Scholar Journal
Journal of Science and Today's World
Journal home page: http://www.journalsci.com
ISSN 2322-326X
2014, volume 3, issue 6, pages: 217-222
ResearchArticle
Irony Transmission in Comic Books Translation
Motahareh Heidari1*, Ahmad Moinzadeh2
1M.A.
Student of Translation Studies, Islamic Azad University, Bandar Abbas Branch, Bandar Abbas, Iran
professor of English department, Isfahan University. Iran.
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
The evidence from a variety of studies showed that irony processing poses a metaArticle history:
cognitive demand on recipients such as hearers, readers, translators than its literal
Received 1 May 2014
equivalent due to its culturally dependent recognition; so this indicates that it requires
Accepted 15 May 2014
pragmatic contextual evaluations of the utterance. The comics are specific frequently
Published 19 May 2014
used literary utterances and artistic form whose their unique traits are often neglected
and they are rarely translated in Iran. They are based on the interaction of binary sysKeywords:
tem of speaker/hearer, writer/reader, translator and target reader and in an ironic utVerbal Irony, Comics, Pragmatics, Conterance it is also between ironist and victim. This study aims to show the usefulness of
federacy of Dunces, Translator's Stratepragmatics for verbal irony in Comics. To doing so, the researcher designs a research
gy
model and a translator's strategy to analyze the translations of verbal irony in "a confed*correspondence should be addressed to
eracy of dunces".
2Assistance
Motahareh Heidari, M.A. Student of Translation
Studies, Islamic Azad University, Bandar Abbas Branch,
Bandar Abbas, Iran
Tell: +98
Fax: +98
Email: [email protected]
© Copyright Motahareh Heidari et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
1. Introduction
During past and present, translators break the boundaries between
languages and cultures and cause peace between them across the
world and nowadays with the process of globalization and the increasing interactions among countries the need for qualified translators increases to some extent. As a matter of fact, a language is the
most sophisticated system of meaning in which a simple word does
not have a meaning independent of its own cultural interactions; so
it can be used ironically when it is used unconventionally out of
place. Hence, irony yielded the social, political and cultural aspects
of language [9]; contextually dependent it is one of the frequently
used stylistic devices in different types of text. No one has yet
proved the existence of a language or culture without any use of
verbal irony. And it does not just rely on shared social values; it also
relies on literary values [6]. According to Whorfian linguists, language determines thinking and thought makes culture. Then the
problem arises when cultures in which such equivalents are lacking.
For this reason, translation plays a decisive role and presents an
image of source culture to a target culture and translators also play
as a mediator between different cultures. It doesn't always enhance
cross-cultural understanding and narrow the interstices and nuances between different cultures. As a matter of fact, literal translation
cannot transfer the exact meaning of the SL; consequently, it does
not lead to SL reader's exactly similar response from TL reader [27].
And in translation process, a translator cannot turn a blind eye to
the role of contexts because they are crucial for so many decisions,
so s/he analyses the text in order to determine the intention of the
text and to detect possible problematic aspects of it [21]. In case of
humor, it is possible to identify a range of purposes in which the
217 | P a g e
writer’s intention can be vague; there is not any guarantee that the
recipient will receive it in that way. In addition, the social context
also has a pivotal role for creation and reception of humor in brief, it
is important to understand how the response of laughter is triggered. [25]
2. Different types of irony
Irony is one of the most important and common tropes have attracted the attention of many rhetoricians and literary scholars ever
since Aristotle [24]. Different scholars have worked on the concept
of irony from different points of view, for example Muecke classified
irony into tripartite main categories of Verbal irony, Situational irony and Dramatic irony. [19]
Using three variables, Booth (1974) described some categories of
irony:
1. The degree of openness or disguise – irony can be covert or
totally overt, i.e. "It is ironic that…"
2. The degree of stability in the reconstruction – can the reader be
confident that his/her work is done when he has understood
the irony?
3. The scope of the "truth revealed" – ranging from the local to the
universal
Also, in the same year, Culter (1974) argued that the meaning of
ironic utterances is the reverse of their literal meaning. She recognized bipartite of Spontaneous and Provoked irony: the first one appears out of the immediate context and does not refer to a previous
context, and in their use of the second one, speakers refer to some
previous event or utterance. And then, Winner categorized three
J. Sci. Today's World, 2014, volume 3, issue 5, pages: 217-222
types of irony, sarcasm (the easiest kind of irony to understand),
hyperbole, and understatement (the most difficult type of irony for
children to grasp). [10]
In 1980, Muecke referred to irony as a frequent figure in literature and not only in speech acts and distinguished irony into four
main modes:
1. Impersonal Irony: it is the absence of the ironist as person i.e.
there is only his words. It has various techniques of Praising in order to blame, blaming in order to praise, pretended agreement with
the victim, pretended advice or encouragement to the victim, a rhetorical question, pretended doubt where nothing is doubtful, pretended error or ignorance, innuendo and insinuations, irony by
analogy, internal contradictions and overstatement.
2. Self-disparaging Irony or "irony of manners": the ironist
personality is important and the pretended person functions as
"guide to the ironist's real opinion."
3. Ingenu Irony: there is a 'real' and not a pretended innocent or
ignoramus that the effectiveness of this kind of irony is due to its
economy of means.
4. Dramatic Irony: ironic situations or events to our sense of
irony are presented by an ironist and the speaker himself does not
have any role.
In 1991, Littman and Mey classified irony into two main forms of
ironical situations and ironical statements. According to them in verbal irony two situations exist: either a dialogic conversation or just
the statement of a person who reacts ironically on something he
sees, feels, etc. both belong to the category of ironical statements
because it is the statement that can be considered as ironical and
not the whole situation in context.
In 1993, Kreuze and Roberts distinguished between four types of
irony: Socratic irony, Dramatic irony, Irony of fate or Situational irony and Verbal irony. According to them, Socratic irony was the pretence of ignorance of a given topic, in communication for pedagogical purposes. Dramatic irony was a situation where the audience
knows something that the character of a play, novel, etc, or the
speaker ignores. Situational irony or irony of fate was a situation in
the world which there is a contrast between intention and expectations and the result. And finally, verbal irony was incongruity between the literal and intended meanings of an utterance. [2]
In 1995, another classification of irony was represented by Barbe in
terms of three main aspects of meaning, speaker purpose and victims as follow:
218 | P a g e
Figure A: Classifying irony according to Barbe (1995)
Meaning
-
Something different, variously described in terms
- Literal
Of opposition, negation or contradiction
Speaker purpose
Primary
–
criticism
Secondary - power, belittle, fake praise,
(all
examples
employ
some type of criticism)
Victims
-
Addressee / previous speaker
-
Person talked about
-
Person who did (not) do or said / did not say something
-
Ignorant
-
speaker
And two years later, two forms of irony, conditional and reverse
irony, have been described by Vasiliou (1998).
In 2007, Okamoto draws a distinction between situational and verbal irony; he argued that while both types of irony involve incongruence between statement and reality or statement and intent,
situational irony will lack any negative evaluation or criticism of a
specific target.
3. Translation strategies of Irony
According to Gutt, some general rules of translating implicit information in literary texts are as follow:
1. Any act of communication should be consistent with the principle
of relevance.
2. In a text translation the translator will anticipate whether the ST
to be translated is communicable in the given context of TT audience.
3. In translating, the translator will predict the potential context of
the audience. The essential part of the context should be the audience expectation of the TT.
4. No matter what difficulties the translator has in translating, his
central concern is to maintain a successful communication. [31]
But Mateo (1995) drawing on Muecke's classification of irony types
proposed a list of possible strategies which have been clearly presented below:
(1) ST irony becomes TT irony with 'equivalent effect' translation;
(2) ST irony becomes TT irony by means of different effects from
those used in ST (including the replacement of paralinguistic elements by other ironic cues);
(3) ST irony is enhanced in TT with some word / expression;
(4) ST ironic innuendo becomes more restricted and explicit in TT;
J. Sci. Today's World, 2014, volume 3, issue 5, pages: 217-222
(5) ST irony becomes TT sarcasm (i.e. more overt criticism);
(6) The hidden meaning of ST irony comes to the surface in TT (no
irony in TT);
(7) ST ironic ambiguity has only one of the two meanings translated
in TT (there is no double- entendre or ambiguity in TT therefore);
(8) ST irony is replaced by a 'synonym' in TT with no two possible
interpretations;
(9) ST irony is explained in footnote in TT;
(10) ST irony has literal translation with no irony in TT.
In the same year, Barbe (1995) presented some strategies for the
translation of ironical expressions. These strategies, to reproduce
the same irony, are as follows:
(1) Replace the SL image with appropriate TL image
(2) Add a potential irony marker (a modal particle)
(3) Add a description (explaining in a footnote for example)
She also emphasized that omission of irony can never be an option.
Irony has to resonate in the TL, otherwise the message in misinterpreted. In other words, it cannot be lost in translation.
According to her, irony and translation are both acts of interpretation. Irony is manifested in different ways in different cultures.
There are no safeguards to ensure that irony will be identified/ recognized as it depends crucially on shared knowledge. So, translators
are as fallible as any hearer. She also mentions that in order to understand irony three types of background knowledge are needed:
personal, situational, and cultural.
And finally, Warning argued that since irony is based on an understanding between sender and receiver about the discrepancy between text and situation, it does not normally present any difficulties in oral communication. If the readers are to understand irony in
a fictional text, they have to be familiar with the author's world, and
this familiarity is often established by the text itself. [22]
4. Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework of the present thesis entails an amalgam
of miscellaneous pragmatic strategies of verbal irony according to
Pretence, Graded Salience, Echoic Mention and Speech Act theoreticians. Irony is a form of indirect negation. The ironist, flouts the
graded informativeness (rather than the truthfulness) requirement
and negates without using an overt negation marker. In this regard,
both the explicit and implicated messages are retained in irony. [15]
To refer to hearer or victim, Meucke used the word innocent [6]. He
differentiated between the object and the victim of irony, the former
refer to the person that the ironist is actually attacking and the latter to the person who hears or reads the ironic remark. The victim
cannot fail to hear your criticism, unless he misinterprets your irony.
But according to Sperber and Wilson (1981) it causes mocking
fiercer when the victim is not intended to comprehend the irony.
And they refer to the victim as the "target" of the irony that the
speaker can intensify the criticism directed to him. And the existence of any onlooker who does recognize the utterance as ironic
reinforced the mockery effect.
And Brown and Levinson (1987) believed that irony is a form of
mockery which make the victim believe that the utterance is literally true, when everyone else knows that it is not. And the result is the
mocking both when the victim of irony recognizes the irony and
also when he fails to perceive the directed irony.
Amante (1981) claims that "irony operates by covertly negating one
or more of the conditions and rules underlying most non-ironic
speech acts". He also asserted that by offering certain clues, the
speaker signal the ironic speech to the victim of irony which has
different input and output conditions than a “normal” speech act.
219 | P a g e
Then with the help of the provided clues of context and his or her
background knowledge the hearer has to recognize the Irony and
understand the speaker’s intentions.
Sperber and Wilson (1981) and Clark and Gerrig (1984) focused on
the dimension of shared background knowledge. According to Clark
and Gerrig, the participants' shared background knowledge conditions the recognition of irony and "a listener's understanding of an
ironic utterance depends crucially on the common ground he or she
believes is shared by the ironist and the audience - their mutual
beliefs, mutual knowledge, and mutual suppositions".
Giora (1995) in his Graded salience hypothesis regarded irony as a
form of indirect negation that relies on difference between the literal and implied meaning. According to him, there is a high risk that
the hearer may misinterpret the intention and the whole conversation is likely to fail.
Sadock (1972) claimed that the speaker’s intention also plays an
important role whether convention or intention seems paramount,
success and failure is not guaranteed. But Gibbs et al. (1995) provided convincing evidence that intention is not necessary for irony
to occur. They show that hearers are able to recognize the ironic
meaning whilst at the same time knowing that the speaker’s intention was not to convey irony.
Speakers may want to be humorous, convey a certain attitude, persuade someone or influence the relationship between the speaker
and the hearer [12]. Garmendia (2010) states, "[in] most cases of
irony, the speaker exhibits a positive attitude to express a negative
one". According to Averbeck (2010) irony is a difficult strategy of
the rhetor's face-saving when negativity is the defining trait of the
rhetorical device.
Gottlib (2005) argued that the translator has to transfer and make
sure that the target audience responds to the translation in the
same way as the source audience did to the source text. And finally,
Scheele & Groeben demonstrated that irony may also be used to
ridicule the addressee in the eyes of a third person in order to bolster the self-confidence of the speaker. [22]
5. Translator's Strategy
Research Model
The model of the research analysis is represented as follow:
Figure 1: An amalgam/a combination of pragmatic theories based
on verbal irony
J. Sci. Today's World, 2014, volume 3, issue 5, pages: 217-222
Figure 2: Translator's Primary Task
Figure 4: Procedure from ST to TT
Source
Text
ST reader's task of
filling interstices of
source
Translators as readers (recognizing the
implicit meaning of
source)
Translators as writers, while filling the
gap of ST and TT culturally and implicitly, render the source into target
Figure 3: Translator's Secondary Task: Text Rendering Procedure, reaching Core meaning
1. S/he
should
have
knowledg
e of ST
and TT,
while
considering
ST
aesthetic
Value.
Rendering Procedure
2. S/he
should recognize the
comical
elements in
terms
of
figure
1,
and relates
them to TT
culture
Core meaning = Translating exact irony to irony
Deep meaning = Translating irony to near irony
Upper deep meaning = Translating irony to non-irony; connotation or implicit meaning.
Surface meaning = Translating literally or Literal translation
Text
Rendering:
Reaching
Core
meaning
Target
Text
TT reader's norms
and expectations
220 | P a g e
3.
S/he
should
consider TT
reader's
norm
and
expectations
J. Sci. Today's World, 2014, volume 3, issue 5, pages: 217-222
Figure 5: Translator's general Map
during rendering process reaches to core meaning due to TT reader's norm, culture and expectations.
Table 2: Irony to Near Irony
6. Verbal Irony in "A Confederacy of Dunces" and its Translation
Table 1: Irony to Exact Irony
Irony to Exact Irony
“Oh, Fortuna, blind, heedless
goddess, I am strapped to your
wheel,” Ignatius belched. “Do
not crush me beneath your
spokes. Raise me on high, divinity.”
“What you mumbling about
in there, boy?” his mother asked
through the closed door.
“I am praying,” Ignatius answered angrily.
“Patrolman Mancuso’s coming today to see me about the
accident. You better say a little
Hail Mary for me, honey.”
“Oh, my God,” Ignatius muttered.
“I think it’s wonderful you
praying, babe. I been wondering
what you do locked up in there
all the time.”
“Please go away!” Ignatius
screamed. “You’re shattering my
religious ecstasy.” (P.60)
»Ei Fortuna, ei Aalaaheye koru
biparva, man ba tasmeii be charkha tu baste shudeam.« Aarogh
zad. » Mara zire charkhat leh
nakun. Balayam bebar ei Aalaahe.
«
Madarash az pushte dare
baste pursid »dari zire lab chi
migi pesar?«
Ignishes ba asabaniyat javab
dad »doa mikunam.«
»Polise gasht Maankuzu emroz mi Aad tab abate oun tasaduf
man ru bebine. Behtare ye doaye
aave mariyaye kocholo ham
baraye man bukuni azizam.«
Ignishes zire lab ghur ghur
kard »ei khuda.«
»Age doa mikuni ke kheili
aaliye pesaram. Hamash fekr
mikunam tu pushte oun dare
baste chi kar mikuni.«
Ignishes
faryad
keshid
»khaahesh mikunam buru, dari
haalate rouhaniye man
naabod mikuni.« (P. 49)
ru
Translator's strategy: Core Meaning
The ironist, Ignatius, mocks Mrs. Reilly and this mockery become
fiercer when the victim doesn't recognize the ironist intention. In
the above example the translator successfully rendered the ironic
utterances from source to the target and therefore the translator
221 | P a g e
Irony to Near Irony
“It smells terrible in here.”
“Well, what do you expect? The
human body, when confined, produces certain odors which we tend
to forget in this age of deodorants
and other perversions. Actually, I
find the atmosphere of this room
rather comforting. Schiller needed
the scent of apples rotting in his desk
in order to write. I, too, have my
needs. You may remember that Mark
Twain preferred to lie supinely in
bed while composing those rather
dated and boring efforts which contemporary scholars try to prove
meaningful. Veneration of Mark
Twain is one of the roots of our current intellectual stalemate.”
(P. 91)
»In jaa boye gand mide.«
» Khub che entezari dari? Badane
aadam vaghti mahbos baashe bohaye mushakhesi tolid mikune ke
zaheran gharare dar in douraane
atru udkulanu baghiyeye enherfaat
faramosheshun kunim. Vali fazaye
in utagh baraye man besyar
maayeye aasodegiye. Shiler baraye
neveshtan be boye sibe gandide
ehtiyaj dasht. Man ham niyazhaaye
khudam ru daram. Shayad yaadet
bashe ke Mark Towain dost daasht
moghe neveshtane oun matnhaaye
kuhne va khaste kunandash ke
daneshgahihaye emroz sa'y dar
esbate ma'naye mute'alishun daran,
taaghbaaz roye takht deraaz
bekeshe. Takrime Mark Towain yeki
az rishehaaye be bunbast residane
rushanfekri dar dourine mast.« (P.
68)
Translator's strategy: Deep Meaning
Understatement is the ironist intention (Ignatius) and Schiller (a
German poet, philosopher, historian, and playwright) and Mark
Twain (an American author and humorist andthe writer of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn)
related to the Victim and Reader's background knowledge that Mrs.
Reilly as a victim pretends to ignorance.
Table 3: Irony to Non Irony
Irony to Non Irony; Connotation
“I thought he was married,
»Fekr mikardam pesaret
precious.”
“Ignatius? Eh, la la,” Mrs. Reilly ezdevaj karde azizam«
said sadly. “Sweetheart, you
Khanume Raily be talkhi guft
wannagimme two dozen of them »Ignishes? Delet khushe. Azfancy mix?”
“But I thought you told me he izam bistu chehaartaa az oun
was married,” Miss Inez said shirinihaat behem midi?«
while she was putting the cakes
Khaanume Aayenz mashin a box.
ghole chidane shiriniha dar
“He ain’t even got him a pro- ja'be shudu guft »vali to
spect. The little girl friend he
zehnam bod ke gufti ezdevaaj
had flew the coop.” (P. 15)
karde.«
Hich umidi ham be ezdevajash nist. Oun ye done dukhtari ham ke baahaash bod
zad be chaak. (P. 19)
Translator's strategy: Upper Deep Meaning
In the above example which Mrs. Reilly mocks Ignatius who is
absent, the ironic sense of ST was rendered to a non ironic sense in
TT due to the lack of humorous sense in TT's culture.
J. Sci. Today's World, 2014, volume 3, issue 5, pages: 217-222
7. Conclusion
A brief review of the results on irony pragmatics demonstrates that
Humor plays an important role in the context of intercultural communication. One of the means for exporting humor that poses a real
challenge for translators across cultures is irony which rooted in a
specific cultural and linguistic context. Therefore, during humor
translating process, dozens of factors need to be taken into account.
First, translators also have to render the humor after deciding
whether the TL reader understands the humor or not, so s/he may
induce the effect of the ST. Hence they have to make humor sense of
source text as humor in the target culture. Sometimes the lack of
humor sense or its equivalent in the TT reduces the ST humorous
effect. Consequently, it is the translators’ ability of creative decision
making and moving toward readers' target-culture, norms and expectations and chooses a TL oriented way. To doing so, it allows
them more freedom to manipulate the TT and to use various strategies in order to bring the translation closer to target culture norms,
expectations and preferences and this, consequently, leads to a free
translation.
Meaning Exploring in Comics is up to the ST readers. It depends
on reader's background knowledge or their world knowledge and
their culture norms. The original author leaves the reader alone to
interpret the meaning and the translator conveyed the implicit
meaning of the original while elucidating meaning in terms of TT
culture (i.e. some ironic utterances may have equivalents in TT or
their equivalents may be absent in the TT). In other words, ST reader have the responsibility of filling the gaps and every interstices
among their world knowledge, theirs expectations, norms and the
hidden meaning due to their cultures (i. e. reading between the lines
in terms of their culture or language borders); but in TT, it is the
translator's task to fill the gaps between Source and Target Cultures
and move toward the TT readers background knowledge and expectations. In a nutshell, culture affects the translation of irony in TT;
therefore, the comic and humorous sense of the original undergoes
some changes in translation process.
References
[1] Amante, D. (1981). The theory of indirect speech acts. Journal of
Poetics Today.2(2).77- 96.
[2] Attardo, S. (2000).Irony as relevant inappropriateness.Journal of
Pragmatics.32(6).793–826.
[3] Averbeck, J. M. (2010). Irony and Language Expectancy Theory:
Evaluations of
Expectancy Violation Outcomes.Communication
Studies.61 (3).357-358.
[4] Baker, M. & Sadanha, G. (Eds.). (2009). Routledge encyclopedia of
translation studies. USA & Canada: Taylor & Francis Group.
[5] Barbe, K. (1995). Irony in Context. Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing Company.
[6] Booth, W. C. (1974). A Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago & London: The
University of Chicago Press.
[7] Brown, P. and Levinson. S. C. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
[8] Clark, H.H. & Gerrig, R.J. (1984).On the pretense theory of irony.Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 113 (1), 121–126.
[9] Colebrook, C. (2004). Irony. London & New York: Routeledge.
[10] Creusere, M. (2007).A developmental test of theoretical perspectives on the understanding of verbal irony: Children’s recognition of allusion and pragmatic insincerity. Journal of Metaphor and
Symbol.(15), 29–45.
[11] Cutler, A. (1974). On saying what you mean without meaning
what you say. Galy, M. Fox, R. &Bruck, A. (Eds.), Papers from the
222 | P a g e
Tenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: CLS.
10.117-127. Retrieved From
[12] Dews, S. and Winner, E. (1995).Mutting the Meaning: A Social Function of Irony. Metaphor & Symbolic Activity.10(1).3-20.
[13] Garmendia, J. (2010). Irony is Critical. Pragmatics & Cognition.18 (2).397-421.
[14] Gibbs, R. W., O’Brien, J. E. & Doolittle, S. (1995). ‘Inferring
meanings that are not intended: speakers intentions and irony
comprehension. Discourse Processes. 20(2), 187–203.
[15] Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation.Discourse Processes. 19
(2), 239–264.
[16] Gottlib, H. (2005). Texts, Translation and Subtitling-in theory,
and in Denmark. University of Copenhagen: Center for Translation
Studies.
[17] Littmann, D.C. and Mey, J.L. (1991). The nature of irony: Towards a computational model of irony. Journal of pragmatics. 15.
131-151.
[18] Mateo, M. (1995).The Translation of Irony.Meta.40 (1).171-178.
Retrieved From http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/003595ar
[19] Muecke, D.C. (1970). Irony and the ironic-(the critical idiom;13).London & New York: Methuen.
[20] Muecke, D.C. (1980). The Compass of Irony. London & New
York: Methuen.
[21] Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York, London,Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo & Singapore. Prentice Hall.
[22] Nord, C. (2005).Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a model for Translation-Oriented
Text Analysis (2nd edition).Amsterdam& New York: Radopi. Retrieved From http://books.google.com
[23] Okamoto, S. (2007). An analysis of the usage of Japanese hiniku: Based on the communicative insincerity theory of irony. Journal
of Pragmatics.
39
(6).
1143-1169.
Retrieved
From
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S03782166070
00392
[24] Östman, J. &Verschueren, J. (Eds.). (2011). Pragmatics in practice (handbook of pragmatics highlights).Amsterdam, Netherlands &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins publishing company.
[25] Ross, A. (1998).The language of humour. London & New York:
Routeledge.
[26] Sadock (1972). Speech acts. Chicago Linguistic Society: 329339.
Retrieved
from:
http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/f07/pragmatics/s
adock.pdf
[27] Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention
distinction. Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic
Press, 295-318.
[28] Schäffner, c. (Ed.). (2000). Translation in the global village.
Frankfurt Lodge: Multilingual Matters.
[29] Toole, J. K. (1980). A Confederacy of Dunces.US: Louisiana State
University Press.
[30] Vasiliou, L. (1998). Conditional irony in the Socratic Dialogues.
Classical Quarterly New Series.49(2). 456-472.
[31] Zhonggang, s.(2006). A Relevance Theory Perspective on
Translating the Implicit Information in Literary Texts. Journalof
Translation. 2(2).43-60.