of participants, with the ironist on the top position, seconded
by those members of the audience who understood irony, followed by those who
did not. It promoted a feeling of exclusive elitism that influenced views of irony
until contemporary times. Even Wayne Booth, when discussing the interpretation
of irony, uses the metaphor of building a higher platform of meaning, and, from
this platform, the interpreter who comprehends irony can look down on those who
„dwell in error‟ [6, 35-37].
If we are to follow Hutcheon‟s idea that discursive communities precede
irony and make possible its comprehension, the separation between the knowing few
and the ignorant many would no longer hold. Consequently, one might still talk of
two audiences, but instead of the initiated and uninitiated, one might refer to the
addressees and the hearers. Both of them are part of the comprehension framework
of irony, each with a different role and different degrees of participation.
Those who do not get the irony are not necessarily what most want to call its
victims: they may not care at all; they may simply “misunderstand” (i.e.
interpret differently) because they are operating within a different discursive
context. The so-called uninitiated are not always the same as the targets either,
for many miss (or get) ironies directed at others as well as at themselves.
Those who engage the multiple said and unsaid meanings of irony are
certainly interpreting differently than those who engage only the said. [6, 95]
The targets of irony are not the „hearers‟ who do not understand it or who
misunderstand it. On the contrary, the targets are those against whom a particular
instance of irony is directed, and who may or may not comprehend that they have
been ironically attacked. On the other hand, the people who misunderstand irony,
22
either by misreading its meaning or by ignoring its ironic edge, may not be
interested in or affected by the respective ironic instance.
Jonathan Culler has pointed out that the understanding of any utterance
(including an ironical one) demands „an amazing repertoire of conscious and
unconscious knowledge‟ [2, 113]. He has also posited a specifically literary
competence: the tacit knowledge of the conventions by which we read literary
texts. However, as Hutcheon points out, interpreting irony depends on literary
competence, but it also needs to rely on some sort of common assumption between
the participants that would signal a possible ironic meaning. As she put it, there
must exist „some sort of culturally agreed upon markers in the utterance and/or in
enunciative context to signal both that irony is in play and how it is to be
interpreted.‟ [6, 95-96]. And these markers activate the competences needed to
interpret irony within the reader‟s mind.
Hutcheon‟s model of interpreting irony is more interactional and
relational. The two participants in the encoding and decoding of irony interact and
their cultural backgrounds relate in order to make irony happen.
The success of irony depends upon a lack of disparity or (…) some degree of
coincidence between interpreters‟ and ironists‟ senses of the rules determining
when to speak and when to be silent, and when and where and by what means
and in what form, tone, and code who may say what to whom. [6, 99]
And, in the case of indirect speech acts, such as irony, these shared
communicative assumptions are the only means available as well as the only
possible explanation for how irony occurs.
One might say that it is these „shared assumptions‟ rather than competences
that determine the transmission of an ironic meaning. This is another argument in
favour of the overlapping of discursive communities. Therefore, we can speak less of
competence and refer more to the relevance of the context for both participants in
irony‟s meaning making process. If people do not perceive irony in a context, that
may happen not because they cannot interpret irony at all, but because of the fact that
„they may lack contextual information to interpret it‟ [6, 97].
Consequently, the reason why irony is not „universally accessible‟ might
have less to do with interpreter competence than
with the need for shared discursive context, is to shift the terms of the
discussion away from notions of elitism toward an acceptance of the fact
that everyone has different knowledge and belongs to (many) different
discursive communities. [6, 97]
23
The more this shared discourse overlaps with the beliefs held by different
communities, the easier comprehension is. Therefore, in my opinion, irony is not a
matter of elitism, but of difference in knowledge. Considering that we live in an
age of abundant information, it is surprising that we manage to communicate at all,
not to mention understand irony.
In order to synthesise these views related to communities and the role they
play in interpreting irony, I would agree that irony cannot be decoded if the author
and the reader do not share the same cultural background. The discursive
communities that Hutcheon speaks of should be viewed in a very non-restrictive
and fluctuating way. I would not necessarily call them communities as much as
shared cultural backgrounds. It would be very difficult, I believe, to group people
into one community. Even within the same community (of let us say gender) the
differences in education, social status, ideology may be so different as to almost
completely eradicate any similarities and common ground for irony to form on.
Everyone‟s life experience is different. The idea of overlapping communities is not
loose enough to fit all the possible individual variations resulting from the way a
person‟s experience of different cultural discourses may merge into one, unique,
but valid nonetheless, view of the world. A shared cultural background is a term
that allows for a lot of variation since it does not attempt to group people, only to
examine the common points in their knowledge and values systems. The shared
cultural background can be viewed as a spider‟s web, where each knot leads to
another which then refers to the next until the message is understood or the
network is broken.
However, no matter what we choose to call it, it is obvious that irony needs
a broader context and knowledge than that offered by a simple text or utterance in
order for the ironic meaning to be made. Irony exists only in relations, in
interactions, in the fluidity of human speech or writing. It is the least fixed of all
tropes/speech acts. It changes with time - ironic meaning may become obsolete as
the context for its appearance becomes more distant in time. It changes with people
– as their knowledge of the world progresses, certain views are no longer held. It
changes with ideologies – what was once considered ironic may at one point
become harmless or offensive, depending on how ideologies progress. Therefore,
the study of irony itself evolves in time, and it moulds itself with the way society
progresses and interprets/makes irony.
24
References 1. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago and London. The University of
Chicago Press, 1974.
2. Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics. London and New York: Routledge, 1975.
3. Eco, Umberto. Interpretare si suprainterpretare. Constanţa: Editura Pontica, 2004. tr.a.
4. Eco, Umberto. On Literature. Harcourt Inc., 2002.
5. Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities.
Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1980.
6. Hutcheon, L. Irony’s Edge, London: Routledge, 1994.
7. Waugh, Patricia. Metafiction. The Theory and Practice of Self-Conscious Fiction.
London and New York: Routledge, 1984.