• No results found

The understanding of the implications of sarcastic and ironic utterances from Modern Family in English as a foreign language

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The understanding of the implications of sarcastic and ironic utterances from Modern Family in English as a foreign language"

Copied!
33
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Bachelor Thesis

HALMSTAD

UNIVERSITY

English 61-90, 30 hp

The understanding of the implications of

sarcastic and ironic utterances from Modern

Family in English as a foreign language

Bachelor thesis in linguistics, English

61-90, 15 credits

Halmstad 2020-06-14

Jessica Johansson

(2)

Abstract

In the current study, 34 nine graders in a Swedish school were given a test where they would interpret sarcastic and ironic utterances from the American series Modern Family by

explaining the implication in their own words. They were also asked to assess their own knowledge of English by filling out a questionnaire containing both qualitative and quantitative questions. The aims were to investigate whether the students understood the implications and if the total score could be connected to their own perception of their level of proficiency. The results show that although plenty of the students assessed themselves being highly comfortable with English as a foreign language, it did not result in a high

understanding of sarcastic and ironic utterances. Out of 646 possible points, the students only reached a score of 156 in total. It was also clear that their self assessments did not comply with their results. While confident students received low scores, insecure students did well on the test.

(3)

1

Table of contents

1. Introduction and structure………..………….2

2. Literature review………....……….4

2.1 Dictionary definition of sarcasm and irony……….………..4

2.1.1 Irony……….…………...………...4

2.1.2 Sarcasm……….……….………….…………...4

2.2 What is irony and sarcasm?...5

2.3 Can irony and sarcasm be used interchangeably?...7

2.4 First exposure of sarcasm and irony……….……….7

2.5 Differences between children’s and adults’ understanding of sarcasm and irony……….………...8

2.6 Sarcasm and irony in L2 English………..…...……..…….9

3. The present study……..………...………...…………12

3.1 Research questions addressed.…………..………..12

3.2 Informants………..………..………..……….12

3.3 Selection of show and scenes…...………...13

3.4.1 The test……….………..……….……….13

3.4.2 The scenes……..………...……….……..14

3.5 The use of subtitles ……….…….….…………...…………...18

3.6 The questionnaire………....……….…18

4. Results and discussion……….………..19

5. Conclusion……….………...………….………27

(4)

2

1. Introduction and structure

A couple is in their room on a rented houseboat. They are about to enjoy a warm summer’s day before watching a solar eclipse. A is in the bedroom while B is preparing himself in the bathroom. He comes out of the bathroom wearing a white robe, a white headpiece and a thick layer of sunscreen all over his face. Seeing this, A asks “What’s all this then?”. B replies

“The doctor said absolutely no sun while I’m on these antibiotics”. A continues by asking “And what would happen? Because if it’s anything short of death, I-I think you should risk it”, conveying an attitude of disapproval of B’s choices of protection. The understanding of

the use of pragmatics in this short dialogue is of great importance, since without being able to interpret what A just uttered, it sounds like he prefers the death of his partner before exposing himself in an embarrassing way. Obviously, what he mainly implicated by using sarcasm, was that B looks ridiculous. It would therefore be interesting to investigate how well Swedish nine graders, who have been studying English for at least six years and should have obtained more than a basic level of proficiency, actually understand sarcasm and irony (henceforth S&I) in an American sitcom in English as a foreign language, which is what this study aims to examine.

More specifically, the main focus of this study will lie on how well the implicatures implemented are understood by Swedish nine graders. In the sitcom Modern Family, the use of S&I occurs frequently. The sitcom is also highly popular in Sweden which is why it has been chosen. Since the terms S&I are used not only in this type of series, but widely across different genres, it will add to the existing body of knowledge if it can be established to what extent Swedish students are able to use their interpretations of the terms to draw inferences.

This study will approach the data from a pragmatic point of view, using Grice’s maxim of

quality and the contextual sources of Yus Ramos to analyse the individual interactions and the success of the interpretations of the implicatures. This study will also attempt to reveal how well humour is derived from another culture. Therefore, the data will also be approached from a sociolinguistic point of view.

In Subsections 2.1 and 2.2, definitions of S&I will be offered. Thereafter, studies regarding at what age children usually are exposed to the terms for the first time will be presented. This will be followed by an explanation of what Grice’s maxim of quality entails and how it functions when using S&I, as well as an overview of Yus Ramos’ contextual sources. Subsections 3.1-3.4 present the present study where methodology and questionnaire will be

(5)

3

explained. Results and discussion follow in Subsection 4. Lastly, a conclusion will be offered in Subsection 5.

(6)

4

2. Literature review

Though a current subject, the literature in the area has shown there is still much left unexplored when it comes to the understanding of sarcasm and irony between different cultures (Kim, 2014). The following Subsections will offer the reader definitions of sarcasm and irony as well as a review of what has been done so far in areas relevant to this

investigation.

2.1 Dictionary definition of irony and sarcasm

2.1.1 Irony

The Cambridge Dictionary defines irony in two different ways;

“a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different result”

“the use of words that are the opposite of what you mean, as a way of being funny”

The first definition will not be utilized in this essay, as it does not concern humour in the way it is scrutinized here. The second definition, however, is more suitable, but still not entirely applicable as it is not always true that the opposite of an utterance is implicated when using irony. As Grice (1975)

explains, irony occurs when the figurative meaning does not comply with the literal meaning, i.e. an utterance does not have to mean the opposite, but it still means something else than was uttered. A third definition is offered which, according to the dictionary, is an American interpretation:

“Irony is a style of writing in which there is a noticeable, often humorous, difference between what is said and the intended meaning.”

2.1.2 Sarcasm

The Cambridge dictionary also defines sarcasm in two ways. As the reader can see, the two definitions are closely similar with one minor discrepancy, namely that the first one implies

(7)

5

that the speaker means the opposite while being mean in a fun way while the second one implies the same but without being mean:

“the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way”

“remarks that mean the opposite of what they say, made to criticize someone or something in a way that is amusing to others but annoying to the person

criticized”

Both definitions are relevant to the study and will be utilized.

2.2 What is irony and sarcasm?

Although informative, the definitions of S&I from the Cambridge Dictionary are in some ways insufficient. In this section, more theories will be presented in order to convey a broader understanding of the terms. Although the authors mainly discuss irony, the following theories concern sarcasm as well since both terms derive from the same meaning as explained in Subsection 2.1.

Grice (1975) explains irony as a way of flouting one of his maxims; “Do not say what you believe to be false” (the maxim of quality). In accordance with Winner (1988) and Wilson and Sperber (2012), this means that the current utterance is actually not true and what is implicated is the opposite of what is said when using irony. The verb “to implicate” (noun: implicature or implication) is interchangeable with verbs like “to suggest”, “to imply” or “to mean”. Grice further explains that there should exist an honest conversation between

interlocutors where what is said is also what is meant. The figurative meaning should comply with the literal meaning. When this does not occur, it means that the maxim has been flouted which is how irony and sarcasm appear. This means that the implication of an utterance does not have to mean the opposite, it simply means that what was uttered has another literal meaning. Grice explains with an example: A and B have been on close terms until recently when A exposed a secret of B’s to C. B and his audience are both aware of this. B then says “A is a fine friend”. To B and his audience it is quite clear that what B purports to put forward is the contradiction to what he actually means.

(8)

6

Winner (1988) explains that irony is a form of nonliteral speech. This means that an ironic statement actually implies the opposite of what is uttered, yet has some point of authenticity at the same time. She also argues that the purpose of using irony is mainly to express an attitude towards a situation, which is mostly negative. For example, when A says to B: “Can you do all the work so I can get more spare time?” and B answers: “Sure, sounds

like a great plan!”, it clearly shows that B does not like the plan at all. Although

Banasik-Jemielniak (2019) claims that children as young as 2 possibly are familiar with S&I , Winner suggests that children cannot comprehend the use of irony until the age of six or seven. According to her study (Banasik-Jemielniak, 2019) regarding children's exposure to irony during the four first years of their life, younger children can grasp the fact that a positive word, such as “great”, can be used in both a positive and a negative way with examples like “Wow, you’ve done great!” or “Great, I lost my money”. However, they would not be able to explain why that is the case.

Winner (1988) also claims that irony is not restricted to a specific amount of text. It may be used in one single sentence as well as portraying a characteristic throughout an entire novel. She explains it with an example from one of Jonathan Swift’s novels Modest Proposal, where children born in poverty were to be killed and eaten so as to not become an economic burden. The point was to address and mock the politicians and their casual attitude towards the poor in Ireland.

Further, Grice (1975) offers examples of how the maxim of quality could be flouted by dividing verbal irony into four different subcategories: metaphor, hyperbole, meiosis and irony. Used in a metaphor, the intended meaning is for it to be a simile or comparison. For example, “Anna is a quick rabbit” would be a metaphor meaning that Anna runs fast like rabbits do. In hyperbole it is used to strengthen the literal meaning: “The car is so big you can

fit a house into it”. Obviously this is not true but it clearly conveys that the car is big. Meiosis

weakens the literal meaning: Using “It may have cost a little” as a response to the question “Was it expensive?” implies that it was very expensive. Used in irony, the purpose is to implicate the contrary of what is uttered: “I can’t thank the thief enough for stealing my bag”. This could be an utterance from someone who just got their bag stolen and is now extremely annoyed.

(9)

7

2.3 Can irony and sarcasm be used interchangeably?

According to Christopher James Lee (1996), it is not possible to use the two terms

interchangeably. He explains that intonation and choice of victim (the receiver of the sarcastic or ironic utterance) differ between the two terms. Attardo et al. (2003) agrees with the fact that intonation is a marker that clearly shows that irony and sarcasm are distinct from each other. The intonation of irony remains flat, which means that the pitch in the voice neither rises nor falls. It sounds monotonic. The intonation of sarcasm is suggested to have a wider range of melodies, i.e. a singsong melody or even falsetto. For example, a parent with three kids has made coffee. While sitting in the sofa ready to drink, the kids start fighting. When the fight is resolved, the parent goes back to the sofa and takes a sip of the coffee. Noticing that the coffee has gone cold, the parent says “Nothing like a cold cup of coffee” with a singsong melody. When it comes to choice of victim, sarcasm is commonly used among people who know each other and each other’s preferences, while ironic utterances such as “Nice weather

we have today” are more common among strangers who try to be polite with each other while

for example waiting for the bus.

2. 4 First exposure to sarcasm and irony

Banasik-Jemielniak (2019) has conducted a study which has proven that children are exposed to irony and sarcasm at an early age. In the study, parents’ dialogues with their children were recorded in order to find out how frequently S&I occurred. Mostly, the relevant comments were directed to either the child, the partner or the speaker’s own behaviour in the family that was being observed. The utterances had different characteristics and were therefore divided into the following categories; metaphors, hyperboles, understatements, rhetorical questions, ironic repetitions, changes of register, exclamations, and interjections. The findings of the

investigation reports that children as young as two are exposed to sarcasm and irony. However, no explanation of the two terms is given to the children and although they might recognize and understand the intended message of a sarcastic or ironic comment, they might not be able to explain the implication in their own words.

(10)

8

2.5 Differences between children’s and adults’ understanding of sarcasm and irony

Capelli, Nakagawa and Madden (1990) discuss the fact that even though children might be able to recognize sarcasm and irony, there is, as mentioned in the beginning of this section, little knowledge about exactly when they are able to define it. They also bring up the question whether children are able to understand it in the same way adults do. In order to identify irony and sarcasm, adults rely on three markers. Firstly, a circumstantial marker relies on a context where for example one orders a coffee at a shop. Suddenly, the person spills the coffee, which is later slipped on by the same person. The person receives a new coffee and a few seconds later bumps into another person who spills the new coffee. The barista says, “This must be

your lucky day”. The person realizes the discrepancy between the barista’s utterance and the

contextual circumstances. Secondly, a linguistic marker may occur when two people are having dinner. One of them is vegetarian. The other person then says that they’re having entrecote for dinner where the vegetarian replies “Great, that’s my favourite!”. To the second person, the irony is clear since the first person already has explained that he does not eat meat. The last marker is intonation. A common use of this type is when one utters “Great job” with a dismal tone to someone who has made a mistake. Ackerman (1986) claims that children, however, use only context and literal meaning. He explains that children are able to hear a discrepancy between the literal meaning of an utterance and the context it is given in. In a football match, for example, one team loses. A supporter of that team yells “Well done!”. The child realizes that the utterance does not apply to what actually happened and can hence reject the literal meaning.

The most significant problem for children when trying to understand irony or sarcasm is to understand that the speaker’s utterance is supposed to be taken nonliterally (Winner 1988). This is emphasized by Whitson (2011) who explains that when a child’s behaviour is met with sarcasm, the intention of the utterance will probably not come forth. She explains it with an example:

The child chews its food with the mouth open.

Adult to child: I just love the way your food looks all chewed up inside of your mouth.

Either the child will probably be thinking that he/she should eat with its mouth open more often or that the grown-up is sort of weird. Nevertheless, the intention of the adult’s utterance was to make the child chew with its mouth closed. This, however, was not clear to the child and therefore, it understood the utterance literally instead of nonliterally. As Winner (1988) and Whitson (2011) explain, it may become a problem if an adult who uses S&I expects a

(11)

9

child to understand the utterance, when studies show that children younger than 7 years often do not.

2.6 Sarcasm and irony in L2 English

Dolan (2016) reports that native speakers have a greater understanding for sarcasm in English than non-native speakers. However, in a few instances, it came forth that the non-native speakers tested were prone to answer more correctly than the native speakers. For example, when it came to written vs. spoken sarcasm, the non-native speakers found it easier

interpreting the written sarcasm which shows that contextual information was less difficult to interpret. However, when interpreting spoken sarcasm, it was clear that the natives came up with more correct inferences than the non-natives. Dolan believes that intonation patterns and societal factors, such as culture and country of origin, may be the reason for this and should hence be investigated further. He also mentions age as an important factor and explains that the older the testee, the better was the understanding of sarcasm. Another preponderant factor is offered by Shively et al. (2008). Their study investigated the L2 comprehension on ironic utterances in Spanish movies. The results indicate that the higher the level of proficiency, the more correct answers were given when interpreting ironic utterances. This is in accordance with Dolan.

Yus Ramos (2001) argues that in order for an L2 learner to fully understand an ironic utterance, there have to be other informative sources provided. These are listed as followed:

A. Factual information - Incompatibility with factual, encyclopaedic, and common sense assumptions about the world we live in, i.e. it is clear in a conversation that an utterance

does not comply with how things in the world work between two interlocutors.

B. Physical setting - Incompatibility with a salient phenomenon from the speech setting surrounding the interlocutors in the course of a conversation, i.e. two people have the

same opinion about a subject but in a current conversation one of them pretends to think otherwise.

C. Nonverbal communication - Incompatibility with normal nonverbal behaviour which typically accompanies verbal speech, e.g. one uses a high pitch in an utterance which

would not take place in a normal conversation but is used to show that the utterance is not true.

(12)

10

D. Biographical data - Incompatibility with the speaker’s opinions, character, habits and attitudes about life and the world we live in, i.e. between two people who know

each other very well, it is clear in an utterance that the speaker is contradicting his true self in a humorous way.

E. Mutual knowledge - Incompatibility with information which is supposedly shared between the interlocutors, i.e. something uttered does not comply with a shared

opinion between the people in the conversation.

F. Previous utterances - Incompatibility (in the current conversational context) of the repeated utterance with the information provided explicitly by the same utterance in previous stages of the conversation or even farther away in time. Alternatively,

incompatibility between the assumptions arising from the interpretation of previous

utterances and the information provided by the current utterance. For this part to work, one or

more previous conversations have to have taken place. In a current conversation a speaker may refer to a previous one in a contradicting way and uses this as a strategy for irony or sarcasm.

G. Linguistic cues - Incompatibility with linguistic choices and sentential structures which are typically used for ordinary conversation, i.e. a person’s utterance stands out when it

comes to, for example, grammar or word structure and he uses this as a strategy to convey irony.

He believes that these contextual sources are the means for providing the hearer with information in order to conclude that the speaker is using irony as well as exposing the discrepancy between the utterance and the intended interpretation. Continually, if the informative support reaches the correct level, the hearer will have all information needed in order to fully understand the utterance. If the informative support does not suffice, it may lead to a misunderstanding. For example, in a situation where the strangers Liz and Fred

commence a conversation on the train:

Liz: Listen! Can you imagine that women still earn 30% less than men? Fred: Yeah, show them who’s the boss!

Liz: Do you really think that men and women aren’t equal?

Fred: Of course not, I was only joking. Salaries should be set regardless of gender.

The importance of support from contextual sources is great since without any evidence to show that the speaker’s intended meaning is ironic, the hearer will not search for any other interpretations than the literal meaning of the utterance. In the previous dialogue, a

(13)

11

misunderstanding was to be predicted due to the fact that firstly, Liz and Fred did not know each other. Because of this, the physical setting is aimed for failure. Since Fred’s utterance is conveyed with a flat tone, the nonverbal communication is also unclear. Being strangers, they also had no previous utterances to draw inferences with. This shows that Fred’s utterance did not contain enough contextual sources in order for Liz to understand that he was using sarcasm.

However, the contextual sources may not be applicable in every language. Kim (2014) explains in a study that Korean EFL learners used different types of schemas to conclude whether an utterance was meant to be ironic. The results showed that the schemas consisted of the speaker mentioning something too obvious or obviously untrue, asking rhetorical

questions, or using facial expressions and body movements. He also mentions that the Korean participants used a specific type of lense when trying to discern what irony is and what it is not. This clearly shows how culture plays a significant part when interpreting attitudes and emotions conveyed by verbal speech. Kim also explains that when given the proper

instructions on how to identify sarcasm, the L2 learners reached a higher level of accuracy in comprehending the use of sarcasm.

(14)

12

3. The present study

3.1 Research questions addressed

The research questions addressed are these:

1. Do nine graders understand the implicatures of sarcasm and irony in English as a foreign language?

2. If misinterpretation occurs, what are the reasons?

3. Are there correlations between the informants' own assessment of their knowledge of the English language and the number of correct implicatures made?

3.2 Informants

Based on availability, a total number of 34 students participated in the present study, all of whom were in grade 9. Those who willingly participated formed a group with a wide range of ethnicities, economic background and gender (see table).

Table 1. Ethnicities of the participating informants

Male Female Swedish 5 11 Albanian 2 3 Arabic 5 2 Russian 1 0 Syrian 1 0 Turkish 0 2 Gujarati 0 1 Unknown 1 0 .

This table presents the students’ different native languages. The majority of the students have Swedish as their native language, 16 out of 34. A total of seven students speak Arabic

(15)

13

and five speak Albanian. Those are the most common languages among these students. One boy has Russian as his native language while another has Syrian. Two girls speak Turkish at home while another speaks Gujarati. One student did not provide an answer to this question but did fill in that he did not have Swedish as his native language.

Before the study was conducted, and since the students are underage, their parents were informed that this study was going to take place and that they should reach out if they preferred their child not to participate. The students were also informed that it was fully voluntary to participate in the study, that they would remain anonymous and that their answers would be handled confidentially and used only in this study.

3.3 Selection of show and scenes

The selected show is an American sitcom Modern Family which has been aired since 2009. The show was chosen based on the fact that sarcasm and irony are frequently used, often several times during an episode. It is also popular and well known in Sweden and the characters’ speech is of a colloquial type which is easy for the students to understand. Since the show is available on Netflix with English subtitles it was decided to use the latest season available, season 8. After watching 14 episodes, the first 30 sarcastic or ironic lines were chosen. It was later assessed that 19 of them were functioning in a way that would fit the informants’ level of English. The 11 remaining lines which were not included in the test were either too circumstantial or required a higher level of proficiency. Those which were too circumstantial did mostly depend on the testee having seen the show before as they regarded something that had happened in the past. Without being familiar with the past, it would probably be impossible to understand the implication. The lines requiring a higher level of proficiency contained for example difficult words, idioms or terms the informants probably would not be able to understand. Therefore, it was decided to discard those lines.

3.4.1 The test

In the test, the students were given 19 sarcastic/ironic lines. After reading through them once in order to be prepared, they were shown the parts of the show where these lines were uttered with subtitles. The short scenes shown were approximately one minute long each in order to give the students context. In accordance with Yus Ramos (2001), contextual information needed to be provided. Therefore, the scenes had to contain more information than just the

(16)

14

actual line interpreted. Without understanding the subject of the dialogue, the interpretation of the selected line would probably be nothing more than a guess. After hearing the selected line, they were given time to write down their interpretation of what they believed to be the

intended implicature.

3.4.2 The scenes

Presented here are the scenes chosen from the show. Each scene is also provided with a short explanation of the implicature.

1. - Yeah, it's almost 4 (o'clock)! A family finds itself in an awkward situation in which a lie is almost exposed. To separate everyone, the mother says, “Let’s get this party

started”, upon which the eldest daughter who likes to party (late) utters the comment.

2. - Good to be home. After a short vacation, a character is finally at home where he is met with drama immediately.

3. - Says the murderer. A character is accused for being responsible for an old woman’s death although she was already dying. When he says that his sister is awful for smiling when someone/something dies, she says this utterance back to him.

4. - That must be your good friends the Harlem Globetrotters. A character is being funny over the fact that her husband is nervous about looking like a racist in front of his new African American neighbors. He has asked his African American friend to come over to show that he is friends with people of all color and when the friend rings the doorbell, the wife makes the utterance.

5. - Should be a short meeting. This is a sister’s reaction to her brother’s appointment regarding college. She always makes fun of him because of his low grades, but she is not better herself.

6. - Are your parents mallards? A character has a meeting with her friends. They are trying to promote a club with pictures of themselves visiting it. One of them cannot stop making duck face in her pictures.

7. - To clown college? A character’s husband is wearing make up for being on TV. Drinking his coffee he sees the lipstick sticking to the cup and he says, "Looks like I need to re-apply", where her comment then follows.

8. - You can always sell oranges by the side of the road. A character indicates to another that art school is a lost cause.

(17)

15

9. - Well, it's better than any report card you ever brought home. A character says this after the brother complains about having three D's when they're playing scrabble. He is considered dumb.

10. - Oh, it is baffling. This is uttered by a character when his partner finds it horrible that a kid takes more candy than offered on Halloween.

11. - Apparently, you don't need a reason to leave your family. The father says this to his daughter who wants to abandon a family tradition to go to Cabo with her new

boyfriend.

12. - Oh, I saw some champagne back there! A character exclaims this when another says that they should do something after an unpopular person falls down due to a heart condition.

13. - We would just sell the Rembrandt in the faculty lounge. This is the headmaster’s answer to the student when asked what would happen if they went over budget with several thousand dollars creating a school ball.

14. - What was Oscar Wilde like? A gay student utters this to a gay chaperone at a school ball who tries to explain that everything gets easier when you are older. The chaperone talks about his time in school. Thereafter, the student makes the utterance.

15. - Sorry, stuck like many father/son relationships. The wife tricks her husband to go inside his dad’s motorhome. She then holds the door while making the utterance so her husband cannot get out. He is then forced to talk for real for a change with his dad. 16. - You're lovely. A character wants help from her brother to separate their parents. She

says that he should tell their mother that he wants to talk about “gay stuff”, upon which he answers the utterance.

17. - I guess these are clean enough. The mother is walking down with dirty laundry just to see that her husband has taken the dryer apart in order to fix it. She immediately sees that it is going to take a while and that she will not be doing laundry for some time.

18. - Right, the dryer's the one that needs to get it's own place. A character says this to his sister, indicating that she is the one who should move out after she has complained about him and his dad trying to fix the dryer and asked if they can do it somewhere else.

19. - Those are fun details. This is a character’s response to another who says that he has got big hands and is not afraid of heights.

(18)

16

3.5 The use of subtitles

English subtitles were utilized during the test in order to offer more support. Without subtitles, there would probably be a great loss of answers due to the possibility that the informants may not have heard what the characters said. Nevertheless, the focus still lies on spoken language. The difference between reading, for example, a book, and listening with subtitles, is that with a text, one can read the context of a chosen scene several times and is hence given more time to study the scene. However, intonation, body language and facial reactions are only to be imagined. When watching an episode with subtitles, one is only offered more support because the focus does not only lie on the text, but everything occurring in the picture as well. Time is also restricted since, in most cases, one line is quickly followed up by a new line. In order to keep up with the events in an episode, one will have to move on directly and can, therefore, not be focused on the text itself.

3.6 The questionnaire

A questionnaire containing both qualitative and quantitative questions was constructed. Here the students were given questions regarding their own perception of their ability to read, write, speak and understand spoken English as a foreign language, along a five-point scale. They were able to grade their own level they assessed themselves to have obtained, with “1” meaning they found English hard in the specific area and “5” meaning they found it easy. “2” would mean that they understood a little but not the whole context. “3” would mean that they understood the context and “4” would mean that they understood the context and a few details. They were also asked how often they expose themselves to English speech in their spare time. With this information a connection could possibly be made between their own assessment of their knowledge in English and how well they performed on the test which followed.

(19)

17

4. Results and discussion

The research questions will be addressed in the present Section. Table 2 offers the results of the test of the informants’ interpretations of the scenes and their implicatures.

Table 2. The results of the test showing the numbers of correct answers, incorrect answers

and scenes unanswered

Correct answers of all Incorrect answers of all Unanswered 24.15% (=156/646) 41.80% (=270/646) 34.05% (=220/646)

Table 2 shows that it was a difficult task for the students to interpret the lines they were given. Barely a quarter of the answers given were correct, while just over 40% were incorrect. The third column shows that 34,05% of the lines were answered with “I don’t know”, “I don’t

understand” or simply left blank. Although children as young as two are exposed to S&I

(Banasik-Jemielniak, 2019), these results show that being able to interpret and explain sarcastic and ironic utterances does not come automatically. As Capelli, Nakagawa and Madden (1990) claim, it is still unknown at what age children are able to define the terms. However, the questionnaire showed that 27 out of the 34 informants claimed to know what S&I entail, while only 13 of those 27 were able to also explain what the terms mean.

Nevertheless, there were instances where a few informants answered “I know what they mean

but I’m not sure how to explain it” which may be in accordance with Ackerman (1986) whose

results showed that the informants were able to reject the literal meaning but failed to produce the implication.

The number of incorrect answers is probably due to the fact that the informants are L2 speakers from Sweden. As Dolan’s study (2016) shows, non-native speakers have a harder time understanding S&I in another language. As he also emphasizes, it is even harder to interpret spoken than written S&I. Since this study mainly focuses on spoken S&I, it may be a reason for the low number of correct answers. Another reason may be the level of proficiency, which according to Shively et al. (2008) is an important factor to take into account. Since the informants still are in secondary school, the level of proficiency varies greatly. Their answers in the questionnaire enhance the fact that they are at different levels. However, 15 out of the 34 informants assessed themselves to be at the highest level when it comes to listening

(20)

18

comprehension which does not agree with the study’s results. Perhaps they considered it easy to hear what people say when speaking English, but were not able to explain and interpret the specific terms this study aims to investigate.

Table 3. The results of the informants scores

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 34 f x x f x x x f x x x f x u x x x x f 30 f x x f x x x f f x x f f f x x f x x 10 x x x f x x x x x f u u x f u x f u x 15 x u x u f x x x x x u f f u f x f x x 8 x u x u f x x x x x u f f u f x f x x 20 f f x f x x x x x x f f f u x f f x f 28 f x u f x x x f f x f f f f f x f x x 31 f f f u x f x x u f x x f u x x f u x 33 x f f f x x x x x f f f f u f x f u f 27 f x f u x x x f u u f u f u f x x u x 29 f f x f f x u x x u f f x f x f f f f 5 u x x u u x u x x u u x u u u u u u u 14 f f x f f f f f u x f f x f f x f f x 11 f f f x x f x f f f x f u u x f f f f 32 f x f f f x u u f f f x f f u x f f x 7 x x f x x f u x u u f f f u f u f f f 2 u x x u f u f x x u u x f f u u f f u

(21)

19 26 f f f f f f x f f x f f f u x x f f f 6 x u x u u f x f f u u f u x u u f u u 23 f f x f x f u u u u f u u u x f f u u 25 f f f f f u f f f f f f f f f f x u x 4 f u f x f x f f f u u f u u u f f u f 22 f u x f f f f f u u u u u u u u f f x 16 x f f f u u x f u u u f u u f u u u u 3 x u f u u f f x u u u f u u u u u f u 19 x x u u u u u f f f u u u u u u f f u 18 u u f u f f x u u u u f u u u f u u u 24 f f f f f f f f u f f f u f f f f f u 1 f f u f u f f f f u u f u f u f f f f 21 f u f f u u f f f f u f f u f f f f u 9 u f f u u f f f u u u f u f u u f u f 12 u u f u f f u f f u f f u u u u u u u 13 u u u u u u u f u f u f u u u f u u f 17 f u u u u f u f u u u f u u u u u u u

Table 3 clarifies the scores of the informants, starting with the informant reaching the highest score. “X” equals correct, “F” stands for false and “U” means unanswered. None of the informants received all points despite the fact that 12 of them considered themselves to be highly comfortable with the English language. These informants put themselves at level 4 or 5 out of 5 when it came to all aspects of the language (writing, reading, listening and speaking). Informant 34 scored the best (13/19), but she did not consider herself to be the best. The

(22)

20

informants who scored zero points presented a great variation of assessments which is shown below.

Table 4. The assessments of the informants receiving zero points

Reading Writing Speaking Listening Score Informant 24 4 3 4 4 0 Informant 1 2 3 2 3 0 Informant 21 2 3 1 4 0 Informant 9 4 5 - 5 0 Informant 12 4 5 2 4 0 Informant 13 3 5 3 5 0 Informant 17 4 4 4 5 0

Table 4 shows that informant 1 and 21 state that there are aspects of the language they are not comfortable with which their scores of the test also agreed with. However, the other

informants seem to be moderately comfortable, but are still receiving zero points. Out of these seven informants, six have another native language than Swedish. This may be a reason for the low scores due to the fact that, as Dolan (2016) explains, country of origin is a societal factor that possibly affects the understanding of S&I in another language. On the other hand, twelve other informants with other native languages than Swedish did receive points, ranging from 2-11. Among the Swedish informants, the points ranged from 1-13. Since these are the results, it may be concluded that the informants’ level of proficiency is the reason why misinterpretation has occurred. It is clear that the difference regarding ethnicity is not immense.

It is also possible that the results are not dependent on the country of origin at all. As Capelli, Nakagawa and Madden (1990) explain, there are different markers to rely on when it comes to identifying and interpreting S&I: circumstantial, linguistic and intonation. If the line interpreted comes from a circumstantial context it would be crucial to give the informant the entire context. However, if the context originates from an earlier episode or relies on an entire

(23)

21

season, this context would be impossible to provide. Furthermore, Yus Ramos (2001) argues that there are seven informative sources, also called contextual sources. Provided with the correct number of informative sources, one should be able to interpret the implicature of an ironic or sarcastic utterance. In the possible event that a lack of contextual sources should arise, it is also possible that a misunderstanding will occur. This may have been the case for most of the informants who answered incorrectly. For example, in the first scene the eldest daughter in a family exclaims “Yeah, it’s almost 4!”. This happens during a gathering of three families. They are supposed to celebrate Father’s Day. The daughter’s family, including herself, has recently been to New York. When returning home, the children and the parents took separate ways. Both parties decided to stay longer in New York and a lie was initiated. When they are all gathered at the celebration later, an awkward moment arises where the lie almost becomes exposed. To stop the awkwardness, the mother of the family says, “Let’s get

this party started, huh?” to which the daughter adds her utterance with a high pitch. The

implication of the utterance was that it is still too early to start a party which is implied by her intonation. Still, she would rather start a party early than letting the lie come forth in the awkward situation. It is possible that one would have to be familiar with her personality and preferences when it comes to partying. Therefore, this utterance proves to rely on both a circumstantial and intonation marker. If the circumstantial marker outweighs the intonation marker, it would be impossible for those who have not seen the show before to explain the implication of the utterance.

Only six out of the 34 informants were able to score half or more of the total score. Among these, two had other native languages than Swedish. Their self assessments vary just like the ones who received zero points. The numbers are presented here:

Table 5. The assessments of the informants receiving half or more of the total score

Reading Writing Speaking Listening Score Informant 34 5 4 4 4 13 Informant 30 3 3 4 3 11 Informant 20 4 4 4 5 9 Informant 15 4 3 5 4 10

(24)

22

Informant 10 3 3 2 3 11 Informant 8 5 4 5 5 10

Table 5 shows that the numbers of assessment are quite similar to the table 3. All in all, these results show that there is no clear connection between the informants’ self assessments of their knowledge in the English language and their ability to interpret implicature of sarcastic and ironic utterances. It is, however, peculiar how informant 10 perceives herself to know less English than informant 17, who scored zero.

Table 6. The results of which scene received the highest score.

These results show that scene 16 was the easiest one to interpret. Half of the informants were able to produce an explanation of the implicated meaning of the utterance. The scene included two siblings. The sister told the brother to give a horrible excuse to his parents in order to separate them which would play on the fact that he is gay. To that he answered, “You’re

lovely”. The explanation of the implicature regarding this utterance was simply that she was

(25)

23

which let us know that it is sarcastic or ironic) (Capelli, Nakagawa and Madden, 1990) was hence quite concise since the sister’s utterance before the brother’s was all that was needed in order for one to understand that the brother did not find her lovely. All that was needed for the ironic utterance to take place was the sister’s suggestion that her brother should ask their mother to follow him and talk about “gay stuff”, hence was the circumstantial marker concise.

The other scenes which received half or more of the available points were: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, and 19. Although scene 2, 6, 7, 15 and 19 rely on circumstantial markers, they were all concise and the information needed was provided prior to the interpreted utterance. This means that all that was needed for the sarcastic or ironic utterance to appear was what was mentioned just prior to the current line interpreted. More contextual sources were not required. However, the remaining scenes either required that the informant fully understood the dialogue leading up to the interpreted utterance (scene 3), that the informant was aware of a character’s IQ level (scene 5) or that art school is considered a non-reliable direction to take if you want to earn money (scene 8).

The scenes which received less than half the points but at least one were: 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18. The difficulties among these scenes vary and are therefore presented in the table below together with the main marker adults rely on and an explanation. Although the informants are young, they were considered to rely on the same markers as adults due to the fact that they are in their late teens.

Line Main marker and explanation Scene

1

-Yeah, it’s almost 4!

Circumstantial. The challenge may have been to understand that the character finds it way too early to start a party.

Scene 9

-Well, it’s better than any report card you ever brought home.

Linguistic. In order to define the implication, one would have to know prior to this utterance that the receiver of the utterance does not get good grades.

Scene 10

-Oh, it is baffling. Intonation. The challenge here was the word “baffling”. Some informants understood the implication by listening to the

(26)

24 word. Scene 11 -Apparently, you don’t need a reason to leave your family.

Circumstantial. Although the informants were able to see why a character was leaving her family, they had a hard time

understanding that her father making the utterance was just sad, hence expressing the disappointment.

Scene 12

-Oh, I saw some champagne back there.

Linguistic. An unpopular person gets a heart attack. One bystander says that they have to do something, upon which another person answers that champagne is in order. The difficulty was to understand that they should celebrate the fact that a bad man is close to death.

Scene 13

-We would just sell the Rembrandt in the faculty lounge.

Linguistic. A student has gone over budget, creating a perfect snowball at school. He gets nervous and asks the principal what would happen if they went over budget, upon which the

principal makes the utterance. While some informants were able to understand that a Rembrandt is valuable although not

knowing what it is, some were not able to draw this conclusion. Scene

17

-I guess these are clean enough.

Intonation. A character comes down to the laundry room with dirty laundry just to find that her husband has taken the dryer apart and has things everywhere. Obviously, the laundry is not clean enough, which she expresses by using a sarcastic tone that shows that it was annoying not being able to use the washing machine. Those who answered incorrectly mostly thought that she actually meant that the laundry was clean.

Scene 18

-Right, the dryer’s the one that needs to get its own place.

Circumstantial. While the father of the family tries to fix the dryer, his eldest daughter (who should have moved out a few years ago) comes out of her room and asks if they can continue somewhere else. Her brother replies the utterance with a tone that implies that she is the one who should go. This utterance was mostly left unanswered, which could be due to the fact that not many of the informants knew that the family wanted her out

(27)

25

of the house.

Although the informants were given as much context as was considered needed, many of them failed to produce an explanation of the implication in their own words regarding these scenes. Dolan (2016) believes that age is an important factor when interpreting S&I, which may be the reason why the informants mostly failed here. For example, an older person might easily realize that the daughter in scene 18 should have already moved out because of her age, while a younger person who still lives at home may see it in another way. It is also clear that the level of proficiency (Shively et al., 2008) is of importance since many informants found the words used an obstacle. As Kim (2014) explains, people from different cultures may use different types of schemas in order to conclude what an utterance means. Body movements, facial expressions or mentioning something too obvious or obviously untrue were according to Kim some of the schemas available. These schemas may vary from culture to culture and could hence be an important factor which explains why the informants found it difficult to interpret some of the scenes.

Scenes 4 and 14 received zero points. Several informants tried to explain scene 4 but failed. Most informants left scene 14 blank or wrote “I don’t know”. Scene 4 contained the utterance

“That must be your good friends the Harlem Globetrotters”. Before showing this scene, the

informants were informed verbally that a character is trying to convince his new neighbours, who are African-Americans, that he is not racist. First, he tells his wife that he is waiting for an African-American friend. When the friend knocked on the door, the wife made the utterance. The problem may once again have to do with age. The informants were obviously not familiar with the Harlem Globetrotters being a basketball team consisting of solely

African-Americans. An older person may have come by this fact through television or movies or simply by becoming more experienced with American culture. Scene 14 contains a similar problem. At a high school ball, a gay student is being very rude to his classmates. A

chaperone, who is also gay, thinks he is being rude because he is insecure. The chaperone decides to confront the student. After a short dialogue the student replies “What was Oscar

Wilde like?” in order to point out that the chaperone is old and has no idea of how the rules at

school work nowadays. The challenge in this utterance for the informants was to know that Oscar Wilde, who was also gay, lived a long time ago. Once again, age and country of origin are the possible factors which could have made it difficult for the informants to interpret the

(28)

26

utterance. The chances of reading about Oscar Wilde are quite low at an elementary school, but increase when studying at a higher level.

(29)

27

5. Conclusion

In the present investigation, 34 Swedish nine graders were tested on their abilities to interpret sarcasm and irony in a foreign language. 19 scenes from the American series Modern Family were searched out which contained either sarcastic or ironic utterances. Before conducting the test, the students were asked to assess their own knowledge of the English language in the form of a questionnaire. It was observed that even though the students perceived themselves to have good knowledge in English, this was not a guarantee that they would also score highly on the test, which means that there was no clear connection between the informants’

assessments and their scores on the test. Out of a total of 646 answers, only 156 were correct. The remaining utterances were either given the wrong answer or left blank. There were two scenes which did not receive any points. The reason for this was probably the fact that the utterance interpreted contained a name they were not familiar with (Harlem Globetrotters, Oscar Wilde). This means that the informants possibly did not fail due to their lack of knowledge in English, but rather the fact that they were unfamiliar with that specific

American culture and British literature. Discarding these scenes would probably have resulted in a higher total score. They did not only test the informants’ knowledge of S&I in English, but also culture and literature which was not the aim of this study.

Improvements that would have made this study better would be, for example, a test for the informants which would place them at a certain level instead of letting them assess

themselves. That could possibly show clearer connections between the level of proficiency and the reached scores. Furthermore, the question “Have you seen Modern Family before?” should have been added to the questionnaire in order to better understand why informants with the same level of proficiency received different scores.

According to Kim (2014), a higher score could be reached if the informants beforehand obtained information of how to interpret S&I. If one is simply investigating the understanding of S&I in a foreign spoken language, it could be useful to let the informants know exactly what is expected of them by offering strategies on how to understand implications and explaining them in one’s own words.

Time was of great limitation to the study. Since the test and questionnaire were conducted during a common English lesson, only one hour was available. With more time, a larger number of scenes could have been searched out in order to give the informants more chances to explain the implications. More time would also let the informants contemplate further about what the utterances meant. Another limitation was that only two classes (34 informants)

(30)

28

were able to do the test, which resulted in a smaller sample size than expected. A larger number of informants would give a wider range of knowledge of nine graders’ abilities to interpret S&I in English as a foreign language.

Future research about children’s understanding of S&I would contribute immensely to how children understand language overall. As culture may be of importance and immigration is a major feature of many societies across the world, it could also increase the understanding for people’s reactions to certain utterances. With a greater understanding for different

schemas and lenses when interpreting S&I, misunderstandings could be avoided. Further research regarding children’s and adults’ understanding of S&I would be deeply appreciated.

(31)

29

6. References

Ackerman, B., 1986. Children's Sensitivity to Comprehension Failure in Interpreting a Nonliteral Use of an Utterance. Child Development, 57(2), p.485.

Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J. and Poggi, I., 2003. Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 16(2).

Banasik-Jemielniak, N., 2019. Children's Exposure to Irony in the First Four Years of Their Life: What We Learn About the Use of Ironic Comments by Mothers from the Analysis of the Providence Corpus of Childes. Psychology of Language and Communication, 23(1), pp.1-13.

Capelli, C., Nakagawa, N. and Madden, C., 1990. How Children Understand Sarcasm: The Role of Context and Intonation. Child Development, 61(6), p.1824.

Dictionary.cambridge.org. 2020. Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations &

Thesaurus. [online] Available at: <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/> [Accessed 6 May 2020].

Dolan, J., 2016. How Second Language English Learners Interpret Sarcasm in English: A Survey. [online] Available at: <https://schwa.byu.edu/files/2016/01/Dolan_Sarcasm.pdf> [Accessed 6 May 2020].

Grice, H., 1975. Logic And Conversation. University of California, Berkeley.

Kim, J., 2014. How Korean EFL learners understand sarcasm in L2 English. Journal of

Pragmatics, 60, pp.193-206.

Lee, C., 1996. An examination of whether irony and sarcasm are different terms for the same psychological construct. ProQuest Information & Learning, 56(10B).

Shively, R., Menke, M. and Manzón-Omundson, S., 2008. Perception of Irony by L2 Learners of Spanish. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16(2).

(32)

30

Winner, E., 1988. The Point Of Words: Children's Understanding Of Metaphor And Irony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Whitson, S., 2011. "Very Funny!" Why Sarcasm is No Laughing Matter for Kids. Psychology

today, [online] Available at:

<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/passive-aggressive-diaries/201110/very-funny-why-sarcasm-is-no-laughing-matter-kids> [Accessed 6 May 2020].

Yus Ramos, F., 2000. Literal/non literal and the processing of verbal irony.

(33)

PO Box 823, SE-301 18 Halmstad Phone: +35 46 16 71 00

E-mail: registrator@hh.se www.hh.se

Figure

Table 1. Ethnicities of the participating informants
Table 2 shows that it was a difficult task for the students to interpret the lines they were given
Table 3 clarifies the scores of the informants, starting with the informant reaching the highest  score
Table 4. The assessments of the informants receiving zero points
+3

References

Related documents

Syftet eller förväntan med denna rapport är inte heller att kunna ”mäta” effekter kvantita- tivt, utan att med huvudsakligt fokus på output och resultat i eller från

Generella styrmedel kan ha varit mindre verksamma än man har trott De generella styrmedlen, till skillnad från de specifika styrmedlen, har kommit att användas i större

I regleringsbrevet för 2014 uppdrog Regeringen åt Tillväxtanalys att ”föreslå mätmetoder och indikatorer som kan användas vid utvärdering av de samhällsekonomiska effekterna av

Parallellmarknader innebär dock inte en drivkraft för en grön omställning Ökad andel direktförsäljning räddar många lokala producenter och kan tyckas utgöra en drivkraft

Närmare 90 procent av de statliga medlen (intäkter och utgifter) för näringslivets klimatomställning går till generella styrmedel, det vill säga styrmedel som påverkar

• Utbildningsnivåerna i Sveriges FA-regioner varierar kraftigt. I Stockholm har 46 procent av de sysselsatta eftergymnasial utbildning, medan samma andel i Dorotea endast

Den förbättrade tillgängligheten berör framför allt boende i områden med en mycket hög eller hög tillgänglighet till tätorter, men även antalet personer med längre än

På många små orter i gles- och landsbygder, där varken några nya apotek eller försälj- ningsställen för receptfria läkemedel har tillkommit, är nätet av