Iranian EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Interpretation of Irony: Textual and Audio-Visual Cues in Focus
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه تخصصی زبان، فرهنگ، و ترجمه (دوفصلنامه)
1 - کارشناس ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شهرضا، شهرضا، ایران
2 - استادیار زبان شناسی کاربردی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شهرضا، شهرضا، ایران
کلید واژه: Proficiency, Pragmatic Knowledge, Verbal Irony, Linguistic Cues,
چکیده مقاله :
The current study was an attempt to investigate the relationship between language proficiency and the interpretation of ironic utterance by Iranian EFL learners and the impact of audio-visual modality on the ability of learners to interpret irony; it also examined which contextual cues, namely textual cues and audio-visual cues, are more used for detecting irony by Iranian EFL learners. To this end, fifty-three homogenized participants attended the study and tried to identify the ironies extracted from the American sitcom How I met your mother using two types of contextual cues. The findings of the current study revealed that there was no significant relationship between the learners’ language proficiency and their detecting ironic utterances. Moreover, findings indicated the irony comprehension was more accurate when the comment was presented in an audio-visual modality. Results also indicated that the most frequent cues which were used by Iranian EFL learners were positive words and neutral words, however, the least frequent linguistic cues were polite requests and superlative adjectives. Facial expressions and body movements were the most frequent visual cues, and intonation in the voice was the most frequent prosodic cue. Results suggest that multimodality-oriented teachings can improve irony comprehension.
The current study was an attempt to investigate the relationship between language proficiency and the interpretation of ironic utterance by Iranian EFL learners and the impact of audio-visual modality on the ability of learners to interpret irony; it also examined which contextual cues, namely textual cues and audio-visual cues, are more used for detecting irony by Iranian EFL learners. To this end, fifty-three homogenized participants attended the study and tried to identify the ironies extracted from the American sitcom How I met your mother using two types of contextual cues. The findings of the current study revealed that there was no significant relationship between the learners’ language proficiency and their detecting ironic utterances. Moreover, findings indicated the irony comprehension was more accurate when the comment was presented in an audio-visual modality. Results also indicated that the most frequent cues which were used by Iranian EFL learners were positive words and neutral words, however, the least frequent linguistic cues were polite requests and superlative adjectives. Facial expressions and body movements were the most frequent visual cues, and intonation in the voice was the most frequent prosodic cue. Results suggest that multimodality-oriented teachings can improve irony comprehension.
References
Ackerman, B. P. (1983). Form and function in children's understanding of
ironic utterances. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35(3),
487-508.
Attardo, S. (2002). Humor and Irony in Interaction: From Mode Adoption
to Failure. Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication, 3,
159.
Al-Fatlawi, D. (2018). Online sarcasm and its perception by second
language learners: the case of Iraqi EFL learners in Iraq and the UK
(Doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University).
Bell, N. D. (2006). Interactional adjustments in humorous intercultural
communication.
Shameli, L. & Shahrokhi, M. / Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation 4(1) (2021), 166-196
194
Birjandi, P., & Rezaei, S. (2010). Developing a multiple-choice discourse
completion test of interlanguage pragmatics for Iranian EFL learners.
ILI Language Teaching Journal, 6(1), p. 2).
Bouton, L. (1999). Developing nonnative speaker skills in interpreting
conversational implicatures in English. Culture in second language
teaching and learning, 30(1), 47-70.
Bromberek-Dyzman, K., Jankowiak, K., & Chełminiak, P. (2021).
Modality matters: Testing bilingual irony comprehension in the
textual, auditory, and audio-visual modality. Journal of
Pragmatics, 180, 219-231.
Capel, A., & Irland, S. (2008). English for Speakers of Other Languages.
Cambridge University ESOL Examinations.
Capelli, C. A., Nakagawa, N., & Madden, C. M. (1990). How children
understand sarcasm: The role of context and intonation. Child
Development, 61(6), 1824-1841.
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2002). Are irony and metaphor
understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 57-80.
Creusere, M. A. (1999). Theories of adults' understanding and use of irony
and sarcasm: Applications to and evidence from research with
children. Developmental Review, 19(2), 213-262.
Davies, A., Hamp‐Lyons, L., & Kemp, C. (2003). Whose norms?
International proficiency tests in English. World Englishes, 22(4), 571-
584.
Derakhshan, A., & Eslami, Z. R. (2019). Second language pragmatics:
From theory to research. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 611-617.
Ellis, R., Zhu, Y., Shintani, N., & Roever, C. (2021). A study of Chinese
learners’ ability to comprehend irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 172, 7-
20.
Farashaiyan, A., & Hua, T. K. (2012). On the relationship between
pragmatic knowledge and language proficiency among Iranian male
and female undergraduate EFL learners. 3L: Language, Linguistics,
Literature, 18(1).
Field, A., & Hole, G. (2002). How to design and report experiments. Sage.
Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and symbol,
15(1), 5-27.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Levi, N. A., & Sabah, H. (2005). On
negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse
Processes, 39(1), 81-100.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The
graded salience hypothesis.
Shameli, L. & Shahrokhi, M. / Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation 4(1) (2021), 166-196
195
González Fuente, S. (2017). Audiovisual prosody and verbal irony
(Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra).
Hamidi, B., & Khodareza, M. (2014). The relationship between Iranian
EFL learners’ language proficiency and pragmatic competence. ELT
Voices-International Journal for Teachers of English, 4(6), 44-53.
Hidayat, A. (2016). Speech Acts: Force Behind Words. English
Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris. 9(1). 1-12.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage
pragmatics. Studies in second language acquisition, 13(2), 215-247.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second
language. Language learning. Untari, O. (2016). Implicatures in Mr.
and Mrs. Smith Movie Script (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITAS
ANDALAS).
Kaufer, D. S. (1981). Understanding ironic communication. Journal of
pragmatics, 5(6), 495-510.
Kim, J. (2013). Developing conceptual understanding of sarcasm in a
second language through concept-based instruction.
Kite, Y., & Tatsuki, D. (2005). Remedial interactions in film. Pragmatics
in language learning, theory, and practice, 99-118.
Nemati, M., Rezaee, A. A., & Mahdi Hajmalek, M. (2014). Assessing
pragmatics through MDCTs: A case of Iranian EFL learners. Iranian
Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6(2), 59-80.
Rockwell, P. (2000). Lower, slower, louder: Vocal cues of sarcasm.
Journal of Psycholinguistic research, 29(5), 483-495.
Roever, C. (2006). Validation of a web-based test of ESL
pragmalinguistics. Language Testing, 23(2), 229-256.
Rose‐Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical
review. Social development, 6(1), 111-135.
Shively, R. L., Menke, M. R., & Manzón-Omundson, S. M. (2008).
Perception of irony by L2 learners of Spanish. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 16(2).
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction.
Philosophy, 3, 143-184.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and
cognition (Vol. 142). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tabatabaei, S., & Farnia, M. (2015). Learner’s English Proficiency and
their Pragmatic Competence of Refusal Speech Acts. Beyond Words,
3(1), 53-77.
Shameli, L. & Shahrokhi, M. / Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation 4(1) (2021), 166-196
196
Taguchi, N., & Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of English as a lingua
franca: Research and pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 80-101.
Togame, N. (2016). Irony in a second language: exploring the
comprehension of Japanese speakers of English (Doctoral dissertation,
Middlesex University).
Yus, F. (2000). On reaching the intended ironic interpretation.
International Journal of Communication, 10(1-2), 27-78.
