CC BY
50
1 1 SCIENCE TIME 1
MEANING CONSTRUCTION IN IDIOMS USED IRONICALLY Mukhina Yulia Nikolaevna, Saratov State University, Saratov E-mail: [email protected]
oi Ci 1 pi
Abstract. The present paper focuses on the contextual circumstances in which expressions with semantic idiomaticity (as opposed to formal idiomaticity) take on the opposite meaning. Such circumstances are usually referred to as ironic contexts and the expressions are said to be used ironically. Methodologically the research is based on: 1) The Theory of Irony with its main postulate: 'The semantic shift in the meaning of ironically used words and phrases is based on the discrepancy between the literal and the implied meanings' and 2) The Conceptual Integration Theory or Blending Theory [2] which rests on the idea of mental spaces connected to each other in a system, a sort of scenario perceived by language users.
Key words: irony, idiom, metaphor, mental space.
The researchers of irony have at their disposal a number of theories that aim at explanation of the nature of this phenomenon, e.g. [3], [4], [9]. However, none of the suggested theories gives the answer to such important questions as "Why is irony realized by means of this particular verbal form?", "Why is irony understood by means of this particular cognitive domain?" etc. In other words, there is no adequate explanation of cognitive contexts forming the background for understanding verbal irony and differentiating between neutral and ironic utterances.
The traditional treatment of verbal irony as discrepancy (very often opposition) between the literal and implied meanings doesn't throw much light on the problem. For instance, reading the line from J. Colgan's "Talking to Addison" Kate hit her hand on her forehead. 'I'm sorry, I keep forgetting you're modern' [1, p. 157] one doesn't get into difficulty with indicating the ironically used word and making proper inference due to the local contextual knowledge opposed to the common sense
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
knowledge according to which 'modern' corresponds to 'using or willing to use very recent ideas, fashions, or ways of thinking' [8, p. 913]. Modern is not, in fact, modern. It is something of an opposite nature. What exactly is meant by 'not modern'? Lexically such opposites as 'unfashionable', 'old-fashioned', 'obsolete', 'outdated', 'unstylish' can be employed to fit the context. What is clear is the disapproval that stands behind irony. Conceptually this instance of irony can be looked at as a mix of the 'lie' and 'truth' inputs and contains the results of the reader's inference from the situation. Input 1 (lie) is seen as the source domain (with the readily available background, that is common sense knowledge of what 'modern' is). I say 'You are modern' but I do not mean it seriously. Input 2 (truth) as the target domain (that is understood by means of the source domain). What I say is 'You are not modern'.
Still the mechanism of ironic meaning construction remains hidden. It is not grounded on lexical and semantic discrepancy/opposition only, for a) producing verbal irony is an individual creative process; b) discrepancy is an ambiguous notion not limited to opposition; c) opposition is not the only basis for verbal irony.
The problem becomes even more complicated with language units based on metaphorisation, namely idioms. The research of idioms within cognitive linguistic framework has been very fruitful in the last years. Notwithstanding the fact that idioms are subject of quite a considerable number of research works certain questions are not finally decided.
First, linguistics still lacks a universal and generally accepted list of language phenomena that might fall under the heading 'idiom'. The term 'idiom' is used to refer to two different phenomena. It is applied to the expressions whose idiomaticity is semantic with 'kick the bucket' or 'pull someone's leg' as prototypical members. They are semantically opaque and have fixed structure. A. Langlotz describes them as complex symbols with specific formal, semantic, pragmatic and sociolinguistic characteristics [6, p. 3]. Idiomaticity of the other group of expressions has a formal character and is more or less equated with fixedness of form. The group comprises the expressions like 'by and large', for better or for worse'. They lack imagery component and, as a result, metaphorical background.
In this paper the term 'idiom' is used in the so called broad sense and covers a wide range of language phenomena that are syntactically, morphosyntactically and lexically restricted irrespective of the type of idiomaticity. Yet, in the primary focus of the research are expressions with imagery component and with different degrees of content transparency.
Semantic idiomaticity, as an integral part of specific language phenomena, focuses on two basic ideas - the idea of reinterpretation (secondary interpretation) and the idea of opacity. The former is the operation that makes it possible to transform the meaning of A into B when a certain principle P is taken into account. Thus, idiomaticity can be grounded on three major processes: the metaphorical extension of
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
a situation that once took place in human history (reinvent the wheel); an unprecedented metaphorisation (a storm in a teacup is idiomatic irrespective of the situation, since storm as a lexical unit with a certain semantic content cannot be combined with nouns denoting small containers or spaces); a metonymic shift (in hit the bottle the lexical item bottle retains its lexical meaning, which is the result of the metonymic shift bottle 'container' ^ 'contents of the container' and is thus framed in the idiom). This list is not exhaustive and serves as an illustration of specific language phenomena.
The Blending Theory can be employed in the practice of meaning construction in ironically used idioms. It rests on the idea of mental spaces connected to each other in a system, a sort of scenario perceived by language users. Mental spaces comprise concepts relevant to different aspects of the scenario and the correspondence between the spaces is realised through cross-space mappings. These correspondences contribute to the explanation of how language users might encode information on a referential level. The conceptual integration network consists of at least two input spaces structured by information from different cognitive domains, a generic space common to all input spaces and a blended space containing partial representation of elements from all inputs but with a structure characterised by novelty and unconventionality. The conceptual integration network is based on the principle of matching and counterpart connections in cross-space mappings, as well as selective projections from inputs, composition, completion and elaboration [2, p.].
From the perspective of The Conceptual Integration Theory and Mental Space Theory, the literal and the implied meanings might be seen as entities belonging to the source and target domains. The relationship between the domains established through cross-mappings is complicated by the complexity of the idiom structure referred to as bipartite. It includes the literal scene and lexicalised idiomatic meaning. According to A. Langlotz, the literal scene works as the mental background - a conceptual standard - against which the target conceptualization is construed [7, p. 90]. This view of the idiom structure coincides with Langacker's understanding of idioms as complex scenes with a bipartite semantic structure. In other words, they have literal reading and figurative meaning [5, p. 133].
Thus, an ironically marked idiom results in, at least, two conceptual blends corresponding to two dimensions of the idiom structure. Let us consider the idiom 'to have green fingers' as an illustration.
The literal scene conveyed by the idiom 'having green fingers' refers to a person whose fingers are painted or dirtied green as a result of certain manual activity, or oxidation, or allergic reaction (the cause of green). The literal scene and the figurative meaning of the idiom associate in such a way, that the content is not easy to understand. In other words, it has a low degree of transparency. There is neither a hint at planting nor any connection with the organic world (except the supposition that
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
green is the result of touching plants with physical effort). This is what A. Langlotz calls the metaphorical background of a complex scene [7, p. 90]. The lexicalised idiomatic meaning of this fixed expression is connected with the abstract idea of 'being good at making plants grow', i.e. the label received after specific manual activity. So, in this particular phrase the complex scene belongs to the domain of planting. There are partial cross-space mappings between the domains 'green fingers' and 'successful planting' connecting fingers, manual activity and green colour.
The idiom 'having green fingers', similar to other sayings, can be meant as a compliment in its true meaning (be good at making plants grow) or insult when used ironically. The conceptual integration network for 'a person has green fingers' consists of two input spaces: 'having green fingers'(input 1) and 'a person' who is an individual with fingers, often successful in growing fruits and with great love of gardening (input 2).
There is a partial cross-space mapping between the input spaces, connecting fingers, skill and planting in input 1 and input 2. What both inputs have in common is mode of activity (manual), type of activity (planting) and the result of activity (success). And this is what the generic space is structured upon. The blended space 'a person has green fingers' partially inherits the structure of a generic space but a new element - an individual talented in making plants grow - appears as well.
Still there is always a person in this world who only ironically can be called a person with green fingers. Following the chain of basic cognitive operations involved in decoding verbal irony one would arrive at the point at which it becomes necessary to find a proper match (counterpart) for 'green fingers'. On the literal level each of the components of the idiom, when used ironically, should be contrasted to its direct opposition:
a) not having green fingers (lacking green fingers) - the state of having green fingers is opposed to the state of not having green fingers whatever the reasons are. It can refer either to the lack of fingers as part of the body or lack of green fingers as part of theatrical or other kind of equipment;
b) having fingers that are not green - green is opposed to any other colour, though green can hardly be opposed to any other colour when used in isolation. Cf: green flowers/ leaves - faded flowers/ leaves; green light of traffic lights - red light; green = eco-friendly - ecologically unfriendly;
c) having green part of the body other than fingers - green fingers as a property of human body can be opposed to some other part of the body that is also green, though it's problematic to find a direct opposite for 'fingers'.
These inferences are born in the process of common-sense matching of linguistically expressed entities that are perceived as semantically opposite. Hypothetically, all the variants have the right to exist and function as ironical counterparts of the idiom 'having green fingers' when only its literal scene is taken
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
into consideration. For instance, why not say, 'You really have green fingers!' to a person insisting on his/her fingers being green when the fingers are some other colour. This is the way for the first possible blend to develop. The blend corresponds to the dimension of the literal reading of the idiom.
To avoid artificiality of the kind one should refer to the idiomatic meaning of the fixed expression - being talented in making plants grow.
The conceptual integration network for the irony 'You have green fingers' comprises two input spaces with partial cross-space mappings connecting type of activity (planting) and fingers as mode of activity. Compared to the network 'a person has green fingers' (used in a neutral context) and the blended space discussed above, the blended space for the irony has two results - success/failure - that do not fuse and semantically run contrary to each other and a novel element (that corresponds to input 1 - 'an individual not talented in making plants grow' co-existing with 'an individual talented in making plants grow' (that corresponds to input 2). These individuals cannot fuse either. Input 1 is actually the input of truth: I say 'You really have green fingers' to a person amidst a wasteland that used to be their garden, but I do not intend to praise them. Input 2 corresponds to the input of lie - I praise but this is not what I really mean.
Thus, the mechanism of meaning construction in ironically used idioms has a dimensional character in the way the structure of the idiom does. Compared to it irony in a non-idiomatic lexical unit is linear, for it is realized in one dimension only in the form of succession in which a verbal form is consistently opposed to at least two domains (lie and truth). In the dimensional interpretation there are two parallel successions, one for the literal reading of the idiom, the other for the metaphorical. The suggested approach has its perspectives. It forms the reasonable ground for the meaning construction of modified idioms, which employs the same mechanism.
References:
1. Colgan J. Talking to Addison. London, 2007, 278 p.
2. Fauconnier G., Turner M. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 1998, no. 22(2), pp. 133-187.
3. Grice H.P. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, 1975, Vol.3: Speech acts, pp. 41-58.
4. Kreuz R.J., Glucksberg S. How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1989, no. 118(4), pp. 374386.
5. Langacker R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive application. Stanford, 1987, 1105 p.
6. Langlotz A. Idiomatic Creativity: a cognitive linguistic model of idiom-
1 SCIENCE TIME 1
representation and idiom variation in English. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006, 326 p.
7. Langlotz A. Occasional adnominal idiom modification - a cognitive linguistic approach. International Journal of English Studies, 2006, vol. 6(1), pp. 85-108.
8. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow, 1999, 1668 p.
9. Wilson D., Sperber D. On verbal irony. Lingua, 1992, no. 87, pp. 53-76.
