UNIVERSITY OF THI-QAR
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION FOR HUMANITIES
A Stylistic Study of Irony in Shakespeare's
Hamlet and Ben Jonson's Volpone
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE COLLEGE
OF EDUCATION FOR HUMANITIES/
UNIVERSITY OF THI-QAR
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER
OF ARTS
IN
APPLIED LINGUISTICS
BY
SA'AD ABDULLAH MIRDAS
SUPERVISED BY
PROF. MOHAMMED JASIM BETTI (Ph.D.)
AND
ASST. PROF. IMAD IBRAHIM DAWOOD (Ph.D.)
2016 A.D.
1437 A.H.
‫بسم اهلل الرحمن الرحيم‬
ِ ْ‫ْالروح‬
ِ
ْ‫يْوَماْأُوتِيتُمْ ِمنْ ال ِعل ِْم إِاَّل‬
‫ب‬
‫ْر‬
‫ر‬
‫َم‬
‫أ‬
‫ن‬
ْ
‫م‬
ِ ‫ْالر‬
ِّ
ُّ ‫ْعن‬
َ َ‫َويَسْألُون‬
َ ‫ك‬
ُ ُّ ‫وحْقُل‬
َ َ
ًْ ِ‫قَل‬
‫يل‬
‫صدق أهلل العلي ألعظيم‬
58 ‫أأليه‬/‫سوره اإلسراء‬
In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
"They question you about the spirit. Say: The spirit is
from the command of my lord. Except for a little
knowledge you have been given nothing.
In the Great God's words is the truth
(Surat Al-Isra' verse 85)
II
We certify that this thesis entitled "A Stylistic Study of Irony in
Shakespeare's Hamlet and Ben Jonson's Volpone" written by Sa'ad
Abdullah Mirdas has been prepared under our supervision at the College
of Education for Humanities/ University of Thi-Qar in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Applied
Linguistics.
Signature:
Supervisor: Prof. Mohammed Jasim Betti (Ph.D.)
Date:
/
/ 2015
Signature:
Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Imad Ibrahim Dawood (Ph.D.)
Date:
/
/ 2015
In view of the available recommendations, I forward this thesis for
debate by the examining committee.
Signature:
Name: Asst. Prof. Imad Ibrahim Dawood (Ph.D.)
Head of the Department of English, College of Education for Humanities
University Of Thi-Qar.
Date:
/
/2015
III
We certify that we have read this thesis (A Stylistic Study of Irony in
Shakespeare's Hamlet and Ben Jonson's Volpone) written by Sa'ad
Abdullah Mirdas and as Examining Committee examined the student in
its content and that in our opinion it is adequate as a thesis for the degree
of Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics.
Signature:
Signature:
Name:
Name:
Date:
Date:
Chairman:
Member:
Signature:
Name:
Date:
Member:
Approved of by the council of the College of Education for Humanities.
Signature:
Name: Prof. Naeem Kareem Ajemi (Ph.D.)
Dean of the College of Education for Humanities
Date:
IV
To
My Late
Brother
V
Acknowledgement
First and foremost I would like to express my deeply felt indebtedness
and gratitude to my supervisor and teacher Prof. Mohammed Jasim Betti
for suggesting this topic, and for his invaluable advice, guidance,
patience, unfailing support and encouragement throughout the writing of
this thesis.
I am also deeply indebted to my co supervisor Asst. Prof. Imad
Ibrahim Dawood who spared no effort to provide his insightful
comments, enlightening suggestions and encouragement.
Acknowledgements are due to my M.A. instructors, Asst. Prof. Ra'ad
Al-Nawas, Asst. Prof. Zainab K. Igaab, Asst. Prof. Ali A. Al-Ridha, Dr.
Raheem Al-Zubaidy (Department of English / College of Education for
Humanities / University of Thi-Qar) for their encouragement and
assistance throughout the courses.
I am also grateful to my friend Mr. Hani Kamel for his friendly
support, kindness, encouragement and his unconditional love. He was
always there when needed.
Thanks are also to the librarians Kareem Mreih Moter and Hussam
Dakhil Kareem in the College of Education for Humanities / University
of Thi-Qar/ English Department for providing me with references.
Finally, I am greatly indebted to my family, and father and mother for
their patience, love and endless support.
VI
Abstract
Irony means a difference between what is said and what is meant. It is
not a simple phenomenon. The common definition of irony is saying
what is contrary to what is meant. The disparity is between the apparent
meaning of words that are written or spoken and a far different meaning
under the surface. In this case, the words of the speaker are not literally
interpreted.
The present study is concerned with reviewing irony within a suitable
theoretical background in Shakespeare's Hamlet and Ben Jonson's
Volpone. This study is also concerned with detecting, analyzing and
discussing verbal irony, pun and sarcasm in Hamlet and Volpone. It
compares the results of analysis and discussion of those types in the two
plays. It tries to testify the hypotheses postulated in the study to arrive at
some similarities and differences between Hamlet and Volpone through
applying the adopted model. The model, which shows the linguistic tools
which are used in analyzing the three types of irony, verbal, pun, and
sarcasm includes Grice's maxims, politeness principle, echo utterance,
pun and sarcasm.
It is hypothesized through this study that verbal ironic speeches flout
Grice's maxims in Shakespeare's Hamlet and Ben Jonson's Volpone, that
pun is more effective and frequently used than the other types of irony in
the aforementioned plays, that all the politeness maxims are exploited in
the selected plays and that the two dramatists are different in their
purposes behind using irony in the selected plays.
The study falls into five chapters. It concludes that the number of
irony in Hamlet is more than Volpone, although the former play is a tragic
one while the latter is comedy. It is also concluded that Shakespeare uses
VII
the types of irony which are used by educated people, while Jonson uses
the types which are used by uneducated people. Most of verbal ironic
speeches in Hamlet are produced by flouting the maxims of quality and
manner while, in Volpone, they are produced by flouting the maxim of
quality. The less use of sarcasm in Hamlet indicates the bigger number of
high class characters compared to Volpone. Concerning Leech's maxims,
Shakespeare and Ben Jonson exploit the maxim of agreement only.
VIII
List of Contents
Subject
Page
Acknowledgement
vi
Abstract
vii
List of Tables
xiii
List of Figures
xiv
CHAPTER ONE: PRELIMINARIES
1.1 The Problem
1
1.2 Aims
1
1.3 Hypotheses
2
1.4 Procedure
2
1.5 Limits
2
1.6 Significance
3
1.7 General Characteristics of Shakespeare's Plays
3
1.8 General Characteristics of Ben Jonson's Plays
12
CHAPTER TWO: Irony
2.1 Irony: Definitions, Recognition, and Purposes
18
2.1.1 Definitions of Irony
18
2.1.2 Recognition of Irony
19
2.1.3 Purposes of Irony
22
2.2 Types of Irony
23
2.2.1 Verbal Irony
23
IX
2.2.1.1 Understatement
26
2.2.1.2 Overstatement
28
2.2.1.3 Sarcasm
29
2.2.1.4 Pun
30
2.2.1.5 Bathos
32
2.2.2 Situational Irony
32
2.2.2.1 Dramatic Irony
34
2.2.2.2 Cosmic Irony
37
2.2.2.3 Socratic Irony
38
2.2.2.4 Tragic Irony
40
2.2.3 Romantic Irony
40
2.2.4 Structural Irony
41
2.2.5 Postmodern Irony
43
2.3 Irony and Other Terms
44
2.3.1 Irony Principle
44
2.3.2 Interest Principle
47
2.3.3 Irony and Politeness
47
2.3.4 Irony and Implicature
48
2.4 Model of the Study
50
2.4.1 Grice's Maxims
50
X
2.4.2 Politeness Principle
58
2.4.3 Echo Utterance
60
2.4.4 Pun and Sarcasm
61
CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF IRONY IN
SHAKESPEARE'S HAMLET
3.1 Data Description
63
3.2 Data Analysis
63
3.2.1 Analysis and Discussion of Verbal Irony
64
3.2.2 Analysis and Discussion of Pun
75
3.2.3 Analysis and Discussion of Sarcasm
85
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF IRONY IN
BEN JONSON'S VOLPONE
4.1 Data Description
90
4.2 Data Analysis
90
4.2.1 Analyzing and Discussing Verbal Irony
90
4.2.2 Analyzing and Discussing Pun
96
4.2.3 Analyzing and Discussing Sarcasm
99
CHAPTER FIVE: COMPARISONS, CONCLUSIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Comparisons
114
5.1.1 Verbal Irony in Hamlet and Volpone
XI
114
5.1.2 Pun in Hamlet and Volpone
117
5.1.3 Sarcasm in Hamlet and Volpone
118
5.1.4 Irony in Hamlet and Volpone
119
5.2 Conclusions
120
5.3 Recommendations
122
5.4 Suggestions for Further Study
123
Bibliography
124
Abstract in Arabic
141
XII
List of Tables
Number
Title
Page
Table 1
Irony in Hamlet
89
Table 2
Irony in Volpone
112
Table 3
Table 4
Characters and verbal irony in Hamlet and Volpone
Flouting Grice's maxims in Hamlet and Volpone
115
115
Table 5
Agreement maxim in Hamlet and Volpone
116
Table 6
Echo utterances in Hamlet and Volpone
116
Table 7
Characters and pun in Hamlet and Volpone
117
Table 8
Characters and sarcasm in Hamlet and Volpone
118
Table 9
Irony in Hamlet and Volpone
119
XIII
List of Figures
Number
Title
Page
Figure 1
Leech's Types of Rhetoric
46
Figure 2
Model of Analysis
62
XIV
CHAPTER ONE
PRELIMINARIES
1.1 The Problem
It is known that irony means saying one thing while meaning another.
It is one of the ways of communication with others, either for hostile or
humorous purposes. It is a figure of speech in which there is a difference
between what is said and what is meant. The context plays an important
role in understanding irony in which the statement is made. Irony depends
on the reader's skill in detecting the implicit meaning behind the actual
words used. Within the problem of the study, the following questions are
presented:
1. How is irony classified in Shakespeare's Hamlet and Ben Jonson's
Volpone?
2. What are the linguistic tools used in Shakespeare's and Jonson's
selected plays?
3. To what extent the selected plays resemble one another?
1.2 Aims
This study aims to achieve the following:
1. Finding out the types of irony and their roles in the selected plays.
2. Finding out the pragmatic strategies on which Shakespeare and Jonson
depend in presenting the ironic situations.
3. Finding out the points of similarities and differences between
Shakespeare's and Jonson's stylistic features in the selected plays.
1
1.3 Hypotheses
This study hypothesizes the following:
1. Verbal ironic speeches flout Grice's maxims in Shakespeare's Hamlet
and Ben Jonson's Volpone.
2. Pun is more effective and frequently used than the other types of irony
in the aforementioned plays.
3. All the politeness maxims are exploited in the selected plays.
4. The two dramatists are different in their purposes behind using irony in
the selected plays.
1.4 Procedure
The procedure of the study is shown in the following steps:
1. Selecting a model for analyzing irony in Shakespeare's Hamlet and
Ben Jonson's Volpone.
2. Carrying out a stylistic analysis of irony in the selected plays.
3. Carrying out a comparative analysis of irony in the two plays.
1.5 Limits
This study is limited to Shakespeare's Hamlet and Ben Jonson's
Volpone in an attempt to detect and compare the stylistic distinguishing
features of the two authors. The selected plays are stylistically studied in
terms of irony. Situational and dramatic ironies are excluded because they
are literary created ironies. The text of Hamlet is that of Bhatia (ed.)
(2012) and that of Volpone is Cook (ed.) (1962).
2
1.6 Significance
The significance of this study is represented by presenting an adequate
account of irony as a leading stylistic feature of literary works. Thus, it
helps language teachers, translators as well as foreign learners of English
language in their jobs.
1.7 General Characteristics of Shakespeare's Plays
Shakespeare's tragic plays are explained by Bradly in the following
way: First, the story consists of one person, the hero or at best two
persons, the hero and the heroine. This way is preferable in romantic
tragedies such as Romeo and Juliet. Second, the story talks about
suffering and extreme calamity which lead to death of a man. Third, this
suffering happens to a person who feels happiness in his last life. Fourth,
the calamity is achieved by men. Fifth, the tragedy goes off from an
action done by a man or the action formulating the character of the
person. Sixth, the catastrophe resulting from the deeds of men and the
main source of these deeds is the character of them. Seventh, the
abnormal conditions of mind such as madness and hallucination are not
the origin of deeds of any dramatic moments. Eighth, the supernatural is
never compulsive in his plays wherever it is introduced. Ninth, there is no
exclusion to accidents. They are used sparingly and are not allowed to
damage the impression of casual sequence. Tenth, the main tragic feature
is noticed on mindness of character. The last feature is that the tragic truth
is the remains of something pathetic, scared and strange (Bhatia,
2012:81).
In the history of English/western drama, Shakespeare is the greatest
playwright. He is exceptional and distinctive in his writing. In his plays,
we can note a lot of things. First of all, he uses a lot of human figures. He
3
uses characters that represent high class such as kings, barons, princesses,
and also uses others that refer to opposite personalities such as fools,
soldiers, peasant girls, witches and magicians. There are various visual
contexts in which these figures appear such as festivals of state alongside
inn drinking, sense of love, boats and rough brawls, mask party, marching
armies, murder scenes, soliloquies, dancing parties, etc. Second there is
variety in the language such as highly speech and fast prose dialogue. In
his plays, we find a lot of formal Elizabethan verse and they are also
wealthy with melodramatic rhetoric scenes of grand passion (Clemen,
1972:198).
There is another feature in his plays characterized by mixing comic
and tragic scenes. Zhang (1996:62) calls this feature a mingled mode
which is considered as one of the important aspects in Shakespearean
plays. Sometimes, the comic scenes break sadness atmosphere which is
the central one in Shakespearean tragedies. Likewise, there are tragic
scenes in his comedies.
Many critics think that a discrepancy of mood results by mixing grieve
and joy scenes. The comic scenes in his tragedies serve as intervals. They
also contribute the central theme of the play. For instance, in Hamlet the
churchyard scene is not a simple comic interval, but tackles with the
eternal facts about death and life (ibid: 64).
This feature is sometimes called comic relief which is defined by
Abrams (1993:31) as the way by which comic scenes, speeches, and
characters are presented in a serious or tragic work. It is a general factor
in Elizabethan tragedy, e.g. the scene of gravediggers in Hamlet (V.i) and
the scene of the drunken porter after the murder of the king in Macbeth
(II.iii).
4
According to Baldick (2001:46), comic relief generates many effects.
One of them is the relaxation after moment of high tension, e.g. the
dialogue between Hamlet and the gravediggers in Hamlet (act V, scene i).
He also shows that a serious work, especially a tragedy is interrupted by
short humours incidents. He defines this case as a comic relief. Cuddon
(1998:159) explains comic relief as incidents which are found in tragedy
aims at heightening the tragic factors by contrast. They are integral part
of the whole work, e.g. Iago's gulling of Rodrigo in Othello.
According to Clemen (1987:51), the landmark in the dramatic art of
Shakespeare is monologue which leads to its development. It is
considered as a point of departure for the unprecedented wealth of
disparities and interconnection in his plays. This feature is also described
by Abrams (1993:48) as prolonged speech by a single person. It can be
considered as a lyric poem as well as it can be defined as a term which
refers to a person who speaks alone with or without an audience. It can be
used in different senses (Cuddon, 1998:517). According to Baldick
(2001:160), monologue is a lengthy speech which is uttered by a single
person as if alone or to others.
Shakespeare's drama can be characterized as a free and open form of
drama. It is not subject to fixed rules. It is also a form of drama in which
a new unity results from the combination of most varied and mutually
opposed constituents (Clemen, 1972:199).
Salmon and Burness (1987:193) point out that lexical innovations are
one of Shakespearean features such as bare-faced, countless, dog-weary,
fancy free.
5
"The shifting relations between image and word, spectacle and
rhetorical elaboration are one of the most persistent of Shakespearean
characteristics" (Baldo, 1996:159).
Barnes
and
Coleman
(2008:64)
explain
another
feature
of
Shakespearean plays which is called fatal flaw. They show that in his
tragedies such as Romeo and Juliet, Othello and Macbeth, one very
important theme is the concept of character's personal weak point leading
to damage. The end is either death or obliteration. Examples of personal
weaknesses in Shakespeare's plays are jealousy (in Othello) and greed or
ambition (in Macbeth).
Flaw can be considered as heroic property of the protagonist in the
play. It contributes in his heroic qualities. This melancholy explains in
Hamlet, ambition Macbeth, jealousy Othello and so on (Dotterer,
1989:119).
The defect which obstructs the character's good judgment and causes
him to make unfortunate choices is known as flaw (Downs et al.,
2013:435). Cuddon (1998:933) defines tragic flaw as imperfection in a
tragic hero or heroine which leads to their downfall.
In tragedy, the protagonist sometimes has a weak point which leads to
his end. This defect is called tragic flaw. A well known example about
this characteristic is Othello's jealousy. This idea requires a narrowing
and personalizing of the broader Greek opinion Hamartia (error or
failure) (Baldick, 2001:261).
Lewis (1992:13) shows that the heroes of Shakespeare's plays have
different locations from that of their counterparts in Roman comedy.
External pressures do not affect so much upon them. His plays
6
concentrate on consequential matters. There is concentration on internal
conflict.
The combination of inner shortages or evils generates destructive
forces in Shakespeare's plays which like Greek plays such as Lear's
temper or Macbeth's ambition, with external pressures such as Lear's
"tiger daughter", the witches in Macbeth or Lady Macbeth's impart unity
(Kuiper, 2013:73).
Another feature which is discussed by many writers is 'in medias res'
which literary means "in the middle of things ". This feature happens
when the scene or the story starts in the middle of things previous to the
plot has been laid out (Miller, 1962:6).
Baldick (2001:124) shows that the technique which is used by the
writer to start the tale in the middle of the action is called 'in medias res'
which is a Latin phrase means into the middle of things. This technique is
used to get the reader's interest before explaining preceding events.
There are many sources of blood in Shakespeare's plays. War can be
considered the main source of blood. In Shakespeare's plays, there is
attentiveness on the negative aspects of war. There are many symbols
referring to this such as dearth, sword, and fire, in Henry V, prologue 7or
blood and sword and fire in (Henry V, I.ii.131). War is the son of hell
(Henry VI, V, iii, 33). Shakespeare talks about war in an effective way.
His texts are full of moving references to the cruelty and bloodiness of
war (Meron, 1998:41).
Abrams (1993:213) states that Elizabethan writers gratify the desire of
the contemporary audience for violence and horror through representing
themselves on stage. This results one of the greatest tragedies, Hamlet.
7
Cuddon (1998:326) explains the term foreshadowing in the following
way:
"The technique of arranging events and information in a narrative in such
a way that later events are prepared for or shadowing forth beforehand".
Foreshadowing is a technique which does not occur commonly in
Shakespeare's plays. But it is indeed a remarkable device which is so
ordinary as to appear hardly noteworthy. For instance, in Julius Caesar,
the anarchy of nature metaphorically prefigures the anarchy of Roman
state (Fujita and Pronko, 1996:172).
In order to achieve the foreshadowing of events, the author gives us
indications or warnings about what will occur later in the text. This way
likes music of movie. Through the creepy of music, the audience knows
something terrifying or awful is about to happen. For example, in act II
scene i of Othello, Shakespeare uses the storm and Othello's successful
battle against the Turks to foreshadow a greater conflict that will occur
later in the play: a psychological or personal battle within Othello himself
(Barnes and Coleman, 2010:74).
Abrams (1993:159- 60) views that the character which is used to show
or highlight the nature or character of protagonist is called foil. For
instance, Leartes is a foil to dilatory Hamlet; the firebrand Hotspur is a
foil to the cool and calculating prince Hal in Shakespeare's Henry IV, i.
In Shakespeare's plays, there is a character that provides a strong
contrast with the protagonist through having opposite traits or actions.
This character is used to emphasize the qualities of the protagonist
(Baldick, 2001:98).
8
According to Sharma (1998:58), a foil in literature is a character who
differs in traits and personality from others and brings the prominence of
the protagonist. For example, in Shakespeare's King Lear, the fool is a
foil to King Lear; in Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, the obedient Helen
Burns is a foil the rebellious Jane.
The famous feature of Shakespeare's plays is his soliloquies which
stand for speeches by characters rather than their unspoken ideas (Hirsh,
2003:119). There are situations in which the characters speak about their
dilemmas, their love, their schemes, their furies when they are alone. The
situation differs when someone enters. The characters stop talking or
lower their voices. The difference between Shakespeare's soliloquies and
others is that his soliloquies are performed as if the character is thinking
but not speaking (Blaisdell, 2006: iii).
Farabee (2014:7) clarifies that there are many reasons for using
soliloquies. Firstly, characters excite concentration because their
soliloquies are long and theoretically complex speeches. Secondly,
soliloquies offer playgoers what appear to be moments of unmediated
access to the ideas and often feelings of characters. Thirdly, they can
address playgoers directly. In the soliloquies, the character tells the truth.
For example, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, Helena is the only
character who has soliloquy. This happens commonly when she interacts
with other characters and then left alone on the stage (ibid: 30).
Abrams (1993:196-97) defines soliloquy as the way in which the
character talks to himself either aloud or silently. In drama, it points to
the convention by which a character alone on the stage, utters his ideas
aloud. The intentions of the character and his state of mind are shown
through information conveying by this style. Cuddon (1998:838) states
9
that the audience knows important information about a particular
character through his soliloquies. It is one of the advantages of this style.
In Shakespeare's plays, people desire to speak of specter or spirits.
These characters leave a delay question of what sort of entity they faced.
A ghost represents a spirit of a dead person. Shakespeare's early and
highly Senecan Richard III is accordingly thick with ghosts; Richard is
ambushed by an entire legion of them in the history plays (Dobson and
Wells, 2001:164).
Shakespeare's plays occur in away by which the past events are
shown clearly. But they do not relate too much to recreate historical
reality in the systematic way. Elizabethan scripts preserve the essential
social, political and human relationships but the language is commonly a
heightened version of that of Elizabethan London (Richmand, 2002:28).
When the writer puts a person, custom, event, or thing outside its
historical time, he uses what is called anachronism. Shakespeare uses this
style deliberately in his plays (Baldick, 2001:9).
Cannon, flags and clocks are examples of anachronism in
Shakespeare's plays. Dramatic history creates through the popular myth,
politics and spectacles in history (Shaughnessy, 2013:171). There are a
number of examples about how Shakespeare puts event, person or thing
outside its historical era. He describes his Cleopatra as wearing
Elizabethan corsets; and in Julius Caesar which is set in ancient Rome,
he introduces a clock that strikes the hour (Abrams, 1993:165).
The way by which the events are being prevented from dating is called
anachronism. In literature, it is used intentionally. For example, the
reference to billiards in Antony and Cleopatra (Cuddon, 1998:33).
11
Shakespeare's style is also described as an unrealistic one. This term
describes traits of dramatic presentation. For example, the unrealistic is
shown in Hamlet's famous speech "To be or not to be". He describes the
heavy qualities of life and untimely death on two counts. First, it appears
as a soliloquy. Second it is in blank verse. This way exposes Hamlet's
meditative mind, his clear rationality and his deep feelings in a powerful
way (Arp and Johnson, 2006:1076-1077).
A tragedy of Shakespeare converts an ethical idea into dramatic form.
It is a way of knowing which is different from obvious science. Tragedy
treats with unrealistic thing, with imaginations which must be
emotionally experienced. The relationship between religion and this
experience is very close (Sen,2011:14).Shakespeare is characterized by
his astonishing knowledge of a wide variety of subjects such as music,
law, seamanship, the Bible, military science, the stage art, politics,
history, psychology, hunting, woodcraft, animal husbandry, and sport. He
has the ability to select different information and to use it perfectly. For
example, in scene one of the Tempest, he gives us a scene which is full of
information about sea. He depends on what he knows through talking of
sailors (ibid: 31).
Unconscious philosophy of life is implicit in Shakespeare's plays.
According to Shakespeare, the life of man in this world is unknown. He
does not believe in the principles of Catholic or puritan's promise of
individual deliverance. His philosophy is tightly founded on Christian
ethics. It also depends on readiness of man to tolerate and pardon. He
insists that the human's power must give light to others (ibid: 33).
Salmon and Burness (1987: xvii) state that Shakespeare has the ability
to put ordinary words in an effective use. He does not follow the usual
11
standards of Elizabethan prosody. His speech surpasses anything says.
Shakespeare has a distinctive use of English. Every individual has a
unique understanding of what is possible in the language of his time and
place (ibid: 4). Shakespearean conversation is characterized by
complexity of thoughts and toleration of differences in an audience
(Adamson, 2001:135).
Lall (2012:15-16) shows the ability of Shakespeare to portray
characters both historically and imaginarily. These characters are various
and differ in age, sex, and state of life. In spite of that they share one
feature in being alive. Their roles may be short. Some of them speak
about twenty lines of verse but they are not forgettable. National history
appears clearly in Shakespeare's plays and they belong to old religious
drama. The primary object of his plays is moral improvement. The
conversation of Shakespeare is natural. His words are beautiful. His plays
are rich with similes and metaphors.
1.8 General Characteristics of Ben Jonson's plays
Thornley and Roberts ( 1984:49-50) state that one of the weaknesses
of Jonson's plays is a humour which is meant a quality made into a
person, a special foolishness, or the chief strong feeling in a man. His
characters are walking humours and not really human. For example in
Jonson's Every Man in his Humour, Kitely, a merchant, has a pretty wife
and his humour is jealous. Jonson believes in the unities of place, time,
and action. He thinks that the scenes of a play must be in one place, or at
least not too far from each other. He thinks that it is not reasonable to
travel a few hundred miles between one scene and the next. The unity of
time means that the events of a play must not spread over more than
12
twenty – four hours. The unity of action means that nothing outside the
main story into the play.
Jonson does not follow the rules in his time. The unity of aim is very
clear in his play. He rebels against the artistic standards of his
contemporaries. Jonson concentrates on comedy of humours which
depicts the individual as controlled by one marked feature. It is
introduced by Jonson's concentration on drawing of a character. Manners
of London's life are introduced in his plays (Albert, 1979:107).
Bloom (2005:125) shows that the character reflects the life or
personality of the author in Ben Jonson's work. O'Callaghan (2006:38-9)
points out that the eloquence and strength judgment of dramatist is shown
in place which is called public theatre. This shows Jonson's analogue to
the classical forum. The aim of Jonson's laughter is to secure the good
will of the audience to demonstrate the urbanum of the dramatist.
McEvoy (2008:7) lists some of the distinguishing features of Ben
Jonson's plays. They are as follows:
1. Greek and Roman are the main sources of Ben Jonson's literary
materials.
2. He presents an ethical reflection through challenging the audience's
values and ideas about their own lives.
3. There is no clear border between the characters on the play and their
real lives.
4. A sense that actors and audience are engaged in a form of game, often
a kind of practical joke at the expense of either certain characters or of the
audience or of both.
13
5. His plays tackle the political events of his time. They deal with the
events that happen during his life.
Hirsh (1997:149) views that Jonson chooses settings that determine,
handle and justify the flow of characters across the stage. Jonson does not
make a separation between art and life. He reflects himself and others in
his plays. He criticizes the world through his plays (Brady and
Herendeen, 1991:46). Loxely (2002:166) points out that the identification
of the political alignments, conflicts and institutions is shown in Jonson's
plays.
Jonson shows the errors of human wish for economic or sexual
satisfaction at the expense of other people (Hattaway, 2003:522). Sackton
(1948:53) states that there are two varieties of language in Ben Jonson's
plays. The first language is jargon which consists of two kinds of affected
speeches. The language of professors is more important and it is used by
knaves intentionally to convince and by fools vainly. The second one is
the language of gentlemen which is more prominent in his early
comedies. It may affect knaves, fools, or critics with various motives. In
Jonson's earliest comedies, this technique which is part of the technique
of dramatic irony can be anticipated. But in his mature plays, he uses this
technique clearly.
Sometimes the audience makes aware of the guilty of excess of a
character in speech. Especially, this awareness in the audience is one of
the traits of Jonson's plays (ibid: 113-114). According to Johnston
(2011:141), the values of gender and sex expose in Jonson's comedy. The
objects of his comedy materialize those values as unreliable, unstable,
and malleable.
14
The fundamental unity of Jonson's comedy is thematic. There is a
variety of characters and actions that are used to explore an idea or cluster
of related ideas. This idea is usually developed plot fantastically
(Wimsatt, 1974:347).
Gossett (2000:1) points out that there is avenue in Jonson's major
comedies which leads him to bring together a wide variety of modern
types. In Volpone, Epicoene, and the Alchemist, the site is a house to
which the characters come. Jonson's humour can be described as a sharp
satire. He writes to amuse, to be funny and telling (Kantor, 2006:71).
Jonson uses the humour as a means for creating dramatic characters
(Glasser, 2009:126).
Jonson portrays the scoundrels of Batholomew Fair and Thames side.
He illustrates a steadiness of method, though with much growth in skill.
His characters are humours ones. He underlines the weakness and the
ethical diseases of human nature. He is less successful in tragedy (Evans,
1963:116-7).
Jonson is not romantic but realistic. His figures are taken from real
life. He weaves about them stories that would be comic natural. For
instance, the plot of Every Man in His Humour is cunningly devised to
put the different characters into one ridiculous situation after another. He
emulates the classical manner of telling a story. This means that all the
events happen at one place and in brief period of time. The scenes follow
each other during a single day in London. Each person in his plays has
predominant quality. Jonson observes shrewdly the London life of his
time, its fashions of dress, its mannerisms in language, but his enjoyments
seem to have been confined to laughing at its knaves and fools (Miles and
Pooley, 1943:172-3).
15
There is a great variety of characters in Jonson's plays. The prominent
feature is his real atmosphere of his comedies. The life of his time and
London city reflects in his men and women (Lall, 2010:10). The salient
feature of his plays is that they have moral basis. Jonson is realist in
principle. He criticizes the contemporary society and literature. His
attitude causes him to be apart from his contemporaries (ibid: 19).
Jonson's insistent claim to be without tension reveals the presence of
tension in his plays. The relationship between psychological disorder and
social fragmentation fills the literature of his time. The historical
disjunctions in the social organization of reality lead to division of the
human subject (Dutton, 2000:5, 28).
Works of Jonson play role in the explicit political disputes of his time.
The identification of the political alignments, conflicts, and institutions
reveals the political meanings in Jonson's plays (Loxely, 2002:166).
Bloom (2002:68) states that the entire character is built upon humour
basis. Jonson's characters are abstractions. In the opposite of
Shakespeare, Jonson does not present a battle scene. He is concerned with
policy and faction, with culture and anarchy. He is civic and civil (Brady
and Herendeen, 1991:104).
According to Bloom (2004:248), Jonson instigates a debate on the
nature of poetic authority by invention a new kind of drama which is
called comical satire. The major motive for Jonson to invent this kind of
drama is that it provides him with alternative mode of writing comedy in
a late Elizabethan theatrical culture dominated by Shakespeare.
The ability to characterize through voice; through the choice of
dialect, vocabulary and speech rhythms is one of the important features of
16
Ben Jonson. He uses a living language. It is a language in use, language
that is always active (Cave et al., 1999:92).
17
Chapter Two: Irony
2.1 Irony: Definitions, Recognition, and Purposes
2.1.1 Definitions of Irony
Griffith (2011: 73) describes irony as a various and often complicated
phenomenon. He states that it is difficult to define it in a sentence or two.
Generally, irony makes noticeable contrast between appearance and
reality. More fully and specially it shows a difference between (1) what is
and what seems to be, (2) what is and what ought to be, (3) what is and
what one wishes to be, (4) and what is and what one expects to be.
Hebron (2004:183) defines irony as a word or a phrase in which its
superficial meaning differs from its intended meaning.
Ricoeur (1977:110) defines it as a tactic in which one suggests the
opposite of what one says. The speaker withdraws his statement at the
very moment that he makes it. Irony is traditionally defined in
dictionaries as the difference between what is said and what is meant. The
context plays an important role in determining this difference (Black,
2006:110).
Many writers use irony as away to provide the reader with situation
where the words of the author are interpreted in a different ways from
their apparent meanings. The meanings of words which are underlied by
the text differ from their surface meanings (Knowles and Moon,
2006:93). Crystal (2008:385) shows that irony refers to the way by which
languages can be used to misinform. Brown and Attardo (2005: 241-2)
view that the common definition of irony is that it is saying that
something opposite of what one means. The context and the tone of voice
determine what the speaker means.
18
In the case of irony, the words of the speaker are not interpreted
literally. So, it is a pragmatic matter. There is no obvious mark indicating
that an utterance is ironical. The same words convey different things,
even if the subject matter of utterance remains the same (Kenesei and
Harnish, 2001: 121-2). Irony is a way by which a speaker uses language
to communicate a thought or view mockingly (Carston, 2002: 378).
2.1.2 Recognition of Irony
According to Barbe (1995:51), one of the ways in which irony is
recognized is that hearers in some manner notice a difference between
what speakers say and believe, commonly called speaker and sentence
meaning. Hearers then "substitute what the speaker says with what they
think the speaker actually believes". It is formed if a speaker marks his /
her utterance as ironic by various means ( tone of voice , reference to
previous occurrence , etc ).The speaker realizes his /her belief that some
contributors know that his / her statement should be taken as criticism.
Thus, there are two points of view, speakers' and hearers'.
Sometimes, irony misleads the hearers, unless they have recourse to
certain signals of irony in that they find out the irony only when they
recognize these signals. Signals of irony involve a particular way of
talking, gestures and intonation that influence the meaning of what is
said. The juxtaposition of either contradictory words, actions, or words
and actions yields irony. The scope of irony is not limited to two words. It
can also cover a whole discourse. But in the case of Socratic type of
irony, the scope covers a whole life. Irony demonstrates manifold
purposes. The primary purpose of irony is to describe it as a contempt or
criticism humour and / or praise. Hearers recognize irony because they
notice signals that appear dissimilar with general tenor of the statement or
19
context. Knowledge about the nature of the subject and the character of
the speaker is one of the requirements for understanding irony. In other
words, background knowledge is needed for the understanding of irony.
The hearers who do not understand this knowledge are misled. However,
irony is not restricted to verbal usage, it can be a general attitude.
Speakers can be ironic by means of pretense, by saying the opposite of
what they believe, by saying something different from what they believe
(ibid: 63-4).
Wiegandt (2004:3) clarifies that every ironical utterance is joint
pretense that requires some sorts of coordination of speaker's and hearer's
actions. Usual accounts of irony work via reference to figurative
meaning. In short, irony is recognized as a trope that means the opposite
of what it says. Quirk et al. (1985:235) explain that 'should' can be used
ironically especially in American English:
1. I should talk. [I should not talk]
2. I should worry. [Why should I worry?]
3. I should be so lucky. [I am unlucky]
Irony is widely recognized in the United States but it does not travel
well across cultures because there are enormous differences among them.
In the United States women, the elderly, and people in power (politicians)
are often the target of jokes (Samovar et al., 2010: 306). Jensen
(2002:242) shows that the detailed analysis of setting is essential in order
to find the implications of what people do or say, for example when they
use irony.
There are two ways by which a speaker forms an utterance to employ
irony. These ways represent two separate voices that of the speaker and
21
another representing some other point of view. The double voices
analysis of irony corresponds well with traditional accounts of humour in
distinguishing a conflict of simultaneous inconsistent messages (Norrick
and Chiaro, 2009: x).
According to Colebrook (2002:30), understanding irony requires two
demands, the context and the existential explanation. Context is the
situation of an utterance and context, no less than irony is decided by
giving what is said to exact point of view. Barbe (1995:77) clarifies that
the context of the irony is the setting of its occurrence. This consists of
the relationships among the members of the play and the culture context
as recognized by members' norms and assumptions which in turn denote
potential areas of conflict.
There are layers of meaning in utterance which must be taken into
account in understanding irony. They are in opposition to each other. To
make a sense of non literal communication, people must deduce other
speakers' general perspectives and then use this information as a basis to
conclude speakers' present targets and attitudes (Norrick and Chiaro,
2009: xii).
Allan (1986: 4 -5) states that people often say the opposite of what
they mean when they intend to be ironic about their own actions or
sarcastic about other people. This depends on the speaker's or hearer's
knowledge of English usages; so if a speaker is being ironic, then by
clever! He actually meant "Not clever!" which is almost certainly the
correct interpretation, because it is a comment the context warrant.
21
2.1.3 Purposes of Irony
Carston (cited in Tendahl, 2009: 61) states that irony and non declarative
utterances which are kinds of figurative uses of language show
propositions which are not communicated:
4-Gary, to Nicole: you are my sunbeam on a cloudy day.
5-Nicole is in a very bad mood and unbearable to anyone around her.
-Gary, to Nicole it is pleasure being with you.
6-Gary to Nicole stop being mad!
7-Gary, to Nicole: I admire your beauty and hate your behaviour.
In (4) Gary does not mean what he says. He might want to communicate
something along the lines of (8).
8- You make me happy when I am feeling low.
In (5) Gary does not speak metaphorically but again he probably does not
mean what he says. He probably intends to communicate something like
(9).
9-It is no pleasure at all being with you.
According to traditional view of what the proposition of a non –
declarative utterance looks like example (6) expresses the proposition in
(10).
10-You stop being mad.
However, again you must note that this is not what the imperative in (6)
communicates.
22
Griffiths (2006:90) shows that words and sentences have literal
meanings semantically. An utterance may have literal and figurative
interpretations. In both cases, the interpretation is explicature. The first
includes only literal meaning. The second is achieved when one or more
literal meanings are replaced, for instance by an antonym in some sorts of
irony.
Bublitz and Norrick (2011:113) show that there are a number of types
of irony which supply instances of inexplicit meta communication. They
stand for double voiced utterances in that they are moving on two
dissimilar levels (level of primary communication and the level of meta
communication which consist of overstated imitation) and yet are united
in one utterance.
Highly standardized forms of irony are usually not funny. Irony is
used to remark and evaluate, usually critically (Norrick and Chiaro, 2009:
54-5). Bayraktaroglu and Sifianou (2001: 144) show that irony seems to
be more likely candidate for insincere execution, i.e. hypocrisy. For
example, we might congratulate the bride and the groom on their wedding
day while being disparately in love with either and not feeling the same
as they do because of the good event.
2.2 Types of Irony
There are several types of irony. There is a concentration on the most
prominent ones in this research.
2.2.1 Verbal Irony
Fell (2010:4) states that verbal irony refers to utterances in which there
is a difference between what is said and what is meant. There is an
23
opposition between what is and what should be. Sarcasm and irony can
be used as synonyms to verbal irony.
According to Gibbs and Colston (2007:500), verbal irony is basically
an implicit not explicit expression. It cannot be expressed by referential
expressions like "Ironically inform you that ….or it is ironic that and it
may be empirically inferred from the fact that there does not exist a verb
like ironize. The implicit origin of irony leads to serious difficulty in
drawing a plain boundary between irony and non irony. There are no
signs which can be used as a pure sign of irony.
In addition, verbal irony requires infringement of felicity conditions
for well formed speech act. It would be used to reduce the censure which
is intended by a speaker. This attenuated negativity is achieved by the
obligatory processing of the literal positive meaning in sarcastic utterance
which is characteristically literally positive word used to express intended
negative meaning (ibid:12) .
There are several reasons for preferring attentiveness on verbal irony.
One of those reasons is that verbal irony is much easier to identify than
other more philosophical brands of irony and, therefore, it is much easier
to be treated as a discrete, and analyzable phenomenon of behaviour. It
requires a split in the way that the speaker represents himself but in
literature this split often seems to be purified in the distinction we make
between author and character (StringFellow, 1994:14).
Ellestrom (2001: 50) views that verbal irony is always comprehended
as a synonym for rhetorical irony. It is generally defined as pointed
resistance between what is said or written and what is meant. From other
way, it is restricted to a few words or sentences and involves only an
opposition between explicit and implicit meaning (ibid: 53). For instance,
24
the use of the words "tender mercies" to describe a behaviour that is
arguably the opposite of merciful (ibid: 75).
According to Barbe (1995:77), verbal irony appears only in situation.
It must be discussed according to the situation. However, verbal irony is
limited in its scope because the contrast between statement and meaning
is directly obvious. There is no enough information that explains why this
kind of irony is particularly common before the rise of the romance
(Green, 1979: 187).
Garber (2008:203) shows that the contrast in verbal irony is made
between a literal reference and figurative sense. One signifier is
connected with two signified elements: one literal, obvious, and apparent,
the other intonational, suggested, and dormant.
Verbal irony is studied from interactional point of view and this leads
to the result that the procedures involved in production and understanding
are highly complex because this phenomenon is dependent on a number
of aspects such as the communication goal as well as the traits of the
speaker and the situation in which irony is used. There is a number of
linguistic means that are used to express irony including exaggeration and
also lexical means such as adjectives, adverbs, interjections, and
paralinguistic cues (Pishwa, 2009: 17).
Griffith (2011: 73) shows that there are two main types of verbal irony
understatement and overstatement. The former minimizes the nature of
something while the latter exaggerates the nature of something. The
following examples are about understatement and overstatement
respectively. 11-I was not born yesterday, 12-It made my blood boil
(Leech, 1983: 145).
25
The question which is arisen here is why people use verbal irony. The
answer may be that verbal irony is more forceful than a point –blank
statement of truth. It fulfills its results by saying something different from
what is meant. It shows mental ability of people to find verbal irony.
This kind of irony is used every day by most people. In it, people say
something different from what they mean. For instance, when the weather
is terrible and someone says "This has been a great day!" The hearer
knows that this statement is ironic. The hearer can distinguish irony
through the speaker's tone of voice and his facial or bodily expressions or
because he is familiar with the speaker's circumstances and directly
observes the incongruity between statement and actuality (Op. cit).
2.2.1.1. Understatement
According to Hubler (1983:1), the word understatement is a meta
linguistic term gathering definite verbal expressions into one group. It is
concerned with a linguistic pattern of behaviour.
Eastman (2009: 179) shows that too little speech tantalizes hearers in
the same way as too much speech. The main role of understatement is to
show the humour of situation (ibid: 183). However, Santos (2000: 112)
explains understatement as saying less than normal meaning about
something. Apart of meaning exists in somewhere behind the symbolic
sign of words.
Understatement is a standard ironic device. Instead of litotes or
meiosis, understatement is called irony in the sixteenth century
(Ellestrom, 2001: 97).
26
Benczes et al. (2011:184) view that understatement is the model
whereby it is possible to lessen certain contextual effects with three fold
divisions into:
1. Meiosis refers to the process where the efforts of the speaker in saying
something are less than the efforts of the hearer to understand it.
2. Para diastole which means a case of euphemism.
3. Litotes is a rhetorical device by which a positive meaning is expressed
through saying its negation, e.g. It is not bad meaning, it is very good.
Jankelevitch (2003: viii) views that "understatement is the opposite of
emphasis, just as a seriousness is the opposite of futility". The English
understatement applies to spontaneous opinions or feelings which are
presumed to be shared (Wierzbicka, 2003:45). Waicukauski et al. (2001:
154) state that understatement can evoke stronger feelings of participation
or commitment than the listener may have if s/he were encouraged to
embrace a particular position.
McCarthy (2004:71) points out that exaggeration and understatement
have the same humorous effects. Understatement is when a composer
expresses something in intentionally less dramatic or less emotional way
which can sometimes truly enlarge its effect and can be quite humorous.
Scholes et al. (2006:167) point out that static character is simply a
successful narrative formula. This character is connected with narrative
posture of understatement. Webb (1993: 169) views that understatement
is recurrently expressed with negative.
Hubler (1983:21) states that the version of the sentence must be
determinate in order to function as understatement. But the original
sentence must be characterized as more indeterminate.
27
There are two types of understatement. The first is restrictive as in
Nice sunset (really fantastic reds and oranges), to sick man: "You do not
look so good ". The second is emphatic such as "provoking a shark may
be dangerous. Understatement cannot be treated as a separate (ibid: 6).
2.2.1.2 Overstatement
Overstatement is the procedure whereby we can represent ideas that
are really at a lower level on a scale by referring to a higher level degree
on the same scale, with the aim of maximizing certain contextual effects.
It is distinguished by reinforcing operation on the part of the speaker (e.g.
This suit case weighs too much for me, say 50 kilos, gives rise to this
suitcase weighs a ton) and by a lessening operation on the part of the
listener (e.g. This suitcase weighs a ton is interpreted as "This suitcase
weighs a lot for a single person to lift"). Metonymy is used to achieve the
operation of strengthening. There is a man eating sirloin in a restaurant
and he says I am so hungry; I could eat the entire cow which obviously
contains an exaggeration and a target in source metonymy. The
metonymy supports the effect of that eating the meat has on him. The
utterance can be roughly paraphrased into "I am so hungry, I could eat a
lot, certainly more than any one would expect" (Benczes et al., 2011:
183).
Kane (1988:227-8) shows that hyperbole comes from a Greek word
meaning "excess". It is the rhetorical name for overstatement. He also
states that there are two types of overstatement. The first is comic
hyperbole ridicules by enlargement. It has deep roots in American
literature. It is a major element in the tall tales talk by such folk heroes as
Mike Fink and Davey Crockett.
The second type is a serious
overstatement which differs only in its end which is persuasion rather
28
than laughter. The writer may wish to impress us with the value of
something or to shock us into seeing a hard truth.
Ruiz (2009:48-9) views that hyperbole is usually used in literature
instead of overstatement which results in much confusion. Overstatement
is the superordinate term which includes hyperbole and other phenomena
related to implication, excess and surplus.
According to classical rhetoric, hyperbole is a figure of trope of bold
exaggeration. In general, it consists of any overstated statement or
implification or reduction used to express feeling and not to be taken
literally. Overstatement contains three different types of phenomena as
shown in the literature:
1. Hyperbole aims to create emphasis or certain effects by using
exaggerated terms.
2. Extreme case formulation differs from non extreme hyperbole in a
number of ways.
3. Auxesis is a restricted kind of overstatement which comes from Greek
auxo (i.e. growth). It contains a reference to something with a name
greater than its nature.
2.2.1.3 Sarcasm
One of the subtypes of verbal irony is sarcasm. It is irony with an
attitude. The distinction between sarcasm and irony in modern speech is
being obscured. Sarcasm is described as verbal irony which has a victim;
that is someone who serves as a target for the remark (Pishwa, 2009:
326). Sarcasm is defined as the ability to say one thing while meaning
another. It is characterized by the clearness and deliberately of the
alienation of the speaker from his or her words (NyonG'O, 2009:158).
29
Haiman (1998:18) shows that sarcasm is not a completely isolated
speech act. There is a number of neighbours to sarcasm such as irony and
outright lies. It is possible to be sarcastic without any clear indication of
the speaker's insincerity.
There are two important differences between irony and sarcasm. First,
situations may be ironic but only people can be sarcastic. Second, people
may be unintentionally ironic, but sarcasm requires intentions. It is a type
of obvious irony which is deliberately used by the speaker as a shape of
verbal aggression and it may thus be contrasted with other aggressive
speech acts among them the put-on, direct insults, curses vituperation,
nagging and condescension. He shows that sarcasm differs from liar, the
ironist has no wish to deceive (ibid: 20-21).
According to Deshpande and Hook (2002:358), the awareness of the
listener about the difference between what is said and what is meant by
the speaker is one of the important factors on which sarcasm depends.
2.2.1.4 Pun
Treatman (2008: ix) defines pun as a play on words. The pun may be a
word with a double meaning within a context of the thought expressed. It
may be a word that by design almost seems like another word which
differs from a word that the listener or reader may have expected. It may
be a two word expression whose first letters have been transposed for
hopefully comic effect. Ryan and Frazee (2012:109) define pun as "the
usual humorous use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more of
its meanings or the meaning of other word similar in sound".
Pun is the purposeful confusion of words based on similarity of sound
(waist and waste, pin and pen) or words that have the same spelling but
31
different meanings, depending on how they are used (Milhorn, 2006:65).
It is a play on words often for humorous or sarcastic effect (Beard et al.,
2003:45). Puns differ from irony in that they can be used either ironically
or straight. Pun intends to a reconstruction in that it is similar to stable
irony (Booth, 1974:26).
According to Wright (1991:10-11), pun always depends on a play of
sound and this sort of play is a vital factor in our literary response. The
meaning of irony cannot be distinguished from pun by ambiguity. The
only factor which is used to distinguish between pun and irony is that in
irony there must be a hierarchy of preference: one reading must be
superior to another.
Davis (1992:120) views that pun is a subtype of irony. It uses
homophones which mean words that have the same pronunciation but
different meanings. Sometimes, pun is used for serious effect. Many
homophones are homonyms – words spelled alike though different in
meaning as in the multiple definition of train: 1-To teach; 2-A vehicle
that runs on track; 3- A succession of connected ideas; 4- The trailing part
of skirt, etc. There are two major forms of pun. Each one has subtypes. In
the interested of simplicity, the author has termed the two major forms
the instant pun and the sequential pun.
1-The instant pun employs a word or phrase that at the same time
expresses two different ideas. For example the slogan for the nocholesterol cooking sprays Pam:"Do not make a big fat mistake"
simultaneously exploits two meanings of fat (grease) and the slang usage
meaning huge.
2-The sequential pun employs a repeat of the initial word, phrase or
sound to express a second meaning. In a campaign, Time magazine, for
31
example exploits two meanings implicit in its name "Make time for
time".
2.2.1.5 Bathos
The last type of verbal irony is bathos. Bathos is a form of irony which
results from build up (towards climax) followed by let –down (or
anticlimax) (Leech, 2008:150). In plays, actions can become ridiculous.
For example, in Hamlet, after Ophelia commits suicide the character
Laertes jumps into the grave and tells the men to bury him in the ground
with her. This extreme measure of love tugs at the audiences' emotions,
but at the same time sees too far-fetched for reality.
2.2.2 Situational Irony
Ellestrom (2001:51) defines situational irony as a situation where the
outcome is incompatible with what was expected. In general, it is
understood as a situation that consists of contradictions or sharp contrasts.
Practical irony is a name given to this type of irony by Thirwall. This
kind of irony does not need the help of words. It is independent of all
forms of speech. It is normally accepted that it appears in the eye of
spectator. An example would be a man who takes a step aside in order to
avoid getting sprinkled by a wet dog and falls into swimming pool.
Situational irony is sometimes called irony of events. There are a number
of subcategories of situational irony such as cosmic irony, irony of God
and irony of fate. We can find these types in real life as well as in texts.
As an example of cosmic irony, the situational irony of a man falling into
a swimming pool may serve the reader well. One only needs to add the
idea that it was God's finger that pushed the dog in front of the man in
order to make him take the fatal step into the pool. There are subtypes of
32
situational irony that are treated as structural ironies such as Socratic
irony, Romantic irony, and dramatic irony or tragic irony (ibid: 52).
There are a number of distinct differences that can be noticed between
verbal irony and situational irony. First, there is no need to language to
identify situational irony because it is found practically everywhere,
while verbal irony is restricted to a few words or sentences and includes
only an opposition between explicit and implicit meaning. Second, the
definition of situational irony is thus the most inclusive one and the
definition of verbal irony is the most exclusive. Third, verbal irony is best
understood as something that does not differ much from situational irony.
Fourth, verbal irony is highly problematic because it is difficult to decide
what the author wants to express (ibid: 53, 55-56). Fifth, verbal irony
occurs intentionally while situational irony reveals worldly events that are
ironic by nature. Sixth, in verbal irony, the character presents an
opposition of his utterances whereas situational irony is something has
just happened to be noticed as ironic (Gibbs, 1994:363).
In addition to the differences between them, they are related to each
other in one important way, in that speakers' intentional use of verbal
irony reflects their conceptualization of situations as ironic, e.g. when
someone says what lovely weather in the midst of rainstorm, this
statement reflects the speaker's conceptualization of the incongruity
between certain expectations that the day would be nice and the reality of
rain. The awareness of contrast between expectation and reality is
important to determine events as ironic. This awareness is an essential
figure in the poetics of mind. We conceptualize events, experiences and
ourselves as ironic and our language often reflects this figurative mode of
thinking (ibid: 365).
33
"Situational irony is not communicated, but is experienced in the
course of one's life" (Haan, 2006:46). Wolfe (2007:131) states that
"situational irony occurs when something happens that is the opposite of
what is expected".
According to Montgomery et al. (2007:133), situational irony consists
of a conflict between what two different people (or two groups of people)
know. In events, the participants do not understand each other correctly,
while the viewer or audience to the events understands them in different
way but correctly such their understanding clashes with the contributors'
understanding. However, WolfsDore (2008:246) states that the situational
irony requires a certain contrast between what a person's believes, says,
or does and how unbeknown to that person's things which actually are.
Generally, Peterson (2004:183) states that situational irony refers to
the differences between appearance and reality but without the deceit.
Hoyle and Wallace (2005:9) state that situational irony refers to those
ironies that are part of the reality of social life. Regarding Webster
(2002:149), situational irony happens when there is a contrast between
what is expected to happen and the actual consequences of the situation.
2.2.2.1 Dramatic Irony
Pfister (1988:56) shows that dramatic irony refers to the ironic
incongruity that is made when the internal and external communication
systems conflict with each other. Dramatic irony can also be defined as a
type f irony in which the characters are ignorant of important conditions
about which the audience is fully informed. What modern reviewers
consider dramatic irony is almost constant illustrated by reference to
Greek tragedy. This makes good sense, since Greek tragedy often deals
34
with disparity between divine and human point of view (Holland,
2000:34, 69).
Mackey and Cooper (2000:90- 1) state that dramatic irony makes use
of the audience. The audience knows something of which one or more of
the characters are unaware. In this way, we are in participation with the
dramatist. Shakespeare is a master of such irony. Dramatic irony arises
when the audience knows more than that the protagonist. According to
the authors, there are a number of purposes for dramatic irony. The first
purpose to the dramatic irony is that it adds to the dramatic tension of the
play to keep the attention of the audience. It adds sense of involvement
for the audience. The second one is that dramatic irony can represent a
situation in the life of a character where he or she has a little control over
his or her destiny or actions. This type can represent our lack of
knowledge in life. The third one is that dramatic irony can be used to
particularly good effect in comedy. The audience may be aware of a truth
of a situation and watches hypocrite or deceiver becomes entangled in an
untruth. The use of symbols and imagery by dramatists can support the
impact and effectiveness of a play.
Ellestrom (2001:52) points out that dramatic irony indicates a situation
where the reader or audience knows more about a character's situation
than the character himself or herself. As a result, the audience can predict
the result of the events that is opposite to the character's anticipation. In
addition to texts, we can find this type in real life. The term dramatic
irony has its origin in first decades of the nineteenth century.
"Dramatic irony occurs when the reader perceives an incongruity
between what is happening in the story and what is happening in the
reader's understanding of the story" (McDaniel, 2013:34).
35
According to Sackton (1948:45-6), dramatic irony occurs when the
audience feels that there is a conflict between appearance and reality in
events or language. The technique of irony is one of the most features of
Jonson's style. He uses this type of irony frequently in his plays. When
words are analyzed in their contexts, dramatic irony reveals itself in
deeper layers. The irony of Jonson's plays is often dependent upon the
audience perception of the quality of dramatic speech.
Rozik (2011:48) shows that dramatic irony is not the basis of laughter
on itself, but allows discrimination depending on the serious, humorous,
or any other model treatment of a narrative. Dramatic irony is one of the
requirements for offering a character as ludicrous, i.e. necessary condition
for laughter.
Whatever the nature of the clash between a character and setting,
dramatic irony happens when the audience sees more than the character
does. It presents unexpected perhaps startling, always arresting and
important exposure of knowledge. This type of irony is not only used in
drama but it is applied to literature of all kinds (Koff, 1988:157).
Grainger (2008:47) states that people have the ability to choose the
situation in which they live. They cannot always change the outwards
circumstances in which they find themselves but they have vital authority
over their own individual inner landscape.
36
2.2.2.2. Cosmic Irony
Colebrook (2004:179,13ff) shows that events of life which often seem
to pass judgment on life or that seem to be the outcome of fate thwart the
expectations of a character or community. This case leads to the
appearance of cosmic irony. In every day and non-literary contexts, irony
is used for two purposes. The first purpose has little to do with the play of
language. We do not see the results of our actions. Such irony is called
cosmic or the irony of fate. Cosmic irony is a way of thinking about the
contrasting relationship between human intent and outcomes. We can
distinguish cosmic irony a cross history from Sophocles to Shakespeare
to modern film and we may also say the same about verbal irony.
"Cosmic irony is attributed to literary works in which a deity, or else fate,
is represented as though deliberately manipulating events so as to lead the
protagonist of false hopes, only to frustrate and mock them" (Abrams,
2009: 167).
According to Dancygier and Sweetser (2012:36), cosmic irony
contains a mismatch between facts and expectations at the level of an
event itself. It is not a speaker, but it is the universe which perpetrates this
type of irony. When hopes and expectations are overturned in some
fundamental way by twists of fate, cosmic irony arises. To die of thirst
surrounded by water or to lose the thing you love best through the very
actions that you take in order to preserve it, is to be the victim of a cosmic
irony.
Cosmic irony is similar to verbal irony. It involves an idea of meaning
or intent beyond what we manifestly say or intend. But this type of irony
takes us beyond the terms strictly linguistic sense (Haugerud, 2013:32).
37
AnKersmit (1996:166,334) points out that cosmic irony means that the
outcomes of action often differ dramatically from their intended
consequences. Sometimes, we achieve something differs from the goal
which we want to achieve it. It expresses the insight that there is often an
inconsistent relation between what we intend to do and what is actually
the result of our action.
It is the sense that the universe itself is primarily characterized by
irony. This idea belongs to Greeks as well as other ancient cultures. It
means that there is a contrast between expectations and situations. The
unexpected is to be expected, which is not what we would expect
(Horner, 2010:103).
"Cosmic irony refers not to discourse but to action, the first on the
level of face to face interaction, the second on the level of historical
events "(Brown; 1977:175).
2.2.2.3 Socratic Irony
There are at least three senses of the phrase "Socratic irony". First, it is
a rhetorical device which is used by Socrates. This may be identified by
saying the opposite of what one means. The second and related form of
Socratic irony is identified with Socrates' pedagogical technique. This is
the form of irony that is usually identified as Socratic. It is a tool of
intellectual midwifery. One example of this is seen whenever Socrates
pretends to be a student of another person while actually acting as the
teacher. It is not a specific verbal utterance but it is a way of life by
Socrates which differentiates the third form of Socratic irony. Socrates is
superficially ugly that is hollow inside and which when opened up
contains figures of the Gods (Reece, 2002:6-7).
38
Socratic irony which is limited already in antiquity is generally
comprehended as a pretended ignorance or naivety on the part of
interlocutor in a text (Ellestrom, 2001:52).
There are six ways to describe Socratic irony which are used by
scholars. They are: 1- as simple irony where Socrates means the opposite
of what he says; 2-as complex irony where Socrates' comments are true in
one sense and false in another; 3-as dramatic or tragic irony where there
is difference between knowledge of the audience and character. The
former knows more than the latter; 4- as conditional irony which appears
in comments such as "if you can give me prove, Euthyphro, I shall never
stop praising your wisdom; 5-as mocking irony which emerges in the
praise and flattery Socrates lavishes on others; and 6-as distinguished
from eironeia which at least as traditionally understood, contains sly
dissembling and presenting a modest façade (Schultz, 2013:192).
Cappela et al. (2009:331) show that the difference between Socratic
irony and Romantic irony is that the former makes the subject free by
suspending it from actuality, but the latter takes a hostile and oppositional
stance towards actuality."Socratic Method is a way of bringing the
speaker to justified true belief, and in this sense Socrates' disavowal of
knowledge and teaching is false "(Colebrook, 2002: 89).
According to Cicora (1998:19), Socratic irony is an exact kind of
classical irony. It occurs when someone pretends not to know something.
Socrates uses this type for moral purposes. It can be regarded as a type of
verbal manipulation.
39
2.2.2.4 Tragic Irony
Ellestrom (2001:52) shows that tragic irony indicates a situation where
the reader or audience knows more about a character's situation than the
character him / herself. Consequently, the character's expectations
contrast with the outcomes of the events which foresee by the audience.
This term is seen by most writers as a synonym to dramatic irony. For
example, it is sometimes suggested that tragic irony is dramatic irony in
tragedies. This type can be regarded as a way of thinking about the
relation between human target and contrary results. Tragic irony and
verbal irony share a notion that there is a difference between what is said
and the meaning behind that speech (Colebrook, 2004:15).
Storm (2011:184) points out that using of irony in tragedies is not
uncommon but it belongs to ancient drama. It depends on the relation
between character's personal stature and qualities with external
circumstances.
2.2.3 Romantic Irony
Romantic irony expresses incongruity between reality and fiction
which is associated with literary texts. It is a complex category since
there is mixture of comic and serious scenes (Ellestrom, 2001:52).
According to Laman (2004:64), the recognition of an incompatible
between finite and infinite is the main purpose of Romantic irony. This
means that two aggressive forces constantly strive for dominance.
Romantic irony is one of the earliest and most strong forms of anti
humanism. The ability of human to speak, create and engage with other's
human life expresses the fact that Romantic irony has no fixed nature
(Colebrook, 2004:48).
41
Szlezak (1993:94) points out that romantic irony is not directed
towards a specific opponent but against everything and anything;
penetrates the points of view of the ironist himself, in fact the ironist in
particular, in essence , everything faces ironic treatment. This is the most
important function of this type of irony. For the Romantic thinker, there
can be nothing absolute which may be expected from being relativised by
irony. Literature is no longer naive or unreflective but it has incongruity
and ambivalent nature in which the writer must be conscious about this
point. In this sense, ironic literature is literature in which there is a steady
interplay of objectivity and subjectivity, of freedom and necessity of the
appearance of life and the reality of art. The author uses his work as
objective presenter to express his principles (Sacerdoti, 1992:5).
According to Fischer and Greiner (2007:16), the harmonious mixture
of the comic and the serious, and self-reflexivity are two major features
of Romantic irony. The leader of Romantic irony as well as of
philosophical irony is Friedrich Schlegel who insists that the work of art
represents the ontological process of becoming. He begins creating fiction
or system objectively and mimetically (Ryals, 1983:66).
2.2.4 Structural Irony
According to Ellestrom (2001:51), structural irony is most often
understood as situational irony given shape or acted out in a text. More
specifically, the circumstances which are recognized by the readers and
the implied author differ from the view that naive hero or unreliable
narrator has in this type of irony. Structural irony is also a very wide
category: it is limited to texts but may involve an almost unlimited variety
of extensive contrasts (ibid: 53).
41
Abrams (2009: 166) says that structural irony is a characteristic that
enables the author to maintain a double meaning, for instance, the
invention of a naive hero or naive narrator whose simplicity leads him to
persist in putting an interpretation on affairs. This type depends on
knowledge of the author's ironic intention which is shared by the reader
but is not intended by the fictional speaker.
In structural irony, it is the situation which makes what is said by the
speaker or character ironic, usually because he or she lacks a vital piece
of knowledge which allows him to recognize that what is said by him is
not true view of the situation. This makes a structure in which the
audience or reader sees the irony, while the speaker or character does not
(Montgomery et al., 2007:359). Sometimes, structural irony is similar to
situational irony in meaning. The difference between them is that the
latter concerns events within the works, while the former provokes
questions about surface appearance of the whole work (Auger, 2010:282).
There are two requirements for structural irony. They are a narrative
setting and communicate an experience of the world as paradoxical.
When the hero confounds by the actual course of events, he can achieve a
task. Or a narrator may set out to tell story using a world view that the
audience knows to be contrary to fact. In either case, the intrigues of
knowledge defeat the intentions or suppositions of the actor. There is a
contrast between human aspiration and the world. The way by which the
author shapes the narrative affects the mood of structural irony which
may be humorous or tragic. The strategy of structural irony is not
defensive (Barr, 2006:130).
Abrams and Harpham (2012:186) explain that some literary works
show structural irony in which the author introduces a structural trait that
42
serves to maintain a duplex meaning and estimate throughout the work.
One common literary device of this kind is the invention of a naive hero
or else a naive narrator whose invincible simplicity or stupidity leads him
to persist in putting an interpretation on affairs.
Structural irony involves meaning one thing and saying
another. That is in structural irony, a character intends to
communicate one message, but his language speaking
through him and in spite of his effort to control it conveys
another that he did not intend. Structural irony is so deeply
and densely embedded in the language of the play that it can
disclose itself only through reading (Berger, 1997:52).
When the author uses a structural device to produce irony, structural
irony is made. For example, there may be a naive narrator whose point of
view is misguided. The knowing reader being aware of the writer's
intentions and thus of the irony (King and King, 2002:163).
2.2.5 Postmodern Irony
It is difficult to characterize postmodern irony. But there is general
agreement that it is a response to dissolution of the modernist culture
order (Frye et al., 1996:5).
Post ideological era is one of the factors which leads to the appearance
of postmodern irony. To criticize ideology, one needs a relatively stable
text that can be analyzed as supporting ideology. To locate ideology, one
must be standing outside of it; that is distance must exist between reality
(however understood) and the ideological (Weinstock, 2008:121).
Hoffmann (2005:616) points out that in postmodern view, the modern
strategy of ironic form does not solve the conflict between two poles
43
disjunction and unity. The absence of totalities, fixed values and absolute
conceptual foundations of any type leads irony to lose its oppositional
force or is reduced to cynicism and black humour (Tabbi, 1995:9).
Schuster
(2010:127)
shows
that
communication
involves
in
postmodern irony but the structuralist's point of view of irony does not
give full account of this type. The self awareness which is exhibited by
meta fiction is described by postmodern irony (Cuddon, 2013:373).
Postmodernism was coined in the 1960s to describe
movements in architecture, art, and literature as a progression
from modernism, the latter flourishing in Europe and America
in the early years of twentieth century until 1930s. Like
modernism, postmodernism challenges literary traditions and
conventions, but more radically (Wales, 2011:332).
2.3 Irony and Other Terms
2.3.1 Irony Principle
Brown and Levinson understand irony as an off record but Leech
comprehends it in a dissimilar way. He sees irony as a principle of its
own. This irony principle constructs upon or even uses the principle of
politeness and is described as follows, " if you must cause offence, at
least do so in a way which does not overtly conflict with PP, but allows
the hearer to arrive at the offensive point of your remark indirectly, by
way of an implicature" (Leech, 1983: 82).
Irony principle takes its place alongside the cooperative and the
politeness principles in the interpersonal rhetoric. This principle is
parasitic on the other two. The function of irony principle can only be
explained in terms of other principles. This principle enables a speaker to
44
be impolite while seeming to be polite. This is done by breaking the
cooperative principle (ibid: 142).
Leech groups the following sort of example under what he calls the
irony principle:
13. You are a fine friend! (With appropriate intonation).
14. Do help yourself! (To someone who helps himself unjustifiably,
without invitation).
15. Well, thank you very much! (Someone parks his car in front of your
drive, so you cannot get out) (Cruse, 2000: 367).
The tact maxim (minimizes the hearer's costs and maximizes the
hearer's benefits) and the agreement maxim (minimizes disagreement
between yourself and others, maximizes agreement between yourself and
others) are among the six maxims of politeness principle which are
derived by Leech. The social aim of the complex interaction of the six
maxims is to reach comity between the interactants at maximum benefit
and minimum cost for speaker and hearer (Hickey, 1998:56).
Leech suggests irony principle. He states that if one must cause
offence, one should at least do it in a way that does not conflict with what
is needed by the politeness principle, by the way of conversational
implicature, the addressee can express offensive point indirectly (Huang,
2012:163-164).
According to Leech (1983:15-6), interpersonal rhetoric and textual
rhetoric are two kinds of rhetoric in language use. They are distinguished
by Leech. The former tries to cover cooperative principles, politeness
principle, irony principle, etc and the latter involves in itself the
45
principles of processibility, clarity, economy, and so on. The main
contents of rhetoric in Leech's sense are indicated in the following figure:
Cooperative
Principle
Politeness Principle
Interpersonal Rhetoric
Irony Principle
Interest Principle
Processibility
Principle
Textual Rhetoric
Clarity Principle
Economy Principle
Expressivity
Principle
Figure (1): Leech's Types of Rhetoric
46
2.3.2 Interest Principle
Interest principle is a principle which is proposed by Leech which
dictates that in a conversation, participants must say what is unpredictable
and new rather than what is predictable and old, thus making the
conversation an interesting one (Op. cit:160) .
Interest principle is one of Leech's principles which is part of
interpersonal rhetoric. According to the interest principle, a conversation
which contains unpredictable and new values is preferable to one which
is boring and predictable. The way by which hyperbolic expressions
become weakened through a process of diminishing returns is considered
as a sign for interest principle. If overstatements are used frequently, an
addressee inevitable adjusts his interpretation so that they lose their
interest value and become predictable. There is thus a perpetual tug-ofwar, in human conversation, between the maxim of quality and the
interest principle (Op. cit: 146-7).
2.3.3 Irony and Politeness
According to Attardo (2001: 121), irony is a face –saving strategy.
There are two reasons which motivate the violation of cooperative
principle and the use of irony. First, it is the desire to avoid being
impolite to the hearer (on the assumption that this may cause unpleasant
reactions by the hearer). Second, it is the desire to convey the speaker's
intended meaning (with the special reference to the speaker's attitude
towards a given situation). Anolli et al. (2002:168) state that "irony itself
is aggressive, but admittedly less damaging of face than overt
aggression".
47
One of the methods of approaching politeness developed by Leech is
politeness principle. It reduces the expression of impolite beliefs and
increases the expression of polite beliefs (Leech, 1983: 81). Politeness
concerns a relationship between two participants speaker and hearer, but
speakers also show politeness to third parties, who may or may not be
presented in the speech situation. He attaches a number of maxims such
as modesty, tact, approbation, sympathy, agreement, and generosity (ibid:
131-2). The irony principle is sometimes called mock-politeness which is
used to soften a face threat. The opposite of this principle is the type of
verbal behaviour which is known as banter. Banter can be defined as an
offensive way of being friendly (mock-impoliteness). It is not a major
principle in comparison with other rhetorical principles. Young people
usually use this principle more than the others. It must be recognized as
unserious (ibid: 144).
There is a difference between the meanings of the words and the idea
which is conveyed in non-literal uses of sentences. One of the reasons
behind
avoiding
speaking
directly
is
to
keep
politeness
(Hofmann, 1993:273).
2.3.4 Irony and Implicature
Speakers do not always follow the maxims for some communicative
purposes. This will lead to many traditional tropes. One of them is irony
in Grice's theory of conversational imlicature. This trope comes from
exploitation of the maxim of quality (say the truth), since its literal
meaning is obviously false (Putz and Sicola, 2010:323).
Wiegandt (2004:4) shows that the figurative meaning is not semantic
but pragmatic in nature. This has been claimed by Grice who proposes
that ironic utterances flout the first maxim of quality. There is a
48
difference between what the speaker says and what he means, e.g. the
sentence "Today, we have a lovely weather" would be ironic when it is
raining heavily since the speaker utters something that is clearly false.
Dynamic conversational activity is one of the ways which leads to
emerge irony. This is exploited by creative speakers as part of their turn –
taking involvement. Irony is a way used to criticize others without losing
face. Simultaneously, it minimizes the threat to the face of the listener,
thus adhering to the rules of politeness. It presents wit and solidarity and
affirms bonds among conversationalists too. In pragmatics, there are a
number of markers which lead the recipient of the message to recognize
its right interpretation. Contextual signs can emerge at all levels of
language: word, clause, utterance and discourse. In speech, body
movements such as gestures, nods, smiles and phonic such as stress,
pitch, tone of voice can be considered as ironic markers. One indicator is
the use of register clashes. The shift from informal to formal style
considers one of the markers which indicate ironic utterance during an
informal conversation (Mey, 2009:409).
Yamaguchi (2007:61) points out that in the1960s, the philosopher Paul
Grice developed the concept of implicature. His book which is entitled
"Studies in the Way of Words"(1989) presents his major ideas towards
the end of his life. Implicature is the implicit meaning which is attached
by a speaker to an utterance within a discourse. There is no need to talk
about implicature, if there is no distinction between the apparent and
implied meaning.
There are two ways to understand implicature
conventionally and conversationally.
According to Black (2006:25), one of the most interesting ways of
breaking maxims is flouting. One makes clear to the hearer that one is
49
aware of the cooperative principle and the maxims, so that the audience is
led to consider why the principle or a maxim was broken. The assumption
is that the speaker uses an indirect way to achieve communication rather
than breaking it down. There are many reasons which prevent the speaker
from giving direct answer to a question. Consideration of politeness may
be one of them. This is one of the most vital facets of Grice's theory for
the interpretation of literary texts. It is assumed that flouting generates
implicatures and it is up to the reader to pickup appropriate ones.
Grice (1975) treats ironic utterances as involving intentional flouting
of the conversational maxim of quality or truthfulness (Mufwene et al.,
2005; 411). Carston and Uchida (1998:297) show that implicature is an
ostensive communicated supposition derived solely via processes of
pragmatic inference.
2.4 Model of the Study
In this section, the study tries to build a model for analyzing texts.
This model shows the linguistic tools which are used in analyzing the
three types of irony: verbal, pun and sarcasm. Finally, this research
presents a diagram which summarizes the developed model in analyzing
literary texts.
2.4.1 Grice's maxims
According to Grice (1975), the cooperative principle is stated in the
following way: "Make your 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". Supporting this principle are the four
maxims:
51
(i)Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required, but not
more, or less, than is required.
(ii)Quality: Do not say that which you believe to be false or for which
you lack evidence.
(iii)Relation: Be relevant.
(iv)Manner: Be clear, brief and orderly (Yule, 1996 b:145).
According to Black (2006: 157), cooperative principle suggests the
basic rules which are used to interpret discourse and show us how we
relate to each other. These rules are also used to illuminate literary texts.
It is difficult to think that maxims which we use in ordinary interactions
will be suspended when we begin to read.
The unnatural meaning is the basic of what Grice calls conversational
implicature which is based on our interpretation of certain conventions of
talk exchange. Grice calls the collected conventions "the cooperative
principle" (Enos, 1996: 307).
The cooperative feature of an ironic utterance points a limited element
in the context that is being tested. The question of the contextual
appropriateness or inappropriateness of an ironic utterance arises by the
momentary violation of the cooperative principle (Schmid, 2012:486).
When there is no cooperation between the addressee and the speaker's
ironic game, the irony is partly successful. Irony is certainly successful
when the participants share the ironic meaning entertaining the pleasure
of literal competitive complicity (Weigand and Dascal, 2001:148).
There is a similarity between Grice's cooperative principle and much
of rhetorical prescriptions for speakers whose successful outcome can
51
only be judged by hearers. Speakers can attempt to cooperate successfully
or unsuccessfully. The crucial factor is whether hearers agree by noticing
speaker's cooperative intentions. Interlocutors must share the same ideas
(Barbe, 1995:53).
Two questions arise in discussing cooperative principle: the first
question is why cooperative principle is needed and the second one is
why the cooperative principle is not sufficient. The answer to the first and
second questions is that people need cooperative principle to help to
account for the relation between sense and force. The question which
cannot be explained by cooperative principle is that why people use the
indirect style to convey what they mean (Leech, 1983: 79-80).
Yule (1996 a: 128) states that cooperative principle is an essential
presumption in conversation that each participant will try to contribute
appropriately, at the required time, to the current exchange of talk.
Cruse (2000: 355) views that Grice frames his account as an account
of conversations. Other communicative situations can be involved in this
account. Prototypical conversation is not a random succession of
unrelated utterances produced by participants. Through the process of
conversation, speakers, indirectly, agree to cooperate in the joint activity.
Schiffer (1972: 7-8) shows that there are three remarks that must be
taken into consideration before presenting Grice's account. The first
remark is that Grice is concerned to analyze those senses of meaning
which are related to an understanding of language and communication.
The second one is that Grice uses 'utterance' and its cognates in an
artificially extended way which includes non-linguistic items and
behaviour. The third remark is that Grice presents an account of what it is
for someone to mean something by an utterance.
52
The cooperative principle is elaborated in four sub principles. These
principles are called maxims. In conversations, these maxims are unstated
presumptions. It is a normal thing to find people provide appropriate
amount of information, telling the truth, being relevant and trying to be
clear. These principles are mentioned rarely because they are assumed in
normal interaction (Yule, 1996 a: 37).
There are several points about the nature of the maxims. The first
point is that they are not rules. The second one is that they are more
flexible. An ill-formed utterance is produced by breaking the rule of
grammar but this is not the case in breaking the maxims. They are
frequently conflict with one another. They are rationally based and can be
expected to be observable in any human society (Cruse, 2000: 357).
According to Levinson (1983: 102), these maxims decide what
participants must do in order to converse in a cooperative way.
Participants have to speak truly, relevantly and in a clear way with
enough information. There is an objection to this view. No one can follow
these maxims all the time.
Cook (1989:29-30) states that the combination of the semantic
meaning with the pragmatic meaning of what is said enables the hearer to
induce what the sender is intending to do with his words.
In a conversation, there is expectation that the speaker is telling the
truth. The maxims of cooperative principle are characterized by flexibility
(Kempson, 1977: 69).
"Flouting is one kind of implicature comes about by overtly and
blatantly not following some maxim, in order to exploit it for
communicative purpose" (Bahrami, 1999: 87).
53
Cook (1989:31-2) states that the meaning can be sometimes derived
from intentional flouting of the cooperative principle. Floutings create
meanings which are often social signaling the attitude of the speaker to
the listener of the message, and the kind of relationship which exists
between them.
According to Cutting (2002: 42), cooperative principle has a problem.
This problem is realized as an overlapping between the four maxims.
Sometimes, it is difficult to specify which one is operating. It is possible
to say that there are two or more operating at once. This is shown in the
following example:
(16) A: What did you have to eat?
B: Oh, something masquerading as a chicken chasseur.
Here, there are several interpretations to B's reply. The first
interpretation is that B flouts the maxim of quality because he does not
say the truth by saying that his food is pretending to be something and
thus implying that it is not a chicken chasseur. The second interpretation
is that B flouts the maxim of manner because he does not say exactly
what kind of food he has? B'S reply may flout the maxim of quantity
because it does not give enough information to specify what he ate. These
maxims operate together except the maxim of relation because his answer
is relevant to the question.
There are several circumstances in which the maxims are flouted
deliberately. The first circumstance is that it is clear to the hearer that the
maxims are being flouted. The second one is that it is clear to the receiver
that the sender intends the receiver to be aware that the maxims are being
flouted. The last one is that there are no signals that the sender is opting
out of the cooperative principle (Cruse, 2000: 360).
54
Brown and Attardo (2005: 74) view that flouting is the case in which
the speaker does not follow the maxims of cooperative principle. For
instance, if two students meet outside of class and one asks, what time is
it? And the other answers "The bell hasn't rung yet". This sentence does
not seem an answer to the question. Through the context and the
background knowledge which is shared by them, the second student
knows that the first student knows that a bell is going to ring to signal the
beginning and the end of classes and that this information is enough for
him or her to figure out roughly what time it is.
Levinson (1983: 104) states that there is a way in which inferences
may be produced by the maxims. This is done where the speaker
deliberately breaches or flouts the maxims.
Sometimes, the speaker does not follow some maxim, in order to
exploit it for communicative purposes. Grice calls such usages flouting of
the maxims. This case leads to produce many figures of speech. One of
them is irony. Flouting the maxim of quality is a very important one. In
this case, the speaker, superficially, talks untruth (ibid: 109).
Thomas (1995: 65) clarifies that flouting occurs when the speaker
intentionally fails to observe a maxim at the level of what is said, with
deliberate intention of producing an implicature. The speaker does not
intend to deceive or mislead the hearer but the speaker wishes to prompt
the hearer to look for a meaning which is different from the expressed
meaning.
The first type of flouting is flouting the maxim of quality. This occurs
when the speaker says something which is intentionally untrue or false or
for which he or she lacks adequate evidence (ibid: 67).
The following example is taken from Levinson:
55
(17) Queen Victoria was made of iron.
This sentence does not mean that Victoria is really made of iron. But it
refers to hardness, resilience, non-flexibility or durability. Another
example about flouting the maxim of quality includes the uttering of
obvious falsehood as in:
(18)A: Tehran's in Turkey isn't it, teacher?
B: And London's in Armenia I suppose.
Where B's utterance serves to suggest that A's is absurdly incorrect
(Levinson, 1983: 110).
The second type is flouting the maxim of quantity which occurs when
the speaker blatantly gives more or less information than the situation
requires.
(19)A: How are we getting there?
B: Well we are getting there in Dave's car.
B blatantly gives less information than A needs, thereby generating the
implicature that, while she and her friends have a lift arranged, A will not
be travelling with them. The third type is flouting the maxim of relation.
It is exploited by making a response or observation which is very
obviously irrelevant to the topic in hand, e.g. by changing the subject or
by failing to address the topic directly (Op. cit: 69-70).
It is harder to find the maxim of relevance because it is hard to
construct responses that must be interpreted as irrelevant. But Grice
provides an example like the following:
(20)A: I do think Mrs. Jenkins is an old windbag, don't you?
56
B: Huh, lovely weather for March, isn't it?
The last type of flouting is flouting the maxim of manner in which the
speaker does not speak obviously. Take the following example:
(21)A: Let's get the kids something.
B: Okay, but I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M-S.
Where B ostentatiously infringes the maxim of manner by spelling out
the word ice-creams, and thereby conveys to A that B would rather not
have ice-creams mentioned directly in the presence of the children, in
case they are thereby prompted to demand some (Op. cit: 111, 104-5).
Strassler (1982: 61) states that conversational implicature requires that
both of speaker and hearer share the same knowledge. Both of them must
know the literal meaning of an utterance. Implicature arises from flouting
the maxims of cooperative principle. Both participants must be aware of
the cooperative principle and its four maxims. Linguistic and nonlinguistic contexts as well as common background knowledge must be
taken into consideration by speaker and hearer.
The hearer must find an interpretation for the speaker's behaviour
when the maxim has been flouted. The hearer has to work out of the nonconventional conversational implicatures. Conversational implicatures
have a number of traits. The first feature is that they depend on the
special knowledge of speaker and hearer such as literal meaning, context
and mutual background knowledge and cooperative principle. The second
feature is that they can be cancelled. The third one is that they are linked
with the meaning of the lexical items used (ibid: 62-3).
Cruse (2000: 349-50) views that there are several criteria which are
proposed to distinguish conversational implicatures from other semantic/
57
pragmatic phenomena. They are not entirely logically independent from
one another. First, the context plays an important role in which an
expression with a single meaning can give different conversational
implicatures in different contexts. Second, they can be deleted by
additional material without contradiction. Third, the implicature is tied to
meaning and not to form.
Levinson (1983: 97) states that the idea of conversational implicature
provides an explanation for how it is possible to mean more than what is
actually said.
Yule (1996 a: 41-2) shows that there are two types of conversational
implicature: generalized conversational implicature and particularized
conversational implicature. The first type does not require any special
background knowledge to calculate the additional conveyed meaning.
One common example in English involves any phrase with an indefinite
article. The second type requires specific contexts to recognize
inferences.
2.4.2 Politeness Principle
This study focuses also on what is called politeness principle. Leech
defines politeness principle as the reduction of the expression of impolite
beliefs. This principle is restricted by the cooperative principle (Leech,
1983 cited in Cruse, 2006: 131).
According to Thomas (1995: 159), Leech sees that both of politeness
principle and Grice's cooperative principle have the same status. There is
a good deal of evidence that people do respond consciously to
considerations of politeness.
58
According to Leech (1983: 81-2), politeness principle has two
versions. The first is a negative one in which it is formulated in this way:
Minimize the expression of impolite beliefs. The second is positive:
Maximize the expression of polite beliefs. Irony takes the form of being
too obviously polite for the occasion. This can happen if a speaker
overvalues the politeness principle by intentionally breaking a maxim of
cooperative principle in order to uphold the politeness principle.
The politeness principle interacts with and is sometimes in conflict
with Grice's cooperative principle. Politeness principle is divided into a
number of maxims, namely the maxims of tact, approbation, generosity,
agreement, modesty and sympathy (Barron, 2003: 16).
According to Cruse (2000:361-2), the only class of implicature which
cannot be explained under the cooperative principle is the politeness
principle. It is an independent pragmatic principle which functions
alongside the cooperative principle. The term which is related to
politeness principle is politeness. Politeness is a matter of what is said
and not a matter of what is thought or believed. Politeness principle can
be defined in the following way: 'choose expressions which minimally
belittle the hearer's status'. There are several things which belittle the
hearer's status such as treating the hearer as a subservient to one's will,
saying bad things about the hearer or people or thing relate to the hearer,
expression pleasure at the hearer's misfortune, etc. The aim of politeness
is to keep smooth social relations. There is a difference between positive
and negative politeness. Negative politeness mitigates the effect of
belittling expressions. The positive politeness emphasizes the hearer's
positive status.
59
According to Leech (1983: 132), one of the maxims of politeness
principle is agreement maxim. It can be defined in the following way:
minimize disagreement between self and other or maximize agreement
between self and other.
2.4.3 Echo Utterance
This study also depends on echo utterances in analyzing data. Quirk
et al. (1985: 835) define echo utterances as the utterances which repeat in
whole or in part what has been said by another speaker. They may take
the form of any utterance or partial utterance in the language.
"Echo is a term used in some grammatical descriptions, notably Quirk
grammar, to refer to a type of sentence which repeats, in whole or in part,
what has just been said by another speaker" (Crystal, 2008: 161).
There is a range of cases which are not figurative at all. Irony falls
together with these cases. The fact that the idea of the speaker which is
interpreted by the utterance is itself an interpretation unites these cases. It
is an interpretation of a thought of someone other than the speaker. This
kind of irony shows rejecting or disapproving kind. The recovery of
implicatures of echoic utterances depends on several factors. First, it
depends on the recognition of the utterance as echoic. Second, it depends
on the identification of the source of the opinion echoed. Third, it
depends on the recognition that the speaker's attitude to the opinion
echoed is one of the rejection or dissociation (Sperber and Wilson, 1995:
238-240).
Brown and Yule (1983: 3) state that there is casual conversation which
consists of phrases and echoes of phrases. Echoes do not give information
but they appear to contribute to a conversation. Weigand (2008: 174)
61
views that echoic irony results from mentioning the original statement
under specific circumstances. The speaker wants to characterize the idea
of another person as ludicrously inappropriate or irrelevant.
2.4.4 Pun and Sarcasm
Pun is one of the ways which leads to irony. Leech (1969: 209-11)
states that pun is a foregrounded lexical ambiguity. Its origin occurs
either in homonymy or polysemy. The most variety of puns is
homonymic. There are several technical aspects of punning and related
forms of word –play such as punning repetition, play on antonyms, the
syntactic pun, the etymological pun, syllepsis, and play on similarity of
pronunciation. Punning repetition means the repetition of the same word
in different senses. Play on antonyms means using two words which are
normally antonyms in non-antonymous senses. In a syntactic pun, one of
the meanings does not actually fit into the syntactic context.
According to Cruse (2000: 109), homonyms are two different words
which happen to have the same formal properties (phonological and
graphic). "Pun is usually defined as a play upon words: two widely
different meanings are drawn out of a single word, usually for comic,
playful or witty purposes" (Betti, 2015: 81).
The type of pun which depends on polysemy is more interesting
because there is more subtlety in playing on meaning than on chance
similarities of sound (Ullmam, 1979: 188).
"Sarcasm is an extreme form of irony: it is a statement which is
intended to hurt or insult" (Op. cit: 80)."Sarcasm consists in saying the
opposite of what is intended: saying something nice with the intention
that your hearer should understand something nasty" (Leech, 1969: 172).
61
To sum up, the adopted model consists of four dimensions including
Grice's maxims, politeness, echo utterance, and pun and sarcasm, is
presented in the following figure:
Ironic Expression
Grice's Maxims
Quality
Politeness
Echo Utterance
Tact
Generosity
Quantity
Approbation
Relation
Modesty
Manner
Agreement
Sympathy
Figure (2): Model of Analysis
62
Pun and Sarcasm
Chapter Three: Analysis and Discussion of
Irony in Shakespeare's Hamlet
3.1 Data Description
Hamlet is one of the best known pieces of literature throughout the
world. It is also accorded a position of high merit among the superior
works of art. The character of Hamlet fascinates scholars, readers, critics,
psychologists and actors. Its ingredients were a son who sought revenge
for some wrong (death, deposition) done to his father, a ghost who incited
the revenge, a hero who reproached himself for some inability and
adopted a pose of madness, crimes of adultery, incest, or murder and
devices such as witches and cemetery scenes. All these conventions, with
the exception of witches, are found in some form in Hamlet.
Shakespeare wrote Hamlet in 1600 or 1601, when he was 36 years old.
It was his first major tragedy. Hamlet stands at the dividing point between
two great periods of Shakespeare's creativity, one chiefly optimistic and
one overwhelmingly tragic. The hero of the play stands between a
Christian, medieval world of faith and one skeptical uncertainty.
Shakespeare develops a new tragic pattern. The effect of such pattern is
to arouse the maximum possible response from the audience, so that the
audience may share fully in the tragic emotions of pity or sympathy and
fear or horror.
3.2 Data Analysis
This chapter covers an analysis and a discussion of the types of irony
available in Hamlet. Situational and Dramatic ironies are excluded
because they are literary created ironies. The analysis depends on the
63
model which is developed in chapter two. The following references are
also used for the analysis: Lamb (2000), Cantor (2004), Bloom (2004),
Stockton (2004), Coles Editorial Board (2010), Sen (2011), and Lall
(2012).
3.2.1 Analysis and Discussion of Verbal irony
There are sixteen cases of verbal irony available in Hamlet. These
cases represent part of the linguistic richness that the play rehearses. This
section is devoted to presenting the interpretation and text analysis of
these cases.
Text (1):
Queen: Good Hamlet, cast thy knighted colour off
And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark.
Do not for ever with thy vailed lids
Seek for thy noble father in the dust.
Thou now 'st' tis common – all that lives must die,
Passing through nature to eternity.
Hamlet: "Ay, madam, it is common" (I, ii, 70-74).
The interpretation of the text is that in the castle, Hamlet talks to his
mother. He is very sad. The queen (his mother) urges him to dismiss that
melancholy because all human beings must die including kings. Hamlet
speaks of the grief that is oppressing him, but his manner of speaking to
the king and the queen is a kind of mockery.
64
Hamlet, in his speech, flouts the maxim of manner. He does not
obviously express his opinion. He rejects the queen's idea about the
commonness of death. For him, death is uncommon. He thinks that death
has quickly taken his father. Hamlet, obviously, maximizes agreement
with the queen but indirectly, he maximizes disagreement with her. This
is done for the purpose of politeness. This sentence is an echo utterance
which repeats part of what is said by his mother but never what is meant
by Hamlet himself.
Text (2):
Hamlet: Seems madam! Nay, it is; I know not seems.
Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forc'd breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected haviour of visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief,
That can denote me truly. These, indeed, seem;
For they are actions that a man might play;
But I have that within which passes showThese but the trappings and the suits of woe.
King: 'Tis sweets and commendable in your nature, Hamlet,
To give these mourning duties to your father;
But you must know your father lost a father;
65
That father lost his; and the survivor bound,
In filial obligation, for some term
To do obsequious sorrow (I, ii, 76-90).
Here, Claudius comments on Hamlet's sadness. He turns to Hamlet
who is wearing mourning clothes and asks him why he looks so
downcast. Gertrude beseeches Hamlet to stop his mourning for his father
saying all that lives must eventually come to an end. Hamlet replies that
these outwards trappings of grief do not do justice to his inner feelings.
Claudius tries to reason with Hamlet by saying that all mourning must
come to reasonable end and that to prolong mourning is unnatural.
Claudius asks Hamlet to think of him as a father because Hamlet is his
heir to the Danish throne.
Claudius does not say the truth in his dialogue with Hamlet. He flouts
the maxim of quality when he says that "Tis sweet and commendable in
your nature, Hamlet". In fact, the king does not like this behaviour by
Hamlet. Claudius mocks Hamlet's sadness.
Text (3):
King: … And we beseech you bend you to remain
Here, in the cheer and comfort of our eye,
Our chiefest courtier, cousin, and our son (I, ii, 114-6)
Claudius talks with Hamlet about his condition. The king and the
queen urge Hamlet to remain in Denmark instead of returning to school in
Wittenberg. Claudius wants him to stay as his chiefest courtier, cousin,
and son. Cousin is loosely used to depict any close relative as a son –inlaw or a nephew.
66
The maxim of quality is flouted here. Claudius does not say the truth.
He expresses that he wants Hamlet to stay with him because he considers
him as his son. But Claudius does not love Hamlet and he wants Hamlet
to go away. Apparently, Claudius shows that he is more polite with
Hamlet. His politeness is an unreal one. In the later scenes, the audience
discovers that Claudius plans to send Hamlet to England.
Text (4):
Queen: Let not thy mother lose her prayers, Hamlet:
I pray thee stay with us; go not to Wittenberg.
Hamlet: I shall in all my best obey you, madam.
King: Why, 'tis a loving and a fair reply.
Be as ourself in Denmark. Madam, come;
This gentle and unforc'd accord of Hamlet
Sit smiling to my heart in grace whereof,
No jocund health that Denmark drinks today
But the great cannon to the clouds shall tell,
And the king's rouse the heaven shall bruit again,
Re-speaking earthly thunder. Come away (I, ii, 119-129).
The king urges Hamlet to remain in Denmark instead of returning to
school in Wittenberg. The queen joins the king in this advice to Hamlet
who replies that he will obey her. Claudius expresses his happiness about
this response. When Hamlet agrees to stay, Claudius invites the court to
celebrate Hamlet's decision.
67
There is flouting of the maxim of quality in Claudius' speech. He
shows that he is very happy to hear Hamlet's reply to stay in Denmark.
Claudius says "Sits smiling to my heart" but he is uneasy for Hamlet's
stay.
Text (5):
Ophelia: My lord, he hath importun'd me with love
In honourable fashion.
Polonius:" Ay, fashion you may call it; go to" (I, iii, 110- 112)
The dialogue occurs in a room at the castle. Polonius talks to his
daughter about her feelings and emotions towards Hamlet. He expresses
his distrust of Hamlet's love for her. He asks her categorically not to have
anything to do with Hamlet in the future. Ophelia is a very simple girl
who gives correct answers to her father's questions.
Polonius flouts the maxim of quality. There is a discrepancy between
what he says and what he means. According to him, Hamlet's style in
expressing his love is not a good fashion. He does not express his idea
clearly. He refuses his daughter's idea about it. He thinks that Hamlet's
love is unreal because he is a prince and his choice is determined by other
priorities. Obviously, Polonius agrees with Ophelia but indirectly, he
increases disagreement with her for purposes of politeness. This sentence
repeats Ophelia's idea about the good style of Hamlet in showing his love.
Text (6)
Polonius: Do you know me, my lord?
Hamlet: Excellent well; you are a fishmonger (II, ii, 173- 4).
68
The dialogue occurs in a room in the castle. This is Hamlet's response
to Polonius question "Do you know me, my lord?" This reply (and other
remarks) convinces Polonius that Hamlet is mad but there is a method in
his madness. When Polonius asks whether Hamlet recognizes him,
Hamlet says that he does and calls Polonius "a fishmonger".
Hamlet flouts the maxim of manner. He is unclear in expressing his
feelings towards Polonius. He shows his feelings indirectly. He knows
that Polonius is the lord chamberlain but he calls him a fishmonger. In
Hamlet's opinion, Polonius sacrificed his daughter's happiness in order to
suck up to the king. Hamlet maximizes agreement with Polonius' thought
that he is a mad, but indirectly he shows the opposite.
Text (7)
Polonius: – What do you read, my lord?
Hamlet:"Words, words, words" (II, ii, 190- 191).
This is Hamlet's answer to Polonius question about what he is reading.
Hamlet reads out from the book, which he is holdings. Hamlet's answer
suggests that the words he reads are meaningless or that words are no
more than words without action.
Hamlet flouts the maxim of quality. There is a discrepancy between
what he says and what he means. There is a contrast between words and
actions. He is a hesitant. He does not do anything for his father's death.
He shows that he is a man of words not of actions. In order to achieve
politeness, Hamlet maximizes agreement with Polonius' idea about his
response. However, Hamlet increases disagreement with Polonius.
69
Text (8):
Polonius: [aside] Though this be madness, yet there is method in't. –
Will you walk out of the air, my lord?
Hamlet" Into my grave" (II, ii, 202- 4).
Polonius continues talking to Hamlet in order to know the truth of his
madness. Hamlet's reply to Polonius' question, "will you walk out of the
air, my Lord?" apparently, shows that the answer is that of a mad person:
it is illogical. Hamlet tries to express his intent in achieving his revenge
and this may lead to his end. To show politeness with Polonius, Hamlet
shows his madness through an illogical answer. Indirectly, Hamlet
decreases agreement with Polonius for politeness purposes.
Text (9):
Polonius: My lord, I have news to tell you.
Hamlet: "My Lord, I have news to tell you. When Roscius was an
actor in Rome-"(II, ii, 385- 386).
The dialogue occurs at one of the castle's rooms between Polonius and
Hamlet. Polonius enters and announces the arrival of the actors. Once
again, Hamlet resumes his mad behaviour and mocks Polonius who is
unaware that he is being ridiculed. Hamlet ridicules Polonius by making
remarks which seem to have little meaning but which are actually
satirical thrusts.
In this dialogue, Hamlet flouts the maxim of quality. He does not
mean what he says. Apparently, the audience understands that Hamlet
will tell Polonius the news about the arrival of actors. Then, the audience
discovers that Hamlet talks about Ophelia.
71
Text (10):
Polonius: If you call me Jephthah, my lord, I have a daughter that I
love passing well.
Hamlet:" Nay, that follows not"(II, ii, 407-8).
The story of Jephthah is a sad tale. In short, Jephthah who has only
one daughter, promises God that if he is given victory in a battle he will
sacrifice "whatever cometh forth of the doors of my house" when he
returns. He wins the battle. His daughter hears of his victory and comes
out to meet him. He keeps his promise to God. Hamlet's implication
seems to be that Polonius, like Jephthah, has one daughter whom he
claims to love but he sacrifices for his own advantage.
Text (11):
Ophelia: You are merry, my lord.
Hamlet: who, I?
Ophelia: Ay, my lord.
Hamlet: "O GOD, your only jig-maker! What should a man do but be
merry? For look you how cheerful my mother looks, and my father died
within's two hours,"(III, ii, 117-122).
Here, Hamlet answers the question of Ophelia about his happiness.
She tells him that he is a happy man as she sees him making jokes.
Hamlet turns that around by replying that everyone should be merry. It is
not true that everyone should be merry but Hamlet tries to feign madness
through his pretending of being happy.
Hamlet does not say the truth in his dialogue with Ophelia. He flouts
the maxim of quality when he says that his father died before two hours.
71
He mocks his mother's merriness in spite of her husband's death. For
politeness purposes, he shows his agreement with Ophelia.
Text (12):
Queen: Come, come, you answer with an idle tongue.
Hamlet:"Go, go, you question with a wicked tongue"(III, iv, 11-12).
The text occurs in the queen's closet, Hamlet scolds his mother in very
harsh terms for her having married a man who is not a patch on her first
husband. He almost becomes coarse and brutal in his language when he
condemns his mother. But this is in an accordance with his decision to
"speak daggers" to her.
Hamlet flouts the maxim of quality. Apparently, he shows that her
questions are bothersome. But really, he is bothered by her action, by her
wedding with his uncle. The syntactic structure of this quotation is an
echo utterance. He repeats something from his mother's speech.
Text (13):
Queen: Have you forget me?
Hamlet:"No, by the rood, not so: You are the queen, your husband's
brother's wife; And – would it were not so! - you are my mother "(III, iv,
15- 17).
In the queen's closet, Hamlet talks to her in a rough style. He becomes
very angry. He speaks to her as a strange woman. There is a discrepancy
between what he says and what he means. He says that the queen is her
husband's brother's wife but he means something else. He means that his
mother has done something wrong in her marriage. If Hamlet forgets that
Gertrude is the queen, he cannot forget that she is his mother. He cannot
72
forget her sin even he is not sure about her sharing in killing his father.
But he is sure that she married early after her husband's death. He
deviates the maxim of agreement. He tries to show his politeness towards
his mother but indirectly he disagrees with her.
Text (14):
King: Now, Hamlet, where is Polonius?
Hamlet: "At supper" (IV, iii, 17- 18).
The events occur in another room in the castle. Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern inform the king of Hamlet's refusal to reveal the
whereabouts of Polonius' dead body. Claudius questions Hamlet about it.
Hamlet feigns madness and puzzles the king with his answers in that he
replies with insolent remarks.
Hamlet does not say the truth in his answer to Claudius. He flouts the
maxim of quality. There is a contrast between his words and his meaning.
Claudius knows that Polonius is dead. So how can he eat? Hamlet
explains that Polonius becomes a meal for worms. According to
politeness principle, Hamlet deviates the maxim of agreement. He
increases agreement with the king but indirectly he disagrees with him.
Text (15):
King: Where is Polonius?
Hamlet:" In heaven; send thitherto see; if your messenger find him not
there, seek him i' th' other place yourself. But if, indeed, you find him not
within this month, you shall nose him as you go up the stairs into the
lobby" (IV, iii, 31- 35).
73
Here, Hamlet answers Claudius' question about the place of Polonius'
dead body. He tells him if he cannot find Polonius, his smell will appear
and leads him to his place. Hamlet dose not express his idea obviously.
His answer is a kind of mockery. He does not say directly that he killed
him. When someone is sent to heaven, this means that he is dead. At the
same time, he does not go out of politeness rules through deviation the
principle of agreement.
Text (16):
Lord: My lord, his majesty commended him to you by young Osric,
who brings back to him that you attend him in the hall. He sends to know
if your pleasure holds to play with Laertes, or that you will take longer
time.
Hamlet: I am constant to my purposes; they follow the king's
pleasure: if this fitness speaks, mine is ready now- or when soever,
provided I be so able as now (V, ii, 189-193).
Hamlet is informed by Osric that the king has arranged a fencing
match between him (Hamlet) and Laertes, and that the king will back
Hamlet with a heavy wager. Hamlet agrees to play the match. A lord
enters to ask when Hamlet will be ready for the duel. Hamlet replies that
he is ready when the king is and he is told that both the king and queen
are coming to watch the match.
Here, Hamlet does not follow the maxim of quality. He breaks this
maxim in order to give ironic answer to the king. He does not mean his
response because he does not obey the king. So, there is a discrepancy
between his words and his meaning.
74
3.2.2 Analysis and Discussion of Pun
The present section analyzes twenty cases of pun in Hamlet that are
explained below:
Text (1):
King: But now, my cousin Hamlet, and my sonHamlet: [aside] "A little more than kin, and less than kind"(I, ii, 645).
Hamlet's statement above shows his playing on words in order to state
a contrast. Claudius is twice related to him as uncle and stepfather, but
not really his kin or kind at all. Most editors put in a stage direction,
"Aside", at his point, apparently because they believe that no one would
say anything so insulting to the king's face. What Hamlet means is that
although the king is now "more than kin" because he is kin as both uncle
and as father, he is less than "kind". "kind" here means "Caring", as it
does now, but it also means "kind" as in our "kind of person". In other
words, Hamlet is saying that the king though "more than kin", and not
related to him at all, may be even- as we might say- not even from the
same planet.
Text (2):
King: How is it that the clouds still hang on you?
Hamlet:"Not so, my lord, I am too much in the sun"(I, ii, 66-7).
This is Hamlet's response to the king's question, "How is it that the
clouds still hang on you?" He means that the king has called Hamlet
"son" so often. Hamlet's punning retort, "Not so, my Lord, I am too much
75
in the sun", quite clearly tells the king that he does not like being called
his "son".
Text (3):
Hamlet: I prithee do not mock me, fellow student; I think it was to see
my mother's wedding.
Horatio: Indeed, my lord, it followed hard upon.
Hamlet:" Thrift, thrift, Horatio! The funeral baked meats
Did coldy furnish forth the marriage tables.
Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven
Or ever I had seen that day, Horatio!
My father-methinks I see my father. (I, ii, 177-181).
Hamlet bitterly jokes that the real reason for his sadness is his mother's
hasty remarriage which came so soon after her husband's death. He
mocks that the real reason behind her remarriage is only to save money
by using the old food of the funeral. He plays on the meaning of the word
thrift.
Text (4):
Marcellus: You shall not go, my lord.
Hamlet: Hold off your hands.
Horatio: Be rul'd; you shall not go.
Hamlet: My fate cries out,
And makes each petty arture in this body
76
As hardy as the Nemean lion's nerve.
Still am I call'd. Unhand me, gentlemen.
By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me
I say, away! Go on; I'll follow thee. (I, iv, 79- 86).
Hamlet says this when his friends Horatio and Marcellus try to keep
him from following the ghost. So, he is saying, "I'll make a ghost of
anyone who keeps me from the ghost". Hamlet plays on the meaning of
the word 'let' which means 'allow'. But here it means hinder. He says that
everyone will hinder me, I will make him a ghost.
Text (5):
Queen: I shall obey you;
And for your part, Ophelia, I do wish
That your good beauties be the happy cause
Of Hamlet's wildness; so shall I hope your virtues
Will bring him to his wonted way again,
To both your honours.
Ophelia: Madam, I wish it may (III, i, 38-42).
Here, Gertrude talks with Ophelia about Hamlet's madness. How can
the cause which leads to madness be a good one? The queen implies that
it will be nice if her son changes for love of Ophelia.
Text (6):
Queen: Come hither, my dear Hamlet, sit by me.
77
Hamlet:" No good mother, here's metal more attractive (III, ii, 104-5)
Hamlet replies his mother about the best place in order to watch the
play. He plays upon the word 'metal'. He does not use the word 'metal'
literally. Here, it refers to something attractive. He says that Ophelia likes
gold has magnetic power.
Text (7):
Hamlet: I mean, my head upon your lap?
Ophelia: Ay, my lord.
Hamlet:" Do you think I meant country matters?
Ophelia: I think nothing, my lord. (III, ii, 110- 113).
Hamlet asks Ophelia. This is the first of four unpleasant sexual jests
that Hamlet directs at Ophelia just before the performance of The Mouse
Trap. After another nasty pun from Hamlet, Ophelia defends herself by
saying " you are merry, my lord". She means that Hamlet is just making
jokes, but Hamlet turns that around by replying that everyone should be
merry. Hamlet mocks his mother's remarriage after the death of his father.
Text (8):
Ophelia: Will ' a tell us what this show meant?
Hamlet: Ay, or any show that you will show him. Be not you asham'd
to show, he'll not shame to tell you what it means (III, ii, 139-141).
Hamlet talks with Ophelia about players. He says that they will
unmask the truth. He does not mean with his word "Show" to display the
play but he means that she is able to show her beauty.
78
Text (9)
Ophelia: You are keen, my lord, you are keen.
Hamlet: It would cost you a groaning to take off mine edge (III, ii,
244-5).
This sentence is said by Hamlet to Ophelia, just after she has told him
that he is "keen". She means that he has a sharp wit, but he turns it to
sexual innuendo.
Text (10):
Hamlet: … Forgive me this my virtue;
For in the fatness of these pursy times
Virtue itself of vice must pardon beg,
Yea, curb and woo for leave to do him good.
Queen: O Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart in twain. (III, iv, 152-6).
After the ghost steals away, the queen tells Hamlet that his vision of
the ghost is an effect of his madness. Hamlet looks offended. He offers to
"reword" what he has said in order to prove his sanity and then returns to
the attack. He tells her that she is only flattering herself if she thinks the
problem is his madness rather than her trespass. Hamlet tells his mother,
sarcastically apologizing for being good enough to try to do her good.
The pun is shown by the word virtue which means a good thing. But
Hamlet says that the virtue must be forgiven by beg. He gives this word
bad meaning.
Text (11):
Queen: A lack,
79
I had forget. 'Tis so concluded on.
Hamlet: … Indeed this counselor
Is now most still, most secret and most grave,
Who was in life a foolish prating knave.
Come, sir, to draw toward an end with you.
Good night, mother (III, iv, 200-215).
Hamlet says these words over the body of Polonius. Positively; in
earnest. Hamlet really means what he has already said three times.
Hamlet follows this by saying, "come, sir, to draw toward an end with
you" as he drags Polonius out of the room.
Text (12):
Rosencrantz: I understand you not, my lord.
Hamlet: I am glad of it; a knavish speech sleeps in a foolish ear (IV,
ii, 21-3).
Hamlet replies after he has insulted Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He
has said "I understand you not, my lord". Hamlet means that Rosencrantz
is too stupid to understand that he has been insulted for being stupid.
Text (13):
Rosencrantz: My lord, you must tell us where the body is, and go
with us to the king.
Hamlet: The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body.
The king is a thing - (IV, ii, 24-6).
81
This retort implies that the two commands are one, the body being
where the king is: 1) the body (of Polonius) is here in the palace with the
king, but the king, not being dead, is not with the body. One may catch a
hint of what might have been if Hamlet has not mistaken. 2) the body (of
the king) is necessarily where the king is, but his kingship, that which
makes him king, is not contained in the body.
Text (14):
King: At supper! Where?
Hamlet: Not where he eats, but where he is eaten; a certain
convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. (IV, iii, 18-20).
Hamlet talks about Polonius with Claudius. He jokes about Polonius
being at supper. This is the beginning of a stream of mockery which
Hamlet directs at the king just before the king gets him off to England.
He says that "a man may fish with the worm that hath eat of king and eat
of the fish that hath fed of that worm", to make the point that "a king may
go a progress through the guts of a beggar". The pun occurs in the word
politic. Hamlet uses this word in its opposite meaning. Worms cannot eat
a dead body in a politic way.
Text (15):
Rosencrantz: Will't pleas you go, my lord?
Hamlet: … Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw,
When honour's at the stake (IV, iv, 29-56).
81
Different editors of Shakespeare suggest different explanations of this
statement because Hamlet seems to have it backwards. If you are truly
great, you do not "find quarrel in a straw". But fight only for a great
argument. If, however, Hamlet is being sarcastic, the statement makes a
good sense. Hamlet mocks Fortinbras who is leading his men to death for
nothing. The problem with taking the statement as sarcasm is that Hamlet
is apparently vowing to be like Fortinbras.
Text (16):
Hamlet: … Hum! This fellow might be in's time a great buyer of land,
with his statutes, his recognizances, his fines, his double vouchers his
recoveries. Is this the fine of his fines and the recovery of his recoveries,
to have his fine pate full of fine dirt? Will his vouchers vouch him no
more of his purchases, and double ones too, than the length and breadth
of a pair of indentures? The very conveyances of his lands will scarcely
lie in this box; and must th' inheritor himself have no more, ha? (V, i,
100-108).
In the above lines, Hamlet speculates that a skull might have been that
of a lawyer and we read a volley of puns. The second part of Hamlet's
quadruple pun of "fine", "fine pate full fine dirt", is easy enough, but
"fine of fines" needs a little explanation."Fine" can also mean "outcome",
and it can mean "legal action", so Hamlet is asking if the outcome of all
of the lawyer's legal action is only to have his skull full of dirt. Hamlet
seems to reach a long way for his next pun. "A pair of indentures" is two
legal documents that belong together, and are written on the same piece
of paper, which is then separated with a serrated cut, so that they can be
fitted back together, to prove that they belong together. The Latin root
word in "indenture" is "dent", meaning "tooth". Apparently someone,
82
sometimes, thought that the serrated cut in an indenture looked like tooth
marks. Hamlet's joke is that now the lawyer's only indentures are his own
teeth. The last joke in this passage is easy, but a bit puzzling.
Conveyances are legal documents relating to the transfer of real estate.
Lawyers are famous for creating many documents, so it makes sarcastic
sense to say that "the very conveyances of his lands will hardly lay in this
box", that is, the conveyance will hardly fit into the lawyers coffin. The
puzzling part is that there does not seem to be a coffin in this grave, only
skulls.
Text (17):
Hamlet: They are sheep and calves which seek out assurance in that. I
will speak to this fellow. Whose grave's this, sirrah?
First clown: "Mine, sir. [sings]
O, a pit of clay for to be made
For such a guest is meet" (V, i, 111-115).
In the churchyard, Hamlet goes close to the first clown and asks him
whose grave he is digging. The first clown says: "Mine, sir." Hamlet
finds from this and other remarks of the first clown, that the first clown
has quite sense of humour.
The word 'Mine' refers to possession but the first clown plays upon its
meaning. He means that the grave is his source of money. Through
digging the graves, he gets money in order to live. This word has two
different meanings. This is called homonymy which means words that
have the same pronunciation and spelling but different meanings.
83
Text (18):
First clown: Mine, sir.
Hamlet: I think it be thine indeed, for thou liest in't (V, i, 115-117).
Hamlet talks to the first clown, after he has asked whose grave it is
and gotten the answer "Mine, sir". The other meaning of 'lie' is simply to
stay somewhere, as in the phrase "the ship lies in harbor". In the
exchange of wit that follows this there is surprise: Hamlet loses, and it is
the first clown who gets the last word. The entire conversation is based on
the double meaning that the word 'lie' has.
Text (19):
Hamlet: … Where be your gibes now, your gambols, your songs, your
flashes of merriment that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning-quite chop-fallen (V, i, 183-4).
Here, Hamlet addresses the Yorick's skull. He asks him where his
smile is. You are sad now. He mocks him by saying that your cheeks are
long because he is not happy. Yorick, the jester, is not jesting anymore. In
short, Hamlet has just made a terrible pun at Yorick's expense.
Text (20):
Horatio: [aside to Hamlet] No, my good lord.
Hamlet: [aside to Horatio] Thy state is the more gracious; for 'tis a
vice to know him. He hath much lands, and fertile. Let a beast be lord of
beasts, and his crib shall stand at the king's mess. 'Tt is a chough; but, as I
say, spacious in the possession of dirt (V, ii, 84-9).
Hamlet talks to Horatio about Osric. He describes him as a chough
which is a bird that has been taught to speak and Hamlet regards Osric as
84
a kind of talking birdbrain. Osric has come to invite Hamlet to the fencing
match with Laertes and throughout his visit; Hamlet makes relentless fun
of Osric's excessive use and misuse of words.
3.2.3 Analysis and Discussion of Sarcasm
There are six cases of sarcasm in Hamlet.
Text (1)
Hamlet: Excellent well; you are a fishmonger.
Polonius: Not I, my lord.
Hamlet: Then I would you were so honest a man (II, ii, 174-6).
The dialogue occurs in a room in a castle. Polonius tries to prove both
Hamlet's madness and the reason behind it. He tries to know whether
Hamlet knows him or not. He begins asking him about his health. He asks
him "Do you know me, my lord". Hamlet answers him that he is a
fishmonger. Hamlet resumes his mad behaviour and mocks Polonius who
is unaware that he is being ridiculed. Hamlet wants Polonius to be like a
fishmonger in his honour. In reply to another question, Hamlet says that
"to be honest at this world goes is to be one man picked out of ten
thousand".
Text (2):
Polonius: What is the matter, my lord?
Hamlet: Between who?
Polonius: I mean the matter that you read, my lord.
85
Hamlet: "Slanders, sir; for the satirical rogue says here that old men
have gray beards ; that their faces are wrinkled; their eyes purging thick
amber and plum – tree gum; and that they have a plentiful lack of wit,
together with most weak hums – all which, sir, though I most powerfully
and potently believe, yet I hold it not honesty to have it thus set down; for
you yourself, sir, shall grow old as I am, if, like a crab, you could go
backward." (II, ii, 192-200).
Hamlet replies to Polonius' question about what he is reading. He
pretends that the author of the book has written that old men have gray
beards, wrinkled faces, and a plentiful lack of wit. He then says that he
believes all of this but it is not nice (honest) to write it down, "for
yourself, shall grow old as I am, if like a crab you could walk backward".
So, if what he pretends to read is true, it is not slander. And although it is
not nice to point out to anyone that we all get old, wrinkled and foolish.
Hamlet puts this last point backwards, saying that Polonius will get
younger ("Old as I am") if he can go backwards in time. Of course,
Polonius cannot go backwards in time, but he does not understand what
Hamlet has just said, thus emphasizing what a dolt he is.
Text (3):
Polonius: This is too long.
Hamlet: It shall to the barber's, with your beard. Prithee say on. He's
for a jig, or a tale of bawdry, or he sleeps. Say on; come to Hecuba (II, ii,
491-6).
Polonius talks with Hamlet about the speech of the first player. Hamlet
continues to establish his antic behaviour by mocking Polonius, a man for
whom Hamlet would ordinarily show the greatest respect because of his
age and his high court position. Sarcastically, Hamlet compares Polonius'
86
beard with the long of words. He says that Polonius must take the words
to the barber in order to short them with his beard.
Text: (4)
Hamlet: That I can keep your counsel, and not mine own. Besides, to
be demandea of a sponge-what replication should be madeby the son of a
king?
Rosencrantz: Take you me for a sponge, my lord? (IV, ii, 11-13).
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern meet up with Hamlet who refuses to tell
them where he has placed Polonius' body, but he agrees to go with them
to see the king. Hamlet directs a stream of insults to Rosencrantz. He tells
Rosencrantz that he is 'a sponge' and that although he is now soaking up
the king's favour, his rewards, when the king is done with him, he will
squeeze him dry. Rosencrantz replies that he does not understand but he
is probably lying because Hamlet's message is quite clear. Hamlet has
been insulting Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ever since he found out that
they were working for the king.
Text (5):
Hamlet: How long will a man lie I' th' earth ere he rot?
First clown: Faith, if 'a be not rotten before 'a die – as we have many
pocky corses now-a-days that will scarce hold the laying in-'a will last
you some eight year or nine year. A tanner will last you nine year (V, i,
159-161).
The dialogue occurs at a churchyard between Hamlet and the first
clown. They talk about death. Hamlet is surprised about the first clown's
action. The first clown sings while he is digging. They talk about the dead
87
bodies and how long they can stand without being rotten. The first clown
answers Hamlet sarcastically about his question. Indeed if he has not
rotted by illness before his death – and we have many dead bodies having
smallpox that can barely be kept waiting for burial. In cold European
countries, a body is kept 'lying in' for some four days between death and
burial. A tanner is a man who creates leather from raw skins 'you' is
superfluous, and is an old grammatical usage.
Text (6):
Horatio: [Aside to Hamlet] Is'not possible to understand in another
tongue? Will you to't sir, really.
Hamlet: What imports the nomination of this gentleman?
Osric: Of Laertes?
Horatio: [Aside] His purse is empty already; all's golden words are
spent (V, ii, 123-130).
The dialogue occurs in a castle. Osric, a courtier, enters and Hamlet
recognizes him as one of the fashionable, well-mannered but affected
men at court. In the subsequent dialogue, Hamlet teases Osric and mocks
his mood of expression. Osric finally gets a chance to inform Hamlet that
the king has arranged a friendly fencing match between Laertes and
Hamlet that is to take place before the king and queen and their
attendants. Hamlet agrees to the duel and says he will win for the king.
Here, Horatio talks sarcastically about Laertes. He says that he has
already used all the fine words he possessed.
The following table presents the occurrences of irony in Hamlet:
88
Table (1): Irony in Hamlet
Types of
Occurrences Percentage
irony
number
Verbal irony
16
38.09
Pun
20
47.61
Sarcasm
6
14.28
Total
42
99.98
Table (1) shows that pun records a higher number than the other two
types. The reason behind such a higher number and percentage of
occurrences of pun is that this type requires an educated man. Hamlet is a
student at the University of Wittenberg. He has the ability to play on
words. Most of the puns are uttered by Hamlet. In addition, the other
characters are from a high class such as the king, the courtier, etc. The
characters from a high class pay attention to their style. They try to be
more polite.
89
Chapter Four: Analysis and Discussion of Irony
in Ben Jonson's Volpone
4.1 Data Description
Jonson, the English dramatist and poet, began to write a new style of
comedy, beginning with Volpone (1605-6). This play was a great success
not only in London, but also on tour at Oxford and Cambridge
universities. In 1607, he dedicated a printed version of the play to both
universities. Jonson discusses several issues in this play such as greed,
animalization, parasitism, meta theatricality, vengeance and deception.
4.2 Data Analysis
This chapter covers an analysis and discussion of the types of irony
available in Volpone. The following references are used for the analysis
of chapter four: Cook (1962), McGlone and Fiskin (1967), Bloom (2002),
Coles Editorial Board (2004),
McEvoy (2008), Steggle (2011) and
Botvinick (2015).
4.2.1 Analyzing and Discussing Verbal Irony
There are eight cases of verbal irony in Volpone.
Text (1):
Volpone: Dispatch, dispatch: I long to have possession
Of my new present.
Mosca: That, and thousands more,
I hope to see you lord of.
91
Volpone: Thanks, kind Mosca. (I, i, 206-10).
This dialogue occurs in Volpone's house between Volpone and Mosca.
They talk about the gift which is brought by Voltore. After asking Mosca
to bring caps and ointment, Volpone tells Mosca to go out in order to
have his new present. Mosca hopes Volpone to have thousands of
presents but he does not want this. Volpone flouts the maxim of quality
when he says "Thanks, kind Mosca". There is a discrepancy between
what he says and what he means. He does not mean this. According to
him, Mosca is not a kind man. He is a parasite. Volpone's words show the
agreement between him and Mosca. But indirectly, he does not agree
with him at all.
Text (2):
Voltore: I am sorry to see you still this weak.
Mosca: That he's not weaker.
Volpone: You are too munificent.
Voltore: Would to heaven
I could I will give health to you as that plat (I, i, 235-7).
Voltore expresses his sadness about Volpone's health. Mosca
encourages Volpone and Voltore to exaggerate their false conditions.
Volpone pretends to be on the verge of death. Volpone flouts the maxim
of quality. There is a discrepancy between what he says and what he
means. According to him, Voltore is not a generous man. He flatters him
to become the only heir. Volpone thinks that Voltore's emotions are
unreal. Obviously, he agrees with his guest's feelings. But this is not the
real thing.
91
Text (3):
Corbacccio: He must pronounce me his?
Mosca: 'Tis true.
Corbaccio: This plot
Did think on before.
Mosca: I do believe it. (I, i, 404-408).
The dialogue occurs between Corbaccio and Mosca in Volpone's
house. When Corbaccio gives Volpone a bag of gold, Mosca succeeds in
persuading Corbaccio to write Volpone as his heir instead of his son.
Corbaccio agrees to do so after Mosca convinces him because he will
outlive Volpone. In this dialogue, Mosca flouts the maxim of quality. He
says, "I do believe it" but really he does not believe that. It is the plan of
Mosca to disinherit Bonario. Corbaccio claims that the plan is his own
and Mosca agrees upon that obviously. There is a contrast between his
words and their meanings. In reality, Mosca does not agree with
Corbaccio's claim.
Text (4):
Mosca: Pray you, let me.
Faith, I could stifle him rarely with a pillow
As well as any woman that should keep him.
Corvino: Do as you will, But I'll begone.
Mosca: Be so;
It is your presence makes him last so long (I, i, 529-532).
92
The events still happen in Volpone's house. Mosca and Corvino talk
about Volpone's health. But when Mosca suggests that Corvino
suffocates Volpone, Corvino backs off and begs Mosca not to use
violence. Mosca flouts the maxim of quality. He does not mean what he
says. He says that the presence of Corvino makes Volpone live a
longtime. In reality, Mosca deceives Corvino. Everything is not true.
There is a discrepancy between his words and his intended meaning.
Text (5):
Corvino: Grateful Mosca!
Thou art my friend, my fellow, my companion,
My partner, and shalt share in all my fortunes.
Mosca: Excepting one.
Corvino: What is that?
Mosca: your gallant wife, sir.
No he is gone: we had no other means
To shoot him hence but this. (I, i, 540-545).
After talking about Volpone, Corvino leaves and pledges to share
everything with Mosca when he inherits Volpone's fortune, but Mosca
notes that one thing Corvino will not share: his wife. The word 'gallant'
means 'beautiful'. Mosca does not mean what he says. In his speech, he
intends something else. There is a discrepancy between what he says and
what he means. Obviously, he agrees with Corvino to share with him
Volpone's fortune but he deceives both of Corvino and Volpone. Mosca
wants to take everything.
93
Text (6):
Peregrine: I have heard, sir:
That your baboons were spies, and that they were
A kind of subtle nation near to China.
Sir P. W.: Aye, aye, your mamaluchi. Faith, they had
Their hand in a French plot or two; but they
Were so extremely given to woman, as
They made discovery of all; yet I
Had my advices here, on Wednesday last,
From one of their own coat, they were returned,
Made their relations, as the fashion is,
And now stand fair for fresh employment.
Peregrine: Heart!
This sir poll will be ignorant of nothing.
It seems, sir, you know all. (II, i, 89-99).
The dialogue occurs in the public square outside of Corvino's house
between Peregrine and Sir Politic Would-Be. They discuss England, their
home country. To see just how much Sir Politic will pretend to know,
Peregrine mentions race of spy baboons living near to China. Sir Politic
says he has heard them, and calls them "the Mamaluchi". Peregrine
replies on Sir Politic's speech and says "It seems, sir, you know all". In
fact, he does not mean what he says. He knows that Sir Politic does not
know so much. He mocks Sir Politic. There is a discrepancy between
94
what he says and what he means. So, he flouts the maxim of quality.
Peregrine shows his agreement with Sir Politic for politeness purposes. In
reality, he does not agree with him.
Text (7):
Sir Politic: Sir, I do slip
No action of my life, thus, but I quote it.
Peregrine: Believe me, it is wise. (IV, i, 144-5).
This dialogue occurs in a street between sir Politic and Peregrine.
Peregrine asks Politic to see the diary. He finds that it includes every
single detail of Politic's day. Peregrines reply "Believe me, it is wise" is
not true. There is a discrepancy between what he says and what he means.
He says, it is wise but he does not mean this. Peregrine flouts the maxim
of quality. He shows his agreement with Sir Politic for politeness
purposes.
Text (8):
Corvino: Sirrah, you think the priviledg of the place,
And your red saucy cap, that seems to me
Nailed to your jolt-head with those two chequeens,
Can warrant you’re a buses. Come you hither:
You shall perceive, sir, I dare beat you Approach.
Volpone: No haste, sir, I do know your valour well,
Since you durst publish what you are, sir. (V, iv, 66-72).
95
Volpone is disguised here. He talks to Corbaccio and Corvino. He
teases them. Then, Corvino challenges Volpone to fight but Volpone
wisely backs off. When Volpone says "I do know your valour well", he
does not mean this. Volpone knows that Corvino is a coward man and
uses his wife to achieve his purposes. Such kind of men cannot do
anything. There is a discrepancy between his words and his meaning. So,
he flouts the maxim of quality.
4.2.2 Analyzing and Discussing Pun
There are five cases of pun in Ben Jonson's Volpone. This section is
devoted to presenting the interpretation and analysis of these cases.
Text (1):
Volpone: O thou son of sol
(But brighter than the father), let me kiss,
With adoration, thee, and every relic
Of sacred treasure in this blessed room. (I, i, 10).
When Volpone wakes up, he greets both the day and his gold. He
proclaims that gold is his soul as well as the soul of the world. He
declares that he is happier to see his gold than the earth is to see the
spring sun at the end of winter. Sol means sun. He personifies the sun.
There is a lexical ambiguity in using the word 'son' which refers to human
being. But it is used to refer to the gold which is the son of the sun. This
word is used out of its literal meaning. Sol has two meanings gold coin
and sun.
96
Text (2):
Volpone: Yes, to be learned, Mosca.
Mosca: O, no: rich
Implies it. Hood an ass with reverend purple
So you can hide his two ambitious ears,
And he shall pass for a cathedral doctor. (I, i, 199-201).
Volpone and Mosca talk about the education of Voltore. Mosca says
that money makes the ignorant an educated man. He says even the ass can
appear as a doctor if it wears beautiful clothes and hat. Mosca plays upon
the meaning of the word ambitious. It has the same spelling and
pronunciation but it has two different meanings. The original meaning of
the word ambitious is aspiring but here it means soaring into the air. So,
there is a lexical ambiguity in using this word.
Text (3):
Corbaccio: How does he? Will he die shortly, think'st thou?
Mosca: I fear
He'll outlast May.
Corbaccio: Today?
Mosca: No, last out May, sir. (III, ii, 509-512).
Mosca and Corbaccio talk about Volpone and Corbaccio asks if
Volpone will die soon. Mosca answers him that Volpone will still live till
May. The pun occurs as a result to Corbaccio's suffering from deafness.
97
There is similarity in the pronunciation between May and today.
Corbaccio thinks that Volpone will die today.
Text (4):
Corvino: What does the advocate here, Or this Corbaccio?
Corbaccio: What do this here?
Lady Politic: Mosca! Is his thread spun? (V, i, 134-136).
Corvino and Lady Would-Be enter Volpone's house. Each one of them
asks after the fortune, they think they won. Mosca continues listing the
various items that Volpone owned. Lady Would-be plays upon the
meaning of the word spun. In her sentence, "Is his thread spun", she
means spun to the end. Death comes when the thread is cut. Lady WouldBe thinks that Volpone is dead but she cannot express this directly.
Text (5):
Mosca: Do so. My fox
Is out of his hole, and ere he shall re-enter
I'll make him languish in his borrowed case,
Except he come to composition with me.
Androgyno, Castrone, Nano!
All: Here
Mosca: Go, recreate yourselves a broad: go, sport. So now I have the
keys, and am possessed.
Since he will needs be dead a fore his time,
I'll bury him, or gain by him. I'm his heir,
98
And so will keep me till he share at least.
To cozen him of all were but a cheat
Well placed: no man would construe it a sin:
Let his sport pay for't. This is called the Fox-trap. (V, iii, 7-18).
Mosca reveals his plan to betray Volpone. Mosca sends Androgyno,
Nano and Castrone out to entertain themselves. He then locks the door
and takes the keys, plotting to hold out until Volpone shares his fortune.
Mosca puns on the word bury which signifies the will and Volpone's
feigned death as well as the actual cozening Mosca plans for him. So, the
word bury has three meanings.
4.2.3 Analyzing and Discussing Sarcasm
There are twenty cases of sarcasm in Ben Jonson's Volpone:
Text (1):
Mosca: How he should worshipped be, and reverenced;
Ride with his furs and foot-cloths; waited on
By herds of fools and clients; have clear way
Made for his mule, as lettered as himself;
Be called the great and learned advocate:
And then concludes, there's nought impossible. (I, i, 194-199).
The dialogue happens in Volpone's house. Mosca and Volpone make
preparations for Voltore, their first client. Voltore is a lawyer. Volpone
tries to appear as a sick person. Mosca comments on Voltore and speaks
sarcastically upon him. He insults Voltore directly. He equals between
99
Voltore and his mule. He thinks that Voltore is an uneducated man
because he brings gifts in order to be Volpone's heir.
Text (2):
Corbaccio: Aye, do, do, do; I'll straight about it.
Mosca: {aside} Rook go with you, raven! (I, i, 422-3).
In Volpone's house, Mosca and Corbaccio talk about the way by
which Corbaccio can get on Volpone's fortune. Mosca advises him to
write the name of Volpone as his heir and disinherit his son Bonario.
Corbaccio suffers from bad hearing. This allows Mosca to talk about
Corbaccio sarcastically. Mosca tells him that his knowledge is no better
than his hearing. When Mosca says, "Rook go with you", he means that
Corbaccio may be rooked or fooled. Mosca mocks at Corbaccio's old age.
Text (3):
Corvino: That's well, that's well! Art sure he does not hear us?
Mosca: Sure, sir? Why, look you, credit your own sense.
{Shouting in Volpone's ear :} the pox approach and add to your diseases,
If it would send you hence the sooner, sir.
For your in continence, it lath deserved it
Throughly and throughly, and the plague to boot!
{ To Corvino} you may come near, sir.
[To Volpone] Would you would once close
Those filthy eyes of yours, that flow with slime
Like tow frog-pites; and those same hanging cheeks,
111
Covered with hide instead of skin[To Corvino] Nay, help, sirThat look like frozen dish-clouts set on end!
Corvino: Or like an old smoked wall, on which the rain/ Ran down in
streaks!
Mosca: Excellent, sir, speak out;
You may be louder yet: a culverin/ Discharged in his ear would hardly
bore it.
Corvino: His nose is like a common sewer, still running.
Mosca: 'Tis good! And what his mouth?
Corvino: Avery draught. (I, i, 511-527).
This dialogue occurs in Volpone's house between Mosca and Corvino.
Corvino is a merchant and has a beautiful wife. He wants to be the heir to
Volpone's fortune. He brings a pearl and diamond. Mosca convinces him
that Volpone will die soon and cannot hear. This situation gives Mosca a
chance to direct a stream of insults to Volpone who cannot defend
himself in order not to discover his plan. Mosca talks about Volpone's
eyes and how they are full of dirt. Corvino starts insulting Volpone. He
says that Volpone's cheeks are like an old wall which is affected by rain.
Then, he talks about Volpone's nose which resembles a common sewer
and his mouth which is like a drought.
Text (4):
Peregrine: Believe it, sir, I hold
Myself in no small tie unto my fortunes
111
For casting me thus luckily upon you,
Whose knowledge, if your bounty equal it,
May do me great assistance in instruction
For my behavior, and my heaving, which
Is yet so rude and raw. (II, i, 106-110).
The dialogue occurs outside Corvino's house. Sir Politic continues
speaking about himself and that he knows everything. He is fond of
writing and observation in spite of that he lives in isolation. He keeps a
notebook filled with pertinent observations. There is a difference between
Peregrine's words and his intended meaning. He says something nice but
he means something nasty. Sarcastically, Peregrine says that he is
fortunate to have run into Sir Politic because he has only read books
about Italy and needs some advice on how to negotiate his way through
Venetian life. Sir Politic seems to be agreeing when Peregrine interrupts
him, asking him to identify the people entering the square.
Text (5):
Volpone:---No , no; 'its this bussed unguneto, this rare extraction, that
hath only power to disperse all malignant humours that proceed either of
hot, cold, moist, or windy causesPeregrine: I would he had put in dray too. (II, i, 218-9).
The dialogue happens in front of Corvino's house. Volpone disguises
as mountebanks and begins describing his drug which cures every
disease. Peregrine talks sarcastically about Volpone's description for his
drug. Peregrine says that Volpone does not mention dry. Peregrine cannot
believe that there is something can cure everything. There is a
112
discrepancy between his intended meaning and what he says. His speech
is a nice one. He says that Volpone must add dry to what his medicine
can cure but he means something nasty.
Text (6):
Mosca: Who's this? Bonario, Old Corbaccio's son?
The person I was bound to seek. Fair, sir,
You are happily met.
Bonario: That cannot be by thee.
Mosca: Why, sir?
Bonario: Nay, pray thee know thy way, and leave me.
I would loath to interchange discourse
With such a mate as thou art. (III, i, 33-8).
This dialogue occurs in a street between Mosca and Bonario. Mosca
attempts to speak with Bonario. Bonario is loath to interchange discourse
with such a person. The sarcasm occurs in Bonario's direct insult to
Mosca. He is direct in his speech and the listener understands what is said
by Bonario. Sarcastically, Bonario says that he cannot speak with such a
mate. Bonario asks Mosca to go about his business but Mosca rejects the
direct insult of his origin and falls into lament upon the accident of his
birth. Mosca asks Bonario to respect him and does not mock upon his
poverty. Bonario vows that he does not mock Mosca's poverty but he
hates Mosca's baseness because Mosca is a parasite person who lives
upon others.
113
Text (7):
Lady Politic Would-Be:---Read you the principles, argued all the
grounds,
Disputed every fitness, every grace,
Called you to counsel of so frequent dressingNano: [aside]. More carefully than of your fame or honour. (III, ii, 589).
Lady Politic enters Volpone's house with Nano. She asks Nano to tell
Volpone about her arrival. She fusses over her own appearance, noting
that her dress does not show her neck enough but that she is still dressed
well. She blames the maid. She is very careful about her clothes and style.
Nano does not mean what he says. There is a contrast between his
intended meaning and what he says. His speech conveys more than its
literal meaning. Nano does not like her style in speech. He says
sarcastically that she must be careful about her fame and honour as her
appearance.
Text (8):
Lady Politic would-be:---When there is consent
In face, in voice and clothes; and is, indeed,
Our sex's chiefest ornament.
Volpone: The poet
As old in time as Plato and as knowing,
Says that your highest female grace is silence. (III, ii, 108-9).
114
Lady Politic tries to cure Volpone who suffers from bad dreams. He
tells her that he is very well and does not need any prescriptions. She
talks about herself and what she studies. Sarcasm occurs in Volpone's
speech 'highest female grace is silence'. There is a difference between the
intended meaning and what is said. He does not mean that silence is a
good feature of female but he intends her to stop talking. He tells her
something nice but he means a nasty one. She is a talkative.
Text (9):
Mosca: Death on me, you are come too soon! What meant you?
Did not I say I would send?
Corvino: Yes, but I feared
You might forget, and then they prevent us.
Mosca: Prevent? Did are man haste so for his horns?
A courtier would not ply it so for a place.
Well, now there is no helping it, stay here. I'll presently return. (III, ii,
200-205).
Mosca expects Corbaccio comes but instead of that Corvino and Celia
come to Volpone's house. Mosca asks Corvino to let his wife stay with
Volpone. But Corvino comes sooner than what is expected. The time is
not good for his coming. Mosca mocks Corvino and Mosca is astonished
by Corvino's action. How can someone hurry for his horns? The horns of
a cuckold. Cuckold is a kind of birds which puts his eggs in the nest of
other birds. He means something bad. Sarcasm occurs in the double
meaning that the word horn has. It is not used literally.
115
Text (10):
Corvino: I've told you reasons;
What the physicians have set down; how much
It may concern me; what my engagements are;
My means; and the necessity of those means
For my recovery: Where for, if you be
Loyal and mine, be won, respect my venture.
Celia: Before your honour?.(III, ii, 232-7).
Corvino explains to Celia why he wants her to stay with Volpone. But
Celia refuses his order and asks him to do anything except stay with
Volpone. She asks him to put her in a dark room rather than be made to
love Volpone. Sarcasm occurs in Celia's speech. She wants to convey
something beyond her words. There is a contrast between her speech and
her intended meaning. She tries to tell him that honour is an expensive
thing. Corvino does not accept her speech. He says that honour is a minor
thing. He resembles this with gold which is not affected by touching it.
Text (11):
Corbaccio: Couldst thou not give him a dram?
Mosca: O, by no means, sir.
Corbaccio: Nay, I will not bid you.
Voltore: [aside] This is a knave, I see.
Mosca: [seeing Voltore, a side]. How! Signor Voltore! Did he hear
me?.
116
Voltore: Parasite! (III, ii, 513-7).
When Corbaccio enters, Mosca explains that he is wounded by
Bonario who is looking to kill Corbaccio for disinheriting him. Voltore
appears and becomes very angry. The word 'parasite' which is said by
Voltore shows the sarcastic side in which Voltore insults Mosca directly.
Voltore accuses Mosca of double dealing. Voltore tries to convey more
than what he says. According to him, Mosca shows his loyalty to
everyone.
Text (12):
Sir Politic:... I knew the forms so well.
Peregrine: [aside]. And nothing else. (IV, i, 38-9).
Sir Politic undertakes to teach Peregrine two things. The first thing is
that he must not tell the truth to strangers and the second one is that he
must learn the style of eating and how to use the silver fork at meals.
Peregrine's words 'and nothing else' show the sarcastic side of this
conversation. He mocks Sir Politic's knowledge. Peregrine says that Sir
Politic knows only the forms of the style of eating and nothing else.
Text (13):
Sir Politic: My first is
Concerning tinder-boxes. You must know,
No family is here without its box.
Now, sir, it being so portable a thing,
Put case that you or I were ill affected
Unto the state: sir, with it in our pockets,
117
Might not I go into the arsenal,
Or you? -come out again, and none the wiser?
Peregrine: Except yourself, sir. (IV, i, 89-91).
Sir Politic describes how the danger of tinder-boxes could be
controlled by regulating their size and their use at home. He has a plan to
convince the Council of Venice to outlaw all timber-boxes. He says that
everyone can go to arsenal and making fire without knowing by anyone.
In this conversation, the sarcastic side occurs in Peregrine's reply "except
yourself, sir". He does not mean what he says. He says something nice
but he wants to convey something nasty. This is a teasing reply. Peregrine
means that Sir Politic does not know everything.
Text (14):
Sir Politic: Now, by my spurs, the symbol of my knight hood.
Peregrine: [aside] Lord, how his brain is humbled for an oath! (IV, i,
177-8).
Lady Would- Be sees Sir Politic with Peregrine. Mosca convinces her
that Sir Politic spends his time with another girl. So, she thinks that
Peregrine is a woman who is disguised as a male. She asks her husband
why he goes with another woman. Sir Politic's oath shows the sarcastic
side in this conversation. He vows with his knighthood that he cannot
leave her. This situation makes Peregrine talks sarcastically towards Sir
Politic. Peregrine mocks the paltriness of the oath Sir Politic uses to
express his knighthood.
Text (15):
Lady Would- Be: This cannot work you out of my snare.
118
Peregrine: Why, am I in it, then?
I need your husband told me you were fair,
And so you are; only your nose inclines,
That side that's next the sun, to the queen_ apple. (IV, i, 218-220).
Lady Would- Be talks to Peregrine as a woman. She tells him that he
cannot go out her snare. He answers her that he hears from Sir Politic that
Lady Would Be is very beautiful. The sarcasm occurs in Peregrine's
direct insult towards Lady Would Be. He tells her that her nose inclines.
He likens Lady Would Be's nose to a fruit which is redder on one side
than the other.
Text (16):
Corbaccio: The mere portent of nature!
He is an utter stranger to my loins.
Bonario: Have they made you to this?
Corbaccio: I will not hear thee,
Monster of men, swine, goat, wolf, parricide!
Speak not, thou viper. (IV, ii, 137-9).
The dialogue occurs between Corbaccio and his son Bonario. Mosca
convinces Corbaccio that his son will kill him because Corbaccio
disinherits Bonario. Bonario says that Corbaccio's words are not his own.
Corbaccio says that Bonario is simply a freak of nature. Bonario accuses
the others to persuade his father to stand against him. Sarcasm happens in
the stream of insults that Corbaccio directs to his son Bonario. Corbaccio
says that Bonario is a monster of men, swine, goat, wolf and parricide.
119
There is no ambiguity in Corbaccio's speech. He resembles his son with
viper.
Text(17):
Corbaccio: And look that all,
Whatever, be put in. jewels, plate, moneys,
Houshold stuff, bedding, curtains.
Mosca: Curtain_ rings, Sir.
Only the advocate's fee must be deducted. (IV, ii, 263-5).
Mosca tells Corbaccio that he is about to be Volpone's heir. So,
Corbaccio asks Mosca to make a list of everything such as jewels, plate,
money, bedding, etc. Corbaccio asks Mosca to put even the curtains in
the list. Mosca's reply "Curtain rings, sir" shows the sarcastic side in this
conversation. He does not mean what he says. There is a contrast between
what he says and what he wants to convey. He mocks Corbaccio that he
will list even the rings of the curtain.
Text (18):
Corvino: Mosca, pray you a word.
Mosca: lord! Will not you take your dispatch hence yet? Methinks, of
all, you should have been the example.
Why should you stay here? With what thought, what promise?
Hear you: do not you know, I know you an ass? (V, i, 175-9).
Corvino tries to talk with Mosca but the latter refuses that. Mosca asks
Corvino to go away. Mosca shows him the valuable gifts that Corvino
111
gave to Volpone and that now belong to Mosca. Corvino's greatest gift is
his wife. In this conversation, the sarcastic side occurs in Mosca's words
"I know you an ass". Mosca insults Corvino directly and resembles him
with an ass. He means that Corvino is a stupid man. Mosca mocks
Corvino's action in leaving his wife with Volpone.
Text (19):
Mosca:… Go home, and die, and stink:
If you but croak a syllable, all comes out.
A way, and call your porters! Go, go, stink.
Volpone: Excellent varlet! (V, i, 201-3).
Mosca reminds Corbaccio about his plan to get Volpone's fortune.
Mosca asks Corbaccio to go out. Mosca tells Corbaccio that he will not
be Volpone's heir. So, Corbaccio becomes very angry and says "I am
cheated by a parasite slave". Sarcasm is shown by Mosca's and Volpone's
speech. Mosca directs a stream of insults to Corbaccio and threats him to
get rid the last tooth in his mouth. Volpone's speech "Excellent varlet"
also shows sarcasm. There is a discrepancy between what he says and
what he means. He intends to convey that Mosca is not a good man.
Text (20):
Woman: He says, sir, he has weighty affairs of state
That now require him whole; some other time
You may possess him.
Peregrine: Pray you, say again,
If those require him whole, these will exact him
111
Where of I bring him tidings. [Exist Woman.] What might be
His grave affair of state, now? How to make
Bolognian sausages here in Venice, Sparing
One of the ingredients? (V, ii, 17-20).
The dialogue happens at Sir Politic's house. Peregrine enters as a
disguised statesman. Peregrine tells a female servant to announce to the
English knight that he wants to speak with him. At first, Sir Politic sends
words that grave affairs of state occupy him. Peregrine talks sarcastically
about Sir Politic's reply. Peregrine supposes that he is trying to make
sausages without one of the ingredients in order to increase the profits.
Peregrine mocks Sir Politic in saying that Sir Politic does not interest in
important things.
All the previous occurrences are mentioned in Table (2) below:
Table (2): Irony in Volpone
Types of
Occurrences
Percentage
irony
number
Verbal irony
8
24.24
Pun
5
15.15
Sarcasm
20
60.60
Total
33
99.99
Table (2) shows that sarcasm records a higher number than the other
two types of irony in Volpone. The reason behind such a higher number
and percentage of occurrence of sarcasm is that this type of irony does
not require an educated man in order to be able to understand it. Servant,
merchant, tourist are examples of uneducated characters in this play.
112
Those characters are not from a high class. They do not pay attention to
their style. So, this type of irony requires a disapproval from the side of
the speaker which may sometimes be accompanied by bad intentions.
113
Chapter Five: Comparisons, Conclusions,
Recommendations, and Suggestions
Based on the previous analyses of irony in Shakespeare's Hamlet and
Ben Jonson's Volpone, the present chapter provides some comparisons,
conclusions, recommendations, and suggestions for further research.
5.1 Comparisons
There are some comparisons between Hamlet and Volpone that are
found through analyzing irony in the selected plays.
5.1.1 Verbal Irony in Hamlet and Volpone
According to the results of the analysis in chapters three and four, the
total number of verbal irony is (24). There are (16) cases in Hamlet and
(8) cases in Volpone. Verbal irony in Hamlet is performed by the upper
class characters. That reflects the class division of the society at the
writer's time. It refers to the authority and the priority of the higher class
at that time. For example, higher class characters like Hamlet, Claudius,
and Polonius use verbal irony to achieve their aims indirectly. Through
saying the opposite of what he means, Hamlet tries to discover the
murderer of his father. The characters of the middle class such as Horatio,
Rosencrantz, Guildenstern do not use verbal irony. It is noticeable that
the female characters such as Gertrude does not use verbal irony because
they do not intend to achieve any aim.
In contrast, the male characters from lower class such as Mosca utter
verbal irony in Volpone. Through saying the opposite of what they mean,
those characters try to achieve their aims to be Volpone's heir. They use
this type of irony to deceive others. The number of verbal ironic cases
114
which are uttered by Claudius and Mosca is the same. Claudius is the
king. Although Mosca is a servant in Volpone, he gives orders to others.
His role resembles the role of the king . Table (3) shows the characters
who produce verbal irony in both plays:
Table (3): Characters and Verbal Irony in Hamlet
and Volpone
Characters in
No. of
Hamlet
cases
Hamlet
12
Claudius
Percentage Characters in
No. of Percentage
Volpone
cases
75
Volpone
3
37.5
3
18.75
Mosca
3
37.5
Polonius
1
6.25
Peregrine
2
25
Total
16
100
8
100
Hamlet and Volpone are not the same in flouting Grice's maxims. This
is shown in the following table:
Table (4): Flouting Grice's Maxims in Hamlet and
Volpone
Verbal irony
Hamlet
Volpone
Maxim of quality
10
5
Maxim of quantity
0
0
Maxim of relation
0
0
Maxim of manner
3
0
Total
13
5
Table (4) shows that both dramatists are aware of using Grice's maxims
to achieve irony. Regarding the performance of the characters,
Shakespeare makes Hamlet depend a lot on flouting the maxim of quality
115
in performing irony. Ben Jonson flouts only the maxim of quality because
most of the characters in Volpone are less educated. This validates
hypothesis 1 which states that verbal ironic speeches flout Grice's
maxims in Hamlet and Volpone.
The maxim of agreement which is one of the maxims of politeness
principle is used in both plays in the following way:
Table (5): Agreement maxim in Hamlet and Volpone
The Play
No. of occurrence Percentage
of agreement
Hamlet
10
62.5
Volpone
6
37.5
Total
16
100
Table (5) shows that irony works primarily on the bases of agreement
maxim more than the other maxims which are found in Leech's model in
both plays. This table shows that Shakespeare depends on the apparently
agreement and the implicit disagreement to express irony to achieve the
pragmatic and rhetoric aims of his characters more than Ben Jonson and
this belongs to social and contextual factors.
There is a difference in using echo utterances in both plays. This is
explained in the following table:
Table (6): Echo Utterances in Hamlet and Volpone
The Play No. of echo
utterances
Hamlet
4
Volpone
0
116
Table (6) shows two things. The first one is that Shakespeare's style is
characteristic of being various in that there are uses of Grice's and Leech's
maxims, and syntactic tools represented by using echo utterances, which
are not used by Ben Jonson. The second thing is that the nature of the
characters and their high status of education enable them to use different
linguistic tools to express irony while Ben Jonson reflects the lower status
of his characters. So their language expressions lack variety in using
those tools.
5.1.2 Pun in Hamlet and Volpone
According to the analysis of data in chapters three and four, there is a
great difference in the appearance of pun in both plays. In Hamlet, there
is (20) cases, but in Volpone, there is (5) cases. Table (7) below shows
the characters who produce pun:
Table (7): Characters and Pun in Hamlet and Volpone
Characters in
No. of Percentage Characters in
No. of Percentage
Hamlet
Cases
Volpone
cases
Hamlet
17
85
Mosca
3
60
Gertrude
1
5
Volpone
1
20
Ophelia
1
5
Lady Politic
1
20
First clown
1
5
Total
20
100
5
100
In both plays, pun is performed by characters from both classes, the
middle and higher and from both genders. It is remarkable that pun is
mostly produced by the protagonist in Hamlet and the male antagonist in
117
Volpone. Their acting of pun comes from their power whether such power
of personality of Hamlet or the power of deceitfulness of Mosca.
Shakespeare's characters are mixture of real and imaginary world. He
also takes characters from history and weaves stories about them. Hamlet
talks about loyalty of the son towards his father. So, it is appropriate for
any time. Hamlet's character is a representative one.
In Volpone, Jonson pays more attention to the way by which
characters express their ideas rather than the words themselves. So, what
is said is not as important as how it is said. For example, when Mosca
uses formal and elevated language to praise the unworthy, the effect of
this rhetorical embellishment is ironic.
5.1.3 Sarcasm in Hamlet and Voplone
The cases of sarcasm in Hamlet and Volpone are 6:20 respectively.
Table (8) below shows the characters that produce sarcasm in both plays:
Table (8): Characters and Sarcasm in Hamlet and
Volpone
Characters in
No. of
Hamlet
cases
Hamlet
4
First clown
Horatio
Total
Percentage Characters in
No. of
Percentage
Volpone
cases
66.66
Peregrine
7
35
1
16.66
Mosca
6
30
1
16.66
Volpone
2
10
Bonario
1
5
Nano
1
5
Celia
1
5
Voltore
1
5
Corbaccio
1
5
20
100
6
99.98
118
In Hamlet, sarcasm is uttered by male characters. Sarcasm is uttered
by persons from higher and lower classes. The performance of sarcasm
by Hamlet who belongs to higher class is more than those who belong to
middle class.
In Volpone, the performance of sarcasm is distributed among the
characters regardless of their classes. Most of the cases of sarcasm are
uttered by Peregrine and Mosca.
The imagination of Shakespeare is the source of his characters.
Sometimes, his real characters are disguised in the ideal. For example, the
murderer of Hamlet's father is disguised in the murderer of Gonzago.
Disguise is the main source of humour in Volpone. For example, when
Volpone disguises as commandator, this gives him a chance to mock
Corvino and Corbaccio. This play is full of deceivers. Everyone tries to
deceive others.
5.1.4 Irony in Hamlet and Volpone
Table (9) below indicates a comparison of the three types of irony:
verbal irony, pun, and sarcasm according to the frequency of appearance
in both plays:
Table (9): Irony in Hamlet and Volpone
Types of
Hamlet
Volpone
Total
irony
No. %
No. %
No. %
Verbal irony
16
38.09 8
24.24 24
32.31
Pun
20
47.61 5
15.15 25
33.33
Sarcasm
6
14.28 20
60.60 26
34.36
Total
42
99.98 33
99.99 75
100
119
It is clear that pun and sarcasm are the dominant types of irony in
Hamlet and Volpone respectively. This refutes the second hypothesis
which states that pun is more effective and frequently used in Hamlet and
Volpone. The most frequent type of irony in Hamlet is pun. This kind of
irony is mostly produced by high status persons. Most of the punning in
Hamlet is played by Hamlet himself. He is a student at the University of
Wittenberg. He is a man of philosophy and intellectual depth. He looks at
the world as a deep thinker. Sarcasm is the frequent type in Volpone as
this type is based on insults. This does not require a lot of wit and
education. Most of the sarcasm is uttered by servants, merchants, tourists,
etc. This is further supported by Jonson's use of animal tag names such as
Raven, etc.
5.2 Conclusions
By analyzing Shakespeare's Hamlet and Ben Jonson's Volpone in
terms of irony, the following conclusions are arrived at:
1. The number of ironical situations in Hamlet is larger than Volpone
although the former is a tragedy and the latter is a comedy. This can be
attributed to the nature of Hamlet as a tragedy whose dialogue needs to be
accompanied by highly-styled and eloquent use of language.
2. Most of verbal ironic speeches in Shakespeare's Hamlet are produced
by flouting the maxims of quality and manner while in Ben Jonson's
Volpone the ironic speeches are produced by flouting the maxim of
quality only. This makes Shakespeare's style flexible since he uses an
ironic style to express serious one.
3. The ironic expressions in Shakespeare's Hamlet and Ben Jonson's
Volpone are carried out by the use of verbal irony, pun and sarcasm.
121
These types of irony are employed differently by the two dramatists. On
the one hand, Shakespeare depends heavily on verbal irony and pun more
than sarcasm. On the other hand, Ben Jonson depends heavily on sarcasm
rather than other types of irony. Moreover, Ben Jonson never uses echo
utterances as indicated in table (6).
4. Shakespeare and Jonson are different concerning the use of irony in the
selected plays. Shakespeare uses pun more than other types and this type
requires people who have higher social status and education, while
Jonson uses sarcasm and this type does not need a lot of wit and
education.
5. The less use of sarcasm in Hamlet indicates the bigger number of high
class characters compared to Volpone.
6. Concerning Leech's maxims, the two dramatists exploit only one
maxim 'agreement maxim'. They make no use of Leech's other maxims.
In Shakespeare's Hamlet, agreement maxim is used more frequently than
Ben Jonson's Volpone as justified in table (5). This refutes the third
hypothesis which states that all the politeness maxims are exploited in the
selected plays.
7. Both dramatists' styles are related to the social factors of the characters
in the selected plays. The use of linguistic strategies is governed by the
social status of the characters and their education.
8. Some characters show more adherence to use the indirect style which
is represented by using verbal irony. This may reveal that those characters
tend to behave politely.
9. The repetition of other character's words, phrases, or even sentences
results in humour.
121
10. Shakespeare uses irony to convey moral lessons and to achieve
serious things such as Hamlet's revenge. For example, Hamlet uses verbal
irony, pun and sarcasm to express his inclination to revenge for his
father's death. While Ben Jonson uses irony for humorous purposes and
to raise a laugh. This validates the fourth hypothesis which states that the
two dramatists are different in their purposes behind using irony in the
selected plays.
5.3 Recommendations
On the basis of the theoretical and practical sides of the study, the
following recommendations are made:
1. Teachers of English language ought to pay more attention to the
difference between what is said and what is meant.
2. In the designing of syllabuses and the writing of English textbooks,
syllabus designers are advised to include teaching verbal irony.
3. Teachers ought to consider the pragmatic strategies such as flouting
Grice's maxims to teach irony when teaching their learners.
4. Discourse analysts ought to pay attention to verbal irony in different
text types to explore its use and function in the texts.
5. Politicians have to be careful about using verbal irony in their speeches
since it performs a variety of pragmatic meanings.
6. EFL students need to become familiar with the pragmatic strategies
stated in this study, so that they can express what they want indirectly.
7. Teachers of conversation ought to include in their teaching exercises
the practice of the different types of irony.
122
8. Students should be taught how to practice the use of agreement maxim
to achieve politeness in any communicative event.
9. Translators should be aware of cultural differences regarding irony.
10. Teachers of English ought to devote more time to the study of irony
advising their students to use such irony in their conversations.
5.4 Suggestions for Further study
The following topics are suggested for further research:
1. A Stylistic study of irony in Shakespeare's As you like it and A
Midsummer Night's Dream.
2. Irony can be studied in comparative dramatic texts in English and
Arabic.
3. A Pragmatic study of irony in T.V programs.
4. Situational irony in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.
5. Irony in Iraqi and American journals: A contrastive study.
6. Another study can deal with ironic expressions from a syntactic point
of view.
7. A further study can be conducted on verbal ironic expressions and their
relations with translations in English and Arabic.
8. Grice's maxims can be investigated in Obama's speeches.
9. A discoursal study of the exploitation of Grice's maxims by English
teachers.
10. A comparative pragmatic study of irony in two plays.
123
Bibliography
Abrams, M. H. (1993). A Glossary of Literary Terms. 6th edn. Winston:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
___________ (2009). A Glossary of Literary Terms. 9th edn. Boston:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
___________ and Geoffrey Galt Harpham (2012). A Glossary of Literary
Terms. 11th edn. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Adamson, Sylvia (2001). Reading Shakespeare's Dramatic Language.
London: Lynette Hunter.
Albert, Edward (1979). History of English Literature. 5th edn. Oxford:
OUP.
Allan, Keith (1986). Linguistic Meaning. Vol.1. London and New York:
Routledge.
Ankersmit, F.R. (1996). Aesthetic Politics: Political Philosophy Beyond
Fact and Value. California: Standford University Press.
Anolli, Luig, Rita Ciceri and Giuseppe Riva (2002). Say not to Say: New
Perspectives on Miscommunication. Amsterdam. IOS Press.
Arp, Thomas R. and Greg Johnson (2006). Literature: Structure, Sound
and Sense. 9th edn. Boston: Thomson Wadsorth.
Attardo, Salvatore (2001). Humorouse Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic
Analysis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Auger, Peter (2010). The Anthem Dictionary of Literary Terms and
Theory. London: Anthem Press.
124
Bahrami, Ali (1999). A Dictionary of Discourse Analysis. Tehran:
Rahnama Publications.
Baldick, Chris (2001). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms.
Oxford: OUP.
Baldo, Jonathan (1996). The Unmasking of Drama: Contested
Representation in Shakespeare's Tragedies. Michigan: Wayne
State University Press.
Barbe, Katharina (1995). Irony in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barnes, Shane and Aidan Coleman (2008) (eds.). Romeo and Juliet by
William Shakespeare. Kilda: Insight publications Pty Ltd.
____________________________ (2010) (eds.). Othello by William
Shakespeare. 1st edn. Victoria: Insight publications.
Barr, David L. (2006). The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics
in the Book of Revelation. Atlanta: The Society of Biblical
Literature.
Barron, Anne (2003). Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bayraktaroglu, Arin and Maria Sifianou (2001). Linguistic Politeness
across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Beard, Pauline, Robert Lifting and James S. Malek (2003). AP English
Literature and Composition. New Jersey: Research and
Education Association.
125
Benczes, Reka, Antonio Barcelona and Francisco Jose (2011). Defining
Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus
View. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Berger, Harry and Peter Erickson (1997). Making Trifles of Terrors:
Redistributing Complicities in Shakespeare. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Betti, Mohammed Jasim (2015). An Introduction to Drama. Diwaniya:
Dar Nippur.
Bhatia, Praveen (2012). William Shakespeare Hamlet: Special Edition
with Introduction, Detailed Notes, Scene-Wise Summary,
Annotations and Questions and Answers. New Delhi: UBSPD.
Black, Elizabeth (2006). Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: EUP.
Blaisdell, Bob (2006). Shakespeare's Great Soliloquies. Mineola: Dover
Publications Inc.
Bloom, Harold (2002). Ben Jonson. Chelsea: Chelsea House Publishers.
____________ (2004). Elizabethan Drama. New York: Infobose
Publishing.
____________ (2005). Dramatists and Dramas. Chelsea: Chelsea House
Publications.
Booth, Wayne C. (1974). A Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Botvinick, Marshall (2015). Jonson's Volpone: A Guide to the Text and
the Play in Performance. London: Palgrave.
126
Brady, Jennifer and Wyman H. Herendeen (1991). Ben Jonson's 1616
Folio. Canterbury: Associated University Press.
Brown, Gillian and George Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:
CUP.
Brown, Richard Harvey (1977). A Poetic for Sociology: Toward a Logic
of Discovery for the Human Science. Cambridge: CUP.
Brown, Steven and Salvatore Attardo (2005). Understanding Language
Structure, Interaction, and Variation: An Introduction to
Applied Linguistics and Sociolinguistics for Nonspecialists. 2nd
edn. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Bublitz, Wolfram and Neal R. Norrick (2011). Foundations of
Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Cantor, Paul A. (2004). Shakespeare's Hamlet. Cambridge: CUP.
Cappela, Niels Jargen, Lermann Deuser and K. Brian Soderquist (2009).
Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook 2009: Kierkegaard's Concept of
Irony. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of
Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
___________ and Seiji Uchida (1998). Relevance Theory. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Cave, Richard, Elizabeth Schafer and Brian Woolland (1999). Ben
Jonson and Theater: Performance, Practice and Theory.
London: Routledge.
127
Cicora, Mary A. (1998). Mythology as Metaphor: Romantic Irony,
Critical Theory and Wagner's Ring. Westport: Green wood
Press.
Clemen, Wolfgang (1972). Shakespeare's Dramatic Art: Collected
Essays. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.
_______________ (1987). Shakespeare's Soliloquies. London: Methuen
& Co Ltd.
Colebrook, Claire (2002). Irony in the Work of Philosophy. Nebraska:
University of Nebraska Press.
______________ (2004). Irony. London: Routledge.
Coles Editorial Board (2004). Volpone, the Alchemist by Jonson: Notes.
New Delhi: Rama Brothers.
_________________ (2010). Hamlet by Shakespeare: Notes. New Delhi:
Rama Brothers.
Cook, David (1962). Volpone or the Fox by Ben Jonson. London:
Methuen & Co Ltd.
Cook, Guy (1989). Discourse. Oxford: OUP.
Cruse, Alan (2000). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics
and Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.
_________ (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh:
EUP.
Crystal, David (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th edn.
Oxford: Blackwell.
128
Cuddon, J. A. (1998). A Dictionary of Literary Terms & Literary Theory.
4th edn. London: Blackwell.
________ (2013). A Dictionary of Literary Terms & Literary Theory. 5th
edn. Oxford: Blakwell.
Cutting, Joan (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource Book for
Students. London and New York: Routledge.
Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser (2012). Viewpoint in Language: A
Multimodel Perspective. Cambridge: CUP.
Davis, Sheila (1992). The Songwriter's Idea Book. Ohio: Writer's Digest
Books.
Deshpand, Madhar M. and Peter E. Hook (2002). Indian Linguistic
Studies. 1st edn. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Dobson, Michael and Stanley Wells (2001). The Oxford Companion to
Shakespeare. Oxford: OUP.
Dotterer, Ronald L. (1989). Shakespeare: Text, Subtext and Context.
Cranbury: Associated University Press.
Downs, William Missouri, Lou Anne Wright and Erik Ramsey (2013).
The Art of Theatre: Then and Now. 3rd edn. Boston: Wadsorth,
Cengage Learning.
Dutton, Richard (2000). Ben Jonson. New York: Taylor& Francis.
Eastman, Max (2009). Enjoyment of Laughter. New Jersey: Transaction
Publishers, New Brunswick.
129
Ellestrom, Lars (2001). Divine Madness: On Interpreting Literature,
Music and the Visual Arts Ironically. Washington: Rosemont
Publishing and Printing Group.
Enos, Theresa (1996). Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition. New
York: Routledge.
Evans, Sir Ifor (1963). A Short History of English Literature. 2nd edn.
Middlesex: Penguin.
Farabee, Darlene (2014). Shakespeare's Staged Space's and Playgoer's
Perceptions. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fell, Michael (2010). Verbal Irony: Theories and Automatic Detection.
Norderstedt: Grin Verlag.
Fischer, Gerhard and Bernhard Greiner (2007). The Play within the Play:
The Performance of meta- Theatre and self Reflection.
Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.
Frye, Northrop, Linda Hutcheon and Shirley Neuman (1996). Genre,
Trope, Gender: Critical Essays. Ottawa: Carleton University
Press.
Fugita, Minoru and Leonard Pronko (1996). Shakespeare East and West.
New York: Routledge
Garber, Frederick (2008). Romantic Irony. Amsterdm: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, Raymond W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought,
Language and Understanding. Cambridge: CUP.
________________ and Herbert L. Colston (2007). Irony in Language
and Thought: A Cognitive Science Reader. New York: Taylor
and Frances Group.
131
Glasser, William (2009). The Art of Literary Thieving: The Catcher in
Rye, Moby- Dick and Hamlet. Amherst: Cambria Press.
Gossett, Suzanne (2000). Bartholomew Fair. Oxford: Suzann Gossett.
Grainger, Roger (2008). Theatre and Relationships in Shakespeare's
Later Plays. Bern: Peter Lang AG.
Green, D. H. (1979). Irony in the Medieval Romance. Cambridge: CUP.
Griffith, Kelly (2011). Writing Essays about Literature: A Guide and
Style Sheet. 8thedn. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Griffiths, Patrick (2006). An Introduction to English Semantics and
Pragmatics. Edinburgh: EUP.
Haan, Erik de (2006). Fearless Consulting: Temptations, Risks and
Limits of the profession. Westsusseex: John Wily.
Haiman, John (1998). Talk is Cheap: Sarcasm, Alienation, and the
Evaluation of Language. Oxford: OUP.
Hattaway, Michael (2003).
A Companian to English Renaissance
Literature and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
Haugerud, Angelique (2013). No Billionaire Left Behind: Satirical
Activism in America. California: Stanford University Press.
Hebron, Malcolm (2004). Mastering the Language of Literature. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hickey, Leo (1998). The Pragmatics of Translations. Clevedon:
Cromwell Pres Ltd.
Hirsh, James (1997). New Perspectives on Ben Jonson. London:
Associated University Press.
131
Hirsh, James (2003). Shakespeare and History of Soliloquies. Danvers:
Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corp.
Hoffmann, Gerhard (2005). From Modernism to Post Modernism:
Concepts and Strategies of post Modern American Fiction.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Hofmann, Thomas R. (1993). Realms of Meaning: An Introduction to
Semantics. New York: Routledge.
Holland, Glenn S. (2000). Divine Irony. London: Associated University
Press.
Horner, Grant (2010). Meaning at the Movies: Becoming a Discerning
Viewer. Illinois: Crossway.
Hoyle, Eric and Mike Wallace. (2005). Educational Leadership:
Ambiguity, Professionals and Managerialism. London: Sage.
Huang, Yan (2012). The Oxford Dictionary of Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.
Hubler, Axel (1983). Understatements and Hedges in English.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jankelevitch, Valdimir (2003). Music and Ineffable. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Jensen, Klaus Brahn (2002). A Handbook of Media and Communication
Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies. London
and New York: Routledge.
Johnston, Mark Albert (2011). Beard Fetish in Early Modern England:
Sex, Gender and Register of Value. Surry: Ashgate Published
Limited.
132
Kane, Thomas S. (1988). The Oxford Guide to Writing. Oxford: OUP.
Kantor, Elizabeth (2006). The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and
American Literature. Washington: Regnery.
Kempson, Ruth M. (1977). Semantic Theory. Cambridge: CUP.
Kenesei, Istvan and Robert M. Harnish (2001). Perspectives on
Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
King, Neil and Sarah King (2002). Dictionary of Literature in English.
London-Chicago: Fitzroy Dear born Publishers.
Knowles, Murray and Rosamund Moon (2006). Introducing Metaphor.
London: Routledge.
Koff, Leonard Michael (1988). Chaucer and the Art of Storytelling.
California: University of California Press.
Kuiper, Kathleen (2013). The Tragedies of William Shakespeare.
Britannica: Encyclopedia Britannica.
Lall, Ramji (2010) (ed.). The Alchemist: Ben Jonson. 19th edn. New
Delhi: Rama Brothers.
_________ (2012) (ed.). William Shakespeare Hamlet: A Critical Study.
18th edn. New Delhi: Rama Brothers.
Laman, Barbara (2004). James Joyce and German Theory: The Romantic
School and all that. Cranbury: Associated University Press.
Lamb, Sidney (2000). Cliffs Complete Shakespeare's Hamlet. New York:
Hungry Minds.
133
Leech, Geoffrey (1969). A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London:
Longman.
____________ (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York.
Longman.
____________ (2008). Language in Literature: Style and Foregrounding.
New York. Routledge.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.
Lewis, Anthony J. (1992). The Love Story in Shakespearean Comedy.
Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky.
Loxely, James (2002). Ben Jonson. London. Routledge.
Mackey, Sally and Simon Cooper (2000). Drama and Theatre Studies.
Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes (publishers) Ltd.
McCarthy, Janet (2004). Pascal English Workbook. Singapore: Pascal
Press.
McDaniel, Karl (2013). Experiencing Irony in the First Gospel:
Suspense, Surprise and Curiosity. London: Bloomsbury.
McEvoy, Sean (2008). Ben Jonson: Renaissance Dramatist. Edinburgh:
EUP.
McGlone, James P. and A. M. Fiskin (1967). Jonson's Volpone & The
Alchemist Notes. Lincoln: Cliffs Notes.
Meron, Theodor (1998). Bloody Constraint: War and Chiralry in
Shakespeare. Oxford: OUP.
Mey, J. L. (2009). Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier
Ltd.
134
Miles, Dudley and Robert C. Pooley (1943). Literature and Life in
England. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Milhorn, Thomas (2006). Writing Genre Fiction: A Guide to the Graft.
Florida: Universal Puplishers Boca Raton.
Miller, Carol Rawlings (1962). Irresistible Shakespeare. New York:
Madeleine L. Engle.
Montgomery, Martin, Alan Durant, Nigel Fabb, Tom Furniss and Sara
Mills (2007). Ways of Reading: Advanced Reading Skills for
Students of English Literature. 3rd edn. Oxon: Routledge.
Mufwene, Salikoko, Elaine J. Francis and Rebecca S. Wheeler (2005).
Polymorphous Linguistics. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
Norrick, Neal R. and Delia Chiaro (2009). Humor in Interaction.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
NyonG'O, Tavia (2009).
The Amalgamation Waltz. Minnesota:
University of Minnesota Press.
O'Callaghan, Michelle (2006). The English Wits: Literature and
Sociability in Early Modern England. Cambridge: CUP.
Peterson, Tarla Rai (2004). Green Talk in the White House: The
Rhetorical Presidency Encounters Ecology. Texas: Texas A &
M University Press.
Pfister, Manfred (1988). The Theory and Analysis of Drama. Cambridge:
CUP.
Pishwa, Hanna (2009). Language and Social Cognition: Expression of
the Social Mind. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
135
Putz, Martin and Laura Sicola (2010). Cognitive Processing in Second
Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
(1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.
London: Longman.
Reece, Gregory L. (2002). Irony and Religious Belief. Tubingen:
Mohrsiebeck.
Richmand, Hugh Macrae (2002). Shakespeare's Theatre: A Dictionary of
his Stage Context. London: Continuum.
Ricoeur, Paul (1977). The Rule of Metaphor: The Creation of Meaning in
Language. New York: University of Toronto Press.
Rozik, Eli (2011). Comedy: A Critical Introduction. Eastbourne: Sussex
Academic Press.
Ruiz, Javier Herrero (2009). Understanding Tropes: At the Crossroads
between Pragmatics and Cognition. Frankfort: Peter Lang.
Ryals, Clyde Deh (1983). Becoming Browning: The Poems and Plays of
Robert Browning, 1833-1846. Ohio: The Ohio State University
Press.
Ryan, Susan and Dana Frazee (2012). Common Core Standards: For
Middle School English Language Arts. Denver: MCREL.
Sacerdoti, Giorgio (1992). Irony Through Psychoanalysis. London:
Karnac Books.
Sackton, Alexander Hart (1948). Rhetoric as Dramatic Language in Ben
Jonson. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
136
Salmon, Vivan and Edwina Burness (1987). A Reader in the Language
Shakespearean Drama. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Samovar, Larry, Richard E. Porter and Edwine R. McDaniel (2010).
Communication
Between
Cultures.
8th
edn.
Boston:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Santos, Sherod (2000). A Poetry of Two Minds. Georgia: University of
Georgia Press.
Schiffer, Stephen R. (1972). Meaning. Oxford: OUP.
Schmid, Hans Jorg (2012). Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Scholes, Robert, James Phelan and Robert Kellogy (2006). The Nature of
Narrative: Revised and Expanded. 40th Anniversary Edition.
Oxford: OUP.
Schultz, Anne Marie (2013). Plato's Socrates as Narrator: A
Philosophical Muse. Maryland: Lexington Books Lanham.
Schuster, Marc-Oliver (2010). H.C. Artmann's Structuralist Imagination:
A Semiotic Study of his Aesthetic and Post Modernity.
Wurzburg: Konigshausen & Neumann.
Sen, S. (2011). William Shakespeare Hamlet: Critical Study. New Delhi:
Unique Publishers.
Sharma, Amrita (1998). The Sterling Dictionary of Literary Terms. New
Delhi: Sterling Publisher.
Shaughnessy, Robert (2013). Representing Shakespeare. New York:
Routledge.
137
Sperber, Dan And Deirdre Wilson (1995). Relevance: Communication &
Cognition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Steggle, Matthew (2011). Volpone: A Critical Guide. London:
Continuum.
Stockton, Carla Lynn (2004). Cliffs Notes Shakespeare's Hamlet.
Chicago: IDG Books.
Storm, William (2011). Irony and the Modern Theatre. Cambridge: CUP.
Strassler, Jurg (1982). Idioms in English: A Pragmatic Analysis.
Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen.
StringFellow, Frank (1994). The Meaning of Irony: A Psychoanalysis
Investigation. New York: State University of New York.
Szlezak, Thomas A. (1993). Reading Plato. London. Routledge.
Tabbi, Joseph (1995). Postmodern Sublime: Technology and American
Writing from Mailer to Cyberpunk. New York: Cornell
University.
Tendahl, Markus (2009). A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor: Relevance
Theory
and
Cognitive
Linguistics.
London:
Palgrave
Macmillan.
Thomas, Jenny (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to
Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Limited.
Thornley, G. C. and Gwyneth Roberts (1984). An Outline of English
Literature. Edinburgh: Longman.
Treatman, Paul (2008). A Haiku Pun for Everyone. Lincoln: University of
Lincoln.
138
Ullmam, Stephen (1979). Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of
Meaning. New York: Barnes & Nobel Books.
Waicukauski, Ronald, Paul Mark Sandler and JoAnne Epps (2001). The
Winning Argument. Chicago: American Bar Association.
Wales, Katie (2011). A Dictionary of Stylistics. 3rd edn. New York:
Routledge.
Webb, Stephen H. (1993). Blessed Excess: Religion and the Hyperbolic
Imagination. Albany: State University of New York.
Webster, Joan Parker (2002). Teaching Through Culture: Strategies for
Reading and Responding to Young Adult Literature. Houston:
Houston Arte Publico Press.
Weigand, Edda (2008). Dialogue and Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
_____________ and Marcelo Dascal. (2001). Negotiation and Power in
Dialogic Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Weinstock, Jeffery Andrew (2008). Taking South Park Seriously. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Wiegandt, kai (2004). Theories of Irony – Sperber and Wilson,
Blakemore, Clark. Norderstedt: Grin Verlag.
Wierzbicka, Anna (2003). Cross-Culture Pragmatics: The Semantics of
Human Interaction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Wimsatt, W. K. (1974). Literary Criticism Idea and Act: The English
Institute1939-1972 selected Essays. California: University of
California Press.
139
Wolfe, Naomi A. (2007). Tennessee Gateway: High School exist exam in
English Language Arts. New York: Barron's Educational Series
Inc.
WolfsDore, David (2008). Trails of Reason: Plato and the Crafting of
Philosophy. Oxford: OUP.
Wright, David G. (1991). Ironies of Ulysses. Maryland: Barnes & Nobel
Books.
Yamaguchi,
Toshiko
(2007).
Japanese
Language
in
Use:
An
Introduction. London: Continuum.
Yule, George (1996 a). Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.
__________ (1996 b). The Study of Language. 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.
Zhang, Xiao (1996). Shakespeare in China: A Comparative Study of two
Traditions and Cultures. Massachusetts: Associated University
Press, Inc.
141
‫انًهخض‬
‫ذؼُ‪ ٙ‬انسخش‪ٚ‬ح االخرالف ت‪ ٍٛ‬يا ‪ٚ‬مال ٔيارا ‪ٚ‬ؼُٗ رنك إَٓا ن‪ٛ‬سد ظاْشج تس‪ٛ‬طح‬
‫ٔانرؼش‪ٚ‬ف انشائغ نهسخش‪ٚ‬ح ْٕ لٕل يا ْٕ يرُالغ يغ انًمظٕد يٍ انًؼُٗ ٔانرُالغ‬
‫‪ٚ‬كٌٕ ت‪ ٍٛ‬انًؼُٗ انظاْش٘ نهكهًاخ انًكرٕتح ٔ انًمشٔءج ٔيا ْٕ اتؼذ يٍ انًؼُٗ‬
‫انسطح‪ ٔ ٙ‬ف‪ْ ٙ‬زِ انحانح ال ذفسش كهًاخ انًركهى حشف‪ٛ‬ا‪.‬‬
‫ذرؼهك انذساسح انحان‪ٛ‬ح تاسرؼشاع َظش٘ نرؼش‪ٚ‬ف انسخش‪ٚ‬ح ٔإَٔاػٓا إر ذمٕو ترمظ‪ٙ‬‬
‫ٔذحه‪ٛ‬م انسخش‪ٚ‬ح‪ ,‬انرالػة تانكهًاخ ٔكزانك انرٓكى ف‪ ٙ‬يسشح‪ٛ‬ر‪ْ ٙ‬ايهد نشكسث‪ٛ‬ش‬
‫ٔفٕنثَٕ‪ ٙ‬نثٍ خَٕسٌٕ ٔتؼذئز ذمٕو تًماسَح انُرائح نرحه‪ٛ‬م إَٔاع انسخش‪ٚ‬ح ف‪ ٙ‬كهرا‬
‫انًسشح‪ٛ‬ر‪ٔ ٍٛ‬كزنك ذحأل إثثاخ انفشػ‪ٛ‬اخ انر‪ ٙ‬لايد ػه‪ٓٛ‬ا انذساسح نهٕطٕل‬
‫نثؼغ َماط انرشاتّ ٔاالخرالف ت‪ ٍٛ‬انًسشح‪ٛ‬ر‪ ٍٛ‬يٍ خالل ذطث‪ٛ‬ك ًَٕرج انرحه‪ٛ‬م‬
‫انًمرشذ انز٘ ‪ٚ‬ث‪ ٍٛ‬األدٔاخ انهغٕ‪ٚ‬ح ف‪ ٙ‬ذحه‪ٛ‬م األَٕاع انثالثح ٔذهك األدٔاخ ذشًم‬
‫يثادئ كشا‪ٚ‬س (‪ ,(Grice's maxims‬يثذأ انرهطف (‪,)politeness principle‬‬
‫طذٖ انؼثاساخ (‪ ,(echo utterances‬انرالػة تانكهًاخ (‪.(pun‬‬
‫ذفرشع ْزِ انذساسح أٌ اغهة ػثاساخ انسخش‪ٚ‬ح انفؼه‪ٛ‬ح ذُرح ػٍ طش‪ٚ‬ك ػذو االنرزاو‬
‫تًثادئ كشا‪ٚ‬س ف‪ ٙ‬يسشح‪ٛ‬ر‪ْ ٙ‬ايهد نشكسث‪ٛ‬ش ٔفٕنثَٕ‪ ٙ‬نثٍ خَٕسٌٕ ٔ أٌ انرالػة‬
‫تانكهًاخ ْٕ أكثش األَٕاع ذأث‪ٛ‬شا ٔػذدا ف‪ ٙ‬كهرا انًسشح‪ٛ‬ر‪ٔ ٍٛ‬اٌ خً‪ٛ‬غ يثادئ انرهطف‬
‫لذ اسرؼًهد ف‪ ٙ‬انًسشح‪ٛ‬ر‪ , ٍٛ‬كًا ذفرشع أٌ كال انًسشح‪ٚ ٍٛٛ‬خرهفاٌ ف‪ ٙ‬انغشع‬
‫يٍ ٔساء اسرؼًال انسخش‪ٚ‬ح ف‪ ٙ‬انًسشح‪ٛ‬اخ انًخراسج‪.‬‬
‫ذمغ ْزِ انذساسح ف‪ ٙ‬خًسح فظٕل ٔنمذ ذٕطهد إنٗ َرائح ‪ًٚ‬كٍ إخًال أًْٓا تًا‬
‫‪ٚ‬ه‪ :ٙ‬إٌ ػذد إَٔاع انسخش‪ٚ‬ح ف‪ْ ٙ‬ايهد ْٕ أكثش يٍ انؼذد انًٕخٕد ف‪ ٙ‬يسشح‪ٛ‬ح‬
‫فٕنثَٕ‪ ٙ‬ػهٗ انشغى يٍ أٌ األٔنٗ ذشاخ‪ٛ‬ذ‪ٚ‬ح ٔ األخ‪ٛ‬شج كٕي‪ٛ‬ذ‪ٚ‬ح ٔكزنك فمذ اسرؼًم‬
‫شكسث‪ٛ‬ش إَٔاع انسخش‪ٚ‬ح انر‪ ٙ‬ذحراج إنٗ األشخاص انًثمف‪ ٍٛ‬ت‪ًُٛ‬ا خَٕسٌٕ اسرؼًم‬
‫أألَٕاع انر‪ ٙ‬ال ذحراج إنٗ أشخاص رٔ٘ ثمافح ػان‪ٛ‬ح‪ .‬يؼظى ػثاساخ انسخش‪ٚ‬ح انفؼه‪ٛ‬ح‬
‫ف‪ ٙ‬يسشح‪ٛ‬ح ْايهد ذكٌٕ َر‪ٛ‬دح نؼذو أالنرزاو تًثذئ‪ ٙ‬انظذق ٔاألسهٕب ت‪ًُٛ‬ا ف‪ٙ‬‬
‫يسشح‪ٛ‬ح فٕنثَٕ‪ ٙ‬فركٌٕ َر‪ٛ‬دح نؼذو االنرزاو تًثذأ انظذق فمط‪ٚ .‬ش‪ٛ‬ش االسرخذاو انمه‪ٛ‬م‬
‫نهرٓكى ف‪ ٙ‬يسشح‪ٛ‬ح ْايهد إنٗ انؼذد انكث‪ٛ‬ش نشخظ‪ٛ‬اخ انطثمح انؼه‪ٛ‬ا تانًماسَح يغ‬
‫يسشح‪ٛ‬ح فٕنثَٕ‪ٔ ٙ‬ف‪ًٛ‬ا ‪ٚ‬خض يثادئ ن‪ٛ‬ح فمذ ٔظف كال انًسشح‪ ٍٛٛ‬يثذأ االذفاق فمط‬
‫ف‪ ٙ‬يسشح‪ٛ‬اذٓى‪.‬‬
‫‪141‬‬
‫جاهعت ري قار‬
‫كلٍت الخربٍت للعلىم اإلًضاًٍت‬
‫دراصت أصلىبٍت للضخرٌت فً هضرحٍخً هاهلج لشكضبٍر و‬
‫فىلبىًً لبي جىًضىى‬
‫رصالت حقذم بها إلى‬
‫هجلش كلٍت الخربٍت للعلىم اإلًضاًٍت فً جاهعت ري قار‬
‫وهً جزءا هي هخطلباث ًٍل شهادة الواجضخٍر آداب‬
‫فً علن اللغت الخطبٍقً‬
‫صعذ عبذهللا هرداس‬
‫بإشراف‬
‫األصخار الذكخىر هحوذ جاصن بطً‬
‫و‬
‫األصخار الوضاعذ الذكخىر عواد إبراهٍن داود‬
‫‪ 7341‬هــ‬
‫‪ 6172‬م‬