<<
>>

a hypothesis ranzhirovannoj salientnosti R.Giory


Example of experimental studying of irony are R.Giory's work and its colleagues [Giora 1997, 1999, 2003, 2011; Peleg et al. 2008]. The purpose of spent experiments - to answer a question how the addressee "processes" the ironical statement and what role in understanding of irony plays direct (literal) value.

The explanation of mechanisms of understanding of irony in R.Giory's works is based on idea so-called "salientnosti" (i.e. high degree of the importance) one of values of potentially multiple-valued word for the native speaker.
According to R.Giory, opposition literal and a figurative sense appears insignificant for participants of communications: the addressee chooses that variant of interpretation of the statement which is represented to it to the most preferable (salientnym) in the given situation. Ability of the native speaker from several possible values to choose the most relevant it is described within the limits of the developed R.Gioroj throughout several years of a hypothesis ranzhirovannoj salientnosti (Graded Salience Hypothesis) [Giora 1998; Giora 2003; Givoni 2013]. Values which are activated in memory of the addressee by the first, it is accepted to name salientnymi (from English salient). Many researchers pay attention To existence of such criterion as importance degree at a choice of one of values of a multiple-valued word [Rahilina 1998, Rahilina 2008, Paducheva 2013]. According to R.Giory and its colleagues, the concept salientnosti plays a key role in an explanation of, how proiszodit understanding of irony. With its help it is possible to explain, how the native speaker chooses an ironical or not ironical way of interpretation of the told.
Essentially important R.Giory in the theory is position that for participants of communications important, salientnoe value is not a synonym literal. Salientnym there can be both direct, and a figurative sense, including ironical. Salientnost an ironical or not ironical way of understanding told it is defined by a context. Ironical interpretation "is started" in that case when salientnoe value appears contextually inappropriate [Giora 2013].
The essence of experiments spent by R.Gioroj consisted in the following: ironical statements were shown to examinees against the equivalents having only a direct sense. The initial hypothesis consisted that processing (understanding) of ironical statements as more difficult on the semantic and pragmatical properties, should occupy more time.
R.Giory's experiments show, what exactly importance (salience) values for the addressee in a concrete situation is the defining factor for statement interpretation in its literal value or as ironical; at such approach the question, whether is salientnoe value literal or portable, it appears minor, however in this case the context role repeatedly increases. Incompatibility salientnogo with a context forces the addressee to pass values from not ironical to ironical interpretation of the statement / the text.
From the point of view of the addressee who has been adjusted on diligent communications, in the majority of situations ironical value is not expected, therefore its understanding demands more efforts and time. Thus literal value of the statement cannot be rejected: the addressee does a conclusion about presence of ironical value, being based on discrepancy of literal value of the statement with a real situation.
The offered R.Gioroj model is convenient for an explanation of those cases when the irony is created by mainly lexical means. Giora treats irony as the latent form of negation: the speaking uses it to pay attention of the addressee to discrepancy between an expected and real state of affairs. She explains, how there is a choice of value in case of a lexical polysemy (on consecutive activation of several values of multiple-valued lexemes and their coordination with a context it is based not only understanding of irony, but also comic effect so-called garden-path sentences, see [Dynel 2009]). When the irony is not adhered to lexical level, it is difficult to speak about existence of an actual meaning of the statement similar to a word meaning.
<< | >>
A source: Shilihina Ksenia Mihajlovna. DISCOURSE PRACTICE OF IRONY: COGNITIVE, SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC ASPECTS. 2014

More on topic a hypothesis ranzhirovannoj salientnosti R.Giory:

  1. 2.2.5 Promotion of a hypothesis
  2. a research hypothesis.
  3. the Working hypothesis of research
  4. a hypothesis
  5. the research hypothesis
  6. 3.3.1 Offer of a hypothesis of the mechanism of hydrogenolysis of cellulose
  7. 4.2. A working hypothesis of the mechanism of increase of collective ability of reagent OPSK
  8. Matematiko-statistical methods
  9. gender features affective making polorolevoj identity
  10. 2.3.1.2 Analysis of animators