A Study of Irony in Political Discourse

Abstract

This study examines the ideological and evaluative nature of irony in discourse. It aims to reveal the linguistic constructions involved in ironic utterances and to uncover ideologies underpinning such structures. It draws upon the echo and pretense theories to account for utterance representation along with Wodak’s (2007) framework of self and other presentation strategies. The study examines the incongruous construction of an attitude, and the objectives attempted to achieve by taking a cynical stance. The main research questions center on the role played by ironic utterances and how they contribute to preserving the image of the speaker and to the negative representation of the other. The study reveals the way politicians mark their verbal irony, i.e., to classify and categorize the co-textual markers including hyperboles, and repetitive follow-up commentaries. The findings in this study support Bertuccelli (2018) view that irony is not merely saying the opposite of what one means but instead communicating an attitude. It adds to the existing literature that irony involves not a reversal of evaluation, but a reversal of attitudes about social actors to draw a positive self-image. Furthermore, the study shows that echoing the opponent's utterance involves a representation of acts and speech acts along with free direct and indirect speech.

Representation of Political Marches in The Headlines of Selected English Newspapers

“…(Apfelbaum, 2002;Douglas, 2009;Partington, 2003). In the same way, the politicians do the same thing to get dominance over the competing discourses and media help them achieving their goals (Bayram, 2010;Bwenge, 2009;Ilie, 2010;Lauerbach, 2006;Qaiwer, 2016;Skendery, 2014;Zhong, 2014). Andrea Mayr (2008) presents her theory that the discourses of the certain people related to some organizations are the means by which their politics and power are carried out.…”

The Effects of Power Abuse on Educational Processes in Private Universities in Nangarhar, Afghanistan

“…Power is defined as the capacity to influence others to do something or to achieve a certain outcome. According to (Jackson & Kandahar, 2015;Qaiwer, 2020;Snilstveit et al, 2017) and (Hoenig & Heisey, 2001) When individuals in power misuse this capacity for their interests, they violate the trust of those they lead or serve and cause harm to both individuals and the organization as a whole. Power abuse can take many forms, including bullying, harassment, discrimination, and nepotism.…”

“…(Jackson & Kandahar, 2015) Power-abusing leaders may occasionally be assassinated. Large-scale repercussions result from power abuse, which is why many leaders are counseled against doing so (Qaiwer, 2020).However, abuse of power is one of the reasons that prevent development and affect administrative work (Harwood et al, 2014). Especially if this abuse of power is in educational institutions, the impact is more extensive because educational institutions guarantee the future of countries.…”