Universidad De Chile Facultad De Filosofía Y Humanidades Departamento De Lingüística
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSIDAD DE CHILE FACULTAD DE FILOSOFÍA Y HUMANIDADES DEPARTAMENTO DE LINGÜÍSTICA TESIS PARA OPTAR AL GRADO DE MAGÍSTER EN LINGÜÍSTICA CON MENCIÓN EN LENGUA INGLESA A STUDY OF SARCASM AND APPRAISAL OCCURRING IN THE EXCHANGES OF THE MAIN PROTAGONIST OF THE AMERICAN T.V. SERIES ‗HOUSE M.D.‘ ESTUDIANTE: ISIS NEGRÓN RUBIO PROFESOR GUÍA:CARLOS ZENTENO BUSTAMANTE SANTIAGO, CHILE 2011 2 Acknowledgments Special thanks to Professor Carlos Zenteno for his never-ending academic support, his valuable insight, knowledge, and of course, his patience and admirable disposition. Without his guidance and contributions, the present research would not have been possible. 3 Agradecimientos Se agradece encarecidamente a todos quienes contribuyeron de una u otra manera a la producción de esta investigación, con sus correcciones, comentarios y variados aportes. En esa línea, también se hallan incluidos los creadores de la serie que contribuyó a inspirar este estudio, incluyendo al artista que encarna al personaje en cuestión. Especiales agradecimientos también a todos aquellos investigadores y estudiosos que con sus aportes fomentan la creación de conocimiento complementario y/o novedoso. 4 ‗…Good point. Let’s biopsy something safer, like her shoes! -House, ―Fools for Love‖, Season 2. 5 CONTENTS Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………......2 Agradecimientos…………………………………………………………………………….2 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….7 2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS…………………………………………………………….12 3. OBJECTIVES..………………………………………………………………………....12 3.1 General objectives…………………………………………………………………......12 3.2 Specific objectives….……………………………………………………….................12 4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...................................................................................13 4.1 Irony……………………………………………………………………………..…......13 4.1.1 Historical background…………………………………………………...…………...13 4.1.2 Traditional accounts of verbal irony………………………………………………....14 4.1.3 Alternative accounts of irony………………………………………………………...17 4.2 Sarcasm………………………………………………………………………………...23 4.2.1 Linguistic account…………………………………………………………………....23 4.2.2 A psychological approach……………………………………………………………26 4.2.3 How can we identify sarcasm? Some linguistic and Paralinguistic markers………...28 4.3 EVALUATION: APPRAISAL THEORY....................................................................29 4.3.1 Historical background.................................................................................................29 4.3.2 Appraisal resources…………………………………………………………………..30 5. BACKGROUND ON THE PERSONA OF GREGORY HOUSE…………………….35 5.1 House‘s life and personality……………………………………………………………36 5.2 House as an authoritative figure………………………………………………………..39 5.3 House‘s identity…………….………………………………………………………….41 6. METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………………..44 6.1 Corpus selection and corpus criteria…………………………………………………...44 6.2 Data analysis procedures………………………………………………………………46 6.3 Conventions……………………………………………………………………………48 6.4 Samples of data analysis……………………………………………………………...48 7. DATA ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………..56 8. RESULTS AND FINDINGS…………………………………………………………...68 6 9. CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………..80 9.1 General conclusions…………………………………………………………………....80 9.2 Limitations of the study………………………………………………………………..89 9.3 Further research..……………………………………………………………………….90 10. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………....91 APPENDIX: ORTHOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPTION OF CORPUS……………………95 7 1. INTRODUCTION Enter a room with twenty or thirty average people in it and ask that those who enjoy watching the American TV series ‗House M.D.‘ to raise their hands. It is very likely that the majority of them will. Then, ask those who think Dr. Gregory House is a sarcastic character to also raise their hands. Again, it is quite possible that most of them will. Finally, ask whether they consider Gregory House a pleasant person. Most hands will remain lowered. It is not difficult to realise that, in spite of the great amount of fans the series has gathered along its current seven seasons, not many fans would describe the protagonist as a ‗nice‘ person. Witty, cool, hilarious, relentless, extremely bright, yes. But not nice. A very interesting phenomenon is that a large number his followers would probably agree to include in their descriptions the notion of sarcasm or irony as a distinctive marker of this peculiar anti-hero. House‘s character is so striking, unpleasant and amusing, so anti-social and admirable at the same time that his persona pervades the series. How can a phenomenon such as this be possible?. How can people construct their identities in ways which cannot be ignored, and produce effects cannot be neglected? And in this process, what resources are at use? As has been established, many — if not all— of House‘s fans and viewers of the series would agree on the idea that House is an extremely witty and sarcastic character, a person who, by being sarcastic and blunt, often comes to be viewed by his peers as ruthless and mean. Some of them even despise him at times for his reactions. The question is: is he sarcastic...or ironic? More specifically: Is being ironic the same as being sarcastic? And, what does the use of irony or sarcasm imply? What makes people identify certain expressions (linguistic or behavioural) as being sarcastic? Why do we often ascribe one or the other to certain types of attitudes? Why is it that, more often than not, when someone is being sarcastic his personality strikes us so strongly? These questions have constituted the point of origin for the present research. In addition, they have triggered the interest in analysing the ways in which sarcasm may come to play a part in what and how we 8 communicate with others, and in some of the linguistic options involved in the construction of our identities. As can be drawn, the main purpose of this research is to carry out a pragmatic and evaluative analysis of the sarcastic utterances in the conversational exchanges occurring in semi-spontaneous oral interaction in a way that allows us to investigate the possible status of sarcasm as a different phenomenon in relation to that of irony in terms of its attitudinal characteristics. It is interesting to notice the fact that there is plenty of literature on irony and its formal, pragmatic and even phonological characteristics, on its uses and effects on hearers. Traditionally, irony has been viewed as those instances1 whereby a speaker or writer produces an utterance that expresses the opposite of its literal meaning, often to convey some kind of negative meaning. Several theories (ranging from traditional philosophy and linguistics to more modern approaches which encompass cognitive and scientific elements) have been proposed to explain how verbal irony is produced, its formal characteristics and pragmatic functions, and whether the contrast between what is said and what is implied lies only in negation or on other different processes (linguistic, semantic, pragmatic or cognitive processes). In contrast, there has been little mention of the phenomenon of sarcasm as such, given that this notion has been vastly treated as a synonym of irony (in the Aristotelian tradition, in dictionaries, even in modern linguists, as Attardo (2001) claims) or as a non- defined subtype of it, or simply neglected because it apparently does not bear any significant differences from it in its formal characteristics, pragmatic functions or socio- pragmatic consequences. In fact, a large number of the studies of irony treats sarcasm as an equivalent term. Similarly, there is not a vast production of articles or papers which refer to sarcasm in particular or else as some phenomenon that can be treated separately from that of irony. In spite of the tendency of equating the two phenomena, there seems to be a growing implicit consensus on the idea that sarcasm is, in fact, a means to express derisive attitudes, at a greater and more intense degree than irony. Yet, this does not seem to have implied an elaboration of definition to distinguish the two concepts essentially. 1 This research encompasses ‗verbal irony‘ and ‗verbal sarcasm‘, only. ‗Situational irony‘, on the other hand, deals with events that may be viewed as ironic, as will be mentioned further on. 9 Also, a strong motivation for this research resides on the apparent fuzzy status of sarcasm, which paradoxically and simultaneously appears as a phenomenon lacking relevant distinctive features in relation to irony but presents itself as a specific type of attitude. Being a resource for expressing attitudes of a definite kind, then it is likely to ponder on the possibility of differentiating sarcasm from irony, especially if one comes to consider the possibility that sarcasm may produce certain evaluative effects on the hearer and on the person who produces it; when a person is being sarcastic we may consider him or her as being blunt, or derisive, or as utilising black humour, etc. If a person does any of the above, then they may be expressing a stance of a particular kind in relation to their relations with others (as being superior, dominant, aggressive, etc). If sarcasm is in fact an attitude, then it is logical to study it in the light of a theory which offers an analysis of evaluative stances and meanings, since by being an attitude sarcasm might have a distinct impact (as compared with irony) in the elaboration of personae. It seems feasible that the concept of sarcasm may involve a process whereby human identities are built and social relations are determined. In the case