论文部分内容阅读
Speech Act Theory is proposed by J. L. Austin and many linguistics applied SAT into literary analysis. Plato once pointed out that irony has duality， through which individuals can blame others by means of compliment and praise others via criticizing. Therefore， this essay intends to analyzing irony on the perspective of speech act theory through which irony can be divided into 4 categories.
1.1 Assertive irony
Assertive speech acts refers speaker promises to the truthfulness of statements， through which hearer will trust the statement. Speakers who intend to use irony to convey specific meaning through the opposite forms， yet the purpose remains the same as the assertive speech acts.
1.2 Directive irony
The perlocutionary of directive speech act is to order the hearer to do something. The implied meaning is far different from the literal one. The speaker obliges the hearer to do something， through which the speaker blame the hearer not to do the thing initially or embarrass his inability to finish the thing.
1.3 Commissive irony
When a speaker promises to complete something in the future， a commissive speech act is performed. Besides， the prerequisite of a commissive speech act is that the speaker is capable of finishing the promised acts. On the basis of that， if both the speakers in a conversation know that one of the speakers is unable to finish the task， then the promise is ironic.
1.4 Expressive irony
Expressive speech act is used to convey speaker’s psychological status. It expresses congratulation， appreciation and so on to establish social relations. The irony of expressive speech acts can be inferred from the context， which aims to comment on the hearer’s behaviors derogatorily.
2. Conclusion
Based on the discussion above， taking Speech Act Theory as a framework can categorize irony well. In the future， i may combine two theories together to analyze a literature works specifically in order to further demonstrate their correlations.
References：
[1] Austin， J. L ， How to Do Things with Words [ M]. Oxford：Oxford University Press ， 1962
[2] Haverkate， H.， A Speech Act Analysis of Irony [ J] .in Journal of Pragmatics， 1990， （14）：77 -109， North Holland： Elsevier Science Publishers .
[3] Searle， J. R. Speech Acts [ M]. Cambridge：Cambridge University Press，1969.12.
[4] 朱小舟. 反諷的語用研究[J]. 湖南师范大学社会科学学报，2002，03：99-101.
作者简介：
崔乾乐（1993.10），女，江苏泰州人，同济大学外国语学院外国语言学及应用学专业15级硕士研究生。
1.1 Assertive irony
Assertive speech acts refers speaker promises to the truthfulness of statements， through which hearer will trust the statement. Speakers who intend to use irony to convey specific meaning through the opposite forms， yet the purpose remains the same as the assertive speech acts.
1.2 Directive irony
The perlocutionary of directive speech act is to order the hearer to do something. The implied meaning is far different from the literal one. The speaker obliges the hearer to do something， through which the speaker blame the hearer not to do the thing initially or embarrass his inability to finish the thing.
1.3 Commissive irony
When a speaker promises to complete something in the future， a commissive speech act is performed. Besides， the prerequisite of a commissive speech act is that the speaker is capable of finishing the promised acts. On the basis of that， if both the speakers in a conversation know that one of the speakers is unable to finish the task， then the promise is ironic.
1.4 Expressive irony
Expressive speech act is used to convey speaker’s psychological status. It expresses congratulation， appreciation and so on to establish social relations. The irony of expressive speech acts can be inferred from the context， which aims to comment on the hearer’s behaviors derogatorily.
2. Conclusion
Based on the discussion above， taking Speech Act Theory as a framework can categorize irony well. In the future， i may combine two theories together to analyze a literature works specifically in order to further demonstrate their correlations.
References：
[1] Austin， J. L ， How to Do Things with Words [ M]. Oxford：Oxford University Press ， 1962
[2] Haverkate， H.， A Speech Act Analysis of Irony [ J] .in Journal of Pragmatics， 1990， （14）：77 -109， North Holland： Elsevier Science Publishers .
[3] Searle， J. R. Speech Acts [ M]. Cambridge：Cambridge University Press，1969.12.
[4] 朱小舟. 反諷的語用研究[J]. 湖南师范大学社会科学学报，2002，03：99-101.
作者简介：
崔乾乐（1993.10），女，江苏泰州人，同济大学外国语学院外国语言学及应用学专业15级硕士研究生。