VerbalIronyinGonewihheWind_开题报告

Previous studies on verbal irony

Since verbal irony is full of witty and intelligence, it is not surprising that it has drawn plenty of scholars' attention for centuries and formed various definitions. However, so far, no agreement has been reached yet about its definition. Following are the often-cited definitions.

From the perspective of the classical rhetoric, verbal irony is a kind of figure of speech, which contains the substitution of a figurative for a literal meaning:” Irony is the figure used to convey the opposite of what is said: in irony, the words are not taken in their basic literal sense” (Sperber and Wilson,1992:54).However, such definition of irony is inadequate and not appropriate because it can’t explain all the cases of irony.

Traditional pragmatic definitions of verbal irony remain firmly in the classical one. According to Grice, the speaker deliberately flouts the maxim of quality, implicating the opposite of what was literally said. The only significant difference between this account and the classical rhetorical account is that what was classically analyzed as a figurative meaning is reanalyzed as a figurative implication.

Haverkate (1990:81) makes a comment that the above two definitions are heterogeneous in the sense and that the second covers a more extensive conceptual domain than the first. The first definition is too specific while the latter one is too general, because it applies equally to such figures of speech as metaphor and hyperbole.

Actually we also find that there are many examples of ironical utterances that do not accord with these definitions. Apart from the above-mentioned definitions, Sperber and Wilson(1992) have argued, in their thesis On verbal Irony, that verbal irony is a variety of echoic interpretations of someone’s thought, utterance, expectation, or cultural norm, in which the speaker dissociates himself from the echoed materials with accompanying ridicule of scorn. According to this, Irony must be echoic, and meanwhile the speakers express a rejecting attitude towards the opinion or thought echoed. 

Although no consensus in defining irony has been arrived at, there is indeed a feature in irony, commonly taken into account by many scholars. Irony involves the perception or awareness of a discrepancy or incongruity between words and their meanings, or between actions and their results, or between expectation and reality. So in verbal irony, there is also such a discrepancy between the meaning of what the speaker says and what the speaker means by it in certain situation. In the light of the above discussion, the author adopts such a definition in the current study: verbal irony is a variety of echoic interpretative use, in which the speaker dissociates himself from the opinion echoed with accompanying ridicule or scorn.

Previous studies on Gone with the Wind

Gone with the Wind possesses great research values. Therefore, it appeals to scholars from various fields. 

As a literary work, the literal features of Gone with the Wind are often analyzed. Professor He Qixin (1992) discusses the literariness of this novel. He points out that some scholars criticize the novel for it fails to reflect the whole picture of history. But he argues that Margaret Mitchell aims to narrate the story and experience of a girl in time of war. It is not a history book. Novel is a kind of literary forms in which the plot and characters are fictitious, so it is unnecessary to truthfully describe history. Zhang Jiaping (1994) comments on the good points and shortcomings of this novel and regards it as a disputable classic. Dong Jinwei (1999) studies the charm, value and features of this novel. He speaks highly of this novel which contains rich content, distinctive characters, detailed descriptions of psychological activity and proficient writing techniques including flashback, suspense, contrast and so on, reaching the conclusion that Gone with the Wind is a great literary work with everlasting charm and high literary value. Xie Jingzhi (2005) analyzes the charm of Scarlett in this novel. In her opinion, Scarlett is a very impressive image in literature because of her unique personality and spirit. Her independence, courage and perseverant life attitude also reflect the awakening of her feminine value. 

Since there are more than 24 versions of this novel in China, many scholars study this classic from the perspective of translation. Fang Shuyang (2011) studies Fu Donghua’s translation of the novel from the perspective of Skopostheorie. Fang indicates that Fu Donghua’s translation version has received both high praise and criticism. So there are many studies on his translation based on rewriting theory, functional approach, translation norms and the like. But he thinks those studies are not comprehensive. Therefore, he chooses to study from a different aspect and comes to the conclusion that Fu Donghua’s translation has followed the rules in Skopostheorie and should be rightly judged. Zhan Yiyuan (2012) makes a comparative study on Fu Donghua and Chen Liangting’s Chinese versions of Gone with the Wind based on Andre Lefevere’s rewriting theory. He concludes that it is one-sided to judge a translation version based on the shift from source text to target text. It is necessary to take cultural factors such as ideology and poetics into consideration. 

In addition, Gone with the Wind is also analyzed by many scholars from the field of linguistics. Wang Kui (2004) analyzes the contexts of some dialogues in Gone with the Wind from the perspectives of linguistics, logic, semantics and pragmatics in order to know the real intention of the speaker as well as to do better in cross-cultural communication. Wang Fangfang (2009) makes a pragmatic analysis of gender differences in Gone with the Wind, finding that women are inclined to employ indirectives to imply their meanings but men are inclined to use imperatives to convey their intentions. She also explores the causes of these gender differences so as to reduce misunderstandings. Chen Lujian (2010) makes an analysis of turn-taking skills in speech communication in Gone with the Wind. In his opinion, a good understanding of the skills in turn-taking plays an important role in speech communication. After studying the conversations which are full of turn-taking skills in the novel, we can apply these skills in our daily communications and make them effective. Xu Yanzhe (2010) makes a pragmatic analysis of Gone with the Wind by applying the Face Work Theory, the Cooperative Principle and the Politeness Principle. His thesis is a good example of using pragmatic theories to analyze a literary work. 

Existing Problems

From what have been discussed above, we can clearly see that although many scholars have studied Gone with the Wind from the perspectives of literary, translation and linguistics, few people apply verbal irony to analyze this novel. In this novel, there are many wonderful conversations which contain a lot of verbal irony. But they have not received enough attention. Therefore, this thesis tries to analyze these conversations on verbal irony. Readers can get some inspirations and insights from this thesis in their search for a happy life. This study also will provide a useful reference for the development of Chinese contemporary literature.

Outline

1. Introduction

1.1. Margaret Mitchell and Her Works

2. Theories of Irony

2.1. The History of Irony

2.2. The Definition of Irony

2.3. The Definition of Verbal Irony

3. The Application of Verbal Irony in Gone with the Wind

3.1. Litotes

3.2. Heterogeneous isomorphism irony

3.3. Interpretive irony

3.4. Homonymous irony 

3.5. Overstatement irony

3.6. Self-deprecating irony

4. Conclusion

References

[1]Margaret Mitchell, Gone with the Wind [M].Beijing: Foreign Languages Press,2008.

[2]Wilson,D.& Sperber, D. On Verbal Irony [J].Lingua,1992. 

[3]Grice,H.P. Logic and Conversation [J].Cole and Morgan,1975. 

[4]Grice.H.P. Presupposition and Conversational Implicature [M].NewYork: Academic Press,1981. 

[5]Haverkate,H.A Speech Act Analysis of Irony [J].Journal of Pragmatics,1990(14). 

[6]何其莘.论“飘”的文学性[J].西安外国语学院学报, 1992(4). 

[7]张家平.一部毁誉参半的畅销书[J].宁波大学学报(人文科学版）,1995(01):72-77.

[8]董金伟.《飘》的魅力、价值与特色[J]. 西安外国语学院学报,1999(2). 

[9]谢景芝.《飘》中郝思嘉形象魅力解读[J].河南大学学报, 2005(2).

[10]方舒杨.目的论视角下傅东华[D].浙江财经学院,2011. 

[11]占艺苑.改写理论视角下《飘》两种中译本比较研究[D].长江大学,2012.

[12]王葵.从语境看《飘》的对话[J].贵州民族学院学报,2004(6). 

[13]王芳芳.《飘》中性别差异的语用分析[D].吉林大学, 2009. 

[14]陈陆健.言语交际中话轮更迭的技巧—基于小说《飘》中的话语分析[J]. 广西师范学院, 2010(1). 

[15]许颜哲.《飘》的语用分析[D].河北师范大学, 2010.

[16]玛格丽特•米切尔著.李美华译.飘[M].南京:译林出版社,2008.

[17]D•C•米克著.周发样译.论反讽[M].北京:昆仑出版社,1992.

[18](丹)索伦•奥碧•克尔凯郭尔著.汤晨溪译.论反讽概念:以苏格拉底为主线[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005.

[19]N•弗莱著.陈恺等译.批评的剖析[M].天津:百花文艺出版社,1993.

[20]丁芸.英美文学研究新视野[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2005.

[21]李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.

[22]杨仁敬.20世纪美国文学史[M].青岛:青岛出版社,2000.

[23]维柯.新科学[M].北京:人民文学出版社,1986.

[24]伊哈布•哈桑著.王岳川等译.后现代景观中的多元论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1992.

[25]陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2001.

[26]安妮•爱德华兹著.思宏译.塔拉之路[M].天津:天津人民出版社,1996.

[27]诺思洛普•弗莱著.陈慧,袁宪军,吴伟仁译.批评的剖析[M].天津:百花文艺出版社,1998.

[28]格非.小说叙事研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002.

[29]杨任敬.20世纪美国文学史[M].青岛:青岛出版社,1999.

[30]郑克鲁.外国文学史(修订版)下[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2011.

[31]张隆溪.二十世纪西方文论述评[M].北京:人民出版社,2002.

[32]赵一凡.西方文论关键词[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2006.

[33]余瀛波.图解西方文论[M].西安:世界图书出版西安公司,2010.

[34]杨静远.《飘》在文学史上的地位[J].读书,1981(03):47-50.

[35]周明燕.一曲无尽的挽歌[J].外国文学研究,1997(04):72-76.

[36]陈安慧.反讽的轨迹[D].武汉:华中师范大学,2013.