INTERPRETATION OF POSTIRONY FROM THE POSITION OF THE LINGUOCULTURAL APPROACH
Abstract
The article is devoted to the interpretation of postirony from the standpoint of linguоculturology. The usage of the linguocultural paradigm to study the formation and development of the concept of postirony is justified by its close connection with modern social and cultural realities. The article emphasizes on postirony, as a means of communication between the author and the reader from the position of honesty and openness. Proceeding from the fundamental necessity of establishing such a dialogue between the author and the reader, postirony manifests the transition from the postmodern superiority of the author to sincerity and trust. It is appropriate to consider postirony as a global and mass cultural phenomenon, since the ideas of postirony penetrate the entire artistic space, manifesting the establishment of a new stage of postmodernism. The linguocultural approach made it possible to treat the postirony as a transcultural phenomenon. The author analyzes various integrated approaches of modern researchers to the interpretation of the concept of postirony and its effect on the reader. The article analyzes cultural changes associated with the crisis of postmodernism and postmodern irony itself, which influenced the emergence of postirony as the idea of “new sincerity”, after all, the emergence of postirony was facilitated by a large-scale cultural shift from postmodernism to metamodernism. In the conclusions, the author states that the outlined linguocultural approach to the phenomenon of postirony made it possible to analyze its influence on literature and the author’s text comprehensively and effectively. As a result, recent postmodern poetics marked by postironic sincerity becomes a sign of the formation of the new literary movement. A further study of the specific linguistic and compositional markers of the postironic style of writing on the example of the authors texts are promising.
References
2. Удовіченко Г. Лінгвокультурний підхід до вивчення мови. Наукові праці Кам’янець-Подільського національного університету імені Івана Огієнка. Філологічні науки. 2016. № 42. С. 196–199.
3. Bran N. The Cambridge Introduction to Postmodern Fiction. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
4. Colletta L. Political Satire and Postmodern Irony in the Age of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. The Journal of Popular Culture. 2009. Vol. 42. № 5. 856 p.
5. Collins M. Post-irony is real, and so what? The Georgetown Voice. 2010. URL: https://georgetownvoice.com/2010/03/04/post-irony-is-realand-so-what.
6. Hedinger J.M. Post-irony. On art after irony. 2014. URL: https://www.academia.edu/10326743/POST_IRONY_On_art_after_irony.
7. Hoffmann L. Postirony. The Nonfictional Literature of David Foster Wallace and Dave Eggers. 2016. 210 p.
8. Leal Carissa M. The Progression of Postmodern Irony: Jennifer Egan, David Foster Wallace and the Rise of Post-Postmodern Authenticity Harvard University Nov. Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard, 2017. URL: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37736743/LEAL-DOCUMENT-2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
9. Lee K. Cool Characters: Irony and American Fiction. Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 2016.
10. Lee K. No bull: David Foster Wallace and Postironic Belief. The Legacy of David Foster Wallace. Iowa : Iowa University Press, 2012. P. 83–112.
11. Linstead S., Collinson D. Irony in a Post-ironic World. Irony and Organizations: Epistemological Claims and Supporting Field Stories. Abstrak Forlag-Liber-Copenhagen Business School Press, 2005. P. 381–393.
12. McLaughlin R. After the Revolution: US Postmodernism in the Twenty-First Century. Ohio State University Press, 2013. Narrative, 21 (3). 284–295 p.
13. Postmodern irony’s become our environment. David Foster Wallace notes in an interview with Larry McCaffery in 1993.
14. Wallace D. Foster. Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction, Review of Contemporary Fiction. 1993. 13 : 2.
ISSN 
.png)
