Kris' Dissertation Chapter 4 Methodology and Data Collection

Chapter 4 Methodology and Data Collection
Chapter 4 comprises the methodology and data collection of verbal irony in Pride
and Prejudice. In Chapter 4 we will discuss the methodology of the data analysis,
including the classification of all data and the methods utilized for the quantitative tests
and qualitative analysis. Although the main focus is on qualitative analysis seen in
Chapter 5, the quantitative aspect of the data is complementary to support the hypotheses.
Specifically, the quantitative approach vindicates our approach that performative speech
acts are important to understanding characterization. The section for the data collection
includes a description of all ironical speech acts found between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth
in their conversations within the novel. In the final section, the Pearson’s Chi-squared test
results on which the data analysis is based are presented.
Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice was chosen for this study because the novel has
gathered much attention with regard to irony (e.g. Babb, 1958; Morini, 2010). The study
focuses on the verbal irony seen in the conversations between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth;
however Mr. Bingley’s, Caroline’s, and Colonel Fitzwilliam’s utterances may be included
in the analysis when they are found necessary within the conversation. Although these
minor characters might have been present as a third party within Mr. Darcy and
Elizabeth’s conversations, they are often observed as uninitiated H(s) that do not
comprehend either Mr. Darcy’s or Elizabeth’s verbal ironies. At the same time, these
minor characters rarely produce significant amounts of verbal irony to support the
analysis. Therefore, the utterances from third parties will be included in the data analysis
when relevant to understanding the conversations of Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth but will not
be analyzed as ironical utterances.
4.1 Methodology
The methodology section consists of the data collection, including the classification
of the ironical speech acts, and the quantitative test and qualitative analysis methods.
Data collection for this study was based on assembling conversations between Mr. Darcy
and Elizabeth for analyzing their verbal ironies. It is important to note that qualitative
data collection is subject to some unavoidable bias (Richards, 2003), and an account of
1

how we arrived at the dataset will be provided in section 4.2 on data. The data collection
begins by utilizing the modified speech act taxonomy to locate verbal irony within Mr.
Darcy and Elizabeth’s conversations by revealing S intent as infelicitous. Echoic allusions
are to verify the S’s purpose for H uptake within each utterance. Each utterance includes
an illocutionary act, the S’s intent, and a perlocutionary act, the H’s uptake (the effect
upon the H from the S). Modified speech act theory and echoic allusions in amalgamation
elucidate these two aspects of an utterance for analysis. This study converges on
conversations between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth to have a deeper focus on the verbal
irony that contributes to their characterization and plot development in discourse analysis.
We acknowledge that throughout the novel there are instances of verbal irony from other
minor characters, such as Mr. Bennet in his conversations with Mrs. Bennet; however,
since this study only focuses on the verbal ironies between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth,
verbal irony between other characters is not included.
Each ironical utterance is manually classified based on its echoic allusion (refer to
section 2.4.2 for echoic allusions) as the location of irony found for the S to show her
disagreement, neutrality, or agreement (three echoic groupings) for the H’s uptake. For an
ironist as the conversation’s initiator, her ironical allusion will be designated into one of
the three echoic groupings dependent upon her intention for the H’s uptake to be critical
(disagreement), civil (neutral), or friendly (agreement). Each of the 157 ironical
utterances of all conversations between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth is manually designated
as one of the three possible echoic groupings (see section 3.1.2 for echoic groupings), i.e.
disagreement, neutral or agreement (see Appendices A, B, and C). For the Pearson’s Chi-
squared test of the quantitative data, all 157 ironical utterances are tested for a correlation
between each of the speech acts and the three echoic groupings. The Chi-squared
goodness-of-fit test takes each speech act classification (assertive, directive, commissive,
expressive, and performative) and separately tests it for correlation with the three echoic
groupings, for a total of five tests. The test results show that ironical performative speech
acts have a correlation with the three echoic groupings, whereas the results for the other
speech acts do not show evidence of a significant correlation. The test results concur that
the 81 ironical performative speech acts are the prime focus of the text analysis to
illustrate how characterization occurs between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth through the
echoic grouping dominance phases based on Figure 5.1. Although the text analysis
2

focuses on the 81 ironical performative speech acts, all 157 ironical utterances were
necessary for determining the echoic grouping dominance. Therefore, the classification
through modified speech act taxonomy and echoic allusions are vital for determining
echoic grouping phases of characterization for the analysis of ironical performative
speech acts, which will be discussed in Chapter 5.
4.1.1 Classification of Modified Speech Acts and Echoic Allusions
This paper emphasizes a pragmatic approach to the discourse analyses of the
conversations between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice. As such, note
that several linguistic concepts explained thus far are incorporated to help build the
analytical framework. This research is a concurrent exploration of the relationship
between the language structure and the principles behind the language’s use. Those
principles are the background context affecting choice of language, including but not
limited to culture, gender, nationality, age, law, etc. (Dynel, 2011). Discourse analysis
should not be separated from the study of grammar and phonology; in order to understand
the meaning of utterances one must be aware of the grammatical and phonological
stresses (McCarthy, 2002: 9). Linguistic forms are grammatical, lexical and phonological,
while the function of discourse will be dependent on the participant’s roles and settings;
this is where the difference is seen (Dynel, 2011: 1). For example, “The weather in
Beijing is perfect today” may have very different meanings dependent upon the context
when said by a particular S. A tourist who has never traveled to Beijing may truly
welcome a snowy winter day when this is said, while a regular outdoor traffic patrol
officer living in Beijing may be using an ironical allusion to express his discontent. This
utterance from a tourist will be taken literally, while this utterance from the traffic patrol
officer would be considered ironical.
A speech act can have dual propositions, hence “much of speech act theory is
devoted to striking the proper balance between convention and intention” (Sadock, 2004:
53). Irony in particular is said to be characterized by two conflicting or differing
propositions (Kissine, 2012: 186-187; Stanel, 2006: 37; Solska, 2005: 128, 135). Yet the
convention is how the utterances are classified. There are contentions concerning the
interpretation of intended illocutionary acts, in that they are able to be subjectively
perceived. The general consensus is that through the obscurity “at the level of
3

conventional [literal] sentence meaning” is where the illocutionary force is to be found
for classification (Kissine, 2011: 124). It is in the literal meaning of an utterance where
the illocutionary point, the basis for classifying a speech act, can be found, and the
classification becomes less tricky as there are established rules of syntax and grammar
that are socially common (Sadock, 2004). In Searle’s analysis of indirect speech acts, he
affirms that when a sentence (in his example a directive) “is uttered with the primary
[intended] illocutionary point of a directive, the literal illocutionary act is also
performed” (1975: 70). He contends that indirect speech acts have two illocutionary acts
from the duality of literal and figurative meanings, and the literal meaning is important
for classification. It can be inferred from Searle’s explanation that the literal meaning of
an indirect speech act still performs, which is why this study uses the literal meaning of
an utterance for classification (Kissine, 2012: 171). For example, John invites Mary to go
to dinner, but Mary rejects his offer with an indirect speech act. John says, “Mary, let’s go
to dinner tonight” but Mary replies with “Sorry, I have to clean my kitchen.” Mary is
using the literal illocutionary act of her indirect response to convey the intended
illocutionary act that she does not wish to join John for dinner. Mary’s indirect speech act
has a literal meaning, which still performs the figurative illocutionary act, to decline
John’s invitation. That being said, this study analyzes the figurative and literal layers of
an utterance to give future researchers more context on the roles of verbal irony within
the text and how verbal irony functions pragmatically within speech acts.
This study extends beyond the linguistic and grammatical boundaries of utterances,
looking at their action and interaction. The contexts of the utterances in light of Mr.
Darcy’s and Elizabeth’s echoic allusions are taken into account during analysis. This
study specifically uses infelicity conditions to establish a possible site for irony, stressing
speech act theory’s focus on recognizing the illocutionary act, S intent. According to this
research, the concept of infelicity is derived from the violation of any of Austin’s or
Searle’s felicity conditions for observing conventional rules when utterances are spoken
(see section 2.2 for Austin’s and Searle’s felicity conditions for speech acts). When a
felicity condition is violated, in this case most often sincerity, the utterance is deemed
ironical. In addition to the illocutionary act of an utterance, the discussion will also
highlight the importance of the perlocutionary act to the extent of reasoning how each
analyzed utterance is construed as ironical based on the H’s uptake of the verbal irony
4

that is intended by the S. Therefore, verbal irony is identified through a modified speech
act taxonomy incorporating echoic allusions, according to the delimitation in this paper.
In order to illustrate a differentiation of speech acts that are not considered to be verbal
irony according to our definition (see section 3.1 on the theoretical basis), take the
following utterance from the novel. When Elizabeth rejected Mr. Darcy’s marriage
proposal, she claimed “I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last
man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry” (Austen, 2003: 188). This
utterance may appear to be ironical to the H, because from Mr. Darcy’s (the H) point of
view Elizabeth could be exaggerating her feelings. However, from Elizabeth (the S)
herself, she is sincere in her statement expressing her resentment for Mr. Darcy.
Therefore this utterance does not meet the criteria for verbal irony that the S’s intention is
to convey irony through dual layers. In this literal utterance, there is no intention from the
S other than to insult Mr. Darcy.
The following examples illustrate how speech acts are classified for the data
analysis, and demonstrate the use of speech act theory’s concept of infelicity, as well as
echoic theory’s echoic allusion to show the two-tiered method of pairing S intent with H
uptake, respectively (for a review of Austin’s and Searle’s felicity conditions, see section
2.2 and for echoic theory’s allusions refer to section 2.4.2). Each of the examples are
underlined for the part that of the utterance which will be analyzed, and this same format
can be found in Chapter 5 for the data analysis.
Assertive
The first example is an ironical assertive speech act (ASR). Mr. Darcy’s response
with a subdued attitude to brush Elizabeth off by giving a short answer concedes to her
request to participate in the conversation. Elizabeth ironically replies with an assertive,
ASR18.01 “That reply will do for the present” (Austen, 2003: 90). The illocutionary
point of this utterance is to make a statement in reaction to Mr. Darcy’s response to her
request for conversation. The assertion in ASR18.01 violates Austin’s felicity conditions
B.1 and B.2. Elizabeth’s utterance violates B.1 because her response to Mr. Darcy is
unanticipated given her prior request for a conversation, and also violates B.2 because it
leaves the action of initiating conversation with Mr. Darcy incomplete by her abrupt
attempt to end the conversation. This infelicity of her assertion brings to light the irony,
seen through “that reply” in ASR18.01 as Elizabeth gives a more explicit ironical echoic
5

allusion to insinuate that Mr. Darcy does not understand how to participate in a
conversation. She is mockingly telling him that she is satisfied, that he was able to utter a
“reply” to her instigation of initiating a conversation, yet we see that Mr. Darcy’s
utterance of consent to say whatever she wishes is a short reply and hardly sufficient to
invoke conversation. Elizabeth purposefully echoes Mr. Darcy’s short “reply” because
she intends for Mr. Darcy to understand her ironical reference, therefore her allusion
anticipates Mr. Darcy’s uptake of the irony in her use of “reply.”
Directive
To give an example of an ironical directive utterance (DIR), take DIR18.03 “But
now we may be silent” (Austen, 2003: 90). The illocutionary act of a directive is to
convince the H to do something for the S; in this case DIR18.03 is meant to ironically
order Mr. Darcy to “be silent” through a request. Elizabeth’s utterance breaks Searle’s
preparatory rule because her previous request for conversation from Mr. Darcy built up
the assumption in context that Elizabeth intended to speak with him, yet her utterance
opposes the assumption that she wishes to engage Mr. Darcy in conversation. Elizabeth
does not support her previous attempts at conversation with Mr. Darcy, and therefore
does not follow in the context of the preparatory rule. Thus, the infelicity of the utterance
is located in the violation of Searle’s preparatory rule. In DIR18.03, Elizabeth reverts to
silence which is echoic irony because clearly Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth have yet to
converse. The echo is made for the purpose of H uptake, and Elizabeth echoes Mr.
Darcy’s silence as his misconduct for social behavior in order to enhance her verbal
irony, which is meant to criticize, and at the same time to bring about the H’s attention.
The echo explicates the infelicity in her utterance, and Elizabeth’s request to remain silent
is completely ironical to overstate their silence.
Commissive
To illustrate the classification of a commissive speech act (COM), take the following
example: COM18.01 “But if I do not take your likeness now, I may never have another
opportunity” (Austen, 2003: 92). COM18.01 is an ironical commissive speech act
because the illocutionary act behind it shows a conviction in Elizabeth’s statement that
makes it a commitment to those words, more than an idea as in an assertive speech act.
As Kissine observed, a commissive speech act has the intention of the S to bring about
the truth of the propositional content (2011: 118). The primary distinction between
6

commissive and directive speech acts is that a commissive speech act reveals a
commitment of the S, while a directive speech act attempts to commit the H to an act. She
is committing herself to what she says and not only suggests it, as found in directive
speech acts, but threatens Mr. Darcy that if he does not fulfill the requirement then
consequences will entail. The infelicity of the utterance can be found in the violation of
Austin’s felicity condition A.1, that the conventions must be followed under the accepted
circumstances, because Elizabeth will have future opportunities to see Mr. Darcy, yet she
states that she may not have another opportunity. The infelicity provides a location for the
irony of the utterance, which echoes her existing estimation of Mr. Darcy’s character, of
which Mr. Darcy is aware therefore the irony is intended for Mr. Darcy’s uptake. Her
echoic allusion highlights the incongruity that she has already decided against Mr.
Darcy’s moral character, although she ironically states that she wishes to gauge his
character at this moment. It is also noteworthy to explicate this type of speech act.
COM18.01 is seen to help elucidate character evaluation, as all types of speech act may
do. Searle’s fundamental concept for classifying a speech act based on its directional fit
(see section 2.2 for speech act theory) is in line with our classification criteria for
performative speech acts to depict characterization where a performative brings a claim
into existence in the world when spoken. Although other speech act classifications such
as COM18.01 may contribute to the process of character construction, this study adheres
to Searle’s classification based upon the illocutionary act of an utterance.
Expressive
For an example of the classification of an expressive speech act (EXP), take the
ironical expressive utterance EXP18.01 “Very well” (Austen, 2003: 90). This utterance is
Elizabeth’s first reaction to Mr. Darcy assuring her that anything she wanted him to say,
he would say in order for the two to carry on a conversation. The illocutionary point of an
expressive speech act is to reveal gratitude or an emotion. Gilbert emphasizes that the
emotions themselves are not part of the speech acts, but rather “beyond, or if preferred,
behind the words” (1999: 231). This means that emotions which are behind expressive
speech acts take the role of “communicating information about our internal states,
feelings, beliefs and desires. However, in other circumstances, our communicative tools
tell us that there is something wrong, discordance” such as in the case of irony (Gilbert,
1999: 231). Elizabeth’s illocutionary point is to ironically express her feigned gratitude to
7

Mr. Darcy that she is satisfied with his response. The infelicity in Elizabeth’s expressive
is due to its violation of Searle’s sincerity rule, because she is not content with his
response to her desire to converse. EXP18.01 is insincere gratitude as the readership
knows that Mr. Darcy gives a quick reply to assure Elizabeth “that whatever she wished
him to say should be said” (Austen, 2003: 90). Instead of trying to participate in a
conversation with Elizabeth, Mr. Darcy’s short reply gives her an opportunity to echo his
irony by reciprocating his quick reply with an ironical expression of her insincere
gratitude, alluding to her dissatisfaction with his contribution. Her irony is belied by the
literal meaning of the utterance, to mean that he has barely contributed to the
conversation and has yet to satisfy her request.
Performative
Finally, extra attention is given to an example of an ironical performative speech act
(PER), which is distinguished from an assertive speech act in that an assertive affirms a
preexisting truth, while a performative brings an opinion into existence, creating a truth
whether it is temporary or permanent. In PER31.08 Darcy says to Elizabeth “We neither
of us perform to strangers” (Austen, 2003: 171). The illocutionary act of the intended
meaning is to construct both Mr. Darcy’s own and Elizabeth’s characters to be similar. In
PER31.08, Mr. Darcy is violating Austin’s felicity conditions Γ.1 and Γ.2. By saying that
they do not perform to strangers, Mr. Darcy violates Γ.1 because he and Elizabeth do
“perform” to strangers, for they do not reveal their true opinions to others through the use
of verbal irony. Also, Γ.2 is violated because they do not conduct themselves in the
manner to which the utterance refers, and instead continue to “perform to strangers”
through future use of verbal irony. The irony, shown through the infelicity in Mr. Darcy’s
utterance, is echoing Elizabeth’s statement, alluding to her comparison of the two at the
dance earlier at Netherfield, that they have a “great similarity” in their minds (Austen,
2003: 90). The echoic allusion to Elizabeth’s comparison entails irony because it is meant
for Elizabeth to comprehend; therefore the echo is determined to be made for the H’s
uptake.
Based on Searle’s speech act theory, with an addendum of Butler’s performative
speech acts to replace declarations (see section 2.2 for an explanation of Searle’s speech
acts and section 3.1.1 for performative speech acts), all ironical utterances between Mr.
Darcy and Elizabeth are classified. All speech acts identified as ironical utterances
8

between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth are included in the data, although the focus is placed on
performative speech acts as it is this classification deployed to depict Elizabeth and Mr.
Darcy’s characterization within the novel.
The echoic theory contends that a S forming an ironical utterance does so by
alluding to some previously existing thought. The ironical utterance is evaluative, posing
as an interpretation upon some preexisting assumption which the H is able to discern
according to the concept of relevance. A S’s attitude provides a dissociative view that
distances himself from the statement. The statement could also be exaggerated to indicate
an implicit evaluation. Whatever the S’s stance may be, the echoic allusions are not taken
at face value, and the H is expected to gather the figurative meaning of the S through an
adjustment to its preexisting linguistic assumptions. Echoic allusions of verbal irony are
essential to help identify the ironical utterances in that the echoic allusions expose
infelicity (or incongruity); therefore, the S’s true attitudes reveal the three possible echoic
groupings (disagreement, neutral, agreement). This study contends that all ironical
utterances are traceable to an echoic allusion which is the location of irony meant for the
H’s uptake intended by the S.
4.1.2 Analytical Methods
It is essential to distinguish between our quantitative test and qualitative analysis. In
the quantitative test section (see 4.1.2.1 for a description of the Chi-squared goodness-of-
fit test), each ironical utterance is manually classified according to our echoic groupings
as disagreement, neutral or agreement based upon its echoic allusion. Then, each
classification of the modified speech act taxonomy is tested to find whether a correlation
exists with characterization according to the three echoic groupings. Therefore, the
statistical test addresses all 157 ironical speech acts in our dataset. The purpose of the
quantitative test of the study is to provide supporting data for the text analysis of the 81
ironical performative speech acts which depict characterization. This study tests only
categorical variables, thus we use cross tabulation and Pearson’s Chi-squared test in order
to determine if in fact a correlation exists between ironical performative speech acts and
the three echoic groupings. This is called bivariate analysis, or analyzing the relationship
between two variables.
9

4.1.2.1 Descriptive Statistics: Cross Tabulation and Chi-squared Goodness-of-fit Test
The 157 collected ironical utterances (shown in Table 4.1) have been examined
using descriptive statistics in order to show any existing relationship between each
classification of utterance according to modified speech act taxonomy and the three
echoic groupings. Descriptive statistics tell us useful information about the data, and
bivariate analysis in particular allows us to see if a correlation exists between two
variables. Each of the five speech act classifications are variables, and the variable being
tested against the five classifications is the echoic grouping, which has three possible
“values” (disagreement, neutral, agreement). Cross tabulation simply puts the data into a
table so that it can be clearly summarized and tested. All of the variables are categorical,
meaning there is no numeric data; Pearson’s Chi-squared test will examine each pair of
variables to determine the significance of a relationship. The study attempts to determine
the relationship between each ironical speech act classification and the three echoic
groupings, therefore the variables will be the ironical speech acts (assertives, directives,
expressives, commissives, and performatives) and the three echoic groupings
(disagreement, neutral, agreement). We manually categorize each utterance classified via
modified speech act theory individually as belonging to one of three echoic groupings
based upon the echoic allusions of the utterance as shown in the context of the novel
chronologically (see Appendices A, B, C). Each ironical speech act classification is tested
with the three echoic groupings to find a correlation between the two variables.
In order to avoid potential bias, we looked at each ironical utterance in Mr. Darcy
and Elizabeth’s conversations individually to determine its echoic grouping
categorization. The echoic groupings are not regularly distributed in order throughout the
157 ironical speech acts. Rather, the 157 ironical utterances may fall into any one of the
three echoic groupings (see Appendices A, B, C). After the Pearson’s Chi-squared test
results, the echoic groupings will be designated as three echoic grouping phases
determined by the echoic grouping dominance for data analysis in Chapter 5. The method
for classifying each utterance as disagreement, neutral or agreement is to determine the
disposition and real attitude of the ironist intended for H uptake within the context of the
plot. For an illustration of how these ironical utterances are classified in terms of the three
echoic groupings, take the following as an example: a wife normally bakes delicious
cakes for her husband. However, today the wife overcooked and ruined the cake, but still
10

served it to her husband. To show a disagreement ironical utterance, the husband might
say: “Perfect, I always wanted to know how burnt cake tasted!” In the disagreement
utterance, the character’s ironical utterance will be severe and attacking to refute the
other’s opinion or provoke the polemical. A neutral ironical utterance will be less
aggressive and more constructive or inquisitive to show civility and concern rather than
simply attacking another’s character and distinguishing flaws: “Interesting taste. Is this a
new recipe?” Agreement ironical utterances may be considered banter between the
couple. The husband might respond: “Thank you for giving me a chance to put myself on
a diet.” In each of these examples one may detect the S’s intended meaning through an
echoic allusion, which determines the echoic groupings. Once designated into one of the
three echoic groupings, the five speech act classifications will be tested for correlation
with echoic groupings.
The test is completed using SPSS statistical software; other software packages such
as Stata or R can be used for conducting this particular test, but we have chosen SPSS
due to our familiarity with the program, as well as its pervasive use in several disciplines.
The Pearson’s Chi-squared test examines all 157 ironical utterances. The categorical
variables in the test have been dummy-coded, or assigned numerical value. So for each
type of speech act, there is either a 1 or 0; if the utterance in question is a particular type
of speech act, then 1 will be placed under the particular classification variable, and 0 will
be placed under all other types of speech acts. The three echoic groupings (disagreement,
neutral, agreement) will be designated as 1, 2 or 3 (respectively). The Pearson’s Chi-
squared tests the null hypothesis that the number of ironical speech acts will be
distributed as expected by chance. This means that the Pearson’s Chi-squared value
should show any existing discrepancy between the expected distribution and the actual
distribution of ironical speech acts within the three echoic groupings. We test the
significance at the p< 0.05 level, which means we can reject the null hypothesis with 95%
confidence that the variables do have a correlation and are not independent.
4.1.2.2 Data Analysis through Echoic Groupings
Using the incongruity and superiority theories explained in the analytical
framework, each ironical utterance is analyzed according to echoic groupings. When
dealing with verbal irony through echoic groupings (disagreement, neutral, agreement),
11

the ironical utterances are identified through reasoning based on echoic allusion. The
three echoic groupings are our original contribution to echoic theory, theorized by Wilson
and Sperber (2012) in their examination of verbal irony. The echoic groupings suggest
that a S is forming an ironical utterance and does so by echoing some previously existing
thought or even alluding to a specific direct or indirect quotation previously spoken. The
ironical utterance is evaluative, posing as an interpretation upon some preexisting
assumption which the H is able to discern according to the concept of relevance (Wilson
& Sperber, 2002).
Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy’s conversations abound with indirect quotations which
dually report a contextual utterance while echoing the S’s dissociative attitude upon it, in
essence following the general definition of verbal irony. The concept of verbal irony is
supported by Muecke’s interpretation that irony’s essential element involves “a double
layered or two-story phenomenon” contextualized by a literal locution of the utterance
offset by some decidedly ironic illocutionary conditions (1980 [1969]: 19). The S’s real
attitude is hidden within the utterance itself, but identified through the breaking of felicity
conditions in its illocution. Thus Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy’s conversations convey a
number of dualities amidst the speech acts which their utterances perform. Each utterance
will give information about some original context or text, and the echo expresses the S’s
dissociative attitude or reaction to the speech act paradigm it reiterates. Echoic allusions
of verbal irony are necessary to identify the ironical utterances that show the three echoic
groupings. Echoic groupings provide a basis for the three phases of echoic grouping
dominance through which characterization is revealed. Although each utterance has an
individual echoic grouping independent of the phase in which it is located, each ironical
utterance is analyzed according to the echoic grouping dominance phases. The evidence
to support our argument for the three echoic grouping dominance phases that illustrate
characterization will be provided in Chapter 5. The following section presents the data
collected for analysis.
4.2 Data
In this study, we counted and identified (refer to Table 4.1) 157 ironical utterances to
be designated as belonging to one of the five categories of the modified speech act
12

taxonomy. The number of ironical speech acts by classification is as follows: 81
performative speech acts, 33 directive speech acts, 31 assertive speech acts, 7
commissive speech acts and 5 expressive speech acts. The dataset formerly included only
113 ironical utterances when the data were first collected and analyzed, and originally
more ironical assertive utterances were classified than the other classifications. However
upon further inspection, we realized that the definition for each speech act in the
modified speech act taxonomy was not as clear as it could be. This discovery led to
improvements, namely the elucidation of the definition for each speech act classification
(refer to section 2.2.2 for illocutionary acts and section 3.1.1 for performative speech
acts). In order to enhance the data collection methods, we first reexamined the definition
of each speech act classification, namely using the literal illocutionary act of each
utterance for S intent, and then further identifying H uptake through echoic allusions
(refer to section 2.4.2 for echoic allusions). The most important modification made was to
our definition of performative speech acts, which now includes Butler’s (1997) concept
of subjection for identity construction. Including Butler’s subjection was essential in
order to clarify the differences between assertive speech acts and performative speech
acts. From the revised speech act taxonomy further delimited for scrutiny, in addition to a
reexamination of the novel, the updated dataset includes 157 ironical utterances.
In Table 4.1, the count is separated by speech act classification to provide a clear
representation of how many ironical speech acts from each classification are present
within each chapter that includes Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth’s conversations. A remarkable
observation to be noticed is that throughout the novel, Mr. Darcy rarely converses other
than in Elizabeth’s presence, which is why the analysis stresses the value of focusing on
the discourse between these two characters. There are other verbal ironists in the novel,
such as Mr. Bennet; however Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy are the novel’s protagonists and
the most endearing characters to the readership, which is why they are the primary focus
of the research. This section gives an account of how the data are collected, and the
compilation of ironical utterances to be analyzed in Chapter 5. Both tables and graphs
have been provided to show the data which supports our hypothesis that the three echoic
groupings demonstrate characterization.
13

Table 4.1 Ironical Speech Act Totals by Classification
Chapters
in the
Novel
Conversations between Mr.
Darcy & Elizabeth Including
Third Parties
ASR DIR COM EXP PER Totals
Ch. 3 1 1 1 0 0 2 4
Ch. 6 1 1 1 0 0 1 3
Ch. 8 1 0 1 0 0 5 6
Ch. 9 2 3 1 0 0 7 11
Ch. 10 3 3 6 1 1 12 23
Ch. 11 1 0 0 1 1 20 22
Ch. 18 2 13 11 2 3 12 41
Ch. 31 2 5 5 3 0 8 21
Ch. 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ch. 34 1 4 4 0 0 4 12
Ch. 46 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ch. 54 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ch. 58 3 0 0 0 0 1 1
Ch. 60 1 1 3 0 0 9 13
Totals 21 31 33 7 5 81 157
Figure 4.1 Ironical Speech Acts in the Novel
14

Figure 4.2 Ironical Performative Speech Acts in the Novel
Figure 4.3 Ironical Assertive Speech Acts in the Novel
15

Figure 4.4 Ironical Directive Speech Acts in the Novel
Figure 4.5 Ironical Commissive Speech Acts in the Novel
16

Figure 4.6 Ironical Expressive Speech Acts in the Novel
Figure 4.7 Echoic Grouping Distribution in the Novel
4.2.1 Speech Acts in the Novel
In Chapter 3 of the novel, Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth meet at a social gathering and
their relationship is immediately strained as Mr. Darcy offends Elizabeth, deeming her
insufficiently attractive for his attention. In this chapter, the ironical utterances are
composed of 2 performative speech acts, 1 assertive and 1 directive speech act, for a total
17

of 4. Chapter 6 continues with the ironical attacks between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy in
their disagreement, with 1 performative speech act, 1 assertive and 1 directive for a total
of 3. The characterization increases in Chapter 8 with 5 performative speech acts between
Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth, and 1 directive for a total of 6 ironical speech acts. Chapter 9
has 7 performative speech acts, a further increase in characterization. Chapter 9 also
includes 3 assertives and 1 directive, for a total of 11 ironical speech acts. In Chapter 10,
there is a total of 23 ironical speech acts. Twelve of these are performatives, 6 directives,
3 assertives, and 1 expressive and 1 commissive. Chapter 11 has 22 ironical speech acts
in total. Twenty are performatives, with 1 expressive and 1 commissive each. The most
ironical performative speech acts are found within Chapter 11, making it the peak chapter
for character construction.
Chapter 18 is the turning point in the novel, with the most ironical speech acts
compared with other chapters. It has a total of 41 ironical speech acts, including 13
assertives, 12 performatives, 11 directives, 3 expressives and 2 commissives. The graph
in Figure 4.7 continues its downward trend as the ironical exchange fails to be led by
contempt and adopts a more benevolent tone to maintain civility between the two
characters than in previous chapters. The scorn between the two subsides and both Mr.
Darcy and Elizabeth are left contemplating possible feelings for each other. Chapter 31
includes 8 performative, 5 assertives, 5 directives, and 3 commissives, a total of 21
ironical speech acts. In Chapter 31, Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth frequently engage in ironic
banter during their interactions. Chapter 31 is mostly comprised of neutral ironical
utterances, for the civil banter between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth has increased.
By Chapter 34, Elizabeth has discovered that it was Mr. Darcy who foiled the
marriage between her sister Jane and Mr. Bingley, which makes her feelings of hatred rise
to the surface once more. It is in Chapter 34 that Mr. Darcy proposes to Elizabeth, a
proposal which she vehemently declines in light of what Mr. Darcy has done to prevent
the romance between Mr. Bingley and Jane. In spite of Mr. Darcy’s love, Elizabeth
cannot envision a future with such a man, and her scathing rejection is formed with
rhetorical irony to say the least that it should be obvious to Mr. Darcy why she could
never accept his offer (Austen, 2003: 186). Elizabeth holds steady to her belief about Mr.
Darcy’s ill-famed identity, a character she modeled herself through her own prejudiced
ironical performative speech acts in addition to Mr. Darcy’s own characterization of
18

himself. It is clear that Mr. Darcy’s character has been altered, while Elizabeth has
perhaps repressed any budding romantic feeling for Mr. Darcy. Chapter 34 has 12 ironical
speech acts total, including 4 assertives, 4 directives, and 4 performative speech acts
each.
The graph (Figure 4.2) of performative speech acts in Chapter 46 at this point begins
to decline, as the ironical utterances ebb due to Mr. Darcy’s and Elizabeth’s newfound
romance. In Chapter 46 Elizabeth receives the dreadful news that her sister Lydia has
eloped with the despised Mr. Wickham. Mr. Darcy surprisingly enters the scene with
compassion and resolve. After this gesture, Elizabeth realizes her true feelings for Mr.
Darcy that her perceptions of him have been altered. Chapter 58 has 1 ironical speech act:
a performative. In this chapter Elizabeth learns that Mr. Darcy intends to offer her a
second proposal. After meeting with Mr. Darcy, she thanks him and confesses that her
feelings towards him have changed, and she accepts his marriage proposal. Chapter 60,
the final chapter in the analysis, has 9 performative, 3 directive and 1 assertive, a total of
13 ironical speech acts. By this chapter, Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth are no longer at odds
and the exchanges between them reflect their recently discovered feelings, which is a
stark contrast to their initial encounter.
4.3 Pearson’s Chi-squared Goodness-of-fit Test Results: 157 Ironical
Speech Acts
This section will provide the results from our Pearson’s Chi-squared test, but the
implications of the results will appear in the final chapter. For each classification of
ironical speech act, there are two tables depicting the results. The first table shows the
expected distribution of the ironical speech acts compared to the actual distribution of
ironical speech acts found in each echoic grouping. This table lets us know if the
distribution was normal; if the actual and expected distributions have a large discrepancy,
then we can conclude that the distribution of ironical speech acts is not normal. If the
distribution is abnormal, this is an indication of a possible correlation between the
variables. The second table displays the results of the statistical tests. The test we are
interested in is the Pearson’s Chi-squared test, which analyzes the relationship between
two variables; the null hypothesis, or the hypothesis that there is no relationship between
19

the variables, is tested. We are interested in the p value of the Pearson’s Chi-squared test,
which tells us if we can reject the null hypothesis. If the significance, which we call p
value, is at 0.05 or below, we are able to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the
two variables are correlated. As previously mentioned, the three echoic groupings have
been dummy-coded, with 1, 2, and 3 being disagreement, neutral, and agreement,
respectively. The results are shown in the tables below.
Table 4.2 Ironical Assertive Cross tabulation Results
Echoic Grouping
Total
1 2 3
Assertive
0
Count 75 36 15 126
Expected Count 71.4 40.9 13.6 126.0
1
Count 14 15 2 31
Expected Count 17.6 10.1 3.4 31.0
Total
Count 89 51 17 157
Expected Count 89.0 51.0 17.0 157.0
Table 4.3 Ironical Assertive Chi-squared Results
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-squared 4.596a
2 .100 .111
Likelihood Ratio 4.444 2 .108 .124
Fisher's Exact Test 4.216 .120
N of Valid Cases 157
a. 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 3.36.
The above tables hold the results chart for the test to see if there is a relationship
between ironical assertive speech acts and echoic groupings. Table 4.2 shows the
distribution of the total 31 ironical assertive speech acts throughout the echoic groupings.
Table 4.3 shows that with a Pearson’s Chi-squared exact significance (p value) of .111,
we conclude ironical assertive speech acts and echoic groupings are independent.
20

Table 4.4 Ironical Directive Cross tabulation Results
Echoic Groupings
Total
1 2 3
Directive
0
Count 70 40 14 124
Expected Count 70.3 40.3 13.4 124.0
1
Count 19 11 3 33
Expected Count 18.7 10.7 3.6 33.0
Total
Count 89 51 17 157
Expected Count 89.0 51.0 17.0 157.0
Table 4.5 Ironical Directive Chi-squared Results
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-squared .132a
2 .936 .962
Likelihood Ratio .136 2 .934 .923
Fisher's Exact Test .111 1.000
count is 3.57.
Above are the results from the test for a correlation between ironical directive speech acts and
echoic groupings. Table 4.4 shows the cross tabulations of the distribution of the 33 ironical directive
speech acts within each echoic grouping, including the actual number versus the expected number of
ironical speech acts. Table 4.5 shows the results of our Pearson’s Chi-squared test: that the exact
significance is p = .962, or 96.2% which means that we fail to have a significant relationship.
According to the results, there is no correlation between ironical directive speech acts and echoic
groupings, and we can declare the two independent.
21

Table 4.6 Ironical Commissive Cross tabulation Results
Characterization Total
1 2 3
Commissive
0
Count 86 48 16 150
Expected Count 85.0 48.7 16.2 150.0
1
Count 3 3 1 7
Expected Count 4.0 2.3 .8 7.0
Total
Count 89 51 17 157
Expected Count 89.0 51.0 17.0 157.0
Table 4.7 Ironical Commissive Chi-squared Results
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-squared .571a
2 .752 .870
Likelihood Ratio .564 2 .754 .870
count is .76.
Table 4.6 shows there are only 7 ironical commissive speech acts in the data.
Because there are few ironical utterances in this category, the Pearson’s Chi-squared
value is low, and the confidence level does not make the cut, as the p value is higher than
the 0.05 cutoff, at .870 shown in Table 4.7. Thus, there is no evidence of a correlation
between ironical commissive speech acts and echoic groupings.
Table 4.8 Ironical Expressive Cross tabulation Results
Echoic Groupings
Total
1 2 3
Expressive
0
Count 87 48 17 152
Expected Count 86.2 49.4 16.5 152.0
1
Count 2 3 0 5
Expected Count 2.8 1.6 .5 5.0
Total
Count 89 51 17 157
Expected Count 89.0 51.0 17.0 157.0
22

Table 4.9 Ironical Expressive Chi-squared Results
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
2 .365 .393
count is .54.
The above result is that of the 5 ironical expressive speech acts and their relationship with echoic
groupings. As shown in Table 4.8, the expected counts are nearly identical to the actual counts. Thus,
the p value is .393; in other words, the p value fails to meet the ≤0.05 significance level. According to
the amounts in Table 4.9, there is no indication of a correlation between these two variables. We fail to
reject the null hypothesis.
Table 4.10 Ironical Performative Cross tabulation Results
Echoic Groupings Total
1 2 3
Performative
0
Count 38 32 6 76
Expected Count 43.1 24.7 8.2 76.0
1
Count 51 19 11 81
Expected Count 45.9 26.3 8.8 81.0
Total
Count 89 51 17 157
Expected Count 89.0 51.0 17.0 157.0
Table 4.11 Ironical Performative Chi-squared Results
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
2 .038 .039
count is 8.23.
Shown in Table 4.10, the expected counts of the 81 total ironical performative
23

speech acts are far from the actual counts of ironical performative speech acts in all of the
echoic groupings. Therefore, our Pearson’s Chi-squared value (shown in Table 4.11) is
higher at 6.531. The results have a significance of .039, which meets the p<0.05 level
needed to determine correlation. For ironical performative speech acts, we can reject the
null hypothesis that it has no correlation with echoic groupings; the two variables are not
independent at a confidence level of just over 95%.
The results establish statistical evidence to support our hypothesis by confirming
that echoic groupings have a correlation with ironical performative speech acts. From the
three echoic groupings of verbal irony tested in the Pearson’s Chi-squared goodness-of-fit
test, we were able to discover that echoic groupings depict characterization. The data
analysis in Chapter 5 is based on the three phases of echoic groupings of characterization
to reveal the role verbal irony plays in the character constructions of Mr. Darcy and
Elizabeth, the main focus of this study.
24

Kris' Dissertation Chapter 4 Methodology and Data Collection

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Kris' Dissertation Chapter 4 Methodology and Data Collection

Similar a Kris' Dissertation Chapter 4 Methodology and Data Collection (20)

Kris' Dissertation Chapter 4 Methodology and Data Collection