Article

"Analysing Irony for Translation" Raymond Chakhachiro

Meta: journal des traducteurs/ Meta: Translators' Journal, vol. 54, n 1, 2009, p. 32-48.

Pour citer cet article, utiliser l'information suivante :

URI: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/029792ar DOI: 10.7202/029792ar Note : les rgles d'criture des rfrences bibliographiques peuvent varier selon les diffrents domaines du savoir.

Ce document est protg par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'rudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter l'URI http://www.erudit.org/apropos/utilisation.html

rudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif compos de l'Universit de Montral, l'Universit Laval et l'Universit du Qubec
Montral. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. rudit offre des services d'dition numrique de documents scientifiques depuis 1998. Pour communiquer avec les responsables d'rudit : erudit@umontreal.ca

Document tlcharg le 12 dcembre 2012 06:54

AnalysingIronyforTranslation
raymond chakhachiro
University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia r.chakhachiro@uws.edu.au

RSUM

Cet article tudie pour la traduction et la traductologie lutilit des classifications et descriptions gnrales de lironie manant des domaines de la critique littraire, de la thorie littraire et de la pragmatique. Lauteur suggre que les critres philosophiques et gnriques adopts dans ces domaines ne peuvent tre appliqus lanalyse de lironie dans la traduction, bien que la traduction de lironie soit un procs dinterprtation et de reformulation crative. Cest le cas en particulier quand on essaie de rendre lironie dans deux langues aux typologies diffrentes, telles que langlais et larabe, dans un type textuel spcifique, comme le commentaire politique. La traduction de lironie exige une approche plus objective et applique susceptible didentifier les dispositifs formels et rhtoriques de lironie ; elle requiert, plus exactement, une analyse linguistique mme de mettre en relief, sur le plan de la phrase comme sur le plan du discours, la fonction communicative des textes dironie.
ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the question of whether the classifications and general descriptions of irony, as true as they may seem, are plausible enough for enquiries into areas such as translation. The generic and philosophical analysis criteria provided by the literary criticism, literary theory and pragmatic approaches hover around broad interpretive models of irony. These criteria are impractical for the analysis of irony for translation purposes, although the translation of irony relies essentially on interpretation and creative reformulation. This is particularly the case when dealing with typologically distant languages, such as Arabic and English, in a specific text-type. To be able to work with ironic texts there is a need for a more objective and applicable approach, which considers the identification of formal and rhetorical devices of ironic texts, hence a linguistic analysis that explains the communicative function of these devices at both the utterance and discourse structure levels.
MOTS- CLS/KEY WORDS

irony, stylistics, discourse, speech acts, cooperative principle

1. Introduction Itseemsanarduous,ifnotimpossibletasktotackletheanalysisandtranslationof ironyfromalinguisticperspective.Thelinguisticandculturaldifferencesbetween languagesreflectdiscrepanciesinthewayspeakersemployironytoexpressthemselves.Thisrendersthetranslationofironyaselusiveastheconceptofironyinitself andnotamenabletotraditionaltranslationtheories.Bothovertandcoverttranslations(House1977),formalanddynamicequivalences(Nida1964),andsemanticand communicativetranslations(Newmark1988)needtobeconsidered.Boththewriters deviant stylistic choices and the readers responses ought to be negotiated in the processandeachmilitatesagainsttheother.Ironicdevicesare,atthefunctionallevel,
Meta LIV, 1, 2009

analysing irony for translation



authoritativedevicesoftheoriginaltextthatmustbeequallycommunicated.However, thesubstantialformalchangesrequiredtoachievefunctionalequivalenceruntherisk ofobliteratingthesource-textwritersidiosyncraticstylisticmanipulation. Toaddressthisdilemma,areviewoftheconceptofironyinliterarytheoryand pragmaticstudieswillbeconductedandcluesofironicintentionsinEnglishand myotherlanguage,Arabic,willbeidentified.Relevantlinguisticandstylisticnotions arethenexploredforaworkableanalysisofironicdevicesfortheprocessoftranslation.Duetospacelimitation,asmallnumberofexamplesfrompoliticalcommentary texts (PCTs) in Arabic and English published in Australia will be discussed for illustration. 2. The concept of irony in literary theory and pragmatic studies To define irony in the context of this study, the distinction between irony, satire, sarcasm,witandhumourmustfirstbeestablished.Thethinlinebetweenironyand sarcasminPCTs,andtheheavyrelianceonexplicitirony,borderingonsarcasmis assumedtobeafunctionofthefreedomofspeechintheWest,andinthecaseof mostArabicPCTsinAustraliaduetoafeelingofalienationandhostility.Muir(1990) considersEnglishhumouravarietyofironythatrelatestotheEnglishculture,the environmentofafreesocietyandindividuality.HumourispartofArablifealso;one canalmostarguethathumourkepttheArabspiritgoinginthedarkestofrecent times. Arabs laugh at their misery, whether it stems from political oppression or economicdepression.MuirexplainsthatcertainformsofcomedyinEnglishshare withironyacorrectivepurpose.However,ironydiffersstrategicallyfromcomedy; theformerisreservedandameanstoanend,whilethelatterispublicandanend initself.Withwit,ironyshareslanguagesuchaspoeticreferences,paradoxesand puns.Thedefinitionofwit,asanuppersocialclassoffensiveweaponclassifiesitas oneofthedevicesofirony. Booth(1974:179n)believesthedistinctionbetweenirony,whichmustbeambiguous,andsatire,whichismakingaclearpoint,dependsentirelyononesdefinition. MueckesharesBoothsviews.Heseesnothingisgainedbyconfusingcorrectiveirony withsatire,whichneednotevenemployirony.(Muecke1969:28)Similarly,Booth statesthatonlyironythatimpliesavictimisironicsatire.Hearguesthatironyis usedinsomesatire,notinall;someironyissatiric,muchisnot.Andthesamedistinctionsholdforsarcasm.(1982:30)Mueckealsoconsidersthatironymayfunctionas aweaponinasatiricalattack(1982:3)whilesomesarcasmmerelyrepresentsforms ofirony,namely:thecrudestformofirony(1982:54),butonlywhentheostensible meaningisnottheintendedmeaning.Mueckesdefinitionofsarcasmrelatestothe toneinovertironywhichmaybeeithercongruouswiththerealmeaning,anditis thenthatwehavesarcasmorbitterirony,oranexaggerationofthetoneappropriate to the ostensible meaning, in which we speak of heavy irony. (1982: 54) [Emphasis in original] Gibbs (1994: 384) also considers sarcasm as an especially negativeformofirony.IronyinPCTsidentifieswithMueckes(1969:232-233)notion ofironyasameansrelatedtosatiric,heuristicandrhetoricalends.Inotherterms, ironicpurposesinPCTsaregiven:mainlykeepingpoliticianshonestandcalling foraction;whatisnot,isthemeans:thesignalsprovidedbythewritertoinducethe addresseetopresumethats/heovertlyspeaksfalsely.(Kauffeld2001:160)

3 Meta, LIV, 1, 2009

2.1. Irony in pragmatic studies Inowturntorecentpragmaticstudiesonthisrathercomplexdefinitionofironyfor linguistic insight relevant to the present topic. Attardo (2000: 814) argues that a principleofsmallestpossibledisruptionofGrices(1975)cooperativeprinciple(CP) isputtoworkwhenironyisemployed(SeediscussiononCPinsection3).Heexplains thatlimitingtheviolationofCPtothesmallestpossiblecontextmakestheviolations tolerableandfacilitatescommunication.(2000:815)Theexamplesbelowsupportthe ideaofminimalironicdevicestobuilddiscourse.SperberandWilson(1995:239) considerthattherelevanceofanironicalutteranceinvariablydepends,atleastin part, on the information it conveys about the speakers attitude to the opinion echoed.Thisbroadechoicmention(1995:passim)insight,i.e.,referentialproperty ofutterancestosomethingsaidorhappened,isvalidtocriticalanalysisofverbal ironyinPCTs. Gibbs (1994: 362) considers that the understanding of verbal irony requires sharedsensibilities[betweenthespeakerandthelistener]aboutthesubjectbeing referredto,andsuggestsanumberofdevicesthatsignalthepossibilityofironyin printtypographicalindices.HearguesforthenecessityofbreakingGrices(1975) truthfulnessmaximsandhavingacontextofsituation.Gibbs,AttardoandSperber andWilsondonotventure,however,intoadiscussiononthetypeandroleoflinguisticdevicesintheformulationandreceptionofironyortheinteractionbetween [the]utterance,thehearersaccessibleassumptionsandtheprincipleofrelevance requiredfortheinterpretationofutterances.(SperberandWilson1995:249) Hutcheon (1995) takes a closer look at the concept and makes an important contributiontotheanalysisofironybytakingaholisticapproachtotheinterpretationofironyingeneralterms,involvingtheinterpreterofironyasanagent(seealso Simpson(2004)below)andengaginghim/herinacomplicatedinterpretiveprocess thatincludesthemakingofmeaningandtheconstructionofsense,withreference toconflictualtextualorcontextualevidenceormarkerssociallyagreedupon.(1995: 11)Thesemarkersareactivatedbyadiscursivecommunity(1995:passim)whose interpretingexpectationsareafunctionoftheculture,languageandsocialcontext inwhichbothparticipants[theinterpreterandtheironist]interactwitheachother andwiththetextitself.(1995:91)Theauthormakesextensivereferencetotheuse ofmarkers,clues,signalsandtriggerssupplementedbyvariouslinguisticandcommunicationtheoriesandmaintainsthattheinteractionofthecontextwithdiscursive communityprovidesaframingthatmakessignals,suchas,quotationmarks,understatementandechoicmentionintomarkersofirony.(1995:153)Hutcheonrightly considersthatnolistsofironicmarkerscanbeprovidedgiventhatthefunctioning oflanguagecannotbeseparatedwithreferencetoanyabsolutecriterionofgrammar orvocabulary,(1995:154)andnotevennecessarilybyrelyingonviolationstoGrices (1975)conversationalmaxims.Shesuggeststhatcertainmarkersactastriggersby havingameta-ironic function,onethatsetsupaseriesofexpectationsthatframe theutteranceaspotentiallyironic.(1995:154)[Emphasisinoriginal]Interestingly, Hutcheonproposesasecondfunctionofmarkers,thatis,tosignalandindeedto structure the more specific context in which the said can brush up against some unsaidinsuchawaythatironyanditsedgecomeintobeing.(1995:154)Shehastens todoubt,however,thepotentialofthisstructuringfunctiontoleaddirectlytoa

analysing irony for translation

5

reconstructionofalatentandoppositeoreventruemeaning(1995:154),arguing thatmarkerssimplyacttomakeavailableboththerelational,inclusiveanddifferentialsemanticsandalsothatevaluativeedgethatcharacterizeironicmeaning. (1995: 154-155) Considering the text type at hand, a more assertive claim to Hutcheonsgeneralandcautiouspositiononthestructuringandinterpretivefunctionofironicmarkerscanbemadeontwoaccounts:1)allmarkersofironyinPCTs always contribute to cohesion as well as coherence, i.e., to text development and rhetoricalmeaning,respectively.Inotherterms,theyfunctionstructurallytoenable ironytohappeninsemanticandevaluativeterms(1995:156),and2)ironicmarkers mustrelyonidentifiablecontextofsituation.ThefunctionofPCTssimplysuggests thatacommentarywritercannotinfactaffordemployingambiguousironicremarks inthedevelopmentoftheirargumentwithrecoursetotheextremeofmakingapiece ofliteraryartoutoftheirarticle. 2.2. Irony in satire Simpsonalsoattemptstobuildageneralisedmodelofsatirethroughatextualbase thatisderivedlargelyfromBritishpopularsatire(2004:112),whichheclaimstobe amacrosocialmodelofsatire(2004:156-57).Headmits,however,thatthepotential forthegenericapplicationofhismodelscategoriesremainstobeproven.(2004: 112).Simpson,unhelpfully,considerssatireasironywithinironyandthatthelatter isthespacebetweenwhatismeantandwhatisasserted,(2004:91)andconsiders satireasamultilayeredmodeofhumorouscommunication(2004:43)(cf.definitions ofironyand satireabove) The authoragreeswithHutcheons(1995)holistic viewsinthatgettingthepointofsatirerequiresreachingamacro-resolutionfor thetextasawholeandnotjusttoreachaseriesoflocalisedresolutionsforindividual embedded jokes. (2004: 43) [Emphasis in original] Following Foucault, Simpson arguesthatironyfunctionsastheinfrastructureanddeterminantofthediscourse, (2004:83)andproposesforasatiricdiscoursetoholdathreedimensionalmodelin whichironyplaysamajorrole:theechoicprimeormention,whichconstitutesthe firstironicphase;thedialecticdimension,whichinvolvesanoppositionalirony (2004:passim);andthetextprocessingstage,theironyofconferral(2004:passim), whichinvolvesthesatiree.Theauthoradoptsphilosophicalconceptsthatdepartfrom establishedlinguisticandstylisticones,althoughthemodelisclaimedtobegrounded inlinguisticpragmatics(2004:66)andstylisticsintheprimephaseanddialectic dimension. See for example the mention of text-internal elements as textual evidenceforinferencing(2004:89-90),styleshiftandincongruenceastriggerof satiricalfooting(2004:103),requisitestylisticingredientsforsatiricalcomposition (2004:141and145),lexi-grammarfeaturesthatrealisesatire(2004:142),andthe interplay between pragmatic framing devices [and] textual design and discourse organisation(2005:166). Thisemphasisonstyle,structureandtextureisnotdeveloped,however,neither through the analyses of the symptomatic according to the analysts judgement (2004: 216) satirical excerpts taken mainly from Private Eye, the British satirical magazine,norwiththeprovisionoflinguisticexplanations,whichhingesonpuns inhumorousprose.Simpsonemploysasociopoliticalphilosophicalmodelonuniversalpragmaticstotrytoaccountforhisthirdironicphase:thesatiricaluptake

3 Meta, LIV, 1, 2009

(2004: 158), where the application of Grices (1975) seminal work on cooperative principleandHallidays(1994)functionaltheoryadequately,andmorepractically, coverhisthreevalidityclaims,eachofwhichhasanotherthreeinteractivepermutationsraising,recognisingandredeeming.(Simpson2004:163)Theauthorargues thatforsatiricalhumourtoworkrequiresultimatelythatironybeconferredonthe discourseeventbythesatiree,(2004:175)hencetheoveralldispositionofthesatireeintheparticipationframework.(2004:176)Participationisalsocoveredby Hallidays (1994) functional theory, and, more specifically, in stylistic/pragmatic analysis and translation models (e.g., Crystal and Davy 1969; House 1977). Other new terms covering ironic rhetorical devices (see below), described as discourse techniquesusedintheformationofadialecticcomponentinsatire(Simpson2004: 189),includesaturationandattenuationinsteadofthewelldocumentedoverstatement(hyperboleinrhetoric)andunderstatement(litotesinrhetoric). Simpsonsworkfallsintocomplexgeneralisationandhislinguisticandclaimed stylisticanalyses(2004:211,215and219)donotmaterialisedespitethemanynotions andtheoriesinvokedthroughouttheworktoframehismodel.Addtothis,theconfusioncreatedbydescribingironyasamethodortechniqueinsatiricaldiscourse (2004:53),althoughtheauthoradmitsthatironyhasanexistenceoutsidesatire,but aparticularlymilitantversionofitonecapableoftargetinganobjectofattack. (2004:52-53)[Emphasisinoriginal]Simpsonrealisesthelimitationofhismodeland thelackofrigorousanalysisitprovidesandquestionsitsvalidityandcomprehensivenesswhenhedescribeshisselectionofadiscourse-stylisticmodelasopentoquestion,addinginhisclosingremarkthatmorecognitiveormorecultural,oreven morepoliticalorientationintheframeworkofanalysiswouldhaveyieldeddifferent insightsandbeenmoretheoreticallysophisticated.(2004:219)ThisstudyisaddressingSimpsonsquestion. Fromatranslationstudystandpoint,theabovereview,inparticularofHutcheons (1995)andSimpsons(2004)works,clearlyindicatesthatrelevantnotionsonirony ingeneralandinPCTsinparticular(i.e.,militancyandobjectofattack),and,more importantly,thelinguisticrealisationoftheseliterarynotionshavenotbeentackled orconvincinglycovered. Modern linguistic translation theories commonly engage macrolinguistic approaches(e.g.,languagevariations:temporal,geographic,participation,socialrole relationships, discourse rhetorical functions), coupled with microlinguistic ones (namely, textual realisation: texture, structure, grammar and lexis). These models arederivedmainlyfromrigorousapplicationsofdisciplinessuchasdiscourse,text linguistics and stylistics (see section 2 below). On the other hand, the literary approachestotranslationaretraditionallyperceivedasunscientificgiventhattheir generalhypothesesarenotdeducedfromstudiesandempiricaldata(Delisle,1982). Thefollowingsectiondiscussestherelevanceandlimitationsofliteraryanalysisand theapplicationoflinguisticstotheinferencingandtranslationofironyinPCTs. 2.3. The contribution of literary analysis to the notion of irony Tothisend,Iturntotwomajorcontributorstotheliteraryanalysisoftheconcept ofirony,namely,Booth(1974)andMuecke(1969,1982).Boothclassifiesironyintwo forms:stableandunstable;eachisdividedintolocalandinfiniteontwolevels:covert

analysing irony for translation

7

andovert(1974:235).Stableironyinvolvestwosteps:theauthorsofferanunequivocalinvitationtoreconstructandthisreconstructionisnottobelaterundermined. (1974:233)Unstableirony,ontheotherhand,impliesthatnostablereconstruction canbemadeoutoftheruinsrevealedthroughtheirony.(1974:240)Boothcompares unstableironytoMueckesgeneralirony,whocallsitlifeitselforanygeneralaspect oflifeseenasfundamentallyandinescapablyanironicstateofaffairs.(Muecke1969: 120)Thispaperwillconcernitselfwillthestudyofthespecificirony:thecorrective andnormative(Muecke1969)andstableirony. SomeofthecluesBoothidentifiesinstableironyare:straightforwardwarning in titles, epigraphs, as well as parallelism and the juxtaposition of incompatibles; known error proclaimed using popular expressions, historical facts, conventional judgment;conflictsoffactswithinthework;clashesofstyle;andconflictsofbeliefs orillogicality. Muecke(1982)differentiatesbetweentwoclassesofirony:observableironyand instrumental irony. Instrumental irony is used when someone realises a purpose usinglanguageironically,whileobservableironycouldbeunintentionalandhence representableinart.Muecke(1969)distinguishesfourmodesofirony:impersonal, self-disparaging,ingnu(ingenuous)anddramatized,andgivesimpersonalironythe mostprominentplaceandclassification.Impersonalironyincludes:praisinginorder toblame;blaminginordertopraise;pretendedagreementwiththevictim(ofirony); pretendedadviceorencouragementtothevictim;therhetoricalquestion;pretended doubt; innuendo and insinuation; pretended error or ignorance; ambiguity; pretendedattackonthevictimsopponent;andstylisticallysignalledirony. Arabicliterarytheoristshavenotgiventhesamecomprehensiveaccountofirony astheirEnglishcounterparts.However,manyreviewsoftheliterarycriticismtheory of ancient Arab writers such as Al-Jahiz and Ibn al-Muqaffa tackled the concept of irony in their style of writing. Mruwwah (1986) describes some of the tactics usedbyAl-Jahizasfollows:personificationoftheabstract,symbolism,exaggeration, irony displayed and insinuation. Al-Jahiz uses two modes of irony: ingnu and impersonal. VariouscontemporaryArabwriters,poetsandplaywrightsalsouseironyasa tooltoconveyamessage,concealanopinionorsimplytodelightthereaderorthe audience. For example, Gibran Khalil Gibran uses antithesis, contrasting ideas, metaphors,synonymy,rhetoricalquestionsandparallelstructure.TheSyrianplaywrightMuhammadAl-Magoutusescontrasts,punsandculturalexpressions. ItisnoteworthythattheArabicliterarycriticismtheoryincludesmanyofthe conceptsdescribedbyMuecke(1969,1982)andBooth(1974)asironictools,albeit withoutaparticularreferencetoirony,suchas,praisinginordertoblameandblaminginordertopraise. To sum up, the above discussion raises three main issues that need to be addressed:1)thelimitationsofuniversalinterpretivemodelsandgeneralstrategies inassistingtheanalysisofironyingeneralandfortranslationpurposesinparticular; 2)theneedforpracticallinguisticcriteriatoassistinidentifyingandassessingironic devicesandtheirinteractionwiththeimmediatecontextualmeaningandoverall message.Thesedevicesareanalysableandsomearepredictableandevenreplicable as they become institutionalised. This agrees with Ballys (1952) claim that many expressive signs become socialised, and questions Hutcheons generalisation that

3 Meta, LIV, 1, 2009

nothingisanironysignalinandofitself;(1995:159)and3)theissuerelatedtothe translatorsdualroleasareceptorandreproducerofsuchacomplexstylistictool. Furthermore,theabovereviewedliteraturehighlightstheimportanceofsurface realisationofirony,albeitunderdifferentguises:clues,markers,signalstonamea few,andemphasisestheroleofironicdevices,fortheidentification,inferencingand structuringofmessages.Now,giventhetaskoftranslatingthesetext-/message-building devices, it is logical for this endeavour to invoke theoretical frameworks that address stylisticmanipulation oflinguisticandrhetoricaldevices, forinsightthat impactsonlocalisedanddiscursivemeaning.Translatingis,ipso facto,acontrastive stylisticexercise,inwhichasourcetextis(oughttobe)contrasted,atallitsstructural andtexturallevels,witha(supposedly)ideal,parallel(yettomaterialise)targettext. Therefore,amicro-macroapproachoughttobeadoptedduetothefactthatthestarting point in the process of analysing irony in PCTs (the main ingredient for the formulationofmessage)isitsstylisticfeatureswithdueconsiderationtocontextual andintertextualdimensions,whilethetranslationofironyinthesetexts(thepossiblestrategieswithwhichthemessagecanbecommunicatedintothetargetlanguage)startsfromtheanalysedmessagebutultimatelyaspirestoachieveastylistic equivalent. 3. A multi-disciplinary approach to ironic inferencing through stylistic manipulation Taylor(1981)arguesthatstyliticiansusethemethodologyoflinguisticanalysisbut theybegintheiranalysisfromageneralnotionofthefunctionoflanguageincommunicationtosetupthecriteriabywhichtheremaybeaparticularstylisticfunction. Bydiscussingpoetryingeneral,Widdowson(1975)arguesthattheviolationofformalstructuresofthelanguage,whetherintheuseofmetaphorsortheodditiesof theuseofgrammar,isevidenceoftheneedforstylisticanalysistostudythemeaninginliteraryworks.Widdowsonseestheliterarydiscourseasthelinkoftheunderstandingofwhataworkmeanstotheunderstandingofhowitcommunicates. Giventheclassificationofironyinliterature,andtoaccountfornotionsinthe literatureonirony,suchas,misrepresentation,pretendedadviceandeuphemism,the focuswillbedirectedtolinguistictheorieswhichaddresstheanalysisofthewritten languagefromasocialinteractionangle,ordiscourse.SinclairandCoulthard(1975: 13)considerthatindiscoursethecentralleveloflanguagefunctionisthelevelof thefunctionofaparticularutterance,inaparticularsocialsituationandataparticularplaceinasequence,asaspecificcontributiontoadevelopingdiscourse. Particularutterancesencompass(andcanreferto)formalstylisticdevices,while particularsocialsituationsdenoteEnkvists(1964)contextualrestraints,andlastly, theparticularplaceinasequenceindicatestheroleofformalstylisticdevicesintext development (Hatim 1989; Hatim and Mason 1990; Saaddedin 1989) and in the processofarrangementofformandcontent(Nida1990:146-149).Viewingdiscourse fromthisanglewecanassumethatadiscursivefunctionalanalysisisthreedimensional:stylistic,sociolinguisticandrhetorical. Hallidaystheoryofthefunctionsoflanguages(1994)relatestotheabovethree dimensions. The ideational function constructs a model of experience and logical relations;itimpliesthatwemustrefertoourexperienceoftherealworldtoencode

analysing irony for translation

9

anddecodemeaning.Theinterpersonalfunctionenactssocialrelationships;itrepresentsaprogressionfromthesemanticmeaningtothepragmaticone,totextasa communicativeintercoursevehicle.Thetextualfunctioncreatesrelevancetocontext throughgrammaticalfeatures,texture,structureandgenericfeaturesofthetext. LetustrytoapplyHallidays(1994)functionalmodeltotheanalysisoftheArabic rhetoricaldevice :/ madeusdizzy,inthefollowingutterance:

Example 1

Literal translation: The West has deafened our ears and made us dizzy by its abundant talk about democracies

Theideationalfunctionoftheverb /tomakedizzystemsfromthefollowing transformation:itisafeelingthatonegetswhenaphysicalmalfunctioninthebrain occursasaresultofsicknessormalnutrition,fatigue,seasicknessetc.Inthecontext ofthisarticleandbearinginmindthefieldofthediscourse,anotherexplanation must be considered, that is the metaphorical use. We know that Arabic speakers, unlikeEnglishspeakers,usepartsofthebody(cf.deafenedourears)andphysical sensesasmetaphorsforemphasis.Weknowalsothat,inpolitics,theWestisanother metaphorthat,intherealworld,representstheideologies,leaders,mediaandpeople oftheWestingeneralandnotaspecificgeographicalpartoftheworld.Thus, / madeusdizzyreferstotheeffectofthedailyWesternpompousarrogance,inregard toitsdemocracies,onusfeelinguneasy.Simply,thiswordseemstorepresentour realworldasitisapprehendedinourexperience.Thus,theunderlyingmeaningthat wededuceislikelytobewearetiredofhearingbecausewearehearingitallthe time. Thenextstepinthecomprehensionoftheutteranceistoconsiderthewordfrom itsfunctionintheprocessofsocialinteractionasamodeofdoing,theinterpersonal function.ByassumingthatweisexclusivesinceitreferstotheArabsingeneraland Muslimsinparticular,andthathereferstothem,theWesternpeopleandtheir views,andbyreferencetotheexperientialmeaningof /tomakedizzyasinterpretedabove,thenlastlybylookingattheutteranceasaconversationbetweenan addresserandaddresseeswecansuggestthatthemeaningisWerejectandobject toyour,i.e.,theWestern,claimofbeingthecustodianofdemocracyintheworld. Thefinalaspectofmeaningisthetextualmeaningoftheword.Thethematic organisationoftheutterance,touseHallidays(1994)term,impliesthatthespeech functionof /madeusdizzyisthematic,announcingtherejectionoftheclaim andpreparingthegroundforarebuttal(HatimandMason1990)whichisafeature of commentary writing. Furthermore, the use of the colloquial/standard verb /tomakedizzyisatonemarkerofthespeechthatexertsonusanexaggerated illogicalimpactandgivesanexplicitindicationofapotentialironicintention. We can, tentatively, deduce from the discussion of the example above and in conjunctionwiththethreedimensionaldiscoursefunctionsmentioned,aninterpretivediagramforironicdevicesinPCTs:

0 Meta, LIV, 1, 2009

Figure 1 Three dimensional discourse function
SITUATIONAL Field = Tenor = Mode = DISCURSIVEFUNCTION ideational,experienceoftheworld,culture interpersonal,socialrelationship,pragmatic textual = = = CONTEXT stylistic sociolinguistic rhetorical

However,westillneedtoexplainthereason / madeusdizzycanbelabelled asanironicrhetoricaldevice,andhowonewordcanaltertheconceptualmeaning ofanutterancegivingitthetruemeaningthatithas. Fowler(1981)arguesthatAustinsspeechacttheory(1975)caninitiateaformal explanation of our recognition of the force of devices. In the above example, the felicity condition, i.e., the requirement of a normal communicative channel was broken(cf.discussiononindirectspeechactsandGricesmaximsbelow),whenwe encounteredthecolloquial/standard :/madeusdizzy usedinametaphoric senseinwriting.IfweconsiderthisastepfurtherinlinewithFowlersargument thatliterarydiscoursehasmarkedandunmarkedillocutionarydeterminants,the unmarked illocution would be I state that the West has made us sick by telling us,whilethemarkedillocutionaryactwouldbewearetiredoftheWesttelling us.ThisalsocouldbeunderstoodinthecontextofthecommentarysargumentativetexttypeasarejectiontotheWestsclaim. InFowler(1981),twocoincidentaloverlapscometolight:1)thattheillocutionaryactsparallelEnkvists(1964)contextualmeaning.Bothsharetheviewthatatext hasformalandexplicitelementsthatdeterminetextcomprehension,suchas,theuse ofpronounsandmodality,andrhetoricalandimplicitelements,forexample,repetition,metonymyandparallelstructure.2)Althoughdiscourseandstylisticstreattexts from a pragmatic standpoint, discourse, unlike stylistics, emphasises the interactionalfeaturesoftexts,thatis,socialrolerelationships,participationandpointof view.Inotherwords,althoughstylisticsisabletoexplicitlyshowthesignificanceof thelinguisticelementsinthetexts,itlackstheprecisiontoexplain,againlinguistically,whypartsoftheliterarystyleordiscoursethatweencounterareperceivedas ironic.Discourse,followingFowler(1981:88),isconcernednotonlywiththeexact correctnessoftheparaphrase,butratherwiththeroutebywhichwearriveatit,and, further, with the consequences of this route for our perception of illocutionary structure.[Myemphasis]Basedonthisassumption,letusapplythispointofview tothefollowingunderstatement: /thepoorSalmanRushdieinthe followingutteranceinanArabiccommentarytext:
Example 2

Literal translation: The West made every effort it has, through its press, its broadcastings, its ambassadors and ministers, to talk, defend, communicate and argue in defence of the poor Salman Rushdie, who is threatened by the barbaric and backward Muslims, just because he wrote a book in which he expresses his opinion!!

analysing irony for translation

41

Accordingtostylistics,initsrestrictedcontext,(Fowler1981)theadjectivepooris a mark of irony, based on an impressionistic, behaviouristic view. However, communicatively, we can predict the utterances double meaning from the semantic meaning of poor against other devices in the immediate context (the other two ironicdevicesintheutterance:theselfdisparagingbarbaricMuslimsandtheoverstatementusingarunonofnounsandverbspressdefence).Further,theironic meaningofpoorisevokedfromtheprecedinglineofargumentintheutterance, wheretheWestisdepictedasheroicinitsrelentlessdefenceofthefreedomofspeech, withRushdiesymbolisingthatfreedom.Textually,poorconstitutesasigninoneof twocontradictorytextualsetsofsequences:1)thepretendedattackonthevictims (ofirony)opponents(Muslims)inthebattleforfreedomofspeechwagedbytheWest intheaboveexample;2)thethesisintheintroduction,whichexplicitlystatesthe writersopposingopinionabouttheWestsclaimofbeingthecustodianofdemocracy (example 1 above is part of that thesis). This lexical/ textual analysis, ultimately, favourstheillocutionaryforcethatRushdieisavictimofWesterndemocracyrather thanthesemanticmeaningRushdieisavictimoftheoppressivenatureofIslam. 3.1. Contribution of speech acts theory and cooperative principle to the interpretation of irony Assumingthatironyisnotliabletodirectinterpretationwithreferencetopropositionalmeanings,asdemonstratedbytheexamplesabove,Searlesindirectspeechact (e.g., performing blaming with praise), that is, the real illocutionary force of the utterance, claim solution to the problem. Coulthard (1985), however, suggests the needtolimitthenumberofwaysagivenindirectspeechactismadethroughreferencetoreality,theconstraintsofthesituationandthecurrentspeakersintentions for the progress of the succeeding discourse. (1985: 30) Although this limitation process reduces the choice of interpretation, it requires, according to Coulthard, anassociatedtheorytoexplainhowalistenercomestorejectthedirectinterpretationandselecttheindirectone(1985:30).HeproposesGrices(1975)conversational maximsasthenormsaccordingtowhichwecanscreenutterancesandestablishtheir realinferences. Writtendiscourseisatwo-wayinteraction,inwhichwriterscontinuouslymembership(Coulthard1985)theirreaderstoavoidmisinterpretation.IronyinPCTs, whichis,intherestrictedsense,aformoflinguisticambiguity,hasbecomeawellestablishedcolourfulformofwritinginthepress.Thistypologicalframingseems, prima facie,tosuggestoneeasysolutiontoadiscourseanalysisapproach.Coulthard (1985:44)arguesthatknowingthepossibleparametersofthespeechevent,thatis, the participants, situation and style gives the analyst great ability of expectancy. Havingsaidthat,weareleftwithastylisticproblemofirony,namely,theunlimited idiosyncraticanddeviant(indirect)wayswithwhichcommentarywritersuseirony toachievetheirrhetoricalendsbetheycomic,moral,correctiveand/orhortatory through textual, grammatical, lexical and graphological (see Gibbs 1994: 379) manipulation. Thisnormativedeviance,hencedifficulty,inclassifyingironicstrategiestangibly andobjectively,suggestinterpretiveproblems,stemmingfromtheopennessofthe discourse acts, the realisations of which cannot be closely specified (Coulthard

 Meta, LIV, 1, 2009

1985).Searleapproachesthislackoffitbetweengrammaranddiscourse,ingeneral, through the above mentioned indirect speech acts, while Sinclair and Coulthard (1975)suggestasociocultural-structuralapproachbasedonatwostageinterpretive processaboutinformationrelatedtosituationandtactics.However,theauthors (1975:29)arguethatclassification[oftheillocutionaryforceofitems]canonlybe madeofitemsalreadytaggedwithfeaturesfromgrammarandsituation.Coulthard (1985) gives an example of the application of this hypothesis to the interrogative grammaticalcategoryandsuggestsinterpretiverulesaccordingtosituationalcategories.Theserules,theauthoradmits,relyoninferencingbylisteners[/readers]and onappealtosharedworldknowledge.(1985:132) SinclairandCoulthards(1975)settingofsuccessfuldiscourserulesisplausible for an analysis of sanitised texts/speeches. However, suggesting the possibility of devisingrulesforgrammaticalcategoriesinmultifariousnaturallanguagesituations, inironicwritinginparticular,and,ultimately,tomakeuseoftheserulestointerpret ambiguities, is obviously unachievable, simply because of the unpredictable variabilityofsituationsandopenstylisticidiosyncrasies. This circular argument begs a few questions. How can readers infer writers intentionswithouthavingtoresorttoacomplicatedanalysisprocess?Putdifferently, isthisthenaturalprocessinterlocutors,writtenororal,followwhentheyattemptto produce or infer irony? For example, when an Arabic writer uses the expression /Napoleonicinformation,inthefollowingutterance:
Example 

Literal translation: It seems that Mr Morgans Napoleonic information is at the level of his mines, that is, below the ground

1)theyareexpressingaviewaboutsomeone,2)theyhavechosentouseanindirect styleofattack,and3)theyare,moreorless,disassociatingthemselvesfromtheview expressed(HatimandMason1990:98-99).Thewriterhereischarginghisutterance withanunusualqualifier:Napoleonicwhich,theyassumewillhaveimpactandwill beunderstoodasexaggeration.Hence,thetruth-valuerestsinthereverseofwhatis said.TheArabicreader,ontheotherhand,mustalsosharethewritersstrategicand linguisticcompetence,hence,inferencetheoriespresupposeadegreeofcompetence thewriterandreader(cf.Hutcheons(1995)discursivecommunity)musthavefor thesuccessofdiscourse.Thereader,however,firstobserves,tousemyexampleabove, theoddity(againviolatingthefelicitycondition)ofthecollocation:/infor/reliable,etc. mation,whichinArabic,normallycollocateswith/secret; Secondly, they deduce the pragmatic meaning of the adjective Napoleonic, anaphorically,fromthepreviousutterance,wherethewriterindirectlyemploysthesame terminology(oritsderivation)thevictimoftheirony(thesubjectoftheattackinthe article)usedinanearlierstatement(cf.SperberandWilsons(1995)echoicmention. Loathingsomeoneusingtheirownwords,isastrategytoprotectonesviewsabout thisperson.Thisstrategyisquitecommoninoureverydayconversationsbetween friends or more formally when we deviously or amusingly talk about someone absent. Thefollowingdiagramshowsabi-directionaltextproduction/inferencingprocessoftheutteranceanalysedabove:

analysing irony for translation Figure 2 Bi-directional text production/inferencing

Writer> Intentions(views,attitude)> assumptionsaboutthereaders> <assumptionsaboutthewriter stylisticchoice <Reader

4

Griceswork(1975)hadagreatimpactonthephilosophical/pragmaticapplication tolanguageanalysis,usingmaximsthatarewriter/reader-oriented.Theyclaimmore universality than the speech acts, but are also based on inferencing and shared knowledge.Griceanconversationalmaximshavebeenthefocusofattentionofmany discussions,albeitgeneral,onirony(e.g.,SperberandWilson1995;Attardo2000; HatimandMason1990,1997;Kauffeld2001;Hutcheon1995). The co-operative principle which accounts for Grices (1975) conversational implicatureisspelledoutbyfourmaxims,namely:
quantity(aspeakershouldgivetheappropriatequantityofinformation); quality(informationgivenshouldbecorrectortruthful); manner(expressionsshouldbeclear,non-ambiguous,briefandorderly);and relation(aspeakershouldmaintainrelevancetothesubjectmatterandregister).

Althoughironyinallitsforms,ipso factofloutsthemaximofmanner,onaccount ofthepresupposedindirectness,inEnglishatleast,bythefactthatwritersostensible meaning contradicts their intended one, still, the cooperative principle has usefulapplicationtotheanalysisofirony. 3.2. The utility of Grices cooperative principle to the translation of irony Grices(1975)maximsrepresentthematricesaccordingtowhichonecanaccount forambiguitiesinconversation.FollowingCoulthard(1985:31),thesemaximsdo notrepresentadescriptivestatementofhowconversationalcontributionsare,and speakersandwritersviolatethemoftenforavarietyofpurposes.Givingthisandthe infinitepossibilitiesofinfringements,itisnecessarytoconsidertheviolationsthat arelikelytooccurinironiccommentarywritingtobepromptedbystylisticdevices forspecificrhetoricalpurposeinaspecifictexttype.Hence,thereisneedtodefine thesespecificviolations.Bearinginmindthatknowledgeofthespeechevent,that is,thetypeofthediscourseathand,isapreconditiontotheassumptionthatirony islikelytobeemployed.Weknowthateditorialsdealwithcurrentaffairs:political, economic,socialetc.,andthateditorialwriterswantingtoexpresstheirviewson theseissuesmaybemotivated(institutionallyorpersonally),opinionatedandanalytical,targetingareadershipwhichmightsharetheirexpectations,inclinationsand judgements.Moreover,boththereaderandthewritersharethestylisticfeaturesand normsofcommentarytextwriting:lengthoftext,structuralandtexturalargumentativestrategies,theimplicit,detachedandnon-committalcriticism,thecorrective, hortatorymessagegivenbetweenthelines,thecolourfuluseofironytogetthemessageacrossinanimplicit,conciseandrhetoricalmanner(seealsoHutcheon[1995: 18] on markers implicitness and shared context), to name a few of the strategies commonlyusedinthisformofwriting. This prior knowledge or expectation of the speech event plays a crucial role in identifying violations of Grices (1975) maxims encountered in editorials and

 Meta, LIV, 1, 2009

backgroundfeaturesasironicdevicesandnotasmererhetoricalstylisticdevicesof argumentativetextsingeneral.Inotherterms,distinctionhastobemadebetween ironyinaspecifictext-typeandironyinliteratureingeneral.Muecke(1996;1982) andBooth(1974)aswellasGrice(1975)focusonthegeneralconceptofironyand conversational norm breaching, respectively. Take the following expression using conditionandcontrastfromacommentary:
Example 4

Still, if nothing else, these extra challenges* should raise Faheys profile.
[* Extra challenges refer here to the tasks of implementing a suspicious report by a Royal Commissionintosomebuildingindustry,aimingatdestroyingthepoweroftheindustrysunion, andappointingFaheyasaHousingMinistertoclearupthemessofaHomefundscheme.]

This expression is considered ironic given the setting and its contribution to the utterancesroleasastructuralsign,i.e.,substantiatingtheironicthesisoftheargumentintheintroductionofthearticlebelow:
WHEN you are in trouble, one of the golden rules of politics is to call for a report. It is an almost failsafe way of defusing an issue. The only exception to this rule is when you are in deep, deep, deep trouble, in which case never call for a report because it may reveal the truth.

Theutteranceinexample4isconsideredaviolationofthemaximofquality,consistentwiththepretendedadvicetothevictimstrategyinthethesis:onceFahey[a Premiershiphopeful]becomesinvolvedinclearingupthemessoftheHomefund schemeandgiventhatheisknownasamanofreports,thatis,anissuedefuser,his handlingoftheissuewillnotonlyeasethepressureoffthePremiersGovernment, but,ironically,willalsoboostFaheysimageattheelectoratepoll. Thisclearlyshowsthatmaximfloutingstrategycanserveasatriggerofirony. The real interpretation, however, involves considering this strategy in correlation withitscontextof situation, including theenvironment(political,social etc.),the usageofthelanguageinventoryandrules,andthetexttypeconvention(Hatimand Mason1990:48):grammar,lexis,texture,structureandstyle. Theinterpretationofexample4stemsfromthelinguisticfeatureoftheutterance, whichemploysaconditionifandimpliedcontrasteven.Themeaningofevenif isconveyedbyifatleast.Theformulaichabitualnatureoftheutterancehasan experientialfunction.Interpersonally,thereisanembeddedopiniongivenitstextual functionasacohesivedevicewithanexophoricreference.Theimpliedevenifnothing else at least, gives the utterance its inference:Fahey is assignedthe job of cleaningthemess,andhewillbenefitfromitintheopinionpolls! AsuggestedtranslationintoArabiccanbeprocessedasfollows:
Backtranslation: And what adds insult to injury is that all of these extra challenges that Fahey will be charged with, will raise his popularity [literally: shares].

Theironicdeviceusedtoinstigateimplicitdoubtanddismayoftheoutcomeinthe Englishtextwithreferencetoaviolationofaconversationalmaxim,hasnolinguisticequivalentinArabic.Thesuggestedsubstitute,however,providesanexplicitdoubt anddisapprovalintoArabicthroughahandyfixedexpressioncommonlyusedin

analysing irony for translation

45

politicalcommentaries.Theexperientialandinterpersonalfunctionsoftheexpressionandtheutteranceprovidetheinference,withouttheneedtoinvokethecooperativeprinciple.Othertranslationsthatwarrantscreeningagainstthecooperative principlemaybesuggested,e.g.,/thebeautyofitisthat Belowisanotherexamplehighlightingtheimportanceofstyle,structure,context ofsituationandconversationalmaximsinarrivingataplausibleironicinferenceand anequivalentinthetargetlanguage.

Example 5

Collins* is an expert, in fact the champion, of avoiding trouble in the Greiner Government. Mud? He doesnt even know what it is, and if he did, hes had it dry-cleaned before anybody else saw it.
*[a former minister in the State of New South Wales, Australia]

Therearethreeironicdevicesintheabovetwoutterances:1)expertandchampion: arhetorical/lexicaldevicefeaturingapraiseinordertoblame,realisedbynear-synonymy;2)mud?:arhetorical/grammatical device,realisedbyrhetoricalquestion andreference;and3)ametaphorrealisedlexico-grammaticallybythecompound adjectivedry-cleaned.Thenearsynonymyexpertandchampionisanoverstatementwithchampioncallingonthereadersexperienceofitsconnotativemeaning: the best, which is also in textual contrast with the subsequent adjective trouble avoidance.Thisdevicegivesrisetotheviolationofthemaximofqualityandirony. Mudalsohasanevaluativeandironiceffect,giventhecombinationofitsconnotative meaning and the question mark. Also, the rhetorical question Mud? is an anaphoric reference to political troubles in the text and has experiential function becauseofitsexophoricreferencetocurrentaffairsandcommonusageasadefamatory gossip, respectively. The use of the question form imparts an interpersonal function:thewriterontheonehandissubstantiatinghisthesisbywayofarhetoricalquestionandontheotherhandactivatingtheparticipationofthereaders,that is,byasking:doyouthinkmudisaffectinghim[Collins]?Textually,Mudisacohesivedeviceofthemainthemetrouble,scandals,landminesinthetext.Thelittle information the word is explicitly expressing infers a violation to the maxim of quantity.Theverbalisationofthecompounddry-cleanedanditscataphoricreferencetomud,impartaninnuendo,henceaviolationofthemaximofmannerand irony. CommunicatingtheabovedevicesintoArabicrequiresanumberofadjustments. Forexpert/thechampion,agrammaticalchangeiswarrantedfromthesingularto pluraltogivethesenseofexaggerationandtoevokethedoublemeaningofconman, whichalsocompensateforthelossofthefunctionalmeaningofthedefinitearticle inthechampionusedasanemphaticmarkerinEnglish.Structurally,thecoordinatingconjunctioninfactprecededbyacommatoembedthecoordinateconstruction infactthechampion,willhavetobesubstitutedbytheequivalentinmeaningbut informbothmeaningorrather.Thesecondandthirddevicescan bemergedinArabic.Mudsculture-specificmeaningnecessitatesasubstitutewitha politicalcorrespondingmeaning,e.g., /stickysituations[literally:pitfalls],which warrants,structurallyandlexically,achangetothemetaphoriccompounddry-cleaned (restrictedtoscienceinArabic)intheanswer.Thecompoundcanbecompensated bytheevokedmeaningofacommonidiomaticexpression /he

 Meta, LIV, 1, 2009

gotout[ofit]asahairfromthedough,aprobablecollocateto/stickysituationsinpoliticaldiscourse,henceitcallsonthemutualsharedexperiencebetween writer/readerinArabicargumentativetexts(Atari1994).Aesthetically,thesentence boundaryhastobeextended,bytheintroductionoftheexplicitcausative/:for, substantiating the thesis Collins is known as. As a result, the question/answer reads as a direct statement but with similar utterance and discursive functions: Collinsiscorruptandanexpertinconcealinghistrouble,butcommunicatingirony usingtheexpectedpluralforexaggerationandpraiseinordertoblameclich:toget outoflikeahairfromthedough.TheArabicrunsasfollows:

Backtranslation: Collins is known as one of the experts, or rather one of the champions of evading scandals in the Greiner Government, for he gets out of sticky situations like a hair from the dough before anybody knows it.

Theaboveanalysesanddiscussiononthetranslationofironicdevicesconsiderthe factthatthereadersreactionstoformsoflanguagearebasedonexpectations,includingtheviolationsofsuchexpectationsoremotivemeanings.(cf.Nida1975)These violationsencompasslanguage,styleandstructure,aswellaslogic,hencegobeyond theconsensusamongEnglishscholarsonironyaboutthesignificantrolestyleand contextplaytoencodeanddecodeirony,withreferencetophilosophicalinterpretationofironythatmarvelsironyasaliteraryphenomenonbeyondlinguisticexplanation.Ontheotherhand,thereareconflictingviewsamongvariousapproachesto irony,beitliterary,pragmaticorpsycholinguistic,abouttheextenttowhichGriceans conversational maxims contribute to the making and perception of irony. For example,SperberandWilson(1995)considerthatironyinfringesallmaxims,while Hutcheon(1995:154)positsthatonecannotevenarguethataviolationofGrices (1975)conversationalmaximswillnecessarilyresultinironyratherthanconfusion. The discussion on the examples above supports Hutcheons (1995) position with regardtoironyinArabicbutnotEnglishcommentarytexts.Ironyincommentary writinginArabictendstobeexplicitifthenewspaperorthejournalenjoysarelativelyfreeenvironment,e.g.,inAustralia,whichgiveswritersasomewhatfreereign touseexplicitironyborderingonsarcasm.Englishcommentatorsbycontrastmaintain conventional strategies that delight the reader but at the same time call for analysisandreadingbetweenthelines. The theory of inference proves to be a plausible ground for the analysis and translationofironyinpoliticalcommentarytexts(seediscussiononamodeland strategiesforthetranslationofironyinPCTs(Chakhachiro2007).Thespeechacts theoryprovidesamodelthatinformstheillocutionaryforceortheironicmeaning ofutterancesandtheirdiscursiverhetoricalfunction,withreferencetoironicdevices identifiedassuchthroughtheirlinguisticandstylisticpropertiesandtheirconversationalstrategiesbasedonGricescooperativeprinciple,whereapplicable. 4. Conclusion Thispaperhighlightstheindispensabilityofresortingtoahybridoflinguisticand sub-linguistictheories,namely:stylistics,functional,speechacts,logicandconver-

analysing irony for translation

47

sation and discourse, for the analysis of irony in political commentary texts for translationpurposes.Stylisticsaccountsfortheformtheironictextproducerselect toconveymessages;thefunctionaltheoryconsidersstyle(andlanguageingeneral) asasystematicresourceforexpressingmeaningincontext;modernstyliticianshave combinedtheabovetwonotionssuggestingaspecificfunctiontoeachstylisticchoice basedonsocialandculturalpatterns,thusdirectingthespotlighttothecontextof situation.Thetheoriesofspeechactsandconversationtakeusbeyondthewords, text,functionandcontexttoaphilosophicalworldwherecertainrulesaresettoinfer themeaningofwhatisbeingsaid.Feedingfromvariousdisciplines,formandfunctionremainthefocalpointintheanalysisandtranslationofirony. Thisemphasisestheneedtodevelopasystematicbilingualcompetenceofreceptionandproductionofironyingeneralandinspecifictext-types,inordertomake plausiblechoiceswithreferencetoappropriatetranslationstrategiesofthelinguistic manipulationinherentinironictexts.Thechallengeisthatalthoughpoliticalcommentarytextsemployingironyareconstrainedbycontextsofsituationsandstylistic conventions,themargin,ontheacceptabilitycontinuum,forindividualtranslation preferencedecisions(Nord1994:66)isoftenlargeandrequiresdisciplinedanalyses andhighproficiencyinthetargetlanguagestylisticconventions.
REFERENCES

Atari,O.F.(1994):Theplaceofcommunicativestrategiesintranslating,Babel40-2,pp.6576. Attardo,S.(2000):Ironyasrelevantinappropriateness,Journal of Pragmatics32,pp.793826. Austin, J. L. (1962/1975): How to do Things with Words, Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Bally,Ch.(1952):Le langage et la vie,Genve/Lille,DrozetGiard. Booth,W.C.(1974):A Rhetoric of Irony,Chicago,UniversityofChicagoPress. Chakhachiro,R.(2007):TranslatingironyinpoliticalcommentarytextsfromEnglishinto Arabic,Babel53-3,pp.216-240. Coulthard,M.(1985):An Introduction to Discourse Analysis,London,Longman. Crystal,D.andD.Davy(1969):Investigating English Style,London,Longman. Delisle, J. (1982): Lanalyse du discours comme mthode de traduction, in Cahiers de tra ductologie 2,Ottawa,UniversityofOttawaPress. Enkvist,N.E.(1964):Ondefiningstyle:anessayinappliedlinguistics,inSpencer,J.(ed.), Linguistics and Style,London,OxfordUniversityPress. Fowler,R.(1981):Literature as Social Discourse: The Practice of Linguistic Criticism,London, BatsfordAcademicandEducationalLTD. Gibbs,R.W.(1994):The Poetics of Mind, Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding,New York,CambridgeUniversityPress. Grice,P.H.(1975):Logicandconversation,inCole,P.andJ.L.Morgan(eds),Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts,NewYork,AcademicPress,pp.41-58. Halliday,M.A.K.(1994):AnIntroduction to Functional Grammar,London,EdwardArnold. Hatim, B. (1989): Argumentative style across cultures: Linguistic form as the realization of rhetoricalfunction,inBabel:The Cultural and Linguistic Barriers Between Nations,FarmersHall,Aberdeen,AberdeenUniversityPress,pp.25-32. Hatim,B.andI.Mason(1990):Discourse and the Translator,London,Longman. Hatim, B. and I. Mason (1997): The Translator as Communicator, London/New York, Routledge. House,J.(1977):A Model for Translation Quality Assessment,Tbingen,TL-VerlagNarr.

 Meta, LIV, 1, 2009

Hutcheon, L. (1995): Ironys Edge: The Theory and Politics of Irony, London and New York, Routledge. Kauffeld, F. J. (2001): Argumentation, discourse, and the rationality underlying Grices analysisofutterance-meaning,inEniko,N.T(ed.),Cognition in Language Use: Selected Papers from the 7th International PragmaticsConference1,pp.149-163. Mruwwah,H.(1986):Turathuna kayfa narifuhu,Beirut,muassasatal-abhathal-arabiyya. Muecke,D.C.(1969):The Compass of Irony,London,Methuen. Muecke,D.C.(1982):Irony and the Ironist,London,Methuen. Muir,F.(1990):The Oxford Book of Humorous Prose, From William Caxton to P.G. Wodehouse, Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress. Newmark,P.(1988):A Textbook of Translation,UK,PrenticeHallInternational. Nida, E. A. (1964): Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating,Leiden,E.J.Brill. Nida,E.A.(1975):Exploring Semantic Structures,Mnchen,Fink. Nida,E.A.(1990):Theroleofrhetoricinverbalcommunications, Babel36-3,pp.143-154. Nord,C.(1994)Translationasaprocessoflinguisticandculturaladaptation,inDollerup, C. and A. Lindegaard (eds), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions, papers from the Second Language International Conference (Elsinore, June 4-6, 1993),Amsterdam/Philadelphia,Benjamins. Saadeddin,M.A.(1989):TextdevelopmentandArabic-Englishnegativeinterference,Applied Linguistics 10-1,pp.36-51. Searle,J.R.(1969):Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language,London,Cambridge UniversityPress. Simpson, P. (2004): On the Discourse of Satire: Towards a Stylistic Model of Satiric Humour, Amsterdam/Philadelphia,JohnBenjamins. Sinclair,J.McHandM.Coulthard(1975):Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils,London,OxfordUniversityPress. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1995): Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford/ Cambridge,Massachusetts,Blackwell. Taylor,T.J.(1981):Linguistic Theory and Structural Stylistics,Oxford/NewYork,Pergamon Press. Widdowson,H.G.(1975):Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature,Harlow,England,Longman.