A Pragmatic Study of Sarcasm in the TV. Show Parks and Recreation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25130/Lang.10.2.P1.16Keywords:
: السخرية ،افعال الكلام ، الكمية، النوعية، الاسلوب ، العلاقةAbstract
This study examines the topic of sarcasm in the American television show 'Parks and Recreation.' This topic has been chosen as the primary focus since it is relevant in modern social discourse. The challenge that this study attempts to address is how to interpret sarcasm in the program using a pragmatic approach. As a result, the current study seeks appropriate answers to the following questions: (1) Which types of speech acts, according to Searle (1979), are used in this production? (2) Do the participants break Gricean maxims (1975) by producing sarcasm in the chosen television program? The following aims are described in order to find appropriate solutions to those questions:) 1) Recognising and understanding pragmatic tactics employed in the program, such as Searle's theory of speech acts (1979) and Grice's maxims (1975). (2) Create a long-term pragmatic model for analysing sarcasm in the chosen data. In light of the aims stated above, the following hypotheses are proposed: (1) Speech acts and Grice's maxims are pragmatic phenomena seen in the American program. (2)The purpose of this study is to determine the most often utilised type within each phenomenon in the American television program under consideration. As a result, various procedures are performed to achieve the given goals and determine the validity of these hypotheses, including the following: (1) Provide a complete literature analysis of sarcasm, including its definition by various linguists, as well as an exploration of pragmatic features and methodologies related to the usage of sarcasm. (2) Choosing a model to analyse the data in this study. (3) Choosing random situations from an American TV show as the data for the study. (4) Analysing the data under consideration using the developed model, both qualitatively and statistically, to connect the outcomes of the analysis using the mathematical equation of percentages, and (5) drawing conclusions based on the study's findings. The study confirms: (1) According to the study's findings, assertive speech acts account for 57.14 % of all speech acts. This popularity implies that characters frequently make utterances that represent their thoughts or opinions, which serve as the foundation for sarcastic dialogue. (2) Data analysis revealed that the quality maxim is most frequently violated (31.25%). This intentional infringement implies that characters frequently say things that are not meant to be taken literally, heightening the sarcastic tone.
.
References
Attardo, S. (2000).Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6),793-826 doi :10.1016/S03782166(99)00070-3.
Barbe, K. (1995). Irony in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barron, A., Gu, Y., & Steen, G. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 91-104). London: Routledge.
Beckson and Ganz, A Dictionary of Literary Term (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1983), p.222
Briggs, A. (1978). Hadji Murat: The Power of Understatement, in M. Jones & R.F. Christian (eds.) New Essays on Tolstoy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, P. and Schaffner, C. (eds).(2002). Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research designs: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Callifornia: Sage.
Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Phonetics and Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Press.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners . Sage, New Delhi.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Lyons J. (1977). Semantics 2. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Mey J.L. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell publisher Ltd.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. London: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skalicky, S & Crossley, S. (2018). Linguistic Features of Sarcasm and Metaphor Production Quality. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Figurative Language Processing, pages 7–16, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Thomas, J (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Warren, M. (2006). Features of Naturalness in Conversation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yule, G. (2000). The Study of Language. UK: Cambridge University Press.
