Irony within literary discourse: a functional and stylistic framework

Abstract

The article offers a comprehensive analysis of the general problems involved in rendering irony in the translation of literary texts, which remains one of the most challenging areas within literary translation studies. Irony, as a multidimensional stylistic and pragmatic phenomenon, combines implicitness, contextual dependence, evaluative meaning, and cultural markedness–factors that significantly complicate its adequate reproduction in another language. The study examines the nature of ironic meaning from cognitive, pragmatic, and functional-stylistic perspectives and outlines the main types of irony relevant to translation analysis, including verbal, situational, contextual, plot-compositional, and narrative irony. Particular attention is paid to central difficulties faced by translators, such as linguistic system asymmetries, differing mechanisms of meaning construction, culture-specific connotations, nationally determined humor models, and variations in pragmatic norms and communicative expectations between source and target cultures.

A key focus is placed on the problem of implicitness, which often prevents irony from being translated through direct equivalents and requires the reconstruction of hidden meanings, allusions, and intertextual references. The article highlights the translator’s dilemma between preserving semantic duality and ensuring that the target reader receives recognizable markers of ironic intent. It also demonstrates that successful interpretation and reproduction of ironic effects largely depend on the translator’s ability to convey not only meaning but also the function of irony within the text–its contribution to authorial voice, character development, and the creation of comic or satirical effects. 

The study emphasizes that the translation of irony requires flexible strategies–from partial domestication to a more literal preservation of the author’s semantic play–while the choice of strategy should be determined by the functional load of irony in the text and the cultural expectations of the target audience. It is underscored that the translator’s primary task remains ensuring an equivalent communicative effect, even when the formal devices of irony must be modified. Ultimately, the article demonstrates that the problem of rendering irony is central to contemporary translation studies, as it integrates linguistic, cognitive, cultural, and interpretative dimensions and contributes to a deeper understanding of literary discourse and the mechanisms of intercultural communication.