Reasonable Reconstruction of Socratic Irony in Public Discourse

IF 1 2区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Michael J. Hoppmann
{"title":"Reasonable Reconstruction of Socratic Irony in Public Discourse","authors":"Michael J. Hoppmann","doi":"10.1007/s10503-021-09557-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Reasonable reconstruction of public statements is an essential component of civil discourse especially in contentious political contexts. This essay addresses the problems posed by irony through the perspective of the speaker and the audience. I argue that existing attempts to systematize the identification and reconstruction of irony focus unduly on forms of contrary irony, thereby neglecting the more complex figure of Socratic Irony. Socratic Irony (also discussed as referential irony, echotic irony or dialectical irony), which can be characterized by the invocation of the voice of the other, is distinguished from other important meanings of the word “irony” and illustrated by one ancient and three contemporary examples. When encountering this stylistic device, reasonable audiences must choose their principle of reconstruction. Of the five options for this choice, the final one reconstructing Socratic Irony using recurring markers is ultimately championed and its functionality demonstrated on the four earlier examples.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 1","pages":"101 - 121"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-021-09557-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Reasonable reconstruction of public statements is an essential component of civil discourse especially in contentious political contexts. This essay addresses the problems posed by irony through the perspective of the speaker and the audience. I argue that existing attempts to systematize the identification and reconstruction of irony focus unduly on forms of contrary irony, thereby neglecting the more complex figure of Socratic Irony. Socratic Irony (also discussed as referential irony, echotic irony or dialectical irony), which can be characterized by the invocation of the voice of the other, is distinguished from other important meanings of the word “irony” and illustrated by one ancient and three contemporary examples. When encountering this stylistic device, reasonable audiences must choose their principle of reconstruction. Of the five options for this choice, the final one reconstructing Socratic Irony using recurring markers is ultimately championed and its functionality demonstrated on the four earlier examples.

公共话语中苏格拉底反讽的合理重构
公共声明的合理重构是公民话语的重要组成部分,尤其是在有争议的政治背景下。本文从说话人和听众的角度探讨了反讽所带来的问题。我认为,现有的对反讽的系统化识别和重建的尝试过于关注相反反讽的形式,从而忽视了苏格拉底反讽中更复杂的形象。苏格拉底反讽(也称为指称反讽、回声反讽或辩证反讽)可以通过援引对方的声音来表征,它与“反讽”一词的其他重要含义不同,并通过一个古代和三个当代例子加以说明。当遇到这种文体手法时,理性的观众必须选择他们的重建原则。在这一选择的五个选项中,最后一个使用重复标记重建苏格拉底讽刺的选项最终得到了支持,其功能在之前的四个例子中得到了证明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Argumentation
Argumentation Multiple-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal. Its aim is to gather academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference and persuasion: communication, rhetoric (classical and modern), linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, psychology, philosophy, logic (formal and informal), critical thinking, history and law. Its scope includes a diversity of interests, varying from philosophical, theoretical and analytical to empirical and practical topics. Argumentation publishes papers, book reviews, a yearly bibliography, and announcements of conferences and seminars.To be considered for publication in the journal, a paper must satisfy all of these criteria:1.     Report research that is within the journals’ scope: concentrating on argumentation 2.     Pose a clear and relevant research question 3.     Make a contribution to the literature that connects with the state of the art in the field of argumentation theory 4.     Be sound in methodology and analysis 5.     Provide appropriate evidence and argumentation for the conclusions 6.     Be presented in a clear and intelligible fashion in standard English
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信