Contentss

I.Introduction. 2

II.Theoretical Part. . 5

1.The representation of Irony. 5

2.The foundation of Irony. 6

3.The intent of Irony. 8

4.Irony and Clerisy. 10

5. Translation of Irony & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; & # 8230 ; .15

III.Practical Part 23

IV.Conclusion. 26

V.References. 28

Introduction

I have chosen this subject of the class work because the interlingual rendition of sarcasm
is truly ageless inquiry, and plus for all this, many transcribers are interested in this subject. The intent of this work
is to uncover different ways of interlingual rendition and to demo how gorgeous can be the English linguistic communication. What about relevancy,
this inquiry is really popular in the plants of different authors and poets, no affair which linguistic communication they are present. The class work is devoted to the survey of interlingual rendition of sarcasm. The sarcasm
is really complex and inconsistent procedure of demoing our ideas. Reasonably much everything is dry these yearss. Irony is used as a equivalent word for cool, for cynicism, for withdrawal, for intelligence ; it ‘s cited as the terminal of civilisation, every bit good as its redemption. In the figure of address, accent is placed on the resistance between the actual and intended significance of a statement ; one thing is said and its opposite implied. The indispensable characteristic of sarcasm
is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or look and the context in which it occurs. The New Oxford English Dictionary interpreted that sarcasm was a province of personal businesss or an event that seemed intentionally contrary to what one expected and was frequently amusive as a consequence.

The Greek etymology of the word & # 8220 ; sarcasm & # 8221 ; , & # 8220 ; eironeia & # 8221 ; , means & # 8220 ; pretension & # 8221 ; .
The Semitic root of the Greek word is derived from the Accadic term & # 8220 ; erewum & # 8221 ; , & # 8220 ; covering & # 8221 ; , by agencies of which sarcasm appears as a device to avoid the direct impact of an expressed word. In this sense, in common usage sarcasm is non needfully jump to the rhetoric construct of semantic inversion. Rather, it can be defined as an alternation of a mention taking at emphasizing the world of a fact by agencies of the evident deception of it & # 8217 ; s true nature. Anyhow, to cut down sarcasm to a mere rhetoric figure or a lingual artifice involves non prehending it & # 8217 ; s communicative significance due to the psychological web of it & # 8217 ; s inexplicit significances. In fact, in a communicative position, irony springs out as a strategic & # 8220 ; as if & # 8221 ; , both by get awaying the option of truth vs. falsity, and by suspending the subsequent parametric quantities of judgement.

So the sarcasm is reasoning in the deduction of the antonym in the apparently positive features. Sometimes the deduction is expressed
in the linguistic communication units, which are hard to interpret, but more frequently the job is the disparity between the traditionally methods of showing sarcasm in different civilizations. Expression of sarcasm, jeer is carried out in assorted ways, which may change in signifier, content and map in different linguistic communications and speech traditions. The simplest manner of showing sarcasm in English and Russian linguistic communications are the quotation marks when it is standard and expected word or phrase are quoted in the standard context. But in world in malice of many troubles in interlingual rendition of sarcasm from English to Russian there are excessively many attractive lingual points in this work. There are really many instances, though, which we regard as sarcasm, intuitively experiencing the reversal of the rating, but unable to set our finger on the exact word in whose significance we can follow the contradiction between the said and the implied. The consequence of sarcasm in such instances is created by a figure of statements, by the whole of the text. Many illustrations of sarcasm are supplied by D. Defoe, J. Swift, by such modern-day authors as S. Lewis, K. Vonnegut, E. Waugh and others.

Preparatory to unwrap the class work, it & # 8217 ; s excessively of import to divide out the chief purposes of it:

& # 9679 ; To unwrap the extraction and general representation of the sarcasm.

& # 9679 ; To demo the different affairs about analyzing the sarcasm.

& # 9679 ; To demo the different types of sarcasm.

& # 9679 ; To demo the interaction between the sarcasm and intelligentsia.

& # 9679 ; To link the interlingual rendition of sarcasm with many plants of different writers.

The class work is divided into five parts:

& # 9679 ; The debut

& # 9679 ; Thetheoretical portion

& # 9679 ; The practical portion

& # 9679 ; The decision

& # 9679 ; The list of mentions

The importance and necessity of the interlingual rendition of sarcasm from English to Russian are shown in the debut. What about theoretical portion, it & # 8217 ; s segregated into five parts: the representation of sarcasm, the foundation of sarcasm, the types of sarcasm, the intent of Irony, the sarcasm and intelligentsia and the interlingual rendition of Irony. In the representation of sarcasm there are really of import boundary lines between & # 8220 ; face value & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; what it truly means & # 8221 ; , because the sarcasm is really at odds phenomenon. In the foundation of sarcasm the thought represents the visual aspect of sarcasm and it & # 8217 ; s development in the literature. In the different types of sarcasm are shown the categorizations of sarcasm. The interlingual rendition of sarcasm
is really arduous that & # 8217 ; s why the tierce of the parts is devoted to it. The forth portion of the class work is about sarcasm and intelligentsia. In the practical portion Markss five chief regulations of interlingual rendition of sarcasm and showed different illustrations for each other. So this class work is showed all methods of interlingual rendition of sarcasm in literature. All beginnings of sarcasm are found in the decision. The theoretical and practical parts are shown the beginning of sarcasm, the different discrepancies of it & # 8217 ; s interlingual rendition and it & # 8217 ; s use. The list of mentions and useable literature is attached.

I. Theoretical Part.

1.
The representation of Irony

First of wholly, it is utile to see that sarcasm is non fixed and narrow phenomenon, but a household of communicative procedures. And all these procedures are really backbreaking. The sarcasm of course has two significance: ‘face value ‘ , and ‘real significance ‘ . In the text the use of sarcasm is taken sharps of dual significances of the same word. The significance can differ communicating, and some people might take the ‘face value ‘ significance for the ‘real ‘ intending – in other words non happen the message ironic at all. Both the ‘face value ‘ and ‘real ‘ significances of sarcasm are extremely dependent on civilization, and to acquire to the ‘real ‘ significance, one must be looking for a dual significance in the first topographic point. An dry talker is non a fallacious one. Unlike the prevarication, where words and vocalizations are & # 8220 ; delusory & # 8221 ; , sarcasm is found underneath a camouflage of pretension. In fact, while in delusory communicating a talker intentionally omits or fabricates some important conditions of truth and world by hiding his purpose, pretension communicating alternatively clearly cohabits with world, and exhibits it & # 8217 ; s & # 8220 ; non being true & # 8221 ; , by winking at what is hidden behind the mask of falsehood. Sometimes people do non ever say what they mean, most people can be assumed to be seeking to pass on some kind of intending through their actions. All kinds of things can clew people in to look for an dry significance if the ‘face value ‘ significance does non do sense. Some civilizations might condition people to look for sarcasm by giving it a sense of value. A different manner or tone from that expected, understatement, cynicism, and exaggerations are all things that might clew in the perceiver to look for another significance. It is about as if happening sarcasm were a game, or a procedure of interlingual rendition.

II. 2. The foundation of Irony

The Irony is a existent expansive phenomena
. And it should seems that the survey of it developed in all sorts of literature and doctrine, but the construct of irony much less expanded in the survey of media. The extension method is the message,
that must surely intend a medium can be a tool for sarcasm. All media contain another signifier of media ( the connotation of film is the narrative ) , so the conventions may transport over between the two types of media ( like movie doing usage of the dramatic sarcasm of the phase ) . Besides, before the conventions of a new medium can be to the full developed, one might look for significance in the new medium by utilizing the conventions of old mediums.

Although the differentiation of Irony is non ever clear, irony differs from other ways of pass oning with dual significances such as metaphor and fable in that it does non wholly extinguish the ‘face value ‘ significance. Irony includes irony, which aims to give a significance straight antithetical to the 1 presented, the original significance can non be discarded without losing the sense of sarcasm. It is through comparing these two significances that the grade or type of sarcasm can be seen. Sometimes the land might be taken right out from under us when sarcasm is aimed at making complete objectiveness, and we are left non cognizing what to make. Irony is a phenomenon capable of being experienced by anyone, but for people to be able to portion an experience of sarcasm, or for an writer to anticipate a certain reaction to irony, its reading must go a portion of the civilization.

One of the earliest and best-known utilizations of sarcasm comes from Socrates. Normally called ‘Socratic Irony ‘ , Socrates would foremost look to cognize nil about a job in order to clear up the opposing stance, and so demo incompatibilities in their argument.Phase one Socratic sarcasm is merely portion of a canon of rhetorical tools devised to deflect people from the fact that they ‘ve been sitting still listening to difficult talk for an terribly long clip. The technique, demonstrated in the Platonic duologues, was to feign ignorance and, to sham acceptance in your opposition ‘s power of idea, in order to bind him in knots. This signifier of statement is called ‘elenchus ‘ , and can be seen in the duologue Euthyprho among others. While non an wholly negative technique, this type of sarcasm does non build statements that are true or false, and merely as sarcasm can alter perceptual experiences through repeat, Socrates builds his statements, in this instance, inductively. Throughout medieval and Renaissance Europe sarcasm was taken as stating the antonym of what is meant. Norman Knox shows how merely in the 18th century did the word go more widely used in literature, and was developed in assorted signifiers such as sarcasm. Along with the rise of Romanticism at the bend of the 19th century, the construct of sarcasm took on new significances during this period. Whereas before sarcasm was something directed by person at person, it could now be something ‘unintentional, discernible, and representable in art ‘ . Phase two Romantic sarcasm was framed by Schlegel- the German philosopher. Here, it became a much more complex philosophical tool, of which the nuts and bolts were that you at the same time occupied two opposite places. There were jobs with this as a direct way to truth subsequently on. The point with Schlegel was that sarcasm would give a divided ego, which in bend gives you a multiplicity of positions, which is the lone manner you will unlock the truth of the whole. This romantic ( or “ philosophical ” ) sarcasm had really great influence on the English Romantic poets.

Phase three, the Irony as a tool of dissent, a inexorable but failsafe joke of popular civilization, took clasp during the first universe war. The gross disjuncture between loyal rhetoric and the world of the war itself led to a widespread usage of sarcasm as a agency of puncturing fallacious propaganda. So, for case, the Wipers Times would publish a list of Thingss That Were Definitely True, and it would incorporate a proportion of propaganda ( “ 40,000 Huns have Surrendered ” ) , a proportion of enemy propaganda ( “ The Germans Have Plentiful and Tasty Meats ” ) and a proportion of bunk ( “ Horatio Bottomley has accepted the Turkish Throne on status they make a separate peace ” ) , therefore sabotaging any information coming from anyplace at all.

The 20th century has seen many efforts to explicate sarcasm as a coherent construct. Literary critics such as D. C. Muecke and Wayne Booth have come up with tonss of names depicting different types of sarcasms, and different ways in which sarcasm is used. Classifying and tracking the history of sarcasm non merely clarifies the construct, but besides shows how it changes throughout clip. Even though we have to look at sarcasm through the lens of sarcasm, seeking for its significance gives deep penetration into the ways people see their ain being.

II. The intents of Irony

The dry communicating is miscommunication as an oblique communicating
. In fact, on one side, it shows what it hides
, while, on the other one, it conceals what it says
. In this sense, sarcasm is & # 8220 ; state in order non to state
& # 8221 ; . By agencies of an dry remark, the satirist can stay & # 8220 ; opaque & # 8221 ; and imperviable to the middleman on a relational degree, though he/she is non soundless. In fact, dry miscommunication is a sort of semantic mask
, by agencies of which it is possible to soften and fuzz the boundary lines of significance in order to better the dialogue processes in a given state of affairs.

14 8 The dry remark may be seen as an symbolic case of dianoetic dialogism
, harmonizing to which the word is non semantically unequivocal ( monosemic ) , but it possesses & # 8220 ; more voices & # 8221 ; ( polysemic ) . Its reading assumes different signifiers in footings of both its & # 8220 ; place & # 8221 ; within the discourse and its relation to the & # 8220 ; concentrating & # 8221 ; game, in which some of its characteristics are in the foreground and others are veiled. Paradoxically, in sarcasm the foregrounded mask plays a background function during the exchange between the satirist and his/her middleman. As a effect, sarcasm carries out and satisfies different psychological maps.

Dry communicating as a mark of regard for conventions ( how to hedge animadversion in a culturally right manner )

& # 8220 ; Where the king of beasts & # 8217 ; s clamber will non make, it must be patched with the fox & # 8217 ; s & # 8221 ; , the wise Greek strategian Lysander sentenced, harmonizing to Plutarch. A similar metaphor appears once more in the plants of Baltasar Morales, a 17th century Spanish author, every bit good as in Niccola Machiavelli & # 8217 ; s essays of diplomatic negotiations during the Italian Renaissance. This axiom describes the state of affairs in which one realizes that a direct and unprompted look is unsuitable for the synergistic context, particularly in face-threatening state of affairss like struggle. Hence, it is non a affair of opportunity that its original version was uttered by Lysander, an expert in military planning. By widening this metaphor to mundane communicating, an effectual communicative interaction is enhanced by dry remark in a subtle and diplomatic manner, so that a talker might accomplish his/her purposes in understanding with the & # 8220 ; unwritten regulations & # 8221 ; of civilized behaviour.

Irony as miscommunication arises from the demand both to esteem societal criterions, and to avoid other people & # 8217 ; s animadversion, without abandoning, nevertheless, those subjects that would otherwise be unacceptable. Dry talkers accept the cultural norms and, at the same clip, go against them
, staying within the bounds of societal acceptableness: they do non hold to stamp down their ideas or their feelings. Therefore, dry communicating finds its border in those civilizations ( like the Anglo-Saxon 1 ) where self-denial is really of import and where it is therefore a really positive thing to be able to maintain nervelessly detached from events, without emotional rousing. In this manner, a talker can utilize sarcasm to conceal the look of his/her emotions and precaution his/her personal experience. In peculiar, English wit responds to these cultural outlooks and criterions, affecting the ability to & # 8220 ; stay in one & # 8217 ; s topographic point & # 8221 ; . In English civilization, where one negotiations about emotions in penchant to demoing them, as Lutz has observed, irony becomes non merely a device to maintain at a distance from emotions and & # 8220 ; de-emotionalize & # 8221 ; oneself, but besides a manner of demoing consideration for the middleman & # 8217 ; s feelings ( without stating everything one feels or thinks about the other ) , in order to be polite and be cognizant of the state of affairs. In fact, human existences are like histrions playing their portion in a & # 8220 ; dramatic & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; carnival-like & # 8221 ; society. In this respect, a societal reading of Diderot & # 8217 ; s paradox of moving is executable: the mask of sarcasm as miscommunication allows one to show the fraudulence between being and looking, every bit good as their self-contradictory fusion within the satirist & # 8217 ; s consistence with the character he interprets.

Dry communicating as a boundary line of modesty ( how to safeguard personal infinite ) .
Sarcasm can be used non merely as a device to hedge societal animadversion, but besides as a planned action taking at keeping self-respect, restraint, and demeanour, every bit good as one & # 8217 ; s ain privateness
. An challenging image is provided by Barthes & # 8217 ; metaphor of the & # 8220 ; dark spectacless & # 8221 ; , harmonizing to which in dry communicating attending is shifted from the enlightening map to the metacommunicative 1. In fact, after shouting, people do non have on their dark spectacless to hide the fact that they have cried. Rather, people put them on in order to mask the straitening look of hurting, i.e. , their conceited ruddy eyes. The dark spectacless are an & # 8220 ; allusive mask & # 8221 ; , aimed at continuing one & # 8217 ; s ain self-respect and demeanour: they hint at the hurting whose abashing consequence they cover. Peoples have oning their dark spectacless pass oning: they intend to pass on that, though agony, they do non desire to exhibit their ain hurting. Therefore, the dark spectacless, at the same clip, make the satirist an histrion and a informant of him-/herself and of others. They are utile for protecting both personal infinite and privacy.Irony as miscommunication can be described one time once more by agencies of a metaphor: that of the sacred fencing
, symbolic boundary, or even charming circle
, which makes the satirist & # 8220 ; intangible & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; unapproachable & # 8221 ; in the interpersonal game. In fact, sarcasm has frequently been considered as connected to the gifted wise adult male, who succeeds in detecting things from a distance, avoiding unbalancing and compromising himself.This purpose non to be explicitly aggressive arises from the words Mary says ironically to Lawrence, her hubby, who has tried to mend an old armchair, with the usual deficiency of success: & # 8220 ; You & # 8217 ; rheniums so affable, Lawrence! Since our matrimony, your inventiveness has ever fascinated me! & # 8221 ; . In this instance Mary chose to be dry instead than direct because she does non desire to get down an unfastened struggle with Lawrence. Conversely, Paula jokes with her brother, who has merely got a high grade in his mathematics exam, stating & # 8220 ; You were right, Andrew. As usual, you are an imbecile! & # 8221 ; . The miss remarks ironically on Andrew & # 8217 ; s success, because her brother was scared and pessimistic before the test.

Dry communicating as a relational ambiguity ( how to re-negotiate interaction )
. The satirist, skilled in the art of skimming and tarriance, merely like the fabulous Janus Bifrons, has two faces: one which laughs at the crying of the other. In this manner, it is possible to specify sarcasm as a & # 8220 ; Janus-faced & # 8221 ; communicating
. The paradox about dry communicating is that, if you want to be understood clearly, you have to be misunderstood
. In fact, the dry remark is like a tegument that alludes to the concealed content at the really minute in which it conceals that content.

Therefore, dry miscommunication can be used as an ambivalent scheme, a & # 8220 ; lingua in cheek
& # 8221 ; bring forthing bewilderment and freak out in the middlemans. In fact, the & # 8220 ; Janus-faced & # 8221 ; nature of dry miscommunication allows people, on one side, to quiet their passions, while on the other one, to switch in their ain favour the fuzzed boundary lines between the different possible ( and legalize ) readings of their comment.The satirist benefits both from the & # 8220 ; effectivity of the word
& # 8221 ; and the & # 8220 ; artlessness of silence
& # 8221 ; , to utilize the acute look. For this ground, we can talk about matter-of-fact lexical ambiguity
in dry communicating. In fact, by agencies of a systematic procedure of & # 8220 ; intending dialogue & # 8221 ; , in an dry vocalization talkers convey a communicative purpose which allows the middleman to construe it with different significances. Irony as miscommunication is a complex communicative result in which different signaling systems interact at the same clip. In peculiar, in the criterion dry remark, lingual sections are combined in a specific paralinguistic ( or supra-segmental ) frame. The evident resistance between these two signaling forms generates the dry significance perceived by the addressee. On some other particular occasions, when there are strong contextual restraints and hints, lingual inputs are sufficient entirely to make the dry significance. The basic ambiguity of sarcasm allows one to negociate and re-negotiate the significances of an dry remark. In this manner, the satirist is non constrained to set about duty
for his/her word. This belongings of sarcasm ( being a adept device to guarantee oneself of many more grades of freedom than an expressed vocalization does ) , arises from the dry comment Anthony addresses to his friend Hillary. The lady goes to a cocktail party have oning a horrid frock and Anthony say: & # 8220 ; Hillary! You & # 8217 ; rheniums so beautiful: merely like Sharon Stone! & # 8221 ; . & # 8220 ; What do you intend? ! & # 8221 ; , George, Hillary & # 8217 ; s hubby, intervenes, irritated by Anthony & # 8217 ; s sarcastic attitude. & # 8220 ; Hillary is gorgeous, tonight! I was merely paying your married woman a compliment & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; , Anthony pretends non to hold been sarcastic, as if the significance of his remark depended merely on the lingual input. In this duologue the sense of the vocalization is the topic of a adept dialogue between them, because the semantic ambiguity of the dry comment allows Anthony non to take full duty for his insinuation.

As utile result of dry miscommunication, talkers have the opportunity and chance to graduate the weight of the indirect significance
of their address. An indirect look of one & # 8217 ; s ideas, desires and feelings can non merely conceal one & # 8217 ; s existent purpose, but it can besides specify it and re-draw the bounds of societal interaction between middlemans. First of wholly, harmonizing to the & # 8220 ; touch hypothesis
, sarcasm should show less disapprobation and less blessing than a direct vocalization does ( extenuation of the intended significance
) . A unfavorable judgment ironically made is seemingly lighter and less violative than an unfastened abuse ; likewise, dry congratulations is less positive than an expressed signifier. There is a sort of & # 8220 ; arrested development to the centre
& # 8221 ; , in which, on the one manus, the jubilance is lessened, and, on the other, the aggressive charge is attenuated. Dry unfavorable judgment is used to stress disapprobation instead than to thin it: thanks to irony it should be possible to accomplish one & # 8217 ; s aims in a more pointed and controlled manner, escalating the significance of an vocalization ( sweetening of the intended significance
) .

Because of a cool withdrawal from emotions, sarcasm may be used as a device for injuring person in a much more cutting manner than a direct unfavorable judgment oriented in the same way. In fact, an expressed abuse can be produced in a minute of fury, as a effect of the talker & # 8217 ; s temper in the contingent status. Alternatively, an dry abuse can originate from a cold computation, so as to show, besides incrimination, even the satirist & # 8217 ; s purpose of non losing his/her self-denial in demoing the middleman & # 8217 ; s deficiency of success.Similarly, within a context of congratulations, sarcasm is executable when the talkers know each other really good.

II. 3. The types of Sarcasm

A individual elaborating the sarcasm has to cognize how to encode his message, pays attending to cultural and national wonts, and tunnels of the media through which his message will be sent. Television ‘s The Daily Show takes other telecasting footage out of context and creates its ain ‘fake ‘ intelligence coverage that ironically highlights the restrictions of the telecasting medium. When person speaks to you in the voice of a wireless disc jockey they ironically stress how the context for address has changed when the medium of the wireless is absent. Many critics agree that affect is a critical portion of sarcasm, as different types of sarcasm have different feelings or colourss that are non experienced in its absence. Most theories of rhetoric distinguish between three types of sarcasm: verbal, dramatic and situational.

Verbal sarcasm
is a disparity of look and purpose: when a talker says one thing but means another, or when a actual significance is contrary to its intended consequence. An illustration of this is sarcasm. Sarcasm is saying the antonym of an intended significance particularly in order to sneeringly slyly joke or mock a individual state of affairs or thing.

Dramatic
( or tragic ) sarcasm
is a disparity of look and consciousness: when words and actions possess a significance that the hearer or audience understands, but the talker or character does non.

Situational sarcasm
is the disparity of purpose and consequence: when the consequence of an action is contrary to the desired or expected consequence. Likewise, cosmic sarcasm is disparity between human desires and the rough worlds of the outside universe ( or the caprices of the Gods ) . By some older definitions, situational sarcasm and cosmic sarcasm are non irony at all.

Verbal sarcasm
is distinguished from situational sarcasm and dramatic sarcasm in that it is produced deliberately by talkers.
For case, if a talker exclaims, & # 8220 ; I & # 8217 ; m non disquieted! & # 8221 ; but reveals an disquieted emotional province through her voice while genuinely seeking to claim she ‘s non upset, it would non be verbal sarcasm merely by virtuousness of its verbal manifestation. An emotion is a mental and physiological province associated with a broad assortment of feelings, ideas. Personal virtuousnesss are features valued as advancing individualism. This differentiation gets at an of import facet of verbal sarcasm: talkers communicate implied propositions that are deliberately contradictory to the propositions contained in the words themselves. For illustration: every bit pleasant as a root-canal.

What about tragic sarcasm
it can merely take topographic point in a fictional context. In this signifier of sarcasm, the words and actions of the characters belie the existent state of affairs, which the witnesss to the full realize. Tragic irony peculiarly characterized the play of ancient Greece, owing to the acquaintance of the witnesss with the fables on which so many of the dramas were based. The theater of ancient Greece, or ancient Grecian play, is a theatrical civilization that flourished in ancient Greece. Irony threatens important theoretical accounts of discourse by “ taking the semantic security of one form, so, sarcasm has some of its foundation in the looker-on & # 8217 ; s perceptual experience of paradox which arises from indissoluble jobs. A paradox is a true statement or group of statements that leads to a Contradiction or a state of affairs which defies intuition. For illustration: In the William Shakespeare drama, Romeo and Juliet, when Romeo finds Juliet in a doped death-like slumber, he assumes her to be dead and kills himself. William Shakespeare.

Situational sarcasm
is a disagreement between the expected consequence and existent consequences when enlivened by ‘perverse rightness ‘ . For illustration: If person were to travel on a trip and make up one’s mind non to take a plane because they are disquieted about crashing, and take a coach alternatively, it would be dry if a plane hit the coach they took, thereby recognizing their frights of crashing with a plane, despite steps taken at the beginning of the journey to avoid such a destiny.

II. 4. Irony and Clerisy

To cultivate the ego is, in consequence, to detect that there is no ego to cultivate. From a pedagogical point of position, in peculiar, to make it right is to acquire it incorrect. Irony constitutes the crisis of the intelligentsia. At the same clip, and as it were ironically, intelligentsia represents itself as the declaration of that crisis.

Both “ sarcasm ” and “ intelligentsia ” emerge into curious dianoetic prominence during the romantic epoch. Irony ‘s birthplace as a rhetorical term day of the months back to antiquity, but its usage receives a new birth through the theorizing of Friedrich Schlegel, emerging in his authorship as something instead different than the “ simply ” rhetorical scheme through which one says one thing and means another. For Schlegel ( and in his aftermath ) the divide that characterizes its traditional rhetorical definition becomes an allusive point of going for rethinking the divided nature of subjectiveness. “ Clerisy ” is Coleridge ‘s mintage for a erudite category of ( more or less ) province officials responsible for the saving and airing of the national heritage. The function of such a category & # 8212 ; its centrality and importance to the nation-state & # 8212 ; is developed in assorted ways, theoretical and practical, throughout the 19th century and, in Britain, normally with expressed mention to Coleridge ‘s preparation ( see Knight, Prickett, and Readings ) .

The subject for this volume in the Romantic Circles Praxis Series was intended as something of an experiment. The initial urge in beging articles under the heterogenous rubrics of “ sarcasm ” and “ intelligentsia ” was to see each in the nature of a metonymy for broader generic and ideological inquiries raised in romantic authorship. The sarcasm as a substitute, so to talk, for the romantic topoi of self-consciousness and self-division: contradiction, atomization, disintegration. Of class, the aporias of sarcasm turn out to be, in many ways, the inevitable status of clerical intercession and authorization, even as the call for such intercession and authorization testifies to an dry consciousness that their influence can by no agencies be assumed.

One manner in which these two apparently heterogenous strands of romantic discourse come to be linked occurs thematically through the construct of Bildung or cultivation. Irony for Schlegel played many functions non the least of which was to denominate the human capacity for playing many functions. The ironist stood off from himself. He arrived at flawlessness to the point of sarcasm & # 8212 ; to the point, that is, of contemplation and reversal. Possibly the best stenography interlingual rendition for specializers in British romanticism would be Keats ‘s negative capableness.

The figure of

“ revolutions ” evoked the extremist aggravation of such apothegms for the concern of Building—that lead for the production and reproduction of civilization. The ongoing concatenation of sarcasm must, to be truly on-going and truly dry, include itself as one of its links. “ What Gods will be able to salvage us from all these sarcasms? ” Irony ends, as Schlegel himself writes, as “ sarcasm of sarcasm, ” a destiny from which no ( human ) history can get away. This has been the accent of most modern-day readings of Schlegel.

It would be a error, nevertheless, to presume that an identity-oriented or hidebound construct of the intelligentsia operates without its ain rather calculated sarcasms. The really undertaking of establishing a societal category responsible for civilization bespeaks a certain dry consciousness in and of that civilization. Coleridge ‘s history of the “ thought ” of the intelligentsia in On the Constitution of Church and State is exhaustively dry, if by sarcasm one means the deliberate conjoining in one signifier of two perfectly unreconcilable purposes ( a definition that is, at least, really near to Schlegel ‘s “ antithetical synthesis. What On the Constitution of Church and State calls the “ national church ” comprehends “ the learned of all denominations ” .

Theology is non one among many, but the “ caput of all ” the broad humanistic disciplines and scientific disciplines, and yet the ground Coleridge gives for its topographic point in the hierarchy of acquisition is anything but theological. Under the name of Theology, or Divinity, were contained the reading of linguistic communications ; the preservation and tradition of past events ; the momentous era, and revolutions of the race and state ; the continuance of the records ; logic, moralss, and the finding of ethical scientific discipline.

To tie in its religious or “ sacerdotal ” map with its national one “ is to be considered as un-growth of ignorance and subjugation. ” At the same clip, Coleridge refuses to do the concluding disciplinary cut, one that would divide sacred and blasphemous truths with all due conclusiveness. On the contrary, he insists at several points that without mention to the sacerdotal, all other scientific disciplines would be reduced to so much empiricist philosophy and utilitarianism. There can be no national church without an other church, antithetical to the nation-state, antithetical even to the really thought of the nation-state, as its quasi-teleological model. I write “ quasi ” teleological merely to stress that really to get at the telos would be, for Coleridge, to regress into “ ignorance and subjugation. ” ( The structural affinities with Fichte and Schlegel are apparent. ) From the point of position of the state, faith is a productive blind topographic point. Though, of class, from the point of position of faith, it is the state that sees through a glass darkly.

Institutionally, the interplay of divinity and nation-state is embodied in Coleridge ‘s vision of a specifically Anglican intelligentsia. The defenders of civilization non merely may but must be embodied in the sacerdotal figure. England, of class, is peculiarly fortunate in that its national church is besides a Christian one, but in any instance priestly authorization must be responsible for the heterogenous though mutualist maps of national and religious wellbeing.

Two distinguishable maps do non needfully connote or necessitate two different officials. Nay, the flawlessness of each may necessitate the brotherhood of both in the same individual. And in the case now in inquiry, great and dangerous mistakes have arisen from confusing the maps ; and fearfully great and dangerous will be the immoralities from the success of an effort to divide them.

The intelligentsia as the guardian non merely of the province ‘s civilisation but as Coleridge repeatedly insists of its civilization must ever be, as it were, in touch with a nominal kingdom “ outside ” the state if it is so to get at anything coming civilization. And yet that kingdom must ne’er be equated with the cultural mission of the nation-state as such. Practically, to make so would be to compare nonnatural conditions of morality to the peculiar mores of a clip and topographic point & # 8212 ; at an extreme, to establish non a intelligentsia but an Inquisition. Even ideally, Coleridge can non allow himself to conceive of such an terminal to his undertaking, for it would lose its antithetical and productive power. Human history and Godhead Providence would be at all times and everyplace the same.

The sarcasm of Coleridge & # 8217 ; s clerisy lies in the thoroughly secular nature of its defence of divinity. It besides lies in the thoroughly theological land of its secular ideals. More exactly, it lies in the impossibleness and the necessity of conveying these together. The pick of the word sarcasm to depict On the Constitution of Church and State may ever look a spot counter-intuitive. It is far from an diverting read & # 8212 ; Coleridge could non be more in earnest & # 8212 ; but romantic sarcasm is no gag. To mention once more to Schlegel, this clip on Socratic sarcasm in the Secondary school: “ It contains and arouses a feeling of insoluble hostility between the absolute and the comparative, between the impossibleness and the necessity of complete communicating ” . Associating “ sarcasm ” and “ intelligentsia ” draws out the construction of cardinal “ hostility ” that they portion. In this context, excessively, it becomes clear that sarcasm is non so much the crisis of intelligentsia or clerisy a response to that crisis as that both are dialogues of antithetical constructions that can be traced across boundaries of subjectiveness, civilization and divinity, doctrine and poesy.

Such dialogues are the subject of the essays that follow. All are variegated and nuanced in ways that the telegraphic sum-ups of an debut can non trust to convey. One instead pronounced difference, nevertheless, between all of them and my ain preparations lies in the greater prominence they give to political inquiries and constructs.
Adam Carter ‘s “ ‘Insurgent Governments ‘ : Romantic Irony and the Theory of the State ” specifically traces the relation between Schlegel ‘s theory of sarcasm and his theory of the province. It suggests, excessively, the tensenesss & # 8212 ; productive but besides unsafe & # 8212 ; between an dry dialectic of political pluralism and the inflictions of arbitrary authorization that conveying it to a arrest even in the comparatively early Hagiographas of the Lyceum and Athenaeum fragments. The following two essays take up rather explicitly the inquiry of political renunciation that, I think, hovers in the borders of Carter ‘s treatment of Schlegel. More peculiarly, they take up the political bend from radical to reactionary that constitutes the narrative sarcasm of so many romantic flights.
Charles Mahoney ‘s “ The Multeity of Coleridgean Apostasy ” reads Coleridge ‘s ain working through of “ apostasy ” as the really rule of hesitation against which and yet through which his idea takes form. Mahoney suggests apostasy as a uniquely Coleridgian interlingual rendition of Schlegelian sarcasm: a falling off from any possibility of foundational or inactive rules, that is all excessively frequently misread & # 8212 ; even by Coleridge himself & # 8212 ; as the foundation for yet another stance.
Linda Brigham ‘s “ Alastor, Apostasy, and the Ecology of Criticism, ” reads Shelley ‘s verse form as offering an analysis of merely such sarcasms of apostasy particularly as they shape Shelley ‘s ain reading of Wordsworth. In Alastor, Shelley dramatizes a narrative of two poets to research how a Wordsworthian resistance to an earlier or an other ego ( a flawlessness taken to the point of sarcasm ) produces the mirror image of what it opposes. This reading of the verse form brings it into closer concurrence with ulterior Shelley plants such as Prometheus Unbound, but Brigham besides implicates modern-day literary unfavorable judgment and theoretical argument in a likewise structured dialectic of resistance and individuality. In Shelley, she finds a different theoretical account of reading and authorship, one whose point of going includes a sheer “ communicating of pleasance ” that ( in Shelley ‘s position ) Wordsworth has replaced with a symmetrical discourse of understanding that can all excessively easy give manner to ideology and totalization. This menace is reflected ( in Brigham ‘s position ) in the totalizing deductions, whether sympathetic or oppositional, of much academic argument. The reasoning essay,
Forest Pyle ‘s “ ‘Frail Spells ‘ : Shelley and the Sarcasms of Exile ” takes up similar jobs, but situates them in relation to Shelley ‘s rhetoric of expatriate. Pyle argues that Shelley can be fruitfully read as deducing a powerful and liberator linguistic communication of critique both from his place of expatriate from Britain and from a auxiliary review of the constructs of state and fatherland that underwrite that place. The dialectic of modern-day unfavorable judgment that would recover expatriate & # 8212 ; or “ Diaspora ” & # 8212 ; as a place of important review fails to take such a auxiliary review of expatriate into history & # 8212 ; a error that Shelley, in Pyle ‘s reading, does non do. Shelly ‘s “ expatriate ” operates, hence, as a bound instance of “ epistemic sarcasm so extended that it disqualifies the claims of any intelligentsia to get away it. ” As in Brigham ‘s reading, Shelley is used as a lens through which to concentrate on arguments in modern-day unfavorable judgment, though the accent is on the balances of cognition instead than those of pleasance. In a broader sense, all four of the pieces gathered here reflect an involvement in “ sarcasm ” and “ intelligentsia ” non merely every bit historical artefacts but as historical forces at one time enabling and interrupting the antithetical structuring of an on-going scholarly, critical, and pedagogical Building.

II. 5.
Translation of Irony

Translation-violence-irony. These are interesting footings with which we can gestate of “ The Authoritative ” . For it is we who conceive the authoritative, and that construct is, to follow Derrida, an innovation, a interlingual rendition, and therefore – in its imaginative deconstruction – ironically violent in its unfavorable judgment.

“ The authoritative ”
is an of import class in the work of J.M. Coetzee. In many of his novels, the class is deployed and debatable. In his fresh Age of Iron, for case, the storyteller ( Elizabeth Curren ) is “ a retired lector in classics whose canon means small to anyone but herself ” , as Attwell puts it ( 1993, 121 ) . In Foe, Defoe ‘s Robinson Crusoe is interrogated, while in The Maestro of Petersburg it is Dostoyevsky ( in peculiar The Possessed ) which is rewritten. And there is the farm novel, the colonial travelogue, perchance Kafka… At the same clip, Coetzee himself has become something of a “ maestro ” , who has received literary awards, and whose work is prescribed on a regular basis as needed reading for pupils. And, of class, many books and assorted academic documents have been written on Coetzee.

What would be the relation between Coetzee ‘s texts and the classics which they rewrite? What would be the relation between Coetzee ‘s ain texts and their deployment – being accorded the position of “ classics ” themselves? Rather, it is the class of the authoritative itself, the object of cognition if you wish, which will supply the frame of the present horizon II.

The refusal to interpret the proper name “ apartheid ” may be read as an impossible effort to forestall the elision of “ the proper name into a common noun ” to maintain the discourse of “ apartheid ” at a distance by take a firm standing that it “ function outside the linguistic communication system ” . This refusal to interpret “ apartheid ” may therefore be read as an effort both to talk the indefinable and to fiddle duty and answerability, as an effort to decline taint by ( the discourse which is named by ) “ apartheid ” . The discourse named by “ apartheid ” is itself, of class, a discourse of disease. The discourse of disease which maps to cleanse, and purging, the pure Aryan blood, is, ironically, itself sought to be kept at a distance for fright of infection, as Derrida notes: Since so, no lingua has of all time translated this name – as if all the linguistic communications of the universe were supporting themselves, closing their oral cavities against a baleful incorporation of the thing by agencies of the word, as if all linguas were declining to give an equivalent, declining to allow themselves be contaminated through the contagious cordial reception of the word-for-word. But this would connote that the word “ apartheid ” ( and what it names ) is at one time kept at a distance from ( it is a foreign word ) and, by virtuousness of it being used as if it were a word from the slang, incorporated into the linguistic communication in inquiry ( instead than utilizing a word from the slang to call what “ apartheid ” names ) . The word “ apartheid ” , hence, like the word Babel at one time belongs to, and at the same clip does non belong to the linguistic communication into which it is transferred. By the logic of a endurance through interlingual rendition, the original is at one time perpetuated and destroyed. In the untranslatability of “ apartheid ” , or, so, in the refusal to interpret “ apartheid ” , this logic is suspended: the word is perpetuated by non being translated. In non being translated the original word is – or is sought to be – kept as a ghastly memorial, an everlastingly historicized reminder of atrociousness, stop dead in clip. Apartheid, as a interlingual rendition which is non a interlingual rendition, is sought to be kept remarkable and other by exceeding and at the same clip confirming history.

This paper seeks to analyze the ways in which the effort to negociate the distinctness of linguistic communication ( as for case staged in the refusal to interpret “ apartheid ” ) operate by analyzing impressions of the authoritative as they are related to Coetzee ‘s work, in peculiar to his reading of T.S. Eliot ‘s authoritative essay “ What is a Authoritative? ”

In this paper it & # 8217 ; s possible to analyze impressions refering to the relation between the authoritative and its interlingual rendition, its hereafter, by reading Coetzee ‘s essay on Eliot. This will be done with mention to Walter Benjamin ‘s well-known essay on “ The Undertaking of the Translator ” , a text which is itself a authoritative on the endurance of the authoritative, and which is left unexpressed by Coetzee. Making this would imply speculating the relation between the authoritative read as original, and its assorted “ interlingual renditions ” , which may be read as dry reconstitutions or organ transplants of the authoritative. This sarcasm, it would be contention, maps violently in that the “ hereafter ” of the authoritative is dependent – exactly – upon the denial of the impression of a pure beginning, of an stainless classic. The authoritative needs interlingual rendition ; it can merely last if it becomes other to itself, if it is violated and “ contaminated ” by interlingual rendition.

This means that the oppositional relation between authoritative and interlingual rendition may be deconstructed. Dissemination is taint, and the airing of the authoritative is the taint of that authoritative, in a manner which is dry in a similar manner that the refusal to interpret “ apartheid ” is both airing and taint.

The authoritative is figured in the interlingual rendition as metaphor of itself ; but this figuration of the authoritative in the interlingual rendition of itself is dry because the monetary value attached to figuration is emasculation, as the relation is “ non based on resemblance ” . The authoritative is emasculated in its incarnation ; it is incorporated at the monetary value of losing its materiality. In its hereafter, its endurance, the authoritative becomes a shade, an reverberation of itself. It becomes an other. Translation makes the authoritative other to itself – “ it disarticulates the original ” – at the same minute that it seeks to confirm the originally individuality of the authoritative. It is in footings of this incorporation, this loss of pure organic structure, that Friedrich Schleiermacher ‘s construct of what might be called “ foreignizing interlingual rendition ” may be read.

Either the transcriber leaves the writer in peace, every bit much as is possible, and moves the reader towards him: or he leaves the reader in peace, every bit much as possible, and moves the writer towards him. Foreignizing interlingual rendition
may be understood as an effort to continue the original unity of the authoritative and antagonize its “ disappearing as a text, as authorship, as a organic structure of linguistic communication ” by take a firm standing upon the difference between the original and its interlingual rendition, by deploying the interlingual rendition as a servant of the original. This move may be seen as anti-ironic ; the interlingual rendition would within such a scenario map as a restatement non merely of the unity of the pure original, but of the writer of that original, in that the control of the writer over the text is sought to be retained.

Even though Benjamin approvingly quotes Pannwitz ‘s comments associating to the demand for the fidelity of the transcriber to the original to be measured in footings of “ ‘allowing his linguistic communication to be strongly affected by the foreign lingua ‘ ” , this does non amount to the sort of hierarchal reversal between interlingual rendition and original which Schleiermacher would back up. It does non amount to a sort of “ return to beginnings ” . On the contrary, Benjamin might be said to specify fidelity to the original as unfaithfulness, or – instead – as a deconstruction of the hierarchal tenseness between “ [ fidelity ” and “ freedom ” which “ have traditionally been regarded as conflicting inclinations ” . This is related to Benjamin ‘s insisting that what defines the “ Dichtwerk ” – the “ poet ‘s work ” or the poetic work – is something undefinable which “ can non be communicated & # 8221 ; , so that the undertaking of the transcriber is non to “ pass on something ” . Thus Benjamin asks rhetorically: “ For what is meant by freedom but that the rendition of sense is no longer regarded as all important? ” .The undertaking of the transcriber, so, is to exceed specific linguistic communications, non by denying the difference between them, but by recovering pure linguistic communication to the full formed in the lingual flux. In this pure linguistic communication – which no longer means or expresses anything but is, as expressionless and originative Word, that which is meant in all linguistic communications – all information, all sense, and all purpose eventually encounter a stratum in which they are destined to be extinguished.

In this motion of linguistic communications in interlingual rendition towards a Messianic “ pure linguistic communication ” , “ free interlingual rendition ” must be viewed non in footings of the communicating of content, but in the emancipation from content, which “ is the undertaking of fidelity ” understood as a sort of unfaithfulness to the original. Thus the undertaking of the transcriber is to “ let go of in his ain linguistic communication that pure linguistic communication which is under the enchantment of another, to emancipate the linguistic communication imprisoned in a work in his re-creation of that work ” . The interlingual rendition touches the original lightly and merely at the boundlessly little point of the sense, thereupon prosecuting its ain class harmonizing to the Torahs of fidelity in the freedom of lingual flux. Translation, in this sense, is already to be found within the original – 1 has to read the original between the lines, in “ interlineal ” manner. The original can merely be true to itself in non being true to itself, in the unfaithfulness of a interlingual rendition which is true to it. The original already contains its other.

This brings us back to the inquiry of authorization over the text. If the original contains within itself the interlingual rendition of itself, so the resistance between writer and transcriber disappears. Ultimately, so, the relation between authoritative and interlingual rendition may be read in footings of the authorization to joint, and – exactly – the authorization to joint strangeness. As Benjamin notes, after all, “ interlingual rendition is… a slightly probationary manner of coming to footings with the strangeness of linguistic communications ” . It should non be surprising, hence, that Schleiermacher ( quoted above ) refers non to the original text every bit much as to the writer of that text.

The inquiry of authorization ( both the authorization to talk within a historically circumscribed if non determined state of affairs, and the authorization by deduction to do accurate statements about a given set of fortunes ) is of class an of import one in Coetzee ‘s work, as is already apparent in Attwell ‘s statement relating to Mrs Curren quoted earlier. On an epistemic degree, the authorization of the topic who narrates her/story is circumscribed because autobiography can non but be eternal, in that it is impossible for the topic to envelop her life within a narrative: one can non tell one ‘s ain decease. In this respect, it might be utile to observe Coetzee ‘s statement on the “ sightlessness ” of the autobiographer. In what may or may non be a wordplay, Coetzee distinguishes “ autobiography… from other life ” . Not merely must autobiography be distinguished from other sorts of life ; on the epistemic degree life is ever other life, or “ autobiography ” , because it is merely the history of an other which can be narrative in an seemingly closed manner. Autobiography must ever stay rather explicitly unfastened and uncomplete. Of class, the autobiography in itself would be rather false, among other grounds because the act of narrating the ego already implies a grade of other ego, every bit much as narrating the other is in itself a undertaking to be interrogated in footings of the epistemic boundaries related to the extent to which an other may be known. And autobiography is autobiography exactly because “ it is the ear of the other that marks ” .

Both autobiography and life as metaphors of life, as narrations and interlingual renditions of history, may be said to depend on impressions of pure, original primacy. History is hypostatized as a unequivocal, resolvable, recountable, representable, utterable text beyond history itself – a authoritative in other words. But what is the authoritative? The term “ authoritative ” may here be understood in footings of the original which, nevertheless, exactly does non hold originary individuality, as has been demonstrated. The authoritative consequences from the interplay of the interlingual rendition upon its original every bit much as of the original upon its interlingual rendition. The necessity of interlingual rendition implies the impossibleness of the authoritative, of classical individuality. The authoritative may hence be read as the object of philosophical desire: the desire for plenty, comprehensiveness, significance and truth. And interlingual rendition, in this context, may be read as a problematic of the philosophical undertaking. The philosophical undertaking – the effort to understand, to construe, to abstract, to generalise: to command – is subverted by interlingual rendition as a theatrical production of the loss of control over the authoritative text. In footings of the insisting on the unity of the original, Schleiermacher ‘s undertaking may, so, be understood as being properly philosophical in its effort to confirm control over the text, over the original by – ironically – go forthing it in peace. Leaving the original in peace, non commanding it, giving up authorization over it, exactly reasserts the unity of the original, and its authorization, every bit good as the control over it by its writer, and therefore the individuality of that writer. In this respect it is, once more, non coinciding that Schleiermacher refers to go forthing the writer in peace.

Practical Part

There are five chief regulations of interlingual rendition of sarcasm:

1 ) Full interlingual rendition with little lexical and grammatical transmutations
merely in instances when the verbal and grammatical construction of the ironical clause of the original texts allows it. Besides if the societal and cultural associations of the two linguistic communications match.

When I left my public school I had an extended cognition of Latin and Greek literature, knew a certain sum of Greek and Latin history and Gallic grammar, and had “ done ” a small mathematics.
& # 1054 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1095 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1095 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1102 ; , & # 1103 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1093 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1095 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1091 ; , & # 1080 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1095 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1081 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1092 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1094 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1077 ; , & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1078 ; & # 1077 ; “ & # 1087 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1096 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1083 ; “ & # 1072 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1080 ; .

2 ) An extension of the original ironical clause
is used in those instances when the construct of the ironical word pick is non obvious for the foreign cultural environment. In such instances, a portion of the concerned constituents of the sarcasm is realized into a verbal signifier with the usage of absolute and adverbial participial clauses, extended prenominal buildings etc.

Thinking up rubrics is an art in itself, but we, hosts of manque writers, face another literary crisis: rubric depletion. Heedless of the hereafter, successful writers the universe over keep devouring a cherished resource — book rubrics — as if there were no tomorrow, and that puts the remainder of us off. And they have creamed off the best. Possibly I would hold written The Brothers Karamazov, but some older cat got it foremost. We ‘re left with odds and terminals, like The Second Cousins Karamazov.

& # 1055 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1081 ; — & # 1089 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; , & # 1085 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1099 ; , & # 1083 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1081 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1097 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1086 ; , & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1078 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; : & # 1089 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1097 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1095 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1081 ; . & # 1053 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1097 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1084 ; , & # 1087 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1077 ; , & # 1091 ; & # 1078 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1095 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1096 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1077 ; , & # 1087 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1078 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1101 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1094 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1099 ; — & # 1084 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1078 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1103 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1081 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1075 ; , — & # 1082 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1097 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1090 ; , & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1096 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1086 ; . & # 1040 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1078 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1102 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1080 ; . & # 1071 ; , & # 1084 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1078 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1090 ; , & # 1085 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1079 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1081 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1072 ;