Gricean accounts of irony and problems that arise

张  蓉

（Yu Lin University，Yu Lin    Shanxi    719000）

摘  要：Irony is usually carried out by saying the opposite of what the speaker means, and is, defined by Grice, through flouting one of the principles of cooperative principles-the maxim of quality (do not say what believe to be false). While, by studying lines from the script of “Friends” can it be demonstrated what Sperber and Wilson brought about concerning the exceptions Gricean account can not explain.

关键词：irony；opposite meaning；Sperber and Wilson

中图分类号：G633    文献标识码：A        文章编号：

Ⅰ.Introduction

    Pragmatics studies the meanings and uses of language in context, while, as one of the branches in pragmatics, irony deals with reading between lines, besides which, ironic utterances are usually understood as non-literal language by using which speakers mean more than what is literally said. Irony can be traced back when the classical rhetoric view on irony was defined as the opposite of the literal meaning, which Grice (1975) also held the same account, except the fact that he claimed that ironic utterances were normally recognized by the violation of one of the cooperative principles- the maxim of quality (do not say what you believe to be false). An example taken from Grice (1975: 53) can be given on this account:

(1)           X is a fine friend   

    The context of this utterance is that X has been a good friend of the speaker, but betrayed another friend-A for business reason, thus, under the circumstance of both the speaker and A know that X is not a fine friend any more, the speaker just say something that is clearly not the truth, so, he just implicates X is not a fine friend by purposefully violating the maxim of quality and conveying the opposite meaning of the literal utterance.

    How ironic utterances can be analyzed under Gricean account will be given in terms of how each step is logically developed, other perspectives on the analysis of verbal irony will be laid on the problems that arise from Gricean angle.

Ⅱ.How Grice analyzed irony?

    According to Grice, speakers violate the maxim of quality intentionally to create implications, which are usually the opposite of the literal meaning. Consider examples as follows:

(2).This diligent student seldom reads more than an hour per month.

(3). Rose and David met an elegant woman on the street. They appreciated her fine action until she suddenly spited to the ground. Then, they said:

   Rose: She is really lovely, isn’t she?

   David: She sure is.

    Despite the fact of context, these utterances themselves will make no sense, at least, under most circumstances. Thus, there must be some other explanations for this. (2) would make a false statement according to the normal standard of being hard-working by saying only one hour’s reading in a month is diligent, because which is far less to be qualified to obtain success which is indeed the ultimate outcome of being diligent in reading and studying. (3) is also a blatant false literally, because for a lady who spits on the street is quite a clear contradiction with her appearance and people’s attitude towards her, it is then definitely not the word ”lovely” that suits to describe her behavior.

    On Gricean account, these utterances will be understood through the process as: firstly, in (2), the speaker says something blatantly false, thereby flouting the maxim of truthfulness, as stated above that one hour’s reading in a month can not be called diligent. Therefore, the hearer would assume that since one hour’s reading in a whole month can never be hard-working.If this person is not diligent, while, saying diligent and combining the fact that reading for only one hour in a month would push the hearer focuses on the tone of utterance or the purpose of saying this, so by knowing reading only an hour’s books in a month and the tone or facial expressions can the hearer come to the conclusion that this person is not diligent.

Problems that arise on Gricean accounts

    If “what lovely weather” could mean “what awful weather” under the circumstance that after taking the weather forecast’s advice, it was raining cats and dogs, Grice did not give explanation to how the hearer derives from the notion of lovely to awful, how the opposite of what literally said could give account to what could actually be meant by the speaker.

When examples are diversified, Griean account could not solve them all.

(4).A: John says he tops us all at football.

   B: I like his cheek.

    Clearly, what B said was not the truth, and he just said something that was not consistent to what A said and thus what B said was an unexpected utterance literally and a roundabout way of saying rhetorically, because no one would normally react modestly to brag and even reply as a compliment. B could simply say that he dislikes his cheek to make his original intention straightforward, so the problem is that Grice did not explain the reason why more effort had been caused while the utterances still made sense and even created more effect than their plain literal counterpart.

    The third problem is that not all the ironic utterances convey the opposite of their literal meanings.

(5) I will never be able to repay your help.

    This utterance carries irony in the situation that Peter promised to help Mary to move some of her heavy furniture to her new house, but Peter, who was this big and strong guy, just helped by carrying a clock downstairs to the chunk and was about to leave, then, Mary, who carried most of her furniture, moving by little space by every try, said (5) to Peter. Mary, conspicuously, said something she did not believe to be the truth and violated the maxim of quality, but whose words can not be seen as:

(6) I will be able to repay your help.

    Therefore, not all of the opposite meanings can be considered as the implications of their literal counterparts.

    According to the maxim of quality, Grice defined that by the violation of this maxim (do not say what you believe to be false) did irony be created. However, an example considered as follows will show the inadequacy:

A and B are rehearsing for A’s audition for a TV show:

(7) A: “No, we will not talk about this right now, I need to be alone and have a cigarette.” Then, he takes out a cigarette and is about to light, but he accidentally drops the cigarette and he seems really awkward.

   B: I think that is the reason why he wants to smoke alone.

    In this situation, what B says just reflects A’s embarrassment of trying to be cool in the atmosphere of acting his role but actually does something that is not consistent of his line, at which moment B just teases him and makes fun of his lapse. Whereas, what B says, in most situations, is right about one’s poor performance still needs to be practiced, either alone or with others, which is clear not blatantly false but ironic under the circumstances above.

Conclusion

    Verbal irony is used commonly in daily conversation and always chosen over its literal counterpart. While, with the development on theories of verbal irony, Sperber and Wilson (1990:56) claimed that it was not always the case that irony could be translated from the opposite point of view and raised several problems that arose from Grice’s theory in terms of how irony was understood theoretically, which was not always the falsity of utterances that built the effect of irony, according to Grice’s claim about the violation of the maxim of quality, and why it was still rational while utterances were not expressed in a more economical way which was the direct way of conveying meaning.