1 Stumbling Upon Irony

Effective communication extends beyond verbal interaction, and includes nonverbal elements as well as situational, social, and contextual variables. Irony constitutes a phenomenon that may lead to misunderstandings in communication, especially when reduced to verbal aspects. When native speakers of English or German utilise irony in their everyday interactions, the manner in which they employ the rhetorical device often aligns with the ancient Greek definition of saying “the opposite of or something different from what one really means” (Hartung 2002: 12). One relatively common example of irony in the German language occurs when, although it is raining heavily, someone who looks fairly unhappy says in a rather unimpressed tone of voice: “Well, the weather is certainly quite nice today.” For those who are native speakers of German (or English, for that matter), the context (heavy rain) and the non-verbal and grammatical markers the speaker is using (an unhappy facial expression, an unimpressed tone of voice, and an exaggeration of the statement) permit the identification of the statement as ironic without difficulty.

However, this does not apply to native Japanese speakers, who are more likely to be confused by such a statement, as this kind of “conversational irony” seems less common in the usage of Japanese language. One significant challenge when using irony is that individuals frequently remain unaware of the fact that the comprehension of such expressions is contingent upon the cultural context in which they are encountered, which can lead to misinterpretation. In fact, the recognition of similarities in culturally bound value systems, or at the very least an acknowledgement of potential differences, is a crucial factor in both the emergence and the effects of irony (cf. Berg 1978; Rosengreen 1986).

Based on my master’s thesis from 2021, this article attempts to explore how the concept of irony is described, produced, and comprehended in the context of the Japanese language. The initial section examines the general definitions of irony in German and English to establish a framework that correlates with an existing Japanese concept, which is then investigated in the subsequent section. The final section assesses whether irony can be identified in written Japanese. Therein, the general translatability and function of irony is investigated by examining examples from the British novel Rivers of London (2011) by Ben Aaronovitch and comparing them with their corresponding passages of the Japanese translation (2013) by applying the criteria advanced in the preceding sections. The objective of this analysis is twofold. Firstly, it seeks to ascertain whether the irony employed in the English original novel is reflected in the Japanese translation. Secondly, it aims to demonstrate how irony in Japanese can be identified based on theoretical criteria.

2 Defining Irony

The concept of irony has been thoroughly explored in German and English research. The origin of the term “irony” can be traced back to the ancient Greek word eiron, which is believed to have referred to either “asking” or “saying.” Later on, the term was applied to describe a hypocrite or a dissembler (Newman Hutchens 1973: 48). Moreover, it was used to indicate a spiteful and derisive manner of speech with the intention of deriding or belittling another person (Knox 1973: 21), or to refer to morally unacceptable behaviour (Hartung 2002: 12) and vulgar profanity (Ribbeck 1876: 382). Given its negative connotation, it is noteworthy that the term’s origin is not rooted in ancient Greek tragedies or poems discussing serious subject matters, but derives from the genre of early Greek comedy as seen in the works of Socrates (Newman Hutchens 1973: 49), Aristophanes, or Plato (Hartung 2002: 12–13). Furthermore, it is evident as a device in ancient Greek rhetoric, as seen in the treatise Rhetorica ad Alexandrum from 300 BCE. This work provides one of the earliest rhetorical definitions of irony, which states: “Blame through praise and praise through blame” (Knox 1973: 22). Under Aristotle, the meaning of eiron developed towards a refined form of humour. Nonetheless, the ironic concept of portraying oneself as a mocker, imposter, or sceptic persists in modern times (cf. Lapp 1997).

In ancient Greek, irony was defined in four concise statements, which remain relevant and have served as the foundation for contemporary linguistic theories on irony:

1. To say the opposite of what one really means.

2. To say something different from what one really means.

3. Blame through false praise; praise through pretended blame.

4. Any kind of mocking (Lapp 1997: 23–24; Knox 1973: 25).

Linguistic research on irony began approximately in the 1960s (see Hartmann 1972; Lapp 1997). The German philologist Harald Weinreich (1927–2022) is considered a pioneer in the field of irony studies. Based on the Platonic dialogues, Weinrich developed the “triadic model of irony,” which suggests that an ironic conversation requires the presence of a speaker, a listener, and an audience. It is not necessary for each role to be taken by a different person. For example, self-mockery can allow one person to simultaneously take on all three roles as one way of achieving irony (Weinrich 1966: 63–64). It is contested whether this model is helpful in defining irony (cf. Lapp 1997), but it highlights the crucial point that irony always requires a recipient. Without this recipient, irony cannot emerge.

Another criterion for the recognition of irony is the use of “irony markers” that may manifest non-verbally as physical, gestural, or intonational cues, such as a wink or changing one’s voice (Weinrich 1966: 61), or through the deliberate use of stylistic devices, such as exaggeration or understatement, repetition, indirect speech, or variations in dialect or sociolect which are not typical for the speaker (e.g., see Allemann 1973; Clyne 1974; Gießmann 1977). The purpose of irony markers is to expose the speaker’s intention of deceit when using ironic language. This distinguishes irony from a lie: the latter intends to remain hidden, whereas the former requires its deception to be recognised in order to be effective (Gießmann 1977: 415–416). Nevertheless, relying solely on irony markers is insufficient to classify a statement as ironic (see Lapp 1997; Warning 1976). Whether one can successfully mark a statement as ironic is dependent on the contextual framework. In fact, the context in which a statement is made is crucial to the definition of irony (Berg 1978; Clyne 1974; Polenz 1985; Rosengren 1986). Any statement that appears to be ironic may not necessarily be considered as such if it is placed within a different context (Amante 1981: 77).

Other notable features include the evaluative trait of irony (Knox 1973; Lapp 1997), as well as the ability to resolve or even prevent conflict (Kohvakka 1997). Ironic statements typically include an evaluative component. However, this evaluative quality does not appear to involve an obligatory tendency to rate something as positive or negative; rather, the character of the evaluation depends on the individual preference of the speaker (Oomen 1983). If an ironic statement is misconstrued or causes unease to the listener, it is possible to distance oneself from the statement by explicitly disclosing the intended irony or by claiming to have made a joke in order to defuse a potential conflict. Furthermore, an ironic statement is perceived as more entertaining and linguistically intriguing than a statement that is not ironic, and therefore is more likely to resolve a dispute (Kohvakka 1997: 21).

Irony is not only a subject in linguistics, but also in literary studies, where the criteria for describing it differ slightly from those used in linguistics (see Clyne 1974). Due to the lack of a phonetic layer, ironic markers in written language must be identified differently than in spoken language. These markers may include typographical tools (Engeler 1980: 214) like typefaces, fonts, capitalisation, or special characters. Moreover, the use of irony in literature is even more dependent on the extra-textual context than in spoken language (among others, see Japp 1983; Kohvakka 1997), for example, when a potentially ironic statement refers to information from the non-fictional world or the author’s biography.

In conclusion, it is crucial to reiterate the significance of the context in which a potentially ironic statement is uttered. All individuals engaged in a conversation must share knowledge about the context in which a statement is made, as this is essential for the effective conveyance of irony. The interpretation of ironic effects is inherently subjective due to the influence of personal knowledge (Kohvakka 1997: 30). The use of verbal irony also varies depending on the individual, the language community, or the social class (Clyne 1974: 355), and the choice of irony markers is subject to the personal preference of the speaker (cf. Ozerova 2016). Consequently, it is not only the situational context (for example, the speaker’s attitude towards an utterance) that must be considered when attempting to comprehend an utterance as ironic, but the cultural context in which a statement is embedded (for example, a certain language community) also plays a significant role in this process.

3 Designating Irony

Having considered the generic definitions of irony in both German and English, the following section identifies Japanese terms that correspond to the denotative and connotative characteristics of irony. No direct translation exists that encompasses the entirety of the concept of irony as defined by German and English research. Some possible literal translations into Japanese are suggested by Robert Schinzinger’s Gendai wadoku jiten 現代和独辞典 (Dictionary of Contemporary Japanese-German; 1980), and Kimura Kinji 木村謹治 and Sagara Morio’s 相良守峯 Dokuwa jiten 独和辞典 (German-Japanese Dictionary; 1963), which can also be found in application-oriented English-Japanese or German-Japanese online dictionaries such as Jisho or Wadoku Jiten 和独辞典. These suggestions include hiniku 皮肉, fūshi 風刺, hango 反語, aironī アイロニー, atekosuri 当て擦り, and iyami 嫌味 (see Schinzinger 2000; Kimura and Sagara 1963; Jisho 2023 #irony; Wadoku 2023 #ironie). However, the absence of a framework of criteria for defining irony would render the selection of an appropriate translation almost impossible. It is therefore necessary to examine the connotations of each of the words listed above to identify the most appropriate equivalent for the term irony.

According to Kōjien 広辞苑, the main encyclopaedia of the Japanese language, the term fūshi constitutes an indirect criticism of either society as a whole or of an individual person. Additionally, there exists the term fūshiga 風刺画 as well, which refers to an ironically and cleverly depicted caricature that aims to point out the failings of society or individuals (Shinmura 1969: 1915). Fūshi may be more accurately translated as “satire,” or, following the Oxford English Dictionary, as “[a] poem or (in later use) a novel, film, or other work of art which uses humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize prevailing immorality or foolishness, esp. as a form of social or political commentary” (Oxford English Dictionary 2023 #satire). This definition closely resembles that of Kōjien. Satire and therefore fūshi can (but not necessarily have to) contain ironic elements. Thus, fūshi is certainly not a sufficient equivalent for irony.

The term atekosuri refers to the act of making derogatory indirect remarks about someone disguised under a pretext (Shinmura 1969: 46). This kind of indirectness is a common marker of irony in the definitions of German and English language. Furthermore, atekosuri is consistently tied to negative evaluations, highlighting only one facet of the potential nuances of irony. Irony is capable of blaming through praise and vice versa, and is equally associated with positive evaluation. Therefore, atekosuri can only serve as a description of one aspect of irony, which is negatively evaluating indirect criticism (cf. Murakoshi 2000; Tsuji 1997; Utsumi 1997), but it cannot be considered a comprehensive equivalent that encompasses the entire concept of irony.

In addition to their association with irony, the terms hango and hangohō 反語法 are also connected to rhetorical questions, which, although they may contain ironic elements, are not limited to this function (see Adachi 2005). In general, hango refers to a phrase where a speaker expresses the opposite of their true intentions, often while simultaneously providing a subtle indication of what they are truly trying to convey. Furthermore, according to Kōjien, hango can be described as a type of expression in which a question is formed by stating the opposite of one’s intention in the affirmative and ambiguous. Hangohō uses hango to indicate a specific focus on something (Shinmura 1969: 1834). In Japanese academic works, the term hango is also used to describe the specific form of irony in which a speaker expresses the (literal) opposite of the intended meaning (see, for instance, Tsuji 1997: 92; Utsumi 1997: 100). It does not hold any additional connotations and therefore cannot be considered an adequate equivalent to cover the phenomenon of irony.

Hiniku is a term originating from the Buddhist teachings of Bodhidharma in the fifth century CE, known as Daruma 達磨 in Japanese. The term hiniku is part of the term hinikukotsuzui 皮肉骨髄, a four-character aphorism (yojijukugo 四字熟語). An illustration of its usage can be found in Keitoku dentōroku 景徳伝灯録 (1004–1007), a thirty-volume work consisting of putative biographies of prominent Buddhist monks, where hinikukotsuzui describes the concept of absolute enlightenment. The terms hi 皮 (skin) and niku 肉 (flesh) denote the outward appearance of things, thereby, according to Buddhist philosophy, pertaining to levels of only shallow enlightenment. Conversely, the terms kotsu 骨 (bone) and zui 髄 (marrow) signify a profound comprehension of things and, as a result, refer to deep and lastly to full enlightenment. Given its etymological origins, it is not surprising that Kōjien initially defines hiniku as referring to skin and bones, as well as to body, which suggests the outward appearance of things. Moreover, hiniku is defined as a type of criticism metaphorically cutting to the bone through skin (hi) and flesh (niku), with the objective of attacking one’s weaknesses in a subtle and malicious manner (Shinmura 1969: 1883). Although it is listed in Kōjien as meaning “skin and flesh,” the term is more commonly used today to describe biting criticism with a humorous tone – often delivered with malicious intent – or situations referencing the concept of “irony of fate.” It is also notable that Kōjien specifically references hiniku in its entry for aironī (ibid.: 7, 160). Hence, it is likely that a relationship between these concepts exists. As defined in Kōjien, aironī pertains to Socratic irony, which indicates feigning ignorance to provoke others into making statements that can be countered (ibid.). Given the reference to Socrates, it can be inferred that aironī refers to the ancient Greek – and consequently the German and English – concept of irony. This assertion is substantiated by the fact that aironī is an English loanword written in katakana カタカナ. This realisation, coupled with the apparent connection between hiniku and aironī, prompted a comprehensive examination of these terms within the Japanese research corpus, which will be explained in the following section.

Before embarking on further discussion, it seems prudent to also define the term iyami, as it appears to be a fundamental aspect of all the above-mentioned Japanese irony-related terminology. Iyami can be interpreted as the “bitter aftertaste” of a statement, as evidenced by its Chinese characters, iya 嫌 (unpleasant, disliking, reluctant) and aji 味 (flavour, taste). In Kōjien, the term is defined as the aspect of a specific word of action that causes another person discomfort (Shinmura 1969: 153). It can be perceived as the acridness that ironic statements can carry and is often interpreted as a combination of impoliteness and cruelty (see Tsuji 1997). As iyami is seemingly an important component of irony-related terminology, it would appear that there is a general tendency within the Japanese language to understand irony in a rather negative light. This assumption is also investigated in the context of defining irony within Japanese research.

4 Defining Japanese Irony

Japanese research on hiniku and aironī has accelerated since the 1990s; earlier works, such as Hashimoto Yoshiaki’s 橋本良明 Hairi no komyunikēshon 背理のコミュニケーション (Absurd Communication; 1989), are rare. An interesting point regarding Japanese research on hiniku and aironī is that it predominantly references anglophone theories on irony. Common such references include Paul Grice’s cooperative principle (1975), Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson’s use-mention distinction (1981), Roger Kreuz and Sam Glucksberg’s echoic reminder theory (1989), Herbert Clark and Richard Gerrig’s pretense theory (1984), or Sachi Kumon-Nakamura, Sam Glucksberg, and Mary Brown’s allusional pretense theory (1995). All these theories refer, in the broadest sense, to the ancient Greek definition of saying “the opposite of or something different from what one really means.” In numerous Japanese research papers, this definition is the only one used to define hiniku and/or aironī (e.g., Akimoto 2014; Hiai and Shimada 2018; Okamoto 2014; Tada, Okada, and Mori 2022; Utsumi, Matsui, and Nakamura 2014), with the finer details of these terms and their implications rarely fully elucidated.

Japanese scholars have developed few theories that seek to explain the use of hiniku and/or aironī. These theories are largely based on English theoretical frameworks, and include Utsumi Akira’s 内海彰 anmokuteki anjiriron 暗黙的暗示理論 (implicit display theory) (1997), which is based on Sachi Kumon- Nakamura et al.’s allusional pretense theory, Hashimoto Yoshiaki’s karininshō hatsuwasetsu 仮人称発話説 (fictitious person utterance theory) (1989), which draws from Clark and Gerrig’s pretense theory and runs parallel to Sperber and Deirdre Wilson’s use-mention distinction, as well as Okamoto Shin’ichirō’s 岡本真一郎 komyunikēshon no fuseijitsuseiriron コミュニケーションの不誠実性理論 (dishonest communication theory) (2014), which is based on the allusional pretense theory as well, but also on the implicit display theory of verbal irony (Utsumi 1997; 2000).

Given the numerous references to English-language-based theories, it is not surprising that other aspects of English as well as German irony research can also be found in Japanese research. For example, markers for hiniku and aironī align almost in every respect with those of German and English research literature. Possible markers are using the opposition of an evaluation in a statement, inadequate questions, unrealistic beliefs regarding the interpretation of a certain situation, contrasting or resembling statements, as well as rhetorical instruments such as metaphors, clichés, or exaggeration, an inappropriate speaking style which could involve using excessively polite language or citations, and nonverbal or paraverbal markers such as laughing or winking (see Okamoto 2007; Takizawa and Ito 1994; Tsuji 1997). Japanese scholars also argue that explicitly naming irony – for example, by declaring “This was ironic!” – is not an effective marker since explicitly pointing out irony, as well as hiniku and aironī, precludes their realisations (Utsumi 1997: 100; Tsuji 1997: 93; Yasui 1978: 158) as an essential element in defining irony is its deceptive nature (see Gießmann 1977).

As an extra-linguistic factor, Japanese scholars also discuss the importance of the context in which a statement is made as it may reveal incongruities between the literal meaning of a statement and the situation in which it was made. Aironī may arise from violating cultural or social norms, or by violating common sense. This type of aironī is self-contained and does not require a previous statement to which the speaker can refer to (Tsuji 1997: 96, 104). As discussed similarly in German and English research, this suggests that knowledge of cultural and social norms is as important as knowledge of the speaker’s attitude, which may be closely related to the norms associated with the statement. Ushie Yukiko 牛江ゆき子, who investigates the translatability of English irony (which she terms as aironī) into Japanese, points out that cultural variances may affect the speaker’s intentions and expectation, potentially impeding translation (Ushie 2017). Ushie’s assumption therefore also indicates the existence of particular distinctions in the manner in which irony is employed and perceived in diverse cultural environments.

In terms of its evaluative nature, hiniku appears to have a slightly more negative connotation compared to aironī, which is more likely to be perceived in a neutral manner. This can be observed, for instance, in Tsuji Daisuke’s 辻大介 research, when he describes a disparaging tone of voice using the term hiniku na kuchō 皮肉な口調 (Tsuji 1997: 91), or in Utsumi Akira’s study, in which he employs the term “sarcasm” to translate hiniku, which is perceived to have a more negative connotation than the related term “irony” (Utsumi 1997: 100). Furthermore, Hashimoto Yoshiaki asserts that the use of ironic statements can be perceived as considerably more negative than direct ones, potentially causing psychological harm to the recipient (Hashimoto 1989: 49). Other scholars, such as Tsuji, state opposing views on this matter. A straightforward declaration is more likely to have great impact on a recipient than one involving aironī. He contends that making an ironic statement may feign jesting or falsehood. This effect can also be achieved if the listener understands that the given statement was meant ironically. A clear and unambiguous statement does not provide these opportunities. Moreover, an ironic remark can induce humour and alleviate a tense atmosphere (Tsuji 1997: 93–94). Therefore, hiniku and aironī can play a significant role in preventing everyday conflicts, particularly due to their indirectness. However, Japanese research tends to focus more on the negative effects of hiniku and aironī in communication (e.g., Akimoto 2014; Nishitani 2017), despite occasional mentions of their positive aspects (e.g., Matsui 2014).

In conclusion, although Japanese research frequently draws upon predominantly English-language-based theories and concepts, discrepancies do exist between the English and Japanese interpretations of irony. For instance, the negative connotations associated with hiniku in terms of its evaluative function represent a notable divergence. Moreover, it is imperative to consider the influence of specific cultural characteristics in the context of employing irony.

5 Analysing Irony

In order to examine the manner in which the concept of irony is employed in the Japanese language, Ben Aaronovitch’s novel Rivers of London (2011) is chosen as a suitable medium given the numerous online reviews referring to the book’s ironic content and black humour. The initial chapter was presented to three British English natives, who were instructed to highlight passages within the original English version of the novel indicating irony, sarcasm, or cynicism – which can be easily confused in daily life – based on their individual linguistic intuition as native speakers. They were not asked to clarify their perception of a particular text passage as ironic. Generally, they had no difficulty identifying ironic, sarcastic, or cynical passages within the given chapter. In the next step, the English passages selected by the native speakers were checked for irony according to the predefined criteria. The evaluation showed that all the passages identified by the native speakers contained at least some of these criteria. They included pragmatic theories, such as Grice’s cooperative principle and Sperber and Wilson’s use-mention distinction, as well as antiphrasis, exaggerations, exhaustion of stereotypes, evaluations, incongruencies, or violation of one’s expectations. Furthermore, to understand the literary irony in the novel’s characters’ references to the non-fictional world, readers needed prior knowledge beyond the text. Finally, the identified text passages were compared with their Japanese translations to determine whether the statements previously identified as ironic by the English native speakers could also be understood as ironic in the Japanese version. These passages comprise the corpus that was subsequently analysed in my master’s thesis, with a select few being discussed in this article.

In the tables below, the left column lists passages marked as ironic by the participating native speakers. The underlined part corresponds to the part of the passage marked by at least one of the native speakers questioned. The page number is given in brackets after each quotation.

The corresponding Japanese translation for the specific English passage can be seen in the tables’ right column. These quotes are sourced from the Japanese translation of Rivers of London that was published in 2013 under the title Rondon keishichō tokushu hanzaika 1. Joōheika no majutsushi ロンドン警視庁特殊犯罪課１. 女王陛下の魔術師 (Scotland Yard Special Crime Unit 1. Her Majesty’s Magistrates). Again, the page number is given in brackets after each quotation. It is not intended to translate the entire Japanese text passage into English; only the underlined part, which is identical to the underlined text in the original version, is translated.

Below each table, the original English text and its Japanese translation are analysed based on the previously discussed criteria for irony, and then compared to each other. The text passages are categorised according to three criteria:

1. Irony may emerge in the Japanese translation using the same or very similar criteria as in English.

2. Irony may emerge in the Japanese translation but in a distinct manner to that of the English original.

3. Irony present in the English original is forfeited in the Japanese translation.

1. Irony emerges in English and Japanese in the same or in a similar way.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The term “probably” appears to be inadequate and unsuitable in this scenario, involving a decapitated body. Therefore, its use as a marker of irony is noticeable. The Japanese version utilises the term osoraku おそらく as a direct equivalent to “probably” and expresses irony, since an accidental death is not commonly associated with a headless corpse.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Irony may emerge in English and Japanese due to the ridiculousness of the given situation: the proficient police officer is tasked with supervising the inexperienced officers, a responsibility impossible to accomplish from a coffee shop. The passage possibly contains irony as the narrator, one of the less experienced officers named Peter Grant, refrains from directly expressing his thoughts on their supervisor’s behaviour. Instead, he indirectly criticises and mocks their supervision, implying malicious intention (cf. Norrick 1994; Utsumi 1997). The term “diligently” and its Japanese equivalent nesshin 熱心 (enthusiastic, eager) can be seen as exaggerating markers to clarify the narrator’s actual thoughts, rendering the emergence of irony possible.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In this scene, the narrator talks to Nicholas, who is revealed to be a ghost. The narrator’s preconceptions are not aligned with the actual situation, as he is not familiar with communicating with ghosts. Hence, he presumes that Nicholas will behave like a living person. Nicholas challenges this expectation by foregrounding his concerns as a ghost, which diverge from those of the living, thus creating an ironic situation (cf. Kreuz and Glucksberg 1989). This explanation is applicable to both the original English text and the Japanese translation.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In a variety of cultures, ghosts are regarded as paranormal and thereby as frightening. This renders it noteworthy that Nicholas, the ghost, considers another entity as uncanny. The inconsistencies between the cultural context (a ghost is frightening) and the given situation (a ghost is frightened) may contribute to an ironic situation (cf. Berg 1978; Clyne 1974), both in the original text and the Japanese version.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The incidents referred to in this passage are more likely to be seen harmful to the respective character rather than constructive. Therefore, irony may emerge due to the use of antiphrasis (cf. Knox 1973; Lapp 1997; Hartung 2002) or the violation of Grice’s maxim of quality (1975) in both versions.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The character Inspector Neblett has been introduced previously to this scene. Given his somewhat austere demeanour, the narrator deems a favourable outcome to the meeting. In both the English and Japanese versions irony may emerge through antiphrasis, a violation of the maxim of quality, or pretense theory (Clark and Gerrig 1984).

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In both versions, Neblett’s statement “That’s useful to know”/“Maemotte oshiete moratte yokatta 前もって教えてもらってよかった” (I am glad you told me in advance) violates the maxim of quality (cf. Grice 1975) and employs antiphrasis, and may therefore be taken as ironic. Also, his slow nod could be interpreted as an annoyed or irritated gesture, which also implies irony and a form of indirect criticism in his statement. The narrator’s response (“I resolved to keep a tighter grip on my mouth”/“Boku wa kuchi o kitsuku hikimusubi, hitsuyō na toki igai wa damatteiru koto ni shita ぼくは口をきつく引き結び、必要なとき以外は黙っていることにした” [I decided to keep my mouth shut and remain silent as long as needed]) seems resentful, indicating that he has picked up on the irony in Neblett’s words.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Previously, it is asserted that office work is not suitable for police officers. Thus, the quotation marks in the original text surrounding “valuable role” indicate that the opposite of the literal meaning is implicated. Irony may arise from the use of antiphrasis or from violating the maxim of quality. Neblett’s repetition of the phrase “valuable role” later in the text strengthens the ironic impact (cf. Kreuz and Glucksberg 1989). The same applies to the direct Japanese translation kachi aru yakuwari 価値ある役割 (valuable role).

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In these passages, prevalent police stereotypes are identified, including the portrayal of police officers as guardians of law and order, desiring to distinguish themselves. These stereotypes need to be recognised to enable irony to emerge from the passage (for instance, see Clyne 1974). As both the narrator and his colleague Lesley engage in a mocking exchange using stereotypes, the pretense theory is also applicable: Lesley challenges the narrator’s intentions, prompting a response adequate to their friendly relationship. Additionally, the exaggerated nature of the wording strengthens the ironic impact.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Here, Lesley’s statement violates the maxim of quality as she is convinced that ghosts do not exist, and therefore cannot work. In both versions, the ironic effect arises from an inconsistency between the anticipated and actual content of the given statement.

2. Irony emerges in Japanese but in a distinct manner to that of the English original.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

“Cockney-geezer” is a stereotypical phrase referring to an elder man speaking Cockney, an English dialect mainly spoken in London, particularly by members of the working or lower middle class, which is why it has long been regarded as an indicator of low status, rough speech, and a certain style of clothing. However, the ghost Nicholas, who is referred to in this passage, challenges the stereotype through his skeleton badge, which is likely to be an unusual accessory for a person associated with Cockney. The narrator is aware that Nicholas is challenging the stereotype, yet chooses to remain relatively unconcerned given that everything seems possible within the context of London’s diverse and dynamic culture.

In the English original, irony may emerge through the incongruity resulting from the challenged stereotype (cf. Clyne 1974; Kohvakka 1997), as well as from the narrator’s exaggerating assumption regarding the skeleton badge. However, it is necessary to presuppose that the reader is familiar with the stereotype surrounding Cockney. Otherwise, the ironic effect might be compromised, which might be the reason the term “Cockney-geezer” in the Japanese version is translated as kokkunī-namari no kogara na henjin コックニーなまりの小柄な変人 (unimposing oddball who speaks Cockney dialect). This translation characterises Nicholas as an “unimposing oddball” and explains Cockney as a regional dialect. Furthermore, the translation explicitly indicates that the skeleton badge is perceived as unusual in the context of an image of a person associated with Cockney (kokkunī-namari no kogara na henjin ga tsukeru ni shite wa sukoshi gosushumi ga sugiru yō ni mo omoeru コックニーなまりの小柄な変人がつけるにしては少しゴス趣味が過ぎるようにも思える [It may appear excessively gothic for an unimposing oddball with a Cockney accent]). Especially the exaggeration regarding the skeleton badge permits the realisation of irony within the Japanese translation.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In this passage, Nicholas refers to the Italian spiritualist Eusapia Palladino (1854–1918), who claimed to be able to communicate with the dead, but was exposed as a cheap impostor many times by researchers throughout Europe. It is important for the reader to be aware of this information to recognise that Nicholas is not taking the narrator seriously but rather intends to ridicule him. The incongruity between Nicholas’ wording and his actual intention suggests a violation of the maxim of quality, which in turn leads to the emergence of irony.

The Japanese translation includes the term joreibai 女霊媒, which refers to Palladino’s profession as a female spirit medium. This may accentuate the absurdity of Nicholas’ comparing the narrator to Palladino. However, the key question is whether the reader is able to grasp the potential irony simply by an explanation regarding Palladino’s occupation, as she might not be as widely known in Japan as she might be in Europe.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The usage of the term “plod” indicates the emergence of irony in the original passage. It generally refers to a police officer, but in fiction stereotypically characterises them as dim-witted. For irony to emerge, it is again crucial for the reader to be aware of this stereotype (cf. Clyne 1974).

In Japanese, the term “plod” is translated as omotai ashidori de rojō o arukimawaru tsūjō no junsa 重たい足どりで路上を歩きまわる通常の巡査 (a police officer, walking around the streets with heavy steps). This translation conveys the image associated with the stereotyped term “plod.” However, the “winkingly” character, which is also present in the stereotype, is lost in the translation. Therefore, irony in this case does not stem from the stereotype associated with “plod” – as that would call for a corresponding expression in Japanese with the same stereotype. Instead, it arises from the exaggerated depiction of the patrolman.

3. Irony in the original English text is not conveyed in the Japanese translation.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

As a ghost, Nicholas lacks metabolic processes, thereby precluding the possibility of experiencing interiority. Once more, the concept of irony is employed through the manipulation of preconceptions, referring to the stereotypes surrounding ghosts. Nevertheless, the statement made by Nicholas can also be interpreted as cynical due to a certain sense of bitterness that it conveys.

The Japanese translation differs considerably from the original version, as the word okunai 屋内 (indoors), which is supposed to correspond to “interiority,” refers to an actual indoor space, whereas in the English version Nicholas is alluding to his non-existing bodily functions. As a result of this translation, the potential for any ironic effect is nullified.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In this passage, the employment of indirect language (cf. Clark and Gerrig 1984) as well as euphemistic wording result in an ironic tone. The narrator employs the terms “hammered” and “horizontal” to convey the state of intoxication in place of direct language, such as “totally drunk.” However, the actual meaning of his wording is readily apparent.

In the Japanese version, the term “hammered” is not translated; the closest equivalent to “horizontal” is supposedly tēburu ni tsuppusu hodo yoipparatta テーブルに突っ伏すほど酔っぱらった (to be so drunk that one ends up falling on the table). Although this translation provides a reasonably accurate description of the situation in question, the ironic effect is lost due to the absence of indirect language or euphemisms.

View Full Size

Citation: Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 2025; 10.30965/25217038-12345003

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

This passage makes an oblique reference to the British comedy film Carry On Constable (1960), in which inexperienced police trainees, due to a shortage of officers, are required to assume the duties of their superior police officers. The unidentified individual taunts the narrator for exhibiting the same disorganised behaviour as the trainees depicted in the film. However, this teasing is intended as a joke, i.e., not to be taken seriously but rather as an ironic commentary. Again, it is crucial for the reader to have knowledge of the film, as any ironic effect would otherwise be lost without this context (cf. Clyne 1974; Kohvakka 1997).

Thus said, the reference is not recognisable in the Japanese translation. The phrase “Carry on, Constable!” has been translated to hanto o tsuzuketekure, junsa ハントをつづけてくれ、巡査 (Please continue the chase, Constable). Although the implied request from the English original, namely, that the narrator should continue hunting ghosts, is preserved, the reference to the film is completely absent. Therefore, any ironic effect the passage could have contained is lost.

6 Concluding Irony

This article examined the concept of irony in the Japanese language, with a particular focus emerging on the question of whether specific forms of irony usage in an English text can be replicated in Japanese translations. Therefore, the initial section of the study sought to define irony within academic literature written in both German and English. This approach facilitated the development of a framework for the identification of hiniku and aironī as the Japanese terms that most closely align with the investigated concept. Subsequently, research was conducted on both terms, with the results indicating that research on hiniku and aironī frequently references English-language-based theories on irony, as well as criteria used in English and German research to define irony in a Japanese context. These include specific markers of irony – for example, rhetorical instruments, such as speaking styles unusual for the speaker, or nonverbal or paraverbal markers, such as laughing or winking – the significance of context, its evaluative features, and its occurrence in situations involving conflict. Furthermore, the theories mentioned regarding the definition of irony predominantly comprise works by anglophone scholars, but some theories developed by Japanese scholars on the concepts of hiniku and aironī also exist. However, without acknowledging and understanding the cultural variations in the usage of irony, hiniku, or aironī, misconceptions tend to arise.

The analysis and comparison of the British novel and its Japanese translation show that ironic effects, which were determined on the basis of theoretical criteria previously identified, have been retained in the majority of cases. Some passages were translated literally, whereas others were rephrased to allow for irony, hiniku, or aironī to emerge. The primary criteria found in both texts for irony to manifest were the utilisation of stereotypes, particular words that could be perceived as indicators of irony, contextual irony, antiphrasis, and the use of exaggeration. Further criteria encompassed disparities between presumptions and truth, indirectness, repetition, and the pretense theory. A comprehensive understanding of particular individuals, events, or stereotypes in everyday life is deemed crucial for generating context-based irony (cf., inter alia, Berg 1978; Clyne 1974; Kohvakka 1997). Explanatory terms were occasionally included in the Japanese translation, or a Japanese equivalent of the English term was used to maintain any humorous or ironic effect. However, in some cases, the translation missed the intended irony. This may be attributed to a lack of contextual comprehension on the part of the translator, or, alternatively, it may be due to the fact that the original English text had no ironic effect on her whatsoever, or was not deemed important enough to find a Japanese equivalent that would have conveyed the same ironic effect. Nonetheless, it is important to point out that this study is based on textual analysis alone. The article outlines the theoretical criteria for irony to arise, but it is uncertain whether a Japanese audience would interpret the passages as somewhat ironic, hiniku, or aironī. In order to determine this, a survey with native Japanese speakers would be required. Even so, the translator appears to have made a conscious effort to convey the ironic tone of the original English version in her Japanese translation, which suggests that Japanese audiences may find the concept of irony intriguing. Hence, the investigation of the practical application of irony in the Japanese language presents a promising avenue for future research, such as exploring how irony is used in spoken Japanese in ways other than commenting on the weather.