Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Ing. Michaela Viková
On the Use of Irony in the Language of American TV Series Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, Csc.
2014 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
…………………………………………….. Author’s signature Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, doc. PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, Csc., for her advice and patience. Then I would like to thank Mgr. et Mgr. Barbora Thiella, M.A., who helped me at the beginning when I was choosing the topic for the thesis. Also, I would like to thank my friend Andrea, who agreed to read my thesis. And last but not least I would like to thank my friend Martina, my boyfriend Petr and my family for their support. Table of Contents Introduction...... 5 (1) On the Use of Language in TV Series...... 7 (2) Introduction of the Selected TV Series...... 11 2.1 Desperate Housewives...... 11 2.2 House MD...... 12 2.3 Hart of Dixie...... 13 2.4 The Big Bang Theory...... 13 (3) Theory of Irony...... 15 (4) Irony from a Semantic Point of View...... 23 (5) Examples of Irony in the Selected American TV Series with a Brief Analysis of Each Example...... 25 5.1 Kind Irony...... 25 5.2 Sarcasm...... 28 5.3 Hiding true opinion or disagreement...... 31 5.4 Hyperbole...... 33 5.5 Metaphor...... 34 5.6 Irony markers used...... 35 5.7 Other examples...... 37 (6) Further Analysis of the Examples Presented in Chapter 5...... 41 Conclusion...... 43 Bibliography...... 48 List of Primary Sources...... 48 List of Secondary Sources...... 48 Resumé...... 52 Resumé (Czech)...... 53 Introduction
American TV series are popular these days. The language of the contemporary
TV series resembles in some way the language of today's people. Irony is one part of the language, it is also widely used and worth of analysing.
The thesis is focused on the use of irony in the language of American TV series from a semantic point of view. The theoretical findings of irony in connection with theoretical findings of semantic analysis and its features are further used for the analysis of ironical passages from the selected American TV series. TV series Desperate
Housewives, Hart of Dixie, House M.D. and The Big Bang Theory were chosen to be analysed. The ironical passages from the selected American TV series are further analysed mainly from the semantic point of view as there can be identified interesting distinctions on the use of irony in the language of American TV series.
As the language of the TV series is scripted and it differs from the unscripted language in everyday life, it is suitable to mention these differences. Therefore, the first chapter deals with this topic. Quaglio's and Bednarek's findings are used as the main sources for this chapter. Since the thesis is focused on TV series, the definition of TV series is also included.
All four selected TV series are briefly described in the second chapter. The genre, setting and main characters of the show are introduced.
The third chapter consists of the theoretical findings on irony, often supported by simple examples. The chapter begins with Muecke's ideas, then continues with Grice's theory based on cooperative principle and violating maxim of Quality, supported with
5 the reactions on Grice's work by other scholars. Afterwards Sperber and Wilson's theory based on echoes is introduced. After that few types of irony are described, including kind irony and sarcasm. Then different approaches and interpretations of irony are presented. The chapter is concluded with the fact that irony is complex phenomenon to interpret.
Some of the semantic features, which are used during the analysis in the fifth chapter, are mentioned in the fourth chapter.
Examples of short ironical passages from the selected TV series are presented in the fifth chapter. The examples are divided into few groups according to specific characteristics for the particular group, based on the way of the analysis. The examples are briefly analysed. The analysis is summarized in the last chapter.
6 (1)On the Use of Language in TV Series
Language used in television usually differs from the language used in ordinary life outside media. The language in live broadcasting differs only a bit as it is not scripted. TV series and movies are usually scripted. Therefore, the language used is fully controlled by a script writer or a group of script writers.
First of all the people in real life can respond to the expressions, their counterpart has just used, how they currently want. They can adjust their responds according to many variables, which may include for example the setting, current mood, behaviour of the counterpart and of course language used by the counterpart, which cannot be definitely omitted. In the TV show everything is written in the script according to the desire of the production team. Quaglio (2009) deals with the difference of communication in real life and scripted communication, and he states that conversation can due to its interactiveness very often result in specific situations like
“overlaps, interruptions, and incomplete utterances without interfering much with the flow of the exchange” (p. 3). He also comes to the conclusion that these are the main differences between television dialogue and ordinary conversation (Quaglio, 2009, p. 3).
The fact that conversation is interactive does not only lead into the possibility of the speaker to choose the words that he wishes, but according to Quaglio (2009) in conversation are used reductions with a high frequency. These reductions include for example substitute pro-forms and ellipsis and therefore the communication process might be slowed down (p. 6). As examples of the reductions, he mentions so called
“nonclausual units” which include “discourse markers (e.g. well), single-word responses
7 (e.g. okay, wow), ellipsis and polite formulas” (Quaglio, 2009, p. 8). He also states that conversation does not include only “awareness of the surrounding physical context but also background knowledge” (p. 6). The next characteristics of the conversation are connected with its interactiveness the speaker can “express [his] stance” (Quaglio, 2009, p. 9) and change tone of the conversation which is according to Quaglio “created through or reflected by the use of linguistic devices” (p. 2). Conversation can be also very emotional and emotions might be expressed for example by “adverbial intensifiers
(e.g. really, so), interjections (e.g. wow, really) and expletives” (Quaglio, 2009, p. 9).
Quaglio (2009) further mentions that “conversation avoids elaboration of meaning” and due to this fact the speakers could frequently use “conversational hedges
(e.g. kind of, sort of), nouns of vague reference (e.g. stuff, think) and vague coordination tags (e.g. something, stuff like that)” (p. 7) and this is also connected with the use of incomplete sentences and pauses as the speaker might not be precise enough
(p.8). Since these devices have unclear meaning and are often used in a different context, it might be difficult to identify correct meaning of the device if there is no possibility to ask the counterpart additional questions in case the device is not correctly understood.
Later in his work Quaglio (2009) focuses on the television dialogue and how it is written. He admits that there are even available so-called manuals how to write a dialogue for television. However, there “[is] no linguistic information […] provided in these manuals” (p. 10). In one of these manuals Smith (2009) recommends the script writers to write dialogues in conversational style (ch. Professional Script Format).
Quaglio (2009) summarizes, as an example, one of the manuals where are many tips for audience needs included, but there are no tips how to realize these needs linguistically
8 (p. 11). Then Quaglio (2009) admits that “some authors recognize the importance of observing naturally-occurring conversation as a model for good dialogue writing” (p.
11). Quaglio (2009) then comes to the conclusion that the language which is used in television is not the same as the unscripted language, but on the other hand it represents the language which scriptwriters imagine that real people speak (p. 11). This is also mentioned by Bednarek (2010) who admits that scripted language is similar to the real language but besides the similarity she also admits the difference (p. 2) already mentioned by Quaglio. Bednarek (2010) writes that the language of television promotes
“certain truths, representations of ideologies” and she also suggests consideration of television language's “communicative context as a process of productions, [...] also its relation to the audience [and] to the genres of fictional television” (p. 2).
The language in television series depends on the genre and setting of the particular television series. One kind of language is used in a series for children, other one for elderly people and other one for example in series about gangsters. Therefore, it is worth to use some division of television series. Bednarek (2010) brings the division of television series and television serial. While one series has usually all the time same theme, settings and characters and the stories “are usually completed in one episode even though there may also be a few meta-narratives and mini meta-narratives across episodes and/or seasons”, multiple plot lines and minor characters may be also included, the setting can be occasionally changed as the time goes and the episodes are in some way connected therefore the audience should remember previous episodes (p. 12). On the other hand serials have usually very “continuing story lines where the narrative is very open-ended, extends across individual episodes” and it might look like that they never end, presented by soap opera as a typical example (Bednarek, 2010, p. 12). There
9 may be distinguished different genres of television series, for example “sitcoms, action series, police series, science fiction series, detective series, fantasy series, prison series, mystery drama, soap drama etc.” (Bednarek, 2010, p. 13). According to Bednarek
(2010) more general division would include 'drama' and 'comedy' (p. 13), alternatively hybrid of both of them called 'dramedy' (p. 2).
As already mentioned, the language used in television series is pre-scripted and it differs from the language used in ordinary life, even though the scriptwriters try to approach the language of the television shows to the 'real' language. However, the actors are also only people and as Kozloff (2000) says “nearly every actor changes the wording in memorizing and speaking the lines”, and as the text is “improvised, cut, repeated, […] [and] paraphrased […], the result represents the unique alchemy of that script in the mouth, mind and heart of that actor” (p. 92).
10 (2)Introduction of the Selected TV Series
Four fictional television series were selected as a basic for corpus of this thesis, namely Desperate Housewives, House MD, Hart of Dixie and The Big Bang Theory. All of these television series belong to contemporary television series. Desperate
Housewives and House MD have already finished, the other two still continue. House
MD and Hart of Dixie are set into medical environment. All of them have comic elements, some of them more, the other ones less. All of them are quite popular, not only in the United States, but also in Europe. Also, all of them were translated into many languages. Since transcripts of all the episodes of these series are available online, the texts can be easily taken as the basis for the corpus of this thesis. If the transcripts did not exist and the series had to be transcribed by the author of this thesis, mistakes in the transcripts could occur.
2.1 Desperate Housewives
Desperate Housewives is a contemporary 'dramedy' television series with some mysterious elements. The main setting is Whisteria Lane, a suburban street in the town of Fairview, a quiet and peaceful street at first sight. The main heroes, four to five housewives (the number changes during the series), live there. The story begins when one of the housewives, later during the series the narrator, commits surprisingly suicide.
The life on Whisteria Lane is not that peaceful as it might seem to be. The main heroes are Susan Mayer, inconspicuous woman who attracts humorous and sometimes also weird situations, Lynette Scavo, ex-top-manager with five kids, Bree Hodge, proper
11 home-maker, first class caterer and perfectionist, and Gabrielle Solis, lippy ex-model.
There are many other characters, including their husbands, children and neighbours. The life on Whisteria Lane might be boring but there are many secrets and sometimes murders and the women always have something to talk about, therefore the story is entertaining. (Grosman, Shaw, Warren, Cherry, 2004-2012; Internet Movie Database; http://abc.go.com/shows/desperate-housewives) Hill (2010) writes that “drawing on representations of women, gender stereotypes, and generic techniques from a range of literary film, and televisual sources, Desperate Housewives plays on the past and its audience's existing cultural knowledge as a means through which to access and interrogate contemporary social convention” (p. 163).
2.2 House MD
House MD is a medical drama series mainly set in a fictional teaching hospital in
New Jersey. The main hero is Dr Gregory House, rude anti-social genius, witty, often sarcastic or ironic, arrogant, maverick, and pain-killers addict dealing with a constant physical pain. The main topic of each episode is a specific and peculiar medical case which Dr House with his team of younger doctors (Dr Eric Foreman, Dr Allison
Cameron and Dr Robert Chase1) is focused on. There are two other supporting characters – House's best friend Dr James Wilson and House's boss Dr Lisa Cudy – and many minor characters that change during the seasons. In each episode House has duty, which he hates, to treat for a short time walk-in clinic patients. In these parts of the show he uses irony most often. (Sarafia, Straiton, Yaitanes, Shore, 2004-2012; Dynel,
2013, p. 25; Internet Movie Database;
1After few seasons he changes his team, but these seasons are not involved into corpus of this thesis.
12 http://web.archive.org/web/20120603155500/http://www.fox.com/house/about/).
2.3 Hart of Dixie
Hart of Dixie is a 'dramedy' set into a fictional town Bluebell in Alabama. The main hero is Dr Zoe Hart, recent graduate, fast-talking former New Yorker dreaming-to- be surgeon who was advised to move to a small town and treat patients as GP. She moves to Bluebell where she inherited half of a medical practise and she tries to get used to living in a small town. There are quite many characters, mainly the citizens of the town, who soon become more or less friends with Zoe. (Hayman, Matheson,
Paymer, Gerstein, 2011-2014; Internet Movie Database)
2.4 The Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Theory is a sitcom about two flatmates, colleagues, best friends and brilliant physicists or so-called nerds, Sheldon Cooper and Leonard Hofstadter, and their two best friends, also both nerds, Howard Wolowitz and Raj Koothrappali. The series begins when young pretty blonde waitress Penny moves next door to Sheldon and
Leonard. Penny becomes the connection of these nerds to the “real” world as she teaches them things not usual in “nerdy” life. The contrasts of the nerdiness of these characters, Sheldon's lack of social skills and his own assumption of superiority and on the other side Penny, who shows them how little they know about the world outside their office or laboratory, is often the reason for funny situations. In later seasons some supporting characters, as Sheldon's girlfriend neurobiologist Amy and Howard's wife microbiologist Bernadette, are introduced and they become friends with Penny.
(Cendrowski, Lorre, Prady, 2007-2014; Piazza, Bednarek, Rossi, 2011, p. 8; Internet
13 Movie Database; http://www.cbs.com/shows/big_bang_theory/about)
14 (3)Theory of Irony
By Muecke's (1970) simple definition, “irony is saying one thing but meaning the opposite” (p. 8). Even though this definition might seem to be simple, the theory of irony is not simple or at least definite and single-minded. Muecke (1970) himself already admits that “irony is not a simple phenomenon”. He mentions a “wide gap” (p.
8) between verbal irony2, when the ironist is ironical intentionally, and situational irony3, when “ironic situation or event in which there is no ironist but both victim and observer” (p. 28). In the other words, situational irony is an unintentional situation which in the result seems to be ironic and verbal irony is an intentional ironical utterance. Attardo (2000) calls verbal irony “a linguistic phenomenon” (p. 794).
According to Partington (2011), verbal irony can be further divided into explicit and implicit irony (p. 1786). Several kinds of irony exist, not only the basic division to verbal and situational irony. For example Attardo (2000) brings division by Kreuz and
Roberts where besides the already mentioned verbal and situational irony stays Socratic irony meaning “the pretense of ignorance of a given topic” and dramatic irony when the audience is aware of something that somebody included in the play ignores (p. 795).
Ideas on irony written by Grice are taken as a traditional definition of irony and they are significantly cited and further developed by many scholars. For example
Fischer-Starcke (2010) presents Grice and his philosophical approach to the irony. She introduces his study of intended meaning already from 1967, irony in connection with
Grice's cooperative principle and flouting the maxim of Quality which includes the case
2 Also called Behavioural Irony (Muecke, 1970, p. 28) 3 Also called Unconscious Irony, Unintentional Irony or Irony of Fate (Muecke, 1970, p. 28)
15 when “one feature of irony is to mean the opposite of what is said” (p. 82). According to
Grice (1989), cooperative principle should “make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (p. 26). According to this principle, the utterance should stay within the usual standards. Wallace (2013) further explains Grice's conversational maxims, which are included in the cooperative principle, as “four rules of conversation tacitly obeyed by interlocutors” and maxim of Quality as the prescription to speakers not to say what they believe to be false (p. 3). Then he brings a simple example by which he explains the violation of the maxim of Quality. The listener in the exemplar conversation recognizes the ironic intent of the speaker as the listener knows that the speaker “cannot be possibly sincere in what he said”, and also the listener knows that the speaker knows about the listener's interpretation. Due to the fact that they know each other, they know what to expect from each other and therefore the ironic intention can be interpreted by the listener also ironically. (Wallace, 2013, p. 3)
On the other hand, Fischer-Starcke (2010) says that Grice himself through the violation of the maxim of Quality “does not explain how a listener decodes irony” (p. 82).
Östman and Verschueren (2011) mention Grice's idea that “the addressee should recover the speaker's intended meaning by deriving the opposite of what is said” and then highlight the connection to the idea of Barbe and Kotthoff of implication the negative attitude rather than stating it, which is viewed as a form of politesses (p. 161). Fischer-
Starcke (2010) later presents Grice's expansion of his former theory, which he introduced in 1989, and where he stated that “[he] cannot say something ironically unless what [he says] is intended to reflect a hostile or derogatory judgement or a feeling such an indignation or contempt” (p. 82). Östman and Verschueren (2011)
16 mention Giora's thoughts from 1995 that “irony is a form of indirect negation” because
“irony negates without using an overt negation marker” and “uses an affirmative expression or utterance instead” (p.161). However, this is only the first stage of Giora's two stage theory as the second one is called “graded salience” where she says that
“more salient meanings have priority in interpretation, i.e. when a polysemous item is encountered during processing, the speaker processes at first its most salient meaning and then the other (Attardo, 2000, p. 799-800) In this way the irony was used as a tool to say something unpleasant in more pleasant words. This has changed during the years and today is irony not used strictly only in this way.
Fischer-Starcke (2010) points out that not only Grice, but also Searle and Marin write that “irony is hidden logical negation of the propositional content of an utterance”, but as Searle shares the same point of view with Grice, since they believe in necessity of a reinterpretation of the utterance and “the most natural way to interpret it as meaning the opposite of its literal form” as Searle says. The listener understands the intended message from the sender's implicit message and the surface message can be inappropriate or untrue, therefore irony “can be only decoded on the basis of the context of an utterance” (p. 82). Marin shares the same opinion that “negation is an essential component of irony”, and he adds that “the speaker says something false in order to suggest something true, or the speaker says something true in order to reveal something false” (Fischer-Starcke, 2010, p. 82). Then Fischer-Starcke (2010) mentions Amante's idea that “irony can only be recognized by the receiver” when “his knowledge of the world” is being used and that “irony is dependent upon negative-making devices in a language” (p. 83).
Sperber and Wilson have another approach to the irony. Attardo (2000) and
17 Wallace (2013) present this approach which includes the fact that the former theories, as for example the Grice's ones, are appropriate for the simple examples to interpret, but they are not convenient for the advanced interpretation as ironical statement in the fact does not have to violate maxim of Quality. (Attardo, 2000, p. 798; Wallace, 2013, p. 12)
Wallace (2013) brings Wilson and Sperber's example when a woman says during a downpour “it's raining just a bit”. According to Gricean theory, she would not be ironical as the literal negation of this sentence would be “it is not raining just a bit”, which is not consistent with the meaning the speaker intended. Therefore, the previous theories of irony have their gaps. (p. 3) These are introduced in Wilson and Sperber's relevance theory as they earlier came to the conclusion that the previous theories “can neither explain why an ironic utterance may be preferred to its neutral counterpart”
(Ruiz-Moneva, 2011, p. 128). Their theory presents usage of echoes which “can refer to the linguistic form of an utterance or to cultural or social content or conventions” and
“mainly refers to the linguistic form of an utterance” with parodied message (Fischer-
Starcke, 2010, p. 84). Wilson and Sperber say that “the echo mainly refers to the content of an utterance, thus creating an intertext between the echo and the text is echoed, the original text is treated ironically” (Fischer-Starcke, 2010, p. 84). Getting back to the
Wallace's earlier mentioned example about the rain, it would be absurd to say “it's raining just a bit” in the downpour and “that is exactly that the speaker is pointing out”
(Wallace, 2013, p. 3). As a conclusion to this, Blass (1990) mentions Wilson and
Sperber's idea that it is not important to understand the linguistic meaning of an utterance, but it is important to understand the meaning the speaker meant by the utterance (p. 38).
Wallace (2013) concludes that “the irony-as-echoicmention theory” views
18 utterances as being about their literal proposition. This is known as the “use-mention distinction: genuine statements use propositions, whereas ironic utterances mention them.” (p. 3) He also says that even though a “proposition may be literally true, but the remark [can be] interpreted ironically because of inferred pragmatic insincerity”
(Wallace, 2013, p. 4), which is the case when the context for the comprehension of the utterance is needed to interpret the meaning of the utterance correctly. For example ironic understatement when “the speaker highlights the intensity of something by deliberately and markedly understating it” (Wallace, 2013, p. 3) needs the context to be included in the interpretation to reach the correct interpretation. This is also pointed out by Fischer-Starcke (2010) when she mentions ideas of Groeben and Scheele, where they say that “irony is not characterized exclusively by syntactic or semantic features” and therefore can be only decoded when the context of the utterance is taken into account.
This means that irony can “be produced and understood only on the basis of common knowledge between the sender and the receiver of a message” and it “is an indirect speech act” (p. 84). This could be concluded by Ross (1998) who states that
“understanding the force of irony involves awareness of the language used and knowledge of the world” (p. 50).
It was already mentioned that irony may be divided into several categories according to its characteristics. One of the divisions might be distinction of two types of irony in compliance with their communicative intentions. The first one is kind irony, which should express “blame by praise”, and the second one is sarcastic irony, which should express “praise by blame”, as it was introduced by Knox in 1961 (Anolli, Ciceri and Infantino; 2000, p. 277). Regarding to a special type of kind irony, Ruiz-Moneva
(2011) presents ideas of Seto who writes about irony as overtly emphatic politeness, for
19 example “Would you mind if I asked you to please consider cleaning up your room sometime this month” (p. 133). On the other hand, there are different opinions on sarcasm as a form of irony. According to Muecke (1970) “a basic requirement of irony
[is to] feel the force of both the apparent and the real meanings” and therefore “sarcasm hardly exists as irony” (p. 51). Some authors believe that “sarcasm is an overtly aggressive type of irony, with clearer marker [or] cues and clear target. There is [also] no consensus on whether sarcasm and irony are essentially the same thing, with superficial differences, or if they differ significantly.” (Attardo, 2000, p. 795) Barbe
(1995) says that in their mind sarcasm is a type of irony which frequently attacks and is
“blunt, person-oriented, and less easy to overlook”. Sarcasm is a “face-threatening action, whereas irony is face-saving criticism” (p. 27-28). Attardo (2000) mentions ideas on irony of different scholars, like for example Haman who “claims that irony does not require the intention of the speaker, whereas sarcasm does” and “irony may be situational, whereas sarcasm may not”. Then Attardo quotes Sperber and Wilson who argue that in an ironic statement one's own utterance is being echoed and in a sarcastic statement another person's statement is being echoed. (p. 795) Barbe (1995) thinks that sarcastic utterances differ from the ironic ones because they are more personal, their
“sarcastic potential is immediately obvious” to everyone involved and the utterance is face-saving, but “only for the hearer and not for the speaker [as] hearer can decide to ignore the sarcasm” (p. 27-28). However, in this thesis, sarcasm is taken as a special type of irony.
According to contextual dependence irony might be divided into low-context irony, where “semantic value is steadily defined by the text”, and high-context irony, where “semantic value is strongly dependent upon the context and needs to be clarified”
20 (Anolli, Ciceri and Infantino; 200, p. 279). Barbe (1995) presents Booth's so-called
“stable irony” which is understood by the most people in the same way (p.18). Another special kind of irony is so-called double irony which means “irony expressed in terms of paradoxes and contradictions” (Barbe, 1995, p. 28). Barbe (1995) also mentions Myers' nonce irony which is not “habitually used for ironic purposes and […] lost [its] original status as it consists of criticism coupled with a complaint” (p. 18). On the other hand, some phrases are “ironic in their realizations” like for example “You must be kidding!”
(Barbe, 1995, p. 22).
Regarding the purpose of the use of irony, Dynel (2013) argues that many scholars share the opinion that “irony is another stylistic figure frequently perceived as inducing humorous effects” and that “irony will be humorous thanks to the incongruity between the literal meaning of an utterance and the hearer's cognitive model of reference encompassing his view of the speaker's beliefs” (p. 33). Östman and
Verschueren (2011) even say that one of roles of irony is to be informative or surprising and not let the language become to be boring (p. 165-166).
Regarding to the stylistic and semantic features of irony, Ruiz-Moneva (2011) brings several interesting findings and details. For example she points out that even though there is a difference between a metaphorical utterance and an ironic utterance, there is also continuum of them in some cases (p. 131). Later she introduces Seto's
“possible markers of echo,” presents “emphatic words” and brings examples as obviously, evidently, surely, definitely, certainly, really, actually, of course, indeed, truly and such (p. 133). Furthermore, she adds conclusion of Martin's theory based on the notions of “possible worlds”, “universe of belief”, “counterfactual world” and “world of expectations”. She quotes his view where “an ironical utterance echoes an expectation
21 which has not been fulfilled” (p. 133). Regarding to the interpretation of irony, Wallace
(2013) presents results of Hao and Veale's research they did in 2010 when they made a computational model where they tried to detect ironic similes since irony in their mind arises from similes and these similes are also much easier to be detected than the verbal irony in general (p. 8).
Muecke (1970) claims that basic features for irony are “contrast of appearance and reality, a confident unawareness that the appearance is only an appearance, and the comic effect of this awareness of a contrasting appearance and reality” (p. 35).
Colebrook (2004) argues that the main problem of irony is “what these meanings are really saying” which means that when the irony is being interpreted, to understand it correctly, the message needs to be thought about in complex way (p. 4). Östman and
Verschueren (2011) point out that irony is a politeness strategy and “[a] mitigated form of criticism” (p. 165). Irony is not easily interpreted phenomenon, and therefore not only according to Östman and Verschueren (2011) it should be interpreted in a sequential process (p. 165). Regarding the process of irony interpretation, Raskin (2008) argues that irony is “commonly analysed as a sextuple - Speaker, Hearer, Context, utterance, proposition and [another] proposition” (p. 122). This also demonstrates that irony is highly complex phenomenon.
22 (4)Irony from a Semantic Point of View
In connection with analysis of ironical utterances, some of semantic terms should be mentioned and explained. The difference between literal and non-literal meaning is taken as the basis for the analysis of irony. According to Saeed (1997), the basic distinction of these two meanings is based on the difference “between instances where the speaker deliberately describes something in untrue or impossible terms in order to achieve special effects”. He introduces an example of an utterance with literal meaning as “I'm hungry”, and an example of an utterance with non-literal meaning as
“My stomach thinks my throat's cut.” (p. 15) Murphy and Koskela (2010) call the non- literal language “figurative language” (p. 67-68). Saeed (1997) says that in non-literal language figures of speech as “metaphor, irony, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, and litotes” are often used and he admits that it is not possible to draw a line between non- literal and literal uses of the language. (Saeed, 1997, p. 16)
It is suitable to shortly define particular figures of speech which can be included in the ironical utterances. Irony itself is defined in the previous chapter. Metaphor is “a word or phrase which establishes a comparison or analogy between one object or idea and another” (Ross, 1999, p. 112). Saeed (1997) says that metaphor is “somewhat like simile in that it involves the identification of resemblances, but that metaphor goes further by causing a transference, where properties are transferred from one concept to another” (p. 302-303). On the other hand, metonymy “describes a referential strategy where a speaker refers to an entity by naming something associated with it” (Saeed,
1997, p. 78). Synecdoche is “a form of reference where the part stands for the whole”
23 (Saeed, 1997, p. 181). Hyperbolic expression “exceeds the credible limits of fact in the given context” (Claridge, 2010, p. 5). Curse (2006) defines understatement4 as “a figure of speech in which there is a statement of the quantity, intensity, or seriousness of something that is least than what is objectively the case, for rhetorical effect”. He also admits that understatement is often a form of irony and that it has “intention […] to emphasize the opposite”. (p. 186-187) Actually, not only understatement may be included in an ironical utterance, but all the figures of speech may be included there.
4 Curse (2006) admits that it is known also as litotes or meiosis (p. 186).
24 (5)Examples of Irony in the Selected American TV Series with a Brief Analysis of Each Example
The examples of the ironical statements presented in this chapter were identified randomly in the analysed TV series.5 On the basis of the brief analysis, they were divided into few groups in accordance with a major characteristic of irony included in the particular example. Even though in the brief analysis of some of the examples was discovered that they might belong to more than one of the stated groups, each extract is always listed only in one group. Further analysis of the examples continues in the following chapter.
5.1 Kind Irony
(1) Reverend: “Thank you, Bree. It always brightens my day when you invite
me to visit.”
Bree: “Well, reverend Sykes, I very much enjoy your company.”
Reverend: “As I do yours. So have you killed someone?”
Bree: “Excuse me?”
Reverend: “I've always found the treats you prepare for my visits are a reliable
5 All the examples mentioned in this chapter were identified in the video of the given TV series. However, the exact transcript of the text was taken from http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk, for each TV series from the corresponding section of this website. The transcripts can be found freely on other websites as well. To locate each extract quickly and without any doubt, for each extract the name of the TV series and exact location of the extract, which is always determined by the number of the series, the number of the episode and the minute when the extract begins in the video, is mentioned. Therefore, for example “Desperate Housewives S07E17 7'” means that the extract was taken from TV series Desperate Housewives, series 7, episode 17, starting at 7th minute.
25 indicator of your level of spiritual turmoil. The more exquisite the baked goods,
he more anguished your soul. This is a hazelnut chocolate chip scone with
currants. So I ask again have you killed someone? “
Bree: “No. It's just lately I feel like Job. You know, Job, from the Old
Testament?”
Reverend: “I'm familiar with the book, thank you.” (Desperate Housewives
S07E17 7')
In this example reverend is ironical even twice. For the first time when he calmly states that he enjoys Bree's company and then he asks if she killed someone. It is a weird combination of utterances in connection with the fact that he is a reverend. However, this fact might be seen more like situational irony than verbal irony. On the other hand, in his last utterance reverend is really ironical, when he uses thank you once Bree tried to explain him who Job is even though he must know who Job is. He uses kind irony as he does not want to discredit Bree's utterance.
(2) Renee: “Really? You'd let me babysit? Yeah! Which one is Paige?”
Lynette: “This one.”
Renee: “I accept.”
Lynette: “Wow.”
Renee: “My first step toward being a mom. Oh, you watch. I am gonna be a
natural. Oh, uh, does she eat shellfish?”
Lynette: “Maybe.” (Desperate Housewives S07E17 15')
Lynette is ironical with her utterance “Maybe.” She does not answer Renee's silly question something like “Babies do not eat shellfish,” or anything similar. On the other hand, she “hides” her thought behind maybe. This utterance could be included into kind
26 irony as well.
(3) Boy: “Wanna hold my salamander, Cecil? “
Wade: “Heck yeah, come here. […] Yeah. Man, he is so cool. So, uh, Cecil's got
pretty discriminating tastes, huh? What else does he like?”
Boy: “Not you.”
Wade: “Come again?”
Boy: “He hates you, everything about you. What's that? He says he's gonna kill
you in your sleep unless you break up with my mom.”
Wade: “Well, that is a, uh, very articulate salamander.” (Hart of Dixie S03E011
8')
Even though Wade has just heard not very pleasant things about himself, he does not fully express his opinion on the criticism, he has just heard. He tries to be diplomatic and to hide his answer behind some neutral expression and at the same time being funny. Therefore, he uses expression articulate salamander, even though he could very easily tell the boy that he is silly if he pretends that a salamander can speak. Again it is an example of kind irony.
(4) Sheldon: “That was fun. Maybe tomorrow we can go to one of those big
warehouse stores.”
Penny: “Oh, I don't know Sheldon, it's going to take me a while to recover from
all the fun I had today.” (The Big Bang Theory S01E04)
This is a typical example of irony. Even though Penny did not enjoy the shopping time with Sheldon, she does not want to confess this since Sheldon does not have similar perception of other people's opinions as the ordinary people usually have. She is not straight when she is telling Sheldon “I don't know,” in fact she must know that she did
27 not like the time spent with him because it is included in the second half of her sentence where she admits that she has to “recover from all the fun”. When people have fun, they are supposed to enjoy it, as it is fun and then they call it so. Otherwise, they would not call it fun. Therefore, Penny indirectly contradicts herself in this sentence while she tries to be polite. She uses here irony to lighten the situation.
5.2 Sarcasm (5) Policeman: “Ma'am, you know why I pulled you over?”
Lynette: “I have a theory.”
Policeman: “The kids should be sitting wearing seat belts.”
Lynette: “I yelled at them. They never listen. It's very frustrating.”
Policeman: “You have to find a way to control them. After all, that's your job.
[...]
Lynette: “Are you saying I'm a bad mother?”
Policeman: “Get back in your car, please.”
Lynette: “I have no help. My husband's always away on business.”
Policeman: “I'm gonna have to ask you to step back now.”
Lynette: “My babysitter joined the witness relocation program. I haven't slept
through the night...”
Policeman: “Ma'am.”
Lynette: “...in six years. And for you to stand there and judge me Bleurgh! OK.”
Policeman: “I'm not gonna give you a ticket. I'm just gonna let you off with a
warning.”
Lynette: “I accept your apology.” (Desperate Housewives S01E02 15')
In this example, Lynette is ironical in “my babysitter joined the witness relocation
28 program” as she probably does not speak true and exaggerates, but she just wants to express that she has no help and is alone for everything. Then she is ironical once again at the end of the example as she accepts policeman's apology even though he did not apologize to her and he also did not have any reason to apologize to her. She is lost in her situation, therefore she tries to be sarcastic.
(6) Wade: “Thank you, Dad, but I'm fine. And I happen to be in a great new
relationship.”
Dad: “Really? When am I gonna meet her?”
Wade: “Oh, I reckon I could pencil you in for sometime early 2016.” (Hart of
Dixie S03E13 20')
In this case Wade's expression about the time of possible meeting might be seen sarcastically. Although he does not want to tell his dad that he does not wish him to meet his new girlfriend, he does not express it directly. He could express it with kind irony, and then he would say for example: “You will meet sometime.” However, he uses time expression in not very near future in terms of day-to-day life. Therefore, he is sarcastic.
(7) House (to a patient after some medical tests): “Congratulations, you have
a tumor.” (House MD S02E04 38')
Congratulations are usually used in positive situations or when a situation turns from a negative into a positive one. A tumor is not in general a pleasant diagnosis. Therefore, by using a combination of these words in one sentence House is not only rude, but also sarcastic.
(8) Amy: “I feel like I'm five pounds lighter.”
Bernadette: “Really? Only five?” (The Big Bang Theory S06E09 6')
29 In this case Bernadette is more sarcastic than polite since she does not admire
Amy's positive comment and she tries to make an understatement from the situation as she uses a word only. In this example it is quite difficult to estimate what Bernadette indeed thinks. Whether she thinks that Amy is too fat and that she has lost more than five pounds and therefore is still fat, or whether she wants to make Amy happy and express that she is really slim.
(9) Meatball (to Carter): “I'm a big fan. Any chance I could get an
autograph?”
Carter: “Sure.”
Meatball: “You're fighting Enrique Corona today. Man, have you got guts.”
Carter: “You know it's just for show, right?”
Meatball: “What? Oh, yeah, sure. But they did tell you about Enrique, right?”
Carter: “What am I saying? Of course they did. Told me what?!”
Meatball: “Oh, you know. How he killed three men in Renaissance duels in
Europe. Ah, the third guy he didn't kill, but a life without both arms? What kind
of life is that, am I right? Hey, good luck today. (Hart of Dixie S03E015 26')
In his last utterance in this example Meatball is sarcastic due to the exaggeration and then the usage of the expression “good luck”.
(10) Lemon: “Well, if it isn't my partner. How nice of you to stop by and steal
our coffee while I spend the morning taking phone calls from customers
canceling their dinner reservations.” (Hart of Dixie S03E20 1')
The expression, Lemon used, “how nice of you” could be taken as a typical irony marker. She is here also sarcastic due to this expression used.
(11) Young boy: “This is a good hospital?”
30 House: “Depends what you mean by “good”. I like these chairs.” (House MD
S01E06 3')
Here is House again sarcastic. He does not calm down the boy even though it could be expected, but he tries to be witty.
(12) Cuddy: “Are you high?”
House: “If it's Tuesday, I'm wasted.”
Cuddy: “It's Wednesday.” (House MD S02E02 25')
House is here sarcastic again. He does not care what Cuddy thinks about him and still he tries to make fun of her.
(13) House: “You're allergic. We can control it with antihistamine, one pill a
day.”
Patient: “Pills?”
House: ”You don't like to swallow. Not surprised. Forget the pills. I'll give you a
nasal spray.”
Patient: “Steroids? Is there something else you can give me?”
House: “Well, if you lived by the river, I've got a bag.” (House MD S02E04 11')
House uses silly answer on silly question and again stays sarcastic with his response.
5.3 Hiding true opinion or disagreement (14) Kid: “Mommy? Why are you smiling?”
Lynette: “Do you know what "psychological warfare" means?”
Kid: “No.”
Lynette: “Well, too bad for you.” (Desperate Housewives S01E14 10')
Lynette asks the child if he knows what psychological warfare means even though she must know that the little child is not supposed to know this. She does not want to
31 express to the child her true opinion on the situation and hides it with the words that the child cannot understand.
(15) [during a game of poker] Susan: “My friend called it today. He said I was
on a lucky streak.”
Gaby: “Well, you are lucky. You got a kidney transplant. And if you take any
more of my money, you're gonna need a face transplant.” (Desperate
Housewives S07E18 12')
Gaby cannot mean her statement about the face transplant seriously. She just wants to hide her reaction to the loss in the game behind humorous utterance and therefore she is ironical.
(16) Zoe's mother: “If BlueBell is where you're gonna have your life-- a house, a
family, eventually grandbabies-- well if this is where it's gonna be, then this is
where I'm gonna be. I'm staying. In BlueBell.”
Zoe: “Uh, BlueBell, Alabama?” (Hart of Dixie S03E13 41')
Zoe tries to be funny because she does not want to express directly that she is not happy that her mother is moving to live near her. Of course she is sure which BlueBell her mother means.
(17) Some man: “I'm getting married! Sylvie Stephens said yes! Oh, my God,
that's amazing! Never forget, you are the reason this happened. You, Zoe Hart,
are a love maker.”
Zoe: “I am. I should put that on a business card.” (Hart of Dixie S03E21 1')
It is highly unlikely that Zoe would mean her statement seriously. She just wants to be funny and she hides her real thoughts with the ironic expression.
32 5.4 Hyperbole
(18) Mary Alice: “Linnie, Tom's always away on business. Do you have to
worry he might...”
Lynette: “Oh, please. The man's got me pregnant 3 times in 4 years. I wish he
was having sex with someone else.” (Desperate Housewives S01E01 9')
In this case Lynette uses hyperbole which can be also interpreted ironically. It is highly improbable that she would truly wish her husband to leave her or at least to cheat on her.
She exaggerates and she does not directly declare what she thinks, what she is expected to think. Also, she tries to lighten the situation that her husband does not stay with her often and he might also be in danger. Therefore, Lynette's statement is not only ironical, but hyperbolic as well.
(19) Lemon: “Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! Oh, your skin is
filmy. Have you showered?”
Wade: “Yeah, Lemon, right in between exits 47 and 48, I pulled off the highway
and took a nice long bubble bath.” (Hart of Dixie S03E14 8')
Wade is here sarcastic because he does not confess directly that Lemon's question is in the given situation silly. Furthermore, he invents silly (and ironical) answer. His statement might be also taken as a hyperbole.
(20) Girl with cancer: “Central line for the chemo.”
Chase: “Yeah. Doesn't hurt or anything, does it?”
Girl with cancer: “No, it's awesome.” (House MD S02E02 5')
Generally, the combination of the words chemo and awesome is strange. In this case the girl uses a hyperbole.
33 5.5 Metaphor (21) Mrs. Huber: “Hello, Susan. I made you a pie.”
Susan: “Oh, wow! Why?”
Mrs. Huber: “Do I need a motive to do something nice? I can't wait for you to
try this. It's mincemeat.”
Susan: “Actually, I just had dinner.”
Mrs. Huber: “That's OK. You can save it for later.”
Susan (while Hrs. Huber is laughing): “What's so funny?”
Mrs. Huber: “I was just thinking of that expression, "I'll make mincemeat out of
you". Mincemeat used to be an entrée of mostly chopped meat, so it was like
saying, "I'll chop you up into little bits. " But that was centuries ago. Today,
mincemeat is mostly made of fruit, spices and rum. There's no meat in it and still
people say, "I'll make mincemeat out of you."” (Desperate Housewives S01E04
12')
In this example Mrs. Huber actually explains by herself why her utterance about mincemeat is not only funny, but also ironical. A metaphor is included in her original utterance about the mincemeat.
(22) Lynette: “Can't you reschedule?”
Tom: “I'm sorry. I can't. I'm a hero for landing this meeting. I got to be there.”
Lynette: “Fine. I'll take another rain check. You're starting to owe me a lot of
rain, you know?” (Desperate Housewives S07E18 22')
In this example Lynette uses at first the idiom rain check and she does not express her disappointment directly, but she hides it behind the humorous utterance when she takes the previous idiom and uses it metaphorically and also ironically as it is not possible to
34 owe a rain.
5.6 Irony markers used (23) (After realizing that the date of Mary Alice's party is coming, but Mary
Alice has died recently) Susan: “How could we have all forgotten about this?”
Lynette: “We didn't forget. Usually when the hostess dies, the party's off.”
(Desperate Housewives S01E03 5')
Second part of Lynette's statement is inappropriate in the given situation. The situation is sensitive and she is straightforward. There might be no irony included. However, her utterance includes the word usually by which she again tries to lighten the situation and she uses in fact kind irony. Of course, that when the hostess dies, the party is always off, if there is only one hostess and possible changes in the person in charge of hostessing are not made. Usually is used here as a typical irony marker.
(24) Mrs. Greenberg: “You want to borrow my car?”
Susan: “Just for a couple of hours.”
Mrs. Greenberg: “I'm not sure. Do you know how to drive a stick?”
Susan: “Yes, I think so. I learned in college. It's like riding a bike, right?”
Mrs. Greenberg: ”I'm not sure, dear.”
Susan: “It's just for a couple of hours. I let you borrow my eggs for a whole
year.” (Desperate Housewives S01E06 10')
Mrs. Greenberg uses in her sentence the irony marker “I'm not sure, dear.”, as she confesses that she is not sure, even though she owns a car, she is used to drive a car and therefore she has to know how to drive it. Also, supposing that she knows how to ride a bike, which is commonly known thing, she must be ironic in her statement. However,
Susan is also ironic in her answer because she “borrowed her eggs for a whole year”.
35 The expression “my eggs” is metaphorical because Susan did not borrow Mrs.
Greenberg part of her body, but some chicken's eggs she owned. Yes, the past tense is used. It is related to the another interpretation of the given sentence, which is ironical.
Eggs can be fresh for few weeks and it is unlikely that Susan would like to ask Mrs.
Greenberg to return her the exact same eggs she lent her year ago. She does not want to have these eggs back, she wants to have the car for few hours.
(25) George: “ Nice talking to you, Dr. Van De Kamp.”
Rex: “Please, you're dating my wife. Call me Rex.” (Desperate Housewives
S01E11 24')
Rex's statement is ironical, as he keeps calm and asks George to call him by his first name even though George does not hide that he dates Rex's wife. In this case, the word please is used as an irony marker.
(26) Tom (to Dr. Breeland when Wanda is carrying a little goat in baby carrier):
“Please hurry. I cannot teach a goat to ride a bike. Probably.” (Hart of Dixie
S03E20 8')
Tom uses a typical irony marker probably in combination with his previous utterance even though he must know that he is not able to teach a goat to ride a bike.
(27) Patient: “I’m a virgin. So’s my fiancé.”
House: “I believe him.”
Patient: “Aren’t there other ways I could get pregnant like sitting on a toilet
seat?”
House: “Absolutely. There would need to be a guy sitting between you and the
toilet seat. But yes, absolutely.” (House MD S05E11)
House uses a typical irony marker absolutely aince he does not want to express directly
36 his opinion on the very unlikely proposal of the patient.
5.7 Other examples (28) Susan: “I don't know, Julie. Pretend to be bulimic. Gag a little. Come on.
Work with me here.”
Julie: “Mum, When this is over, we need to talk about your parenting skills.”
(Desperate Housewives S01E06 24')
Both of them, Susan and Julie, are here ironical in their utterances. Susan is ironical in the part “Pretend to be bulimic.” as it is unlikely that she could wish her daughter even to pretend to be bulimic. Bulimia is a dangerous disease and she cannot mean it seriously. On the other hand Julie's answer is ironic as well as it exceeds usual standards when the parent is usually the one who is in charge of the parenting skills towards own child.
(29) (Tom wants to hire his ex-girlfriend to work with him every day and
Lynette does not like it) Tom: “Honey, you're crazy.”
Lynette: “No, I'm serious. If she stays, I will haunt your office. I'll bring your
lunch every day. I'll bring the kids to visit, I will change diapers on your desk.
Every birthday cake in the break room, every retirement party, I will be there,
watching her.”
Tom: “Well, I'd better get you a parking space, 'cause she's staying.” (Desperate
Housewives S01E20 17')
Lynette's expression “I will haunt your office” could be understood metonymically because she actually does not want to haunt the office itself. Tom keeps calm and he would like to express that he does not care what she thinks or plans. He does not express it directly, but he promises to Lynette her own parking space and therefore his utterance
37 is ironical.
(30) Susan: “Let's renew our vows.”
Mike: “That's a great idea. I, Mike Delfino, promise to love I, Mike Delfino,
promise to...” (bird mocking over his head)
Susan: “It's just a bird. Forget it.”
Mike: “Promise to love and honor Okay. Now he's just mocking me.”
Susan: “Mike! Mike, stop! Oh, my God. I can't believe you hit that bird.”
Mike: “Yeah, I know. I was aiming for that one.” (Desperate Housewives
S07E17 19')
Mike's last utterance is ironical as he says that he was aiming for the other bird, even though he was not aiming for any bird and he is surprised that he hit even some of the birds because he hit the bird randomly.
(31) Paul: “Do you really think the people on this street want a manipulative
psycho for a neighbor?”
Felicia: “Well, they let you live here, so I'm guessing the zoning laws aren't all
that strict. If they wanna shun me, let them.” (Desperate Housewives S07E18 6')
Felicia does not contradict Paul that she is not a psycho, which might be expected as a usual reaction to a statement like this. However, she expresses that he is a psycho, even though she does not say it directly. Her expression is ironical.
(32) George – Compulsory tomfoolery. I love this place! (Hart of Dixie S03E011
4')
The combination of the words tomfoolery and compulsory is essentially ironical, because the combination of these two words does not make any sense.
(33) Anna Beth: “That you want to take it slow. But I'm 31 years old. And we've
38 been together a year. And I knew in just one month, with absolute certainty, that
you are the love of my life.”
Lavon: “Well, good. So what's the problem?” (Hart of Dixie S03E12 40')
Lavon's utterance is not a typical reaction on confession of love while he is the subject of the love. In this case it is quite discussable what he really thinks. It is possible that he is truly a slow-witted or a thick-witted individual, or on the other hand he might try to be kind and he does not want to confess directly that he does not love Anna Beth.
(34) Zoe: “As much as I'd like to stay and watch my ex stick his tongue down
my newly-found cousin's throat, I have to get to work. Call me if you need
anything.” (Hart of Dixie S03E13 4')
The second part of Zoe's utterance, when she offers help, might be seen as ambiguous. It is not directly stated what she would be willing to help them with. It might mean “I do not care and if you need for example to ask me something, then you can call me and I am there for you”, or it could also mean that she is not that calm as she might be and she still is not over the break-up with her ex-boyfriend and therefore she might be shocked what she has seen. Therefore, she might try to hide her real thoughts since she does not want to make any scene which could not be pleasant situation for her.
(35) (door closes) Leonard: “I'll be right back.”
Sheldon (working on his computer): “I thought you left a long time ago.” (The
Big Bang Theory S06E08 11')
Sheldon's statement might be also ironical as he in fact does not care at all about
Leonard and his presence. He also contradicts Leonard's statement, who is planning to be back soon as Sheldon stresses that he would not care about Leonard for a long time without mentioning it. In this case Sheldon is a bit rude to Leonard and does not try at
39 all to be polite.
(36) Bernadette: “More coffee?”
Penny: “No, Leonard's taking me to a physics lecture, and coffee'll just keep me
awake.” (The Big Bang Theory S06E09 11')
From Bernadette's question it is obvious that Penny has already had some coffee, otherwise Bernadette would not use the expression more. It is true that one of the reasons for drinking coffee is to get some energy and also not to fall asleep soon, since coffee contains caffeine. Penny's statement is ironic as she does not just say something like “No, thanks.”, but invents a reason, why she does not want to drink more coffee, even though the reason cannot be fully true because she cannot know after how much coffee she will or will not sleep. Besides that, “coffee'll just keep me awake” is in fact a metaphor used in ironical utterance.
40 (6)Further Analysis of the Examples Presented in Chapter 5
In chapter 3 it was already mentioned that many different approaches to irony exist. It is quite discussable for nearly every particular example whether it meets the requirements to be treated as ironical statement. In chapter 1 it was mentioned that nearly all the language of the TV series is scripted and it is not exactly the same as the one used in real life. In the real life the participants of the conversation have, in case of any ambiguousness, the possibility to ask the counterpart. Because there is no possibility like this in the case of this analysis, the literal meaning of each extract might be often just guessed.
The analysed extracts were divided on the basis of the theoretical findings from chapters 3 and 4. Kind irony and sarcastic irony were used as the first distinction of the specific cases, and these examples are presented in sections 5.1 and 5.2. Although it might seem that sarcastic irony is the most occurring type of irony, as the sarcastic section of the previous chapter is the largest one from all of them, it cannot be generalized as the samples of data are limited within the extent of this thesis.
Section 5.3 is called Hiding true opinion or disagreement and was chosen in accordance with the fact what these extracts have in common. They cannot be added neither to kind irony, nor to sarcastic irony due to the setting and circumstances they occur in.
The extracts in sections 5.4 and 5.5 contain a non-literal figures of speech, respectively a hyperbole and a metaphor, and it is possible to say that these used figures
41 of speech are subset of another figure of speech, which is irony itself.
Section 5.6 is called Irony markers used. This means that all the extracts are characterized by the occurrence of a special word or phrase which can differentiate a non-ironical phrase from an ironical phrase. This might be something like echo.
In section 5.7 all the other extracts, which do not match any of the previous sections, are covered. Each of the extracts is explained. Even though some of these extracts contain a non-literal figure of speech, as for example extract 29 contains metonymy, they were listed in this last group as its separate group would contain just one extract.
42 Conclusion
This thesis is focused on the language of American TV series because they are popular these days, not only in the United States, are often watched in English, not dubbed, and therefore they become a great tool to learn English as a foreign language.
People usually watch the TV series because they like them. Humour might be one of the reasons why they are attracted to the particular series. Four American TV series were selected for the analysis of their language from a semantic point of view with focus on irony. Irony is not an easy phenomenon and it is worth of analysing.
Since the language of the TV series is scripted and therefore it differs from the non-scripted language used in daily life, the differences between scripted and non- scripted language are introduced at the beginning of the work, mainly with the reference to the work of Quaglio and his ideas. The main difference is the interactiveness of the real communication when the speaker and the hearer have the possibility to ask questions, change their reactions or explain their intentions. They are also aware of the context and background knowledge if needed. Even though manuals for writing scripts exist, scriptwriters should follow the examples of how people speak in the real life.
As the thesis is focused on TV series, Bednarek's definition of TV series is presented in the first chapter. One series has usually same theme, setting and set of characters, which change only occasionally. Particular stories usually do not exceed more than one episode. Different genre may be distinguished among series, for example, drama, comedy, sitcom, and 'dramedy' as combination of drama and comedy.
All the TV series selected for the analysis are fictional, contemporary, with
43 comic elements and are relatively popular abroad as well. Desperate Housewives and
House MD were already finished, Hart of Dixie and The Big Bang Theory still continue.
All the transcripts of these series are available online.
Even though irony might seem to be a simple phenomenon, it is not. Scholars who write about the theory of irony share many opinions on the classification of particular examples as ironical or non-ironical, and on the division of the ironical statements into several categories regarding specific characteristics. Muecke's (1970) definition “irony is saying one thing but meaning the opposite” (p. 8) is taken as the basis for the later researches of irony. In the terms of the thesis, verbal irony is being preferred to situational irony, as the verbal one is an intentional ironical utterance while the situational one is an unintentional situation.
Grice's theory on the interpretation of irony in connection with his cooperative principle and flouting the maxim of Quality is also cited, argued and further developed by many scholars. One of Grice's (1989) basic ideas is that cooperative principle should
“make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (p. 26). Grice's maxim of Quality means that speakers should not say what they believe to be false (Walace, 2013, p. 3). However, Grice does not explain through the violation of the maxim of Quality “how a listener decodes irony” (Fischer-Starcke,
2010, p. 82). Giora also contributed to the theory of irony since he says that “irony is a form of indirect negation” as “irony negates without using an overt negation marker”
(Östman and Verschueren, 2011, p. 161).
Fischer-Starcke (2010) says that irony “can be only decoded on the basis of the context of an utterance” and that “irony can only be recognized by the receiver” when
44 “his knowledge of the world” is being used and that “irony is dependent upon negative- making devices in a language” (p. 82-83). Therefore, the context and the listener's background knowledge is important. Ross (1998) emphasizes the importance of
“awareness of the language and knowledge about the world” when irony is being understood (p. 50).
Another approach to irony is in Sperber and Wilson theory based on the relevance theory where they present the use of echoes which “can refer to the linguistic form of an utterance or to cultural or social content or conventions” and “mainly refers to the linguistic form of an utterance” with parodied message (Fischer-Starcke, 2010, p.
84). The point of their theory is that it is not important to understand the linguistic meaning of an utterance, but it is important to understand the meaning speaker meant by the utterance (Blass, 1990, p. 38).
Several groups of irony can be distinguished on the basis of occurrence of some specific characteristics. The first division could be into kind irony and sarcastic irony.
Kind irony is not a complicated phenomenon, but there are different opinions whether sarcasm is a type of irony or not. Some authors understand sarcasm as “an overtly aggressive type of irony” (Attardo, 2000, p. 795) and a “face-threatening action, whereas irony is [a] face-saving criticism” (Barbe, 1995, p. 27-28). However, in this thesis, sarcasm is taken as a special type of irony.
As irony is highly complex phenomenon, many more ideas about irony exist.
The following cases represent the other opinions, theories and ideas on irony. Dynel
(2013) says that “irony will be humorous thanks to the incongruity between the literal meaning of an utterance and the hearer's cognitive model of reference encompassing his view of the speaker's beliefs” (p. 33). According to Muecke (1970) basic features for
45 irony are “contrast of appearance and reality, a confident unawareness that the appearance is only an appearance, and the comic effect of this awareness of a contrasting appearance and reality” (p. 35). The main problem of irony is “what [the] meanings are really saying” which means that when the irony is being interpreted, to understand it correctly, the message needs to be thought about in complex way
(Colebrook, 2004, p. 4). According to Östman and Verschueren (2011) irony is a politeness strategy and “[a] mitigated form of criticism” (p. 165).
For the possibility to analyse irony from the semantics point of view, the fourth chapter explains the difference between literal and non-literal meaning by Saeed's
(1997) definition that the basic distinction of these two meaning is based on the difference “between instances where the speaker deliberately describes something in untrue or impossible terms in order to achieve special effects” (p.16). He also mentions figures of speech as “metaphor, irony, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, and litotes” which are used in non-literal language (Saeed, 1997, p. 16). Definition of each of these figures is included in the chapter.
Getting to the practical part of this work, in chapter 5 are presented 36 randomly identified ironical extracts from the selected American TV series. Each of the extracts is briefly analysed on the basis of the theoretical findings presented previously in this thesis. The extracts were divided into seven groups in accordance with the analysis of each extract. Some of the extracts could belong to more groups, but they are listed only once. The groups, or subsections are kind irony, sarcastic irony, hiding true opinion or disagreement, hyperbole, metaphor, irony markers used, and the last subsection for all the remaining extracts. Further analysis of the division of the extracts in the respective groups is presented in chapter 6.
46 As was already mentioned in the theoretical chapter, irony is not an easy phenomenon and many of different theories of irony exist. Therefore, the analysis of ironical statements might not have just one solution as there can be different opinions on the same statement. And therefore there would be still place for a discussion whether the particular extract is or is not ironical and whether it belongs to the particular group of ironical statements as was presented in chapter 5.
The main purpose of this thesis was to analyse from a semantic point of view the ironical statements identified in the selected American TV series, which was carried out.
This work could contribute to learning English as a foreign language from the American
TV series from the point of thinking about the language in connection with the analysis of the ironical passages.
47 Bibliography
List of Primary Sources Cendrowski, M. (Directors), Lorre, Ch., Prady, B. (Screenplay). (2007-2014). The Big
Bang Theory [TV Series]. United States of America: Chuck Lorre Productions,
Warner Bros. Television
Grossman, D., Shaw, L., Warren, D. (Directors), Cherry, M. (Screenplay). (2004-2012).
Desperate Housewives [TV Series]. United States of America: Cherry
Productions, ABC Studios.
Hayman, J., Matheson, T., Paymer, D., (Directors), Gerstein, L. (Screenplay). (2011-
2014). Hart of Dixie [TV Series]. United States of America: Fake Empire, CBS
Television Studio, Warner Bros. Television.
Sarafia, D., Straiton, D. Yaitanes, G., (Directors), Shore, D. (Screenplay). (2004-2012).
House M.D. [TV Series]. United States of America: NBC Universal Television,
Universal Media Studios (UMS).
List of Secondary Sources Anolli, L., Ciceri, R., & Infantino, M. G. (2000). Irony as a game of implicitness:
Acoustic profiles of ironic communication. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 29(3), 275-311. Retrieved from: Google Scholar. 4 October 2014.
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, vol.
32(issue 6), pp. 793-826. Retrieved from: Elsevier. 4 October 2014.
Barbe, K. (1995). Irony in context. (x, 206 p.) Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub.
Retrieved from: ProQuest ebrary. 4 October 2014.
Bednarek, M. (2010). The language of fictional television: drama and identity. (283 p.)
48 New York, NY: Continuum International Pub. Group. Retrieved from: ProQuest
ebrary. 4 October 2014.
Blass, R. (1990). Relevance relations in discourse: a study with special reference to
Sissala. (xii, 284 p.) New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from:
Google Books. 4 October 2014.
Claridge, C. (2010). Hyperbole in English: A Corpus-based study of exaggeration.
Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: Google Books. 20 November
2014.
Colebrook, C. (2004). Irony. (vi, 195 p.) New York: Routledge.
Cruse, D. (2006). A glossary of semantics and pragmatics. (198 p.) Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press. Retrieved from: ProQuest ebrary. 4 October 2014.
Desperate Housewives. (1990-2014). The Internet Movie Database. Retrieved from:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410975/. 8 November 2014.
Desperate Housewives. Retrieved from: http://abc.go.com/shows/desperate-housewives.
8 November 2014.
Dynel, M. (2013). Humorous phenomena in dramatic discourse. The European Journal
of Humour Research, 1(1), 22-60. Retrieved from: Google Scholar. 16 October
2014
Fischer-Starcke, B. (2010). Corpus linguistics in literary analysis Jane Austen and her
contemporaries. London: Continuum International Pub. Group. Retrieved from:
ProQuest ebrary. 4 October 2014.
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. (viii, 394 s.) Cambridge: Harvard
University Press. Retrieved from: Google Books. 20 November 2014.
Hart of Dixie. (1990-2014). The Internet Movie Database. Retrieved from:
49 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832979/. 8 November 2014.
Hill, L. (2010). Gender and genre: Situating Desperate Housewives. Journal of
Popular Film and Television, vol. 38(issue 4), pp. 162-169. Retrieved from:
Google Scholar. 16 October 2014
House M.D. (1990-2014). The Internet Movie Database. Retrieved from:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412142/. 8 November 2014.
House M.D. Retrieved from:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120603155500/http://www.fox.com/house/about/.
8 November 2014.
Kozloff, S. (2000). Overhearing film dialogue. Berkeley: University of California
Press. Retrieved from: Google Books. 8 November 2014.
Muecke, D. (1970). Irony. London: Methuen.
Murphy, M., & Koskela, A. (2010). Key terms in semantics. (viii, 241 p.) New York:
Continuum. Retrieved from: ProQuest ebrary. 4 October 2014.
Partington, A. (2011). Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of
Pragmatics, vol. 43(issue 6), pp. 1786-1800. Retrieved from: Elsevier
Piazza, R., Bednarek, M., & Rossi, F. (2011). Telecinematic discourse: approaches to
the language of films and television series. (xi, 315 p.) Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Pub. Co. Retrieved from: ProQuest ebrary. 4 October 2014.
Quaglio, P. (2009). Television dialogue: the sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation.
(xii, 161 p.) Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Retrieved from: ProQuest
ebrary. 4 October 2014.
Raskin, V. (2008). The primer of humor research. (vi, 673 p.) New York: Mouton de
Gruyter. Retrieved from: ebrary.com. 3 October 2014.
50 Ross, A. (1998). The language of humour. London: Routledge. Retrieved from:
ebrary.com. 1 September 2014.
Ruiz-Moneva, M.A. (2011). Some proposals to cope with forms of irony typically
found in literary texts from a relevance-theoretical perspective. Studies in
Literature and Language, 2(2), 127-156. Retrieved from: Google Scholar. 2
October 2014.
Saeed, J. (1997). Semantics. (xix, 360 p.) Malden, Mass.
Smith, E. (2009). Writing television sitcoms. (Rev. and expanded ed.) New York, N.Y:
Penguin Group. Retrieved from: Google Books. 8 November 2014.
Wallace, B. (2013). Computational irony: A survey and new perspectives. Artificial
Intelligence Review, pp. -. Retrieved from: Springer. 20 September 2014.
The Big Bang Theory. (1990-2014). The Internet Movie Database. Retrieved from:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898266/. 8 November 2014.
The Big Bang Theory. (2014). Retrieved from:
http://www.cbs.com/shows/big_bang_theory/about/. 8 November 2014.
TV & Movie Scripts. (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/.
1 October 2014.
Östman, J., & Verschueren, J. (2011). Pragmatics in practice. (xi, 326 p.) Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Pub. Co. Retrieved from: ProQuest ebrary. 4 October 2014.
51 Resumé
This thesis is focused on the use of irony in the language of American TV series from a semantic point of view. The theoretical findings of irony in connection with the theoretical findings of semantic analysis and its features are further used for the analysis of ironical passages from the selected American TV series. TV series Desperate
Housewives, Hart of Dixie, House M.D. and The Big Bang Theory were selected to be analysed. The ironical passages from the selected American TV series are further analysed mainly from a semantic point of view as there can be identified interesting distinctions on the use of irony in the language of American TV series.
The thesis is divided into six chapters. The differences between scripted and non-scripted language are mentioned in the first chapter. In the second chapters the selected TV series are briefly described. In the third chapter theoretical findings on irony are presented. Some of the semantic features, which are used during the analysis in the fifth chapter, are mentioned in the fourth chapter. In chapter five the ironical extracts from the series are introduced and they are briefly analysed. The analysis is continued and summarized in the last chapter.
52 Resumé (Czech)
Taro práce je zaměřena na využití ironie ze sémantického pohledu v jazyce amerických televizních seriálů. Teoretické poznatky o ironii ve spojení s teoretickými poznatky ze sémantické analýzy a jejich zvláštnostmi jsou dále využity pro analýzu ironických pasáží z vybraných amerických televizních seriálů, jimiž jsou Desperate
Housewives, Hart of Dixie, House M.D. a The Big Bang Theory. Ironické pasáže z těchto vybraných amerických televizních seriálů jsou dále analyzovány převážně ze sémantického pohledu z důvodu výskytu zajímavých odlišností v jednotlivém použití ironie v jazyce amerických televizních seriálů.
Práce je rozdělena do šesti kapitol. V první kapitole jsou zmíněny rozdíly mezi jazykem předepsaným ve scénáři a běžně používaným jazykem. Ve druhé kapitole jsou krátce popsány jednotlivé vybrané televizní seriály. Ve třetí kapitole jsou prezentovány teoretické poznatky týkající se ironie. Ve čtvrté kapitole jsou zmíněny některé sémantické charakteristiky využité v následující kapitole. Pátá kapitola obsahuje příklady ironických úryvků z daných seriálů a jejich následnou stručnou analýzu, která pokračuje v poslední kapitole, kde je také shrnuta.
53