ROMANIAN – AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

CROSSING BOUNDARIES IN CULTURE

AND COMMUNICATION

VOLUME 3, NUMBER 2

2012

EDITURA UNIVERSITARĂ

2

Crossing Boundaries in Culture and Communication

Journal of the Department of Foreign Languages, Romanian-American University

Scientific Board: Professor M. Lucia Aliffi, Ph.D., University of Palermo, Italy

Professor Martin Heusser, Ph.D., University of Zürich, Switzerland

Professor Monica Bottez, Ph.D., University of Bucharest, Romania

Professor Angela Bidu-Vrănceanu, Ph.D., University of Bucharest, Romania

Professor Coman Lupu, Ph.D., University of Bucharest, Romania

Professor Adriana Chiriacescu, Ph.D., The Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies,

Romania

Associate Professor Otilia Doroteea Borcia, Ph.D., “Dimitrie Cantemir” Christian

University, Romania

Cristina Ivanovici, Ph.D., University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Associate Professor Elena Museanu, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Romania

Editorial Board:

Coordinator: Elena Museanu, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest

Members: Gabriela Brozbă, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest

Mihaela Ciobanu, Ph.D. Candidate, Romanian-American University, Bucharest

Mariana Coancă, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest

Andreea Raluca Constantin, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest

Ioana Dascalu, Ph.D. Candidate, Romanian-American University, Bucharest

Mihaela Istrate, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest

Vanesa Magheruşan, Romanian-American University, Bucharest

Alexandra Mărginean, Ph.D., Romanian-American University, Bucharest

Editing:

Doroty Ionescu

The publisher and the Editorial Board wish to inform that the views expressed in

this journal belong to the contributors, each contributor being responsible for the opinions,

data and statements expressed in the article.

ISSN 2248 – 2202

ISSN-L = 2248 – 2202

3

Contents

Editorial ............................................................................................................................. 5

LINGUISTICS

Despre unele eufemisme ratate ale limbii române de azi

Laurenţiu Bălă ........................................................................................................................ 8

How Is the Ironic Meaning Made? Ruxandra Buluc .................................................................................................................... 15

The Moralization of English Terms Denoting an Inferior Social Role

in the Medieval Period

Iulia Cristina Burlacu ........................................................................................................... 25

Romanian, English and our Roman Ancestors

Nicholas Dima ...................................................................................................................... 39

Complementul prepoziţional şi completiva prepoziţională

Gyongyver Măduţa ............................................................................................................... 48

Competenţa comunicativă în discursul jurisdicţional

Mariana Preda ...................................................................................................................... 57

Derivate i compuse româneşti în trend

Anca-Anne-Marie Tudor ...................................................................................................... 65

TRANSLATION STUDIES

Crossing Boundaries – Intercultural Interaction in Tourism

Roxana Bîrsanu .................................................................................................................... 78

The Impact of Cultural Translations on Albanian Students: Theory versus Practice

Ilda Kanani ........................................................................................................................... 83

Translation Studies and Reception Studies. Intersections and Overlaps

Ana-Magdalena Petraru (Mitocaru) ..................................................................................... 89

Crossing Boundaries in Children’s Literature

Gabriela Stoica ..................................................................................................................... 97

Loss and Gain when Translating Somatic Idioms

Mihaela Raluca Ştefan ....................................................................................................... 105

4

LITERARY STUDIES

The Communist Regime through Malcolm Bradbury’s eyes

Elena Cigăreanu ................................................................................................................. 114

Écrivains minimalistes et personnages en mouvement.

Fuir de Jean Philippe Toussaint

Iuliana Paştin ...................................................................................................................... 121

Twilight, a Popular Culture Product

Alexandra-Patricia Puşcă ................................................................................................... 128

From Folkloric Demon to Contemporary Vampire

Alexandra-Patricia Puşcă ................................................................................................... 136

Love, Identity and Place in Nadine Gordimer’s The Pickup

Cătălin Tecucianu............................................................................................................... 144

Making It in America

Claudia Ţîţu ........................................................................................................................ 151

CULTURAL STUDIES

Fantastic Journeys in Angela Carter’s Nights at the Circus

Irina Bocianu ...................................................................................................................... 158

God in Absentia – John Fowles’ The Collector from a Christian Perspective

Iulia Drăghici ..................................................................................................................... 163

Ethics in the Romanian Academic System

Vanesa Magherusan ........................................................................................................... 173

The Ideological Epistolary Space of Otium

Alexandra Roxana Mărginean ............................................................................................ 179

Incursiune în geografia ecleziastică a spaţiului eladitic.

Lăcaşuri de cult şi icoane – filiaţii onomastice

Maria-Cătălina Muraru ....................................................................................................... 183

The Chart of Human Rights and the Chart of Transdisciplinarity

Adrian Petrariu ................................................................................................................... 190

The Image of the Contemporary British Monarchy: Between the Influence

of Television and the Democratization and Commodification Discourse

Marina-Cristiana Rotaru ..................................................................................................... 198

Storytelling in Fiction and Film: “Auggie Wren’s Christmas Story” versus Smoke

Daniela Tecucianu .............................................................................................................. 211

5

Editorial

“Crossing Boundaries in Culture and Communication”, the journal of

the Department of Foreign Languages of the Romanian-American University in

Bucharest, is a professional publication meant to bring together the

preoccupations and contributions of those interested in human communication and

cultural phenomena in the global context: foreign language educators, academic

researchers, journalists and others, from schools, universities or alternative areas

of humanistic approach around this country and abroad.

The 2nd

international conference with the same name facilitated the issuing

of this journal, by reuniting it topically under the umbrella-theme Journeys from

Europe to Other Continents and Back. The articles published here represent a

selection of the Conference presentations; they reflect a variety of perspectives and

innovative ideas on topics such as linguistics, FLT, literary / Canadian / cultural

studies and their related fields, providing opportunities for professional

development and research.

The editorial board considers that the personal contributions included in

this issue as well as in the next ones, come in support of multilingualism and

multiculturalism due to their variety of topics and linguistic diversity. This would

be, in fact, the challenge we are faced with: to put forth a journal which, in spite of

its heterogeneous blend, should serve the goal of gathering under its covers the

results of the pursuits and concerns of those interested in the ongoing development

of culture and in the interpersonal communication which have been subject to

various mutations as an effect of an ever-changing globalized world.

This unity in diversity should be achieved by connections established

within and among a variety of fields which often blend into each other, proving the

interdisciplinarity of modern research: education, teaching, literature, media etc.

which also allow complementary approaches in linguistics, rhetoric, sociology etc.

6

The present issue includes four sections: linguistics, translation studies,

literary studies and cultural studies. All the contributions published here share

their authors’ ideas in what we hope to become a large cross-boundaries “forum”

of communication, debate and mutual cultural interests.

As we don’t want to reveal too much right from the beginning, and in the

hope that we have stirred your curiosity, we are inviting you to discover the

universe the authors have shaped and described, the view upon life that they are

imagining, which might be considered, in fact, the overall desideratum of our

Journal.

Thanking all contributors, the editorial board welcomes your presence in

this volume and invites the interested ones to unravel the various topics which put

forward the concerns and the findings of a challenging professional community.

Editorial Board

7

Linguistics

8

Despre unele eufemisme ratate ale limbii române de azi

Bălă Laurenţiu

Universitatea din Craiova

Rezumat Această lucrare prezintă unele eufemisme ratate ale limbii române de azi. Fiind prezent în

toate limbile pentru a aborda subiecte tabu, eufemismul este o expresie care este mai puţin

ofensatoare pentru ascultător decât cuvântul sau fraza pe care o înlocuieşte.

Cuvinte cheie eufemisme, limba română, eufemistic

Cu toţii folosim deseori eufemisme atunci când ni se întâmplă să abordăm

subiecte tabu sau sensibile. Eufemismul este, în acest caz, o expresie pe care o

considerăm ca fiind mai puţin ofensatoare, deranjantă, pentru ascultător decât

cuvântul sau fraza pe care o înlocuieşte. Acest fenomen este prezent dintotdeauna

şi în toate limbile. Cuvinte considerate iniţial eufemisme îşi pot pierde această

valoare, dobândind conotaţii negative, ceea ce implică înlocuirea lor cu alte

eufemisme. Aşa s-a întâmplat în limba engleză cu toilet room (eufemism, la

origine), care a fost înlocuit cu bathroom, apoi cu water closet [1] şi, în sfârşit, cu

rest room.

Lazăr Şăineanu, marele lingvist român, într-un studiu dedicat limbajului

parizian din secolul al XIX-lea [2], observa încă de acum aproape o sută de ani

existenţa unui dublu procedeu folosit pentru evitarea termenilor triviali. Primul, de

ordin formal, consta în atenuarea acestora (de exemplu bougre „sodomit”, era

înlocuit cu bigre), în timp ce al doilea, de ordin lexicologic, mai des întâlnit,

însemna înlocuirea termenului vulgar printr-un cuvânt echivalent, mai mult sau mai

puţin potrivit. Astfel, de exemplu, pentru frecventul şi vulgarul merde „căcat”, el

menţiona, ca termeni echivalenţi miel „miere”, moutarde „muştar” şi, mai ales,

mince „subţire”!

Atenuarea sau deghizarea formală le întâlnim pe scară largă în celebrele

sacres din zona Quebecului, înjurături populare de natură religioasă, care sunt

eufemizate prin acest procedeu. Astfel, pentru (Jésus) Christ se folosesc termeni

precum crisse, Christophe, crime, criffe, cristi etc. Şi în cazul românei întâlnim un

procedeu asemănător, dar nu în ceea ce priveşte atenuarea termenilor religioşi

folosiţi în înjurături (românii nu au astfel de probleme!), ci în afereza verbului

9

vulgar provenit din lat. futuere (aproape nelipsit din înjurăturile româneşti de orice

fel, de la cele „de mamă”, la cele religioase)! Aceasta duce la forme prescurtate de

genul …tu-ţi, …tu-vă, …tu-i, …tu-le etc.

Asupra celui de-al doilea procedeu, cel lexicologic, cu referire la limba

română, ne vom opri în cele ce urmează. În exemplul citat de Şăineanu aveam de-a

face cu înlocuirea cuvântului considerat vulgar (merde) prin mai multe eufemisme

care, dincolo de sensurile lor de bază total diferite, aveau două trăsături comune:

1. începeau cu aceeaşi literă ca şi termenul pe care îl înlocuiau;

2. aveau un corp fonetic aproape la fel de redus, compus dintr-o singură

silabă (cu excepţia lui moutarde, compus din două silabe).

Acelaşi fenomen îl întâlnim şi în limba română, în cazul unei serii destul

de largi de sinonime eufemistice (în intenţia utilizatorilor) pentru varianta vulgară a

termenului ştiinţific penis, termen foarte prezent nu numai în înjurăturile româneşti,

ci şi în vorbirea cotidiană, căci expresia (în) p…a mea! pare a fi expresia favorită a

românilor, răspunsul lor la toate întrebările şi problemele existenţiale…

La fel ca în exemplul lui Şăineanu, şi în cazul termenului românesc supus

unei masive eufemizări, cel puţin în ultimele decenii, avem de-a face cu o serie

întreagă de sinonime care au în comun cele două trăsături menţionate mai sus:

încep toate cu litera /p/ şi au corpul fonetic, în general, la fel de scurt ca termenul

pe care îl înlocuiesc. Rodica Zafiu preluând, după spusele sale, o sintagmă a lui

Alexandru Graur dintr-un articol publicat în 1949, numeşte un astfel de joc de

cuvinte deraiere lexicală, care „constă în substituirea unui cuvânt (care poate face

parte dintr-o expresie) prin altul doar pe baza asemănării formale, fără legătură

semantică, a segmentului iniţial” [3].

În exemplele care urmează, am subliniat atât eufemismul în chestiune, cât şi

contextul în care apare, căci altfel, „legătura dintre ele nu ar putea fi reconstituită” [4],

cuvintele în sine, izolate sau folosite în alte împrejurări, neavând absolut nimic

vulgar. Astfel, în ordine strict alfabetică, eufemismele… înlocuitoare sunt:

pana

În primul rând, de ce pana mea nu si-a amintit lumea ca e ziua lui

Eminescu? De ce pana mea avea atata dreptate? (codrinscutaru.blogspot.ro)

Nu ştim dacă autorul acestor fraze avea în gând primul vers din Scrisoarea

II a lui Mihai Eminescu (De ce pana mea rămâne în cerneală, mă întrebi?), cert

este că termenul în cauză înlocuieşte, destul de frecvent în româna vorbită (şi scrisă,

cel puţin pe internet!), vulgarul echivalent al lui penis. De remarcat existenţa unui

blog intitulat chiar „În pana mea” şi care, dacă ar fi avut o cât de mică legătură cu

pana eminesciană, ar fi putut să se numească altfel!

10

papuci(i)

Reprezintă unul dintre eufemismele folosite la plural, pentru a înlocui un

termen utilizat îndeobşte la singular! Poate fi întâlnit atât în varianta nearticulată:

da-l in papuci ca ma doare capul cat am stat ieri cu el... ms de ajutor dar

renunt

(gpszone.ro)

cât şi articulată:

Cn [cine, n.m., LB] papucii mei ma deranjaza la ora asta?

(mikutzuldracushor.sunphoto.ro)

Ce papucii mei vrei de la mine? (filiera.fr)

pălăria

Ce palaria mea face asta de castiga mai mult decat un presedinte??

(impact-est.ro)

Du-te-n palaria mea, bai, simpaticule! (colegii.cc)

Contextele în care apare acest termen, în exemplele de mai sus, sunt cât se

poate de edificatoare pentru sensul care îi este atribuit.

pielea

- Mai baiete, stii ceva? Ia mai du-te-n pielea mea. (tpu.ro)

Du-te in pielea mea de idiot cretin care nu ai o chifla in burta si nu mai

comenta aiurea (yoda.ro)

Dacă în cazul termenilor de mai sus, explicaţia pentru folosirea lor ca

eufemisme pentru penis este pur formală, în cazul acestuia se poate face o legătură

cu sintagma argotică pielea p…ii („Persoana fara importanta in societate restu va

imaginati voi cum e sa fi pielea si nu restu'”, cf. 123urban.ro).

pisici(i)

Este un alt termen folosit la plural, ca şi papuci, atât în varianta

nearticulată:

da'l in pisici. barbatii sunt precum autobuzele, la fiecare 2 min vine altul:))

(sfaturi.eva.ro)

(de remarcat că fraza aceasta îi aparţine unei femei!), cât mai ales în cea articulată:

Dă-l în pisicii mamei lui de contract, doar nu s-o prinde lumea că nu s-a

parafat la timp. (gorj-domino.com)

11

Folosirea eufemistică a acestui termen datează dinainte de 1989, iar faptul

că prima silabă coincide cu primele două litere ale echivalentului vulgar pentru

organul sexual feminin a făcut să fie folosit pe scară largă de vorbitorii de ambele

sexe. Este interesant că pe internet, la întrebarea „Ce cuvinte folosiţi zilnic cel mai

des?” lansată pe un forum o participantă răspunde:

Du-te-n pisicii mei de retardat mintal

Ce pisicii mei vrei măă?

şi, concluzionând:

Ceva ce contine pisici (tpu.ro)

pix(ul)

Pe lângă faptul că începe cu litera /p/ şi că are un corp fonetic redus, în

cazul acestui termen se poate vorbi şi de o analogie de formă şi, deci, de un simbol

falic. De aceea şi este utilizat cu sensul de penis în argoul românesc (cf. Volceanov).

Termenul poate fi întâlnit atât în forma sa nearticulată:

Mai da-l in pix si pe bukale asta, cat de frig poa sa fie iarna?

(forum.softpedia.com)

Ma doare-n pix de salariul de la primarie (ziare.com)

cât şi în cea articulată:

Gigi Becali, mai du-te-n pixul meu! (gtd.ro)

De remarcat şi existenţa construcţiei rimate fix în pix, al cărei caracter

comic este evident:

Ma doare fix in pix de raportul pe care-l faci, poti comunica companiei

numele meu si parerea mea despre eveniment. (expresuldebuftea.ro)

De ce îmi este fix în pix de adoptarea Legii antidiscriminare (curaj.net)

puii

Este vorba de un nou plural folosit pentru a înlocui un singular, pe care,

personal, nu l-am întâlnit decât la forma articulată. Un termen mai special, care a

cunoscut o utilizare excesivă în ultimii ani şi datorită (din cauza?) unei emisiuni

intitulate În puii mei! şi difuzate de un post de televiziune naţional, Antena 1, fără

ca această eufemizare a binecunoscutei expresii triviale să deranjeze in vreun fel

Consiliul Naţional al Audiovizualului! Să nu-i cunoască oare sensul membrii

CNA-ului? Greu de crezut, din moment ce într-un raport de monitorizare emis de

12

aceeaşi instituţie, o emisiune radio în care este folosită expresia Ce puii mei!

(explicată de către unul din realizatori astfel: O înjurătură clasică, nu se poate să

treacă o zi fără să o auzi, pe stradă, în birou.) este incriminată, căci pe lângă

expresia respectivă mai sunt citate şi altele „Du-te-n pisicii mă-tii!”, „Ce puşca

mea!”, „Pana mea!” etc. [5]. De altfel, explicaţii foarte la îndemână ar fi putut

găsi şi pe internet:

puii mei

1. Expresie ce denotă enervarea celui care o foloseşte; la naiba; fir-ar să fie.

2. Exemple: Ce puii mei ai luat aici? Ţi-am zis cheie de şaişpe sau nu?

3. expresie eufemistică; substituie termenul vulgar care denumeşte

organul sexual masculin

4. Exemple: Dă-o in puii mei de treabă... ti-am zis să mergi dimineată la

magazin si tu ai dormit pană la 12.

5. varianta „soft” pentru expresia „p…a mea”, folosita in cele mai diverse

feluri.

Exemple: Ce puii mei vrei? / Mai da-te-n puii mei. / Puii mei... Ce ma

intrebi pe mine? (123urban.ro)

Este interesant că într-o serie întreagă de construcţii cu acest termen

eufemistic, menţionate în unele dicţionare de argou al limbii române (cf. Volceanov),

echivalentul său este tot un eufemism, naiba, una din denumirile populare pentru

drac, diavol. Astfel, construcţii de genul când/cine/cum/de unde puii mei? au ca

echivalent „când/cine/cum/de unde naiba?”, iar o exclamaţie precum ce puii mei!

este explicată, şi ea, prin „ce naiba!” La fel se întâmplă şi cu alte construcţii

sinonime din această serie, cum ar fi când/cine/cum/de unde pălăria/pielea/puşca

mea, echivalate tot prin „când/cine/cum/de unde naiba”.

puşca

În cazul acestui termen, ca şi în cel al eufemismului pix, intervine analogia

de formă, simbolul falic fiind transparent, lui adăugându-i-se şi metafora

„descărcării” ce funcţionează şi pentru un alt termen care înseamnă în argou penis,

şi anume pistol (cf. Ţânţaş).

Acum, ca i-am facut indeajuns reclama ma intreb, iar, cine pusca mea e

omul asta si de ce merita sa fie presedinte? (erepublik.com)

13

Eu ştiu că tu nu ţii la mine, că de Gerula-ţi place Şi te văd intrând cu el în

şură, da’ ce puşca mea îţi face?

Taci în puşca mea din gură, nu vezi că-ncerc să scriu / Ăsta-i Gerula care

urlă în spate, l-am legat de frână / L-am lovit cu levieru’ peste gură şi i-am rupt şi-o

mână

Fără Zahăr – Sandu (versuri.ro)

Ioan Milică asimilează construcţii de genul în puşca mea, ce puii mei unor

„structuri interjecţionale complexe, care au valoare emfatică sau persuasivă.” [6]

Pe lângă toţi aceşti termeni care se supun deraierii lexicale menţionate de

Graur şi Zafiu, există în limba română şi alţi termeni în cazul cărora aceasta nu se

aplică. Din lipsă de spaţiu, iată doar câţiva dintre aceştia:

chilu(’), var. kilu(’): hai, da-va-n chilu’ meu, va las! va pup pa portofel,

ma duc sa dau o geana la cocalarii mei de la Imagistica sa nu cumva sa se dea pa

net pa ziaru’ Dilema. (liviualexa.ro)

da-te-n kilu’ meu! ca nu-ti merge nou’ sait. (piticigratis.blogspot.ro)

cucii: când/cine/cum/de unde cucii mei? echivalate, şi acestea, prin

„când/cine/ cum/de unde naiba?” Expresii construite după modelul puii mei,

avându-se poate în vedere şi faptul că în argou cuc înseamnă şi „penis (de copil)”

(cf. Volceanov).

spume(le) (mării): Termenul argotic spumă (spume) este folosit încă

dinainte de 1989, iar astăzi intră în componenţa mai multor construcţii: a face (pe

cineva) o spumă „a invita (pe cineva) la o bere”; a face spume la gură „a se

enerva, a se înfuria”; naşpa cu spume „foarte rău”; spuma mării! „nu spui nimic!”.

Un alt sens argotic este „spermă”, sau, la pl., „stare de enervare” (cf. Volceanov).

Taranul ala morosan trebuie dat in judecata, da-l in spume! (m.evz.ro)

Du-te-n spumele marii si tu, ba parlamentar peremist de trei bani.

(reportervirtual.ro)

Concluzii

După părerea noastră, toate aceste construcţii eufemistice sinonime pot fi

considerate, aşa cum le-am numit în titlul acestui articol, nişte eufemisme ratate,

căci departe de a atenua sau de a deghiza expresia vulgară pe care o înlocuiesc, ni

se pare că, dimpotrivă, sporesc vulgaritatea exprimării cotidiene a românilor.

Şi aceasta atât prin numărul lor foarte mare, cât mai ales prin transparenţa evidentă

nu a termenilor în sine, ci a contextelor în care aceştia apar, a intonaţiei uşor de

14

descifrat atunci când aceste construcţii sunt rostite public, sau uşor de intuit atunci

când ele apar în scris. Consecinţa cea mai gravă a acestor eufemisme ratate este că

dacă înainte expresia înlocuită era utilizată numai de bărbaţi (e adevărat, existau şi

mai există unele excepţii!), aceste construcţii eufemistice au ajuns să fie utilizate de

toată lumea, fără deosebire de sex!

Note

[1] Din pronunţarea românească a iniţialelor w[ater] c[loset] a rezultat în limba noastră

vece, cu varianta veceu, dar şi closet, toate având acelaşi sens. Şi în română se poate

vorbi de o serie eufemistică, la fel ca în engleză, la termenii menţionaţi mai sus

adăugându-se baie şi toaletă.

[2] Le langage parisien au XIXe

siècle: facteurs sociaux, contingents linguistiques, faits

sémantiques, influences littéraires, Paris: E. de Boccard, Éditeur, 1920, pp. 413-414.

[3] 101 cuvinte argotice, Bucureşti: Humanitas, Col. „Viaţa cuvintelor”, 2010, p. 81.

[4] Ibidem.

[5] Raport de monitorizare, p. 5.

[6] Expresivitatea argoului, Prefaţă de D. Irimia, Iaşi: Editura Universităţii „Alexandru

Ioan Cuza”, 2009, p. 138.

Bibliografie

1. Milică, Ioan. Expresivitatea argoului, Prefaţă de Dumitru Irimia, Iaşi: Editura

Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, 2009.

2. Sainéan, Lazare. Le langage parisien au XIXe

siècle: facteurs sociaux, contingents

linguistiques, faits sémantiques, influences littéraires, Paris: E. de Boccard, Éditeur,

1920.

3. Ţânţaş, Viorel Horea. Dicţionar de puşcărie. Limbajul de argou al deţinuţilor din

România, Cluj-Napoca: Editura Napoca Star, 2007.

4. Volceanov, Anca; George Volceanov. Dicţionar de argou şi expresii familiare ale

limbii române, Bucureşti: Editura Livpress, 1998.

5. Volceanov, George. Dicţionar de argou al limbii române, Bucureşti: Niculescu, 2006.

6. Zafiu, Rodica. 101 cuvinte argotice, Bucureşti: Humanitas, Col. „Viaţa cuvintelor”, 2010.

7. Raport de monitorizare. URL: <http://www.cna.ro/IMG/pdf/RADIO-Sinteza_matinale

- ianuarie _280312.pdf>.

8. 123urban.ro. URL: <http://www.123urban.ro>.

15

How Is the Ironic Meaning Made?

Ruxandra Buluc

National Defense University ‘Carol I’

Abstract Irony is the most difficult to define of all speech acts. First and foremost it is the matter of

stated versus implied meaning (which are different or opposite), secondly, it is always

ideologically laden, and, last but not least, not all readers are able to decode the ironic

meaning. Some readers can only interpret the surface, obvious meaning and the irony, the

underlying meaning, remains unperceived. The present paper explains why there is this gap

in interpretation and the theory put forth is based on the concept of discursive communities

and on the shared knowledge that the ironist and interpreter must possess in order for the

irony to be transmitted and decoded properly.

Keywords irony, discursive communities, ideal reader, intentio auctoris, intentio operis, intentio

lectoris, shared background knowledge

Motto: ‘Reading [...is] as creative a process as writing,

sometimes more so. When we read of the dying rays of

the setting sun or the boom and swish of the incoming

tide, we should reserve as much praise for ourselves

[the readers] as for the author. After all, the reader is

doing all the work – the writer may have died long

ago.’ (Jasper Fforde First among Sequels)

When discussing irony several aspects must be taken into consideration.

Irony is the one speech act whose whole meaning is not readily available in the

text. An ironic message consists of two separate meanings: the obvious, textual one

that can be perceived by any reader, and the underlying one, the ironic meaning

itself that is obtained only by analysing the discourse itself and the ideology, world

view, opinions, comments it denotes.

Consequently, I have chosen to refer to ironic meaning as being made,

rather than discovered in a narrative since it is at the meeting point between an

author‟s intentions, the text/message as such, a reader‟s decoding that this meaning

arises and the context in which it was uttered/written.

To begin with, Eco [3, 62] states that when a text is produced and intended

not for one reader, but for a community of readers, the author knows that he/she will

be interpreted not according to his/her intentions, but as a result of a complex

16

network of interactions which involves both the readers and their competence with

respect to language as part of a common social framework. He also refers to

language not solely as a linguistic instrument made up of phonology, morphology

and syntax, but as a construct created by history and by previous literary knowledge.

When he speaks about the intention of the author (intentio auctoris), Eco

points out the fact that he is referring mainly to the intentions of the text and to the

intentions of the Model Author „to the extent that the reader is able to recognize in

terms of textual strategy.‟ [3, 63] This type of author has also been termed Liminal

or Threshold Author, „as the threshold existing between the intention of a certain

human being and the linguistic intention demonstrated by a textual strategy.‟ [3,

64] This tenet means that not only the reader interacts with the text, but also the

author expresses his/her intentions and awaits to see how the words transmit them.

Interpretation does not arise in the reader‟s mind if not prompted by the

text. For this reason, Eco feels safe in arguing that beside the intentions of the

author and those of the reader, one can also speak about the intentions of the text,

i.e. about intentio operis.

A text is a machine able to produce its own Model Reader. This reader is not

the one that makes the unique right assumption. A text may require a Model

Reader to try infinite assumptions. (…) The intention of the text is mainly to

produce a Model Reader able to make assumptions based on it, and this

reader‟s initiative is to imagine a Model Author who is not the empirical one

and who, in the end, coincides with the intention of the text. Consequently,

the text is not so much a parameter used to validate an interpretation, but an

object built by, interpretation in the circular attempt to validate itself on the

basis of what it construes as its own result. [3, 59-60]

The text‟s intention must not be neglected in the reading process since it is,

on the one hand, the intermediate step between the empirical reader and the text,

and on the other hand, the means of extracting from the written words the implied

author‟s intentions. Intentio operis is in fact a „semiotic strategy‟ [3, 60] that

enables the reader to construct meaning and authorial intentions by employing the

clues and information in the text. The validity of this concept is attested by the fact

that in order to evaluate whether the interpretation of a part of the text is

appropriate (I try to avoid the word correct since it implies uniqueness of

interpretation), another position of the text must come to confirm it, otherwise it

needs to be dismissed. It is in this respect that the internal coherence of the text

controls the reader‟s impulses, which would otherwise run amok.

17

In conclusion, one may argue that no text leaves its reader unguided, free

to make any presuppositions he feels like, and turn the text into something it is not.

Interpretations may vary greatly, according to which paradigm of comprehension

each reader chooses when approaching the text, but all these paradigms have been

introduced in the text by the author, who thus controls the reader‟s understanding.

Textual intention is very important not only in the discussion of novels in

general, but also in the interpretation of irony. Many critics have argued that the

literal meaning of an ironic utterance needs to be discarded completely in order for

the ironic meaning to be instantiated. [6, 12] On the other hand, it is widely known

and accepted that the ironic meaning as such is not readily available in the text;

after all, irony is an indirect figure of speech. Consequently, the reader cannot

discard the literal meaning immediately and start looking beyond it for a possible

interpretation. As Linda Hutcheon explains:

The ironic meaning is inclusive and relational: the said and the unsaid

coexist for the interpreter, and each has meaning in relation to the other

because they „literally‟ interact to create the real ironic meaning. The ironic

meaning is not then simply the unsaid meaning, and the unsaid is not

always a simple inversion or opposite of the said: it is always different –

other than and more than the said. [6, 12]

The ironic meaning actually stems from the interaction of what is said and

what is implied; it cannot exist outside of what is spoken directly. Irony destroys

the dichotomy „one signifier – one signified‟ and replaces it with a complex

interaction of meaning that, nonetheless, cannot ignore the stated in favour of the

implied. In order for the ironic meaning to be different from what is overtly stated,

it means that this literal meaning needs to be taken into account and analysed, and,

on its basis, the ironic meaning is perceived and understood. Of course, this ironic

meaning is not the same as the literal one, but the overtly stated message plays an

important part in creating the tension and even frustration of interpretation that is

the trademark of irony.

Every text predicates an implied reader. However more needs to be said

about this reader in the context of interpreting irony. The implied author is a

construct used mainly in narratology and referring to the instance in the text to

whom all of the implied author‟s intentions are addressed. On the other hand, the

Ideal/Model Reader that Eco and others propose is more than a mere addressee; it

is the one who actively participates in the making of the text, by discovering the

principles of the work and arranging them according to the text‟s intention.

18

As Eco points out [4, 203], a text which has a clear aesthetic aim

constructs, in fact, two Model Readers. The first-level Model Reader is the one

interested in how the story presented will end, what outcome the unfolding events

will create. This type of reader is called the „semantic reader.‟ [4, 203] The second-

level reader, also called the „semiotic or aesthetic reader,‟ is the one who „asks

himself what kind of reader that particular story was asking him to become, and

wants to know how the Model Author who is instructing him step by step will

proceed.‟ [4,203]In other words, the first reader wants to know what will happen,

while the second wants to know how what happens is presented in the text, how it

is narrated. In order to become a proficient second-level reader one needs first of

all to be a good first-level reader. Every reader first re-constructs the narrative

events and then looks at the construction of the narrative.

In light of this theory, I would argue that the Ideal Reader, especially in the

case of ironic pieces of fiction, is the second-level Model Reader. This reader is

neither an abstraction, nor an actual living reader, but a hybrid, a real reader who

does everything in his power to be informed.

Yet, when speaking about irony, one cannot limit oneself to a discussion of a

hypothetical Model/Ideal Reader. One needs to take into consideration a larger

audience, a multitude of receivers of the ironic message. One single reader may not

and cannot determine on his/her own if an ironic reading is appropriate or not. As

Waugh argues, any type of fiction (experimental and metafiction in particular)

requires an audience that is „self-conscious about its linguistic practices‟ [7, 64]. But

this audience also has some requirements, the most important one being that the text

must be familiar or it will be rejected as incomprehensible: „(i)n metafiction it is

precisely the fulfilment as well as the non-fulfilment of generic expectations that

provides both familiarity and the starting point for innovation. [7, 64]

Therefore, some conventions of realistic or popular fiction need to be

employed in the text to facilitate the readers‟ understanding. The decoding of an

ironic meaning is more or less a collective decision, one that implies a communion

of interests, goals and knowledge and that allows for this meaning to be considered

as such. An individual interpretation of a word, phrase, sentence, or discourse as

ironic cannot guarantee that the context has an ironic meaning. Irony is a collective

endeavour. It can be seen as either creating communities of understanding or as

being based on/born in the midst of pre-existing communities.

This brings to the fore another matter. Does irony appear in pre-existing

communities based on a shared system of knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions

which allow for the ironic meaning to be transmitted and comprehended? Or does

19

irony facilitate the formation of communities by gathering those who understand

irony and excluding those who do not? Both of the two views have been espoused

by literary critics, and arguments have been brought in their favour. The present

paper analyzes the tenets of these two opinions and synthesises them into a unitary

theory meant to better understand how and why irony is decoded/made correctly by

some interpreters and missed by others.

In A Rhetoric of Irony, Wayne Booth states that irony builds „amiable

communities‟ between an ironist and an interpreter who experience the pleasure of

„joining, of finding and communing with kindred spirits‟ [1, 28]. Thus irony

becomes a „communal achievement.‟ [1, 13] However, the question is whether

irony indeed builds bridges of comprehension among people, or if it benefits from

pre-existing connections among people belonging to the same community.

Fish also claims that communication can only occur within a system of

intelligibility, which is hard to define since it cannot be reduced and applied to a

limited number of situations.

Communication occurs only within such a system (or context, or situation,

or interpretive community) and the understanding achieved by two or more

persons is specific to that system and determinate only within its confines.

[5, 304]

The public and the norms (of language and understanding) are not embedded

or inherent in language. Their origin lies in an institutional structure. He considers

the structure to be the meeting point of context and interpretive communities.

According to Hutcheon [6], irony has a transideological nature as well as

many complex functions and effects. It could be assumed that it does more than

create amiable communities. As Hutcheon suggests, and her idea bears

resemblance to Fish‟s:

irony does not so much create “amiable communities” as itself comes into

being in “contact zones” as the “social spaces where cultures meet, clash,

grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations

of power.” [Pratt qtd in 6, 93]

These „contact zones‟ facilitate communication, be it ironic in nature or

not. If overlapping between different communicative communities did not exist,

meaning could not be transmitted, and we would all live in a world of monologues.

Even within each community, there is a great diversity of speech, and

different people live in different worlds of discourse. The whole communication

process depends on these worlds. The communication process is also enabled by

20

these different worlds. They help readers develop expectations, make assumptions,

and process that very complex discourse they are confronted with every day, and

which is commonly referred to as language in use.

Within this world of everyday speech, irony distinguishes itself quite

clearly, since interpreters are more likely to fail when attempting to comprehend it.

Irony is not simple communication. It entails semantic reinterpretations, emotions

and evaluations, it has a cutting edge that may hurt some, annoy others, entertain

some more or exclude the rest. Nobody likes to feel left out of a communicative

situation. As Hutcheon claims:

Irony is more often a semantically complex process of relating,

differentiating, and combining said and unsaid meanings and doing so with

some evaluative edge. It is also, however, a culturally shaped process. No

theorist of irony could dispute the existence of a special relationship in

ironic discourse between the ironist and the interpreter; but for most it is

irony itself that is said to create that relationship. (…) It is community that

comes first and in fact enables irony to happen. [6, 89]

Hutcheon points out that irony does not form communities, but appears as

a result of the ironist and interpreter sharing the ideological beliefs of one pre-

existing community. She goes on to combine the idea of community with the fact

that irony appears in the context of one particular discourse which, by definition, is

ideologically laden and requires an evaluative interpretation. In other words, irony

is bound by and in a discourse, and the discourse exhibits the ideological features

of one particular community. Therefore, in interpreting irony one may speak about

discursive communities, since the focus is no longer on who uses irony, but on

what discursive community is able to understand it.

Hutcheon defines discursive communities in general by the „complex

configuration of shared knowledge, beliefs, values and communicative strategies.‟

(6, 91) Discursive communities are dynamic, subtly differentiated. The constraints

that govern them may not be overt or readily apparent to the members of that

particular community. They become manifest when discursive communities are

faced with one another in communication. Then the constraints become obvious.

These constraints of discursive contexts refer to and foreground

the particularities not only of space and time, but of class, race, gender,

ethnicity, sexual choice – not to mention nationality, religion, age,

profession, and all the other micropolitical groupings in which we place

ourselves or are placed by our society. [6, 92]

21

This enumeration of possible traits, defining discursive communities, helps

to further clear up what exactly determines our belonging to a certain community.

At the same time, as Hutcheon stresses, „we belong to many overlapping

(and sometimes even conflicting) communities or collectives‟ [6, 92]. This

overlapping enables the transmission and interpretation of irony, no matter how

dented, partial or incomplete it may be as a consequence of the differences among

the characteristics of various communities.

This theory has another advantage: it demolishes the elitist views of irony

that were put forth by the German theorists. They proclaimed the superiority of the

ironist as he was the producer of irony, and the submission of the audience,

whether or not they understood irony. Irony was seen not as a shared experience,

but as a hierarchy of understanding and of intellectual powers. One could even

speak of a hierarchy of participants, with the ironist on the top position, seconded

by those members of the audience who understood irony, followed by those who

did not. It promoted a feeling of exclusive elitism that influenced views of irony

until contemporary times. Even Wayne Booth, when discussing the interpretation

of irony, uses the metaphor of building a higher platform of meaning, and, from

this platform, the interpreter who comprehends irony can look down on those who

„dwell in error‟ [6, 35-37].

If we are to follow Hutcheon‟s idea that discursive communities precede

irony and make possible its comprehension, the separation between the knowing few

and the ignorant many would no longer hold. Consequently, one might still talk of

two audiences, but instead of the initiated and uninitiated, one might refer to the

addressees and the hearers. Both of them are part of the comprehension framework

of irony, each with a different role and different degrees of participation.

Those who do not get the irony are not necessarily what most want to call its

victims: they may not care at all; they may simply “misunderstand” (i.e.

interpret differently) because they are operating within a different discursive

context. The so-called uninitiated are not always the same as the targets either,

for many miss (or get) ironies directed at others as well as at themselves.

Those who engage the multiple said and unsaid meanings of irony are

certainly interpreting differently than those who engage only the said. [6, 95]

The targets of irony are not the „hearers‟ who do not understand it or who

misunderstand it. On the contrary, the targets are those against whom a particular

instance of irony is directed, and who may or may not comprehend that they have

been ironically attacked. On the other hand, the people who misunderstand irony,

22

either by misreading its meaning or by ignoring its ironic edge, may not be

interested in or affected by the respective ironic instance.

Jonathan Culler has pointed out that the understanding of any utterance

(including an ironical one) demands „an amazing repertoire of conscious and

unconscious knowledge‟ [2, 113]. He has also posited a specifically literary

competence: the tacit knowledge of the conventions by which we read literary

texts. However, as Hutcheon points out, interpreting irony depends on literary

competence, but it also needs to rely on some sort of common assumption between

the participants that would signal a possible ironic meaning. As she put it, there

must exist „some sort of culturally agreed upon markers in the utterance and/or in

enunciative context to signal both that irony is in play and how it is to be

interpreted.‟ [6, 95-96]. And these markers activate the competences needed to

interpret irony within the reader‟s mind.

Hutcheon‟s model of interpreting irony is more interactional and

relational. The two participants in the encoding and decoding of irony interact and

their cultural backgrounds relate in order to make irony happen.

The success of irony depends upon a lack of disparity or (…) some degree of

coincidence between interpreters‟ and ironists‟ senses of the rules determining

when to speak and when to be silent, and when and where and by what means

and in what form, tone, and code who may say what to whom. [6, 99]

And, in the case of indirect speech acts, such as irony, these shared

communicative assumptions are the only means available as well as the only

possible explanation for how irony occurs.

One might say that it is these „shared assumptions‟ rather than competences

that determine the transmission of an ironic meaning. This is another argument in

favour of the overlapping of discursive communities. Therefore, we can speak less of

competence and refer more to the relevance of the context for both participants in

irony‟s meaning making process. If people do not perceive irony in a context, that

may happen not because they cannot interpret irony at all, but because of the fact that

„they may lack contextual information to interpret it‟ [6, 97].

Consequently, the reason why irony is not „universally accessible‟ might

have less to do with interpreter competence than

with the need for shared discursive context, is to shift the terms of the

discussion away from notions of elitism toward an acceptance of the fact

that everyone has different knowledge and belongs to (many) different

discursive communities. [6, 97]

23

The more this shared discourse overlaps with the beliefs held by different

communities, the easier comprehension is. Therefore, in my opinion, irony is not a

matter of elitism, but of difference in knowledge. Considering that we live in an

age of abundant information, it is surprising that we manage to communicate at all,

not to mention understand irony.

In order to synthesise these views related to communities and the role they

play in interpreting irony, I would agree that irony cannot be decoded if the author

and the reader do not share the same cultural background. The discursive

communities that Hutcheon speaks of should be viewed in a very non-restrictive

and fluctuating way. I would not necessarily call them communities as much as

shared cultural backgrounds. It would be very difficult, I believe, to group people

into one community. Even within the same community (of let us say gender) the

differences in education, social status, ideology may be so different as to almost

completely eradicate any similarities and common ground for irony to form on.

Everyone‟s life experience is different. The idea of overlapping communities is not

loose enough to fit all the possible individual variations resulting from the way a

person‟s experience of different cultural discourses may merge into one, unique,

but valid nonetheless, view of the world. A shared cultural background is a term

that allows for a lot of variation since it does not attempt to group people, only to

examine the common points in their knowledge and values systems. The shared

cultural background can be viewed as a spider‟s web, where each knot leads to

another which then refers to the next until the message is understood or the

network is broken.

However, no matter what we choose to call it, it is obvious that irony needs

a broader context and knowledge than that offered by a simple text or utterance in

order for the ironic meaning to be made. Irony exists only in relations, in

interactions, in the fluidity of human speech or writing. It is the least fixed of all

tropes/speech acts. It changes with time - ironic meaning may become obsolete as

the context for its appearance becomes more distant in time. It changes with people

– as their knowledge of the world progresses, certain views are no longer held. It

changes with ideologies – what was once considered ironic may at one point

become harmless or offensive, depending on how ideologies progress. Therefore,

the study of irony itself evolves in time, and it moulds itself with the way society

progresses and interprets/makes irony.

24

References 1. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago and London. The University of

Chicago Press, 1974.

2. Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics. London and New York: Routledge, 1975.

3. Eco, Umberto. Interpretare si suprainterpretare. Constanţa: Editura Pontica, 2004. tr.a.

4. Eco, Umberto. On Literature. Harcourt Inc., 2002.

5. Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities.

Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1980.

6. Hutcheon, L. Irony’s Edge, London: Routledge, 1994.

7. Waugh, Patricia. Metafiction. The Theory and Practice of Self-Conscious Fiction.

London and New York: Routledge, 1984.