FAMILY DISCORDANCE IN MODERN AMERICAN DRAMA: A PRAGMATIC STYLISTIC STUDY OF BURIED CHILD AND RABBIT HOLE
BAKHTIAR S. HAMA
THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA BANGI
2014
ii
PERSELISIHAN KELUARGA DALAM DRAMA MODEN AMERIKA: KAJIAN PRGMATIK STAILISTIK TERHADAP DRAMA BURIED CHILD DAN RABBIT HOLE
BAKHTIAR S. HAMA
TESIS YANG DIKEMUKAKAN UNTUK MEMPEROLEH IJAZAH DOKTOR FALSAFAH
FAKULTI SAINS SOSIAL DAN KEMANUSIAAN UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA BANGI
2014
iii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work in this thesis is my own except for quotations and summaries which have been duly acknowledged.
27 March 2014
BAKHTIAR S. HAMA P 48372
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost praise be to Almighty Allah for all his blessings for giving me patience and good health throughout the duration of this PhD research. I owe my deepest gratitude to The National University of Malaysia (UKM) for admitting me for the Ph.D. Program. I am indebted to my Supervisor Associate Professor Dr. Shanthini Pillai Joseph Sandra who made available her support in a number of ways. I‘d like to show my gratitude to Dr. Ravichandran Vengadasamy for his creative advices and recommendations. Also, I would like to express my high appreciation to University of Sulaimani for giving me leave to accomplish this study. Moreover, I am grateful to the Nanakaly Foundation for giving me a subsidy. I would like to thank all post graduate students of UKM power research group for their help, friendship, and creating a pleasant working environment throughout my years in UKM. It is a pleasure to thank my family who endured the difficulties they faced because of my studies and made this thesis possible. Last but not least, I am grateful to Dr. Nizar M. Mohammad Amin, Dr. Abbas Mustafa, Dr. Ganakumaran Subramaniam, Dr. Peter K. W. Tan, Ms. Angelica Wong and those who have helped me in one way or another.
v
ABSTRACT
This thesis focuses on the stylistics of drama and the genre analyzed is Modern American drama. It specifically aims to study the representation of family discordance through the disintegration of family relationships between members of American families in the selected plays, Buried Child by Sam Shepard and Rabbit Hole by David Lindsay-Abaire. The analysis focuses on how the playwrights organize the formal elements in particular literary and stylistic devices of the written texts to depict and criticize family discordance and breakdown in the American society. In addition, the study sets out to examine how discordance between the characters affects the language forms and the mood of the conversations in different contexts. To achieve this objective, the study will focus specifically on the language used by the characters to show how the dramatists use stylistic devices to depict and criticize American social phenomena through the dialogues that occur between the characters. The analysis is conducted within the framework of pragmatic stylistics and the focus is on Speech Acts and Cooperative Principle and Implicatures. In each of these findings family discordance was revealed. Through such a framework of analysis, the thesis concludes that each of the selected plays represents the failure of the relationships between the American individuals and the collapse of the family structure in different situations. The implication of this study is that Stylistics can be a useful and significant tool in the study of Drama.
vi
ABSTRAK
Tesis ini merupakan satu kajian ilmu stilistik sastera yang memberi tumpuan kepada stilistik drama dan genre kajian adalah Drama Moden Amerika Syarikat. Secara khususnya, tesis ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji persembahan perselisihan keluarga melalui aspek pecahan dalam hubungan kekeluargaan antara ahli keluarga Amerika dalam dua drama pilihan, iaitu Buried Child oleh Sam Shepard and Rabbit Hole oleh David Lindsay-Abaire. Analisis memberi tumpuan kepada bagaimana playwrights menganjurkan unsur-unsur formal sastera dan unsur stilistik tertentu dalam teks bertulis drama mereka untuk menggambarkan dan mengkritik perselisihan keluarga dan kerosakan dalam masyarakat Amerika. Di samping itu, kajian juga menganalisa bagaimana perselisihan antara watak-watak menjejaskan bentuk bahasa dan suasana perbualan dalam konteks yang berbeza. Untuk mencapai matlamat ini, tesis khususnya mengkaji bahasa yang digunakan oleh watak-watak apabila mereka berbual untuk menunjukkan bagaimana dramatists menggunakan gaya stilistik sastera untuk menggambarkan dan mengkritik fenomena sosial Amerika terumpamanya melalui dialog yang berlaku antara watak-watak. Analisis ini dijalankan dengan menggunakan kerangka stilistik pragmatik dan tumpuan diberikan kepada Lakuan Tutur dan Prinsip Kerjasama dan Implikatur. Dalam setiap hasil kajian, penemuan adalah bahawa semua aspek ini mendedahkan perpecahan hubungan keluarga. Melalui kerangka analisis ini, simpulan kajian ini adalah bahawa setiap drama yang dikaji menonjolkan kegagalan hubungan antara individu dan seterusnya keruntuhan struktur keluarga Amerika Syarikat dalam situasi yang berlainan. Implikasi kajian ini adalah bahawa ilmu stilistik sastera boleh menjadi alat yang amat penting dalam kajian Drama.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page DECLARATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
1
1.2
Social Issues in Modern American Drama
3
1.3
Synopsis of the Plays
5
1.3.1 1.3.2
5 9
Buried Child Rabbit Hole
1.4
Problem Statement
12
1.5
The Purpose of the Study
15
1.6
The Research Questions
15
1.7
Significance of the Study
16
1.8
Scope and Limitation of the Study
17
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
20
2.2
Modern American Drama: Its Rise and Development
21
2.3
Domestic Tensions in Modern American Drama
28
2.4
What is Stylistics?
36
2.5
Stylistics: Its Rise and Development
37
viii
2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3
Historical Background Stylistics and Language Stylistics and Meaning
37 41 48
2.6
Stylistics of Drama
57
2.7
Pragmatic Stylistics in Application
69
CHAPTER III
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
80
3.2
Theoretical Framework
82
3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3
Speech Act Theory: Background The Speech Act Theory of Searle Grice's Cooperative Principle and Implicatures
82 89 102
3.3
Methodology
CHAPTER IV
FAMILY DISCORDANCE IN BURIED CHILD
4.1
Introduction
126
4.2
Family Relationships in Buried Child
126
4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4
128 158 176 186
Husband-Wife Relationship: Dodge vs. Halie Father-Son Relationship: Dodge vs. Tilden Mother-Son Relationship: Halie vs. Tilden Sibling Relationship: Bradley vs. Tilden
114
CHAPTER V
FAMILY DISCORDANCE IN RABBIT HOLE
5.1
Introduction
188
5.2
Section Two: Family Relationships in Rabbit Hole
189
5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3
189 205 244
Sibling Relationship: Becca vs. Izzy Husband and Wife Relationship: Howie vs. Becca Mother-Daughter Relationship: Nat vs. Becca
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS
6.1
Conclusions
263
6.2
Recommendations
270
REFERENCES
271
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Page
2.1
Study of the Speech Acts in Hamlet‘s opening scene by Nash (1989)
70
2.2
Study of Implicatures in Hamlet‘s opening scene by Nash(1989)
71
2.3
Study of the Conversational Maxims in Wesker‘s Chicken Soup with Barley by Herman (1995) 72
2.4
Study of the Speech Acts in Pinter‘s Trouble in the Works by Short (1996) 74
2.5
Study of the Conversational Maxims in Pinter‘s Trouble in the Work by Short (1996) 76
2.6
Conversational Maxims and implicatures in Hemingway‘s The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber by Black (2006) 78
3.1
The Speech Acts Model of Searle
91
3.2
Differences between intended and actual perlocutionary effects
93
3.3
Searle‘s Taxonomy of the Speech Acts
100
3.4
Grice‘s categories of Cooperative Principle and related Maxims
106
3.5
Violation of the Conversational Maxims
110
4.1
Utterance Interpretation in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
135
4.2
Speech Acts Analysis in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
137
4.3
Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
141
4.4
Violation of the Quality Maxim in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
142
4.5
Violation of the Relation Maxim in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
142
4.6
Violation of the Manner Maxim in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
142
4.7
Conversational Implicatures in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
143
4.8
Utterance Interpretation in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
150
4.9
Speech Acts Analysis in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
151
4.10
Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
155
4.11
Violation of the Quality Maxim in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
155
4.12
Violation of the Relevance Maxim in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
155
4.13
Violation of the Manner Maxim in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
156
4.14
Conversational Implicatures in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
156
4.15
Utterance Interpretation in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
165
4.16
Speech Acts Analysis in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
167
x
4.17
Differences between the Intended and the Actual Perlocutionary Effects
168
4.18
Violation of Quantity Maxim in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
172
4.19
Violation of Quality Maxim in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
172
4.20
Violation of Relevance Maxim in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
173
4.21
Violation of Manner Maxim in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
173
4.22
Conversational Implicatures in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
173
4.23
Utterance Interpretation in Halie-Tilden Dialogue
180
4.24
Speech Acts Analysis in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
181
4.25
Violation of Quantity Maxim in Halie-Tilden Dialogue
183
4.26
Violation of Quality Maxim in Halie-Tilden Dialogue
184
4.27
Violation of Relevance Maxim in Halie-Tilden Dialogue
184
4.28
Violation of Manner Maxim in Halie-Tilden Dialogue
184
5. 1
Utterance Interpretation in Izzy-Becca Dialogue
195
5.2
Speech Acts Analysis in Izzy-Becca Dialogue
196
5.3
Differences between the Intended and the Actual Perlocutionary Effects
198
5.4
Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Izzy-Becca Dialogue
201
5.5
Violation of the Quality Maxim in Izzy-Becca Dialogue
201
5.6
Violation of the Relevance Maxim in Izzy-Becca Dialogue
201
5.7
Violation of the Manner Maxim in Izzy-Becca Dialogue
202
5.8
Implicatures in the Izzy-Becca Dialogue
202
5.9
Utterance Interpretation in Becca-Howie First Dialogue
213
5.10
Speech Acts Analysis in Becca-Howie First Dialogue
215
5.11
Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Howie-Becca First Dialogue
222
5.12
Violation of the Quality Maxim in Howie-Becca First Dialogue
222
5.13
Violation of the Relevance Maxim in Howie-Becca First Dialogue
223
5.14
Violation of the Manner Maxim in Howie-Becca First Dialogue
223
5.15
Implicatures in Howie-Becca First Dialogue
223
5.16
Utterance Interpretation in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
233
5.17
Speech Acts Analysis in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
235
5.18
Differences between the Intended and the Actual Perlocutionary Effects
236
5.19
Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
240
5.20
Violation of the Quality Maxim in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
241
5.21
Violation of the Relevance Maxim in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
241
xi
5.22
Violation of the Manner Maxim in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
241
5.23
Implicatures In Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
242
5.24
Utterance Interpretation in Nat-Becca Dialogue
252
5.25
The Speech Acts Analysis in Nat-Becca Dialogue
254
5.26
Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Nat-Becca Dialogue
259
5.27
Violation of the Quality Maxim in Nat-Becca Dialogue
259
5.28
Violation of the Relevance Maxim in Nat-Becca Dialogue
259
5.29
Violation of the Manner Maxim in Nat-Becca Dialogue
260
5.30
Implicatures in Nat-Becca Dialogue
260
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Page
3.1
Searle‘s Schema for Utterance Interpetation
119
3.2
Searle‘s Schema for Speech Acts Performed in Conversation
120
3.3
Infringement of the Conversational Maxims (adapted from Juez, 1995)
124
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
SPs
Speech Acts
CP
Cooperative Principles
S
Speaker
H
Hearer
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Let a single member of a household forget or neglect his duties to the other members of it, and the home fails (Ware in Volo and Volo 2007: x).
1.1
INTRODUCTION
This research is an attempt in pragmatic stylistics which focuses on stylistics of drama and the medium is Modern American drama. The title of the thesis ―Family Discordance in Modern American Drama: A Pragmatic Stylistic Study of Buried Child and Rabbit Hole” is the representation of what happens in the plays between the members of an American family. The study tries to reveal how the pragmatic features of stylistics such as the speech acts and the cooperative principles and implicatures are used to indicate family relationships in the selected plays and to show how the playwrights depict family breakdown through the dialogues and how discordance between the characters affects the language forms and the mood of the conversations.
The selected plays represent the failure of the relationships between the American individuals and the collapse of the family structure. The plays portray social turmoil in the country. Buried Child (1978), written by Sam Shepard, reflects everyday life in Western part of the United States (rural life) during the last decades of the 20th century and explicitly displays the collapse of the family values in America when incest and crime ruin the ties between the members of the family and the youngest boy in the family who is supposed to build the next generation of the family is not recognized or the family members do not want to recognize him including his
2
own father. Rabbit Hole (2005) by David Lindsay-Abaire mirrors the life of the urban people in the 21st century of the United States of America. The family is in crisis as it lost a child and they do not know how to support each other to cope with the loss. The plays studied here are chosen on some basic reasons. The plays are similar in subject matter and are categorized as family drama. They deal with the breakdown of family structures in the Unites States of America; the plays highlight social issues which are still current in the American society and the playwrights were born in the country and are eyewitnesses to what was happening and still happening. Each play dramatizes the daily life of the members of a family, their problems and their relationships. The plays inspect the observable family and social issues in the country. Buried Child examines family breakdown towards the end of the 20th century and Rabbit Hole portrays family in the United States at the beginning of the 21st century. The texts are selected in this way to make a link between past and present and to show how these phenomena pervade the second half of the last century and how similar social issues strangle the new generations in the new era, 21st century. The plays depict familial relationships from different perspectives which will help readers understand the reasons that disunite the members of the families.
The characters do not represent the conflicts of a single family; rather they symbolize the family breakdown which can be explicitly seen through the discordance between class, gender and also the ideological conflicts between the generations. The family bond between them is very weak and they behave as if they were strangers and they are indifferent to each others‘ emotions and feelings. The characters fail to have a happy family and a comfortable home, and the playwrights accentuate this failure through discordance between them. Finally, the end of the plays is also similar and the issues come to an end, though maybe temporarily. Tilden, the eldest son of the family in Buried Child, returns home after several years of exile to start a new life and to settle the disputes which erupted in the family because of his indecent behavior. In Rabbit Hole, the couple decides to start a new life as they believe that similar incidents have happened to other families and they should change their current situation otherwise the family will thoroughly collapse.
3
1.2
SOCIAL ISSUES IN MODERN AMERICAN DRAMA
American drama in general and Modern American Drama in particular is to a great extent associated with the everyday life of the American individuals and groups, and the plays mostly reflect the issues which have direct effects on the social, political and economical life in the country. Modern American plays are categorized according to the subject matters they discuss; therefore, they are labeled social drama, family drama, political drama…etc. Sometimes, all these themes can be compiled in a single play because these issues are strongly related to each other and linked to everyday life. With regard to modern and contemporary American drama, the most dominant theme is related to the familial issues because the problems inside a home will reflect in the society and also affect the next generation, the future of the country. Most of the American playwrights focus on the family problems to raise social consciousness, and they deploy various styles to depict and criticize these issues. Wakefield‘s (2004) comment supports this view.
Wakefield (2004:1) states that:
The central subject of American Drama is, arguably, the American family. From Royall Tyler's colonial comedy The Contrast (1787) to August Wilson's King
Hedley II (2000), relationships between husbands, wives, and their
children have consistently been used by American playwrights to explore and illuminate the American experience. Wakefield‘s (2004) comment proves that family issues have presence in American drama since its emergence and playwrights cannot disregard them because they greatly affect family life in the country. For example, Suzan-Lori Parks‘s Topdog/Underdog (2001), David Lindsay-Abaire‘s Rabbit Hole (2005) and many other plays still discuss the family issues.
The central point in the chosen plays is the collapse of the family structure, the disintegration between the characters and how one or two of the main characters struggle to reunite and rebuild the family and are opposed by others. The playwrights
4
emphasize the disputes between the characters that cause a dysfunctional family and a fragmented society. Many plays, written during or after the Second World War, portray the horrible consequences of the political, financial and social issues which ruined all familial and ethical values. The Glass Menageries (1944) by Tennessee Williams is a memory play which depicts everyday life in the American society. Williams demonstrates collapse of a nuclear family and shows how Tom, like his father, leaves the family and how Amanda, the mother, and Laura, the daughter, live in an imaginary world. Arthur Miller in Death of a Salesman represents the life of a Jewish family in America, and Asian-American, Mexican-American and other American playwrights devoted most of their works to talk about social issues that exist in the country. The non-native American playwrights such as the African American, Japanese American, Chinese American, and Mexican American and so on try to depict the life of the immigrants and the problems they face in America including racism and search for their identity.
The political or external issues have great negative impacts on the life of the Americans or the hyphenated Americans such as September 11, 2001 attacks. September 11, 2001 attack on America has an external political dimension and has drawn the attention of the politicians and the historians, but literary figures could not overlook its effects on the family life in America. In Domestic Crusaders, Wajahat Ali, a Pakistani-American Muslim, portrays the life of a Pakistani-American family in the post 9/11 era. Ali shows how conflicts erupt between the three generations of a Pakistani family living in America because of the incident. This play was not chosen for this study because it is not published and more significantly the research does not examine family discordance caused by outside influences, e.g. international terrorism, but it rather studies family discordance results from the internal factors such as economical, racial and religious issues. September 11 has negative influences on the various aspects of life in America and it has compelled the country to change its foreign policy towards the world. The catastrophe has also a political; therefore, it was not studied here.
This research is an effort to analyze Buried Child by Sam Shepard and Rabbit Hole by David Lindsay-Abaire to show how the playwrights depict disintegration
5
inside the American families through using language and a style which suits the aims and the themes of the plays.
1.3
SYNOPSES OF THE PLAYS
This study is an attempt to find out how language in certain plays is creatively used and how the playwrights organize their thoughts to convey their message. Although it attempts a stylistic analysis, a short summary of each play is somehow necessary. Since writers may use a different style and language in each single play to deal with diverse topics, the focus of this study is narrowed down to analyze the language and style in the aforementioned plays only. Modern American Drama is very rich with regard to depiction and criticism of the social issues, and almost all the writers, in one way or another, base the themes of their plays on the realities felt and seen in the American society. The plot summery of each play will be given here to introduce the characters and the nature of the relations between them.
1.3.1
Buried Child
Buried Child by Sam Shepard was first published in 1977 and won the 1979 Pulitzer Prize for Drama. The play depicts the dilemma of an American Midwestern family with a secret kept for a long time. The baby boy who was drowned and buried years ago in the field behind the farmhouse by Dodge, husband of Halie and father of the three sons, is the secret of the family and the major symbol in the play. The child is the result of an incestuous relationship between Tilden, the eldest of the family, and his mother Halie. The child is buried but still haunting the family, and at the end of the play his bones, wrapped in a torn shawl, will be brought on stage by Tilden. This sin shatters the family and breaks the network which holds the family members together who are: Dodge, Halie, Tilden, Bradley and Vince. Two other characters appear on stage and participate in the actions: Father Dewis, a Protestant Minister and Shelly, Vince‘s girlfriend. Ansel, the youngest son of the family, was murdered before the course of the actions start, but he has a strong relationship with the main theme of the play which is the putridity of the American Dream.
6
The curtain rises at day time; it seems to be late morning. The play occurs in a living room of a Midwestern farmhouse. Audience/readers meet Dodge, the father of the household, sitting on the couch, facing the TV and wrapped in an old blanket. The voice of his wife, Halie, is heard offstage talking to him, but she will not enter until two third of Act I passes. It is raining. The dialogue between the two starts discussing the relationship between the rain and Dodge‘s coughing. To stifle coughing, Halie insists that Dodge should take a pill, but he rather stifles his choking with a slug of whiskey from a bottle hidden under the seat of his sofa. The beginning of the play gives the impression that the two are not in good terms. Halie lives upstairs and Dodge down stairs and the conversation between them also proves this because there is a kind of tension and indifference in their speeches.
While Halie keeps ranting upstairs with Dodge downstairs, their eldest son, Tilden, appears with an armload of corn he claims he picked from the backyard. Dodge does not believe him saying that he has not planted the field for many years and Halie supports this, but Tilden insists that there is lot of corn out there. From the chatting between the father and son, it seems that Tilden left the house some years ago and has returned just recently, but his reappearance did not please his father. When Dodge asks him about his future plans, he indirectly tells him not to stay in the house when he says, ―You‘re a grown man. You shouldn‘t be needing your parents at your age‖. Dodge‘s comments upset Halie; she warns him that they must care for Tilden since he cannot care for himself now. Halie‘s remarks disclose that Tilden is now in terrible need of his parents. He faced troubles in New Mexico and was imprisoned for a while and ―kicked out‖ of the country.
Halie finally descends the stairs. She is dressed completely in black. She explains that she is going to meet Father Dewis, the pastor of the family, for lunch and for seeking his help to convince the City Council to erect a statue for her deceased son, Ansel, in the town square. Before she leaves, she argues with the two men about the rain and the corn which spread over the floor noting that Bradley gets upset if he sees the mess. The name of Bradley irritates Dodge complaining that Bradley always cuts his hair when he is asleep. Dodge says many bad things about his son. Halie cannot endure all this; she angrily reacts. She verbally attacks her husband explaining
7
that it is shameful to talk about your flesh and blood in this way. The phrase ―flesh and blood‖ increases the tensions. Dodge says, ―He‘s not my flesh and blood! My flesh and blood‘s out there in the backyard!‖ This speech hushes everyone. This is an initial hint to the reason which has devastated the family network. Dodge‘s speech is a signal for an unspeakable secret in the household. Nobody wants to further talk about this subject; Halie goes out to see Father Dewis; Dodge falls asleep on his sofa and Tilden steals his whiskey and leaves the room. Bradley enters through the front door; he removes Dodge‘s baseball cap and begins cutting his hair with a pair of electronic clippers while he is sleeping. The lights fade on the first act.
Act II occurs in the same place; the time is later the same night. Audience/readers meet two new characters, Vince, Tilden‘s son, and his girlfriend Shelly. They are traveling from New York to New Mexico to see Vince‘s father. They think that he is still there. On his way to New Mexico, night falls down and Vince believes that he can stay that night with his grandparents. Vince who has left the house for about six years believes that seeing Dodge and Halie is better than going to a motel. They expect a warm reception, but the opposite will happen. Nobody receives them and nobody knows them either. At first they see no one in the house; Vince goes upstairs calling his grandma. Finally, Shelly finds Dodge still sleeping on the sofa. She removes his cap and touches one of the cuts in his head which awakens him.
Shelly is talking to Dodge about Vince and their intentions to go to New Mexico to reunite with Tilden, and finally Vince sees Dodge and comes down to meet his grandpa. Dodge directly takes Vince for Tilden and asks him about his whiskey. The question dumbfounds Vince; he knows nothing about the whiskey and even does not know what he is talking about. Dodge‘s question is not random; Vince is Tilden‘s son and looks after him. Vince keeps saying he is Tilden‘s son and his grandson, but Dodge does not confirm this and he insists on getting back his whisky. Tilden‘s appearance increases the tension as he pretends not to recognize his son. Vince tries to remind them of the past times by making funny faces and noises he used to make as a child at the dinner table, but his father and grandfather ignore him. Vince becomes very angry and impatient and Shelly unexpectedly joins Tilden to
8
clean the carrots he brought. To release his mind from the tension, Vince agrees to go out to bring whiskey for Dodge, and he tells them to try to remember him while he is away. Shelly is left alone with Tilden and Dodge. She wants to know the truth whether Vince is Tilden‘s son or not, but he swerves from the question and tells her about his life in the past and narrates a macabre story about the murder of a child buried secretly by Dodge in the backyard field. The coming of this babe broke the family chain into pieces and the disaster still haunts the family.
Vince has not returned and Shelly is terrified to death among the odd and eccentric members of the family and especially after hearing the story of death and killing a baby. She is still confused by Tilden‘s speeches when Bradley comes in and exposes danger. Without paying attention to Shelly, he directly bullies Dodge and insults and humiliates his elder brother, Tilden, who consequently scampers offstage to get rid of him, and Dodge lays quivering and coughing on the floor. Seeing Dodge in this condition, Shelly asks Bradley if they can do something for him, but he mockingly says, ―We could shoot him‖. The brutality of Bradley annoys Shelly and she tells him to ―shut up‖. He warns her not talk to him like that because nobody in the house dares to say such things to him. The actions of Act III happen in the same setting, and the time is the next morning. While Shelly attempts to care for Dodge, Halie returns home with Father Dewis. She is wearing a bright yellow dress and both are drunk. She nags Dodge and scolds Bradley and completely ignores Shelly. Shelly cannot endure all these things; she tries to talk to Halie but when she finds that nobody cares for her, she takes a stand. She snatches at Bradley‘s wooden leg and threatens the family with it. Halie also loses temper and asks Father Dewis to calm her down, but Shelly refuses to give Bradley his artificial leg. She tells them that they are strangers to each other; they even do not recognize a member of their family, Vince, and they commit murders and bury the bodies in the backyard. She insists that there is a secret in the family which has caused this discordance. Hearing this, Dodge realizes that this is the good time to reveal the secret which is kept for years and it has caused the family breakdown. He begins narrating the story of the baby who was born from the incestuous relationship between Halie and Tilden and how he drowned it.
9
Finally, Vince reappears; completely drunk and hurling empty liquor bottles. The disintegration of the family upsets him. He is furious and he threatens everyone. Frightened by Vince‘s behavior, Father Dewis leads Halie upstairs. Being the youngest and the strongest in the family, Dodge declares Vince the heir to the estate and leaves almost everything to his grandson. After finishing his will, Dodge dies quietly. As the man of the house, Vince decides to stay and restore order to the house. He tosses Bradley‘s artificial leg outside, and he crawls out after it. Father Dewis goes out. Vince sits on the couch and puts on his grandpa‘s cap. The play ends when Tilden enters from outside and slowly walks upstairs, carrying the bones of a small baby wrapped in a piece of muddy and rotten cloth.
1.3.2
Rabbit Hole
Rabbit Hole by David Lindsay-Abaire was published in 2006. It was first commissioned by South Coast Repertory in Costa Mesa, CA, where it was shown at the Pacific Playwrights Festival in 2005. It received its world premiere by Manhattan Theatre Club on Broadway at the Biltmore Theatre on February 2, 2006 and won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 2007. David Lindsay-Abaire portrays the plight of the American family in a way different from Shepard. The characters in Rabbit Hole do not have financial crisis and the family fragmentation does not occur because of incest or betrayal. Rabbit Hole is simply about the accidental death of a four-year-old boy and how his death affects the relationship between the five members of the family, especially his parents. The death of Danny is personal; it concerns this family only, but losing somebody and how to cope with it is something general and everyone may find himself in similar situations. The play starts in Howie and Becca‘s kitchen on a Saturday afternoon. While talking with her younger sister Izzy, Becca is folding her son‘s clothes, Danny, who died about eight months ago. Danny was run over by a car while chasing the family dog out of the house. Izzy is halfway through a story about an encounter with a female stranger at a bar. Becca thinks that Izzy‘s behavior is irresponsible and thus she asks her if she was drunk. Izzy adamantly denies it, but Becca still seems disappointed. Through their conversation, Becca discovers that her sister was fired from her job at
10
Applebee‘s, and in response Izzy claims, ―It was all politics.‖ Becca is annoyed when she realized that Izzy is pregnant and she has also told her mother about it. Izzy thinks that this baby may be just what she needs to straighten out her life and get some clarity. Skeptical and somewhat reluctant, Becca tells Izzy that she is happy for her and offers some of her son‘s old clothes, but Izzy refuses.
Later that night, Becca and her husband Howie are sitting in the living room. They talk about Izzy and several other issues related to their current situation. Howie believes that his wife suffers from mental agony due to the incident; hence, he proposes that she should see a therapist, specifically the one he sees weekly at a group session, in hopes that it might help their suffering marriage. Appalled by the suggestion, Becca takes his urging as an opportunity to pronounce that she‘d like to sell the house because it might help her to cope. Howie likes seeing things that remind him of their son, Danny, but Becca does not like sitting around and looking at them all day. Howie then suggests that Becca can go back to work or even to have another child, but she refuses all the options. A week passes. With everyone gathered in the kitchen, Nat, Becca‘s mother, and Becca sing ―Happy Birthday‖ to Izzy. The conversations between them will lead to argument about Danny and Arthur‘s death. Arthur was Becca‘s brother; he was drug addicted and committed suicide at the age of 30. Nat wants to remind Becca that she also lost a son but continued her life. Becca gets upset believing that Arthur and Danny‘s death is incomparable at all. Nat keeps pushing Becca to get comfort in faith and to join the support groups since people in such groups understand her situation, but Becca cannot handle the talk anymore, and snaps that she does not like being told how to grieve for her son. She announces that she is going to bed. Later that night, Becca enters Danny‘s bedroom and reopens the letter sent by Jason, the driver who killed Danny. Jason sends his apologies regarding Becca and Howie‘s loss and notes that he wrote a story hoping to dedicate it to Danny. Moments later, Howie shouts to Becca from the living room, inquiring about the program on the television. Becca replies that it is the Discovery Channel program Howie had asked her to record. Howie is furious because she recorded over the home video of Danny he
11
had watched days before. Becca had thought the particular tape in the VCR was of Pride and Prejudice, not knowing that her husband switched the tape later that evening. Although Becca expresses regret, Howie goes on to accuse her of doing it on purpose. He brings up examples of her hiding away Danny‘s things. He then suggests maybe the decision to record over the tape was a subconscious one. Becca argues back, saying that she could not and would not ever wish to erase Danny. She says it is not fair that he is punishing her for mourning Danny‘s death differently. Howie wants Taz to come home. He misses the dog, even if he is a reminder of Danny‘s death. Roughly a week passes. With the help of Nat, Becca is cleaning out Danny‘s room. Becca talks about her continuing education class to pass the time. She feels like a normal person there as they talk about Dickens instead of their home lives. A few days later, Becca invites Jason over. They chat about the inconsequential things like the couple‘s desire to sell the house. Becca apologizes for Howie‘s absence. Jason mentions that there are no pictures of Danny in sight, and he finally confesses that he was driving a little over the speed limit the day Danny died. Becca feels uncomfortable and goes to the kitchen to get Jason a glass of milk that he did not want in the first place. When she returns to the living room, they discuss Jason‘s plans for college, his graduation, and prom. Becca thanks Jason for the story he wrote. They talk about how the parallel universes, the Rabbit Holes that the scientist‘s son explores, must exist based on basic scientific laws. Becca seems hopeful that there is a happier version of her living in another world somewhere. Jason changes the subject by asking Becca to tell her husband about how he might have been speeding that day.
Later that night, Becca is in the kitchen. Nat and Izzy come over. Howie decides to skip his group session this week and comes home early. Nat and Izzy leave for bingo. Howie takes this as an opportunity to ask about Jason‘s visit. When Becca asks why Howie is not at group, he replies that he‘d like to try coping without it for awhile. Becca reveals that she finally called Debbie, who mentions a barbecue she and her husband are throwing on Sunday. Howie is surprised as his wife calmly goes on about how sorry Debbie was for not contacting her sooner. The play comes to a close with Becca and Howie agreeing that they may have to reconsider selling the house. Becca asks what happens next, and Howie tells her that they will figure it out.
12
1.4
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Several critical books and articles have been written on the American drama, and the analyses are based on theories like sociological criticism, practical criticism and so on. Wakefield (2004:1) states that ―American drama has been consistently overlooked by academics‖ and this fact pushed him to analyze several plays in his book and he applies sociological criticism as his framework, and Brown (2002) also uses the same theory when she discusses six plays all related to the family issues that exist in the country. Both studies focus on family disintegration in the American society. Regarding Buried Child, several studies have been conducted and they mainly focus on the different kinds of myth and symbols in the play. Putzel and Westfall (1989) study the myth of the family in Buried Child thinking that it can suggest a paradigm for mythic approaches to all of Shepard's works. Heilman (1992) stylistically and thematically studies Buried Child and sheds some light on Shepard‘s other plays, but he only focuses on the myths and symbols in the plays. Hooti and Shooshtarian (2011) study family discordance and the failure of the American Dream in Buried Child within a postmodernist frame, in which the theories of the three French philosophers, Jean- François Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard and Jacques Derrida, are taken into account. Daronkolaee and Hojjat (2012) study modern alienations of characters in Sam Shepard‘s Buried Child and True West and they apply Sartre's ethical alienation and Heidegger's ontological alienation. Anderson (2012) applies a multi-genre and interdisciplinary analysis to compare Sam Shepard‘s Buried Child and Mary Shelley‘s Frankenstein. The study is comparative focusing on several themes including the absence of the role of parents, incest, a life built on lies and patricide. Hosseini-Maasoum and Vahdati (2012) study Sam Sehpard‘s True West, Cowboys, Fool for Love, and Buried Child in the light of postmodernist notions of myth, using Lyotard‘s ideas of postmodernism.
Scholarly articles or academic research on Rabbit Hole is rare and thus it can be studied at various levels without the need to repeat what other studies have done. Some interviews were made with Lindsay-Abaire and a few comments were made about the play, but they are actually not critical analysis. Regarding the style of the
13
play, in an interview with Goodman Literary Manager Tanya Palmer, Lindsay-Abaire says, ―I‘d had the idea of writing a naturalistic play in the back of my head for awhile. It was a challenge to myself to see if I could even do it, because all of my other plays are absurdist comedies‖ (Kleinerman 2007: 4).
According to Das (2007), everything in the play is realistic. The death of Danny, how the parents express their emotions differently and how they are confused and how the friends try to help them to overcome the difficulties are all real.
Das (2007: 3) states:
Like Alice chasing after the White Rabbit and falling down the hole, a little boy named Danny chases after his dog and is hit by a car. This is very real. His parents, Becca and Howie, vacillate between stagnation and coping, both together and individually in different ways. This, too, is very real. Friends and family try to help, while feeling guilty that their lives move on. Again, very real. At no point during the play can we honestly say, ―Who are these people?‖ and not have an answer. Bobertz et al (2008:8) agree with Das when they believe that ―the relationships between family, friends, and spouses are key to making this play realistic and touching as well‖. Das and Bobertz et al‘s statements show that what is going on in the play is realistic; therefore, Lindsay-Abaire should choose a style which suits such a play, and in his interview with Palmer, the playwright admits that Rabbit Hole is realistic because the story needs to be told in that way. Those who study literature through the medium of language believe that application of a stylistic analysis to dramatic texts is not easy and can even be problematic because a play is written to be performed and there are differences among the productions of the same play.
Tan (1993:18) writes:
The stylistic analysis of drama is really in its fledgling stage at the moment, and part of the reason why stylisticians have shied away drama is not only its
14
more complicated discourse situation (in the sense that it would involve both micro-analysis or inter-character discourse, and macro-analysis or authoraudience discourse.) but also its size; even a short ten minute play would be at least several pages long. Tan‘s comments focus attention on the length of the plays. It means that each character may appear several times on stage and each time in a different situation. Analyzing all the dialogues in a long play needs a lot of time. Thus most stylisticians take the extracts from either poetry or fiction to study the style of an author. Some linguists and stylisticians choose tokens from drama, but they deal with them as poetry or fiction. Few researchers deal with dialogues in the domain of drama as a genre different from other genres. The emergence of new approaches and methods in the linguistic arena does not change the opinions of most of the scholars towards drama, and thus it is still in the margin.
The literature shows that family relationships in the plays have been studied at different levels, but what is missing here ―the gap‖ is the pragmatic stylistic analysis which focuses mainly on language in use. There are many factors behind the social and family dilemma and this research is not the first work which deals with family issues in American drama, but what distinguishes it from other writings is that it examines family discordance stylistically and the focus will be on the pragmatic features such as speech acts and cooperative principles and implicature to expound how the playwrights highlight the disintegration between the characters through the dialogues.
To demonstrate family discordance, the authors rely on various semantic and syntactic structures and diverse stylistic devices. The structure and the length of the dialogues will change according to the relationship between the characters and the topic of the argument. The authors exploit different structures and styles to manifest the nature of the relations and the causes of their breakdown. Thus, dialogue is the main element in drama through which the playwrights convey their message. Focusing on the language of the plays as used by the characters in their communications makes this research different from other studies done on Buried Child and Rabbit Hole.
15
1.5
THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research investigates the style and the language used by Shepard and LindsayAbaire to depict and criticize the breakdown of human relationships in the American society. The domain of the study is the pragmatic stylistics and the focus is on the speech acts and the cooperative principles and implicatures. The research is conducted to achieve the following aims: 1- To show how pragmatic stylistics can be applied to drama dialogue. 2- To demonstrate how the various types of the speech acts help the characters to convey their messages. 3- To identify conversational maxims used in a cooperative manner. 4- To identify conversational maxims used in a non-cooperative manner. 5- To demonstrate how speech acts and cooperative principles in the plays can be studied to show disintegration in the family relationships among the characters.
1.6
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research deals with family disintegration in the American society in the two plays written in two different periods of time. The study will be conducted to answer the following research questions through the pragmatic features of stylistics: 1. What are the ways in which pragmatic stylistics can be applied to drama dialogue? 2. What are the ways in which various types of the speech acts help the characters to convey their messages? 3. What are the conversational maxims used in a cooperative manner? 4. What are the conversational maxims used in a non-cooperative manner? 5. What are the ways in which the combination of speech acts and cooperative principles in the dialogue of the plays reveal family discordance?
16
1.7
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The study is the application of pragmatic stylistics particularly the speech acts and the conversational maxims to examine family discordance in the selected plays. The research is important especially for those who study dialogues in literary texts from a pragmatic perspective since it highlights the effects that the writers want to make through the excessive use of one form of sentence or through changing style and mode or through tropes which are used in the body of the works.
Although dramatic dialogues are not quite similar to everyday conversation, there are features which can be found in both. Sanger (2001:2) says, ―Drama scripts have to be very simplified in order to work: they may appear like real speech, but they are in fact something very different. At the same time, real dialogue is hardly ever staged for people other than the participants.‖ In this sense, students and researchers who study conversations whether in literary texts or not can find useful information in the thesis because here the language of dialogues in realistic plays are studied which contain features that are close to everyday conversation.
The analysis conducted in the thesis can be useful for teaching language as well. Students of language can look for language patterns in literary texts and to figure out the meanings of words in context (pragmatics) and also to know how meanings vary according to the structure of the sentences (passive or active, simple or complex, direct or indirect…etc). This point may answer most of those who have doubt about the significance of literary texts in teaching language, though using stylistics as a medium for teaching language through literature is not the aim of this dissertation. This aspect of stylistics can be conducted in a different research with focusing attention on teaching language through literature.
17
1.8
SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
The thesis is an attempt to apply stylistic analysis to selected dramatic texts on the bases of the guidelines set by pragmatic approaches such as Speech Act Theory and the theory of the Cooperative Principles. The researcher studies some extracts from the dialogues that occur between the characters according to the basic categories of the speech acts and the conversational maxims to show how disagreement between the family members and the family discordance are presented through the use of language. The study is concerned with how the writers deploy different forms of language and structure to present the dispatching of the principles of nuclear family by the individuals in the American society. The study looks at Buried Child (1978) by Sam Shepard and Rabbit Hole (2005) by David Lindsay-Abaire in terms of language use to know how the writers make meanings and convey their messages to the audience/readers via characters and how their viewpoints are expressed. The focus is on the type of the speech acts and the breaking of the conversational maxims to illustrate how the tensions between the characters rise and how they end the disputes. Briefly, the thesis is a pragmatic stylistic study of the disintegration between the individuals in Modern American Drama, and the focus is on the speech acts and the conversational maxims.
The research consists of Six Chapters and the summery of each chapter is clarified below: Chapter I of the thesis is a background of the study in which some light will be shed on the main issues that dominate modern American drama and a plot summary of each play is given. Moreover, it also comprises the problem statement, research questions, objectives, significance and the scope of the study.
Chapter II is the literature review in which some books and scholarly articles written on modern American drama, the selected plays, stylistics in general, and stylistics of drama are reviewed. Some of the writings which apply Speech Acts and Cooperative Principles to study conversation in literary texts are also reviewed to rationalize the selection of the approaches for conducting the study. The review helps the researcher to be familiar with the main issues that pervade the American theater and the style of the American playwrights. It also paves the way for the researcher to
18
find out how the previous critics have penetrated into the world of texts through studying language from a pragmatic stylistic point of view.
Chapter III is the theoretical framework and methodology. In this chapter, the theory of Speech Acts developed by John R. Searle (1969 and 1975) and the theory of Cooperative Principle and Implicatures introduced by H. P. Grice (1975) are discussed in detail to know the main categories and concerns of both approaches. Both approaches deal with language in use and they are related to pragmatics. The analytical procedure in Chapter IV and Chapter V is also explained to show how the basic categories of the speech acts (assertives, directives, expressives, commissives and declaratives) and the conversational maxims (quantity, quality, relevance and manner) are studied to display the relationships between the characters and the family discordance in the plays, and also a connection is made between the two approaches to achieve the aims of the study. The analytical procedure is illustrated in charts.
Chapter IV is the analysis of the speech acts and the conversational maxims to detect family discordance in Buried Child (1978) by Sam Shepard. The chapter consists of some sections to cover the type of the relationships discussed in the play such
as
Husband-Wife
Relationship,
Father-Son
Relationship,
Mother-Son
Relationship and Sibling Relationships. To examine the family discordance in this play, some extracts are selected and scrutinized according to the basic elements of both theories and the details of the analysis are summarized in tables.
Chapter V is the analysis of the speech acts and the conversational maxims to detect family discordance in Rabbit Hole (2005) by David Lindsay-Abaire. The chapter consists of some sections to cover the type of the relationships discussed in the play such as Husband-Wife Relationship, Mother-Daughter Relationship and Sibling Relationships. To examine the family discordance in this play, some extracts are explored according to the basic elements of the speech acts and the cooperative principles and the details of the analysis are summarized in tables.
Chapter VI is the conclusion and the recommendations. In this chapter, a general conclusion is drawn to indicate how the characters talk when their turns come
19
and what kind of speech acts they use to portray the ailing relationship between them. It is also illustrated when the characters observe the maxims and when they do not, and the reasons are also highlighted. The chapter ends with a paragraph contains some suggestions for future work.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
INTRODUCTION
Martin Esslin states that ―the theatre is the place where a nation thinks in public in front of itself‖ (O‘Malley, 1979). If theatre is a faithful mirror to reflect the vice and virtues of a nation, there is no doubt that the American nation also needs it like other nations of the world. Thus American drama begins in the American colonies in the 17th century, but because most of the American plays of the 18th and 19th centuries strongly reflected British influence, and British plays, rather than American ones, were presented in America until the beginning of the twentieth century, some critics claim that American drama did not flourish until the end of World War I (1914-1918). Before this period some plays were written in the colonies but not all by Americans. British repertory, actors, theater managers, and plays dominated the American stage for so long and most American plays copied British models until the early 20th century. The oldest surviving American play is Androborus written in 1714 by Robert Hunter, the New York Colony‘s governor. By the early 1760s this group was known as The American Company and in 1767 it staged The Prince of Parthia, a tragedy by Thomas Godfrey, in Philadelphia, which is considered the first professional production of a play written by an American. This chapter is an attempt to review the available books and articles written on Modern American Drama, stylistics in general and stylistics of drama, and the two plays. The focus will be on the works published by scholars and analysts who are interested in American drama and stylistic analysis or who are concerned about how language functions in literary texts and how the style of writers can give different
21
meanings to language in context. Of course, it cannot be said that all the books and articles written on the aforementioned topics are reviewed in this chapter because some of them may not serve the aims or they are not related, and reviewing all the things published on these topics will push the number of the pages beyond the standard limits; therefore, the literature review is mostly based on the available books which are written by professionals.
2.2
MODERN AMERICAN DRAMA: ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of this section is to give some information about the issues reflected in Modern American Drama, especially the family problems, and the way the playwrights deal with the issue. American drama was not widely recognized before the 20th century; therefore, almost all the critics and historians focus on modern American drama when they talk about history of this literary genre in the United States which explicitly emerged in the second decade of the last century. At the start of the new era, American drama was styled after British models, but their subject matter was based on American incidents or themes. Racial, social, and economic tensions in American society found a way into popular drama. In the United States many plays reflected the influence of romanticism, and Melodrama was the most prevalent dramatic form in the 19th century. Replication of local color became the norm in 19th-century American melodrama and encompassed details of scenery, dialects, contemporary slang; and historical incidents.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century and under the influence of the European writers, American drama stepped into a new stage and the plays which were written during this period mostly marked a gradual move toward realism, a style pervades American drama in the 20th century and it is still effective. Letwin et al (2008:121) believes ―since style is a result of a consistent feeling toward experience, it is often classified in three different periods that reflect predominant and generalized modes: the classic, the romantic, and the realistic.‖ If the classic model is ended in the 18th century by the emergence of romantic style, then realistic replaces romanticism in the 20th century. It is true that some other literary approaches including Surrealism, Symbolism, Impressionism, Expressionism, Existentialism, and Absurdism…etc
22
appeared particularly in the 20th century, but none of them could surpass the three major approaches and gain more popularity. The American playwrights of the period focused attention on the issues common in the American society including racism, social injustice, and particularly the American family, which was a recurring theme of playwrights at this time, and it would dominate much American playwriting for the rest of the 20th century. The authors deploy realistic techniques in their plays to depict life in the American society.
Krasner (2005) in A Companion to Twentieth-Century American Drama attempts to compile the plays written from 1900 to 2000 under the name ‗Modern American Drama‘. This labeling of the plays of the period is based on some points which can be traced in the texts such as stylistic techniques, structures and most dominantly themes and subject matters. The playwrights of the period want to depict and criticize the social follies in the American cities. Social satire and domestic comedy, namely comedy of manner, were successful in this regard. From the very beginning of the industrial development, the writers felt its negative consequences on everyday life. Krasner (2005:8) states that ―the melodramas of Edward Sheldon are more explicitly ideological, exploring urban life, corruption and racism.‖ The themes of Sheldon‘s plays are prevalent in the works of other writers, not only dramatists, but also poets and novelists because the writers wanted people to see the realities of their lives. Dealing with realistic subject matters in realistic situations labels the drama of the period ―Realistic‖.
It is evident that Realism is the pervasive style of writing in modern American drama. The playwrights try to be realistic in their language, style and themes.
Letwin et al (2008:125-6) write:
We will give a bit more space to the realistic style, since it is the basis of the modern theater as well as film. Realism stresses fidelity to nature or to real life, representation without idealization, and adherence to actual fact, truth, and nature, without selection in the interest of preconceived ideals. It emphasizes
23
geographical accuracy, minutiae of detail, and, some feel, an unfortunate preoccupation with the sordid. Letwin et al‘s statement indicates that the use of everyday language in a local setting to talk about a common issue marks realistic style which means the events occur in recognizable settings and the audience understands the themes. This does not mean that features of other genres or subgenres cannot be traced in a realistic piece of writing. The playwrights use techniques from different styles for different purposes. Implication of diverse devices is a common feature in modern American drama.
American playwrights were influenced by European realists such as Ibsen, but the everyday life in the new America of the 20th century was certainly helpful for the authors to produce realistic texts reflecting the sufferings of people, especially working class. Realism in American drama became a mode, and writers openly talk about their realism. David Belasco once writes, ―Both as a playwright and producer, I am a realist‖ (Ibid: 12). The playwright Rachel Crothers upholds realism as the highest form of dramatic writing as she says, ―I believe that the most imaginative, poetic, or mystical drama is most powerfully written in realism‖ (Krasner 2005: 84).
Many critics hint to the characteristics of realistic drama which can be taken into account to decide on the style of a playwright in a particular play.
Schroeder (1999:32) states:
Developing out of the pioneering work of Henrik Ibsen, realism was soon codified into a set of stage conventions that are still in use today. Most often the action takes place in a domestic setting, such as a drawing room or kitchen, which has an imaginary fourth wall- the invisible barrier between stage and audience. Schroeder‘s comment is actually helpful for readers or analysts to distinguish between realistic and non-realistic texts and also to separate realistic features from other elements in the same text. This distinction is helpful to interpret what kind of
24
devices the authors use and for what purpose. According to Schroeder‘s speech, Buried Child and Rabbit Hole are, generally speaking, realistic, but they also contain entities from other forms. This vacillation is a common feature in American drama. The American playwrights, men and women, are interested in realistic style to mirror the reality of the situations in the United States. In describing Suzan Glaspell, Krasner (2005: 42) notes ―Writing in the postwar, post-crash United States climate, Glaspell analyzes the national values around family and community that were quickly becoming part of a nostalgic sense of our recent past‖. According to Krasner, what Glaspell highlighted in her dramas about a century ago is still valid for the 21st century because she analyzed the pillars of the American society, most prominently the family and social relationships and the equality between women and men. She believed that if these issues were settled, the country would avoid social and political disasters. This is true for every country and for every age; hence those themes have been tackled and will be repeated in American literature.
After the Second World War, American playwrights made some changes in their writing style to go with the developments occurred in the world of theatre, especially European theatre. This change in style, structure and the blending of myth with realistic situations is the expansion of realism. Bigsby in Modern American Drama, 1945-2000 argues that ―the battle for the future, as ever, begins with the past. First blacks and then women chose to define present reality in terms of a redefined tradition‖ (2004:1). The American women playwrights are famous for resisting traditional realistic techniques. All women playwrights do not dismiss realism and even some women critics are against it since realistic style is necessary for women dramatists so as not to be deprived of the history of drama, and also to be realistic in tackling the issues which are associated with the current status of women. According to Schroeder, some women playwrights have abandoned realism for certain reasons.
Schroeder (1999:31) writes:
In the 1970s some feminists rejected realism simply because they saw its linear form as designed to reflect male experience exclusively.1 More recently,
25
others have denounced realism because it apparently normalizes the traditionally unequal power relations between genders and classes.2 Still others have charged that realism reinscribes this inequality in a particularly dangerous way by pretending to be an objective recording of the world while representing woman as sexual ``Other'' and excluding female subjectivity.
If the male writers used realistic style for the first time, it would not mean that it is specific to male dramatists. Style cannot be judged on the basis of the authors‘ gender. There is not a particular style to be feminine or masculine. Both male and female dramatists used and still use realistic style. The period or some certain instances in a play may compel writers to entail another style rather than realism and this does not include women writers only. Schroeder further explains that abandoning realism by women playwrights, especially American writers is not in the interest of their writing career since realistic style is the most dominant style in dramatic texts in the United States. Many male and female playwrights use techniques from other genres or subgenres, but they do not abandon realistic devices entirely. Schroeder (1999) explicitly expresses her fear and worry about dismissal of realism in women‘s writings, especially American writers. Her concerns can be summarized in two facts. First, realism is the root of the American modern drama and women writers like Suzan Glaspell successfully used it to express themselves at the beginning of the 20th century. Second, American audience still admire this style, and female dramatists lose a large number of audience if they completely dismiss realism as a style in their plays.
The American playwrights cannot easily abandon realistic devices. Brietzke (2007:57) states that ―Realism is a performance style that refuses or pretends not to recognize that an audience observes the event in silent darkness.‖ According to this definition, there are still many plays which deploy realistic devices, especially family plays, since all of the American plays of the mid and late twentieth century do not eliminate the fourth wall, the imaginary wall which keeps actors from audience. The playwrights in the United States use many devices to deliver the message and to make special effects. They are interested in using phonetic spelling to show ethnicity and to indicate the social class and location of the speakers. Some non-native speakers of English cannot pronounce all the sounds of English and even native speakers speak
26
different accents. Moreover, the subject matters which dominate the American stage in the beginning of the 20th century can still be purchased in the last years of the century and even in the beginning of the new era, 21st century. The European styles including symbolism, surrealism, impressionism … etc brought by the immigrants who rushed into the American cities influenced the realistic style prevalent in America, but they did not replace it. The American playwrights grasped the techniques of the European styles and merged them with their own modes and they have invented a new style, which is a mixture of various elements from diverse styles. This is obviously seen in contemporary American drama.
Saddik (2007) argues that by the late 1950s and 1960s, a more anti-realistic theatre emerged in America and concerned with eschewing the reproduction of surface reality, she does not deny that many dramatists still prefer realistic style and thus some renowned playwrights are not discussed in her volume. Saddik‘s comment is true in the sense that some playwrights still prefer realistic style to talk about certain issues. For instance, David Lindsay-Abaire is known as an absurdist dramatis, for writing Rabbit Hole, he deviates from his norm and chooses a realistic style.
After 1960s, some terms like postmodern drama and contemporary drama are used to label the plays of the period, but some critics still prefer using the term modern drama to refer to the plays written between 1900 and 2000. This difference in labeling is associated with the use of anti-realistic style by some authors to discuss certain issues. It seems the playwrights believe that tackling new issues such as feminism and homosexuality require a new style which is different from the realistic style used previously. The playwrights make this change in style so that the subject matters they explore will grasp the attention of the audience and also to show that what they are discussing is not common. After 1950s, some new issues like homosexuality, gay and lesbian, and some other issues like racism and feminism stepped into new stages. To show that their plays are different both in form and content from the previous plays or the general norms, the playwrights deployed techniques which are more common to other forms rather than realistic style such as open-endedness, unfamiliar settings, surrealistic imagery and incoherence in plot.
27
The political plays of the 1960s and 1970s are mainly interested in deploying antirealistic forms and features, especially the African-American playwrights who mainly belong to the Black Arts Movement (BAM), founded in the mid of the 1960s. Some of the authors devote their plays for political purposes and, in this regard, they think going beyond the limits of traditional realism will help them freely represent the social and political realities of the era, especially in dealing with the issues related to identity and gender. Kolin (2007) explains that the playwrights discussed in the collection are heirs of Lorraine Hansberry‘s legacy, but most of them radically depart from her realistic techniques and boldly interrogate and amplify her protests against racism and classism. This reveals that even before BAM, African American writers highlighted the racial issues and the miseries of the Black community, but during that period, approximately 1965-1975, the issues which were discussed in the plays were not lynching or demanding equality and the right to vote, the writers rather asked for acknowledging black identity and studying black culture and history in the colleges.
The works of the female African American playwrights are distinguished for excessive use of poetic devices like striking visual imagery, musicality, repeating certain sentences or phrases for ‗ritualistic effect or alteration of consciousnesses‘, expression of intense feeling lyrically and so on. In addition, the African-American women playwrights are mainly concerned with history of the black people in America. They turn inward to depict the particularities of each author‘s experience of life within a racially divided society. Some of them use realistic devices (e.g. familiar settings and images, natural dialogue, close-ended plot); some manipulate surrealistic features (e.g. a dream-like and subconscious world, nightmares, hallucination, psychic instability) and some others deploy characteristics of various genres.
Regarding the disinterest of the women playwrights in realism, Ozieblo and Dickey (2008:9) show that ―Realism has frequently been considered a patriarchal device that strengthens the power of established authority. As such, it has been rejected.‖ This point is also emphasized by Schroeder (1999). Nevertheless, most of the American playwrights do not intend to completely ignore the use of realistic features which have a long history in the American drama, and even Saddik (2007) who devotes her volume to discuss the development of anti-realistic theatre in the
28
United States and to ―provide a context for examining plays and performances that have been stylistically and politically experimental‖ acknowledges that many complex plays simultaneously make use of both realistic and anti-realistic conventions. Realism has a long and continuous history in modern theatre. Many of the American playwrights are influenced by European writers and they endeavor to deploy European style. In the 1920s, Expressionism flourished in Germany and writers like Eugene O‘Neil and Tennessee Williams used the style, but they did not completely deviate from the main stream of realism both in subject matter and in form. If features from other genres are used to build the content of the plays, realistic elements will be necessary to build the form because the two complete each other, and if the theme of a play is about a certain issue, it will be necessary for the playwright to employ some realistic features whether in form or content so that readers/audience will better understand and decode the message. Realism may take various forms in the hands of authors to deal with different issues and elements of other genres can be inserted into it, but it cannot be replaced because true feelings and emotions can be truthfully expressed only in realistic situations.
This research focuses attention on family discordance and thus it tries to explore how the selected playwrights direct the course of the plays and how they make a balance between the variant components to demonstrate fragmentation of family life in the United States of America. The members of the households are in constant disputes and dramatists manipulate diverse devices to portray the confused world of the characters. Violence and tensions inside an American home capture the attention of many writers including dramatists and this issue will be briefly discussed in the following section.
2.3
DOMESTIC TENSIONS IN MODERN AMERICAN DRAMA
American theater grew out in a setting surrounded by sweeping economic, political, social, and cultural changes that occurred in the last half of the nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth. American drama focuses attention on the discussion of these issues and the playwrights stress on the realistic situation of the American milieu. One
29
of the central issues which occupy a wide space in the history of the American drama is the American family which is scrutinized from various sociological, economical and psychological aspects. In the modern era, American individual is cut loose from the traditional values of family, society, religion and culture. In many plays, it is clearly seen that the playwrights make a comparison between past and present and show how the American families were based on a strong foundation in the past if compared to today‘s families. Out of the norm, the family issues predominantly the filial relationships have inspired many playwrights.
Wakefield (2004:1) writes:
The central subject of American Drama is, arguably, the American family. From Royall Tyler's colonial comedy The Contrast (1787) to August Wilson's King Hedley II (2000), relationships between husbands, wives, and their children have consistently been used by American playwrights to explore and illuminate the American experience. Wakefield‘s 2004 comment in The Family in Twentieth-Century American Drama obviously shows that the American playwrights have been preoccupied with the issues which make a great part of the American family‘s everyday life and have great influences on the psychological conditions of the individuals and the relationship between them. In this book, Wakefield studies the relationship between members in traditional and non-traditional families and explores how the filial relationships will be affected by a capitalistic culture of consumption that permeates twentieth century American society. For analyzing the plays, he uses the sociological constructs of social divisions as his framework and discusses the traditional and non-traditional family in terms of husband-wife, father-child and mother-child relationships. Through sociological analysis, he shows how economical situation affects the family relations and how the members regard each other as commodities, as economic producers and consumers, and how individuals lose their intrinsic values in this capitalistic society.
Wakefield analyzes fourteen twentieth century American plays utilizing sociological criticism and Marxist theories to reveal how individuals within traditional
30
(father-mother-children) and non-traditional (gay, lesbian and bisexual) families are perceived as commodities in twentieth century American society. He focuses attention on the financial issues to display that the only thing which ties the individuals together is money and the relationship between the family members is merely based on how much money each can make. To better understand the nature of the relationships between husband-wife, father-children, mother-children, the siblings and the couples in the non-traditional families and how they are influenced by America‘s capitalism, Wakefield structures his framework on sociological and Marxist criticism. He directs his analysis towards achieving his goal which is manifesting how all the family members in the plays, both from traditional and non-traditional families perceive each other as commodities- things that make money. In his analysis, he shows that the parents cannot carry out their duties towards their children and the sons and daughters will not fulfill the dreams of the parents because of the financial crisis of the families.
Talking about filial relationships in the American drama is a sensitive issue because many masterpieces in the history of American drama explore the tension, tragedy, heartbreak, and love within flawed and fractured families. Of course, the cause of the horrible situation in which the families live is not economic crisis alone. There are actually many other causes which lead to breakdown within the families such as lack of honest communication, different outlooks on religion or people, illness, physical or psychological, guilt and incest. He confesses that his study is not inclusive and many gaps left for further study. The study deals with 14 plays which has compelled Wakefield to briefly discuss the relationship between family members. In most of the plays, he focuses on a single speech of a character which shows how he or she cares for money. Perhaps this might be due to his objective since he wants to display the importance of money in the American society in the twentieth century and how the family relationships are based on financial interests. Wakefield concludes that ―individuals within traditional and non-traditional families are perceived as commodities‖ (2004:96). His comment explains that he examines the plays to find out that individuals in America‘s capitalism have lost their values as human beings; they are only things and their value is measured according to how much money they gain.
31
Thaddeus Wakefield‘s 2004 book is not the only study which deals with American family through drama or other genres. There are other studies which hint to dysfunctional family in America and use drama to examine family breakdown in the society. Brown (2002) in ―Family Values in American Drama‖ discusses six plays written by the famous American playwrights like Eugene O‘Neil, Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, Edward Albee, Lorraine Hansberry and Marsha Norman. This paper is an outgrowth of the course that she gave first in China and then in her own university. When Brown was invited by a Chinese University to teach a seminar in American Drama, she used ―Family Drama‖ because as she says, ―I was (and am) convinced that from Eugene O‘Neil on, our playwrights have been obsessed with family disintegration and the failure of family harmony‖ (2002:3).
The framework she uses for her analysis is sociological criticism and theories. She starts with a historical background of the American family and how the family structure changed from the 19th century. This background helps readers understand familial issues and concerns in the past and in the present time. She also explains that the family was regarded as ―refuge‖ in the past, but it has ―become a personal hell‖ today. In her analysis, Brown focuses on the conflicts between the characters, members of the families, which rise from claiming of personal freedom and family security. Moreover, she focuses on the danger of the attempts of some individuals who seek freedom from the family bonds and how some other members struggle to hold the family bonds tight. The playwrights foresee this danger; therefore, they hold the members together in the disintegrated families under one roof in one way or another although they cannot solve the problems permanently. In the six plays, only Tom in The Glass Menagerie escapes, yet he is still haunted by his memories with his family. The dramatists chosen for this study also do not let their characters go astray. Tilden and Vince return home after several years to reunite with their family. Joanne Brown in her 2002 paper shows that the playwrights hint to family discordance, but because they realize the danger of separation and fragmentation, they do not let the members go off the family circle.
Brown (2002) discusses these facts in the paper, but she rarely takes extracts from the dialogues to reinforce her analysis. She mainly focuses attention on the
32
stories to examine the disintegration of the families not on what happens between the characters. This paper is the manifestation of the American family in the American drama rather than criticizing family and social breakdown. She concentrates on how the plays begin and how they end. She hints to the causes of the disintegration but very briefly. Unlike Wakefield, Brown does not analyze the plays from a certain angle such as capitalism. She discusses how a member or some members of a family try to be independent and break the family bonds and how they are contradicted. In her discussion, Joanne Brown‘s main concern is the individual‘s freedom and the family‘s security. She thinks that if the members scatter, the family will fall. This thought coincides with Patrick A. Velardi‘s idea in The American Family in Literature, a paper published by Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute in 2010 in which he indicates ―a family is a group in which some members must compromise their own self-interest for the good of the whole. When individuals truly realize a sense of self, then the family unit cannot exist as it once did‖. Both Velardi and Brown explore the danger of fragmentation of the family members and how it endangers family security. However, it must be noted that Velardi‘s 2010 paper is not a critical piece about the collapse of family in modern America and how this breakdown reflected in literature. He focuses on the educational benefits of literature and its reflection of family dynamics. He chooses literature as a medium to talk about the concept of family and how family structure has changed in America because American families have been differently portrayed in the American literature. Through discussing Farmer Boy by Laura Ingalls Wilder and Nobody’s Family is Going to Change by Louise Fitzhugh, Velardi explains that each member is a significant cog in the family. In such families, the father is in charge, the mother is in a supportive role and the children are contributors. Although there are conflicts between the members, the two families remain a unit. The children may not fulfill the parents‘ desires, but they still remain together and the family structure will not collapse.
The purpose of the paper is to help students understand the importance of their roles in their families and they should know that all differences and conflicts with their parents should not lead to family disintegration and breakdown. Velardi‘s medium is novel, but the topic is familial issues including discordance and
33
disintegration. This corroborates the fact that a great part of the American literature deals with family life in the American society and the authors have devoted much of their literary career to this issue. Several playwrights make use of their own families and experience to highlight the problems that the American individuals face and they express these issues in a way which is close to everyday life. In modern American drama, family plays a vital role, and the dominant theme is related to family conflicts.
Novick (2007:131) states:
A primary function of the theater is to perform social fact, to express it in terms of fictive yet truthful personal experience. With the passing of the years, social fact becomes historical fact, and the drama, particularly the realistic drama, stands as an often-invaluable record of what history felt like to those who actually lived it. Novick‘s comment shows that the playwrights use theatre to record the history of a nation and to mirror the changes and the events which happen in the society. The dramatists portray the social facts and the critics utilize various theories and methodologies to analyze social issues such as family breakdown, racism, class conflicts, and crime and so on in the texts they choose. Putzel and Westfall (1989) in ―The Back Side of Myth: Sam Shepard's Subversion of Mythic Codes in Buried Child‖ study the myth of family and show the failure of that myth. The relationship among the members of the family is ailing. Although they know each other, they behave like strangers and serious talks between them will not occur over the issues which have devastated the family. The characters go out to get rid of the terrible condition of the family. Dodge is the only one who does not move; but he hides himself with a blanket or they hide him with corn husks.
Putzel and Westfall (1989:114) say:
Halie, according to the paternalistic cultural codes that determine traditional family relationships, should be the matriarch, the homemaker who provides
34
food, clothing, and nurture for her family. But what have we in Halie? An absent mother, upstairs, profoundly unaware of what is happening to her family and her land. Putzel and Westfall‘s comment illustrates that neither parents nor their children carry out their duties regarding the family and thus it declines. This point is also stressed by Heilman (1992) when he emphasizes that the family members rely on different consolation such as liquor, religion and a blanket to forget about the dissatisfaction and quarrelsomeness exist in the family. He studies myths and symbols in the play and he believes that ―the curse on the house is made concrete in the selfcenteredness, in the various animosities, and especially in the distant murder that symbolize the human failure of the family‖ (Heilman, 1992:638). Heilman in ―Shepard‘s Plays: Stylistic and Thematic Ties‖ underlines that the atmosphere in the house has crippled the children as ―one is dead, another an amputee and the third is apparently brain-damaged‖. The ailing relationships show the defect in the family life and also a defect of the hopes that parents attach to their children (Ibid. 634).
Anderson (2012) also focuses on the decline of family in Buried Child and she believes that the disintegration is ―brought on by an absent or emotionally-removed mother and a brutal father who denies or disavows the ―child‖ he considers an abomination (Anderson, 2012:1716). She believes that the plot hinges on and around an absent mother, Halie, because she is either physically absent or she is just a voice. She stresses that the characters are isolated and they are quite alone. The family relation is on the edge and not only Halie, but Dodge is also responsible for the situation as a reluctant and neglectful father. Dodge‘s indifference to the family is also highlighted by Daronkolaee and Hojjat (2012) as they say, ―Maybe the family‘s problem is inherited from Dodge, an irresponsible patriarchal center of the family who is buried symbolically by his eldest son Tilden under corn husks‖ (Daronkolaee and Hojjat, 2012:205). They study modern alienations of characters in Sam Shepard‘s Buried Child and True West. They believe that all the characters are alienated because they run away from their responsibilities. They apply Sartre's philosophy of ethical alienation which states that alienation occurs when human beings refuse to accept 'responsibility' for their freedom. The moral decline in this story is expressed between
35
parents and their children and according to Heidegger's notion of 'authenticity', ―The death of American myth, decadence, and corruption in this play is based on inauthenticity and irresponsibility of its personages‖ (Ibid.). They believe that Halie is mainly responsible for this malfunctioning as she is morally and socially decayed.
Hosseini-Maasoum and Vahdati (2012) also study Buried Child in the light of postmodernist notions of myth, using Lyotard‘s ideas of postmodernism. The study aims at showing Shepard‘s deconstructive presentation of several traditional myths, especially the myth of a good American family.
Hosseini-Maasoum and Vahdati (2012:253) state: From the play‘s beginning, theme of disintegration of American family is evident. The family members are far apart from each other, physically or spiritually, and they even do not understand each other. Postmodernity brings gap and disconnection between families. The myth of a good American family exists no more. Hosseini-Maasoum and Vahdati‘s (2012) comment shows that the family in the play is not united, contrary to the old myths of America, and the members suffer from loneliness and disgust. They also believe that the myth of a good mother is also shattered since Halie does not act as a real mother and thus a disjointed family replaced a nuclear family, loyalty and love. The relationships among the characters are ailing and thus conflicts erupt between them.
However, in this thesis, the researcher uses pragmatic stylistic analysis to explore discordance in modern American drama which may take various forms, but mostly expressed through verbal attacks. The current research is an attempt to corroborate what other critics and researchers have previously said and written about social and familial issues in American drama by expanding the area of studying family issues. The researcher will explore the relationship between the family members in Buried Child and Rabbit Hole, to reveal how the families are disintegrated, how the individuals are living in isolation and how the playwrights want to keep them a unit
36
despite their different attitudes and goals, and the method used to explore such issues is the pragmatic stylistic study of the conversations that occur between the characters.
2.4
WHAT IS STYLISTICS?
Many scholars and analysts define stylistics according to their viewpoints. Though the definitions are different because of the developments occurred in linguistic and literary theories, they share a common sense that stylistics deals with the use of language and style in context. The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (1977); A branch of linguistics which studies the characteristics of situationally distinctive uses of language, with particular reference to literary language, and tries to establish principles capable of accounting for the particular choices made by individuals and social groups in their use of language.
(Quoted in Thornborrow and Wareing, 1998)
According to this definition, stylistics studies the linguistic elements which are used and moved from one place to another so as to find out what message the writers want to convey and what effects they desire to make. Moreover, it shows that the individuals and the social groups choose different linguistic features and put them in diverse positions to produce certain effects. This shows that authors manipulate the same stuff, language, but their treatment with its components are different; therefore, each individual or group has a style differs from the other‘s. This definition focuses attention on language and its use.
There are many definitions for the term, and most of the analysts and stylisticians try to define stylistics as they understand it, but in this section the focus will be on two of them which serve the aims of the research. The above definitions demonstrate that stylistics explores the macro and micro features of a text to bring out the possible meanings and effects that the text may make through the aesthetic use of language and the creativity in the author‘s style. Since the outset of stylistics,
37
stylisticians and also many linguists and literary critics have tried to apply stylistic analysis especially to literary texts. Stylistics gives freedom to analysts to use basic features from linguistics and literary criticism to interpret a text. This flexibility of stylistics has led to its rapid development, though the study of style is associated with rhetoric and has been taken into account by rhetoricians to interpret literary texts. During the twentieth century many linguistic and critical approaches have flourished which have great impacts on the development of stylistics and they have given birth to several approaches of stylistics which can be used to study texts at different levels.
2.5
STYLISTICS: ITS RISE AND DEVELOPMENT
2.5.1
Historical Background
Stylistics grew up in the second half of the twentieth century, and since then stylisticians analyze literary texts through combining the use of linguistic analysis with the psychological processes involved in reading. Stylistics explores how readers interact with the aesthetic use of language in texts and the creative style of authors to explain the meanings of the texts and understand the purposes behind writing them. Stylistics as a method of textual interpretation focuses attention on language and style because the writer deploys in a special manner the various forms, patterns and levels that constitute linguistic structure to convey his message and to make effects on readers. This method is not only to understand the various dimensions of a text; it is also a great supporter to comprehend how the constituents of a language work in it.
At the very outset of stylistics, poetry was the main target of analysis to deal with the aesthetic use of language because poems are mostly short. Realizing its significance and applicability to other fields, researchers sought a new field, fiction.
Leech (2007) states:
In the early 1980s, which saw the publication of SIF (our abbreviation for Style in Fiction: An Introduction to English Fictional Prose), the study of fictional prose style using the methods of linguistics was an immature field of
38
research. In those days, with notable exceptions such as Fowler‘s Linguistics and the Novel (1977), most research on stylistics focused on poetry.
This confinement of stylistics did not last long. The developments achieved in linguistic theories and methods including cognitive linguistics, pragmatics and discourse analysis in the last decades of the 20th century broaden the areas in which stylistic analysis can be applied. Stylisticians and analysts realize that stylistic analysis as an interactive method is important to the study of language and literature, so they turn to fictional prose and drama as grounds appropriate for stylistic analysis. Like poetry and fictional prose, drama has its own fans and readers. There are many playwrights who are famous for their style and use of language. Not only readers of drama eager to know how language functions in plays, those who are interested in poetry or fiction may want to study drama to make comparisons between the effects of tropes and devices used in different genres. Studying dramatic dialogues is also significant to analyze the language which is used in everyday conversation.
Focusing on the style of the author to interpret literary texts has a root in rhetorical analysis conducted by Greek critics like Plato, Aristotle, Longinus and Horace because when critics analyzed a text in the past, they did something to the text and as Coupland (2007:1) notes ―style is a way of doing something‖, and everything has its style, whether it is a literary work or a building. Rhetoricians focus attention on the interaction between text, writer and audience. It means that rhetorical analysis examines literary texts to find out how writers use language to make effects on readers. In this sense, the approach which is called stylistics today is partially based on rhetoric. Bradford (1997) confirms that the most notable predecessor of today‘s stylistics is rhetoric, and Butler (2008) more clearly focuses on the relationship between rhetoric and stylistics. He assumes that stylistics is part of a rhetorical tradition that began more than 2,500 years ago. To show its relation with stylistics, Butler (2008:3) defines rhetorical as a term that ―refers specifically to written language as it is used to inform, persuade, and generate knowledge for different purposes, occasions, and audiences‖. He believes that a single definition cannot be made to stylistics because there are theoretical debates about whether to identify style with social groups or with characteristics of an individual‘s personality; whether style
39
is measured subjectively, by so-called impressionistic techniques, or objectively through the application of quantitative measurements, especially computers.
Butler throws light on the historical background to the study of style and how rhetors ―conceived of style through history and deployed its resources according to fundamental differences in beliefs about the appropriate function of language in culture‖ (Ibid. 25-26). He mainly traces the developments that related to the study of style in composition, especially in three decades (1960s-1980s), a period he labels ―The Golden Age of Style‖. Rhetorical analysis does not influence stylistics only directly but also through the 20th century critical approaches which their focus is the text not the author, particularly Formalist Criticism and New Criticism.
During the 1960s, especially after the 1958 Indiana University Conference on literature and linguistics, the formalists and the new critics realized that they were addressing the same questions and objectives like what literature is and how it works. Bradford (1994:50) states that ―the scientists of literary raw material (the linguists and their theoretical forebears, the Formalists) suddenly found themselves consulting the same agenda of objectives and potential techniques as the scholars and aestheticians (the American New Critics and their slightly eccentric British cousins)‖. Because both approaches are close to each other, a number of linguists and critics have merged the principles of the two and established a new approach known as stylistics which is very rich in terms of possessing elements for analyzing literary texts as it studies both language and style and deploys devices from both to interpret texts.
The critical approaches of the period, more or less, were concerned with style (form) and meaning (content). The formalists, like rhetoricians, believe that the language which is used in literary discourse is different from language in other discourses in terms of form and meaning because literary figures choose their language to make special effects and most of the time they deviate from the language modes; this claim of the formalists has been developed by the modern stylistics and is now called foregrounding theory. There are similarities between stylistics and rhetorical criticism in the sense that they study the language choices (style) made by the author to achieve certain aims; stylistics also shares some features with formalism,
40
both claim for the detailed analysis of the linguistic structure of a text; and stylistics also agrees with new criticism as they both attempt to make meaning out of the text. All these approaches have played a vital role in the development of stylistics which draws features from them and manipulates them in a way specific to stylistic analysis. Guerin et al (1979:270) writes ―a creative author may address himself to his audience, while arranging his argument and working within a style, without realizing that these are four of the ‗traditional concerns of rhetoricians‖. Guerin et al‘s comment shows that all the approaches which study texts at these four levels owe rhetoric, especially stylistics since it studies texts and all the factors affect them (context). In this sense, rhetoric is variously transformed into modern stylistics. Bradford argues that the New Critics and the Formalists are the most obvious inheritors of the disciplines of rhetoric, in the sense that ―they have maintained a belief in the empirical difference between literature and other types of language and have attempted to specify this difference in terms of style and effect‖ (1997:11). He also considers Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Feminism, Marxism and historicism criticism as different approaches to stylistics because each one of them, in one way or another, concerns itself with stylistic features and its methods of interpretation. When stylistics flourished in the 2nd half of the 20th century, it developed rapidly because analysts and critics believed that this new approach would build a bridge between language and criticism and end the disputes between linguists and critics. They thought that studying language and form is necessary to understand a text and to interpret it. If one of these sides is neglected, the analysis will be imperfect. Roman Jakobson says ―all of us here, however, definitely realize that a linguist deaf to the poetic function of language and a literary scholar indifferent to linguistic problems and unconversant with linguistic methods, are equally flagrant anachronisms‖ (Bradford 2005:50). This remark confirms that interest in the study of form and language (stylistics) grows to analyze various types of texts and to know how the literary and linguistic features function to create meaning. Simpson in ―Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students‖ explains how contemporary stylistics has developed in contrast to what the linguist Jean-Jacques Lecercle
41
envisaged, ―stylistics is ailing; it is on the wane‖ (2004:2). For Simpson, stylistics has surpassed the limits of critical and linguistic analysis, and its methods are enriched and enabled by theories of discourse, culture and society. He believes that the areas in which stylistics can be applied are so broad that they cannot be surveyed under single term ―stylistics‖. Thus, several other models of stylistic analysis have been flourished such as feminist stylistics, pragmatic stylistics, cognitive stylistics and discourse stylistics, to name few. Today, stylistics is used as a method in language teaching and language learning procedures, and this aspect of stylistics is discussed in Literature and Stylistics for Language Learners: theory and practice (2007) edited by Watson and Zyngier. This progress in the field reveals the strong relationship between stylistics and language on one hand and stylistics and content on the other. In other words, stylistics studies the ingredients of a language and how they are used. The rest of this chapter shows the significance of stylistics in interpreting different texts.
2.5.2
Stylistics and Language
In this section some of the books or scholarly articles written on stylistics are reviewed to present the relationship between stylistic and language and to know what linguistic and stylistic devices draw the attention of the stylisticians to interpret the text and to reveal how meanings are made, and the focus will be on the stylistics of poetry, fiction and drama. Stylistics analysis has been applied to various texts since the 1960s using diverse methods and theories for different purposes. The stylistics of drama will be discussed in a separate section which follows this section.
Stylistics studies language and style to conclude how meaning is made. As an interactive systematic method, stylistics works on both language and literature to scientifically analyze texts. Regarding the fields their medium is language, especially literary texts, Beard (2003: 23) notes that ―the fact is that language helps to define and shape the genre, while the genre gives the language its shape and purpose.‖ This comment obviously explains how language and style affect each other. Moreover, it shows that the language choice will be affected by the genre. For instance, the language which is used for writing drama of the absurd is different from the language of realistic drama, and language is one of the main factors that can be relied on to
42
label a text. Language cannot make effects if its components are not ordered in a special way to achieve that purpose, and this is the concern of style.
To understand how language works in discourse, analysts must not only describe a series of grammatical and linguistic labels, but to explore the language. Meanings cannot be detected through focusing attention on the idea that meanings are contained only within the words and structures, but readers should understand the meanings constructed by all the procedures of language. In Language, Literature and Critical Practice, Birch (1989:20) asserts that ―analysis of text is not just a matter of discussing certain effects of language in a text, it can be—needs to be—a powerful method for understanding the ways in which all sorts of realities are constructed through language‖. For Birch, what is significant is ―how not what‖ a text means. Birch aims at building a bridge between language studies and literary studies. He examines how some of the major twentieth-century theoretical, philosophical, critical and political positions have influenced textual analysis. He also provides an overview of developments in language-centered criticism in the 20th century.
Birch reviews and evaluates diverse approaches to textual analysis to establish a clear relation between practical criticism and theories of language to show how meaning is made in texts and to achieve this purpose he focuses on textual analysis. He believes that close examination of the aesthetic use of language in literary texts will make language and literary studies perfect and more meaningful. In writing this book, Birch tries to present a wide-ranging survey of textual analysis that is informed at all times by a social, historical, political, theoretical, and ideological awareness of ‗where‘ the analysis ‗is coming from‘. What he discusses here is the aim that most of the stylisticians want to achieve. Birch highlights how meaning is created and how it is influenced and how the writers convey that meaning.
Texts can be distinguished according to the language levels or models of style not according to whether they are literary or not. Birch concludes that neither linguistic analysis nor literary criticism can separately reveal how meanings are created in a text. He refers to several extracts examined by other analysts who apply text analysis and focus on the creative use of language to discover the meanings and
43
effects in the texts. Beard (2003) illustrates that the areas within which writers can do something new with language include lexical creativity, phonological creativity, grammatical creativity, semantic creativity and so on. Looking at these areas, readers can find how language use can be aesthetic and inventive not only in literature, but also in other texts their medium is language.
In Language through Literature: An Introduction (1997), Simpson focuses attention on stylistics theories and intends to develop a ‗toolkit‘ for describing some of the main structures and functions of the English language and to enrich and advance stylistic studies. Simpson believes that stylistics can better interpret the structure and function of language in literary discourse because ―the branch of language study which is principally concerned with this integration of language and literature is known as stylistics‖ (1997:2). Simpson embarks on a subject, which is of great importance to students of both language and literature. He uses the medium of literature to study language and takes excerpts from various literary genres, especially poetry, prose and drama. He introduces the concepts and techniques found in literary discourse and helpful in the study of language. Like many other writers, he refers to literature as a supportive nexus for exploring forms and concepts in English language.
Simpson based his assumptions on the use of language in context since he believes that different registers in different contexts will carry different meanings and functions. Simpson invokes the Dumpty principle in which words may take various meanings in a single situation when interpreted by diverse readers. He explains how a word means at various levels, for example he discusses the system of graphology, content and function words, derivational and inflectional morphemes and so on. He also explores two language features in prose fiction which are cohesion and narrative. His analysis manifests that readers or analysts need to study the language of a text in relation to other components particularly form because they affect each other. Beard (2003) affirms this view as he thinks that language of a text cannot be separated from other elements work inside and outside the text which help in its construction. Beard (2003:2) observes ―looking at language will also involve looking at context.‖ It simply means that the time in which the text is written, the ideology of the author, its
44
relation with other texts, reader response and other factors which affect the meanings of a text should be taken into consideration. Analysts cannot dig out every possible meanings of a text only by studying its language if they do not build a link between the language and the atmosphere which surrounds the text and urges the writer to produce the text in that way.
Gavins (2007: 6) writes:
The mental representations through which we understand one another are based not just on the language we use, but on our wider surroundings, our personal knowledge and our previous experiences. They are both as individual as we are and as socially and historically interconnected as we are. Gavins‘s 2007 comment is true to understanding a text because the writer is influenced by his surroundings and s/he creates similar atmosphere to compel the characters to use the language which suits the situation. Mills (1992) believes that, in the early years, stylistic analysis concentrated on the text and the outer world which has influences on the producer and the production was ignored.
Mills (1992:183) writes down:
Stylistic analysis has so far shown itself to be largely uninterested in the world outside the text except for the role of the author who plays a determining role in the production and explanation of the linguistic devices which are discovered in the text. Mills‘s remark explains that the interpretation of a text mainly depended on the text itself and the biography of its author which are not enough for understanding the text at all levels because the writers do not always directly express their opinions about a topic or the writing may not reflect their ideologies and beliefs; hence to understand and interpret a text, studying context, the outer world, is of great importance. Mill‘s approach is an attempt to encourage stylisticians to highly regard all the micro and macro features of a text with all the external factors which help explaining the
45
meanings, themes and goals of the text. She explains that with the advent of discourse stylistics there seems to be a move in the direction of the analysis of context though ―even discourse stylistics is saddled with a very traditional model of context‖ (ibid).
In Patterns in Language: An Introduction to Language and Literary Style (1998), Thornborrow and Wareing conducted a practical study. The significance of the book lies in its adaptability to the study of diverse styles in different genres. The authors give readers knowledge and then guide them how to use the knowledge to explore the style of the writers and to interpret sentences and utterances in various contexts. The book is practical for the application of stylistic analysis to different literary genres and other kinds of discourse because it explains the linguistic features and stylistic devices in various texts from poetry to news articles and even paintings. The book uses the principles of linguistic analysis to investigate the aesthetic use of language in literary and non-literary texts. It also shows how linguistic knowledge can enhance and enrich the analysis of texts. The authors borrow from traditional stylistics, but focus primarily on the recurring linguistic patterns used by writers of poetry, fiction and drama. They do not stick to one approach; they will rather look at the data of the texts (language) and analyze it according to linguistic categories and theories including semantics, stylistics, pragmatics, and discourse analysis.
Thornborrow and Wareing attempt to explain the different functions of language in diverse contexts. Furthermore, they guide readers to describe the ways that writers use language and to tackle stylistic analysis, and thus they draw the attention of the readers to the choices made by authors in creating texts. They are not the only analysts who concentrate on the manipulation of language to write effectively. Adrian Beard (2003) again emphasizes the significance of language use in creating the style of the author. Beard mainly deals with ―How‖ language is manipulated by authors to create a literary text, deliver certain messages and how this usage of language can determine the style of the writers. Poets, novelists and dramatists use different techniques and linguistic patterns and structures even if they write about the same subject matter because the genre gives the language its shape and purpose. Thornborrow and Wareing examine some features
46
which are significant for studying certain genres; for example, they explore sound and meter in poetry as two main devices that play a great role in making effects on the mood of the poem and the mood of readers. They also shed some light on marked and unmarked sentences and they discuss the relationship between grammatical structures and the style of a text. They undertake grammatical analysis of literary texts since ―this level of analysis can tell us about different kinds of literary style‖ (Thornborrow and Wareing 1998:41). They use the term ‗normal‘ to refer to ordinary, everyday conversational use of language, and the term ‗deviant‘ to refer to language use that is structurally more unusual and literary. They do not support the distinction between literary and non-literary language, yet they explain why Prague School linguists ask for separating literary language from everyday, non-literary language. Their aim here is to show that different grammatical structures produce different writing style, not different language. They also study meaning at the level of words (semantics) to show how diverse contexts give different meanings to single words. They focus on the point that meanings and language choice work together.
Simpson (2004) focuses attention on the importance of stylistics not only in analyzing literature, but also in dealing with language in different situations. He does not stick to one method and theory. He applies various methods as he discusses diverse aspects of stylistics. Among the theories from which he draws his framework there are methods of pragmatics, politeness theory, speech act theory, and conversation analysis. He examines the significance of stylistics in textual analysis, the relationship between grammar and style, narration and stylistics, style as choice, style and point of view, dialogue and discourse and so on. He devotes much of his book to show how stylistic methods can be applied to achieve various aims and to answer linguists like Lecercle who said ―nobody has ever really known what the term stylistics means‖ (2004:2). Many scholars have defined stylistics, and Simpson defines the term as a ―method of textual interpretation in which primacy of place is assigned to language‖ (Ibid.). The definition clarifies that the most important thing for stylisticians while analyzing a text is language because its various forms, patterns and levels will help interpreting the text and detecting its meanings. Thus stylistic study of a text is crucial to find out how its meanings are expressed through language, whether the text is literary or not, since other forms of discourse may display stylistic dexterity.
47
Not only modern stylistics, but other theories like cognitive linguistics and discourse analysis pay much attention to language in use. Tyler et al (2008: 1) notes ―the primary purpose of language is to communicate with other humans; thus, an accurate understanding of the properties of language requires understanding how language is used to create meaning‖. Tyler et al (2008) argues that it is necessary for the interlocutors to know how the language is used so that they can decode the transmitted messages, whether the communication is between two persons or between a reader and a writer through a text. The central point for modern stylistics is language in the context of use because it penetrates linguistic structures and functions to conclude how the messages are conveyed through the creative use of language.
Simpson (2004) emphasizes the significance of language in interpreting texts, but the style of the text is influential too. He believes that style (form) and meaning (content) cannot be separated, and to express different meanings, various forms are required. This view is supported by many other scholars. For instance, Suzan-Lori Parks (1995:7) states that ―a playwright, as any other artist, should accept the bald fact that content determines form and form determines content; that form and content are interdependent‖. As discussed by Scollon and Scollon, ―the decision of which medium to use is not just a question of medium; it is also a question of contents and of social structure, even of law‖ (2001:39). Stylistics explores the creativity in language use which means that the writer‘s style to construct the text through language plays a great role in showing how meanings can be made. It is very common that almost all the authors violate the linguistic rules and conventions to make certain effects, and Simpson believes that ―from the classical period onwards there has been continued healthy interest among scholars in the relationship between patterns of language in a text and the way a text communicates‖ (2004: 50). Simpson‘s remarks show that writers pay much attention to the use of language to convey different meanings because variety of forms will produce variety in meaning. A word or a sentence may not deliver the desired message if they are not used properly. Consequently, the writers will make changes in language form to achieve their aims.
48
2.5.3
Stylistics and Meaning
Since the Indiana Style Conference, many writers and analysts have tried and still try to define style and to explain its relation with meaning. Some analysts believe that style (form) can be independent of meaning (content), but others, especially modern stylisticians, insist that form and content cannot be separated. During the early years of stylistic analysis, the writer‘s style was decided on the differences between his grammar and the underlying grammatical norms. For this purpose, the stylisticians referred to the principles of New Criticism, characterized by a close verbal analysis of texts, Formalism, concerned with studying form through the use of language and Chomsky‘s work on transformational grammar together with Chomsky-inspired work in generative phonology (Carter and Simpson 1989). Hynes in ―Style” (1995) believes that readers in the past thought of style as literary style without paying attention to the study of style in other texts which are non-literary but also made up of words and they deploy stylistic features used in literary texts. He (1995:1) asserts that ―no attempt has been made to define style, or to adjudicate among the very many different conceptions of it, or its relations to the central concerns of linguistics, to psychology, social theory or literature.‖ The book looks at style as something having several aspects; literary style is one of the aspects and only one unit of the book is devoted to the study of literary style. The rest of the book deals with other texts which are not literary but can be studied in the same general way as literary texts are examined. Hynes argues that style is not exclusive to literature because every text the medium of which is language manipulates the same resources of language that are used in literary texts and the features associated with literariness can be found in other kinds of texts. This shows that literary and nonliterary texts are similar in terms of using language and choosing words; the difference between them lies in the number of the stylistic devices which are found while analyzing a particular text. For example, to apply stylistic analysis to a poem, the analyst look at rhyme, rhythm, metaphor, sound patterns and so on, and when another analyst examines news headlines or a speech made by a president or an official, he examines the language but from a different perspective. Editors of newspapers and
49
magazines care much about the headlines to draw the attention of readers because readers first scan the headlines then they decide which article they read.
According to Hynes (1995), the medium of expression affects the style of a text because of the limited physical space they allow such as in postcards and headlines. He studies texts in different situations and of diverse genres to help readers in many ways to understand literary or non-literary texts. He also examines the features which design the structure of the texts (form) and how they affect content and make meanings. For instance, he explains that the use of function words or grammatical words is different from the use of content or lexical words, and they have different functions regarding meaning. For Hynes (1995), any text will be affected by at least one of the following devices: careful choice of the writer‘s word, following and flouting conventions, metaphors, patterns of words in a text, patterns of grammar, the textual orchestration of the patterns, the effects of the medium, sequence of words and events, personal attitude, involvement and emotion, style and ideology, and the poetic style.
The applicability of stylistics to diverse texts and the development of new approaches both in linguistics and literary criticism always keep stylistics fresh and open new gates for stylisticians to penetrate into the world of various texts. Stylistics integrates language and all the factors which take part in the production of the text, and thus the work will take a form which is capable of reflecting the content. Both readers‘ and critics‘ efforts will focus on understanding and interpreting a text in which there is integration between its components and the themes. The relationship between stylistics and language use on one hand and stylistics and content on the other should be taken into consideration while analyzing a text stylistically since style reflects the themes of the text and its world.
There is a strong relationship between stylistics and content as there is a similar connection between stylistics and language use. The themes which the writers want to discuss in their works require special styles; therefore, different styles are needed to reflect different subject matters. Consequently, different approaches of stylistics analysis have been flourished. One of the approaches which make great
50
contribution to the analysis of dialogue is ―Discourse Stylistics‖. The book, Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics, (1989) edited by Ronald Carter and Paul Simpson, contains 12 essays written by eleven scholars and analysts. The book is mainly concerned with discourse stylistics and the focus is on analyzing dialogues in Drama, fiction and poetry, and the factors that affect language and structure. The articles show how the structure of the dialogues and the form of the sentences are organized and ordered to serve the aims of the text.
The authors participated in the volume emphasize the strong relationship between linguistics and literary studies, a point highlighted by Roman Jakobson in 1960, and the importance of discourse analysis in understanding dialogues in different texts. The collection of these articles which mostly depend on functional models for the description of language in analyzing the extracts show that functionalism is practical in applying discourse-oriented stylistic analysis to texts, especially for studying dialogues. They believe that discourse stylistics will do much better to deal with the macro-structural units beyond sentence, and a focus on language functions is also helpful for describing the structural patterning of literary texts. The authors apply discourse-based stylistic analysis to texts depending on the linguistic theories that study language functions. Simpson (1989) in ―Phatic Communion and Fictional Dialogue‖ studies phatic communion which is a feature of linguistic behavior common to many everyday social encounters. He applies discourse-based analysis to dialogue in fiction and takes the extracts from Flann O‘Brien‘s novel The Third Policeman. He defines phatic communion as ―the kind of ritualistic linguistic behavior which characterizes the beginnings and endings of conversations‖ (Simpson 1989:42). He builds his assumptions on the basis of a sociolinguistic framework designed for the analysis of naturally occurring conversation, and he draws his framework of analysis upon John Laver‘s paper entitled ‗Communicative Functions of Phatic Communion‘ published in 1975 in which he notices that ―in the initial phase of a conversation, speakers often make supremely obvious comments to one another‖ (Ibid.: 43). The study is workable in two ways. Firstly, it can be used to know how the conventions of normal talk can be used by writers to make special effects. Secondly, it intends to explain the similarities
51
between dramatic dialogues and natural dialogues and how the rules of communication can be used to study literary dialogues and naturally occurring conversations. Phatic communion has an important social function. For example, what will happen if someone starts a conversation with someone else without saying one of the ―routine vacuities‖ as defined by Fowler? This example from Albee‘s The Zoo Story (1997:12) will answer this question. Jerry: I‘ve been to the zoo. (Peter does not notice) I said, I‘ve been to the zoo. MISTER I‘VE BEEN To THE ZOO! Peter: Hm? … What?... I‘m sorry, were you talking to me? (P.12)
What Jerry says is the first sentence of the play; he encounters someone he has never met before. He feels uncomfortable and repeats the sentence three times, but he receives no answer as he started talking without greeting Peter. Such unusual exchanges are important in literature which may reveal the social status and psychological condition. For instance, if Jerry shows respect to the social norms of communication, he will salute Peter and then he starts talking. This first moment raises questions about Jerry‘s social background, and when the play ends in his suicide, readers conclude that Jerry had problems; therefore, he behaved abnormally. This style reflects the content and gives some clues to audience about the context. Another essay from Carter and Simpson (1989) is ―Polyphony in Hard Times‖ by Roger Fowler in which he selects the theoretical model proposed by Mikhail Bakhtin to provide a stylistic analysis to the speech style in novel. In his essay, Fowler argues that Hard Times is essentially a polyphonic novel. He examines the contrasts in the speech styles of major characters and shows how the multiple voices in the novel interact with one another. He analyses the multiple registers of the novel under three headings: idiolect, Sociolect (social dialect) and dialogue. By idiolect, he means the speech style of an individual which is not fixed and different from one author to another. Sociolect is a set of background features of language which distinguish a person linguistically. Weber‘s article ―Dickens‘s Social Semiotic: the Modal Analysis of Ideological Structure‖ in the same volume can be regarded as the continuation of
52
Fowler‘s essay in which he studies modality as an important interpersonal feature of language. Carter and Simpson (1989: 91) define modality as ―that function of language which concerns the speaker‘s or writer‘s attitude to, and commitment to, the content of what he says‖. Weber (1989) believes that ideological analysis consists of two steps: one descriptive and the other interpretative. Fowler pays much attention to the first step, and Weber tries the second step. Weber combines Fowler‘s linguistic approach with an analysis of the narrative universes in Hard Times, an analysis based on the pioneering work in narrative semantics undertaken by Dolezel (1976) and Ryan (1985). Fowler believes that in the ideological analysis of literary texts, greater attention should be paid to linguistic modality. On the basis of Fowler‘s approach and suppositions, Weber attempts to show how a study of linguistic modality can reveal the exact nature of ideological structure. In this sense, modality will be helpful to understand the attitude and ideology of both the writer and the character.
Weber pays attention to generic sentences and syntactic structure, a discussion of modal expressions, and one aspect of the transitivity structure in his analysis. In ―Analysing Conversation in Fiction: an Example from Joyce‘s Portrait‖, Toolan (1989) embarks on discourse stylistics from a different aspect and uses the theories developed for the systematic study of discourse and natural conversation to the stylistic and structural study of a fictional conversation within a literary text. Toolan makes particular use of descriptive categories proposed by Deirdre Burton (1980). He concentrates particularly on the interactive unit of the move. Carter and Simpson (1989: 191) describe move as ―a key level in discourse, as it is normally coterminous with speaker change, is the primary level for the propulsion of talk, and marks the transition points at which subsequent speakers are drawn to respond‖. Seven types of moves are categorized by Burton of which five are conversational and applied by Toolan in his analysis of sequences of conversation from the Christmas dinner scene in Joyce‘s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. These include: opening moves, supporting moves, challenging moves, bound-opening moves, and re-opening moves. Toolan uses these moves to show how supporting moves develop the Christmas dinner talk and how challenging moves turn the conversation into ―power struggles.
53
Stylisticians or analysts who are interested in stylistic analysis try to apply stylistic models to a variety of texts to study various subject matters. Even some of the attempts are made to establish new models of stylistics and to create new devices to interpret texts from a new perspective. Sara Mills in her book Feminist Stylistics (1995) studies stylistics in terms of gender and language. She throws light on feminist analysis which uses features of linguistic analysis to examine texts. Her framework is based on the method of feminist stylistics and the main devices deployed for interpretation are, firstly, the traditional stylistic model which regards language as a medium of exchange of information between two people, and secondly, the feminist model which ―makes space for the possibility, and in fact the necessity, of integrating notions of gender, race and class, and also socio-historical and economic factors into the analysis, and indeed into the definition of the text itself‖ (Mills 1995:28).
The model is much concerned with gender analysis which helps to explain why women‘s writing is read in a certain way. Mills explains that there are some features which are feminine and can be used to distinguish female writing style from male writing style. She does not deny that male writers can produce feminine sentences and vice versa, but she insists that feminist analysis is necessary ―because feminists are concerned not only to analyze texts but also to change social relations through that analysis and through other forms of action‖ (Ibid.29). She studies many factors like the role of readers and gendered frameworks which affect the way of interpretation. She analyses texts at the levels of word, phrase/sentence and discourse to show that female writers use different syntactic structures and words because they represent themselves. This focus on macro and micro structures will help readers understand how certain meanings are constructed and the subject matters are dealt with in a female writer point of view. Mills concludes that female writers have many options when they write, they can simply imitate masculine or feminine writing styles or they invent their own style to address their audience. She believes that there are some features like syntactic style, modality, speech patterns and so on which can be taken into account to differentiate between the style of female and male authors. She emphasizes that the devices will not depict the difference between styles if interpreted independently out of their context.
54
Richard Bradford in his book, Stylistics, (1997), is interested in the pragmatic aspect of stylistics and how meanings can be brought out in texts through examining its context. Bradford (1997: xi) says, ―Language is an enabling device; it allows us to articulate the sequence of choices, decisions, responses, acts and consequences that make up our lives. Style will play some part in this, but its function is pragmatic and purposive.‖ It means that there are other elements, beside grammatical features, that participate in meaning making. The style and language of plays, novels and poetry cooperate together to achieve the aims. In the last decades of the twentieth century, the concerns of stylistics increased and now a distinction is made between traditional stylistics and modern stylistics.
Bradford (1997: xii) writes:
Modern stylistics is caught between two disciplinary imperatives. On the one hand it raises questions regarding the relation between the way that language is used and its apparent context and objective—language as an active element of the real world. On the other, it seeks to define the particular use of linguistic structures to create facsimiles, models or distortions of the real world—literary language. Bradford‘s statement clarifies that modern stylistics deals with language as a medium of expression to reflect the context and the exact way the language is used so as to show that the subject matter and the context decide the style of the text which its language is highly stylized (literary). The main objective of the book is to study the relationship between the use of language in everyday conversation and its use in literature. Though the medium of everyday conversation and dialogues in literary texts is language, the language choice in these two contexts is different. He believes that modern stylistics has important functions in modern literary studies, and it defines literature as an art form (textualism) and studies its operations within the broader field of structuralism and social studies (contextualism). Bradford shows how the stylistic features can be deployed to study the style of writers and how meanings can be made in literary texts. He introduces the devices and linguistic elements that constitute the stylistic character of post-medieval English poetry: prosody and poetic form; meter;
55
rhyme and the stanza; the sonnet; the ode; blank verse; free verse; metaphor; syntax, diction and vocabulary, and he clarifies the application of these devices by critics in their attempts to show how poetic style creates particular meanings and effects.
The relationship between meaning and language choice is also the concern of pragmatics stylistics. The analysts who try to examine texts in terms of linguistic features want to figure out how meanings vary at the level of words, sentences and discourse and how meanings will change in different contexts. Stylisticians make use of diverse linguistic and critical theories to show these differences. Elizabeth Black in Pragmatic Stylistics (2006) applies pragmatic theories to present how a text can be understood and interpreted pragmatically. The term ―Pragmatic stylistics‖ is coined because of their great contributions to the study of literary texts. Regarding the relationship between the two, Black (2006:2) observes ―pragmatics is the study of language in use (taking into account elements which are not covered by grammar and semantics), it is understandable that stylistics has become increasingly interested in using the insights it can offer‖.
Stylisticians deploy pragmatic elements along with other linguistic features of a text to extract the possible meanings expected by readers or interpreters. Black here focuses attention on theories related to pragmatics including speech act theory, politeness and relevance theories, and some other issues like tropes and parody and symbolism. These topics are discussed pragmatically to show how each one facilitates in interpreting texts to bring out their meanings. One of the important issues that Black explains is the difference between literary and non-literary discourse. She agrees that the same linguistic resources are used in the spoken and written language, but she argues that the same devices may be more effective in literary than in nonliterary discourse. Many scholars discuss this issue; some agree with Black and some disagree, and it is also discussed in some of the books read for this literature review.
Black believes that readers must pay close attention to metaphorical structures since metaphors or similes which are used randomly in everyday conversation do not have the same function or impact as they have in literary discourse. This distinction is significant for the study of dialogues in literary discourse because ―even in fictional
56
dialogue the slips of the tongue, repetitions, elisions and opaque reference which characterize the spoken language are seldom represented, save occasionally for humorous effect‖ (Ibid.: 3). She continues explaining that the differences between written and spoken discourse can be more effective in terms of the use of deictic expressions. For instance, in face to face conversation, the pronouns refer to the speakers, but in a lyrical poem the pronoun ‗I‘ may not refer to the poet.
Black (2006: 15-16) states:
There is no evidence that literary discourse differs from non-literary texts as text: as discourse it is clearly different. Literary discourse uses any devices available in the language. The text is self-contained: the context is created by the discourse. All elements necessary for its interpretation must be built in.
Pragmatic stylistics helps readers extract meanings from texts, written or spoken, because it studies the ways which the devices of a language are manipulated to reflect the context. For example, in Harold Pinter‘s plays, or in absurd drama in general, dots have certain effects and connotation. The use of dots, excessive repetitions and fragmented speeches mark the style of most of the modern playwrights. The pragmatic theories and methods explained here are applicable to all texts which their stuff is language.
Stylistics can make use of numerous linguistic and stylistic devices to study a literary text and to find out how its meaning is built in a certain context. Some of the writers their works reviewed here and some others have tried to prove that stylistic analysis can be applied to different texts regardless of their genre. The previous sections show that stylisticians analyze texts through examining the language of the text, its use in different contexts and the way the writers choose to deploy the linguistic elements. The next section will be devoted to the stylistics of drama to know how stylisticians or analysts can approach dramatic texts to comprehend how the playwrights use language in the communications occur between the characters.
57
2.6
STYLISTICS OF DRAMA
Stylistics of drama, as Mandala (2007) defines ―is part of the principle of literary stylistics: the use of theories in linguistics to study the language of literature.‖ In this section, the researcher will try to review some of the books or articles which deal with the language of drama and study dialogue in dramatic texts to know how playwrights use language in dramatic dialogues and how they structure the conversation between the characters in their plays to convey certain messages. This section cites some of those works hoping that they will provide some information for conducting a stylistic analysis to examine dialogues in Buried Child and Rabbit Hole to reveal how the authors exploit the characteristics of drama, the stylistic devices and the linguistic features to depict and criticize discordance between the individuals and family breakdown in the American community.
The previous section, Application of Stylistics, shows that most of the stylisticians are interested in exploring extracts from poetry and prose fiction to manifest how stylistics work to make meaning out of language use and style, especially during the early decades of stylistics analysis, 1960-1980. Thornborrow and Wareing (1998) explain that stylistic analysis of dramatic texts has tended to follow one of three approaches, drama as poetry, drama as fiction and drama as conversation. Deirdre Burton in 1980 opened a new gate in stylistic analysis and studied drama as discourse, but her book remained alone until 1995 when Vimala Herman‘s Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as interaction in plays was published. In 1989, Carter and Simpson collected 12 essays in Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics. Only three of the essays examine dramatic dialogue and they characterize Burton‘s discourse analytic approach to drama dialogue as somewhat out of the ordinary. Herman (1995: 3) notes that ―studies of dramatic dialogue as discourse – as a speech exchange system – are hardly in evidence, even in investigations of the language of drama‖. Culpeper et al (1998) repeats Herman‘s view and illustrates that stylisticians and literary critics have not bothered about studying play-texts (drama as written text not
58
as performance) because it consists of dialogues and language of conversation is not stable; therefore, studying drama dialogue as talk is still in the margin.
Culpeper et al (1998:3) writes:
If we compare them with poems and fictional prose, play-texts have in general received relatively little attention from both twentieth-century literary critics and stylisticians. Part of the problem may lie in the fact that spoken conversation has for many centuries been commonly seen as a debased and unstable form of language, and thus plays, with all their affinities with speech, were liable to be undervalued. Culpeper et al‘s (1998) comment demonstrates that critics and stylisticians shied away from drama because it mostly consists of dialogues and the language used by the characters while conversing is not stable and cannot be accurately studied. In addition, most critics believe that a play is written to be performed not read. If studying play-texts is problematic, understanding a play in performance is also debatable. It is not easy to study a play as it is performed because one performance is different from the next and the director and the characters‘ abilities and understanding of the play will affect expressing its themes and aims. These reasons and some other factors push drama to the margin. Though modern stylistics is interested in dealing with drama as conversation and it draws its framework mainly from pragmatics and discourse analysis, studying drama as discourse has not reached a satisfactory level. Mandala (2007: x) also emphatically argues that ―if the stylistic study of drama is rare, the stylistic study of drama dialogue as talk is even rarer‖.
Beard (2003:18) says: …of the three types of text you have to study – poetry, novels, plays – a play is the least ‗readerly‘ form. Although it can be read by an individual, it is best seen and heard in performance, in a production made either for stage or film.
59
Beard‘s (2003) comment clarifies that there are still some analysts who do not think that drama can be studied as poetry and novels can be since plays are written mainly to be performed. However, the developments achieved in linguistic theories especially discourse analysis and pragmatics have encouraged some stylisticians and analysts to examine dramatic dialogue as discourse. Mandala (2007:18) argues ―the linguistic study of ordinary talk has much to contribute to our understanding of drama dialogue‖. This remark shows that the elements which are taken into account for studying a conversation between two people in a natural situation can be used to analyze dramatic dialogues especially in modern drama because modern playwrights try to write natural dialogues in situations which are close to everyday settings. There are some stylisticians who make great contributions to the study of dramatic dialogue as discourse and try to prove that plays can also be read. They believe that plays must certainly be read and understood by producers before being performed. Some stylisticians and analysts believe that discourse analysis will pave the way for readers to study drama as written texts and they have tried this approach.
In studying drama or the application of stylistic analysis to text plays, not only the language of the play, but its structure is also important. The playwrights design their plays and the dialogues in a certain way to serve their message and aim. The stylistic devices which are related to the language of the plays can be explored to understand the themes, the psychological condition of the characters, their social status and the relationship between them. Meanwhile, the literary devices related to the structure of the text and include plot, character, theme, genre and style have to be examined to know what techniques are manipulated by the playwrights to make a harmony among the linguistic and literary elements that compose the whole play.
While studying dramatic dialogues as discourse, most of the analysts use techniques of language analysis, particularly from discourse analysis, pragmatics and cognitive linguistics, to explore the language of plays. In analyzing dramatic dialogue as discourse, or dialogues and conversation in general, there are some elements which can be looked at to know how the playwrights manipulate linguistic and stylistic devices to structure communication in their plays and to describe the events and the characters through their utterances and through the interactions between them. These
60
include: grammatical and lexical elements, turn-taking, speech acts, cooperative principle and so on. Most, if not all, of these elements are found in drama texts and they are used to perform various functions, for example, to show how the relationship between the characters is developed or how the same relationship will be hindered from development or sometimes it will become enmity.
Tan (1998:165) states:
Although we should not forget that there is dialogue in the novel, or that many poems have ‗conversations‘ within them, it is dramatic texts that are usually thought of as giving more emphasis to the interpersonal function of language (cf. Halliday 1994) because drama is prototypically the literary genre which is composed almost entirely of face-to-face interaction between characters.
Tan explains that studying dramatic dialogue makes great contribution to understand how language functions in communication. The social status and the education level of the personas and their characteristics can be detected from the dialogues. The aforementioned elements with some other features are deployed by stylisticians in analyzing dialogue in plays for different purposes, and they also refer to the features common in daily interactions as they believe that there are similarities between everyday conversation and fictional dialogues. As far as there are similarities, there are also crucial differences between them because they are interdependence not identical. Herman (1995) notes that the dramatist who draws on ordinary speech is not merely imitating for effect, but showing the audience something.
Herman (1995:6) notes down:
The principles, norms and conventions of use which underlie spontaneous communication in everyday life are precisely those which are exploited and manipulated by dramatists in their constructions of speech types and forms in plays. Thus, ‗ordinary speech‘ or, more accurately, the ‗rules‘ underlying the orderly and meaningful exchange of speech in everyday contexts are the resource that dramatists use to construct dialogue in plays.
61
Herman‘s annotation illustrates that for composing and structuring dialogues, dramatists perceive the insights of everyday conversation and they follow the same rules so that their plays will reflect everyday life. Dramatic dialogues cannot be exactly like natural dialogues as the characters in a play talk to the audience, but in natural conversation the interlocutors talk to each other. If dramatists copy everyday dialogue, the audience will not understand a great part of the play because there will be lots of lapses, fragmented speeches … etc.
Mick Short (1989) challenges the critics who believe that the analysis of drama should be the analysis of performance not text-plays. He believes that this view is wrong because if the directors or producers do not understand the text, they cannot guide their actors to perform in a proper way. He also explains that this view arose because of the inability of ―practical criticism (including traditional stylistic analysis, which has concerned itself mainly with deviation and textual pattern) to cope with the meanings which are produced by dramatic texts‖. Short (1989:138) believes that there are a number of considerations which suggest that the object of dramatic criticism should not be the theatrical performance:
1- Teachers and students have traditionally read plays without necessarily seeing them performed and have still managed to understand them and argue about them.
2- A special case of this is the dramatic producer, who must be able to read and understand a play in order to decide how to produce it. Such a decision is also crucial because a production of a play is in effect, a play plus an interpretation of it, in just the same way that a reading (performance) of a poem must select one of a number of possible interpretations.
3- There is a logical and terminological distinction between a play and a performance of it. Coming out of the theatre, people can be heard making comments of the form ‗that was a good/bad production of a good/bad play‘.
Short does not simply say drama texts can be analyzed, but he also puts his words into action and takes some steps for that purpose. He believes that recent
62
developments in discourse analysis help analysts study drama as text not performance. To apply discourse-based analysis, he looks at the language of the text at five levels (speech acts, presupposition, general discourse relations, the co-operative principle and more general discourse relations). The ―speech acts‖ are also looked at by Walter Nash in the same volume and many other analysts because of their importance in dramatic dialogue in the sense that, as Short (Ibid.141) says, ―When we produce various utterances we actually do things.‖ Recognizing the speech act status is dramatically important at the beginning of plays and when new characters are introduced, as it allows audience immediately to grasp important social relations. Culpeper et al (1998:128) notes ―an approach to the study of pragmatics which has been very influential in language study over the last twenty years is the theory of speech acts associated with the work of J.L. Austin and John Searle‖. Analysts believe that the speech acts play a vital role in characterization and in predicting future events since they will help in explaining how people ‗do things with words‘, and what happens when things ‗go wrong‘. Sometimes the speech acts are necessary to encourage immediate physical act. Tan (1998), for example, takes an extract from Alan Ayckbourn‘s The Revengers’ Comedies and explains how the speech act performed by Karen ―help…help‖ resulted in a physical act of rescuing her by Henry.
In plays, when a character talks to another character he partially transits what the writer wants to tell the audience. In this case, the speech of the playwright is reported indirectly, but in most cases when a character embeds the speech of someone else, the quoting of the dialogue in the story will be conducted directly. The structure of the dramatic dialogue will be designed according to the embedded discourses. If it is a normal interaction between two characters, a two-layered discourse will serve the aim, but deviating from this basic form is normal in drama. Stylisticians, linguists and critics who are interested in the study of drama dialogue go beyond the lexical level of analysis and focus on the devices at the level of discourse which help in understanding the messages conveyed by the interactants during the exchange.
Another interesting issue which Short discusses in his essay is co-operative principle in conversation. It is common in conversation to say something but mean
63
something else. For his analysis, he refers to Grice‘s theory (1975). Grice believes that when two people converse, they want to co-operate to achieve their aims and they abide by cooperative principle and its regulative conventions. He calls these conventions maxims, and they constitute part of the framework which will be used for analyzing the texts in this dissertation. The quantity, quality, manner and relation maxims, being studied by many stylisticians who examine dialogues in drama, poetry and fiction, are often broken in conversation because of some reasons like refusing to share information, flouting or exaggerating, but sometimes they are broken intentionally to change the subject or to make certain effects. The maxims, whether flouted or not, are helpful in examining the characters and the relations between them. In the two plays which will be discussed in this thesis, there are many examples of breaking the maxims because the characters always collide. Through this breakage, the nature of the relationships between them will be revealed and detected. Walter Nash in ‗Changing the Guard at Elsinore‘ (1989) studies the opening scene of Shakespeare‘s Hamlet. He examines the extract using three complementary methods of presentation. The first of these is paraphrase; the second, commentary, or line-by-line exposition; and the third, a synopsis couched in terms of pragmatics and discourse analysis. In this part, he explains how language functions and how meanings can be made in dialogues. For his analysis, Nash refers to the elements of sociolinguistics and pragmatics and conducts the study in three steps, the structure of the discourse, speech acts and implicatures, and ‗face‘ and situational power. He believes that the first task of the discourse analyst describing patterns of conversation is to determine their structure as a complex of exchanges minimally represented as I(nitiation) and R(esponse). Recognizing the structure of the discourse is important in many ways. It lets analysts know how many persons are participating in a specific set of exchanges, who initiates and what feedback he receives. The IR structure involves three points, interaction, transactions and exchanges governing the phases of the topic. This hierarchy reveals the social status of the participants, gives clues about the situation in general and also hints to what happens next through the structure of the utterances whether affirmative, imperative or interrogative.
64
The second point to be considered is the verbal actions and implicatures. The characters converse, but what sort of words and sentences they use is the matter of great concern since they affect the shape and management of discourse. The dialogue should be looked at from the speaker‘s and hearer‘s point of view. Regarding the speaker‘s part in the interaction, Mandala explains that Austin and Searle look at the business of communication largely from the speakers‘ perspective, and for the hearer‘s share in the communication, she points out that H. P. Grice observed that people often imply or suggest or mean more than they say and he (1975) ―developed an account of how hearer‘s are able to derive these unsaid meanings. He suggested that such meanings were communicated by the generation of implicatures, and delineated two types, conventional and conversational‖ (Mandala 2007:21).
The nature of the discourse acts (e.g., questions, challenges, nominations, acknowledgements, directives, greetings, leave-takings…etc) are important for the interpretation of the dialogue. The term speech acts is similar to illocutionary acts which refer to the clause structure and different from discourse acts which refer to the structure of the discourse in general. The third point which Nash focuses on in this extract is the position of the characters whether they are master of the situation. In certain cases, the participants face threatening acts if they do not know how to behave or tell the addressee to do what they want them to do. Whether the speaker expects negative face threatening acts or positive face threatening acts depends on how he speaks. This issue is discussed in detail by Paul Simpson in the same collection. Simpson in ‗Politeness Phenomena in Ionesco‘s The Lesson‘ (1989) analyses politeness phenomena aiming at revealing the social relationships between the characters. He bases his study on the concept of face, which is central to the Brown and Levinson‘s notion of politeness phenomena. As described by Simpson, ―face is seen as a kind of public ‗self-image‘ which speakers in a society claim for themselves‖ (1989:170). It is previously illustrated that when people speak, they perform some actions. These actions may threaten the face of the addressee and Simpson calls them ―face threatening acts (FTAs)‖. To avoid such threats, the characters can speak politely. Besides going off-record or on-record, there are other ways which can soften or weaken the impact of an FTA like (hedge, indicate
65
pessimism, minimize the imposition, indicate deference, apologize, impersonalize, acknowledge the debt). FTAs can help in comprehending the relationships between the characters. Simpson (1989) explains that there are various ways of performing FTAs, depending on, amongst other things, the context of interaction, the social relationship of the speakers and the amount of imposition which the FTA entails.
If politeness is important to know the social relations between the characters, the study of impoliteness is also necessary to indicate the nature of the relations. Culpeper (1998) suggests that, in dramatic terms, impoliteness is particularly interesting as it generates the disharmony and conflict between characters which generates audience interest and often moves the plot forward.
Culpeper (1998:86) states:
In drama, impoliteness is not thrown in haphazardly for audience entertainment: it serves other purposes. Conflict in interaction appears either as a symptom, or as a cause of, social disharmony, and where there are tensions between characters we are more likely to see developments in character and plot. Culpeper‘s comments about impoliteness in conversation reveal that when two people are involved in a conversation, their talks will be affected by the context. Impoliteness phenomena can easily be seen in the two plays which are studied in this thesis because the characters are not in good terms and there is conflict between them. The playwrights exploit impoliteness to demonstrate the discordance between the individuals. Modern drama mostly depends on verbal actions to achieve certain purposes and even the conflicts and arguments between the characters are expressed through words. In this regard, modern playwrights exploit the politeness and impoliteness spectrum for literary purposes. The analysts also focus attention on the situations in which the characters are unnecessarily polite or impolite and when they are superficially polite, especially in praising. The analysis of politeness and impoliteness is an attempt to explain how the interactants manipulate their messages to support face or to attack face. When individuals talk to each other, they are enacting
66
exchanges, and these exchange phenomena can be thought of as predominantly either mental or physical. Bedsides politeness and impoliteness, there are of course many other techniques which can be used in the application of stylistic analysis to drama texts to understand how the interactions or exchanges are organized to show the progress of characterization and plot.
In the works reviewed here, the stylisticians explore the interactional language and the extracts which are studied are dialogues between two characters, but Peter K.W. Tan (1993) applies stylistic analysis in a different way. He discusses language of the play at two levels: interactional and transactional. He follows Burtonian method which is the study of the micro-features of a text such as cooperative principle and politeness phenomena, but at the same time he develops a method to conduct macroanalysis through which he explores the transactional language and focuses attention on parody and intertextuality. Tan (1993:26) writes ―in so far as any stylistic methodology has been developed specifically for the analysis of drama texts, these have emphasized the interactional function of language‖. He explains that the transactional function of language is also important for the study of drama dialogue. In ―A Stylistics of Drama: with special focus on Stoppard’s Travesties‖ (1993), Tan develops a new model of analysis which is the study of the transactional language. He discusses that the interactional function of language which expresses the relationship between the interlocutors and the transactional function of language which gives emphasis to the content-bearing role of language both are significant and necessary for the study of drama text. In other words, the micro-analysis which is related to the relationship between the characters on one hand and the relationship between author and audience/reader on the other and the macro-analysis which is related to the general discourse structure of the play are to be conducted to understand the messages conveyed by the playwright. The rationale of Tan‘s model lays in the fact that there may be instances in plays that are not interaction between two characters such as monologue, epilogue and soliloquy. In such cases, language is transactional which means language carries or transacts meaning. These instances will play vital roles in detecting future events, to understand the psychological condition of the characters and to comprehend the
67
hidden messages. These techniques are used by the playwrights for various purposes. Sanger in The Language of Drama (2001) highlights some features related to the interactional and transactional functions of language that can be studied to understand language in a text-play and to find out how meanings are made by the stylistic devices. Regarding the significance of soliloquy in drama, he gives this comment.
Sanger (2001:44) writes down:
This unique dramatic device allows the character to detail their innermost thoughts, revealing more than could be gathered from the action of the play alone. It‘s as if we are eavesdropping on them talking to themselves; they might be making some kind of statement or engaging in an internal debate. Sanger‘s (2001) comment clarifies that readers can understand the characters better when they are talking to themselves because in that case the character‘s inner self speaks and discloses what is hidden in his mind. To study the two forms of language, interactional and transactional, Tan conducts the analysis of Travesties according to the micro and macro features. Regarding the micro-analysis, he focuses on the pragmatic devices such as speech acts, cooperative principle and politeness phenomena and for the macro-analysis, he deals with intertextuality and parody. Commenting about Stoppard, Tan observes ―in his so-called Theatre of Ideas, parody is a useful technique in presenting or dramatizing a position or a stance‖ (1993:164). In the stylistic analysis of Travesties, Tan shows how the aforementioned theoretical framework can be applied to a single text, especially a play like Stoppard‘s because it contains instances of interactional and transactional language and different types of discourse. Although Tan has looked at something new in his analysis and proved that the analysis of text plays is not only the exploration of the micro features of the text, there are many other things that can be discussed stylistically, especially the literary features such as plot structure, themes, characters, genre and style.
Simpson (1997), like other discourse analysts including Deirdre Burton, Mick Short, Michael Toolan and Ronald Carter, investigates the structure of verbal interaction and assesses some of the strategies that speakers and hearers use in
68
conversation and are drawn from pragmatics. He examines the structure of dialogue and how meanings can be brought out of the speakers‘ utterances. For this purpose, he studies speech acts, the opening, supporting and challenging moves, maxims and relevance, politeness phenomena and face threatening acts. To show how these devices work in drama dialogue, he borrows an excerpt from Edward Albee‘s The Zoo Story. The extract is the opening scene of the play. He explains how interaction, transactions and exchanges occur between the participants, how challenging moves hold the conversation and how the maxims are violated. Other analysts like Thornborrow and Wareing (1998) examine devices like pauses, turn-taking, Repetition and recycling, unclear speech and so on to depict how stylistics can deal with dramatic texts as conversation in which a lot of information is given through intonation and non-verbal communication. Some of the analysts also pay close attention to sentence structure and how certain meanings are made through foregrounding and through violation of grammatical rules.
This brief review about the application of stylistic analysis to text plays shows that almost all the critics and stylisticians prefer studying drama at the level of discourse which refers to the structure and function of language beyond the level of the sentence. They focus on the models that cover both the structure of discourse and the strategies speakers use in discourse. These models are drawn from that branch of discourse analysis called pragmatics, which is primarily concerned with the meaning of language in context, but there are still obvious absences in the field which needs to be filled. Most of the books or essays reviewed here focus attention on one aspect of the excerpt and they do not show the importance of that passage to the play in general and they do not also explain whether the whole play is structured in that way or the language or the tone shifts from one moment to another. They do not do these things because their aim is very limited; they attempt to show how a single linguistic, pragmatic or stylistic feature, for example; speech acts, phatic communion, turntaking, politeness, adjacency pair and so on, works in that part of the play. So stylistic analysis to an entire play is necessary to figure out how the interactions between the characters are ordered from the start to the end and how language is used to direct the course of the dialogues to achieve the aims.
69
2.7
PRAGMATIC STYLISTICS IN APPLICATION
Walter Nash (1989) examines the opening scene of Shakespeare‘s Hamlet, using three complementary methods of presentation: paraphrase, commentary, and pragmatics and discourse analysis. In his analysis, under the subhead of ‗Speech acts and Implicature,‘ he studies the excerpt according to the speech acts and implicatures to show how language functions in formal situations. He states that the utterances are not only propositional (statements or descriptions), but they have other functions (questions, directives, interruption, resumption, closure). These functions are known to be illocutions which include forms of words marking a performance, an announcement, an agreement, a promise, a contract, a verdict and so on. The common property of these interactional strategies is that they express or imply different kinds of meaning. The extract is twenty-nine lines and he concludes that there are nine utterances which can be interpreted as propositional and twenty-three discourse acts, i.e. questions, challenges, nominations, acknowledgements, directives, expressions of courtesy, greetings and leave-takings are performed. Of the items listed here, four come under the heading of ‗questions‘, and four are directives, leaving no less than fifteen in the remaining categories of ‗challenge‘, ‗password‘, ‗nominate‘, ‗acknowledge‘, ‗thank‘, ‗greet‘, ‗take leave‘. After a general description of the scene, Nash starts line-by-line analysis; some of his comments related to this research will be highlighted here. In lines (4 and 5): (Francisco) Bernardo? (nominates(?) 4 (Bernardo) He. (acknowledges (?) 5 Bernardo‘s answer is not a clear acknowledgement, but pragmatically it is since Bernardo‘s ‗He‘ is a verbal gesture equivalent to ‗Yes‘ or ‗Here‘. Almost certainly the speaker does not intend the proposition ‗My name is Bernardo‘. Another ambiguous example is in Horatio‘s speech in:
(Horatio) Friends to this ground. (password) 16 (Marcellus) And liegemen to the Dane. (password) 17
70
Horatio‘s utterance is discursively ambivalent by comparison with Marcellus‘s. The latter reads straight-forwardly as a password, but Horatio‘s speech might be interpreted as compromise between a password and a proposition, for example, ‗We are your friends‘. It is Horatio‘s first utterance, and its ambivalent status—the very fact that we do not know whether he is attempting a password or answering a civil question—marks him out. There is also another utterance which is somehow dubious. (Francisco) I think I hear them. 15 The speech is uncertainly poised between proposition (i.e. as statement) and performative (i.e. the act of announcing). Nash further explains that the utterances both conceal and convey implicatures. For example, ‗You come most carefully upon your hour‘ involves the meaning ‗You don‘t usually come so promptly‘, and hence is a kind of discourse act, ‗Why are you so punctual?‘; similarly, ―Tis now struck twelve‘ involves ‗I should have been here before now‘, ‗I‘m not all that punctual‘, and interpreted thus is the corrective response to a question. When Francisco says ‗Not a mouse stirring‘, his reply implicates the possible stirring of something rather more consequential than a mouse. And when Bernardo declares ‗I have seen nothing‘, he frames a proposition that is strictly true, with implicatures that are perversely misleading. Nash‘s analysis of the extract according to Searle‘s speech act theory and Grice‘s theory of implicature is summed up in the following two tables. Table 2.1 Study of the Speech Acts in Hamlet‘s opening scene by Nash (1989)
Categories Representative
Speech Acts
No.
Directive
Acknowledge, answer 4 (password) challenge, command, question 11
Commissive Expressive
-----------------------thank, greet, leave-taking,
--8
Declaration
Nominate
2
Examples He, Long live the King Who‘s there?, Nay, answer me, get thee to bed, Have you had quiet guard? Stand, who.., what… -------------------For this relief much thanks, good-night, Holla. Bernardo? Holla! Bernardo!
71
In these examples, though the speakers use indirect speech acts, the maxims are observed because the characters know each other and depending on their background knowledge about each other and about the circumstance, they understand the implied meanings. Table 2.2 Study of Implicatures in Hamlet‘s opening scene by Nash (1989)
Utterances
Implied Meaning
Maxims
You come most carefully upon your hour.
- You don‘t usually come so promptly. - Why are you so punctual?
observed
Tis now struck twelve.
I should have been here before now. - I‘m not all that punctual.
observed
Something is stirring and it is not a mouse.
observed
Not a mouse stirring
Herman (1995:204) takes an extract from Arnold Wesker‘s play Chicken Soup with Barley (1958) to study locutionary and illocutionary acts in order to show the cooperation between the characters. The extract is a conversation between Sarah (wife) and Harry (husband). The extract is: Sarah: (from the Kitchen) You took the children to Lottie‘s? Harry: (taking up book to read) I took them. Sarah: They didn‘t mind? Harry: No, they didn‘t. Sarah: Is Hymie coming? Harry: I don‘t know.
72
In her analysis, Herman argues that Sarah and Harry in the opening exchanges play question/answer sequences in harmonious fashion: Sarah questions, Harry answers in adjacency pair mode. Pragmatically, Sarah‘s interrogatives can be interpreted as speech act requests for information which Harry interprets as such and responds to accordingly. This possibility is induced since Sarah‘s utterances are hybrid; they are formed as statements but end with question marks. Only in her third turn, she uses interrogative form. As requests, the focus is on her illocutionary desire to know the required information. In similar vein, Harry‘s answers invoke the related attitude of belief in what he says, which Sarah accepts as the truth of the case at any rate. The utterances are simple and the illocutionary acts are achieved as desired. The felicity conditions are satisfied and no maxims are violated. In terms of speech acts, the explanation shows that Sarah uses ―directives‖ and she makes requests (illocutionary act) to get Harry to give information (perlocutionary effect). The intended perlocutionary effect and the actual illocutionary effect are the same, and Harry‘s cooperation is apparent. Though Harry in his second turn echoes what Sarah said, but the tautology is not boring and cannot be regarded as violation of the quantity maxim; and his last turn he gives a brief answer as he is careful not to violate quality maxim. Heeding to the conversational maxims is summarized as such. Table 2.3 Study of the Conversational Maxims in Wesker‘s Chicken Soup with Barley by Herman (1995)
Utterances
Maxims
Status
S: You took the children to Lottie‘s? H: I took them
- quantity, quality, relation, manner
observed
S: They didn‘t mind? H: No, they didn‘t mind
quantity, quality, relation, manner
observed
S: Is Hymie coming? H: I don‘t know
quantity, quality, relation, manner
observed
73
Another study is conducted by Mick Short (1996:200) in which he deals with conversational dialogues in drama and also in fiction according to the speech acts and the cooperative principle and implicatures (ibid. 372). To show how the speech acts function in dialogue, Short takes an extract from a sketch by Harold Pinter ―Trouble in the Works‖. The conversation takes place in a factory between Fibbs who seems to be the boss and Wills, a worker. From the stage direction (An office in the factory. Mr. Fibbs at the desk. A knock at the door. Enter Mr. Wills) and the utterances, it can be concluded that Fibbs holds a higher position although the identity of the characters is not specifically known.
Fibbs: Ah, Wills. Good. Come in. Sit down, will you? Wills: Thanks Mr. Fibbs. Fibbs: You got my message? Wills: I just got it. Fibbs: Good. Good. Pause Good. Well now… Have a cigar? Wills: No, thanks, not for me Mr. Fibbs. Fibbs: Well now. Wills, I hear there‘s been a little trouble in the factory.
The speech acts show the power relation between the two characters. In this extract, Fibbs seems to be in total control of the situation, but the power shifts later at the end of the sketch. In his first utterance (Ah, Wills. Good. Come in. Sit down, will you?‖, Fibbs performs commands (Come in. Sit down) which clearly indicates masterservant relationship and when Wills immediately (thanks) obeys, the assumption becomes stronger. Fibbs‘s next turn (You got my message?‖ contains more information about his rank. The question shows that he has already sent after Wills to come and see him, and Wills‘s coming guarantees that he has done his bidding, and this is evaluated by Fibbs (Good). In speech act terms, the sentences‘ declarative structure in combination with a question mark makes it look like a hybrid between a statement and a question. Wills‘s coming indicates the declarative case, but Fibbs‘s use of the question mark shows that he is not sure of himself and he wants to make sure before saying anything else since Wills may have come for something else.
74
Another hybrid utterance is Fibbs‘s (Sit down, will you?‖. The first part is like a command, but the interrogative tag edges it toward being a more polite request or suggestion. Fibbs‘s utterance (Have a cigar?) moves away a little further the straightforward dominating-dominated relationship. The sentence is imperative in structure, but it is an offer not a command. Though Wills obeys the previous commands, he rejects this one (no, thanks…). Fibbs continuously evaluates Wills‘s actions positively (good), and thus he minimizes any possibility of disagreement between them. Short states that Fibbs uses this strategy since he cannot directly talk about the issue for which he called Wills and his use of the filler (well now) twice at the beginning of his speech acts strengthens this possibility. He concludes that the relationship between the characters is complex and the speech acts and other language features used by them (particularly Fibbs) clearly present this fact. Fibbs relationship with Wills does not appear to be a straightforward master-servant one, the conversation is mainly related to the trouble mentioned in the last line of the extract (I hear, there’s being a little trouble in the factory). Fibbs uses (3) directives, (1) offer and (1) representative; and Wills uses (2) expressives and (1) representative speech acts. The speech acts, using Searle‘s theory, in the conversation between Fibbs and Wills can be diagrammed in this table. Table 2.4 Study of the Speech Acts in Pinter‘s Trouble in the Works by Short (1996)
Categories
Speech Acts
No.
Representative
Answer, assert
3
Directive
command, question
Commissive
offer
1
Have a cigar?
Expressive
thank
2
Thanks, no thanks
Declaration
---------------------
---
------------------------
request,
3
Examples
I just got it, no …, I hear… Come in; sit down, got my message?
75
Short also uses the cooperative principle strategy to study dialogue in fiction and he selects an extract from a short story by Somerset Maugham ―The Force of Circumstances (1928). The conversation is between Guy (an English man) and his wife (Doris). The topic of the talk is the Malay woman who visited Guy‘s house this morning holding a child in her arms. Doris has no idea about who the woman is, but she has doubt and thus she asks Guy questions regarding this, but Guy never gives the required information. In spite of the tension of the scene, they do not interrupt each other, Doris always initiates the conversational exchanges, and Guy responds to defend himself. Only in sentence (13), he initiates as he asks (Why?) Doris most of the time asks questions, but in sentences (20) she uses an indirect command. Throughout Doris controls the topic and Guy consents.
Short argues that the upset between the husband and the wife can be detected through the conversation as the characters use direct speech and with minimal reporting clauses. The reporting clauses have unemotional verbs (asked, answered), and no adjectives and adverbs are used to indicate high emotion. Guy‘s defensive attitude suggests that he has something to hide. Short affirms that this understanding will be easier through Grice‘s theory of inference via conversational maxims. Guy consistently breaks the maxims as he tries to hide the true situation from Doris. When Guy comes in, sad and confused, Doris asks him a question (Guy what on earth‘s the matter?), and Guy replies (Nothing. Why?) Guy apparently violates the quantity and the quality maxim since his answer is not informative and he is lying. It seems that it is not the first time that the Malay woman comes to the house and the child in her arms indicates that Guy is the father. Actually Guy and the Malay woman have three children and when Doris realizes this she goes back to England and Guy reunites with the Malay woman.
In her next turn, Doris tells Guy (the woman was here again this morning). Doris makes this move because she needs explanation about the woman‘s behavior, but again he breaks the maxim of quantity as he gives no information and echoes what Doris already knows. In his next two turns, he also breaks quantity and relation maxims. Though he gives related maxims, he does not explain why he has ordered the boys to remove the lady. When Doris refers to the baby the woman is carrying, Guy
76
makes a big mistake when he refers to the age of the child. This unsought information triggers another question by Doris (How d‘you know?). To avoid answering this question, Guy breaks the maxim of quantity and relation by saying he knows (all about her). The utterance is not an answer to a specific question and economic in information. In replying Doris‘s final question about the woman (What does she want?), Guy again violates the quality and quantity maxims as he utters (she wants to make a disturbance). This answer is not true because the woman does not come to the house repeatedly to make a fuss, and his utterance contains unnecessary reference to the upheaval caused by the woman. Doris realizes the falsity of the reply through her husband‘s utterances as he spoke tersely, he is nervous and irritable.
Short concludes that Guy breaks the conversational maxims unostentatiously in order to hide the truth from his wife. His conversation strategy is not always successful since Doris realizes something is not right, even if she cannot yet arrive at a full understanding of her husband‘s behavior. This analysis is summed up in this table. Table 2.5 Study of the Conversational Maxims in Pinter‘s Trouble in the Works by Short (1996)
Utterances
Maxims
Status
D: what on earth‘s the matter? G: Nothing… D: The woman was here again. G: So I‘ve heard. D: The boys treated her brutally… G: She‘s been told not to come…..she was to be turned out.
quantity, quality
violated
quantity
violated
quantity, manner
violated
D: How d‘you know? G: I know all about her. D: what did she want? G: to make disturbance.
quantity, relation
violated
quality, quantity
violated
77
The diagram shows that Guy violates the maxims deliberately several times: quantity (5), quality (2), manner (1) and relation (1). Quantity maxim is breached more than the other ones since Guy does not want to cooperate and give the exact information Doris wants to know.
The final example which will be taken for this review is the study of conventional implicature considered by Elizabeth Black (2006:28-29). She takes an extract from the end of Hemingway‘s ‗The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber‘. The story tells of a disastrous safari: Macomber runs away from a lion; his wife sleeps with Wilson, the white hunter; finally Macomber regains his courage and is confronting a wounded buffalo when his wife shot at the buffalo . . . as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to one side of the base of his skull (1939/1964: 440). Black argues the narrator is thus committed to the proposition that the shooting of Macomber was an accident. There is a distinction between ‗shooting at‘ (and missing), and ‗shooting‘ (and hitting). She adds ―this is an example of a conventional implicature, which depends upon our knowledge of the grammar of a language‖ (ibid). As Mrs. Macomber weeps, Wilson says: ‗That was a pretty thing to do,‘ he said in a toneless voice. ‗He would have left you too.‘ ‗Stop it,‘ she said. ... ‗There‘s a hell of a lot to be done,‘ he said . . . ‗Why didn‘t you poison him? That‘s what they do in England.‘ ‗Stop it. Stop it. Stop it,‘ the woman cried. ... ‗Oh, please stop it‘, she said. ‗Please, please stop it.‘ ‗That‘s better,‘ Wilson said. ‗Please is much better. Now I‘ll stop.‘ In this short dialogue, Wilson violates the maxim of quality since he did not see what happened (pretty thing to do); nor is he in a position to predict the future (he would have left you too). The maxim of manner is involved too since this is a most inappropriate way to address a widow. Wilson implies that Mrs. Macomber intentional killed her husband, and this is not true because the narrator points out that ‗the hitting‘ was accidental. Besides this fact, Wilson has no evidence for what he says
78
and thus he violates quality maxim. Further, it is also grossly inappropriate to demand politeness, in the manner of a nanny, at such a juncture. The maxim of manner is thus violated throughout. Note that Wilson has no problems with any clash, but is happy to say ‗that for which he lacks adequate evidence‘. The analysis of the dialogue through Grice‘s maxims is presented in this table. Table 2.6 Conversational Maxims and implicatures in Hemingway‘s The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber by Black (2006)
Utterances
Maxims
Status
Implicature
That was a pretty thing to do.
quality, manner
violated
She murdered intentionally.
He would have left you too.
quality, manner
violated
---------------------
That‘s better. Please, is much better.
manner
violated
------------------
him
This short review of some of the studies conducted by scholars to analyze drama dialogues obviously show that the application of the taxonomy of the Speech Acts and the Cooperative Principle and Implicatures achieve interesting results. The characters in the dialogues use language to perform various functions. The types of the speech act they use and observing or infringing the maxims clarify the relationship between the characters and the tensions between them. In Hamlet‘s example, the characters mostly use directives since the situation is formal and the characters are on duty. In Wesker‘s play, Harry is cooperative and answers Sarah‘s question without hesitation. In the extract taken from Somerset Maugham‘s ―The Force of Circumstances”, Guy is completely uncooperative and violates the maxims quiet often as he cannot reveal his relationship with the Malay woman to his wife, Doris, and finally, in Black‘s example Wilson violates the manner and quality maxims as he shows no respect to Mrs. Macomber and accuses her of murdering her husband
79
without having any evidence. This general outline indicates that the application of pragmatic features stylistics such as the speech acts and the cooperative principle and their attached concept will hopefully be successful to study Buried Child and Rabbit Hole.
CHAPTER III 1 2 3
3.1
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This chapter will present the theoretical framework and methodology which frame the analysis conducted in this research, Family Discordance in Modern American Drama: A Pragmatic Stylistic Study of Buried Child and Rabbit Hole.
The research is an attempt in the area of literary stylistics to explore the style and language use in each of these plays to point out how the playwrights depict and criticize the family relations in the American society through manipulating language and diverse stylistic devices. The proposed framework for this study is drawn from the pragmatic models of stylistics which focus attention on language in use. The problem statement showed that the language of the plays has not been studied; therefore, the dialogues occur between the characters are scrutinized according to the speech acts and cooperative principles and implicatures to fill this gap and to show family discordance and the failure of the relationships among the characters.
The research studies dialogue in the selected plays using the pragmatic features of stylistics precisely the speech acts (SPs) and the cooperative principles (CP) and implicatures and the categories attached to these theories. The approaches adopted for conducting the research are the Speech Act Theory developed by Searle (1969, 1975) and H. P. Grice‘s theory of Cooperative Principles and Implicatures (1975). Austin (1962) initiated the speech act theory, but it is described and mentioned here only as a background to the theory. Searle made several changes to the theory; therefore, his principles are applied in this research, not Austin‘s. These approaches focus on how
81
language can be used to achieve different aims in various situations, and they also indicate what meanings speakers attach to their utterance, directly or indirectly. Both theories provide categories and concepts such as the types of speech acts (assertives, directives, commissives, expressives and declaratives) and maxims (quantity, quality, relation and manner).
From the title of the research which concentrates on family discordance, combination of these theories to conduct the research sounds reasonable because the utterances of the characters can be explored according to the basic categories and the concepts of both theories in order to indicate the discordance between them. While communicating, the characters produce various utterances in which they may direct, commit themselves to do something or make declarations; they may address the partner directly or indirectly, and they may satisfy the conversational implicatures or violate them for certain reasons. These cases describe the family relationships and they also show how the tensions between them rise and how the characters attempt to end the disputes. Further, the literature review, Mick Short (1989), Walter Nash (1989), Herman (1995), Paul Simpson (1997-2004), and Elizabeth Black (2006) showed that analyzing fictional and dramatic dialogues according to the speech acts and the conversational maxims and the notion of implicature achieved interesting results and made great contributions to the study of dialogue in literary texts; and even their ideas can be deployed to analyze natural talks in daily conversations.
In this chapter, both theories are identified in depth (Theoretical Framework) and some examples are taken from the studies conducted by scholars to examine drama or fictional dialogue through the application of the speech acts and the conversational maxims to rationalize adopting the theories for this study. Finally, the analytical procedure is explained with tables. In this section, the basic categories of the speech acts and the conversational maxims will be presented in tables and then they will be merged in different tables to show how they elucidate the discordance and the reconciliation between the characters.
82
3.2
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The field of the stylistics of drama is nowadays much concerned with the study of dialogue as discourse. Herman (1995) defines dialogue as a mode of speech exchange among participants, speech in relation to another‘s speech and not merely the verbal expression of one character or actor‘s ‗part‘. This definition shows that dialogue at least needs a situation and two participants whether it is a dialogue between two persons or more in any social context or it is a dialogue between two characters in a play. In both cases, speech is employed for various purposes. They may talk to pass the time, to communicate thoughts or opinions or emotions, to share thoughts, feelings and so on. These facts indicate that while the characters in a play are engaged in a communication, they use different forms of language to convey certain meanings and to make desired effects on the addressees. Thus the study of the speech acts and the maxims of conversation reveal discordance between the characters in Buried child and Rabbit Hole.
3.2.1
Speech Act Theory: Background
The Speech Act Theory, or the theory of meaning, describes and classifies the different kinds of things that people do when they use sentences in actual speech. It attempts to explain how speakers use language to accomplish intended actions and how hearers infer intended meaning from what is said. It was first proposed by Austin in How to do things with Words and its final version was published in 1962. There are several definitions of the speech acts. Austin defines speech acts as the act of uttering a certain sentence in a given context for a determined purpose (1962). Searle (1969:16) defines speech acts as speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as making statements, giving commands, asking questions, making promises, and so on. Bach and Harnish (1979) state that, in general, speech acts are acts of communication. To communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed. Austin (1962) proposed the theory aiming at showing how meaning can be made through using language in context. In this way, it builds a bridge between the
83
philosophical and sociological approaches which deal with meaning-making by using language in context. For Austin, the target of analysis was ―the total speech act in the total speech situation‖ (Austin, 1962, p.148). He starts with making a distinction between constative and performative utterance. Constatives are utterances that can be true or false. Performative utterance indicates that the issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action which means that it is doing something by speaking such as promising, apologizing, threatening, and so on. Performatives are explicit or inexplicit (implicit), felicitous or infelicitous, as such they are not true or false. Austin described explicit and implicit performatives. He thinks that performatives which ―begin with or include some highly significant and unambiguous expression such as 'I bet', 'I promise', 'I bequeath'‖ are explicit since the hearer receives the message clearly. In contrast to this, there are also implicit (or inexplicit as he named them) performative utterances in which the force attached to the utterance is not certain. For example, an utterance like ‗go‘ can be an order or an advice, and ‗There is a bull in the field‘ may or may not be a warning, for the speaker might just be describing the scenery and 'I shall be there' may or may not be a promise (Austin 1962:32-33). If the utterance is not performed correctly, it may not be a performative at all. The performative is felicitous if the felicity conditions are invoked, but if they are ignored, the performative is infelicitous and thus the speaker may not achieve the intended perlocutionary act. For an utterance to be a happy performative or go well, Austin presents six felicity conditions such as: (A. I) There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect, that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances, and further, (A. 2) the particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked. (B. I) The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and (B. 2) completely.
84
(Γ.I) Where, as often, the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts or feelings, or for the inauguration of certain consequential conduct on the part of any participant, then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must in fact have those thoughts or feelings, and the participants must intend so to conduct themselves, and further (Γ. 2) must actually so conduct themselves subsequently. (Austin, 1962: 14-15)
Austin divides the six types into two groups: misfire and abuse. The first four types are called ‗misfire‘ and the affirmatives do not accomplish the external circumstances. The other two types fall under ‗abuse‘ and are related to the internal circumstances. Kevin Halion in his thesis delineates the six types in this way: A. Misfires: Externally Unhappy Utterances.
1- Misinvocations: appropriate act fails conventional criteria. a. Non-Plays: no appropriate convention. b. Misapplications: convention misapplied.
2- Misexecutions: appropriate act rendered defective.
a. Flaws: conventional procedure partly rejected. b. Hitches: conventional procedure not completed.
B. Abuses: Internally Unhappy Utterances.
1. Insincerities: appropriate intention(s) absent. 2. Non-Fulfillments: intention(s) not fully carried out. (Halion, 1989)
Infelicity is a matter of how performative utterances operate in a given context, the total speech act. For a performative to go right, the internal and external circumstances
85
should be taken into account if the participants in a dialogue communicate to achieve certain aims. In the first group, misfire, the act in the performative utterance is not achieved. Austin explains, ―when the utterance is a misfire, the procedure which we purport to invoke is disallowed or is botched and our act is void or without effect‖ (1962:16). For example, the act of marrying is void when a bigamous marries twice. In the case of misexecutions (flaws and hitches) the conventional procedures are not fully carried out. For instance, during the marriage ceremony, if one party says ‗I will‘ and the other says ‗I won‘t‘, then the marriage ceremony is ‗flawed‘. An example of a ‗hitch‘ would be where one offers a bet but it is not accepted by anyone. Here, according to Austin, one has not succeeded in betting because the conventional procedure has not been completed. Regarding abuse, there are two types: insincerities and non-fulfillments. If someone promises but has not intention to keep the promise and does not fulfill the promise, the procedure is abused (Austin, 1962:9-11).
Instead of making further distinction between saying something (constative) and doing something (performative) by the use of language, Austin made three rough distinctions between the phonetic act, the phatic act, and the rhetic act. -
The phonetic act is merely the act of uttering certain noises.
-
The phatic act is the uttering of certain vocables or words, i.e. noises of certain types, belonging to and as belonging to, a certain vocabulary, conforming to and as conforming to a certain grammar.
-
The rhetic act is the performance of an act of using those vocables with a certain more-or-less definite sense and reference.
(Austin, 1962, 95)
According to this distinction, when someone says something he or she is involved in three acts: the locutionary act (phonetic act), the illocutionary act (phatic act) and the perlocutionary act (rhetic act). A locutionary act is the production of a well-formed utterance; the illocutionary act is the meaning one intends to communicate; the perlocutionary act is the effect of our words on the hearer.
86
The types or locutionary act are many. These include: asking or answering a question, giving some information or an assurance or a warning, announcing a verdict or an intention, pronouncing sentence, making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism, and making an identification or giving a description, and etc. (Austin, 1962: 99).
In direct speech act, the speaker produces an utterance to achieve an aim and wants to know the effect of his speech on the addressee. This extract from Sam Shepard‘s Buried Child explains how the characters are engaged in the three acts when they argue about a milking stool. The dialogue is between the father, Dodge, and his son, Tilden.
Tilden:
I‘ll stay in my chair.
Dodge:
That‘s not a chair. That‘s my old milking stool.
Tilden:
I Know.
Dodge:
Don‘t call it a chair.
Tilden:
I won‘t. (Tilden tries to take Dodge‘s baseball cap off.)
(Shepard, p.38-9)
When Dodge says, ―Don‘t call it a chair‖ 1- he produces a well-formed directive sentence (locutionary act); 2- he orders Tilden to call the subject a ―milking stool‖ (illocutionary act); and 3- He persuades Tilden not to call the milking stool a chair (perlocutionary act). In this extract, Dodge wants his property to be named as it is and he orders Tilden to call it a milking stool not a chair, and Tilden agrees. When Dodge achieves his aim, then they shift the topic from milking stool to Dodge‘s baseball cap.
Austin makes some general comments on the three classes in this way:
The use of language for arguing or warning is similar to its use for persuading, rousing, alarming; yet the former is conventional since it can be made explicit by the performative formula; but the latter cannot. The speaker can say 'I argue that' or 'I warn you that' but he cannot say 'I convince you that' or 'I alarm you that'.
87
The expression use of language can cover other matters even more diverse than the illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. For example, the poetical use of language is different from the use of language in poetry.
When the speaker does something in saying something, the act may not fall exactly into the defined classes, or it may fall vaguely into more than one. For example, insinuating something in or by issuing some utterances seems to involve some convention, as in the illocutionary act; but the speaker cannot say 'I insinuate‘ as implying is a clever effect rather than a mere act.
The act of doing something (i.e. achieving something) must be distinguished from the act of attempting to do something, for example, distinctions between warning and attempting to warn should be made. Here infelicities are expected.
Distinction between producing effects or consequences which are intended or unintended is a must. When the speaker intends to produce an effect it may not occur, and when he does not intend to produce it, it may occur. This is a complexity within illocutionary force which is related to the actual illocutionary force on the hearer and the speaker‘s intended illocutionary force.
When the speaker says something, the act may be something he does not exactly do since he may do it under pressure or in any other such way.
In an utterance, the illocutionary act may be different from the perlocutionary act when the notion of the act is unclear by a general doctrine about action. An 'act' as a fixed physical thing that the speaker does is distinguished from conventions and consequences, but both the illocutionary act and the locutionary act may involve conventions, and the perlocutionary act may include consequences. (Austin, 1962:103-107)
Austin classifies the speech acts into five categories:
(I) Verdictives. (2) Exercitives.
88
(3) Commissives. (4) Behabitives (a shocker this). (5) Expositives. (Austin, 1962:150)
1- Verdictives consist in the delivering of a finding, official or unofficial, upon evidence or reasons as to value or fact, so far as these are distinguishable. Examples of verdictives are: acquit, assess, call (by an umpire or referee), certify, convict, grade, judge, rank, rate, analyze, characterize and rule. They have the illocutionary force of issuing a judgment. Verdictives have obvious connections with truth and falsity as regards soundness and unsoundness or fairness and unfairness. Verdictives have an effect in the law on us and on others. The giving of a verdict or an estimate commits us to certain future conduct. For instance, when the speaker says 'I interpret', 'I describe', this, he is to give a verdict. 2- An exercitive is ―the giving of a decision in favour of or against a certain course of action, or advocacy of it. It is a decision that ―something is to be so, as distinct from a judgment that it is so‖. Its consequences may be that others are 'compelled' or 'allowed' or 'not allowed' to do certain acts. It is a very wide class; examples are: dismiss, degrade, name, order, recommend, claim, give, resign, advise, urge, proclaim, choose, request and warn. For example, 'I award' and 'I absolve' are exercitives based on verdicts. 3- Commissives are speech acts which commit the speaker to a certain course of action. Examples include: promise, shall, declare, intend, vow, pledge, contract, engage, swear, and bet. For instance, an utterance like this ―I promise to come‖ does commit the speaker to come.
4- Behabitives include the notion of reaction to other people's behaviour and fortunes and of attitudes and expressions of attitudes to someone else's past conduct or imminent conduct. Examples are: apologize, thank, deplore, commiserate, congratulate, condole, compliment, resent, felicitate, welcome, applaud, criticize, curse, dare, defy, protest, challenge, and demur.
89
5- Expositives are used in acts of exposition involving the expounding of views, the conducting of arguments, and the clarifying of usages and references. Examples include: affirm, deny, state, describe, class, identify, emphasize, report, accept, agree, testify, inform, object to, revise, remark, tell, answer, and withdraw.
Austin argues that prescribing the actions under a certain category is not clear cut since some actions may change their class if used in certain ways. Consequently, he elucidates that (analyze, class, interpret) are examples may well be taken as verdictives which involve exercise of judgment; concede, urge, argue, and insist are good examples of exercitives which involve exertion of influence or exercise of powers; define, agree, accept, maintain, support, testify and swear can well be taken as commissives which involve assuming an obligation; examples which may well be taken as behabitives are: demur, boggle at, which involve adopting an attitude or expressing a feeling; and examples of expositives include: state, affirm, deny, emphasize, illustrate, and answer. Austin sums up the five classes as such: the verdictive is an exercise of judgment, the exercitive is an assertion of influence or exercising of power, the commissive is an assuming of an obligation or declaring of an intention, the behabitive is the adopting of an attitude, and the expositive is the clarifying of reasons, arguments, and communications.
3.2.2 The Speech Acts Theory of Searle
The Speech Act Theory is further considered and developed by John R. Searle in Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language (1969). Searle based his theory on Austin‘s theoretical framework. He claims that speaking a language is engaging in a rule-governed form of behavior, and thus talking is performing acts according to rules. Searle agrees that when producing an utterance, the speaker is involved in some acts and he categorizes them as: utterance act (uttering words), propositional act (reference and prediction), illocutionary act (ordering, questioning…etc.), and then he attaches perlocutionary act to the three types of acts the interlocutors are engaged in which may be (persuading, scaring, alarming…etc.). These types of speech acts are interrelated and work together.
90
According to Searle, the basic categories of the speech acts are: 1- Utterance act: It is somehow similar to Austin‘s locutionary act which is related to producing a well-formed sentence. The focus here is on the spoken words not on their meanings and anticipations. Utterance acts consist simply in uttering strings of words. Example of this category can be any meaningful sentence.
2- Propositional act: It is an abstraction from the total illocutionary act. The characteristic grammatical form of the propositional acts is parts of sentences: grammatical predicates for the act of predication, and proper names, pronouns, and certain other sorts of noun phrases for reference. The propositional act may refer or describe a real or an imaginary object, and it may be a phrase not a sentence. For instance, in ‗the red apple‘, the speaker refers to a particular object (apple), and he designs a particular property (red).
3- Illocutionary act: The characteristic grammatical form of the illocutionary act is the complete sentence (it can be a one-word sentence). The illocutionary act usually contains a propositional act, referring to things, but not always. Illocutionary act is what is done in uttering the sentence; the function of the word and the speaker‘s intentions are significant. For example, the utterance ―I swear to pay you back‖, is used to perform the illocutionary act of promising.
4- Perlocutionary act: It is what is done by uttering the word. It is related to the effect of the utterance on the listener and the listener‘s reaction. Perlocutionary utterance includes propositions which intend to interact with the listener and produces changes in him. For example, the utterance ―there is a snake in the room‖ may cause the listener to be scared and to run. The perlocution of this utterance is to cause such emotions and action. Searle‘s four categories of the speech acts can be diagrammed as such.
91
Table 3.1 The Speech Acts Model of Searle
Categories
Definition
Examples
Utterance Act
strings of words
Please, open the door.
Propositional Act
reference to object in the world
the door
Illocutionary Act
speaker‘s intention to interact with hearer
S makes the illocutionary act of request. * illocutionary force of prediction * the hearer will open the door
the effect on hearer and reaction
S gets H to open the door
* Illocutionary Force * Propositional Content Perlocutionary Act
the his
S= Speaker H= Hearer
To clarify what a speaker does with language while stating a sentence, Searle (1969:22) gives an example. Suppose that in appropriate circumstances the speaker utters one of the following sentences: 1. Sam smokes habitually. 2. Does Sam smoke habitually? 3. Sam, smoke habitually! 4. Would that Sam smoked habitually.
In uttering each of these sentences, the speaker says something. In uttering 1 the speaker is making an assertion, in 2 asking a question, in 3 giving an order, and in 4 expressing a wish or desire. In the performance of each of these four different acts the speaker performs certain other acts which are common to all four: in uttering any of these the speaker refers to or mentions or designates a certain object Sam, and he predicates the expression "smokes habitually‖ (or one of its inflections) of the object referred to. Under the general heading of speech acts, these acts can be named: (a) Uttering words as performing utterance acts (E); (b) Referring (R) and predicating as
92
performing propositional acts (P); (c) Stating, questioning, commanding, promising, etc as performing illocutionary acts (F).
Searle does not deal with locutionary acts independently as Austin did. He argues that illocutionary acts and locutionary acts have a complementary relationship.
Searle (1969:25) writes down:
Correlated with the notion of illocutionary acts is the notion of the consequences or effects such acts have on the actions, thoughts, or beliefs, etc. of hearers. For example, by arguing I may persuade or convince someone, by warning him I may scare or alarm him, by making a request I may get him to do something, by informing him I may convince him (enlighten, edify, inspire him, get him to realize). The italicized expressions above denote perlocutionary acts.
Searle‘s view clarifies that the effects which the speaker creates on the hearer by uttering a sentence is the perlocutionary act and it is attached to the illocutionary act, all the illocutionary acts may not have perlocutionary acts. When people produce an utterance, they usually intend to interact with the listeners (illocutionary act) and they also want to get their attentions (make effects on them), but sometimes the effect will not occur as wished by the speaker. In such cases, the intended and the actual perlocutionary effects will not match. While dining, if the speaker tells someone on the same table ―could you please pass the salt?‖, he can get him/her to pass the salt, and thus he achieved the intended illocutionary force, but every communication will not go like this and the effect may not be gained, especially if the interactants ignore the felicity (happiness) conditions. Illocutionary point is internal to the type of illocutionary act, which means that a successful performance of an act of that type necessarily achieves that purpose. This example from The American Dream by Edward Albee supports this possibility.
Mommy Grandma, go get Mrs. Baker a glass of water.
93
Grandma Go get it yourself. I quit.
(Albee, p. 93)
Mommy wants to get Grandma bring the glass of water for the guest (intended perlocutionary effect), but this effect is not obtained since Grandma takes the utterance as a direct order as Mommy does not show any sign of request like using model auxiliaries such as (would, could) and thus the utterance induces stubbornness in Grandma and gets her to go out instead of bringing the glass of water (actual perlocutionary effect). This table shows the intended and the actual perlocutionary effects achieved by the speech act (illocutionary force) in the above dialogue.
Table 3.2 Differences between intended and actual perlocutionary effects.
Illocutionary force
Order (can be a request)
Intended effect
To get Grandma fetch a glass of water
Actual effect
Grandma gets angry and quits
Regarding prediction and referring, Searle argues that prediction raises the question of the truth of the predicate expression of the object referred to and can be done by using different expressions. He disagrees with the philosophers who say prediction occurred only in assertion. He elucidates that predictions can occur in all kinds of illocutionary acts. Referring means ―any expression which serves to identify any thing, process, event, action, or any other kind of' individual' or 'particular'‖. Referring expressions point to particular things; they answer the questions "Who?" "What?" "Which?" It is by their function, not always their function, that referring expressions are to be known (Searle, 1969:27).
Searle claims that propositional acts are not illocutionary acts, and he adds a proposition is to be sharply distinguished from an assertion or statement of it since stating and asserting are acts, but propositions are not acts. A proposition is what is asserted in the act of asserting, what is stated in the act of stating. Propositional acts
94
cannot occur alone which means the speaker cannot just express a proposition while doing nothing else. For example, clauses beginning with "that. . . ", which are a characteristic form for explicitly isolating propositions, are not complete sentences. When a proposition is expressed it is always expressed in the performance of an illocutionary act. It does not mean all illocutionary acts have a propositional content, for example, an utterance of "Hurrah" does not, nor does" Ouch". Illocutionary force indicating devices in English include at least: word order, stress, intonation contour, punctuation, the mood of the verb, and the so-called performative verbs. To explain the rule –governed hypothesis of language, he starts with a distinction between what he calls regulative and constitutive rules. Regulative rules ―regulate antecedently or independently existing forms of behaviour‖ but constitutive rules ―do not merely regulate, they create or define new forms of behavior‖ (Searle, 1969:33). According to Searle, regulative rules characteristically take the form of or can be paraphrased as imperatives, but some constitutive rules take quite a different form. Searle believes that most kinds of illocutionary acts are rule governed. He argues constitutive rules are of primary importance to the philosophy of language.
Searle (1969:37) states:
The semantic structure of a language may be regarded as a conventional realization of a series of sets of underlying constitutive rules, and that speech acts are acts characteristically performed by uttering expressions in accordance with these sets of constitutive rules.
According to Searle, these rules clarify how the speaker performs the speech act and what aims and effects are obtained. The rules are related to the communicative context as a whole which include the speaker, the hearer and the circumstances. As noted by Searle, ―speaking a language is engaging in a rule-governed form of behavior‖ (1969:41). Since language behavior is rule governed, people should perform only the speech acts that they can do; otherwise, the acts will not succeed. People may not be aware of what the conventions or rules are. Searle, therefore, proposed four felicity conditions to explain the rule-governed conventions with regard to people‘s
95
speech act performance. He argues that speech acts cannot be true or false, but they can be successful or unsuccessful. For a speech act to be successful, any utterance should satisfy certain rules known as felicity or appropriateness conditions. These rules are proposed to distinguish a successful utterance from an infelicitous utterance. Austin also talked about felicity conditions, but Searle refined Austin‘s set of felicity conditions, calling the fulfillment condition ‗essential condition‘ and introducing a ‗propositional content condition‘, which substitutes the executive condition. The rules or the felicity conditions are classified as:
1) The propositional content conditions. 2) The preparatory conditions. 3) The sincerity conditions. 4) The essential conditions. 1- The propositional content conditions focus only upon the textual content. They are related to reference and prediction. The propositional content refers to a future act in the sentence the speaker utters. For example, when the speaker ―promises to help his friend in the exam‖, he must have the capacity to do the action.
2- The preparatory conditions. They are related to the social status and background knowledge of the speaker and the hearer. For a speech act not to misfire or to be felicitous, these conditions must be obtained. For example, the speaker cannot give a property to someone else if he already does not possess it or if legally he does not have the power to do so.
3- The sincerity conditions. These are related to the psychological condition of the speaker. Many speech acts involve the expression of a psychological state. Assertion expresses belief; apology expresses regret, a promise expresses an intention, and so on. The speaker must have certain beliefs and intentions when he performs a particular speech act. For example, when the speaker promises, he must have the intention to keep his promise. The speech act is not sincere if the speaker is not really and truly in the psychological state his speech act expresses.
96
4- The essential conditions. They focus upon the illocutionary point and tell what the action consists in. For instance, each type of illocution has a point or purpose which is internal to its being an act of that type. The point of statements and descriptions is to tell people how things are, the point of promises and vows is to commit the speaker to doing something and the point of orders and commands is to try to get people to do things. Here the speaker intends that his utterance will count as a promise, and the hearer should be informed of that intention.
To sum up the four appropriateness conditions, it can be said that the propositional content rules focus only on the textual content; the preparatory condition focuses on the background circumstances; the sincerity conditions focus upon the speaker‘s psychological state; and the essential rules focus on the illocutionary point of what is said. Each one of these conditions is related to different aspects of the utterance and they should be in place for an utterance to function properly as a particular speech act. They support the speaker to perform a felicitous act; if one of them is violated, the performance will misfire or fail. Searle is not satisfied with Austin‘s taxonomy of the speech acts since he believes that Austin confused illocutionary verbs with the illocutionary acts. Searle in ―A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts‖, states that ―illocutions are a part of language as opposed to particular languages. Illocutionary verbs are always part of a particular language‖ (1975a:345). He argues that differences in illocutionary verbs are a sure guide to differences in illocutionary acts. Searle sees that there are at least (12) dimensions of variations in which illocutionary acts differ one from another. His taxonomy of the speech acts are mainly based on first three aspects which include:
1- Differences in the point (or purpose) of the (type of) act. The point of an order is an attempt to get the hearer to do something; the purpose of a description is the representation (true or false, accurate or inaccurate) of how something is; and the point of a promise is an undertaking of an obligation by the speaker to do something. The illocutionary point is not the same as the illocutionary force, but it is a part of it. Requests and commands have the same purpose (to get someone to do something), but the illocutionary forces are quite different.
97
2- Differences in the direction of fit between words and the world. Some speech acts try to get the words (their propositional content) match the world while others try to get the world match the words. Statements, assertions, descriptions and explanations do word-to-world direction of fit; and requests, commands, vows and promises do world-to-word direction of fit. Direction of fit is always a consequence of illocutionary point.
3- Differences in expressed psychological states. In the performance of any illocutionary act with a propositional content, the speaker expresses some attitude, state, etc., to that propositional content, whether he is sincere or not. Even if he does not have the belief, desire, intention, regret, or pleasure he expresses, he nonetheless expresses the belief, desire, intention, regret, or pleasure in the performance of the speech act. The psychological state expressed in the performance of the illocutionary act is the sincerity condition of the act (ibid. p.347). The other (9) aspects in which the speech acts may differ are presented here briefly:
4- Differences in the force or strength with which the illocutionary point is presented. Both ―I suggest we go to the movies‖ and ―I insist that we go to the movies‖ have the same illocutionary point, but it is presented with different strengths.
5- Differences in the status or position of the speaker and hearer as these bear on the illocutionary force of the utterance. If the general asks the private to clean up the room, it is an order, but if the private asks the general to clean up the room, it is likely to be a suggestion or a proposal or a request, but it cannot be an order since the private does not have the authority to perform that action.
6- Differences in the way the utterance relates to the interests of the speaker and the hearer. In the differences between boasts and laments, between
98
congratulations and condolences, one hears the difference as being between what is or is not in the interests of the speaker and the hearer respectively.
7- Differences in relations to the rest of the discourse. Some performative expressions such as ―I reply,‖ ―I conclude,‖ ―I deduce‖ and ―I object‖ relate the utterance to the rest of the discourse and to the surrounding context.
8- Differences in propositional content that are determined by illocutionary-force indicating devices. The difference between a report and a prediction is that the report must be about past or present, but the prediction is about future.
9- Differences between those acts that must always be speech acts, and those that can be, but need not be, performed as speech acts. In ―classify,‖ ―diagnose,‖ and ―estimate‖ people can perform the acts without saying anything.
10- Differences between those acts that require extra-linguistic institutions for their performance and those which do not. In order to declare war, bless, excommunicate and christen, it is not sufficient for the speaker to say to the hearer ―I declare war,‖ ―I bless,‖ etc, one must have a position within an extralinguistic institution.
11- Differences between those acts where the corresponding illocutionary verb has a performative use and those where it does not. Most illocutionary verbs have performative use, but all the illocutionary verbs are not performative verbs. One can say ―I state,‖ ―I promise,‖, but he cannot say ―I hereby boast‖ or ―I hereby threaten‖.
12- Differences in the style of the performance of the illocutionary act. The differences between announcing and confiding need not involve any difference in illocutionary point or propositional content but only in style of performance of the illocutionary act.
99
Searle based his taxonomy of the speech acts into five categories on these differences between the speech acts or the illocutionary acts. Any speech act will fall under at least one of these categories, and in some cases, the categories will overlap. The five basic categories of the illocutionary acts presented by Searle are: representatives, directives, commissives, expressive and declarations.
1- Representatives or assertive: the purpose of this class is to commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition. The members of this class are assessable on the dimension of assessment which includes true and false. The direction of fit is words-to-the world and the psychological state expressed is belief. For instance, in ―it will rain tomorrow‖ the speaker presents the world he believes it is. Examples include: asserting, concluding, affirming, announcing, denying, and answering. Boast and complain belong to this class since they have something to do with the interest of the speaker.
2- Directives: the illocutionary point of this class is to get the hearer to do something. They are attempts of varying degrees; the attempt may be very modest when the speaker invites the hearer to do something or may be fierce if he insists that the hearer does the action. The propositional content is always that the hearer does some future action. The members of this group represent the speaker‘s wants. Examples include: Requesting, ordering, commanding, advising, diminishing, asking, begging, dismissing, requiring, urging, defying, challenging, dare and warning. For instance, in ―Do not split water‖, the speaker orders the hearer.
3- Commissives: the members of this class commit the speaker to do some future course of action. Searle states that some verbs such as (shall, intend, favor) as set by Austin never belong to this group. These acts express the intention of the speaker such as: promise, pledge, refusal, swear, volunteer, invite, offer, bet, agree, guarantee and threat. In ―I swear I will visit you next week‖ the speaker promises to perform the action and he has intention to do that.
100
4- Expressives: the illocutionary point of this class is to express the psychological state specified in the sincerity condition about a state of affairs specified in the propositional content. In expressives, there is no direction of fit, but the truth of the expressed proposition is presupposed. These acts include: thanking, welcoming, condoling, congratulating, greeting, apologizing and accepting. For example, I thank you for helping me with the math exam.
5- Declarations: the successful performance of one of its members brings about the correspondence between the propositional content and reality. They bring about correspondence between the propositional content and the world if performed successfully. In ―I now pronounce you husband and wife‖, the act of pronouncing is felicitous if the speaker is a priest or has a special institutional role. The members of this class include: excommunicating, declaring war, naming, marrying and firing from employment. Table 3.3 Searle‘s Taxonomy of the Speech Acts
Speech Act Categories
Direction of fit
Illocutionary point
word fits world
commits S to the truth The sun rises in of the expressed the east. proposition.
Directives
world fits word
Commissives
world fits word
Expressives
--------------------
Declarations
world fits word
S gets H to do something. commits S to some future action S feels the situation sincerely changes the world if performed successfully
Representatives
Examples
Please, stay calm. I will call you later. I apologize for losing your book. You are fired.
word fits world
Searle (1975b) argues that there are some cases in which the speaker‘s utterance meaning (X) and the sentence meaning come apart in various ways. For example, in ―hints,‖ ―irony,‖ ―insinuation‖ and ―metaphor‖, the speaker utters a sentence, means what he says, but also means something more. For example, if the
101
speaker utters ―I want you to go to the shop‖, the sentence is not only a statement, but it is also a request, a request made by way of making a statement. In such cases, Searle argues ―a sentence that contains illocutionary force indicators for one kind of illocutionary act can be uttered to perform, in addition, another type of illocutionary act‖ (1975b:59). There are also cases in which the speaker utters a sentence and means what he says and also means another illocution with a different propositional content. For instance, in a sentence ―can you reach the salt?‖, the speaker means it not merely as a question but also as a request to pass the salt. These cases which contain two illocutionary forces should be distinguished from the cases in which the speaker‘s meaning and the utterance meaning is the same. Searle describes these cases as in direct speech acts ―in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another‖ (ibid.60). Indirect speech acts are much concerned with conversational implicatures; therefore, their discussion will be expanded in the next section of the theoretical framework which is H. P. Grice‘s theory of Cooperative Principle‘s and Implicatures. The study of the speech acts to deal with family discordance in the selected plays is fairly helpful to comprehend the relationship between the characters since the interlocutors use language or they perform some acts through speaking. These acts can increase the tensions between them if they give orders, refuse each other‘s views or threaten each other; or the speech acts may end the disputes and result in reconciliation if the characters change the arguments into attempts to satisfy each other and one party makes the other feel that his or her wishes are achieved and attended to. The family members in the selected plays are in disputes, but some of them try to solve the problems and save the families from collapse; therefore, the language they use and the speech acts they perform clearly reflect the intentions of the interactants. Thus the analysis of the speech acts clarifies the reason behind the arguments and who tries to complicate the situations and who wants to put an end to the family disagreements.
102
3.2.3 Grice’s Approach of Cooperative Principle and Implicatures
Dialogue at least needs two interlocutors to occur. For an interaction to flow properly, the interactants are supposed to co-operate with each other. The cooperation here means that the participants follow some conversational rules or principles which provide a suitable floor for the interactants to communicate and achieve the aims of the communication. But there are many cases that the speaker and the spoken to will not perform the speech acts or will not meet the illocutionary force to satisfy each other and to lead the conversation to the desired end. Communication is conducted with respect to inter-personal and social contract, which philosopher H.P. Grice labeled the Co-operative Principle. Grice ―Logic and Conversation‖ (1975) argues that there are divergence in meaning between the formal devices and their analogs or counterparts in natural language. The difference between what a sentence means and what it implies inspired Grice to propose the notion of implicature. He first distinguishes between conventional implicatures and conversational implicatures. Conventional implicature is related to the grammatical structure of the sentence and meaning of the formal devices (words) uttered. If someone utters ―He in the grip of a vice‖, the hearer can deduce some kind of meaning depending on his background knowledge in the English even if he knows nothing about the circumstance of the utterance. The hearer realizes that the utterance is about a male person or animal through the pronoun (he), and the words ‗grip of a vice‘ indicate that X (he) is in trouble. (1) If X is a human being, the words may mean he cannot rid himself of certain bad characteristic; and (2) if X is an animal, the words show that it is caught in the trap. These meanings can be inferred through the syntactic and semantic interpretation of the utterance (conventional implicature), but what meaning the hearer chooses depends on having certain knowledge about the circumstance such as: (a) the identity of X, (b) the time of the utterance, and (c) the meaning, on the particular occasion of utterance, of the phrase in the grip of vice. Information about these aspects helps the hearer to infer the implied meaning of the utterance which Grice labeled Conversational Implicature.
103
Grice argues in some cases the conventional meaning of the words used will determine what is implicated, besides helping to determine what is said. According to Mandala conventional implicatures derive solely from the syntax and semantics of the utterance, and conversational implicatures, more important, are ―levels of meaning that are generated and understood during the course of ordinary conversation but not directly derivable from the surface structure of the utterance‖ (2007:21).
Conversational implicature, Grice says, are essentially connected with certain general features of discourse. He states that that ―our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. They are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts‖ (1975:45). According to Grice, while two people converse, they have certain purpose in the conversation or at least they have a mutually accepted direction which indicates the topic of the talk and communicative end. The purpose or direction of the conversation is usually set at the beginning. For example, when a speaker asks a question about a certain issue, his aim is to get the answer. In some case, the direction is not definite, especially in casual conversations. Grice formulates a general principle which participants will be expected to observe which include: make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. He labels this formula COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE.
On the basis of the principle and to show whether or not the participants in an interaction act according to the general principles of communication, Grice distinguishes four categories under one or another of which will fall certain more specific maxims and submaxims. Echoing Kant (he said), he calls these categories Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner.
1- Quantity maxim: this category relates to the quantity of information to be provided, and under it falls the following maxims: - Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
104
- Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. 2- Quality maxim: under the category of QUALITY falls a supermaxim – ‗Try to make your contribution one that is true‘ – and two more specific maxims: - Do not say what you believe to be false. - Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Grice argues that the second maxim of quantity (do not be more informative) is disputable since to be overinformative may not be a transgression of the cooperative principle but merely a waste of time. However, such overinformativeness may be confusing in that it is liable to raise side issues; and there may also be an indirect effect, in that the hearers may be misled as a result of thinking that there is some particular point in the provision of the excess of information. 3- Relevance maxim: under this category falls one maxim, namely, ‗Be relevant.‘ Grice explains that the maxim is brief, but its formulation conceals a number of problems such as: questions about what different kinds and focuses of relevance there may be, how these shift in the course of a talk exchange, how to allow subjects of conversation are legitimately changed, and so on.
4- Manner maxim: this maxim is related to how something is said and includes the supermaxim ‗Be perspicuous‘ – and various maxims such as: - Avoid obscurity of expression. - Avoid ambiguity. - Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). - Be orderly.
Grice explains that although the observance of all the maxims is necessary for a talk to be successful and for the participants to achieve their aims, observing one maxim may be more urgent than observing another. For example, if a detective describes a crime scene with unnecessary ambiguity, he will be open to milder comment, but if he says something he believes to be false, the case will be different. Observing the quality maxim is very significant since the other maxims come into operation only on the
105
assumption that this maxim is satisfied. He also states that there are other maxims (aesthetic, social, or moral in character), such as ‗Be polite‘, that are also normally observed by participants in talk exchanges, and these may also generate nonconventional implicatures. Geoffrey Leech (1983) lists a number of politeness maxims such as: modesty, tact, approbation, sympathy, generosity, and agreement.
The specific expectations or presumptions connected with some of the maxims have their analogues in the sphere of the transactions that are not talk exchanges. Grice lists one analog for each conversational category. 1- Quantity. If a coworker helps a technician mending a car, his contribution is expected to be as required, neither more nor less. If the technician asks for four screws, he expects the coworker to give him four, neither six nor two.
2- Quality. The contribution should be genuine and not spurious. In the above example, the coworker should hand the technician screws not a screw driver. 3- Relation. Partner‘s contribution must be appropriate to immediate needs at each stage of the transaction. If the wife mixes ingredients to make a cake, she does not expect to be handed a book.
4- Manner. The partner should make his contribution clear and execute the performance with reasonable message. The speaker should not use words he knows the listeners will not understand, he should not say things which may have different connotations, and he should not give a long-drawn-out explanation if he can talk about the issue in simpler manner.
106
Table 3.4 Grice‘s categories of Cooperative Principle and related Maxims
Categories Quantity
Quality
Maxims
Example
* Make your contribution as S: Do you have a sister? informative as is required. H: Yes. I have two. * Do not make your contribution H: I have two sisters, two more informative than is brothers, a niece and a nephew. required. Supermaxim: make your S: Snow is white. contribution one that is true. Submaxims: * Do not say what you believe to S: I saw you with Mike be false. yesterday.
Relation
Manner
* Do not say that for which you S: My car is black. lack adequate evidence. Be relevant. S: What time is it? H: It is 2. - Supermaxim: Be perspicuous. S: Did you go to the movie last - Submaxims: night? * Avoid obscurity of expression. * Avoid ambiguity. H: Yes, I went with my family. * Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). * Be orderly.
The Co-operative Principle is developed to study utterances in natural talk, but stylisticians are interested in deploying it to analyze and interpret utterances in dramatic dialogues. The maxims are regarded the rules of communication, but they are often violated which causes disorder in the conversation. The aims of a conversation will be achieved only when the participants are interested in engaging in the talk exchange and it should be conducted according to the cooperative principle and maxims. If one party does not cooperate, the communication will fail. Grice outlines four cases in which a participant may fail to fulfill a maxim.
107
1- A speaker may unostentatiously violate a maxim, and thus, in some cases, he will mislead; this accounts for lies and deceits. For example, if a seller tells a buyer that the handset is original, but it is actually not.
2- A speaker may opt out from the operation of the maxim and of the cooperative principle. He may indicate or make it clear that he cannot cooperate. This usually happens during press conferences when journalists ask questions about specific or secret issues related to the government.
3- A speaker may be faced by a clash. He may be unable to fulfill one maxim (e.g. quantity) without violating another maxim (e.g. quality). For example, if the speaker does not have adequate evidence about what he says.
4- A speaker may blatantly flout a maxim. In this case, he deliberately fails to fulfill it, and it is apparent to his interlocutors. The speaker does not try to opt out or to mislead; he exploits a maxim. Flouting a maxim characteristically gives rise to a conversational implicature.
Grice gives a number of examples to show when and how a maxim is breached and divides the examples into three groups.
Group A: Examples in which no maxim is violated, or at least in which it is not clear that any maxim is violated. 1)
A: I am out of petrol. B: There is a garage round the corner.
In this case, B would be violating the maxim of relation if he is not sure that the garage is open and has petrol to sell. At least he implicates that the garage is open. But the connection between the statements is obvious and even the supermaxim ―be perspicuous‖ is not fringed since B‘s replay is connected to A‘s statement. 2)
A: Smith does not seem to have a girlfriend these days. B: He has been paying a lot of visits to New York lately.
108
B implicates that Smith has, or may have, a girlfriend in New York. In both cases the speaker implicates what he believes to be the case so as to preserve the assumption that he is observing the maxim of relation.
Group B: An example in which a maxim is violated, but its violation is to be explained by the supposition of a clash with another example. A is planning with B an itinerary for a holiday in France. Both know that a wants to see his friend C, who lives there. A: Where does C live? B: Somewhere in the South of France. Though B‘s reply is less informative as required, he is not opting out. Violating the quantity maxim here can be explained only by the supposition that B knows if he says more he will infringe the quality maxim as he has no ―adequate evidence‖ in which city C lives. Thus he implies that he does not know exactly where he lives.
Group C: Examples that involve exploitation, a procedure by which a maxim is flouted to get in a conversational implicature by means of something of the nature of a figure of speech. 1- Flouting quantity maxims: 1a) Flouting the first maxim of quantity (make your contribution as informative as is required). For example in ‗do you find it is getting a bit chilly in here?‘, the speaker violates the quantity maxim as he does not go straight to the point. In utterances of patent tautologies such as ‗women are women‘ and ‗ war is war‘, the first maxim of quantity is infringed. 1b) An infringement of the second maxim of quantity (do not make your contribution more informative than is required). A: Do you have a car? B: I have a car, a motorbike, a house, a wife and two children. In this exchange, B obviously breaches the maxim of quantity as he gives information not required by A. 2- Flouting quality maxims:
109
2a) Flouting the first quality maxim (do not say what you believe to be false).
Irony: In a football match, a player misses a penalty kick and the coach tells him ‗Well done‘. Both the player and the coach and also the other players know that the coach does not congratulate the player. It seems that the coach reprimands him.
Metaphor: A metaphor flouts the quality maxim as the speaker says something he knows it is not true. For example, ―You are the cream in my coffee‖ is a falsity. The speaker means something else, and he draws parallels between the addressee and the cream.
Meiosis: a man breaks up all the furniture, and one says ‗he is a little intoxicated‘. He implies that the man may be drunk or stupefied with something else; or even he may be angry at something.
Hyperbole: In ‗every nice girl loves a sailor‘ is a certain exaggeration and the speaker overstates.
2b) Violation of the second quality maxim (do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence). Grice argues that examples for this case are not easy to find. For example in ‗X got high marks, he might have cheated in the exam‘, the speaker has no evidence that X cheated, but the assumption may be based on X‘s inability to get high marks; or X got very low marks in the previous exams; or X is opt to do such conducts. 3- Flouting relevance maxim: A: Is the date for the final test scheduled? B: the child is beating the dog. Relevance maxim is infringed by B as his replay has nothing to do with discourse. 4- Flouting the manner maxims:
110
Ambiguity: Blake‘s line ‗never seek to tell thy love, Love that never told can be‘ is ambiguous in the sense that ‗thy love‘ refers to the lady, but ‗love that…‘ may mean the speaker cannot express that emotion or he may mean if the emotion can be expressed the love will not exist anymore.
Obscurity: For the purpose of the communication to be achieved, the participants should avoid obscurity. Even if the speaker is obliged not to utter the sentence directly, he must make his partner understand him. If A wants tell B something, but he does not the information to be imparted to C, A will be obscure and B understands the reason.
Failure to be brief: A: I hear you went to the opera last night; how was the lead singer? B: Miss X sang ‗Home sweet home‘. B: Miss X produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to the score of
‗Home sweet home‘. If B chooses the second answer, it simply means that he did not like the singer or the singer performed very badly. Table 3.5 Violation of the Conversational Maxims
Maxims
Utterance S= Speaker H= Hearer
Maxims fail
Quantity
S: Does Marry have children? H: She has a son.
H‘s reply is not informative enough since Marry also has two daughters.
Quality
S: Tom is fined. S: Tom stole the car.
Tom is actually rewarded. (Lie) Court found Jack guilty. (no proof)
Relevence
S: Do you have a car? H: I like swimming.
H does not give the right answer to the question.
Manner
S: Uh! It‘s cold in here.
S may want H to close the window or turn the heating on, but the speech act expresses that S thinks it is cold, it does not request any action from H (Frey, 1999:6).
111
Among the four forms of breaking the maxims, flouting is the most important one for the analysis of literary texts or particularly fictional dialogue because it will generate implicatures, as termed by Grice.
Green (1996:93) states:
Since speakers assume that hearers adopt the cooperative principle and its maxims for interpreting speech behavior, the speaker is free to exploit it, and to speak in such a way that his behavior must be interpreted according to it. If the speaker's remark seems irrelevant, the hearer will attempt to construct a sequence of inferences that make it relevant or at least cooperative. This exploitation of the maxims is the basic mechanism by which utterances are used to convey more than they literally denote, and Grice called it implicature. Green‘s statement clarifies that what a sentence means may be different from what someone means by uttering that sentence. Thusly, implicatures are the indirect, context-determined meanings implied by the speaker which are different from the actual meaning of the sentence.
Searle (1975) argues that in normal case, the speaker utters a sentence and means exactly and literally what he says and he intends to produce a certain illocutionary effect in the hearer and he also makes the hearer realize or know this intention. In such cases, the speech act is performed directly and clearly, but there are also cases in which the utterance is not direct or at least not very clear because the speaker may want to mean more than what he utters. Searle calls these cases indirect speech acts which are particularly indirect illocutionary acts.
Searle (1975:60-61) writes: In indirect speech acts the speaker communicates to the hearer more than he actually says by way of relying on their mutually shared background information, both linguistic and nonlinguistic, together with the general powers of rationality and inference on the part of the hearer.
112
For an indirect speech act to be performed successfully, the speaker should pay attention to the felicity conditions proposed by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), and also to the conversational maxims (rules) initiated by Grice (1975). The notion of indirect speech acts is related to violating or flouting Grice‘s maxims. If the speaker is sure that the hearer is able to do the action, the indirect SP will not be infelicitous. The same situation is true for the conversational maxim. The speaker will not be violating certain maxims if he implies some meaning to his utterance. In connection with the notion of indirect SP, Searle introduces the primary illocutionary act (indirect) and the secondary illocutionary act (direct). For example: X: Let‘s go to the movies tonight. Y: I have to study for an exam. In this example, Y‘s utterance contains both the primary and the secondary illocutionary act. Y indirectly rejects the proposal which is the primary illocutionary point of the utterance and at the same time by making a statement, he induces the effect that he has to prepare for the exam which is the secondary illocutionary act. Here Y‘s utterance cannot be presumed as infelicitous since both of them understand the situation very well.
The same presupposition can be true if the utterance is analyzed according to the conversational maxims. Y follows the quantity, quality and manner maxims as the statement is informative, short and clear. What remains here is the maxim of relation, whether it is violated or not. Though Y does not directly reject the proposal by saying (for instance, I cannot accompany you), he implies the meaning. Y‘s statement is not falsity and it is related to X‘s proposal if X knows that Y is a student. Sometimes, the sentences uttered by the spoken to appear to break one of the conversational maxims, but if the speaker feels that cooperative principle is still in force, the receiver‘s response remains cooperative. In this example:
A: What time is it? B: Class begins soon.
113
If this is a conversation between two students in a hall waiting for the lecturer, the speaker can get the answer from the receiver‘s reply though it is indirect. Here the context shows that the maxim of relevancy is still in force.
All the indirect speech acts will not satisfy the maxims. Searle argues irony and metaphor are two cases of indirect SPs, and Grice asserts that in these cases, the quality maxim will be flouted as the utterance is not as informative as required. To show the difference between the general meaning of a sentence and the speaker‘s meaning, Short (1989:147) analyzes this example:
A: Did you enjoy the play? B: Well, I thought the ice creams they sold in the interval were good. B‘s response apparently reveals that he did not enjoy the play but he does not say it directly since he does not want to answer A‘s question directly. In this case, the quantity and manner maxims are violated since B does not use a direct form to answer the question briefly and obviously (e.g. I did not really). Whether the speaker achieves the implied illocutionary force depends on the degree of the indirectness of the utterance and the circumstance.
Herman (1995:170) puts down:
Indirectness can be deep enough to divorce completely the illocutionary force of an utterance from its propositional content in overt form. An utterance can also change force with changing contexts: ‗The currents are treacherous over there‘ could count as a warning to someone about to swim in the water referred to but remain only a statement of fact, or opinion, or an assertion, to a nonswimmer. Herman‘s 1995 comment explains that the speakers may not always speak their minds clearly. In other words, the context of use affects the utterances produced between the interlocutors. Though they may use figurative language, metaphors or speak
114
indirectly, they can understand each other if they share some knowledge about what they communicate about.
The description of the two theories demonstrates that they complete each other and the application of both theories is necessary to explore family disintegration in Buried child (1978) and Rabbit Hole (2005). While the characters are arguing, they perform some acts which show their aims and intentions. If the characters are still angry at each other and they try to impose their opinions, they face clashes and the speech acts will fail since they are rejected and the aims are not achieved. It simply means that one pole of the interaction does not cooperate and thus the disputes will continue; but if the characters want to stop the conflicts, they certainly perform speech acts which show cooperation and thus the tensions will be decreased. In this sense, the two theories complete each other because both of them focus attention on the language used by the characters and both them depend on the type of the speech act used to demonstrate whether the interactants fight or they make peace.
3.3
METHODOLOGY
The research is in the domain of pragmatic stylistics and the theories applied to analyze the dialogues are Searle‘s Speech Act Theory and Grice‘s Cooperative Principle and Implicatures. Both theories focus on the use of language and on the various forms the characters deploy in certain situations to defend themselves or to attack their opponents. The speech acts (SPs) are examined to study the structure of the utterances and the nature of the relationships between the characters and the cooperative principle (CP) and implicatures are greatly helpful to highlight the family discordance in the plays since the characters may violate or flout the maxims to indirectly reject the aims of the other party or they may observe the maxims to directly show their uncooperativeness or cooperativeness. The study of the conversational maxims whether observed or not can be considered to decide how the dialogue ends and to draw conclusions regarding the future relationships between the interactants.
The plays picked up for this study are long and the characters engage in long conversations in several situations; therefore, the analysis will be limited to the
115
extracts which clearly show the discordance between the characters, how the conflicts between them rise and develop and how they reconcile. To achieve the aims of the research and to answer the questions, the analysis of each play will be conducted according to the type of the relationships in the texts which include (Husband-Wife, Father-Son, Mother-Son and Siblings) relationships. The characters studied here are family members and they have the same social status, but the language they use creates tension among them and this tension is reflected in their utterances. In Buried Child, because the family relation is broken and the characters live in their private worlds, the conversations occur between them only in certain cases; therefore, the focus is on the exchanges which clearly show disintegration between them.
In Chapter IV, the family discordance in Buried Child (1978) by Sam Shepard is studied. To discuss Husband-Wife relationship, two extracts are chosen in Act One because after this, no communication occurs between Dodge and Halie. For FatherSon relationship, only one extract is selected which is in Act One and it is a conversation between Dodge (father) and his son (Tilden). After this act, the father and the son do not meet again, and no talk occurs between Dodge and his second son (Bradley). Though Tilden is the father of Vince, no interaction happens between the two. No extract is opted for examining the sibling relationship in this play because Tilden and Bradley meet for a very short moment and Tilden quickly leaves the stage as Bradley orders him to quit.
In Chapter V, the family disintegration in Rabbit Hole (2005) by David Lindsay-Abaire is examined. The relationship between the characters in the play is somehow different. There is disagreement between the characters, but the family is not torn into pieces yet as it is seen in Shepard‘s Buried Child. The characters discussed here are four, but the main conflict is between Howie (husband) and his wife Becca. The other two characters are Izzy (Becca‘s younger sister) and Nat (Becca‘s mother) who do not live in the same house with Becca. The dialogues occur between Becca and Izzy on one hand and Becca and Nat on the other when they visit Becca. The characters who appear on stage at first are Becca and Izzy and thus their relationship is explored at first because this first encounter illustrates the family‘s problem which is caused by the incident and Becca‘s way of coping with it.
116
To discuss the discordance between the two sisters, an extract is chosen. The extract is significant because it reveals that the family discordance has occurred since the characters cope with the death of Danny, Becca‘s four-year-old son, in different ways. The dialogue show how the tensions between the two sisters increase and how they end. Regarding Husband-Wife relationship, two extracts are selected to elucidate the disagreements and reconciliation of Howie and Becca. These extracts are important since the first one shows the discordance and the second indicates reconciliation though its outset is rather disgusting. Finally, one extract is opted for analyzing Mother-Daughter relationship to know the core of the conflicts between Becca and her mother, Nat. the extracts picked up in both texts clearly demonstrate the ailing relationship between the family members and they also illustrate how some family members try to save the family, particularly in Rabbit Hole.
Before starting the analysis, the position of each excerpt in the play is pointed out in which some information about the interlocutors is given and its significance to study the relationship between them is also highlighted. This explanation is followed by the extract which is explored according to the speech acts and the conversational maxims in two stages. In the first stage, the speech acts are discussed and the second stage is devoted to examine the conversational maxims and implicatures. After each stage, the analysis is summarized in tables and finally the findings and conclusions of both stages are listed to indicate how language use reflects the relationship between the interlocutors and how the unsuccessful (infelicitous) utterances highlight lack of cooperation. The details of each stage are given below.
First Stage: Analysis of the Speech Acts
In the analytical procedure, the utterances produced by the characters are explored through looking at the basic categories of the speech acts (utterance act, propositional act, illocutionary act, perlocutionary act) and the five speech act types (representatives, directives, commissives, expressives and declaratives). Sometimes, the characters articulate long utterances, but they describe the situation or they express their feelings; therefore, only the sentences which contain the speech act explicitly or
117
implicitly are scrutinized, but the significance of the utterance and the reason behind its production are also indicated.
The characters are engaged in talk exchanges to obtain their aims; therefore, they perform propositional acts through reference or predication, and illocutionary acts through commanding, offering, requesting, or committing themselves to do something and so on. In performing the illocutionary acts, they give force to the speech act to achieve the point for which they uttered the speech. They articulate the utterance in the way they think it is compatible with the discourse, but it may not succeed because the speaker should not think only of his wants, but he should also consider the listener as well. If the speaker does not observe the felicity conditions, the utterance is rejected by the addressee and this is the main reason behind the family discordance in both plays. When the listener finds that the speaker‘s utterance endangers his aim in the conversation, he will not cooperate and thus the disagreement between them increases.
The disagreement is reflected in the language the characters utilize which covers the structure of the utterance, the lexicons, the mood of the speech act and the illocutionary force indicators specifically punctuation marks. Each of the aforementioned acts participate in constructing the utterance, but the significant one among them is illocutionary act since it has a force and a point (purpose); therefore, in the analysis a greater attention is paid to the illocutionary acts. When the characters speak, they perform an action explicitly or implicitly and that action can be detected through examining the speech acts. By this token, the aim of the speaker and its success or its failure can be detected. Consequently, conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between the characters in the families. For instance, if the speaker always uses direct forms to give orders, it shows that he exerts power, but if the listener rejects to obey, then the utterance is infelicitous and it also proves that the speaker is not in a position to give an order or the listener cannot do the action.
In each extract, how often the characters use a certain type of speech is highlighted to know the reason and to show their significance regarding the family relationships. The type of the speech act deployed at the beginning of the interactions
118
is significant it decides what to come next. If it is a question, it will be followed by an answer; if it is a request or an order, the listener will do something, but this procedure will succeed if the felicity conditions are observed. Otherwise, the opposite is true.
The research is about family discordance which simply means that the extracts chosen for the analysis reflects this situation; hence, some discourse features such as who initiates the talk: who attacks, who defends, and who uses numerous words are considered because they give clues about the nature of the relationships among the family members. These features are related to the illocutionary acts which indicate the linguistic behavior of the interactants and show how they use language; whether they perform orders directly or they make requests, whether they give strength to the illocutionary force through foregrounding or they try to reduce the force by employing certain words or devices, and whether the speech act overlaps or not. The illocutionary force indicators such as question marks and exclamation marks are supportive in making a decision about overlapping, and in such cases the same feature may be noted under different headings, and together with hyphens, dots, and some other features they reveal the psychological state of the characters and the nature of the utterance.
Sometimes, the playwrights, through the stage directions, play a great role in demonstrating the emotions of the characters and their intentions in performing the speech acts. The participants of a communication may not always use direct speech acts, and they may not achieve the perlocutionary effect attached to the illocutionary force. In the former case, the speaker deploys indirect strategy to avoid troubles or at least to reduce the effect of the speech act on the hearer and his utterance is not infelicitous. In the latter case, the intended illocutionary force is different or opposite to the actual illocutionary effect on the hearer; threatening a friend may induce laughter rather than fear in normal conditions. The summery of this discussion is presented in figures (1 and 2) which form the corpus of the analysis of the speech acts in Buried Child and Rabbit Hole. After analyzing each extract, the categories shown here are presented in tables and at the end of each section the findings and the conclusions are listed. When the characters communicate, they involve in four acts.
119
Utterance Act
Propositional Act
S utters E (Exact Words)
S says that P (propositional content)
UTTERANCE INTERPRETATION Illocutionary Act
S forces that P
Locutionary Act
Directly Indirectly Strongly Weakly
H hears S
Figure 3.1 Searle‘s Schema for Utterance Interpetation
Figure 1 displays the interpretation of the sentences uttered by the characters. The exact words are considered to know how the speaker initiates the dialogue. They may start with questions or interrogative sentences to get some information, they may give information about something, they may commit themselves to do things or they make an announcement. In these cases, they usually perform an illocutionary act which consists of the force of the speech act and its propositional content. For example, if the speaker utters ‗leave the room‘, the illocutionary force of the illocutionary act is an order. Whether the illocutionary act is successful or not depends on observing the felicity conditions and the hearer‘s reaction. The sentence may be well formed, but it does not mean that the speaker achieves the illocutionary point if the hearer realizes that the beneficiary is the speaker and it costs himself a lot.
120
UTTERANCES IN THE TWO PLAYS
BASIC CATEGORIES OF THE SPEECH ACTS Assertives
assert, affirm, inform, deny, conclude, answer….
Directives
request, order, advice, warn, challenge, beg, ask, urge….
Commissives
promise, refuse, bet, swear, offer, agree, threat, invite….
Expressives
congratulate, thank, accept, condole, apologize, greet….
Declaratives
naming, declaring war, marrying, firing from work...
SPEECH ACTS
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CHARACTERS IN THE TWO PLAYS
Figure 3.2 Searle‘s Schema for Speech Acts Performed in Conversation
Figure 2 shows the basic speech acts and their sub-acts. While they speak, the characters perform various actions. When they speak, they may give information (representatives) and to do this they may describe, suggest, argue, inform, or predict); in directives, they may (ask, command, prohibit, require or advise); in commissives, they may (promise, offer, swear or invite); in expressives, they may (condole, apologize, congratulate or greet) and in declaratives, they may (nominate, declare or terminate one‘s service). All these acts and the numerous like have great significance to know the relationship between the characters and their feelings and emotions.
121
Second Stage: Analysis of the Conversational Maxims and Implicatures
The second step in the analytical procedure is the study of the cooperative principle (conversational maxims) and implicatures in order to show if the characters are cooperative or not and they observe the maxims or not and why. When the characters engage in talk exchanges, as Grice (1975) states, each participant recognizes in them a common purpose or set of purposes or at least a mutually accepted direction. Thus if their efforts are cooperative, the aim of the conversation will be achieved which means that they abide by the conversational rules. The study of this case is important in dealing with family discordance in the selected plays for conducting this research because it usually leads the turn-taking system to closure and it also creates hope for reconciliation. But the conversations do not always go smoothly and the participants do not observe the conversational maxims (rules) in every exchange, and this condition marks the disagreements between them. The characters many times break the rules manipulating different ways because they do not have the same purpose.
To indicate the family discordance in the selected plays, the utterances of the characters in the selected extracts are scrutinized. In the previous stage, the utterances are discussed to demonstrate the relationship between the characters and the cause of their disagreements, but in this stage the excerpts are looked at to display who cooperates and who does not and the consequences. The family members are quarreling; one character attacks and the other fights back; therefore, lack of cooperation is inevitable. There are cases in which a member of the family wants to avoid troubles or tries to calm down the disputes and thus he shows cooperation, but the effort may not succeed because the other party refuses to cooperate; this is quiet apparent in Buried Child and Rabbit Hole.
In the first stage, the unsuccessful utterances are highlighted and this condition is the focal point in the second stage. The speech acts misfire in almost all the cases since the characters do not achieve their aims and this usually happens because of uncooperativeness which indicates that the contribution is not made such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange. The conversational maxims (Quantity, Quality, Relevance and Manner)
122
govern the behavior of the participants in a talk exchange. There are many cases which obviously show lack of cooperation between the characters. For instance, one character makes a suggestion, but the other one refuses it; one character asks for explanation, the addressee does not give it; one party gives explanation, the other party does not trust him, and so on. In such situations, the characters do not obtain their goals because they do not observe the cooperative principles. Only in very few cases, lack of cooperation occurs because of misunderstanding, and even in such cases the speaker is responsible since the utterance is either ambiguous and produces a different effect in the hearer.
Lack of cooperation does not transpire only when all the maxims are broken. In many cases, the characters speak briefly and clearly, but the contribution they make is not the required one; hence, it is rejected and thus uncooperativeness occurs. For instance, when an interlocutor makes a proposal, the other side directly refuses it since it may not be compatible with his aim in the communication. The study of the conversational maxims in these two plays reveals family discordance, who is cooperative and who is not, and who wants to save the family and who does not. In all these cases, the reasons and the motives are illuminated since they are the cause of the family disintegration. Uncooperativeness starts from the beginning of the interaction, and in some cases continue till the end of the dialogue. This case happens in all the extracts selected to study family discordance in Buried Child because Dodge is a major part in the family problems and he totally refuses to cooperate with his wife and son to end the disputes; therefore, the arguments are ended without any achievements. In Rabbit Hole, Becca has problems with all, her husband, her mother and her sister), but finally she realizes that her cooperation is useful for herself and for the whole family; therefore, she shows cooperation and she ends the disputes.
There are several points inherent in the utterances which are explored to specify how the characters cooperate (they give required information, the aim is clear, they stick to the topic, and most importantly they consider each other‘s wishes) and how they do not (they reject each other‘s views, lack of confidence, refuting each other, lie or deceive, and significantly the clash of the purposes in the communication). These cases are detected through examining the structure of the
123
sentences, the amount of information, clarity and the purpose of the speaker. In some cases, the conversational maxims clash or one maxim overlaps for the sake of observing another. For instance, the character may overstate to avoid ambiguity, but he violates the quantity maxim especially if the extra information raises side issues as it happens in both plays.
The interactants may violate the maxims unostentatiously or flout them ostentatiously. When the characters are gratuitously more informative than required, when they say something without proof, and when the utterance is obscure, they violate the maxims. In these cases, they may use metaphor, rhetorical questions or they may just give hints. There are also certain cases in which the characters deliberately flout the maxims especially when they attribute implicatures. The characters are members of the same family; hence, they have some background knowledge about each other and thus they do not need to express their ideas always explicitly. In some cases, they exploit the maxims as a mechanism by which utterances are used to convey more than they literally denote. They may use indirect speech acts, ironic expressions or idioms, but the listener should understand the message; otherwise, the speaker misses the aim and the maxim is violated not flouted.
Sometimes, the issue is rather sensitive as the family secret in Buried Child, and thus the characters cannot directly talk about it, but all in all they must make the listeners understand them. If the transmitted message is not clear enough, the hearer may interpret it in a wrong way and it may induce in the listener an effect which is not sought by the speaker. Consequently, the misunderstanding increases the tensions between the characters and lack of cooperation will occur. The study of the cases in which the characters break the conversational maxims or flout them ostentatiously or unostentatiously is crucial to examine family discordance in the plays. The study of the cooperative principle in the plays is not only helpful to detect family discordance, but it also shows the characters‘ attitudes toward the situation and also indicates how they end the disputes or at least the interaction at that specific moment. This discussion is summed up in the following diagram indicating how the conversational maxims are breached and this outline is surveyed in the analytical procedures.
124
UTTERANCES IN THE TWO PLAYS CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS Violate (lie, deceive)
Quantity
Opt out (renounce, abstain)
Quality
Breaking the Maxims Clash (a maxim breached for the sake of another)
Relevance Manner
Flout (via implicatures)
Quantity
Quality
Understatement
Irony
Overstatement
Metaphor
Relevance Hints Supposition
Rhetorical question
Manner Relocate Ellipsis Ambiguity Over-generalize
FAMILY DISCORDANCE IN THE TWO PLAYS Figure 3.3 Infringement of the Conversational Maxims (adapted from Juez, 1995)
The basic categories of the two theories, Speech Acts by John R. Searle and Cooperative Principle and Implicatures by H. P. Grice, are used as two approaches of pragmatic stylistics to discuss family discordance in Buried Child and Rabbit Hole. The connection between the two theories can be established since the characters produce utterances using different types of speech acts and the same utterances can be utilized to show whether the characters observe the maxims or break them. The characters articulate the utterance and they attach force and purpose to the speech acts, but mostly they do not achieve their aims and thus the utterance is unsuccessful
125
because the interlocutors are uncooperative. By this token, a connection can be made between the two approaches Speech Acts and Cooperative Principles through the felicitous and infelicitous utterances. If the speaker achieves the point of the utterance, the speech act will be successful and this happens only when the interactants are cooperative. If the interactants reject to cooperate, no purpose will be achieved and thus the utterance misfires. The successful utterances show cooperation and lead the dialogue to a happy closure, but the unsuccessful speeches complicates the situation and makes cooperation impossible. The explanation of the analytical procedure shows that the Speech Act Theory and Cooperative Principle and Implicatures can be used together to explore family discordance in Buried Child and Rabbit Hole since both approaches examine language in use.
CHAPTER IV
4
4.1
FAMILY DISCORDANCE IN BURIED CHILD
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the categories of the speech acts and the conversational maxims are examined to study family discordance in Buried Child (1978) to find out how Sam Shepard uses the pragmatic stylistic features to present family breakdown. The relationship between the characters is studied according to their appearance on stage and the focus is on the conversations which clearly reflect their disagreements. In the first step, the utterances are scrutinized looking at the speech acts to know how the characters use language and then the utterances are explored through conversational maxims and implicatures to find out if the characters observe or break the maxims while deploying various utterances or speech acts. The study of both approaches clarifies the disagreement between the characters and the attempts of some family members to save the family from total collapse. The chapter includes some subtitles to cover the types of the relationships exist in the play such as husband-wife relationship, father-son relationship, mother-son relationship and sibling relationship.
4.2
FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS IN BURIED CHILD
Buried Child is the story of a dysfunctional family in America‘s Midwest. The Three generations of a family gather in a house because they are afraid of being alone, but there is no spiritual relationship between them. There is a wide gap in their relationships which becomes apparent in the dialogues occur between them. The family members are not silent; yet the purpose of the communications is missing. Hooti and Shooshtarian argue that ―aimless and fragmented conversations are the
127
exact result of talking for the sake of talking‖ (2011:83). They explain that Tilden comes back home because he felt lonely in New Mexico and he needs a company. In this sense, Tilden exists only if he speaks and his speech ―You gotta talk or you'll die" is ―another variation on Descartes: I talk therefore I am‖ (ibid). When Halie comes in Act Three, Shelly tries to talk to her, but she ignores her. This situation annoys Shelly very much because if she remains silent nobody feels her existence in the house. SHELLY: (To HALIE.) I am here! I am standing right here in front of you. I am breathing. I am speaking. I am alive! I exist. DO YOU SEE ME? (Act Three; pp. 102)
The characters keep talking, but their aim in the conversations is not clear. Dodge does not understand what Vince talks about. Vince talks about family and connection, but these things are strange to Dodge because the family has fallen apart. DODGE: What are you talking about? Do you know what you‘re talking about? Are you just talking for the sake of talking? Lubricating the gums? (Act Two; pp. 50)
The characters argue about trivial things, but they avoid discussing the causes of their disintegration. In Act One, Halie and Dodge talk about the rain, baseball, racing and Dodge‘s hair for a long time, but when Dodge says ―my flesh and blood‘s out there in the backyard!‖ Halie prevents him from talking further. The same situation is repeated in Act Two and Act Three. In Act Two, Tilden tells Shelly about the baby killed by his father, but Dodge orders him not to ―tell her anything‖ because ―she‘s an outsider‖. In Act Three, Dodge starts revealing the secret to Shelly, but Halie and Bradley try to keep him silent. In Act Two and Act Three, Shelly plays a vital role in the conversations because she is a stranger and she is curious to know the story of the family. In other words, she is the only one who wants to hear what the members of the household talk about, and the secret of the family, the sin and the crime, is revealed in the conversations between Shelly and Tilden on one hand and Shelly and Dodge on the other hand. Abbotson (2005: 160-1) writes ―family life becomes intensely competitive as each needs to talk and is unable to find anyone who will listen. Shelly, as an outsider, becomes the necessary ear to facilitate their speech,
128
but what she uncovers is not pretty‖. Abbotson‘s 2005 comment shows that the family members do not listen to each other; therefore, their dialogues are fragmented and meaningless. Shelly has presence in most of the interactions as no real conversations occur between two members of the family. From Act Two afterward, the dialogues which occur between the members of the family are mostly short and a two-party conversation is rarely established between them; therefore, the third party especially Shelly is invited to join the discussions.
Since the research deals with the family discordance in the play from a stylistics point of view, the utterances will be analyzed according to the pragmatic features of stylistics which include the speech acts and cooperative principle. The language used by the characters will be explored to understand how their different viewpoints and conflicts reflect in their speeches. The section will be divided into some subtitles including husband and wife, parent and children and sibling relationships. The number of the extracts analyzed to study the relationship between the characters will be based on the importance of the conversations and the number of the times they encounter each other.
4.2.1 Husband and Wife Relationship: Dodge vs. Halie
The play starts with a conversation between Dodge and Halie. Halie is off-stage, upstairs, and at first only her voice is heard. Halie leaves the house in the middle of Act One and comes back in the middle of Act Three; therefore, there is little chance for Dodge and Halie to speak, especially in the last act of the play because the house is in a confused condition and she mostly speaks with Shelly, not Dodge. Consequently, no conversation or argument will take place between Dodge and Halie after Act One. Of course, this can be regarded as the aesthetic part of Shepard‘s style since he tells audience that the relationship between this husband and wife is already broken. At the beginning of the play, the playwright gives hints that the family in Buried Child is not a nuclear family any more. The husband and the wife live in two different parts of the house, upstairs and downstairs, and the relationships between the parents and the siblings are very weak. Dodge spends most of his time at home drinking and watching TV, and even he does not want to talk to anyone because ―nothing excites‖ him and he
129
does not ―enjoy‖ anything. For Dodge, everything has stopped; hence, he does not find it necessary to talk about anything as nothing will change; even he does not want to take his pills to soothe his coughing and this is considered to be suicide by Halie. HALIE‘S VOICE: Dodge, if you don‘t take that pill no body‘s going to force you. Least of all me. There‘s no honor in self-destruction. No honor at all. (The two men ignore the voice.) Act One; P. 19
Halie betrayed him and thus he committed a murder. After these events, his life has no meaning and he has lost everything, the farm, his wife and his children. Dodge could not forget what happened and start a new life; hence, he has deprived himself of his family, especially his wife, since he believes that Halie is the reason for the family‘s breakdown. Communications between Dodge and Halie only occur in Act One, except for a few utterances near the end of the play when Dodge narrates the story of Halie‘s pregnancy and drowning the illegitimate child by him. The dialogue between the couple is divided into two parts; when Halie is off stage and when she is on stage. They argue about various topics and they fight over trivial things, but the conversations do not have a certain aim. Sometimes they highlight sensitive issues, but it reaches nowhere because the dialogues are fragmented and the utterances are irrelevant. Here two samples of the conversations which occur between Dodge and Halie will be analyzed to show how their disintegration is reflected in their speeches.
I.
Position of Extract One in the Play
From upstairs, Halie talks to Dodge. They talk about racing on Sunday, Dodge‘s coughing and Halie‘s opinion about pills and she also talks about some happy moments in her past before she married Dodge. This conversation occurs after Halie tells Dodge that Bradley, the second son of the family, will come over to the house to cut Dodge‘s hair. This news upsets Dodge because he does not like to have his hair cut. Halie thinks that there is still a kind of relationship inside the family and Bradley comes very often to cut his father‘s hair because ―he feels responsible‖, but Dodge refuses this because no relationship exists between them and Bradley‘s aim is
130
something else. He wants to dominate Dodge through cutting his hair and this becomes clear when Halie denies to have told Bradley to come and cut Dodge‘s hair. During the conversation, they use various types of speech acts and they violate the maxims of conversation and politeness and they bring in irrelevant topics. The communication lasts long because they discuss many issues. Now and then, they come back to the main topic, but the result of the conversation is seen at the end of Act One when Bradley appears on stage with his clippers and cuts Dodge‘s hair while sleeping.
II.
Extract One
Halie’s voice: Just tell Tilden what you want and he‘ll get it. (Pause.) Bradley should be over later. Dodge: Bradley? Halie’s voice: Yes. To cut your hair. Dodge: My hair? I don‘t need my hair cut! I haven‘t hardly got any hair left! Halie’s voice: It won‘t hurt! Dodge: I don‘t need it. Halie’s voice: It‘s been more than two weeks, Dodge. Dodge: I don‘t need it! And I never did need it! Halie’s voice: I have to meet Father Dewis for lunch. Dodge: You tell Bradley that if he shows up with those clippers, I‘ll separate him from his manhood. Halie’s voice: I won‘t be very late. No later than four at the very latest. Dodge: You tell him! Last time he left me near bald! And I wasn‘t even awake. Halie’s voice: That‘s not my fault! Dodge: You put him up to it! Halie’s voice: I never did! Act One; P.14
131
III.
Speech Acts Analysis in Extract One
In her first utterance, Halie produces two sentences but with different illocutionary points. The utterance is assertive. In the first sentence (tell Tilden what you want), she implicitly tells Dodge that she will go out because if she does not, this statement will not be necessary. The illocutionary force of the sentence is that she informs him about her plan to go out, and its illocutionary point is recommendation. She has decided to go out and thus Dodge must ask Tilden if he needs anything. The background knowledge of the speaker and the hearer makes the utterance successful since Halie knows that Tilden will help his father if he needs him. This information does not draw Dodge‘s attention because he does not care about her and as later he says (he does not need anything), but her last sentence (Bradley should be over later) startles him. Bradley is the second son of the family, but he does not live with them. In her first sentence, Halie uses the model auxiliary (will) to state that Tilden will take care of Dodge when she is out, the prediction is not strong enough, but her second sentence is different. First, she utters it after a (pause) which gives her sometime to get ready to announce Bradley‘s coming. Secondly, she deploys (should) which gives strength to the illocutionary force and she also gives some information about the time, though not specifically (later). Halie‘s speech act is successful because it draws Dodge‘s attention. Dodge‘s utterance (Bradley?) supports this view. He forms a declarative question asking not only for verification but also for the reason behind Bradley‘s coming. His illocutionary act of request for information succeeds since Halie in her second turn (yes. To cut your hair) gives the required information. She confirms that Bradley will come and she also gives the reason. Here the speech act misfires and the utterance is infelicitous since the propositional content condition is not satisfied. Halie and Bradley have arranged to cut Dodge‘s hair without even asking him whether he wants or not, and thus conventional procedure is partly rejected. Halie makes the move to cause her husband to believe that his children still take care of him (illocutionary point), but she does not accomplish this aim because Dodge does not show appreciation. Dodge expresses his disinterest in three sentences (My hair? I don‘t need my hair cut! I haven‘t hardly got any hair left!). He uses a hypophora to indicate that
132
he refuses to have his hair cut. Dodge poses a question and immediately answers it to oppose Halie. The illocutionary force of the speech act is an indirect order to persuade Halie not to upset him, and the illocutionary force indicators ‗?‘ and ‗!‘ and uttering two negative sentences with the same illocutionary point (deny) and the same propositional content (hair) give strength to the illocutionary act of order. Dodge‘s aim to persuade Halie to leave him alone fails and the speech act misfires because the essential condition is not achieved. Dodge has bad experiences with Bradley. Bradley cuts his scalp and hurts him a lot and he bullies Dodge in this way and Halie exploits this situation to frighten Dodge. It seems that Halie knows the truth of Dodge‘s utterance and she understands his concern very well, but she does not listen to him. Thus, in her third turn (It won‘t hurt!), she deploys the illocutionary act of urging with the illocutionary force of persuading, and she ends the statement with the illocutionary force indicator (!) to give some strength to her insistence. The speech act fails since it does not achieve its aim and Dodge does not change his mind.
Halie changes the propositional content from hair to hurt, but Dodge sticks to the same content (hair). His direct refusal (I don‘t need it) indicates his resistance toward her attempts and his unwillingness to surrender to their wishes. The speech act here is a command to persuade Halie not to make him have his hair cut, but the illocutionary effect is not obtained since Halie insists that he needs to have his hair cut (It‘s been more than two weeks, Dodge.). Halie advices Dodge to have his hair cut but the speech act overlaps because it has the power of an order. She insists that his hair should be cut and she mentions Dodge‘s name at the end of the utterance as the illocutionary force indicator to strengthen the force of the argument. She exercises power and she shows that Dodge must agree because she wants him to. Her speech act is not successful because the essential condition is not observed and one party rejects it. In his next turn, he reiterates his refusal and gives force to his speech act in different ways (I don‘t need it! And I never did need it!). In these sentences, he uses exclamation mark (!) twice and two different forms of negation (don‘t, never) and a stress (never did need) as illocutionary force indicators to strengthen his order to get Halie to stop bullying him, but speech act is unsuccessful since Halie ignores him.
133
Realizing that arguing with Dodge is useless, Halie changes the topic because the issue of cutting Dodge‘s hair mainly concerns Bradley and he is absent at that moment. Halie has nothing else to say about Dodge‘s hair; therefore, in her fifth turn, she returns to the first sentence of her first utterance (tell Tilden….). In this utterance she implies that she goes out, but the effect of her second utterance occupies the conversation. Dodge does not ask her why he should ask Tilden if he needs anything; therefore, she makes her intention in the speech clear now (I have to meet Father Dewis for lunch). She intends to change the topic by giving some information about her plan and she indicates that she cannot stop Bradley, but the speech act fails since she cannot persuade Dodge to change the subject.
Dodge does not agree to end the turn-taking system here. He believes that she can stop Bradley. Liddicoat argues that when a speaker wants to close a conversation, he will use various strategies one of which is ―back references‖, going back to topics which have already been discussed. He adds ―not all closings, once they are initiated, succeed in bringing a closing to completion‖ because closings must be negotiated by the participants of a conversation. If one pole wants to suspend the turn-taking system but the other pole wishes to continue, the closing attempt will fail (Liddicoat 2007: 266). Dodge thinks that Halie induces Bradley into this action to oppress and control him and he resumes the argument to compel her to stop her son. In his fifth turn, Dodge speaks more seriously. His utterance is a complex sentence which consists of an imperative (you tell Bradley) and a conditional commissive (…if he shows up with those clippers, I‘ll separate him …). The imperative sentence has the force of an order since Dodge believes that only Halie can tell Bradley to stay away from him. By using the pronoun ―you‖ at the beginning of the sentence, Dodge implies that Halie induces Bradley to torture him. In the second sentence he commits himself to face Bradley, but the commitment is conditional. The utterance has the illocutionary force of warning and the illocutionary point of persuasion. Once again the speech act is not satisfied because its force has no effect on Halie, and the propositional content condition is broken since Dodge knows he cannot face Bradley.
Halie comprehends that Dodge accuses her of encouraging Bradley to oppress him, but she ignores this not to prolong the discussion and in her sixth turn, she
134
produces an utterance which has nothing to do with Dodge‘s accusation ―I won‘t be very late…‖. She makes this statement to completely end the discussion over his hair, but the speech act fails to achieve its point because Dodge does not have the same desire to close the dialogue. In his sixth utterance (You tell him! Last time he left me near bald! And I wasn‘t even awake), he continues ordering his wife to stop Bradley, and to make his speech act stronger he adds two more sentences in which he complains and he indirectly accuses Halie for tempting Bradley to cut his hair. He uses exclamation marks and word order as force indicators to make his speech act strong, but the speech act misfires because he ignores the essential conditions. He orders her to stop Bradley, but he is not sure if she can do it or not, and he also accuses her without having evidence. Halie‘s denial having hand in the case (That‘s not my fault!) affirms that she has nothing to do with Bradley‘s actions and cruelty, and he is wrong in his belief, but she does not achieve her aim to stop Dodge from accusing her.
Dodge in his last utterance directly accuses Halie of urging Bradley to hurt him. In the previous utterance Dodge said (You tell him!) twice, but now he says (You put him up to it!). He explicitly expresses his belief about Halie‘s role in torturing him. The accusation is made by simply stating facts in the manner of an assertive sentence, and he utilizes illocutionary force indicator (!) to strengthen his belief. Dodge succeeds in conveying his message and thus Halie reacts in the same mood. She denies the accusation strongly with the illocutionary point of falsity and she exploits exclamation mark (!) to give force to what she believes to be the truth and to defend herself (I never did!). The communication continues in this way until Tilden appears on stage and ends the argument. The controversy bears no results since the utterances are exchanges between accusation and denial, and the power struggle is in position. Although later Halie promises that Bradley will not cut his hair again without his consent, Bradley appears on stage at the end of Act One and cuts Dodge‘s hair while he is sleeping. The interpretation of the utterance acts and the analysis of the speech acts can be summarized in the following tables.
135
Table 4.1 Utterance Interpretation in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
Character
Illocutionary Act
Perlocutionary Act
* tell Tilden predication what you (tell Tilden want… what you want)
inform (indirect)
make him realize she will go out
* Bradley predication should be over (should be…)
announce (strong)
make him know Bradley comes
Dodge
Bradley?
question
make her give details
Halie‘s Voice
Yes. To cut predication your hair. (cut your hair)
Confirm
they care about him
Dodge
I don‘t need predication my hair cut! (don‘t need my ….. hair cut )
order (indirect)
persuade her to leave him alone
Halie‘s Voice
It won‘t hurt!
prediction (won‘t hurt)
urge (strong)
persuade him to have his hair cut
I don‘t need it.
prediction (don‘t need it)
order (indirect)
oblige her to leave him alone
Halie‘s Voice
Utterance Act
Propositional Act
reference (Bradley)
Dodge Halie‘s Voice
It‘s been more prediction than two (been more weeks than)
Advice
convince him
Dodge
I don‘t need it! prediction (don‘t need it)
order (indirect)
compel her to leave him alone
Halie‘s Voice
I have to meet predication Father (have to meet Dewis… Father Dewis)
Inform
she ends the talk
Dodge
* You Bradley
order (strong)
persuade her to stop Bradley
threat (conditional)
make her tell Bradley not to cut his hair.
tell
predication (tell Bradley)
* if he shows predication … I‘ll separate (if he shows him….. up)
continue …
136
… continued Halie‘s Voice
I won‘t be predication very late. ….. (won‘t be very late)
Inform
Dodge
*You tell him!
prediction (tell him) * Last time he prediction (left left me near me near bald) bald!
order (strong)
That‘s not my predication fault! (is not my fault) You put him up to it! prediction (put him up to it) I never did! prediction (never did)
defends herself
make him believe her
accuse (strong)
persuade her to stop bullying him
Halie‘s Voice
Dodge Halie‘s Voice
complain (indirect accusation)
Insist (strong)
end the talk
obliges her to stop Bradley persuade her to talk to Bradley
Makes him realize that she is not responsible
137
Table 4.2 Speech Acts Analysis in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
Characte r
T u r n s
Halie‘s Voice
1
Dodge
1
Utterance Act
Speech Acts
Force
Point
Felicity
* tell Tilden assertive what you want…
inform
advise
succeed
* Bradley should assertive be over later.
announce
enlighten
succeed
Bradley?
request
enquire
succeed
directive
information
Halie‘s Voice Dodge
2
Halie‘s Voice
Yes. To cut your assertive hair. I don‘t need my directive hair cut! …..
answer
confirm
misfire
order
prohibit
misfire
3
It won‘t hurt!
directive
urge
persuade
misfire
Dodge
3
I don‘t need it.
directive
order
oblige
misfire
Halie‘s Voice
4
It‘s been more directive than two weeks, Dodge.
advise
convince
misfire
Dodge
4
I don‘t need it!
order
compel
misfire
Halie‘s Voice
5
I have to meet assertive Father Dewis…
enlighten
explain
misfire
Dodge
5
* You tell directive Bradley * if he shows … commissive I‘ll separate him…..
order
persuade
misfire
threat
warning
misfire
2
directive
continue …
138 … continued Halie‘s Voice
6
I won‘t be very assertive late. …..
inform
end the talk
misfire
Dodge
6
*You tell him!
order
oblige
misfire
* Last time he assertive left me ….
complain
accuse
misfire
directive
Halie‘s Voice
7
That‘s not my assertive fault!
avow
defend
misfire
Dodge
7
You put him up assertive to it!
argue
accuse
misfire
Halie‘s Voice
8
I never did!
Insist
deny
Misfire
IV.
assertive
Cooperative Principle and Implicature Analysis in Extract One
In her first utterance, Halie produces two sentences. In the first sentence, she recommends Dodge to ask Tilden if he needs anything (just tell Tilden…). Her utterance may be true because the background knowledge helps Halie to make this statement as she knows Dodge does not need anything that Tilden cannot do for him, and thus the quality maxim is observed, but she flouts the manner maxim. Halie implies that she will go out and thus he should ask Tilden if he needs anything. This information is not articulated because Halie knows that Dodge does not care. In her second sentence (Bradley should be over…), she ostentatiously flouts quantity maxim as she understates. She announces that Bradley is coming, but she does not explain the reason of his visit. Halie knows that Bradley will come to cut Dodge‘s hair, but she does not say this because she knows that Dodge does not like it. This supposition is supported by Dodge‘s utterance.
Dodge asks a question (Bradley?), but he flouts the manner maxim. Though the utterance consists of only Bradley‘s name followed by a question mark, the mood of the utterance helps Halie understand Dodge‘s point. She knows it is not only a
139
request for verification, but it is also an enquiry to know why Bradley comes here. Consequently, in her second turn (yes. To cut your hair) she speaks briefly and clearly, but she is still not cooperative because the propositional content or the contribution she makes is not the one Dodge likes. Halie knows that Dodge likes neither Bradley nor cutting his hair, but she announces Bradley‘s coming first and then she informs him he will come to cut his hair. Though Bradley is Dodge‘s son, the mood of the utterance, just mentioning his name, indicates that his coming is unusual and thus he is unwelcomed. Dodge‘s declarative utterance nullifies Halie‘s (should) in her first utterance regarding the necessity of Bradley‘s coming. Dodge does not like the justification for Bradley‘s coming. To react against Halie, Dodge uses hypophora strategy ‗My hair?‘. He deploys this form to convey that the justification for Bradley‘s coming is unreasonable and he immediately answers the question manipulating a negative form to refuse hair-cut (I don‘t need my hair cut! I haven‘t hardly got any hair left!). Though his utterance is informative and clear, he flouts the manner maxim since the way he chooses to reject the idea of cutting his hair is not suitable in that context. Halie is his wife and she tells him the information simply and without any stress, but he utilizes exclamation marks twice and two negative sentences just to refuse what she said. He deliberately uses this style to make Halie realize that he does not agree to have his hair cut. This manner of speaking shows the disagreement between the husband and the wife.
The uncooperativeness between the interactants becomes completely apparent when Halie tells Dodge to have his hair cut, but he refuses. The conversation turns into a kind of power struggle between husband and wife. Halie wants to dominate Dodge by obliging him to submit to her wishes and to persuade him to give consent (won‘t hurt). According to Dodge‘s experience, Halie violates the quality maxim because her speech is not true. This is not the first time that Bradley cuts his hair and every time he hurts him a lot. When Shelly appears on stage in Act Two, Dodge is sleeping and she touches one of the cuts in his head made by Bradley while he was cutting his hair at the end of Act One. Consequently, Dodge resists (I don‘t need it, I never did need it!). In his fourth turn, Dodge strongly rejects Halie‘s proposal and expresses the refusal emphatically by negating ―need‖ in two forms ―don‘t need‖ and
140
―never did need‖, and the second form of negation is followed by exclamation point ―!‖. In the second sentence, he flouts the manner maxim as he implies that they always cut his hair though not necessary. The implicature is made via a hint which indicates that they cut his hair in order to bully him not to care about him. Halie knows Dodge will not agree to have his hair cut, but she does not cooperate with him and she double confirms her uncooperativeness when she violates relevance maxim in her fifth turn (I have to meet Father Dewis). Her utterance is informative, clear and true, but it has nothing to do with Dodge‘s aim to oblige Halie to stop Bradley. To change the topic, she produces an utterance which is inconsistent with Dodge‘s refusal. By ignoring his concern, she gives a hint that whether he agrees or not Bradley will cut his hair because this is the only way that Bradley can prove his relation to the family, and she also discloses the purpose behind going out in that rainy day, to meet Father Dewis, the religious advisor of the family. At this stage Dodge does not say anything about her intention since he is quite confused thinking of Bradley, but later he tells Vince ―Halie is out with her boyfriend….‖ (Act Two; P. 50).
Dodge feels insulted when Halie completely ignores him and changes the topic without heeding to his wants; therefore, he threatens to face Bradley if he tries to cut his hair (You tell Bradley that if he shows up with those clippers, I‘ll separate him from his manhood). The structure of the sentence is complex and it functions as a command and a threat. In the first part (you tell Bradley), he implies that Halie encourages Bradley to cut Dodge‘s hair and she can stop him, and he emphasizes her involvement by starting the imperative sentence with the pronoun (you). Dodge violates the quality maxim since he has no proof against her, and Halie knows the accusation is baseless; hence she ignores him. In his second sentence (if he shows up…), he also flouts the quality maxim because he knows very well that he cannot stand against Bradley since he is rough and everybody in the house is afraid of him. Halie also does not find danger in Dodge‘s threat; therefore, she pays no attention to what he says and continues talking about her departure. In her sixth turn (I won‘t be very late. No later than four at the very latest), Halie violates the quantity maxim as she uses tautologies (late, later, latest) and she
141
also flouts the relation maxim as she once again talks about her plan to go out not about Dodge‘s threat or Dodge‘s haircut and Bradley. The utterances have nothing to do with each other as if they were not speaking with each other at all. In his sixth turn, Dodge orders Halie to talk to Bradley (You tell him!), but this time he adds two other sentences in which he complains in order to emotionally affect Halie (Last time he left me near bald! And I wasn‘t even awake). Again he indirectly accuses Halie of having a hand in the case and she understands this; therefore, she defends herself (not my fault!). Readers do not know if Halie violates the quality maxim or not as nothing is known about her role in urging Bradley, but for Dodge, Halie violates the quality maxim since he does not believe her, and his next utterance (you put him up to it!) verifies his belief. He ends the utterance with an exclamation mark to express great anger, but he violates the quality maxim since he gives no evidence to prove the truthiness of his utterance and also Halie denies its truthiness as she articulates (I never did!). For Halie the accusation is baseless and Dodge‘s speech is not more than a lie, and she defends herself in the same strong mood by ending her speech with an exclamation point. After this turn, they move away from the main subject and discuss several other issues, but they get nowhere.
Breaking the Conversational Maxims and the Implicatures are summarized in the following tables.
Table 4.3 Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue Character Halie‘s voice
Dodge
Utterance * Bradley should be over…
Status flouted
Reason less informative
* I won‘t be very late. No flouted later than four at the very latest
use tautologies
------------------------
---------------------
----------
142
Table 4.4 Violation of the Quality Maxim in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Halie‘s voice
* It won‘t hurt * That‘s not my fault!
violated violated
For Dodge, it is not true. For Dodge, it is a lie.
Dodge
* you tell Bradley
flouted
implicature via indirect speech act (accusation without evidence) he knows he cannot face him
* if he shows up with those flouted clippers, I‘ll separate him
Table 4.5 Violation of the Relation Maxim in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
Character Halie‘s voice
Dodge
Utterance
Status
* I have to meet Father flouted Dewis * I won‘t be very late flouted --------------------------
-----------
Reason
implicature via a hint inconsistent with his speech to end the dialogue --------------------------------
Table 4.6 Violation of the Manner Maxim in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
Character Halie‘s voice
Dodge
Utterance
Status
* tell Tilden what you want
flouted
* Bradley should be over…
flouted
* Bradley? * I don‘t need my hair cut!
flouted flouted
* I never did need it!
flouted
Reason implicature (indirect speech act) implicature via a hint (indirect speech act) obscure but understood the manner does not suit the context implicature via a hint (indirect speech act)
143
Table 4.7 Conversational Implicatures in Dodge-Halie First Dialogue
Character Halie‘s Voice
Utterance
* tell Tilden what you want
Implicatures
She will go out.
* I have to meet Father She does not tell Bradley about his hair Dewis since she will not see him.
Dodge
* I won‘t be very late
She no longer wants to argue about Dodge‘s hair.
* I never did need it!
They cut his hair to bully him not because they care about him. Halie urges Bradley to cut Dodge‘s hair and she should stop him.
* you tell Bradley
V.
Findings and Conclusions
Halie initiates the dialogue to inform Dodge that she will go out and their son will visit them. The name of Bradley startles Dodge because he does not expect anything good from him, and whenever Bradley comes to the house, he cuts Dodge‘s hair and hurts him a lot. Dodge and Halie get into a severe argument over cutting his hair. Though they live in one house, the husband and wife have separated not only spiritually but also physically since Dodge lives downstairs and Halie upstairs. The distance between them is so big that they get upset easily and even courteous behaviors are interpreted in a wrong way because they do not trust each other.
Halie initiates the talk and she takes 8 turns, and uses (59) words. She performs (9) speech acts; (2) directives and (7) assertives. One of the directives is (urging) and the other is (advice); in both cases the beneficiary is Dodge, but he refuses to cooperate. Dodge takes (7) turns and uses (68) words. He performs (9) speech acts; (6) directives of which (5) are orders and (1) is a question; he also produces (2) assertives and (1) commissives.
144
Halie breaks the conversational maxims (8) times. She flouts each of Quantity, Relevance and Manner maxims (2) times, and she violates Quality Maxim in (2) cases. Dodge breaks the maxims (5) times. He flouts Manner Maxim (3) times and Quality Maxim (2) times.
The dialogue is (17) lines, but they break the maxims (13) times. Halie breaks the maxims more than Dodge does because she does not give enough information in her turns and she does not cooperate with him to persuade Bradley not to cut his hair. Dodge flouts the conversational maxims when he indirectly accuses Halie of being responsible for encouraging Bradley to cut his hair.
The study of the Speech Acts and the Cooperative Principles reveals:
The analysis shows that there is no agreement and understanding between the husband and wife and they do not regard each other‘s wishes and desires. The speakers use illocutionary force indicators many times to strengthen their speech acts and to forcefully refuse to give kind of cooperation. Dodge uses exclamation mark (7) times, question mark (2) times and word-order strategy (2) times in (you tell Bradley, I never did need…). Halie only uses exclamation mark (3) times at the end of the conversation to defend herself after Dodge accuses her of urging Bradley to cut his hair.
The interactants do not pay attention to the felicity conditions and they say what they want and they do not listen to the other party‘s claims or wishes. Consequently, cooperation between them is impossible. Dodge tries to persuade Halie to talk to Bradley not to cut his hair, but she refuses to cooperate and even she ignores him. Consequently, Dodge‘s utterances misfire (8) times since their purposes are not compatible with Halie‘s purpose in starting the conversation. Halie also tries hard to persuade Dodge to give consent to have his hair cut indicating that it is good for him, but her claim is severely rejected. Consequently, her speech acts prove unsuccessful (6) times because the propositional content conditions, preparatory conditions and the essential conditions are not observed.
145
Dodge and Halie say something when their turns come, but lack of cooperation dominates the entire dialogue because they will not achieve their aims, and they say things which are not true or considered to be so by the addressee and thus rejected. The struggle between them continues without reaching any conclusion. They use direct and indirect speech acts and end their utterances with exclamation marks to express strong disagreement. They violate and flout the conversational maxims many times because they do not want to listen to each other and they say what they want not what the mode of the communication requires.
VI.
Position of extract two in the play
The first encounter by Dodge and Halie was interrupted by Tilden‘s coming on stage. Dodge and Halie stop arguing with each other for a while and direct their questions to Tilden about the corn he brought in. after a while, Dodge and Halie resume their disputes. Extract two is the continuation of extract one. Because their aims in the communication are not clear, Dodge and Halie discuss several unrelated topics. After they argue about Tilden and Ansel, Dodge and Halie return to their former topic, Bradley, but this time the debate exceeds all the limits of normal conversation and the participants use various lexicons to insult and rebuke each other. Dodge and Halie again confront each other and they argue over whether Bradley is related to the family or not. Dodge states that Bradley does not have the right to come to the house, but Halie insists that he was born in the house and it is his as much as theirs. The tensions between them increase and finally Dodge makes a hint about a very sensitive issue, the Buried Child, which shocks the three of them. Dodge hurts her feeling to the extent that she cannot stay any longer. Dodge‘s remark ends the dispute and Halie gets ready to go out. Before she goes out, she goes back to the same subject she starts in the first sentence of her first turn in extract one, Tilden can help Dodge if he needs anything, and also Dodge returns to the same issue, Halie tells Bradley to stay away from him, but Halie states that he is Bradley‘s father and he must tell him not to do that. Thus they resume the same argument and they return to the beginning, but this time they cut it short because Halie goes out and has already said what she had and does not want to talk about the issue once again.
146
VII.
Extract Two
Dodge: Bradley does not even live here! Halie: It‘s his house as much as ours. He was born in this house! Dodge: He was born in a hog wallow. Halie: Don‘t you say that! Don‘t you ever say that! Dodge: He was born in a goddamn hog wallow! That‘s where he was born and that‘s where he belongs! He doesn‘t belong in this house! (HALIE stops) Halie: I don‘t know what‘s come over you, Dodge. I don‘t know what in the world‘s come over you. You‘ve become an evil, spiteful, vengeful man. You used to be a good man. Dodge: Six of one, a half dozen of another. Halie: You sit here day and night, festering away! Decomposing! Smelling up the house with your putrid body! Hacking your head off ‘til all hours of the morning! Thinking up mean, evil, stupid things to say about your own flesh and blood! Dodge: He‘s not my flesh and blood! My flesh and blood‘s out there in the backyard! (They freeze. Long pause. The men stare at her.) Halie: (Quietly.) That‘s enough, Dodge. That‘s quite enough. You‘ve become confused. I‘m going out now. I‘m going to have lunch with Father Dewis. I‘m going to ask him about a monument for Ansel. A statue. At least a plaque.
Act One; pp. 32-33
147
VIII. Speech Acts Analysis in Extract Two After Halie sees the cornhusks spread on the floor, she warns Dodge and Tilden that Bradley gets upset if he sees the house in disarray. Halie‘s utterance gives Bradley authority in the house, but Dodge never agrees with this; therefore, he reacts sharply. Dodge‘s first utterance (Bradley does not even live here!) is a statement in negative form. The illocutionary force of the assertive sentence is confirmation and its point is to deny Bradley‘s power in the house. He makes her realize that Bradley is a stranger in the house. The statement is strong since he uses illocutionary force indicators such as ‗even‘ and ‗!‘. The speech act is unsuccessful because the purpose of the utterance is not obtained, and Halie is not interested in her husband‘s opinion and thus she opposes him in the same mood (It‘s his house as much as ours. He was born in this house!). She produces two sentences in the manner of representative statements and in both of them the illocutionary force is that she disapproves Dodge‘s view and the propositional acts are predication (is his house, born in this house). Through this repetition, she wants to persuade him to regard Bradley as the family member and stop despising him, but the speech act misfires since Dodge refuses to accept the view.
Halie defends her son and gives him the right to come to the house, but this stance disturbs Dodge. In his second turn (he was born in a hog wallow), Dodge severely attacks Bradley and belittles him. He describes Bradley according to his treatment with his father and thus he regards him as an animal in order to make Halie realize that Bradley does not behave with him as a human being. In his utterance, he describes the house and regards it as an ill-famed place (hog wallow). Dodge‘s speech act is unsuccessful according to the propositional content conditions because Halie does not have the same feeling and she is annoyed very much. Consequently, in her second turn, she expresses her anger in the manner of direct imperatives in which she commands Dodge not to speak badly about his own son and the house (propositional content). She is so angry that she repeats the order and in both cases the utterances end with exclamation point (!).
Though she strongly forbids (illocutionary point) Dodge not to say bad things about Bradley and the house, the speech act misfires since the essential condition is
148
not observed, and she does not achieve her aim because Dodge repeats his insult more emphatically (born in a goddamn hog wallow!), (That‘s where he was born and that‘s where he belongs!), (he doesn‘t belong in this house!‖). In this utterance (Dodge 3), he produces four sentences all are assertives. He combines his two previous utterances in this one. The speech act overlaps here. His statement has the power of an order because he strongly insists that Bradley has nothing to do with the family. The four sentences function as a strong warning to persuade Halie not to talk about Bradley‘s relation to the house, and he uses (belong in) to indicate that his existence is useless and he should die. Dodge gives force to his speech acts through utilizing the illocutionary force indicator (!). In this utterance he uses exclamation mark (3) times. Halie realizes that Dodge is very angry now, and thus she changes the tone of the exchange, but she still refuses to heed to her husband‘s wishes.
Consequently, in her next turn (Halie 3) she complains that something wrong has happened to Dodge because he speaks and behaves in a strange way as if he was not the same Dodge who cared about the farm and the family (I don‘t know what‘s come over you…. You‘ve become an evil, spiteful, vengeful man. You used to be a good man). Halie makes this comment to persuade her husband to think of his life and return to the family and reunite with them, but the utterance is infelicitous since Dodge does not share this wish and he believes that the reality will not change whether he behaves or speaks in this manner or in a different way (Six of one, a half dozen of another). Dodge describes the current condition of the family (propositional content) and predicts nothing good to happen. He uses this idiom to inform Halie that the facts will not change, and this is an indirect hint to the family‘s secret. Again the utterance is not happy because it is not completed as one party rejects it. In his previous turns, Dodge tries to persuade Halie not to talk about Bradley‘s tie with the family and to prevent him from cutting his hair, but now he talks about something serious which perturbs Halie. He wants to remind her why he behaves in this way, and what changed him. His statement ―Six of one, a half dozen of another‖ catches the attention of the audience and they may ask why the result is the same if Dodge behaves in this way or differently, but Halie does not ask this question because she knows the answer and thus in her fourth turn, she rebukes Dodge sharply and in a
149
series of sentences, she uses various offensive words and phrases ―putrid body, evil, stupid‖. She describes the situation to let him know that he has disturbed peace in the house and he always thinks of bad things. The utterance is assertive and the illocutionary force is complaint, but the aim is to insult. She articulates (5) sentences all end with exclamation mark which gives strength to her disgust toward Dodge. She uses profane language and a harsh manner of speaking to prevent Dodge from saying anything else about the family‘ past, but she cannot achieve her aim and thus the utterance is infelicitous as it is not complete and rejected by the hearer (Dodge). Halie‘s reaction is not normal. If she just wants to make Dodge respect his family and talk nicely about them, she may not need to use vulgar language. In fact she wants to end the debate in order not to hear Dodge say anything else about the family, but she fails. Her reaction propels the discussion to a more sensitive stage when she utters ―your own flesh and blood‖. Halie uses the phrase to remind Dodge that Bradley is his own son and it is improper to scorn him, but Dodge echoes the phrase to hint at the family‘s secret, the illegitimate child who was killed and buried in the backyard (he‘s not my flesh and blood! My flesh and blood‘s out there in the backyard!). Dodge utters two sentences, one negative and the other is affirmative. In the former he terminates Bradley‘s relation with him and in the later he refers to the reason behind the family‘s breakdown. He indirectly refers to the illegitimate child, Buried Child, born as the result of the incestuous relationship between Halie and Tilden. He asserts the facts about the family‘s past, but he aims to insult Halie back. Dodge hurts Halie‘s feelings and reminds her terrible events in order to oblige her not to talk about family relations and blood ties. Finally, Dodge achieves the aim and the utterance is successful because Halie decides to go and end the argument.
The issue is rather sensitive and as the stage direction shows (They freeze. Long pause. The men stare at her.), but Hailey curtails the issue by ordering Dodge to stop saying anything else (That‘s enough, Dodge. That‘s quite enough), but she does not give force to the imperatives (quietly), and both end with a dot (.). She accuses him of being unstable psychologically, and she announces her intention to leave the house and thus closes the turn-taking system as she goes out.
150
Table 4.8 Utterance Interpretation in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
Character
Utterance Act
Propositional Act
Illocutionary Act
Perlocutionary Act
make her realize that Bradley is a stranger. convince him not to scorn his son. make her believe that Bradley is inhumane. compel him to show respect
Dodge
Bradley does not predication even live here! (does not even live here)
argue
Halie
It‘s his house as reference much as ours. … ( it= house..)
argue (strong)
Dodge
He was born in a predication hog wallow. (was born in a hog wallow))
Describe
Halie
Don‘t you say that! Don‘t you ever…. He was born in a goddamn hog wallow… I don‘t know what‘s come over you….. Six of one, a half dozen of another.
predication (say that)
order (strong)
predication (was born in..)
order (argue overlapped) complain
..stupid things to say about your own flesh and blood! * He‘s not my flesh and blood!
reference (description)
complain
reference (he)
Deny
* My flesh and blood‘s out there in the backyard! * That‘s enough, Dodge.
predication (is out there in the backyard predication (is enough)
announce
Dodge
Halie
Dodge
Halie
Dodge
Halie
predication (don‘t know what‘s…..) idiom
* I‘m going out prediction now. (going out now)
affirm
order
assert
make her to stop talking about Bradley. convince him to return to his previous life. make her believe that nothing will change. make him realize that he annoyed them. * make her stop talking about Bradley. * make her remember the incident. * oblige him to end the talk. * make him believe that she dislikes talking about this issue
151
Table 4.9 Speech Acts Analysis in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
Character
T u r n s
Dodge
1
Bradley does not assertive confirm even live here!
deny
misfire
Halie
1
persuade
misfire
Dodge
2
It‘s his house as assertive announce much as ours. … He was born in a assertive Describe hog wallow.
Insult
misfire
Halie
2
Don‘t you say directive order that! Don‘t you ever….
prohibit
misfire
Dodge
3
He was born in a directive goddamn hog wallow…
persuade
misfire
Halie
3
misfire
Dodge
4
I don‘t know assertive Complain convince what‘s come over you….. Six of one, a half assertive Describe Remind dozen of another.
Halie
4
complain
Rebuke
misfire
Dodge
5
..stupid things to assertive say about your own flesh and blood! * He‘s not my assertive flesh and blood. * My flesh and assertive blood‘s out there in the backyard!
Insist
Deny
misfire
inform
remind
succeed
* That‘s enough, directive Dodge.
order
prohibit
succeed
* I‘m going out assertive now.
conclude
end the succeed argument
Halie
5
Utterance Act
Speech Acts
Force
Insist (overlap)
Point
Felicity
misfire
152
VIII.
Cooperative Principle and Implicature Analysis in Extract Two
In his first turn (Bradley does not even live here!), Dodge gives a hint about the family‘s real condition in which they are separated and for him Bradley is a stranger and thus he should not come to the house. Though the utterance is fact, he flouts the manner maxim because he encodes another meaning and the exclamation mark is used to verify his intention. Halie understands the implicature, but she does not agree with him because she believes that the family members are connected by blood not by the house and nothing can detach him from his root. Halie in her first turn uses the word ‗house‘ twice to emphasize that Bradley belongs to the family and he can come whenever he wants, and she ends the second sentence (born in this house!) with an exclamation mark to give strength to her view. Halie violates the manner maxim as she is not brief. Her utterance is a fact and only her second sentence is enough to give legitimacy to Bradley‘s coming. This view is against Dodge‘s opinion about the house; therefore, he makes a move to reveal that it looks like a ‗hog wallow‘ for him. In his second utterance (He was born in a hog wallow), Dodge comments on Halie‘s second utterance. He uses the phrase ‗hog wallow‘ metaphorically to refer to the house as an ill-famed place. He violates the quality maxim because metaphor is falsity, but he uses it to indirectly refer to the incest and the murder and regards Bradley‘s birthplace, the house, as a bad place. He indirectly describes the house as a dirty and morally rotten place. Though his speech is falsity, he uses this style to attribute implicature, and Halie comprehends the encoded meaning which is very hard for her; hence, she reacts harshly and repeatedly orders Dodge not to mention that issue. She formulates two imperative sentences in the same way (Don‘t you say that!) and in the second sentence she adds (ever) to enhance the force of the order which is already expressed by the structure and the exclamation points used at the end of the sentences. Halie repeats the utterance because she finds it necessary to express her emotion and to oblige her husband not to speak badly about the family and more importantly not to mention anything which is related to the family‘s past, the illegitimate child.
153
Halie‘s behavior demonstrates that she is greatly upset, but for Dodge it is not more than a bitter fact; therefore, in his third turn, he repeats his grossly offensive description of the house (He was born in a goddamn hog wallow!....). He reiterates that Bradley was not born in a normal house and he does not belong to a normal family. He strongly refuses Bradley‘s connection to the house and to the family implying that he was born in a bad place and belongs to an immoral family since the family secret has ruined the family and smeared the house with filth. Dodge flouts the quantity maxim as he repeats his previous utterance and in this utterance he also makes some repetitions (he was born in a goddamn hog wallow! That‘s where he was born and that‘s where he belongs! He doesn‘t belong in this house!).
The effect of this speech is strong on Halie and thus she cannot say anything (HALIE stops). Halie attempts hard to persuade Dodge not speak badly about the family, but he does not cooperate; therefore, she reacts against Dodge‘s persistent reference to the house as a vile place (I don‘t know what‘s come over you ….You‘ve become an evil, spiteful, vengeful man ….), but according to Dodge, she violates the quality maxim since it is not true when she says she does not know why Dodge uses coarse language and behaves harshly. She knows very well the reason which altered Dodge from a civilized responsible father and husband to ―an evil, spiteful, vengeful man‖, but she pretends ignorance. Dodge is not moved by Halie‘s complaint because he has a reason to behave like this and he is sure that Halie also knows. Consequently, in his next turn, he gives a hint about the reason.
In his fourth turn, Dodge uses an idiom as an indirect speech act strategy (Six of one, a half dozen of another) to refer to the past of the family, and thus he flouts the manner maxim. He implies that in the past he was a good person, but his wife betrayed him and now even if he speaks and behaves politely, the reality will not change. Dodge flouts the maxim as he gives just a hint; he indirectly refers to the family situation, but the issue is sensitive and he cannot give details. Halie intended to shy away from this sensitive topic (Halie 4); therefore, she ignores the remark and produces a long utterance consists of (5) sentences (You sit here day and night, festering away! … stupid things to say about your own flesh and blood!). In her previous utterance, Halie reprimanded Dodge through utilizing disgusting adjectives
154
and she repeats the same manner of speaking in this turn and articulates a longer utterance. Halie violates quantity maxim because she overstates and it raises side issues. Dodge echoes part of what she says and deploys it against herself (My flesh and blood‘s out there in the backyard!). For readers, Dodge violates the quantity maxim since he speaks ironically and his utterance is not informative enough; he gives a hint about a sensitive issue which is related to the family and the Buried Child. When Halie got pregnant, she asserted that Dodge is the father of the baby, but as Dodge in Act Three (p. 109) explains (it wanted to pretend that I was its father. She wanted me to believe in it. Even when everyone around us knew), he was not the real father of the baby. In his utterance Dodge gives a hint about that event, and ironically says ‗my flesh and blood‘. Halie understands the fact that the implicature is related to the born-out of-wedlock child who was drowned by Dodge and buried in the backyard. Dodge intentionally flouts the manner maxim to create implicature since the issue is too sensitive to be spoken about directly.
Not only Halie, but Dodge himself and Tilden too, present at that moment, are shocked at this speech and the stage direction shows this clearly ((They freeze. Long pause. The men stare at her). Halie feels the sensitivity of the subject matter and she cannot endure her husband‘s insults anymore. Consequently, she makes a move and orders Dodge not to say anything else about the issue (That‘s enough, Dodge. That‘s quite enough). She wants to end the argument here and the stage direction also shows this intention (quietly). She flouts the relevance maxim (I‘m going out now….) as she changes the topic to pave a way for ending the talk. Finally, she closes down the exchange by claiming that she goes out to meet Father Dewis. It seems that Dodge also wishes the dispute to be ended here and thus he gives no comment. After this quarrel, no communication occurs between them and at the end Dodge dies. Breaking the Conversational Maxims and the Implicatures are summarized in the following tables.
155
Table 4.10 Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Halie
….stupid things to say about violated your own flesh and blood.
overstatement raises issues (Buried Child)
Dodge
* He was born in a goddamn violated hog wallow! ……
tautology (born, born, hog wallow, belong, belong)
* My flesh and blood‘s out violated there in the backyard
For readers, understatement informative)
it
side
is (less
Table 4.11 Violation of the Quality Maxim in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Halie
I don‘t know what‘s come violated over you, Dodge.
For Dodge, it is a lie.
Dodge
He was born in a hog violated wallow
metaphor (falsity) attribute implicature)
(to
Table 4.12 Violation of the Relevance Maxim in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Halie
I‘m going out now…..
violated
to close the turn-taking
Dodge
--------------------------
-----------
--------------------------------
156
Table 4.13 Violation of the Manner Maxim in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
Character Utterance
Halie
Dodge
* It‘s his house as much…
Status
Reason
violated
not brief
* You‘ve become an evil, violated spiteful, vengeful man,….
she uses vulgar language (indecent in the general sense)
* Bradley does not even live flouted here!
implicature via a hint about the family‘s current condition
* Six of one, a half dozen of flouted another.
idiomatic expression (a hint about the family‘s past)
* He was born in a goddamn violated hog wallow!
he uses indecent language
* My flesh and blood‘s out flouted there in the backyard!
obscure to create implicature but understood by Halie
Table 4.14 Conversational Implicatures in Dodge-Halie Second Dialogue
Character
Halie Dodge
Utterance
Implicatures
-----------------------------* Bradley does not even live here! * He was born in a hog wallow
-------------------------------The family has fallen apart and Bradley is a stranger The house is ill-famed and it is morally rotten.
* Six of one, a half dozen of If he speaks decently or not, the result is another. the same since the family‘s past will not change (idiom) * My flesh and blood‘s out His son is buried in the backyard (ironic there in the backyard! reference to the illegitimate child in order to hurt Halie who asserted that Dodge is the father of the child and to remind her of the incest).
157
IX.
Findings and Conclusions
The dialogue is the continuation of the first encounter, but now Halie is down stairs and she talks to Dodge face to face. They still argue about Bradley and his relation to the family, but after the second turn, the topic shifts to a more sensitive issue, the family secret, the incestuous relationship between Halie and Tilden, and the illegitimate child that was drowned by Dodge and buried in the backyard.
In this extract, Dodge and Halie take (5) turns each. Dodge articulates (8) sentences and uses (60) words. Halie articulates (21) sentences and uses (132) words. The characters articulate long utterances especially Halie and most of the sentences are utilized to describe the situation; therefore, the number of the speech acts performed are less than the number of the sentences.
Halie performs (4) assertives and (2) orders. Two of the assertives are complaints and the other two are descriptions. Dodge performs (5) assertives and (1) order which is a statement by structure but overlaps due to his strong insistence. Halie violates the Quantity Maxim (1) in her first turn when she repeats similar grammatical structures and words for emphasis; she violates Quality Maxim (1) as her utterance is not true according to the background knowledge about the family; Manner Maxim (1) when she deviates from the discourse to end the talk, and she also violates Manner Maxim (2) as her utterance is not true and she uses vulgar language.
In all his turns, Dodge breaks the conversational maxims (7) times. He flouts Manner Maxim (3) times as he attributes implicature due to the sensitivity of the topic he refers to and (1) more time when he uses indecent language (impolite). He also violates Quantity Maxim (2) times and Quality Maxim (1) when he utilizes metaphor to create implicature.
The study of the Speech Acts and the Conversational Maxims reveals:
The subject matter of the conversation is a sensitive issue which has caused the family disintegration and it is related to Halie‘s incestuous relationship with her son, Tilden.
158
Consequently, both Dodge and Halie do not express their views directly and thus they break the Manner Maxim (6) times in just (10) turns. The husband and wife talk about two issues, Bradley and the family‘s past, but they speak against each other because there is no harmony between their views. Their utterances are unsuccessful because the reject each other‘s views and they perform verbal attacks; only in the last turn, the speech acts are happy when they end the conversation though forcefully. Consequently, from the beginning till the end of the dialogue, there is not a moment in which they cooperate or show respect to each other‘s feelings and emotions. They use a rough language and deploy various offensive words and phrases to reprove and affront each other such as (hog wallow, goddamn hog wallow, evil, spiteful, vengeful, festering away!, decomposing!, putrid body, thinking up mean, evil, stupid things).
The dialogue ends here, but they do not achieve their aims and no hope for reconciliation can be detected in their behaviors and in the language they use. No more conversation occurs between the couple and in the end Dodge dies while Halie is upstairs. The husband and wife do not reconcile because Dodge refuses to forgive his wife for betraying him. In his last moment, he makes a will leaving his farm tools to Tilden which can be considered to make a supposition that he has forgiven Tilden.
4.2.2 Father-Son Relationship: Dodge vs. Tilden
Dodge is the father of Tilden and Bradley and Tilden is also has a son, Vince, but conversations occur only between Dodge and Tilden. Bradley appears at the end of Act One and then at the end of Act Two. In his first appearance, he shaves Dodge‘s head while he is sleeping and he says nothing and when he comes on stage again at the end of Act Two he speaks with Tilden and Shelly, but does not say a word with his father. He speaks with Dodge directly only once which is near the end of the play when Dodge decides to reveal the secret of the family to Shelly. He just tells Dodge ―We made a pact! We made a pact between us! You can‘t break that now!‖ and in return Dodge replies ―I don‘t remember any pact‖ (Act Three, pp. 108). This is the only confrontation which occurs between Dodge and Bradley. Bradley bullies Dodge
159
through cutting his hair and this is the only thing which ties them together. Bradley does not talk with Dodge because there is nothing between them to talk about and Dodge hates Bradley very much and he does not want to see him around at all.
Regarding the relationship between Tilden, as father, and his son Vince, the situation is not better. They only meet each other in the middle of Act Two. Vince is surprised when he sees his father since he believes that he is still in New Mexico. Vince asks him what he is doing here and why he came back, but he will not get the answers and conversations never occur between them because Tilden pretends that he does not recognize him. They utter a few sentences about Vince‘s plan to go to New Mexico and Vince‘s decision to go and buy liquor for Dodge, but the utterances have nothing to do with their relationship and a serious conversation is never built between them. Vince does not have a chance to speak with his father because he goes out to buy whisky for Dodge and comes back just before the end of the play and Bradley kicks Tilden out of the house at the end of Act Two and he returns at the end of the play when he brings back the remains of the Buried Child, but he does not utter a single word. The relationship between Dodge and Bradley is similar to the relationship between Tilden and Vince. Both sons left the house and now have come back, but one of them is not wanted, Bradley, and the other one is not recognized (Vince). In such cases when there is nothing to tie the characters, communication is impossible to be established especially if they do not want to talk about anything as Dodge says ―I don‘t want to talk about anything!....‖ (Act One; pp. 35).
In Buried Child, conversation between father and son occurs only between Dodge and Tilden because they are two main sides of the family problems and they represent the failure of father-children relationship. Besides, they do not want to listen to each other. Consequently, conversations between them will not happen and thus Shelly participates in most of the dialogues occur in Act Two and Act Three as she is the only one who listens to them. Tilden, who is believed to be the father of the illegitimate Buried Child, left the house about twenty years ago and now he is back. Dodge is not happy with his coming home since he believes that it will renew the events which cause the breakdown of the family, the incest and the murder. Tilden could not manage his affairs in the outer world; therefore, he has come back to reunite
160
with his past, family, and to face the reality which haunts him and the family. Dodge does not welcome this desire since he believes that nothing can rebuild the family again and Tilden is a grown man and he should be able to take care of himself.
The relationship between Dodge and Tilden as father and son has already ended, but controversies will occur between them when Tilden comes back to revive the family ties through making the family secret known to the public. At first Dodge resists this attempt and he wants to keep the family secrets uncovered, but at the end of the play he himself discloses everything to Shelly and this will open the door for the new generation, Vince, to rebuild the family again. The relationship between parents and their children is a failure because the parents expect much more from their children; they believe that their children will be successful in life and they can even take care of them, but now the situation is quite different. The dysfunctional father-son relationship can be detected through analyzing a sample of the dialogue which occurs between Dodge and Tilden.
I.
Position of the extract in the play
Tilden has come back to uncover the secret of the family so that they can start anew, but he is obstructed by Dodge as he believes that the family is ruined and cannot be restructured. Dodge tries to forget what happened in the past, but he does not forgive his wife and son for committing the sin and he believes they are responsible for what has happened to the family, not him. Consequently, he does not cooperate with his family to correct the mistakes of the past and thus he confronts the rest of the family. Dodge faces Tilden because Tilden wants to face the reality and disclose the family secret since he believes that this is the only way to get rid of the mental pain caused by the burden of hiding the secret, but Dodge, as he states, ―I don‘t want to talk about troubles or what happened fifty years ago or thirty years ago or the racetrack or Florida or the last time I seeded the corn!.....‖ (Act One; P. 35).
During the argument between Dodge and Halie, Dodge indirectly gives a hint about the Buried Child, the family‘s secret, but Halie refuses to talk about it and she goes out. Tilden exploits this chance to discuss the issue of the sin and the murder
161
which are the reasons behind his return and the family‘s breakdown. In this extract, Tilden argues that he could not live far from his family with the secret. The sin and the murder always haunt him and he cannot forget them. He believes that the family must face the reality and talk about their secret so that they can end the curse and resume their normal life. Tilden returns to talk about the secret and tries to convince Dodge to talk about it too because he thinks that they cannot continue in life if they shut up their mouth and utter nothing about what has happened to the family, but his father believes that Tilden should not have come back and he had to be able to live outside the family circle. The disintegration between father and son in this extract becomes clearer when Dodge believes that the children must be able to take of themselves when they grow and they should be independent from their parents, but Tilden thinks that human beings cannot live if they are cut off from their root; hence, he returns to face the reality and to revive his connection with his family.
II.
The Extract
Tilden: Well, you gotta talk or you‘ll die. Dodge: Who told you that crap? Tilden: That‘s what I know. I found that out in New Mexico. I thought I was dying but I just lost my voice. Dodge: Were you with somebody? A woman? A woman‘ll make you think you‘re dying, sure as shooting. Tilden: I was alone. I thought I was dead. Dodge: Might as well have been. What‘d you come back here for? Tilden: I didn‘t know where else to go. Dodge: You‘re a grown man. You shouldn‘t be needing your parents at your age. It‘s unnatural. There‘s nothing we can do for you now anyway. Couldn‘t you make a living down there? Couldn‘t you find some way to make a living? Support yourself? What‘dya come back here for? You expect us to feed you forever? Tilden: I didn‘t know where else to go. Dodge: I never went back to my parents. Never. Never even had the urge. I was independent. Always independent. Always found a way. Self-sufficient. Tilden: I didn‘t know what to do. I couldn‘t figure anything out.
162
Dodge: There‘s nothing to figure out. You just forge ahead. What‘s there to figure out? (TILDEN stands)
Act One; P. 35-37 III.
Speech Acts Analysis in the Extract
During his conversation with Halie, Dodge gives a hint about the Buried Child when he says his flesh and blood are buried out there in the back, but neither Dodge nor Halie wants to argue about this issue, and they end the argument. Tilden was there when Dodge makes this comment and he thinks that it is a good opportunity to discuss the issue with his father because he came back to settle his problems and reunite with his family. Tilden is part of the family secret; hence, he prolongs the conversation. In his first utterance (you gotta talk or you‘ll die), the propositional act is predication, the illocutionary act is warning, the illocutionary force is to inform and the perlocutionary act is persuasion. He makes this move to warn Dodge about the danger of keeping the secret any longer and he tries to persuade him to talk about the family secret because he believes that talking frees his mind from the burden and thus he feels relaxed. Tilden does not achieve this intended perlocutionary effect because Dodge believes that talking will not reduce the pains and will not change the realities, and thus speech act misfires because, for Dodge, the essential condition is not observed.
To show his disinterest in the argument, Dodge asks him a question (Who told you that crap?), but the speech act overlaps. Dodge does not ask to know the identity of the propositional content (who), but he denies the truth of Tilden‘s speech. The intended perlocutionary effect of the speech act is to persuade Tilden not to talk about the issue, but its actual effect on Tilden is a request for information. The speech act misfires since the essential condition is not observed. Tilden considers the utterance as a request for information and, consequently, he articulates an utterance replacing (who) in Dodge‘s utterance with (I) to affirm that he learned from his experience (I found that out in New Mexico). Tilden insists that his view is true and defends of its truthiness by referring to his years in New Mexico when he was alone and he had no
163
one to listen to him. He still tries to convince Dodge to discuss the family issue, but again he fails because Dodge interprets the cause of this feeling in a different way.
Dodge believes that the reason was woman not loneliness (Were you with somebody? A woman? A woman‘ll make you think you‘re dying). Dodge asks a question, but before he gets the answer, he expresses his opinion regarding the reason. Depending on his experience, being alone or keeping silent will not kill anyone, but women will do. The third sentence in his utterance is a statement in which he expresses his opinion and indirectly refers to his life. He informs him that his wife will kill him. He indirectly reminds Tilden of Halie‘s behavior in the past and he wants to make him realize that the terrible condition of the family is caused by her. Dodge succeeds in conveying his message, but Tilden does not want to talk about Halie; thus, he answers the first question (Were you with somebody?) because he regards it as a felicitous speech act and ignores the rest of the utterance.
In his third turn (I was alone. I thought I was dead.), he argues that his situation has nothing to do with women. He confirms that his problem was loneliness not woman and he succeeds in making Dodge believe his case. The reason is true with regard to Tilden‘s situation, but for Dodge it is woman not loneliness who kills him. Consequently, Dodge does not want to say more about this. Tilden tries to drag Dodge into a conversation about the family problem, but Dodge terminates this attempt. In his third turn, Dodge articulates two sentences. In the first one (Might as well have been), he comments on Tilden‘s answer stating that being killed by loneliness is much better than being killed by a woman. Again he indirectly refers to Halie noting that the former case could not do any harm, but the latter one hurts human feelings and emotions very much. He indirectly describes his pain which is caused by Halie‘s betrayal, and he wants to make him understand his feeling, but the speech act misfires because Tilden ignores the remark and thus Dodge articulates another utterance in the manner of question (What‘d you come back here for?).
Dodge‘s utterance is structured as a question, but the speech act overlaps. He does not seek information, but he asserts that he should not have come back and the intended meaning or effect is to make him realize that he is unwelcomed in the house.
164
He indirectly tells him to leave the house, but the speech act misfires since Tilden does not understand the intention. The actual effect on Tilden is a request for information, and thus he clearly tells him the reason (I didn‘t know where else to go) and he expresses his vulnerability. Tilden‘s answer is short and clear cut. He wants to persuade his father to accept him as a member of the family again and he tries to make him understand that he cannot live alone forever far from his family, but the speech act is not successful because it is not compatible with Dodge‘s wants and aims in the interaction and thus rejected. In his next move, Dodge articulates a long utterance (You‘re a grown man. You shouldn‘t be needing your parents…… What‘dya come back here for? You expect us to feed you forever?), which consists of (9) sentences of which (5) are rhetorical questions. This utterance supports the explanation made for his previous utterance. Dodge realizes that Tilden has not received his message; hence he gives more strength to his former utterance in this turn. Dodge indirectly orders Tilden to leave the house. The rhetorical questions, among them the repetition of his former utterance, and the justifications he presents make the speech act overlap. It is not a statement but an order. He tries to persuade Tilden to leave the house again, but he does not achieve the aim. The utterance is infelicitous because the preparatory condition is not observed. Dodge already knows that Tilden has nowhere to go and cannot take care of himself.
Though Tilden understands the intended perlocutionary effect, he just repeats his former utterance (I didn‘t know where else to go). He insists that he stays in the house as he has no other choice. He wants his father to consider his situation and accept his existence in the house, but he cannot achieve his aim and thus the utterance misfires. In his sixth turn, Dodge changes the mood of the utterance. He deploys another strategy to convince Tilden to leave the house. He boasts about himself and highly talks about his past and praises his ability to depend on himself. He informs him about his experiences and explains how he did manage his life without depending on anyone, especially his parents. He indirectly urges Tilden to go and tries to persuade him by referring to his experience, but this attempt proves useless. Dodge again does not observe the preparatory condition and thus his speech misfires. Tilden
165
had left home once, but he was not successful and had run a terrible life outside his home; therefore, he does not try again (I didn‘t know what to do. I couldn‘t figure anything out). Tilden makes a statement about his experience explaining that he could not make it, he failed. As a stranger in the outer world, he did not understand anything and thus he came back hoping that his father considers his situation and helps him resume his life, but again the speech act misfires because it is rejected by Dodge. In his last turn (There‘s nothing to figure out. You just forge ahead. What‘s there to figure out?), Dodge disappoints Tilden. He articulates three sentences, but the third one is the repetition of the first one. Although it is structured as a question, it functions as a statement as it is rhetorical. He indirectly asserts that Tilden brought this to himself and he should endure the consequences. Dodge conveys that he cannot do anything for him and he should find out his way. In his second sentence (You just forge ahead), again Dodge makes another attempt to encourage Tilden to leave the house again. His speech act also misfires because Tilden has already said that he goes nowhere. Finally, Tilden understands that talking with his father is futile and he realizes that Dodge is still angry and has not forgiven him for what he did; therefore, he stands and leaves him. The interpretation of the utterance acts and the analysis of the speech acts can be summarized in the following tables.
Table 4.15 Utterance Interpretation in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue Character
Utterance Act
Propositional Act
Illocutionary Act
Perlocutionary Act
Tilden
you gotta talk or prediction you‘ll die. (gotta talk, will die)
Warning
persuade him to talk about the family secret
Dodge
Who told you reference that crap? (that crap)
deny
make him not to speak about it
continue …
166 … continued Tilden
I found that out predication in New (found that..) Mexico…
insist
convince him to speak out
Dodge
* Were you with somebody?
predication (were…with somebody)
question (indirect)
to get him explain
* A woman‘ll make you think you‘re dying.
reference (woman)
Inform
make him remind his situation
Tilden
I was alone.
predication (was alone)
answer
make him believe his situation
Dodge
What‘d you predication come back here (come back for? here for)
inform (indirect)
to get him know he is unwelcomed.
Tilden
I didn‘t know predication where else to go. (know where else to go…)
Answer
make him believe that he had no choice
Dodge
You‘re a grown reference man. You (you) shouldn‘t be needing…...
order (indirect)
compel him to leave the house
Tilden
I didn‘t know predication where else to go (didn‘t know where else...)
Insist
make him believe that he will stay
Dodge
I never went predication back to my (never went parents. Never. back to …..)
boast
persuade him to go
Tilden
I couldn‘t figure anything out.
Argue
make Dodge help him
Dodge
You just forge predication ahead. (forge ahead)
encourage
persuade her to stop bullying him
predication (figure anything…..)
167
Table 4.16 Speech Acts Analysis in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue Character
T u r n s
Tilden
1
you gotta talk or assertive you‘ll die.
inform
Persuade
misfire
Dodge
1
argue
deny
misfire
Tilden
2
Who told you assertive that crap? (overlap) …I found that assertive out in New Mexico ….
insist
Convince
misfire
Dodge
2
* Were you with somebody?
request
get succeed information
* A woman‘ll assertive make you think you‘re dying, I was alone. assertive
describe
remind (indirect)
succeed
confirm
persuade
succeed
* Might as well assertive have been * What‘d you assertive come back here.. (overlap)
describe
inform (indirect) persuade him to go
Tilden
3
Dodge
3
Utterance Act
Speech Acts
directive
Force
prohibit
Point
Felicity
misfire misfire
Tilden
4
I didn‘t know assertive where else to go.
describe
remind
misfire
Dodge
4
order (indirect)
compel him to go
misfire
Tilden
5
You‘re a grown directive man. You (overlap) shouldn‘t be needing…... I didn‘t know assertive where else to go
insist
refuse
misfire
Dodge
5
I never went assertive back to my parents. Never.
urge (indirect)
convince
misfire
continue …
168 … continued Tilden
6
Dodge
6
I couldn‘t figure anything out.
assertive
There‘s nothing assertive to figure out. You just forge ahead.
explain
reject
misfire
urge
persuade
misfire
Table 4.17 Differences between the Intended and the Actual Perlocutionary Effects
Character Utterance Act
Intended effect
Actual Effect
Tilden
--------------------------
------------------
------------
Dodge
What‘d you come back Get him to know he is A request for here for? not welcomed and thus information he should go
IV.
Cooperative Principle and Implicature Analysis in the Extract
The extract is a conversation between Dodge and Tilden who initiates the talk hoping that he can settle his problems with his father which are related to the past of the family and the Buried Child. The family has a secret which caused discordance between the members and Tilden believes that they should discuss the issue to solve it; otherwise keeping silent will kill them. In his first turn (you gotta talk or you‘ll die), he conveys this message implying that the best way to overcome the problems is to talk about them. Dodge understands his aim, but he rejects the proposal. For Dodge, Tilden violates the quality maxim because he exaggerates for effect (hyperbole). Dodge realizes that Tilden wants to persuade him to discuss the family issues so that he can reunite with the family and end the disputes erupted years ago, but he does not pay attention to this wish because he is not ready to forgive his son (Tilden) and his wife (Halie) who caused the family disintegration.
169
Dodge refuses to cooperate (Who told you that crap?). In making the move, he has two aims; first he invalidates the truthiness of Tilden‘s speech and secondly he indirectly refuses to talk about the family issue. He encodes these implicatures through using indirect speech strategy (rhetorical question). He structures the utterance as a question, but he does not expect answers since the question is not real and its aim is not that he seeks information. Consequently, Tilden is misled. Dodge also violates manner maxim (be polite) since he use slang language (crap). Tilden interprets the utterance in a wrong way. For Tilden, it is an enquiry and thus he shows cooperation and gives an answer. Relying on his experience, Tilden believes in the truthiness of his speech; hence, in his next turn (…I found that in New Mexico) he enlightens Dodge about his situation in New Mexico, but he violates the second maxim of quantity as he overstates (I thought I was dying but I just lost my voice). Tilden gives this information to explain that he could not talk to anyone about his family issues and keeping silent for a long time causes his death, but the utterance raises side issues. He also unostentatiously violates the relevance maxim because his answer is not related to Dodge‘s implied meaning.
Dodge exploits this point to talk about Halie who causes his death, and this is related to both Tilden and Halie. In his next turn, Dodge asks a question (Were you with somebody?), but he thinks that the utterance is not clear enough and thus he adds (A woman?). He does not wait for Tilden to answer and he directly gives his opinion (A woman‘ll make you think you‘re dying…). Dodge violates the quantity maxim as he does not directly talk about his problem which is related to Halie. For Dodge, silence is not harmful, but whenever he sees Halie he remembers the sin and the murder and this gives him a great pain. Dodge implies that Halie has destroyed his life; Tilden understands the implicature but shies away from it and he only answers the question.
In his third turn (I was alone. I thought I was dead), Tilden reiterates that his problem is loneliness and he does not say anything related to women and he even does not mention the word in order not to provoke Dodge. He wants to be short and clear. He wants to discuss the reason of his return which is his intention to reunite with the family. He is sure Dodge will not accept this; hence, he does not want to annoy him.
170
Tilden‘s case does not affect Dodge and he holds his beliefs when he utters (Might as well have been). For Dodge, Tilden‘s situation is better than his case. Though this is also an indirect hint to Halie, he does not want to go further on the topic and thus he changes it by articulating another sentence (What‘d you come back here for?). Again Dodge violates the quality because the utterance is formed as a question but the purpose behind it is scolding not a request for information. Consequently, he misleads Tilden. He indirectly tells him that he should not have come back after what he did (his incest with Halie), but Tilden misses the aim (or he may pretend not to comprehend the implied meaning) and thus he considers the utterance to be a question and gives an answer to show cooperation (I didn‘t know where else to go). Regarding Dodge‘s implicature, Tilden unintentionally violates the relevance maxim because his answer is not related to Dodge‘s implied point. This is the second time that Dodge‘s speech acts overlap because of ambiguity. The utterances are structured as questions, but their force is assertive and in both cases the point is missed because Tilden does not understand the intended meaning. As usual, Tilden‘s utterance is short although it is not related to Dodge‘s intended implicature (intention). Dodge realizes that Tilden missed the aim; therefore, he chooses another strategy. In his fourth turn (you‘re a grown man…..), Dodge makes a long speech articulating (4) statements of which (3) are negatives (shouldn‘t, unnatural, and nothing we can do for you), and (5) questions which are all rhetorical (Couldn‘t you make a living down there? Couldn‘t you find some way to make a living? Support yourself? What‘dya come back here for? You expect us to feed you forever?). The purpose behind the long speech is just to persuade Tilden to leave the house again. Dodge violates the quantity maxim as he overstates. He said (There‘s nothing we can do for you now anyway) and only this statement is enough to convey his message. He also violates the quality maxim as he uses rhetorical questions. All the questions come successively and he does not seek answers. Tilden now understands his father‘s intention because Dodge‘s speech does not give him a chance to select between two possibilities, but he still repeats what he has already said (I didn‘t know where else to go). By repeating the same utterance, Tilden confesses his failure in the outer world and his only hope to give him some
171
strength to rise again is his reunification with his family, but Dodge does not cooperate. Tilden‘s reply never satisfies his father and Dodge makes another attempt to persuade Tilden to leave the family for good. In his fifth turn, Dodge boasts about himself (I never went back to my parents). This is another indirect strategy to tell Tilden to go and leave them alone. Dodge violates quantity maxim as he uses the same words more than once for the same purpose (never, Never., Never, independent, independent, always, always). The repetition of the same words just to say he could manage his affairs outside his home is boring.
Tilden knows that irritating Dodge is not in his interest because he should persuade him to forgive him or at least accept him as a member of the family; hence, he always stays calm and he is careful about his speeches. In his last turn (I didn‘t know what to do. I couldn‘t figure anything out), he just rephrases his former utterances indicating that he had no other choice just to return home. In his utterance, he articulates two negative sentences indicating his incapability to live outside his home as he did not understand anything. He indirectly informs Dodge that he will stay in the house in order to avoid any possible clash with him. Tilden flouts the maxim of manner; his utterance is obscure, but Dodge understands the implied meaning. Dodge does not seem to care about Tilden‘s problem; hence, he makes his last move (…. You just forge ahead. What‘s there to figure out?), and as usual he does not cooperate and he insists on persuading his son to leave the house again. At the end of his speech, he violates the quality maxim as he asks a rhetorical question. The aim of the question is not to ask for information, but he simply tells Tilden that he put himself in this situation and he should endure the consequences. Tilden finally realizes that talking to his father is just wasting time because he has no intention to cooperate, and thus he ends the conversation and stands to go and leaves Dodge alone in the living room. Breaking the Conversational Maxims and the Implicatures are summarized in the following tables.
172
Table 4.18 Violation of Quantity Maxim in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Tilden
* I thought I was dying violated but…
overstatement issues
Dodge
* A woman‘ll make you violated think you‘re dying……
he does not go straight to the point (indirect reference to Halie)
* you‘re a grown man……
overstatement
violated
* I never went back to my violated parents. …….
raises
side
tautology (never, never, never, independent, independent, always, always)
Table 4.19 Violation of Quality Maxim in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Tilden
you gotta talk or you‘ll die
flouted
it is hyperbole
Dodge
* who told you that crap?
violated
rhetorical question (misleads Tilden)
* what‘d you come back violated here for?
rhetorical question (misleads Tilden)
* couldn‘t you make a living violated down there?....
rhetorical questions (he does not expect answer)
* what‘s there to figure out?
rhetorical questions(he does not expect answer)
violated
173
Table 4.20 Violation of Relevance Maxim in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
Character
Tilden
Dodge
Utterance
Status
Reason
* I found that out in New violated Mexico….
unostentatiously (misunderstand)
* I didn‘t know where else violated to go.
unostentatiously (misunderstand)
--------------------------
--------------------------------
-----------
Table 4.21 Violation of Manner Maxim in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
Speaker
Utterance
Status
Reason
Tilden
I didn‘t know what to do
flouted
obscure (but understood)
Dodge
Who told you that crap?
violated
slang language (crap)
Table 4.22 Conversational Implicatures in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
Character
Tilden
Utterance
Implicatures
* you gotta talk or you‘ll die. * I thought I was dying but I just lost my voice. * I didn‘t know where else to go.
They should not hide the secret any longer since it will destroy their lives. Keeping silent has tortured him to death He can discuss the family secret only with his family.
* I didn‘t know where else He will stay in the house. to go continue …
174
… continued Dodge
* who told you that crap?
Silence will not kill anyone.
* A woman‘ll make you Halie‘s behavior will kill him. think you‘re dying…… * What‘d you come back You should not have come back. here for? * You‘re a grown man
Tilden should take care of himself
* I never went back to my You should leave the house. parents. * There‘s nothing to figure You brought this to yourself and you out. You just forge ahead. have to endure the consequence.
V.
Findings and Conclusions
Tilden initiates the dialogue to persuade his father to talk about the family issue which is related to the past and the Buried Child so that they can overcome the problems and end the curse which haunts the family, but Dodge rejects this proposal. Instead he argues with Tilden to make him know that he is not welcomed and he should leave the house again. Till the end of the communication, Tilden attempts to convince his father to accept his presence, but Dodge refuses to give consent. In the same way, Dodge devotes all his moves to persuade Tilden to go out of their lives, but he fails.
The dialogue consists of (19) lines and (197) words. Tilden and Dodge take (6) turns each. Dodge uses (123) words, but Tilden only (62). Tilden‘s utterances are short and all end with full-stop. Dodge‘s utterances are long, and he uses (9) question mark, but only (1) of the utterances is a real question to get information. In (2) of them the speech acts overlap and they function as assertives not directives. The other (6) cases are rhetorical questions. Tilden performs (6) speech acts all are assertives. Dodge performs (8) speech acts; (6) assertives (two of them are directives but overlapped), and (2) directives (one of them is an assertive but functions as an order).
175
Dodge violates the Quality Maxim (4) times, all the cases are rhetorical questions; Quantity Maxim (3) times due to understatement, overstatement and repetition; he violates the Manner Maxim (1) when he uses slang language. Dodge totally breaks the conversational maxims (8) times, ostentatiously and unostentatiously. Tilden violates Quantity Maxim (1) time when he overstates and it raises side issues (Halie‘s incestual relationship with Tilden); he violates Relevance Maxim (2) due to misunderstanding of Dodge‘s aim in his utterances; he violates Quality Maxim (1) as he exaggerates in expressing his view (hyperbole) and thus it is rejected; and he flouts the Manner Maxim (1) time to create implicature, his utterance is obscure but still understood by Dodge. Tilden totally breaks the conversational maxims (5) times, ostentatiously and unostentatiously.
The study of the Speech Acts and the Cooperative Principle reveals:
Dodge stands against all the attempts to reunite the family; hence, he tries to persuade Tilden to leave the house again as he is not welcomed. He speaks a lot and uses various strategies to compel Tilden to go. He uses slang language and scolds him in different ways. On the contrary, Tilden stays calm through the dialogue; he speaks little and he tries to keep the situation under control since he is afraid of provoking his father and he does not want to spoil his plan which is reunification with his family. In performing (14) speech acts, (11) of them misfire, mostly due to breaking the essential conditions. The characters have contradictory aims, Tilden wants to stay but Dodge wants him to go; cooperation between them is impossible and thus they do not achieve their purposes. Lack of cooperation from both sides pervades the whole dialogue, especially from Dodge‘s side. He does not observe the cooperative principles and he just wants to persuade Tilden to leave the house although he knows that Tilden is broken and he cannot go anywhere. Tilden is also uncooperative in the sense that he cannot satisfy his father‘s wants. Consequently, the dialogue ends, but they do not achieve their aims because Tilden has made up his mind to stay but Dodge still disagrees. After Tilden goes out, he will not get into conversation with his father.
176
4.2.3 Mother-Son Relationship: Halie vs. Tilden Although Halie says ―I‘m not unaware of the world around me! ….‖ (Act One; pp. 30), it seems that she cannot contact with the world around her. She always nags her husband and complains about her sons‘ inability to take care of themselves and their parents, but she takes great pleasure in talking about her past and her dead son Ansel. Halie‘s behavior shows that she escapes from her family, reality, and tries to find comfort outside her home by socializing with the family‘s religious advisor, Father Dewis; therefore, there is a wide gap between her and her sons and no serious conversations occur between them.
Before Halie leaves the house in Act One, a short communication takes place between her and Tilden, but no conversation occurs between her and Bradley because of her absence. In Act Three, when all the members of the household gather in the house, Halie and Bradley meet each other, but they do not talk with each other. The only face-to-face argument between Halie and Bradley takes place when Shelly accuses Bradley of putting his fingers into her mouth. Halie asks Bradley if he did it and he denies it and thus she ends the talk. The situation for Tilden is different. Now he lives with his parents and he is dependent. Besides, he is part of the problem which caused the family breakdown and now he tries to fix everything; hence, he needs to talk with his parents. However, no serious confrontation happens between Tilden and his mother because after Halie leaves the house in Act One, they do not meet each other again. This dialogue is the only face to face conversation which occurs between the mother, Halie, and the son, Tilden.
I.
Position of the extract in the play
The dialogue occurs when Halie sees the corn scattered on the floor of the living room. The mess annoys Halie and she wants to know where Tilden got the corn. The corn comes as a surprise to her because they have not planted corn in the farm for over thirty years and even it is not the season of corn. Tilden must explain how he got this fresh corn at this time of the year. He tries to answer Halie‘s questions about the corn, but the problem is that Halie does not trust him. This is the main reason behind the
177
discordance between Halie and Tilden. The mother does not know how her children are living and what they are doing. Before the conversation, Halie says ―I had no idea in the world that Tilden would be so much trouble‖ (Act One; pp. 26). This utterance clarifies that the parents left their children without care and they were unaware of their actions; therefore, they expect every bad thing from them.
II.
The Extract
Halie: What‘s the meaning of this corn, Tilden?! Tilden: It‘s a mystery to me. I was out in back there. And the rain was coming down. And I didn‘t feel like coming back inside. I didn‘t feel the cold so much. I didn‘t mind the wet. So I was just walking. I was muddy but I didn‘t mind the mud so much. And I looked up. And I saw this stand of corn. In fact I was standing in it. Surrounded. It was over my head. Halie: There isn‘t any corn outside, Tilden! There‘s no corn! It‘s not the season for corn. Now, you must‘ve either stolen this corn or you bought it. Dodge: He doesn‘t have a red cent to his name. He‘s totally dependent. Halie: (To TILDEN) So you stole it! Tilden: I didn‘t steal it. I don‘t want to get kicked out of Illinois. I was kicked out of New Mexico and I don‘t want to get kicked out of Illinois. Halie: You‘re going to get kicked out of this house, Tilden, if you don‘t tell me where you got that corn! (TILDEN starts crying softly to himself but keeps husking corn. Pause.) Act One; P. 30-31 III.
Speech Acts Analysis in the Extract
Before Halie comes on stage, Tilden explains to his father that he picked up the corn from the backyard, but his father does not believe him and asks him to return it to where he has got it. Now his mother comes down from upstairs and the first thing draws her attention is the corn; hence, he directly asks him about it because he is busy husking the corn. She starts the talk by asking a question (What‘s the meaning of this corn, Tilden?!). Her utterance is an interrobang ‗?!‘. She uses this form enquire
178
information and also to expresses surprise at seeing fresh corn in the house though it is not the season for corn. The illocutionary force indicators (?!) and mentioning Tilden‘s name at the end of the utterance give force to speech act and thus it appears to be an order rather than a request. The propositional act is predication, she expects Tilden to answer her and the point is obligation. Halie‘s speech act misfires because the propositional content condition and the essential condition are not observed. Previously, Dodge directly asked Tilden about the place where he got the corn, and Tilden answered without hesitation ―backyard‖, but Halie asks about ―the meaning of the corn‖ which is impossible for Tilden to answer. Tilden cannot tell what the corn means, but he can tell where he has got it.
Tilden articulates a long speech just to say that he has got the corm from the back lot. He realizes that his mother will not be satisfied with the first part of his speech (It‘s a mystery to me); therefore, he describes the event in detail (I was out in back there….). The mood of Halie‘s directive utterance obliges Tilden to narrate a story. Tilden wants to make Halie believe him, but speech act misfires since the essential condition (the point) is not achieved. Halie cannot achieve the perlocutionary effect of her utterance because the question is about one of the main symbols of the play and Tilden cannot give her an exact answer. Regarding the corn, Dodge says ―Bumper crop! Unexplainable‖ (Act One; p. 30), Tilden says ―It‘s a mystery to me‖ (Tilden 1) and at the end of the play Halie describes the scene of the corn and the other crops as ―miracle‖. Ananian (1996:5) states that ―Buried Child blatantly advertises its symbolism, tantalizing the audience with possibly non-existent occulted ideas‖ and he refers to the question (Halie 1) to show that the play is highly symbolic.
As expected by Tilden, Halie does not believe his story. Tilden explains to his mother that ―the whole back lot‘s full of corn‖, but his mother does not believe him. In her second turn, she uses three different negative sentences successively (there isn‘t any corn, there‘s no corn, it‘s not the season for corn) to absolutely refuse to believe him. Further, at the end of her utterance, she insists on getting the answer, but she rewords her former speech (Now, you must‘ve either stolen this corn or you bought it). The speech act overlaps since her utterance has the force of a command not a statement and the illocutionary force indicator (now) supports this assumption.
179
It seems that the phrase ―tell me‖ is elided. Halie now compels him to reveal how he got the corn not where because his previous answer was not logical and she thinks that he lies to her. Halie gives two options (stolen, bought) and Tilden must choose one of them. She says he might have bought the corn, but the word ‗bought‘ comes after ‗stolen‘ which implies that he is more inclined to err. Dodge‘s utterance that Tilden has no money encourages Halie to settle her suspicion of stealing the corn and she angrily tells him that he has stolen the corn.
Halie is determined that Tilden stole the corn (So you stole it!), and she gives force to the utterance in different ways. First she starts the utterance with (So), an adverb she utilized to make a connection between Dodge‘s speech (He doesn‘t have a red cent to his name) and her conclusion; second, she ends the utterance with exclamation mark and finally the tense of the sentence is past which means that the action was done and there is no other possibility. She strongly accuses Tilden of stealing the corn. She exploits this emotion to compel Tilden to honestly disclose where he got the corn. The speech act misfires since the essential condition is not observed. Halie does not receive the answer but faces resistance. Tilden makes a move (I didn‘t steal it) to defend himself and he gives some details to get his mother to believe him (I don‘t want to get kicked out of Illinois. I was kicked out of New Mexico…..). He tries to justify his utterance and to invalidate the accusation. Tilden frankly discloses that he had faced problems in New Mexico and he does not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, and the point of this detail is to make Halie believe him, but the speech act misfires as she rejects the justification. In her final turn (You‘re going to get kicked out of this house, Tilden, if you don‘t tell me where you got that corn!), Halie indicates that she does not believe him and thus she threatens to throw him out of the house. The illocutionary force is a conditional warning to frighten Tilden to speak the truth. Halie commits herself and she believes that she will succeed in getting the right answer because Tilden is vulnerable and he has nowhere else to go. Tilden knows he cannot convince his mother if he says anything because he has already said the truth. Consequently, he starts crying but says nothing, and thus the argument ends without any achievements.
180
The interpretation of the utterance acts and the analysis of the speech acts can be summarized in the following tables.
Table 4.23 Utterance Interpretation in Halie-Tilden Dialogue
Character
Utterance Act
Propositional Act
Illocutionary Act
Perlocutionary Act
order
make him give information
Halie
What‘s the reference meaning of this (this corn) corn, Tilden?!
Tilden
It‘s a mystery to predication inform me. I was out in (is a mystery to back there….. me) * There isn‘t any predication Deny corn outside,….. (any corn outside)
Halie
make her believe him make him realize she does not believe him to get him select
* you must‘ve predication either stolen…… (either stolen or bought it)
order
Dodge
He doesn‘t have a
--------------
explain
make her know Tilden did not buy the corn
Halie
So you stole it!
predication (stole it)
Conclude
get him realize she knows the truth now
Tilden
* I didn‘t steal it.
predication (didn‘t steal it) * I don‘t want to predication get kicked out of (don‘t want to Illinois. get kicked…..)
deny
make her believe him make her realize he will not repeat his mistakes
You‘re going to reference get kicked out of (this house) this …..
Threat
Halie
assert
compel him to tell the truth
181
Table 4.24 Speech Acts Analysis in Dodge-Tilden Dialogue
Character
T u r n s
Halie
1
What‘s the directive meaning of this corn, Tilden?!
order
get answer
misfire
Tilden
1
It‘s a mystery to assertive me. I was out…
describe
answer
misfire
Halie
2
* There isn‘t any assertive corn outside …
deny
he is lying
misfire
* Now, you directive must‘ve either stolen…….
order oblige (overlap)
misfire
----------
Utterance Act
Speech Acts
Force
Point
Dodge
1
--------------------
----------
----------
Halie
3
So you stole it!
assertive
conclude accuse
misfire
Tilden
2
* I didn‘t steal it. assertive
resist
deny
misfire
* I don‘t want to assertive get kicked out of Illinois……
explain
persuade
misfire
warning
misfire
Halie
4
You‘re going to commissive threat get kicked out of this house, Tilden, if you…..
------------
Felicity
182
IV.
Cooperative Principle and Implicature Analysis in the Extract
From the very beginning of the dialogue, audience/readers do not expect the interlocutors to cooperate with each other because Halie starts the communication with an ambiguous question (What‘s the meaning of this corn, Tilden?!). Halie violates the manner maxim because her utterance is ambiguous and it is not clear whether she asks about the meaning of the corn or the place where he got it. Tilden cannot directly answer the question and he produces a long utterance. Consequently, he violates the quantity maxim. Before Halie comes, Tilden told Dodge that he got the corn from the backyard, but his father did not believe him. Now he expects the same reaction from his mother; hence, he gives details. Regarding Halie‘s question, Tilden‘s first sentence (It‘s a mystery to me) is the right answer because it is another way to say (I do not know), but this answer will not satisfy Halie. Thus he uses several parallel structures including ―I didn‘t feel like coming back inside, I didn‘t feel the cold, I didn‘t mind the wet, I didn‘t mind the mud‖, ―the rain was coming down, I was just walking, I was standing‖ and several dismal lexicons such as ―mystery, cold, mud, muddy, surrounded‖ to make his mother believe him, but Halie refuses to believe him. In her next turn (There isn‘t any corn outside…); Halie uses three negative sentences to denote that she does not trust him. She violates the quantity maxim as she is repetitive. In the next part of her speech (you must‘ve either stolen this corn or you bought it), she gives two options. She presupposes that Tilden either stole the corn or he bought it. This presupposition is based on her knowledge that there is no corn in the yard to be picked up and thus the other two cases (steal and buy) are the most reasonable possibilities. The sentence structure (either….or) shows that she is not sure how Tilden has got the corn and by using this form she violates the quantity maxim because the utterance is not informative enough to make Tilden say something; hence, he stays speechless and Dodge interferes to fill the gap. Dodge reduces the options. Dodge knows Tilden is broken and he cannot buy the corn. This explanation gives Halie a chance to foreground her belief that Tilden has stolen the corn. Consequently, in her next move, she emphatically tells Tilden that he stole the corn.
183
Halie violates the quality maxim because her accusation is not based on any evidence. Tilden believes in what he said; therefore, he resists (I didn‘t steal it). He directly reacts against the accusation, but he is sure that it will not satisfy her mother; hence, he makes another move (I don‘t want to get kicked out of Illinois…) to give justification for not stealing the corn. Tilden violates the quantity maxim as he overstates and this detail raises another issue which is related to his staying in the house. Halie exploits this overstatement to threaten Tilden in her last turn (You‘re going to get kicked out of this house). Halie does not show cooperation as she does not trust Tilden and she forces him to tell the truth although Tilden has said what he believes to be the truth. Tilden has nothing else to say and to show his helplessness regarding his mother‘s accusations and distrust; he starts crying and closes the turntaking system. Halie could not achieve her aim since she was uncooperative.
Breaking the Conversational Maxims and the Implicatures are summarized in the following tables.
Table 4.25 Violation of Quantity Maxim in Halie-Tilden Dialogue
Speaker
Tilden
Halie
Utterance * It‘s a mystery to me. I …..
Status
Reason
violated
overstatement
* I don‘t want to get kicked violated out of Illinois
overstatement issues
* There isn‘t any corn violated outside……
tautology (any corn, no corn, no season for corn)
* you must‘ve either stolen violated this corn or you bought it.
giving to options is not informative as required
raises
side
184
Table 4.26 Violation of Quality Maxim in Halie-Tilden Dialogue
Speaker
Utterance
Status
Reason
Tilden
-------------------
------------- ---------------
Halie
So you stole it!
violated
accusation without evidence
Table 4.27 Violation of Relevance Maxim in Halie-Tilden Dialogue
Speaker
Utterance
Status
Reason
Tilden
------------------
-----------
--------------------
Halie
--------------------
-------------
----------------------
Table 4.28 Violation of Manner Maxim in Halie-Tilden Dialogue
Speaker
Utterance
Status
Tilden
-----------------
-----------
Halie
What‘s the meaning of this violated corn, Tilden?!
Reason
---------------ambiguous
185
V.
Findings and Conclusions
This short conversation between Halie and Tilden shows that there is no understanding between this mother and son. The mother emasculates her son by threatening to drive him out of the house. Tilden is helpless. He does not know what to do to convince his mother; hence, he starts crying to get rid of the accusations. The conversation ends here, neither Halie gets the answer nor can Tilden persuade her that he did not steal the corn.
The dialogue consists of (15) lines. Halie takes (4) turns, but Tilden takes only (2) turns. Halie uses (57) words, but Tilden articulates (107) words because he is obliged to make long utterances to convince his mother that he picked up the corn form the back yard and he did not steal it. Halie performs (5) speech acts; (2) directives one of which is assertive by structure but functions as an order (overlapped); (2) assertives and (1) commissive (a threat). Tilden performs (3) speech acts all are assertives. Tilden‘s utterances end with a full stop, but Halie uses illocutionary force indicators (!) four times and an interrobang (?!) to give force to her orders and statements to compel Tilden to answer her truly. Tilden breaks only the Quantity Maxim (2) times when he overstates, but Halie breaks the Quantity Maxim (1), the Quality Maxim (1) and the Manner Maxim (1).
The study of the speech Acts and the Cooperative Principles reveals: Although Tilden‘s utterances are long, Halie has controlled the dialogue through the mood of the utterances as she orders, accuses and threatens, but Tilden is calm and just defends himself. They perform (8) speech acts, but all of them are unsuccessful because Tilden explains and gives answers but Halie does not believe him or she is not convinced. The speech acts are always rejected and the aims are not achieved; therefore, cooperation between them will not happen. The characters do not observe the cooperative principles and thus they do not obtain their goals.
186
Halie emasculates Tilden and power does not shift between them because Tilden avoids any kind of confrontation, but at the same time he defends himself, but finally he starts crying as he is emotionally very much affected by his mother‘s uncooperativeness. The discordance between the mother and the son is related to lack of confidence. Halie does not believe in whatever Tilden says. She believes that he has stolen the corn and does not change her mind, but at the end of the play she says ―….Tilden was right about the corn‖ (Act Three; pp. 119). Halie‘s insistence on the truthiness of her belief shows that she does not cooperate and she never tries to understand her son.
4.2.4 Sibling Relationship: Tilden vs. Bradley Contrary to their parents‘ expectations, the siblings could not look after each other and they disappointed them. Halie and Dodge hoped that Tilden would take care of Bradley after he loses his leg by a chainsaw, but Tilden got into troubles and he even could not manage his own affairs. Then they focused on Ansel and they believed that he could take care of his brothers and his parents because he was smarter than all of them, but this dream would not come true since Ansel was murdered before doing anything. Now Tilden and Bradley are alive, but the relationship between them is very bad because of the family‘s fragmentation. Bradley terrorizes everyone in the house and behaves sadistically. Although he meets Tilden for a very short time, he shows how he bullies him and how Tilden is afraid of him.
The discordance between the siblings is over power and authority in the house. Bradley does not live with his parents, but when Tilden comes back home, he sees this as a threat to his authority and finds Tilden as his rival; therefore, he tries to bring him under his control by tyrannizing him. Bradley and Tilden face each other only once near the end of Act Two, but communications do not occur between them because Bradley speaks arrogantly and Tilden is too scared to utter anything. What is going on between Bradley and Tilden cannot be made into graphs because Bradley speaks mostly to Shelly and Tilden only makes two utterances without provoking his brother. Bradley‘s domineering personality can be detected by the stage directions and his
187
speeches. While Tilden is talking to Shelly about how Dodge murdered the baby boy, the Buried Child, Bradley comes on stage. The stage direction describes the scene as: The sound of BRADLEY’s leg squeaking is heard off left. The others on stage remain still. Act Two; P. 78 The phrase ―remain still‖ indicates that both Tilden and Dodge are afraid of Bradley as he is rough and violent and the word ―squeak‖ refers to the troubles he makes in the house. After he comes in, Shelly draws his attention and his first utterance is a question about Shelly‘s identity. From this moment till Tilden runs away, he takes six turns, Tilden only two turns and Shelly three turns. Bradley gives long speeches, but Tilden and Shelly do not utter more than a single sentence or one word. In his utterances, Bradley asks questions 14 times, but Shelly and Tilden cannot answer his questions or they just shake heads ―no‖. To frighten Shelly more and to show her how others are afraid of him, Bradley turns to Tilden and speaks to him. BRADLEY: (Turning to TILDEN) Tilden! She with you? (Tilden doesn‘t answer. Stares at the floor.) Tilden! You‘re gonna run now. Run like a scalded dog! (Tilden suddenly bolts and runs off up left. BRADLEY laughs. Talks to SHELLY. DODGE starts moving his lips silently as though talking to someone invisible on the floor. Laughing.) Sacred to death! He was always scared. Scared of his own shadow. ……… Act Two; P. 80 After Bradley bullies him, Tilden runs out and does not come back until the end of the play. The conversation reveals that the siblings cannot live with each other as brothers but as masters and slaves. Although Tilden is older than his brother, Bradley tries to exploit Tilden‘s lack of emotional strength to subjugate him. Tilden has suffered a lot and got into troubles several times; hence, he avoids confrontations with Bradley and other members of the family in order not to get into troubles any more since he hopes he can resume life anew, different from his past. The way they behave with each other shows that there is no bond between the siblings and they have not learnt how to love and respect each other.
CHAPTER V 5 6 7
5.1
FAMILY DISCORDANCE IN RABBIT HOLE
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, Rabbit Hole by David Lindsay-Abaire, is studied according to the speech acts and the conversational maxims. In the analytical procedure, the language used by the characters while communicating is explored according to the pragmatic models of stylistics which include the speech acts and cooperative principle. The family relationship is studied through exploring the language used by the characters in their communication. For this purpose, some excerpts which reflect the family discordance will be selected and analyzed. The characters manipulate a language which reflects their mood and their relationship with each other; therefore, they get angry, they verbally attack each other or at least they leave and end the dialogue.
The play consists of two acts and all the important issues and the disputes are introduced in Act One. The plot of the play is structured in a way that the conflicts and disintegration between each two members of the family are depicted in a certain scene. In the rest of the play, the characters meet each other but no serious argument will take place between them or they do not discuss the issues they argued about before. For instance, Scene One is dedicated to show the discordance between the sisters; in Scene Two the husband and the wife confront each other and the intention of Howie becomes clear that he wants to return to his normal life but he is opposed by his wife, Becca; Scene Three is set to portray the macabre relationship between mother and daughter and finally in Scene Four the driver who killed Danny is introduced through a letter he sent to the family and the main characters, Howie and Becca, who represent the family discordance in the play face each other again and the
189
disagreements between them reach the highest point. Nothing has remained to be introduced in Act Two; hence, the interactions which occur between the characters in Act One will be analyzed to manifest the disturbed relationship between the family members and some samples from the dialogues which will occur in Act Two will be taken to show what happens to them and how they express desire to reconcile and return to their normal life.
5.2
FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS IN RABBIT HOLE
David Lindsay-Abaire writes a realistic play in a realistic situation about a realistic issue, the breakdown of a family because of losing a child. The playwright presents a family in the American society which has faced a difficulty. Howie and Becca lost their son eight months ago, but Becca cannot cope with the loss; therefore, other characters such as Becca‘s mother and sister interfere to comfort her. Consequently, disputes erupt between them. The main struggle is between Becca and other characters, her husband, Howie, her sister, Izzy, and her mother, Nat, and the disagreements and the disintegrations between the family members can be clearly detected in the language they use because they refuse each other‘s thoughts and opinions, they interrupt each other and any conversation about comfort and coping with the loss will lead to a serious argument which will be suspended forcefully. The relationship between the family members will be discussed according to their appearance on stage.
5.2.1 Sibling Relationships: Becca vs. Izzy
Becca and Izzy were grown up together in one house and they love each other as sisters. Although Izzy is known to be a troublemaker and Becca always tried to correct her mistakes, the relationship between them was good before the death of Danny. The accidental death of this four-year-old child negatively affects all the relationships in the family and destroys the bonds that tie the family members together. The relationship between Becca and Izzy is also retrograded, but this time Izzy is not responsible for this. Izzy tries to comfort Becca, but her attempts to sooth her only complicates the situation. Izzy talks about the bar fight just to make Becca laugh, but
190
she gets angry. This dialogue shows how Becca is annoyed and how she interprets the story in a wrong way and thus she severely reprimands Izzy.
I.
Position of the extract in the play
It is Saturday afternoon and Izzy is in Becca‘s house. While Becca folding her dead son‘s clothes, Izzy was talking about how she got into a fight with a woman in a bar. Izzy pretends that she was innocent and she did not know why that woman attacked her, but Becca does not believe her saying that the woman had a reason to fight with Izzy. Becca severely criticizes her sister because she is a grown woman and she must know how to behave. Izzy gives an account of the event for fun, but Becca takes it seriously and obliges Izzy to defend herself. Becca blames Izzy for returning to her normal life very soon and forgetting everything about Danny and the incident, but Izzy explains that she is ―still coping‖. This increases the tensions between them because Becca thinks that Izzy exploits Danny‘s death to justify her fight in the bar, but Izzy denies this.
II.
The Extract IZZY
Look, I went out. I got into a fight. I thought it was a funny story. I thought you‘d be amused. BECCA I‘m not. IZZY Clearly. BECCA I thought you were gonna go easy, that‘s all. That you were gonna do less of this. IZZY Hey, I‘m still coping, too, Becca. I know it‘s not the same, but it‘s still hard. Okay? (Beat.) BECCA Don‘t do that.
191
IZZY Do what?
BECCA Gimme a break. IZZY What? I‘m not allowed to be upset anymore? BECCA No, you‘re not allowed to use him. IZZY What are you—? BECCA As an excuse. IZZY I‘m not. BECCA You‘re not allowed to use him to justify your own shit. Just don‘t do that. Please. (Silence. Becca folds the clothes) IZZY That‘s not what I was doing. BECCA Okay. Act One, Scene One; pp12-14
III.
Speech Acts Analysis in the Extract
Izzy simply tells Becca that she got into a fight with a woman in a bar, but Becca takes it very seriously and she rebukes her sister. After a long argument over the issue, Izzy gets fed up with her sister‘s criticism and scolding. In her first utterance, Izzy
192
complains about Becca‘s rudeness and she indirectly blames her for not appreciating her attempt to entertain her (I thought you‘d be amused). She starts the utterance with (look) which functions as a filler to end the argument here. The amount of information Izzy gives here indicates that she had no other purpose in telling the story except to entertain her sister, but she could not do that; therefore, there is no need to say anything about it. She wants Becca to feel ashamed for treating her sister severely and to make her apologize for her rudeness, but her speech act is unsuccessful because Becca harshly replies the criticism. Becca clearly expresses her repugnance ―I‘m not‖ in her first turn. Becca‘s utterance is short but heartbreaking. She obviously makes her sister understand that her story was not interesting at all. Izzy was perturbed by her sister‘s indifference; hence, in her second turn she coldly and sarcastically agrees with her ―clearly‖. Izzy speaks ironically to criticize Becca for not respecting her feelings and to make Becca feel ashamed, but again the speech act misfires because Becca does not show regret and she criticizes her for going into bars to entertain herself (gonna do less of this). Becca blames Izzy for going out to entertain herself and forgetting the incident soon while her sister is still mourning the loss of her child. Becca wants to embarrass Izzy and she achieves the perlocutionary effect since Izzy in her third turn is obliged to defend herself (Hey, I‘m still coping. I know it‘s not the same, but it‘s still hard. Okay?). Izzy uses ‗hey‘ to draw Becca‘s attention not to misunderstand her and (okay) in the manner of question to convince her that she is still sad, but again the speech act fails. Becca interprets Izzy‘s utterance in a rather different way. Becca believes that Izzy exploits Danny‘s death to justify her bar fight by pretending that she undergoes great mental anguish; therefore, she directly orders her not to build a link between her irresponsible behaviors and the accident (Don‘t do that). Becca strongly warns Izzy, but the utterance is not successful because her speech is not clear and Izzy does not understand what she means by (that). Becca implies the meaning, but Izzy does not comprehend her. Consequently, she asks Becca for explanation (Do what?). Izzy also deploys a direct form to make Becca know that she really does not know what she talks about. The mood of the utterance is not a simple request for information, but it
193
has the force of an order. She uses this manner of speaking to compel Becca to straightly go into the subject and make herself clear, but the speech act misfires since she gets no answer. Becca thinks that her sister understands her very well, but she pretends ignorance.
Becca employs an idiom (Gimme a break) to indirectly accuse Izzy of making a tie between her fight and Danny‘s death. Her utterance is related to her former speech not to Izzy‘s order for information. Becca implies that it is difficult for her to believe that Izzy uses the incident to justify her fight, but the utterance is unsuccessful because Becca‘s meaning is still ambiguous. Izzy thinks that her sister talks about her fight and interprets the idiom as a criticism because Izzy is now a grown lady and she should avoid troubles. Izzy makes a move (What? I‘m not allowed to be upset anymore?). The first part of the utterance (What?) is the transliteration of the idiom which becomes (it is difficult to believe what?). The second sentence (I‘m not allowed to be upset anymore?) is the answer to that ‗what‘ and the word upset is related to the bar fight. Izzy wants to make her sister understand that she is a human being and she has her own reasons to get angry or to defend herself. She expresses the emotion in the form of a declarative question and the rising intonation gives force to the aim. Becca answers the question, but her utterance has nothing to do with Izzy‘s point. The speech act misfires since they misunderstood each other. Becca‘s reply does not comply with Izzy‘s question (No, you‘re not allowed to use him). Becca produces a statement but the speech act overlaps as it functions as an order preventing Izzy to exploit Danny‘s death as an excuse for her actions. The phrase ―use him‖ shocks Izzy and she comprehends that her sister accuses her of using the incident to justify her fight in the bar. Becca‘s phrase (as an excuse) makes the accusation lucid. The speech act is unsuccessful because Izzy denies its truthfulness. The accusation has a great emotional effect on Izzy; hence, she tries to make a move to make her sister realize that she misunderstood her (What are you—?). The utterance is incomplete because Becca interrupts her to make her former utterance clearer (as an excuse), but it can be interpreted as a rhetorical question since Izzy shows astonishment at her sister‘s way of thinking because her going to the bar does not mean she ended mourning, she does not seeking information. The purpose of the
194
utterance is to make Becca believe that she is wrong in her judgment about Izzy. After she understands what Becca talks about, Izzy immediately and very shortly answers her sister (I‘m not). Izzy aims at making Becca believe that she is mistaken because she does not justify her act; she only expressed her feeling regarding Danny‘s death.
The utterance misfires since Izzy cannot make Becca believe her. Consequently, in her next turn, Becca insists that Izzy should not lay the blame on Danny (You‘re not allowed to use him….). Becca again prevents Izzy to link her action to Danny‘s death. The utterance is a statement but the speech act overlaps as it has the power of a command. She also produces another sentence repeating the order (don‘t do that), but this time it is rather a request not a command, and the illocutionary force indicators (just) which comes before the sentence and (please) at the end of the speech make the speech act function as begging not as an order. Becca uses style to persuade her sister not to make a connection between her actions and Danny‘s death. The speech act succeeds because Izzy finds no problem in satisfying her sister, and more significantly, Becca asks her not to do something which she has not done at all. In her utterance (That‘s not what I was doing), Izzy utilizes negative form and a past tense (was doing) to convince Becca that she did not use the incident to justify her actions and she will not do that. The utterance is happy (successful) since Becca agrees with this result and she ends the dialogue here (Okay). Although she does not apologize for misunderstanding Izzy and hurting her feeling, Izzy also wants to close the turn-taking because her aim is to make her sister happy, not to irritate her. Later, Izzy explains that she got into a bar fight with her boyfriend‘s ex-girlfriend and she was terribly insulted and she is dismissed from her work. These events may have negative effects on Izzy‘s psychological condition beside Danny‘s death which has caused serious problems between the family members. The interpretation of the utterance acts and the analysis of the speech acts can be summarized in the following tables.
195
Table 5.1 Utterance Interpretation in Izzy-Becca Dialogue Character
Utterance Act
Propositional Act
Illocutionary Act
Perlocutionary Act
Izzy
…. I thought predication you‘d be (you‘d be amused. amused)
complain
make her apologize
Becca
I‘m not.
affirm
Izzy
Clearly.
predication (am not) reference (describe)
get her to know she is annoyed make her feel ashamed
Becca
….you were predication gonna do less of (do less of this. this)
blame
to get her embarrassed
Izzy
I‘m still coping, predication ….. it‘s still (still coping, hard. hard)
describe
make Becca not to misread her actions
Becca
Don‘t do that.
predication (do that)
order
compel her not to link her action to the loss
Izzy
Do what?
predication (what)
order
Make her realize she did not get her point
Becca
Gimme a break
predication (describe)
accuse (indirect)
Izzy
I‘m not allowed reference to be upset (where else) anymore?
get her to know she did not expect her to use the event as an excuse make her understand her situation
Becca
No, you‘re not reference order allowed to use (him=Danny) him
oblige her not to link the events
Izzy
What are you—?
predication (—)
argue
make her believe that she is wrong
As an excuse
(continuation of the former speech)
---------------
-------------
Becca
conclude
insist
feel
continue …
196
… continued Izzy
I‘m not.
Becca
predication (am not…)
deny
get her to know she is mistaken
* You‘re not predication allowed to use (not allowed him to justify.. to use him..)
order
compel her not to relate her action to Danny
* Just don‘t do predication that. Please. (do that)
request
to persuade her not to make the link
Izzy
That‘s not what I predication was doing. (what I was doing)
affirm
make Becca believe her
Becca
Okay
accept
get Izzy to know she believes her
predication (express)
Table 5.2 Speech Acts Analysis in Izzy-Becca Dialogue
Character
T u r n s
Izzy
1
…. I thought assertive you‘d be amused.
complain
blame
misfire
Becca
1
I‘m not.
assertive
proclaim
enlighten
misfire
Izzy
2
Clearly.
assertive
confirm (ironic)
criticize
misfire
Becca
2
….you were assertive gonna do less of this.
State
blame
misfire
Utterance Act
Speech Acts
Force
Point
Felicity
continue …
197
… continued Izzy
3
I‘m still coping, assertive ….. it‘s still hard.
argue
persuade
misfire
Becca
3
Don‘t do that.
directive
order
warning
misfire
Izzy
4
Do what?
directive
question
get answer
misfire
Becca
4
Gimme a break
assertive
express feeling
accuse (indirect)
misfire
Izzy
5
I‘m not allowed directive to be upset anymore?
declarativ e question
get answer
misfire
Becca
5
No, you‘re not directive allowed to use (overlap) him
order
prevent
misfire
Izzy
6
show surprise
deny
misfire
Becca
6
What are you— assertive ? (rhetorical question) As an excuse -----------
----------
----------
----------
Izzy
7
I‘m not.
affirm
deny
misfire
Becca
7
* You‘re not directive allowed to use (overlap) him to justify..
command
persuade
succeed
* Just don‘t do Directive that. Please.
request
convince
succeed
assertive
Izzy
8
That‘s not what assertive I was doing.
inform
persuade
succeed
Becca
8
Okay
accept
end the talk
succeed
expressive
198
Table 5.3 Differences between the Intended and the Actual Perlocutionary Effects
Character
Utterance Act
Intended effect
Actual Effect
Izzy
Hey, I‘m still coping….
to make her believe that Becca thinks she is still sad that Izzy justifies her bar fight
Becca
-------------------------
--------------------
IV.
---------------
Cooperative Principle and Implicature Analysis in the Extract
The conversation can be divided into two parts according to the aims of the interlocutors. Because the participants have different aims, cooperation between them is not possible if one of the interactants does not abandon her purpose. The character who gives up her aim is Izzy. She starts talking about her fight to comfort her sister and to make her laugh or at least smile because she knows Becca needs help to cope with the loss of her son, but the story raises tensions between them; therefore, Izzy withdraws her support. She makes a statement and uses two parallel structures (I thought it was a funny story. I thought you‘d be amused). Izzy violates the quantity maxim as she overstates, and the aim is to embarrass Becca since she did not appreciate her soothing efforts. Izzy expects Becca to apologize for her indifference, but she does not cooperate and directly shows her ungratefulness (I‘m not).
Becca violates the quantity maxim since she understates and does not explain the reason. It is not clear whether Izzy‘s fight is the reason or her son‘s death. Again Izzy gets a blow, but she reacts still calmly (Clearly). Izzy speaks sarcastically and flouts the manner maxim. She does not express her confirmation, but she rebukes her implying that her sister hurts her feeling very much. Although the utterance is obscure, Becca understand the implicature and in return she performs a counterattack (…That you were gonna do less of this). Becca criticizes Izzy for not caring about her sister‘s loss and she soon forgot about Danny. Becca exploits Izzy‘s going to bars and
199
entertaining herself to embarrass her and also to control her ironic remarks. Becca achieves her aim in mortifying her; hence, Izzy takes another turn to defend herself. She finds out that her sister is angry at her because she believes that Izzy has ended the mourning period.
Izzy does not apologize directly for going to bars, but she tries to persuade her sister that the death of her niece has also affected her very much (Hey, I‘m still coping, too, Becca. I know it‘s not the same, but it‘s still hard. Okay?) Izzy truly expresses how she feels and confesses that her suffering is not as great as Becca‘s. Izzy violates the quantity maxim because she does not go straight to the point and she expresses her feeling in three different ways (still coping, not the same, still hard). This detail raises side issues. Becca gets upset when Izzy talks about Danny (Don‘t do that). For Becca, Izzy violates the quality maxim because she believes that her speech is not true and she only tries to justify her bar fight by showing that she lost her temper because of that accident. Consequently, she directly orders her not to build any link between her actions and Danny‘s death. Becca violates the manner maxim because her utterance is ambiguous and it is not clear that ‗that‘ refers to Izzy‘s fight in the bar or to the link between the two events. Becca also violates the second quality maxim (do not say anything for which you have no evidence) as she accuses Izzy of relating her fight to Danny‘s death without any proof. Izzy‘s utterance (Do what?) obviously shows that she has no idea about what her sister talks about. Izzy‘s utterance is a direct question which has the force of an order. She is obliged to use this manner of speaking because her sister used the same form to prevent her from doing something which she does not know. Becca does not cooperate and, instead of answering Izzy, she uses an idiom (Gimme a break) which is related to her accusation. Becca indicates that how her sister can blame Danny‘s death for getting into a fight. She violates to relation maxim because the hint does not refer to Izzy‘s question and at the same she violates the manner maxim because Izzy does not understand what she means. This ambiguity compels Izzy to direct another question. The utterance consists of two questions. The first one (what?) is the repetition of her unanswered question and the second question is a guess (I‘m not allowed to be upset anymore?). Izzy believes that Becca commands her not to fight
200
again, but because she is not sure about her assumption she uses a declarative question which is a form of request for verification. Becca answers the question (No, you‘re not allowed to use him), but she violates the relation maxim since her utterance is not the answer of Izzy‘s question, but it is the repetition of her accusation but this time directly. Becca believes that this explanation is necessary, and in her next turn she adds (as an excuse) because she feels that she could not convey her message in the previous turns. Now Izzy comprehends why her sister speaks so harshly. Though she is shocked at her sister‘s accusation, she does not want to complicate the situation and she simply but directly denies the charge (I‘m not). The utterance is very brief but it does not affect the content because it apparently refers to Becca‘s accusations. Izzy cooperates to satisfy her sister and end the argument which is caused by misunderstanding, and her aim is to comfort her sister not to disturb her. Izzy expects her sister to believe her because what she says is the truth and she did not have any aim when she talked about the loss of Danny. Becca again and again does not cooperate (You‘re not allowed to use him to justify your own shit. Just don‘t do that. Please). Instead of showing appreciation for her sister‘s cooperative reaction, she reiterates that Izzy should not exploit the family‘s problem to excuse her bad actions. May be Becca feels that she is unnecessarily rude in her utterance, especially at this stage; therefore, she adds another statement which functions mostly as a polite request not a command. Izzy feels this change in Becca‘s mood; hence, she exploits it to comfort her sister by emphasizing that she did not mean to use Danny‘s death as justification. Finally, Izzy achieves her aim as she succeeds in making Becca believe her. Becca also thinks that she has achieved her aim in persuading Izzy not to lay the blame on Danny‘s death, and she makes her last move (okay) to close the dialogue. Breaking the Conversational Maxims and the Implicatures are summarized in the following tables.
201
Table 5.4 Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Izzy-Becca Dialogue
Character
Izzy
Becca
Utterance
Status
Reason
* Look, I went out. I got violated into a fight. I thought …..
overstatement
* Hey, I‘m still coping, too, violated Becca. I know………..
she does not go straight to the point (raises side issues)
I‘m not.
understatement (very brief and no reason given)
violated
Table 5.5 Violation of the Quality Maxim in Izzy-Becca Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Izzy
I‘m still coping…..
violated
for Becca, Izzy tells a lie
Becca
Don‘t do that.
violated
for readers, it is an accusation without evidence
Table 5.6 Violation of the Relevance Maxim in Izzy-Becca Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Izzy
------------------
-----------
-------------------------
Becca
* Gimme a break
violated
a hint via idiom, but not related to Izzy‘s question
* No, you‘re not allowed to violated use him
the answer is not related to Izzy‘s question
202
Table 5.7 Violation of the Manner Maxim in Izzy-Becca Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Izzy
Clearly.
flouts
obscure sarcastic expression to rebuke, but Becca understands the aim (implicature).
Becca
Don‘t do that
violated
Gimme a break
violated
for Izzy, it is ambiguous and thus she asks for explanation for Izzy, the comment is ambiguous and she does not comprehend her aim.
Table 5.8 Implicatures in the Izzy-Becca Dialogue
Character
Izzy
Utterance * I thought you‘d amused * Clearly. * I‘m still coping…
Implicatures be she could not comfort her
Becca hurts her feeling she has not forgotten the accident but the effect is different * I‘m not allowed to be she is a human being and she has her own upset anymore? problems * That‘s not what I was she expressed her true feeling regarding doing. the loss; she did not justify her action Dodge
* I‘m not. Izzy annoyed her. * you were gonna do less of You should not have ended the mourning this period so soon. * Don‘t do that.
Izzy relates her fight to Danny‘s death
* Gimme a break.
How Izzy can lay the blame on the loss
203
V.
Findings and Conclusions
Izzy talks about the bar fight as a funny story to demonstrate that she cares about her sister and she tries to comfort her, but she is disappointed because Becca is not pleased and instead she gets angry. Izzy finds that Becca is not interested in the story and she is totally apathetic. Izzy made a mistake and Becca exploits this to control the dialogue. She always attacks and Izzy most of the time defends. Izzy‘s speeches, whatever maybe, irritate Becca. There are many factors which help Becca to enjoy power throughout the conversation. For example, the dialogue occurs in her house (physical context), she is heartbroken because her son died and she is older than Izzy. Although Izzy is insulted, she stays calm and she does not want to make Becca fluster because she understands her sister‘s critical situation.
The dialogue consists of (23) lines and (119) words. Izzy initiates the talk as a reaction against Becca‘s constant scolding, and she uses (61) words and Becca uses (58). Izzy performs (8) speech acts. She performs (6) assertives (one of them is a rhetorical question which shows surprise) and she performs (2) directives (one of them is a direct order to get information and the other is a declarative question for verification). Becca performs (8) speech acts. She performs (4) directives (two of them are statements, but the speech act overlaps since the utterances have the power of order), she performs (2) assertives and (1) expressives. Izzy breaks the conversational maxims (4) times. She violates the Quantity Maxim (2) times, Quality Maxim (1) as Becca thinks Izzy is lying, and she flouts the Manner Maxim (1) time. Becca breaks the conversation maxims (6) times. She violates the Quantity Maxim (1) time, Quality Maxim (1), Relevance Maxim (2) and the Manner Maxim (2) times.
The study of the Speech Acts and the Cooperative Principles reveals:
Izzy articulates (8) utterances but (7) of them are infelicitous, and the reason is Becca‘s uncooperativeness because she does not believe Izzy and she refuses the propositional contents. Becca also performs (8) speech acts but (5) of them misfire and the reason is still Becca herself because she speaks ambiguously and Izzy misses
204
the aim; hence, she cannot cooperate. The last three utterances of Becca are successful because Izzy understands what her sister wants and thus she shows cooperation.
Becca speaks callously, but Izzy tries not to provoke her. Izzy wants to be cooperative and expresses her feelings explicitly, and if she does not understand Becca‘s aim, she asks for explanation, but Becca speaks ambiguously and she does not answer her sister‘s questions. In almost all the turns, she orders or warns Izzy or she speaks rudely and shows no respect for her feelings, except in her last turn. Izzy cannot achieve her aim in the dialogue which is mainly comforting her sister or at least making her happy for some moments because Becca does not cooperate though the beneficiary is Becca herself. Becca always reprimands her and shows no regard for her sisterly attempts. Becca at first indirectly accuses Izzy of exploiting the family‘s issue, death of Danny, to justify her bar fight and directly orders her not to do that, but Izzy does not understand what she means; therefore, she cannot cooperate at first. Near the end of the dialogue, Becca clearly tells her that she is not allowed to build a link between the accident and her actions. When Izzy realizes that Becca misunderstood her, she shifts the focus from comforting Becca to satisfying her. She realizes that she cannot comfort her, but she can satisfy her if she can make Becca believe that Izzy does not use Danny‘s death to justify her own bad behaviours. It is not an easy task, but she denies the charge and she patiently reiterates that she does not lay the blame on Danny‘s death. Finally, Izzy achieves her aim and can make Becca realize that she is not looking for reasons to justify her actions. Though the baseless accusation was hard for Izzy, it is not difficult for her to be cooperative and help Becca achieve her aims since Becca‘s request does not cost her anything. Becca also achieves her aims because Izzy assures her that her action has nothing to do with Danny‘s death.
205
5.2.2 Husband and Wife Relationship: Howie vs. Becca
The major conflict in the play is between Howie and Becca. They lost their only son eight months ago. The accident creates a terrible family situation and rends it to pieces as each member copes with the loss, grieving and the bereavement in a disparate style. The couple‘s struggle is over the way of grieving. Becca wants to get rid of every single thing in the house which reminds her of Danny and even she tries to sell the house because they hurt her emotions and feelings. On the contrary, Howie wants to keep the reminders since they give him relief. Howie believes that Becca is wrong because even if they throw away or hide the things which remind them of their dead son, they cannot forget him and he remains in their memories; therefore, it is better for them to carry on through, despite hardships. The husband and the wife collide because each one tries to cope with the loss of their son in a rather different way. The difference in their opinions and beliefs about how to deal with the family issue causes family disintegration which reflects in their dialogues. To know the reason behind their disintegration and how it leads to family breakdown, two excerpts from the interactions occur between them will be selected and the language they use is explored according to the pragmatic models of stylistics (speech acts, cooperative principle and politeness phenomena) to achieve the aims of the thesis.
I.
Position of Extract One in the Play
Time is late night of the same day, Saturday. Howie and Becca are sitting in the living room chatting. After they spent a long time talking about Izzy‘s pregnancy and her bar fight and Becca‘s poor relationship with their neighbor, Debbie, Howie tells his wife not to keep her mind busy thinking about such issues and starts flirting her and roping her into having sex, but this attempt annoys Becca and thus she blames him for not regarding her feelings. Howie gets upset when Becca interprets his attempt in this way. He explains that he flirts with his wife because he wants to comfort her, normalize the situation and resume their daily life.
HOWIE I thought it was nice. That‘s all. I was trying to make things nice.
206
BECCA Well…you can‘t. I‘m sorry. But things aren‘t ―nice‖ anymore.
One, Scene Two, P. 44 Howie‘s utterance is similar to Izzy‘s utterance studied in the previous section. Like Izzy, Howie tries to return beauty and happiness to the house, but he cannot if his wife does not support him; therefore, he encourages Becca to take the first step with him toward rebuilding the family, but his proposal is rejected because Becca does not see the things as Howie does and she is disappointed about life. Becca has thought of something selling the house to return to her former, but the suggestion shocks her husband. Before the play begins, they sent the family dog, Taz, to Nat‘s house, when the play starts, Becca is packing Danny‘s clothes to give them away and now she tries to get rid of the house, but Howie wants to stop this because erasing Danny‘s memories will not help them struggle with the pain. The following extract shows how the husband and wife, Howie and Becca, differently struggle with the loss and how the death of their child splits them.
II.
Extract One
BECCA I think we should sell the house. (Beat.) HOWIE Come on, Becca, what? BECCA I‘ve been thinking about it for a while, and since we‘re on the topic— HOWIE How were we on the topic? BECCA I think it‘d help if we moved. HOWIE
207
I don‘t wanna move. BECCA He‘s everywhere, Howie. Everywhere I look, I still see Danny. HOWIE We love this house. BECCA I can‘t move without—I mean, Jesus, look at this. (Grabs a spiky toy dinosaur from nearby) Everywhere. Do you even know? (Grabs a kids book from a stack of magazines) Here: Runaway Bunny for godsake. The Puzzles. The smudgy fingerprints on the doorjambs. HOWIE I like seeing his fingerprints. BECCA Because you don‘t have to sit and stare at them day in and day out. You get to escape. You get to go to work. HOWIE Well, if you want to go back to work, Becca— BECCA I don‘t. HOWIE —you can call up Sotheby‘s. BECCA No I can‘t. That‘s not who I am anymore. I left all that to be a mom. HOWIE Well… BECCA Well what? Well that didn‘t work out? HOWIE I didn‘t say that.
208
BECCA Then what? HOWIE If that‘s the issue— BECCA If what‘s the issue? HOWIE —then … maybe we should try again. BECCA Oh for godsakes, Howie… Act One, Scene 2; pp. 45-47
III.
Speech Acts Analysis in Extract One
After eight months, Howie for the first time woos his wife, Becca. His impulse is not only to make love with her, but he actually tries to normalize the situation because after Danny‘s death everything in the family has changed. It is true that they live in the same house, but they do not share their feelings and emotions and thus the marriage bond which ties them together has become very weak. Howie flirts with Becca as an initial step to return to their daily life, but Becca refuses this way of returning. Instead, she suggests selling the house (I think we should sell the house). She believes that if she does not see the reminders of Danny, she may be able to continue and return to the time before the accident. She uses the pronoun (we) and the model auxiliary (should) to indicate that her husband may have the same opinion, and to persuade him, but the assertive speech act does not succeed since Howie disagrees with her. Howie does not like the idea at all and the suggestion comes as a shock to him (Come on, Becca, what?). He does not believe his ears to hear that and expresses the impression by uttering ―come on‖ and turning the statement into a rhetorical question ―what?‖ to express disagreement and to persuade Becca not to talk about selling the house, getting rid of another reminder.
209
Becca understands that Howie refuses her proposal; hence, she reopens the discussion in a different way. In her second turn (I‘ve been thinking about it for a while…), she tries to rephrase her speech to lessen its effect on Howie. For this purpose, she chooses an indirect strategy ‗thinking about it for a while‘ and she also deploys since‘ to imply that Howie starts the conversation and she only gives her opinion. She uses this strategy to show that she insists on her claim and to convince him to sell the house since she cannot return to her normal life here. The utterance is not successful because Howie interrupts her and denies to have said anything about the house (How were we on the topic?). Howie structures the utterance as a question, but the speech act overlaps because he does not ask for explanation, but he denies to have said anything about the house and the point is to show disagreement and to make her realize that he does not agree with her proposal. Howie again uses question form to indicate that he does not agree to sell the house. Howie wants to return to his normal life to save the family from collapse but not through selling the house.
Howie misunderstands Becca since she does not mean he talked about the house, but he talked about returning to their normal life and she makes this suggestion because she believes that it is a good way to start making changes in their current condition. Becca‘s utterance is infelicitous because Howie misses the point; therefore, in her third turn, she chooses gives explanation, but she chooses a more moderate form not to provoke her husband and to persuade him to sell the house. She produces a conditional sentence (I think it‘d help if we moved), but the utterance is an indefinite commitment (think). Becca indicates that if she moves to another house, she may be able to return to her normal life and again she deploys ‗we‘ to make Howie believe that it is good for both of them. Becca insists on selling the house and tries to inspire Howie by foregrounding the word (move), but the speech act misfires since the preparatory and the essential conditions are not observed and thus the proposal is strongly rejected by Howie (I don‘t wanna move).
Howie is not interested in the talk because he wanted to talk about changing their life into better not changing their residence. Thus he formulates a simple negated declarative sentence in present form ‗I don‘t….‘ to publically announce his opinion that he never wants to move and to persuade her not to argue about moving. Howie
210
believes that selling the house is not the right way to cope with the loss, but they should try to come to terms with the grief in a natural way. Realizing that she cannot persuade Howie, Becca tries to justify her claim so that she can influence her husband in this way (He‘s everywhere, Howie. Everywhere I look, I still see Danny). In her fourth turn, she argues that the house causes her to suffer great mental anguish, and she gives justification for her claim. She attempts to affect Howie emotionally as she discloses that she sees the traces of her son everywhere in the house and his reminders hurt her very much. Howie understands this feeling, but it does not mean that they should lose everything reminds them of their son; hence, he insists on keeping the house and refuses the proposal but indirectly in order not to be rude to his wife and he also gives justification (we love this house) to support his refusal. Howie also uses ‗we‘ to show that Becca loves the house as well. He implies that they should not lose the things they love; they loved Danny, but the lost him, but now they should not lose the house, too. He wants to persuade Becca to change her mind, but the utterance is not happy since Becca feels offended when Howie does not heed to her feelings and angrily expresses how she feels in the house when she sees the reminders of Danny (I can‘t move without—I mean… ). The em dash (—) shows the break of thought since she does not want to repeat herself and the phrase (I mean) and the word (Jesus) support this view and also indicate that she is too emotional to continue. Becca cannot organize her thoughts and she is confused; therefore, she performs some physical actions to express her emotions since language cannot convey her message ―Grabs a spiky toy dinosaur, Grabs a kids book. Here: Runaway Bunny for godsake. The Puzzles. The smudgy fingerprints on the doorjambs‖. She does all these to intensify her justifications hoping to persuade her husband, but Howie coldly utters (I like seen his fingerprints). Howie‘s response shows that Becca does not observe the felicity conditions regarding his wishes and thus the utterance misfires.
Howie also gives justification not to sell the house. He asserts that the memories comfort him and implies that as the father of the dead child, he has the right to keep the reminders. The conversation is like a power struggle between two persons who have the same social status; therefore, it is difficult for one party to be able to convince the other party to abandon his or her claims. Howie‘s lack of interest in the
211
topic is quiet apparent and Becca knows she cannot achieve the perlocutionary effects in this way; therefore, she finds another way to accomplish her goals. In her sixth turn, she depicts the difference between herself and Howie. She continues Howie‘s utterance (I like…) and uses it as a main clause to form a sarcastic sentence with her subordinate clause (Because you don‘t have to sit and stare at them ….). She deploys this style to vent that the reminders do not hurt Howie because he spends most of his time outside and does not see them, but she lives with them.
The utterance has the power of complaint and she indirectly criticizes him for being selfish. She intends to embarrass him so that she can persuade him to agree, but this attempt to create emotional pressure does not work on Howie. He considers her feelings, but he still refuses to sell the house. Instead, he makes a suggestion that she can also go out and even advises her to resume her former job in the company (Well, if you want to go back to work, Becca—). Howie demonstrates that if going out will reduce her pain, she has that chance. Howie‘s utterance is a suggestion and the beneficiary is Becca as he advises her to take up her former job but he is interrupted by Becca (I don‘t). Howie continues the utterance in his next turn (—you can call up Sotheby‘s) to persuade her to go out though the proposal is already refused. Howie‘s speech act is infelicitous since the propositional content and the essential conditions are not observed and thus it is rejected by Becca.
Becca continues on her attempts to convince Howie to sell the house and in her eighth turn (No I can‘t. That‘s not who I am anymore. I left all that to be a mom), she increases the emotional pressure on her husband when she talks about the failure of her dreams. She expresses her feeling passionately implying that she left her work to become a mother and create a new identity for herself, but she failed and now she is totally ruined and disappointed. She succeeds in conveying her message and Howie understands the emotion; hence, he attempts to make another suggestion and he starts the utterance by the filler (well…) but he hesitates to continue. His previous proposal was rejected and thus he is afraid that she refuses this one too. Howie succeeds in showing that he wants to say something, but the intention is misinterpreted. Becca continues Howie‘s speech (Well what? Well that didn‘t work out?), but the propositional content is not the one he tried to utter. Becca‘s utterance contains two
212
questions. The first question (well what) is a hypophora since she answer it by asking another question which is declarative by structure. Becca asks for verification, but the utterance is rather a complaint and the aim is to blame her husband and thus the speech act overlaps. Becca uses this form to make her husband realize that he is very rude with her and he hurts her feeling as he talks about her failure to become a mom.
Becca conveys her message successfully, but Howie denies the truth of her interpretation because what Becca talks about was not his intention (I didn‘t say that). Howie states that his wife misunderstood his aim and his utterance is felicitous since he believes in the truthiness of his intention. Becca also realizes that she should not have hurried in reading Howie‘s mind and thus she asks a question (Then what?) to get information about his intention in the unsaid utterance (well…). She starts the enquiry with (then) to make Howie clearly speaks out his mind. She implies that if she is wrong in interpreting Howie‘s intention, so what the right intention could be. Becca‘s question is straight and he knows what she wants to get, but the speech act misfires because he does not directly answer the question (If that‘s the issue—). He again hesitates to go straight to the point and thus she interrupts him. Becca does not like ambiguities; she wants to know how her husband thinks and what his intention is; therefore, she asks another question (If what‘s the issue?). She interrupts Howie and replaces (that) in Howie‘s utterance with (what) to indicate that his aim is not obvious and she wants to make him express his intention lucidly. In his final turn, Howie continues his utterance (—then … maybe we should try again) and he makes his intention clear though at first he hesitates (then…). Howie implies that if she believes that becoming a mom will end the family discordance, they have a chance to give birth to another baby. He wants to persuade Becca to return to their normal life in this way, but he indirectly makes the suggestion because he is not sure about her reaction. Howie succeeds in conveying the message but utterance is infelicitous because Becca totally disagrees with the suggestion (Oh for godsakes, Howie…). The exclamation phrase shows that she is really annoyed by his proposal and she does not want to continue anymore. They end the argument here and Becca goes upstairs to her room, but the dialogue did not have a promising end.
213
The interpretation of the utterance acts and the analysis of the speech acts can be summarized in the following tables.
Table 5.9 Utterance Interpretation in Becca-Howie First Dialogue
Character
Utterance Act
Propositional Act
Illocutionary Act
Perlocutionary Act
Becca
I think we predication should sell the (we should) house.
suggest
make him realize she cannot resume her life in this house
Howie
Come on, phrase Becca, what?
express feeling
persuade her not to talk about the house
Becca
* I‘ve been predication thinking about (thinking it for a while. about ....)
explain
get him to know she has decided to move
* since we‘re reference on the topic— (the topic)
assert
make him realize moving is a good step to make changes
Howie
How were we reference on the topic? (the topic)
deny
make her realize that she is wrong.
Becca
I think help if moved.
indefinite commitment
make him realize she may resume her life if she shifts the place
Howie
I don‘t wanna predication move. (wanna move)
pronounce
make her stop talking about the house
Becca
Everywhere I reference argue look, I still see (everywhere) Danny…..
make him understand her condition
Howie
We love this reference house. (house)
get her to know he does not change his mind
it‘d predication we (if we moved)
argue
continue …
214 … continued Becca
I can‘t move predication without— (can‘t move) look at this…..
describe
get him to know how she feels
Howie
I like seeing predication his fingerprints (like seeing his…) you don‘t have predication to sit and stare (sit and at them …. stare…)
assert
get her to know that the reminders will comfort him make him feel ashamed for his selfishness
Howie
if you want to predication go back to (want to work, Becca— go…)
suggest
convince her to resume her previous job
Becca
I don‘t.
predication (don‘t)
refuse
get him to know she does not go out
Howie
—you can call up Sotheby‘s. * No I can‘t. * I left all that to be a mom. Well…
reference (Sotheby‘s) predication (left all that…) ----------------
-------------
(continuation of the previous turn) get him to know her feeling
Becca
Becca
Howie Becca
Well didn‘t out?
Howie
I didn‘t that.
Becca
Then what?
Howie
If that‘s issue—
Becca
Howie
Becca
that predication work (didn‘t work out)
complain
explain
----------
-------------
complain
get him to know he hurts her feeling
say predication deny (didn‘t say ..) predication (what)
make her believe that she misread his aim
question
make him to disclose his aim
suggest
persuade her to give birth to another baby
If what‘s the reference issue? (the issue)
question
make him speak clearly
—maybe should again. Oh godsakes, Howie…
we predication try (try again)
-----------
(continuation of the previous turn)
for (phrase)
express feeling
get him to know she refuses the proposal
the reference (the issue)
215
Table 5.10 Speech Acts Analysis in Becca-Howie First Dialogue
Character
T u r n s
Becca
1
Howie
1
Becca
2
Utterance Act
Speech Acts
Force
Point
Felicity
I think we assertive should sell the house. assertive Come on, Becca, what? * I‘ve been assertive thinking about it for a while. * since we‘re on assertive the topic—
suggest
persuade
misfire
refuse
persuade
misfire
Explain
persuade
misfire
argue
convince
misfire
How were we assertive on the topic? (overlap)
deny
refuse
misfire
Howie
2
Becca
3
I think it‘d help commissive Promise if we moved. (indefinite) (weak)
persuade
misfire
Howie
3
I don‘t wanna assertive move.
Argue
refuse
misfire
Becca
4
He‘s assertive everywhere Everywhere I look, I still….. assertive We love this house.
Insist
convince
misfire
Declare
refuse
misfire
I can‘t move assertive without— look at this….. I like seeing his assertive fingerprints
Argue
persuade
misfire
insist
refuse
misfire
Howie
4
Becca
5
Howie
5
continue …
216 … continued you don‘t have assertive to sit and stare at them …. if you want to assertive go back to work, Becca—
complain
scold
succeed
suggest
persuade
misfire
7
I don‘t.
assertive
inform
refuse
misfire
Howie
7
—you can call directive up Sotheby‘s.
advise
persuade
misfire
Becca
8
* No I can‘t. assertive * I left all that to be a mom.
Report
refuse
succeed
Howie
8
Well…
succeed
Becca
9
Well that didn‘t assertive work out? (overlap)
to resume has the talk something to say Complain blame
Howie
9
I didn‘t say that. assertive
deny
defend
succeed
Becca
1 0
Then what?
Question
request for succeed
Howie
1 0
If that‘s issue—
the assertive
Suggest
persuade
Becca
1 1
If what‘s issue?
the directive
Question
request for misfire
Becca
6
Howie
6
Becca
filler
directive
misfire
information
misfire
explanation
----------Howie
1 1
—maybe should again.
we ------------try
-----------
Becca
1 2
Oh godsakes, Howie…
for assertive
express feeling
---------
refuse
succeed
217
IV.
Cooperative Principle and Implicature Analysis in Extract One
Before they talk about selling the house, in a romantic scene, Howie flirts with Becca and asks her to return to their daily life. Becca does not want to resume her former life in this way; therefore, Howie asks her if she has any other choice. In her first utterance (I think we should sell the house), she makes a suggestion to sell their house implying that she cannot normalize the situation if they do not move from that ill-omened house in which they lost their son. She utters the sentence clearly, yet she does not try to impose her opinion on her husband especially when she knows that the proposal is unexpected for Howie; therefore, she uses ‗think‘ to indicate that this is her personal opinion. As predicted, Howie is astonished at his wife‘s proposal (Come on, Becca, what?). He does not use any words like refuse, reject or disagree, but the force of the phrase and the illocutionary force indicator (?) at the end of the utterance obviously show that he does not accept the proposal. Howie manipulates the persuasive phrase ‗come on‘ to show the disagreement and to persuade Becca not to talk about selling the house again. Becca understands what the reaction means, but she does not cooperate and in her second utterance (I‘ve been thinking about it for a while) she emphasizes that after a long time, she has come to the conclusion that selling the house seems to be a good solution to get rid of the current terrible situation. Till this point the utterance is clear, but she adds another sentence (since we‘re on the topic—) in which she violates the manner maxim because it is not clear what the word ‗topic‘ refers to, to selling the house or to normalizing their life. Howie believes that by the word ‗topic‘ she means selling the house; therefore, he articulates a hybrid utterance (How were we on the topic?). It is a question by structure but the aim is denial. He utilizes this form to imply that he has not talked about the dwelling at all. Howie flouts the manner maxim since he uses indirect speech act not to directly refute his wife.
Becca comprehends the implicature, but she stays calm because complicating the situation is not in her interest. Consequently, she produces an utterance which carries a glimpse of hope (I think it‘d help if we moved). Becca wants to encourage Howie to sell the house by making the idea appear promising, but she violates the
218
quantity maxim since the utterance is not informative enough. She does not make any promise and she uses the conditional sentence in past form which indicates that it is possible that she may resume her life but very unlikely it will be fulfilled. Howie does not want to cooperate and thus he briefly and firmly announces his intention (I don‘t wanna move) to remain in the house. He implies that he does not want to lose anything else. Howie uses this style not to be affected by Becca and to end the argument. He violates the quantity maxim as he understates; he never explains why he does not agree to move from that house.
Howie loves his family, but he reacts in this way to compel Becca to think of what she is doing. Howie does not want to cooperate since he is afraid of the consequences. Previously, Becca got rid of the family dog, Taz, Danny‘s clothes and now she wants to sell the house. Howie wants to stop this because if they sell the house, but Becca will not be able to resume her previous life; then what will happen next? What else will she get rid of? She will break up with Howie or she will commit suicide?! To avoid these suppositions, Howie gives different justifications to make her change her mind and advises her to deal with the accident in a more practical way without more loss. Howie‘s direct answer does not affect Becca; hence, in her next turn (He‘s everywhere, Howie. Everywhere I look, I still see Danny), she tries to justify her claim. She insists on getting rid of the house, but this time through exploiting emotional impulses. Becca‘s utterance denotes that Danny‘s memories cause much anguish and she cannot endure the situation anymore. Howie feels the pain and understands how she feels, but he still refuses to give consent.
In his fourth turn (We love this house); Howie also gives justification for keeping the house and tries to affect Becca too. He implies that he does not want to lose another thing that they love, but he violates the quality maxim since he uses the pronoun (we) which is related to both Howie and Becca. The utterance was true before the death of Danny, but now it is not because Becca does not love the house anymore and she wants to get rid of it. He utilizes (we) instead of (I love..,) to avoid showing that he is selfish, but this attempt fails because in her next turn Becca indirectly states that she does not love the house anymore (I can‘t move without—I mean, Jesus, look at this….. The smudgy fingerprints on the doorjambs). Becca
219
behaves somehow differently this time. When she knows Howie does not listen to her, she performs some physical actions (Grabs a spiky toy dinosaur, Grabs a kids book) as shown by the stage direction to express her anger and to refuse the truthiness of Howie‘s utterance. Becca gets upset at Howie‘s uncooperativeness, but she cannot express this emotion briefly and clearly. She is confused and cannot collect her ideas and thus she stammers. Her utterance is fragmented and she uses different words and phrases (I can‘t move, I mean, look at this, do you even know, here, for godsake) to imply that it is impossible for her to live in the house because every bit of it reminds her of Danny and it causes her a great mental anguish. She does not like to refute her husband directly, but she demonstrates her dislike to the house, and she flouts the quantity maxim as she does not go straight to the point.
Howie realizes that he could not persuade his wife to keep the house; therefore, he makes another move illustrating his personal view regarding the memories (I like seeing his fingerprints), and he starts the utterance by the pronoun (I) to indicate that, as a father, he has the right to keep the memories of his son. He implies that he has no intention to sell the house and indirectly refuses the proposal again. Becca gets upset at this uncooperativeness and when she realizes that her husband does not pay attention to her feelings and emotions. Consequently, she criticizes him for being selfish (Because you don‘t have to sit and stare at them day in and day out. You get to escape. You get to go to work). Becca overstates in expressing her feeling and thus she violates the quantity maxim because the last sentence in her speech (You get to go to work) raises side issues. Howie exploits this point to change the topic from selling the house to encouraging Becca to go back to her job as an employee in a company. Howie realizes that Becca‘s feeling is true, but he does not want to surrender and give consent to sell the house; therefore, he attempts to find a way to escape from the situation without causing any discomfort to his wife. Consequently, in his utterance (if you want to go back to work, Becca—), he makes a suggestion hoping that they can find a way for Becca to get comfort and resume her normal life without the need to lose their residence. Howie makes the proposal but Becca interrupts him before he completes the utterance. Becca‘s prompt reaction (I don‘t) indicates that she
220
has no intention to cooperate and to change her mind regarding vending the house. Becca violates the quantity maxim as she understates and she gives no reason for her refusal. Instead asking Becca why, Howie continues his previous utterance (—you can call up Sotheby‘s) although she already refused the suggestion.
When she gives birth to Danny, Becca quit her job and devoted her time for her son. She had a dream of having a nuclear family and of being a good mother to bring up her child in the best way, but the dream did not come true. In her previous turn, she rejected going back to work, and in this move she entirely refuses the proposal (No I can‘t. That‘s not who I am anymore). Becca feels that the phrase (that‘s not…) is not clear enough and Howie will not understand her aim; therefore, she adds another sentence (I left all that to be a mom) through which she also clarifies her former utterance (I don‘t); this is the reason for refusing to go back to work. In her utterance, the manner maxim and the quantity maxim clash. To make herself clear, she flouts the quantity maxim as she is more informative to observe the manner maxim, to avoid ambiguity. The explanation she gives urges Howie to make another proposal which is related to the future of the family, giving birth to another baby. Becca‘s psychological condition does not allow Howie to make the suggestion directly because she already interpreted Howie‘s flirting attempt as a selfish desire and she also rejected the previous proposal to go back to work; therefore, he hesitates (well…). The word (well…) functions as a fill which shows intention to say something. Howie‘s uncooperativeness in the previous turns and Becca‘s impatience to know what he wants to say push her to speak instead of him (Well what? Well that didn‘t work out?). She infers that he talks about her failure to become a mom and she indirectly blames him for hurting her feeling. If Becca articulated only (well what?), the utterance would have the power of question and the aim was a request for information, but the utterance becomes a hypophora when she asks a question and she directly answers the question herself. Though the answer is structured as a question, it functions as a statement because the purpose is to criticize not to get information.
Becca violates the quality maxim because she has no evidence for accusing Howie and even she did not wait to know what he wants to say; her conclusion is
221
personal, and it has nothing to do with her husband‘s intention. Howie‘s reaction (I didn‘t say that) supports this explanation. He comprehends that his wife blames him, but he defends himself because he had something else in mind. He implies that she is wrong in her judgment. His direct reaction against the accusation compels Becca to ask for explanation (then what?). She implies that if she is wrong, then what his true intention is. Becca asks a question and she needs to get the answer directly, but Howie hesitates (If that‘s the issue—). He violates the manner maxim because the phrase (that‘s the issue) is ambiguous and she does not understand him; hence, she interrupts him and asks another question to oblige him to go straight to the point. Howie continues his speech and finally makes the proposal (—then … maybe we should try again) with hesitation and with a great effort. He implies that if she wants to become a mom, they have a chance to give birth to another child. As expected by Howie, Becca reacts hysterically (Oh for godsakes, Howie…) and obviously rejects the idea.
Howie understands that he cannot achieve his aim in this way and does not want to submit to Becca‘s wishes; hence, he tones down the conversation to end the talk. Becca also knows that she cannot persuade her husband to sell the house now; therefore, she postpones the issue to some other time. Before she heads upstairs, she tells Howie to think of selling the house and he replies that they will consider it. He does not mean he will agree, but he wants to satisfy his wife now and end the dispute. Breaking the Conversational Maxims and the Implicatures are summarized in the following tables.
222
Table 5.11 Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Howie-Becca First Dialogue
Character
Becca
Howie
Utterance
Status
Reason
* I think it‘d help if we violated moved
less informative
* I can‘t move without—I violated mean,……….
overstatement (she does not go straight to the point)
* You get to go to work
violated
overstatement (raises side issues)
* I don‘t
violated
understatement (she gives no reason for her refusal)
* I left all that to be a mom
violated
more informative to avoid ambiguity (clash with manner maxim)
I don‘t wanna move
violated
understatement (very brief and no reason given)
Table 5.12 Violation of the Quality Maxim in Howie-Becca First Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Becca
Well that didn‘t work out?
violated
Indirect accusation without having evidence
Howie
We love this house
violated
It is not true for Becca‘s current condition
223
Table 5.13 Violation of the Relevance Maxim in Howie-Becca First Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Becca
------------------
---------
-------------------------
Howie
-----------------------
----------
-------------------------
Table 5.14 Violation of the Manner Maxim in Howie-Becca First Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Becca
since we‘re on the topic
Howie
* How were we on the Flouted topic?).
implicature (indirect speech act to express denial)
* If that‘s the issue—
ambiguity
Violated
Violated
ambiguity
Table 5.15 Implicatures in Howie-Becca First Dialogue
Character Utterance
Becca
* I‘ve been thinking about it for a while. * I think it‘d help if we moved. * Everywhere I look, I still see Danny * You get to go to work. * I left all that to be a mom. * Oh for godsakes,
Implicatures
she has made up her mind she may be able to resume her life if they move from this house the memories give her great mental torture Howie goes out and the reminders do not have a great effect on him She wanted to become a mother, but she failed She refuses to give birth to another child. continue …
224 … continued
Howie
V.
* Come on, Becca, what?
he did not expect her to talk about selling the house. * How were we on the he did not talk about selling the house. topic? * We love this house. they should not lose another thing that they love * maybe we should try again if she wants to become a mom, they can give birth to another baby.
Findings and Conclusions
After eight months of pain and sorrow, Howie considers that time has come to return to their daily lives and start a new life without Danny, but this is totally rejected by Becca as she is not ready yet. To respond to Howie‘s request to make a change in their stagnated life, Becca proposes to sell the house and move to another place, and till the end she tries to persuade Howie to give consent, but the suggestion was unexpected and thus totally rejected. The issue of the house brings Howie face to face with Becca. During the last eight months, the couple suffered a lot and Becca did many things to cope with the loss, but Howie did not stop her because he thought that she would be alright after a while. When he realizes that Becca‘s attempts to erase all the things which remind her of Danny have no limits, he decides to confront her because all her previous efforts to cope with the loss are proved to be useless.
The dialogue consists of (25) lines, and (181) words. Becca initiates the talk, she takes (12) turns and uses (127) words. Howie takes (11) turns and he uses only (54) words. Becca‘s turns are long because she tries to give justifications for selling the house and she makes great attempts to persuade Howie to accept her proposal, but Howie articulates short utterances expressing his opinion briefly and rejects the idea directly. Becca performs (13) speech acts; (10) assertives (one of them is structured as a declarative question, but the speech act overlaps since the aim is criticism not a request for information); (2) directives (request for information and clarification); (1) commissive (indefinite commissive as she uses ‗think‘ and ‗may‘ and she does not
225
only commit herself but she utilizes pronoun ‗we‘ to involve Howie too, but the speech act misfires as Howie refuses the suggestion).
Howie performs (9) speech acts; (8) assertives (one of them is a rhetorical question to show disbelief and another one is a question but the speech act overlaps since the aim is refusal not a request for information); and (1) directives (advice). In two of his turns, Howie only continues his previous turns because he was interrupted by Becca, but one of the continuations is an advice; hence, it was treated as an independent speech act. In his 9th turn, he takes the turn but utters only the filler (well); though he hesitates to articulate what is in his mind, the move resumes the talk. In most of the turns, the characters understand each other‘s purposes and meanings. Though they use implicatures, the denoted messages are understood. The intended perlocutionary effects and the actual perlocutionary effects are the same, but they do not listen to each other or they do not cooperate to end the disagreements between them, and thus they do not achieve their aims. Becca breaks the conversational maxims (7) times. She violates Quantity Maxim (5) times, Quality Maxim (1) and Manner Maxim (1). Howie breaks the conversational maxims (4) times; Quantity Maxim (1), Quality Maxim (1), and Manner Maxim (2) times (in one of the cases he flouts the manner maxim as he uses indirect speech act for implicature). Quantity Maxim is broken (6) times because the characters refuse each other‘s proposals or opinions briefly without giving reasons or explanations, or when they overstate, the extra information raises side issues. Only in one of the case, the manner and the quantity maxim clash, and Becca‘s utterance is more informative than required to avoid ambiguity.
The study of the speech acts and the conversational maxims reveals:
Becca uses various strategies to achieve her aim, but all her attempts fail because Howie refuses to cooperate or to agree to sell the house. Consequently, (9) of her speech acts do not succeed because she does not observe the felicity conditions
226
especially the propositional content condition and the essential condition. Her speech acts are successful only when she expresses her feeling and Howie respects the feeling, she asks a question and he gives the answer although not directly and at the end when she forcefully ends the argument.
Howie tries to persuade his wife to resume their normal life but not through selling the house. He wants to convince Becca that both of them love the house and they should not lose everything they love as they lost Danny. During the conversation, he makes two suggestions as solutions to return to their normal life, but Becca directly refuses both. Consequently, (7) of his speech acts misfire because his utterances are rejected and the illocutionary points are not obtained. Only in (2) cases he achieves the aims when he shows that Becca misinterpreted his intention and thus she asks for explanation and when he uses the filler (well) to resume the talk.
The study of the Speech Acts and the Cooperative Principle demonstrates the ailing relationship between the husband and wife, and lack of cooperation between them can be easily detected in their utterances as they are against each other‘s wishes and aims. The characters say what they want not what the other participant wishes to hear. The dialogue is a power struggle between Howie and Becca. They use different strategies to achieve their aims and win the battle. They highlight their opinions and reject the opponent‘s views directly and indirectly. The conflict between the husband and the wife is clear because they always speak against each other. For instance, Becca wants to sell the house, but Howie composes all his utterances to decline this proposal. In the same way, Becca refuses Howie‘s suggestions to give birth to a new child and return to their daily life. Consequently, the dialogue ends, but the characters did not reach any conclusions.
227
VI.
Position of Extract two in the Play
In Act One, Scene Four, Howie is sitting alone in the living room downstairs, and Becca is upstairs reading the letter sent by Jason, the young driver who ran over Danny by his car. Howie wants to watch one of Danny‘s videotapes, which is the latest one. For his horror, he finds that a program about tornadoes is on the tape. Becca recorded the program for Howie to watch it later, but she made a mistake since she recorded it on Danny‘s tape. She thought that another tape ―Pride and Prejudice‖ is in the VCR because they watched it together last night, but Howie reveals that he switched the tape after Becca went to bed last night and he watched Danny‘s movie. Howie gets disturbed because he believes that Becca erased the tape on purpose to get rid of another reminder of Danny. This accusation distresses Becca and both engage in a bitter conversation over what has been done and what should be done. This dialogue shows the discordance between the couple and illustrates how they end the disputes.
VI.
Extract Two HOWIE
(Losing it) It‘s not just the tape! I‘m not talking about the tape, Becca! It‘s Taz, and the paintings, and the clothes, and it‘s everything! You have to stop erasing him! You have to stop! YOU HAVE TO STOP! (Howie has been reduced to tears. He has to move away from Becca. She takes him in. she seems more confused than affronted.) BECCA Do you really not know me, Howie? Do you really not know how utterly impossible that would be? To erase him? No matter how many things I give to charity, or how many art projects I box up, do you really think I don‘t see him every second of every day? And, okay, I‘m trying to make things a little easier on myself by hiding some of the photos, and giving away clothes, but that does not mean I‘m trying to erase him. That tape was an accident. And believe me, I will beat myself up about it forever, I‘m sure. Like everything else that I could‘ve prevented but didn‘t. HOWIE That‘s not what I want, Bec. It‘s not what I‘m talking about.
228
BECCA No? Because it feels like it is. I feel like I don‘t feel bad enough for you. I‘m not mourning enough for your taste. HOWIE Come on, that‘s not— BECCA Or mourning in the right way. But let me just say, Howie, that I am mourning as much as you are. And my grief is just as real and awful as yours. HOWIE I know that. BECCA You‘re not in a better place than I am, you‘re just in a different place. And that sucks that we can‘t be there for each other right now, but that‘s just the way it is. HOWIE His stuff is all we have left. That‘s all I‘m saying. And every bit of it you get rid of—
BECCA I understand that. You don‘t wanna let go of it. I understand, Howie.
Act One, Scene Four; pp. 86-87
VII. Speech Acts Analysis in Extract Two
In the first extract, Howie and Becca argue about selling the house, but Howie does not agree believing that it is another loss. In Act One, Scene Four, Howie finds out that Becca erased Danny‘s later tape. Although Becca insists that she did not do that on purpose, Howie has doubt about it and thinks that this was another reminder that Becca tries to get rid of. Howie‘s problem is not erasing the tape, but it is Becca since she wants to taper off all the things that belong to their dead son or remind them of him. Howie does not care if Becca erased the tape intentionally or not, he wants her to
229
resume her normal life and try to cope with the loss in a different way, not through wiping out the memories.
To achieve this purpose, Howie articulates a long speech consists of (6) sentences, and all of them end with exclamation mark (!). Three of the sentences are descriptions through which he gives information about Becca‘s behavior regarding the loss in the past eight months (It‘s not just the tape! I‘m not talking about the tape, Becca! It‘s Taz, and the paintings, and the clothes, and it‘s everything!), and the other three are direct orders (You have to stop erasing him! You have to stop! YOU HAVE TO STOP!) to compel Becca to change the way she deals with incident denoting that her actions have caused discordance between them and the family is about to collapse. His last sentence is capitalized to show that Becca‘s behavior has dismayed him and put the entire family in a chaotic situation and also to indicate that he cannot endure the situation anymore. Howie wants to make her realize that abolishing the reminders does not mean Danny did not exist and it will not end the grief; therefore, she must end this and find another way to cope with the incident, but Becca misses the point.
Becca realizes that her attempts to get rid of the reminders have annoyed her husband; hence, she explains why she does so. She articulates a long speech containing (4) rhetorical questions and some statements. The purpose of the utterance is to explain to Howie she gets rid of the reminders to be able to endure the situation (…I‘m trying to make things a little easier on myself…). Becca denotes that the reminders give her a great pain and it is impossible for her to bear the anguish if she always sees the memories. The second purpose is that she wants to make her husband believe her that she did not erase the tape intentionally (That tape was an accident. I will beat myself up about it…). She implies that she is sorry for losing the tape and she commits herself to blame herself for ever. The utterance has the power of a promise and the point is regret. In the last part of the speech (Like everything else that I could‘ve prevented but didn‘t) she gives a hint about the accident. She denotes to censure herself for Danny‘s death. She holds herself responsible for the incident because she hurried to pick up the phone and left the gate unlatched. Because of her ignorance, Taz jumped out of the house and Danny ran after him and hit by a fast car.
230
In this long utterance, Becca starts with asking four questions, but they are rhetorical as she does not seek answers (Do you really not know me?, impossible that would be? To erase him?, do you really think I don‘t see him every second of every day?). She uses this manner of speaking to draw Howie‘s attention to each matter mentioned in the questions which are related to her feelings regarding the loss and they are also answers to his accusations that Becca wants to erase Danny. She assures him that she can never forget Danny and she blames him for thinking in this way. She starts the utterance with ―Do you really not know me, Howie?‖ which is a sarcastic expression she uses to criticize Howie for not understanding his wife. She confesses that she has given away some of Danny‘s belongings, but recording the tornadoes program on his later tape was not planned. To make Howie believe her, she emphasizes that she will never forgive herself.
Becca succeeds in conveying her message, but the speech act misfires because she misinterpreted her husband‘s aim. Howie understands her feeling, but he wants her to change the way she copes with the loss not to blame herself (That‘s not what I want). Howie explains that she misunderstood him and rephrases the utterance (It‘s not what I‘m talking about) to emphasize that he has no intention to scold Becca for erasing the tape and he does not want her to do that to herself, and he wants to make Becca believe him. Howie‘s criticism and order in the first utterance are so strong that Becca refuses to believe him (Because it feels like it is), and thus Howie‘s second speech act misfires. Becca illustrates that Howie‘s harsh and impolite behavior have strong negative effects on her and she expresses this feeling in two successive sentences as she utters (I feel like I don‘t feel bad enough for you) and (I‘m not mourning enough for your taste). Becca deploys this self-humiliation strategy to embarrass Howie for what he did in his first turn, and she succeeds. Howie now feels ill at ease and tries to escape from this embarrassing situation; hence, he utilizes (Come on, that‘s not—) as a persuasive phrase to convince her that he did not mean to degrade her and he intends to repeat his previous utterance, but Becca interrupts him.
Though Howie somehow retreats and tries to get his wife to believe him, the speech act is infelicitous because Becca rejects it and she finishes her previous utterance. In her fourth turn, she makes another speech (Or mourning in the right
231
way) which is linked to the previous speech by the connector (or). In this part of the utterance, Lindsay-Abaire, the playwright, italicized the word {WAY} which is related to the manner each one in the family chooses to deal with the pain and this is the main factor behind the family‘s disintegration. Becca expresses her opinion and feelings regarding the loss, and she challenges her husband if he believes that the effect of the loss on him is harder than on her. She tries to make her husband believe that Becca suffers a lot because of Danny‘s death and she has the same feeling of her husband (my grief is just as real and awful as yours). Becca manipulates (as…..as) structure to compare between her grief and her husband‘s pain. She uses the device twice to compare between the quantity of their grief (as much as) and the quality of the pain (as real as) in order to demonstrate that there is no difference between their pains because Danny was their son, but the way they cope with it is different.
Becca successfully delivers her message and Howie shows agreement since he never says that Becca‘s emotions and sufferings are not true and he is sure that Danny‘s death is very hard for her (I know that). Howie‘s struggle with Becca is over the manner of expressing the grief, not on its effect on each one of them. Howie‘s utterance is short and clear because he wants to tone down the conversation and make his wife understand him. He expresses agreement to make Becca realize that he believes her. Howie succeeds in changing the mood of the dialogue. Consequently, in her next turn (You‘re not in a better place than I am, you‘re just in a different place) Becca emphasizes that their grief is the same, but only the way they deal with it is different. Again the playwright italicized another word (different) which is compatible with the italicized word (way) in Becca‘s previous utterance. Lindsay-Abaire focuses on these two words to manifest that the husband and the wife have nothing against each other but only their ways of dealing with the loss are different and this creates problems for them. Becca realizes that her behavior has created disorder in the family and she shows that it is awful that they cannot help each other to endure the pain (that sucks that we can‘t be there for each other right now). Becca succeeds in conveying the message and Howie feels this change in Becca and tries to exploit to end the argument and reconcile with her.
232
In his fifth turn (His stuff is all we have left) he calmly expresses his desire to keep the reminders and discloses that losing the memories gives him great pains (every bit of it you get rid of—). He indirectly tells Becca not to lose them. The utterance has the power of a polite request and the point is to convince her to stop giving away the reminders. Howie does not want anything from Becca only to keep the reminders and to go on their life normally. Howie avoids imposing on her to keep the reminders and he only expresses his feeling. Howie‘s utterance is felicitous since Becca is impressed and feels that her husband has the right to keep the reminders of his dead son (I understand that) and she repeats the word (understand) to show agreement. In the first encounter, Becca accuses Howie of being selfish when he wants to keep the reminders, but in this extract she gives consent because she thinks that her desire to get rid of the memories is also selfishness. This change in Becca‘s attitude is significant for Howie. He feels that Becca now understands his aim which is keeping the memories and normalizing their life and this good for the whole family. Howie realize that she really understands his concern and she is ready to cooperate with him in ending the disagreements. After this conversation, they do not stand against each other anymore. At the end of the play, Becca realizes that she mourns the death of her son in a wrong way and reveals to her husband that she reconciled with Debbie and indirectly tells Howie that she has changed her mind about selling the house and thus she wants to keep it. The interpretation of the utterance acts and the analysis of the speech acts can be summarized in the following tables.
233
Table 5.16 Utterance Interpretation in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
Character
Utterance Act
Propositional Act
Illocutionary Act
Perlocutionary Act
Howie
* It‘s not just the reference tape!— (the tape
argue
make her feel that she ruined the family
Becca
* You have to predication stop erasing him! (have to ---YOU HAVE stop) TO STOP!
order
compel her to change the way she copes with the loss.
* Do you really predication not know me, (really not Howie? know me…)
complain
get him to know he does not understand her emotions
* ….how utterly reference impossible that (him) would be? To erase him?—
argue
make him realize she never forgets Danny
* I‘m trying to make things a little easier on myself by hiding some of the….
describe
get him to know she cannot bear seeing the goods around her in the house
predication (make things a little easier…)
* I will beat predication myself up about (beat it forever… myself…)
Promise
Howie
It‘s not what I‘m predication talking about. (what I‘m talking…)
explain
make her realize he does not blame her for the tape
Becca
….it feels like it reference is. I feel like I (feels like…) don‘t….
describe
make him realize he hurts her feeling
make him realize she is sorry for the tape and for the accident
continue …
234 … continued
Becca
Come on, that‘s -------------not—
explain
make him her realize she misread him
Howie
Let me just say predication …I am mourning (mourning as as much as you... much as ....)
pronounce
make him realize she suffers a lot
Becca
I know that.
confirm
make understand condition
Howie
* You‘re not in a predication explain better place than (are not in…) I am, you‘re just in a different place.
get him to know their grief is the same, but the coping is different
Becca
His stuff is all predication we have left. (can‘t move) every bit of it you get rid of—
explain
make her realize he wants to keep the reminders
Howie
I understand that. predication You don‘t wanna (understand let go of it…… that…)
affirm
make him realize she respects his wish and desire
predication (know that)
him her
235
Table 5.17 Speech Acts Analysis in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
Character
T u r n s
Howie
1
Becca
1
Howie
2
Becca
2
Howie
3
Becca
3
Utterance Act
Speech Acts
Force
Point
* It‘s not just assertive the tape!— * You have to directive stop erasing him! ---YOU HAVE TO STOP!
describe
persuade
misfire
order
oblige
misfire
* Do you really not know me, Howie? * I‘m trying to make things a little easier on myself by hiding some of the….
complain
criticize
succeed
describe
report
succeed
* I will beat commissive myself up about it forever…
promise
penance
succeed
It‘s not what assertive I‘m talking about. ….it feels like it assertive is. I feel like I don‘t….
proclaim
disagree
misfire
argue
blame
succeed
Come on, that‘s assertive not— Let me just say assertive …I am mourning as much as you are. …
argue
persuade
misfire
announce
inform
succeed
assertive (rhetorical question) assertive
Felicity
continue …
236 … continued
Howie
4
I know that.
assertive
confirm
agree
succeed
Becca
4
* You‘re not in assertive a better place than I am, you‘re just in a different place.
describe
inform
succeed
Howie
5
His stuff is all assertive we have left. every bit of it you get rid of—
describe
persuade
succeed
Becca
5
I understand expressive that. You don‘t wanna let go of it……
accept
agree
succeed
Table 5.18 Differences between the Intended and the Actual Perlocutionary Effects
Character
Utterance
Intended effect
Actual Effect
Howie
You have to stop erasing to persuade her to He blames her for him! change the way she erasing the tape copes with the death of Danny
Becca
-------------------------
IX.
--------------------
---------------
Cooperative Principle and Implicature Analysis in Extract Two
Although the dialogue starts aggressively, it can be regarded as the end of the family discordance. Erasing Danny‘s later tape generates this argument. Howie is upset about Becca‘s behaviors which have weakened the family relationships. He believes that if they cannot change the current condition of the family, even the marriage will break. Howie‘s major problem is his wife‘s uncooperativeness to resume their normal life,
237
not losing a tape. Howie believes that even if erasing the tape was accidental, sending away Taz, the family dog, giving away Danny‘s clothes to charity, hiding the photos and finally putting the house on sale are intentional. He believes that the situation is no longer bearable; hence, he exploits erasing the tape to discuss the family problem hoping that he can persuade her to change the way she deals with the loss.
In his first turn, he speaks solemnly and articulates the sentences forcefully to make Becca realize that her way of coping with the loss has sabotaged tranquility in the home. Howie protests against ‗everything‘ which Becca does and the sentences end with exclamation mark, and the word ‗everything‘ is italicized. Howie expresses his emotions and he repeats the sentence (YOU HAVE TO STOP!) to emphasize that he is fed up with Becca‘s behaviors and he earnestly wants to change the situation. Howie is too emotional to be able to control his anger and directly tell Becca to deal with the grief in a different way; consequently, he utters (You have to stop erasing him!). In the utterance, Howie violates the quantity maxim when he overstates and repeats himself, but in exactly this sentence he violates the manner maxim. He implies that she has to change her behavior and return to her normal life so that they can continue, but Becca cannot get the message because Howie uses (him) to refer to Danny and thus Becca thinks that he blames her for erasing the tape and Danny‘s memories in the house.
This ambiguity, implicature, causes misreading and thus Becca interprets the utterance wrongly. Howie‘s callous language and serious command have great emotional effects on Becca. She thought that she is dealing with the grief in the right way and she has no intention to hurt anyone in the family, especially her husband, but now she feels guilty because her actions annoyed her family. To justify her actions to show her true feeling, in her first turn, Becca gives a long speech, but she violates the quantity maxim as the utterance is more informative than required. The utterance can be split into two fractions. At the beginning of the utterance, she asks four rhetorical questions (…not know me, Howie? …how utterly impossible that would be? To erase him?... don‘t see him every second of every day?) in order to prove that she can never forget Danny and also to criticize her husband for misjudging her behavior. She designs the rhetorical questions not to get answers but actually to give an answer to
238
why she tries to get rid of the reminders. This answer follows the questions as she explains that she just wants to reduce some of her pain since the reminders hurt her feelings and emotions very much. In this part, she violates the quality maxim because rhetorical questions are not true questions and they do not generate answers.
The second fraction of her utterance is the last three sentences of the utterance in which she makes it clear that erasing the tape was an accident and she blames herself for doing this. In this part, she flouts the manner maxim because the clause (Like everything else that I could‘ve prevented but didn‘t) is a hint to Danny‘s death. She implies that if she checked the tape, if she did not rush to pick up the phone and if she fastened the gate, she could have prevented erasing the tape and Danny‘s death. She clearly blames herself for not doing these things, but it is not Howie‘s purpose to make Becca feel guilty and blame herself for what happened. In his second turn (That‘s not what I want, Bec), Howie emphasizes that he does not denounce her for erasing the tape and he does not want her to feel guilty. In this utterance, quantity maxim and manner maxim clash. To be brief and to observe the manner maxim, he does not give information about his aim and thus he violates the quantity maxim since the utterance is less informative. He states that he has no intention to censure his wife, but he does not clearly say what he wants, and the word ‗what‘ in his utterance is related to his unsaid aim and it is not known to Becca. Becca‘s utterance in her third turn (…it feels like it is) obviously shows that she still does not comprehend her husband‘s aim. This part of the utterance is enough to respond to Howie‘s harsh language, but because she did not understand her husband‘s purpose, she goes on and articulates two more sentences (I feel like I don‘t feel bad enough for you…). Becca violates the quantity maxim as she overstates and the extra information just adds her self-reproach which is already rebuffed by Howie.
Becca does not ask Howie if he does not blame her for the tape then what he wants because she believes that Howie‘s manner of speaking only allows this interpretation. Howie feels that he has unintentionally offended his wife; therefore, he attempts to reduce the tensions by taking another turn (Come on, that‘s not—). He starts the utterance by a persuasive expression to indicate that she really missed his
239
point and he endeavors to persuade her that he did not mean to hurt her or to blame her, but he is interrupted before he completes the statement which seems to be the repetition of his previous turn (That‘s not what I want). Becca does not show cooperation and even does not allow Howie to correct the misinterpretation of his intended meaning. In her third turn, she continues her speech and to indicate that both of them are equal in the loss, she uses (as…..as) structure to measure her grief and to compare it with Howie‘s. She utters (I am mourning as much as you are. And my grief is just as real and awful as yours) to set forth that Danny‘s death influences them in the same way because they have the same blood tie with him.
Howie wants to be cooperative because he knows that Becca is confused and she is too emotional, and if she goes on speaking like this, he cannot achieve his aim which is only persuading his wife to change the way she copes with the grief. He feels that she has gone too far and what she says has nothing to do with his aim in the conversation; hence, he tries to end the discussion here. He utters a sentence (I know that) to satisfy her and to tone down the interaction. Howie succeeds in changing the tone of the conversation and in making Becca calm down.
In her fourth turn, she produces an utterance which can be regarded as a transition point from uncooperativeness to cooperativeness. In her utterance (You‘re not in a better place than I am, you‘re just in a different place) she makes a speech about the family‘s grief and shows that both Howie and Becca suffer equally because the source of their pain is one and the aim is also the same, and it is really awful that they cannot relieve or help each other (can‘t be there for each other) because they have chosen two different ways to express their grief. Although it is little, there is hope in Becca‘s utterance for the husband and wife to reconcile. If they negotiate the way they cope, they can overcome their differences, and it is not impossible for a couple who loves each other and had a happy life before the death of their son turns their world upside down. Another glimpse of hope is in the phrase ―right now‖ which holds up to view that they may be there for each other at another time. Becca tones down the conversation which encourages Howie to clearly state what exactly he wants.
240
In his last turn (His stuff is all we have left. That‘s all I‘m saying), Howie reveals that he has nothing against his wife or he does not blame her for what happened. After Danny‘s death the things which comfort him are only the reminders; hence, he cannot like her to get rid of them. He denotes that losing the reminders hurts him very much (And every bit of it you get rid of—), but he avoids directly asking her to reserve the reminders in order not to agitate Becca again. To show that she respects his feelings and to prove that she is cooperative, she replies tenderly (I understand that. You don‘t wanna let go of it. I understand, Howie). Although she interrupts him, she does not mean to insult him, but she just wants to show that she cares about her husband‘s emotions and she repeats ‗understand‘ to demonstrate that she wants to be cooperative. In the previous speeches, Becca focused on the point that the reminders hurt her; hence, she attempts to reduce the pain by getting rid of them, but now she does not mention this in order not to confront Howie again. Breaking the Conversational Maxims and the Implicatures are summarized in the following tables. Table 5.19 Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
Character
Howie
Becca
Utterance
* YOU HAVE TO STOP!)
Status
violated
Reason
* That‘s not what I want, violated Bec.
tautology (tape, tape, stop, stop, stop, parallel structures) understatement (clash with manner maxim)
* Do you really not know violated me, Howie?...............
more informative required
* I feel like I don‘t feel bad violated enough for you……
overstatement
than
241
Table 5.20 Violation of the Quality Maxim in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Howie
-----------------------------
----------
------------------------
Becca
* Do you really not know..? violated Do you really not know…? how utterly impossible…? do you really think I…?
rhetorical questions
Table 5.21 Violation of the Relevance Maxim in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Becca
------------------
---------
-------------------------
Howie
-----------------------
----------
-------------------------
Table 5.22 Violation of the Manner Maxim in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Howie
You have to stop erasing violated him
ambiguity (implicature)
Becca
Like everything else that I flouted could‘ve prevented but didn‘t.
implicature (a Danny‘s death)
hint
to
242
Table 5.23 Implicatures in Howie-Becca Second Dialogue
Character
Howie
Becca
X.
Utterance
Implicatures
* You have to stop erasing him.
She has to change the way she copes with the loss.
* That‘s not what I want.
He does not blame her for erasing the tape.
* His stuff is all we have left.
He wants to keep the reminders of his son.
Like everything else that I She is responsible for the death of her son could‘ve prevented but (she could have prevented the accident) didn‘t
Findings and Conclusions
This is the second extract which is selected to study the relationship between Howie (husband) and Becca (wife) and to depict discordance between them. Howie tries to make clear for his wife that erasing the memories will not change anything because they can never forget about Danny; therefore, they should deal with the grief in a different way. They have lost their son, but Howie does not want to lose the reminders since they soothe him and he believes that Becca‘s way to cope with the loss is wrong because it only increases the losses. Finally, Becca understands that her actions have annoyed everyone in the family (her husband, her mother and sister), and she also comprehends her husband‘s emotions. Consequently, she shows agreement and accepts Howie‘s request to keep the reminders and thus glimpse of hope emerges for the couple to reconcile and to end the family disintegration.
Howie initiates the dialogue to persuade Becca to stop erasing the reminders of their dead son, Danny, but Becca misunderstands him thinking that he blames her for erasing the tape on which some family activities were recorded. It was the latest tape in which Danny appears as a grown child. Becca‘s behaviors and Howie‘s style of
243
speaking complicate the situations; therefore, using rough language is inevitable and cooperation between them to understand each other will be impossible especially from the side of Becca because the one who refuses to cooperate is Becca.
The dialogue consists of (23) lines. Howie and Becca take (5) turns each. Becca uses (214) words, but Howie uses only (76) words. Becca performs (7) speech acts; (5) assertives, (1) commissives and (1) expressives. In her long utterances, she uses some rhetorical questions and phrases, but all are linked to the main speech act which is describing her feelings and emotions. The first (4) turns she takes is just to explain to Howie that erasing the tape was an accident and she does not want to forget about Danny, but she wants to make the situation bearable.
Howie speaks little and performs (6) speech acts; (5) assertives and (1) directives. He does not have much to say. He only wants to convince his wife to change the way she deals with the loss because her behavior caused chaos in the family and the relationship between them is awful. In performing the speech acts, Howie violates the conversational maxims (3) times; Quantity Maxim (2) and Manner Maxim (1). Becca violates the Quantity Maxim (2) times; Quality Maxim (1) and she flouts the Manner Maxim (1). The study of the Speech Acts and the Conversational Maxims reveals: The study of the speech acts and the cooperative principle in this dialogue shows that the relationship between the couple has reached a critical stage. They must do something to save the relationship; otherwise, the discordance between the husband and wife will have a painful end and the family will vanish. Realizing that they have lost many things and suffered a lot due to the untimely death of their son and Becca‘s behaviors, Howie decides to end the chaos. In the previous dialogue, he tried to persuade his wife to change the way she deals with the grief but failed. Now he speaks more seriously to compel her not to get rid of Danny‘s reminders anymore and to persuade her cope with the grief in a different way and to return to her normal life. Howie‘s manner of speaking has the power of an order than a request and thus Becca believes that he criticizes her for erasing the tape. Howie does not speak clearly
244
and only in his last turn he tells Becca what exactly he wants and why he makes that claim; therefore, Becca misinterprets his aim and stands against him. This lack of understanding pervades the whole dialogue since they do not cooperate with each other. In his first three turns, Howie‘s aim remains ambiguous, in his fourth turn he shows agreement with his wife that their grief is the same and only in his last turn he reveals that he wants to keep the reminders though not directly.
Howie perform (6) speech acts but (4) of them misfire because Becca does not cooperate and even she does not listen to him does not heed to what he wants to say. On the contrary, Becca performs (7) speech acts all are felicitous since Howie listens to her and regards her feelings and emotions. Howie is cooperative in the sense that he wants to change the situation to better and in that case the beneficiary is the whole family including his wife, but Becca‘s behavior destroys not only her life but the whole family; yet, she refuses to change the way she copes with the loss.
Becca devotes four of her turns to reproach her husband for misreading her behaviors. She makes long speeches and she does not wait to see Howie‘s reaction. She does not listen to him and she even interrupts him. In the first three turns, she only describes her feelings and emotions regarding the loss and her husband‘s rude utterance in his first turn. In her fourth turn, she retards a little bit as she believes that she may not be right in interpreting Howie‘s utterance because he constantly denies to have blamed her and he stays calm after his first turn. Consequently she agrees to keep Danny‘s memories and thus the interaction smoothly goes to end peacefully.
5.2.3 Mother-Daughter Relationship: Nat vs. Becca
The discordance between mother and children in this play is depicted through studying the relationship between Nat (mother) and Becca (child). Nat has two daughters, Becca and Izzy. Becca is older than Izzy and she is married, but Izzy still lives with her mother. Because the play is about the loss of a child and it mainly concerns Becca, the disintegration between Nat and Becca is highlighted. Nat, like Howie and Izzy, tries to comfort Becca and support her to struggle with the loss. To achieve this purpose, she uses her own experience to teach her daughter how to cope
245
with pain. Nat suffered from the loss of a child since she also lost a son several years ago. She knows Becca is upset and distressed; therefore, she tries to comfort her. Nat cannot achieve her aim because Becca believes that the way she has chosen to deal with the grief is right and thus she does not listen to anyone‘s advice.
Nat tries to expound that Becca is not the only one who lost a child and she must not destroy her life because of this. She must learn how to get comfort in order to continue and return to her daily life, but these attempts only increase the discordance between them and their disintegration is clearly seen in their communications. Although Nat and Becca engage in acrimonious conversations over religion and faith, the real cause of their disharmony is the way each takes to cope with the heartbreaking death of Danny. Nat also thinks that Becca‘s way of struggling with the event is not right because she is always mournful and grievous, and she has abandoned her life and family which has created relational conflicts and stress. Nat speaks with her daughter to make her realize these facts. Becca may not know her acts detrimentally prejudice those who live around her; hence, something undesired may happen because the family members may not be able to endure her anymore as Howie says ―It‘s too hard‖ (Act One, Scene Four; pp. 87). Nat, like Howie and Izzy, tries to put Becca on the right path to prevent more losses and to avoid making the situation more complicated, but this creates problems between them and their disputes reflect in their speeches.
In this subsection entitled Mother-Child Relationship, the language they use in their adversarial confrontations will be analyzed according to the Speech Acts Theory and Cooperative Principles to understand the discordance between them. To achieve the purpose of the study, an excerpt will be chosen from their first encounter which occurs in Act One, Scene Three. They engage in a conversation again in Act Two, Scene Two, but they do not discuss any opposing points and even Becca allows Nat to talk about Arthur and she confesses that he was her brother and his death was also hard for her. At the end of the scene, Nat tells Becca that she can never forget Danny, and his memories will be bearable as time passes and she will like to keep them because, instead of her son, she has the memories. As Nat implies, this happened to her. Her son, Arthur, died eleven years ago, but she still copes with the loss; she has endured the pain and his memories comfort her.
246
Becca (After a beat) Mom? (Nat looks up at her.) Does it go away? Nat What. Becca This feeling. Does it ever go away? (Beat.) Nat No. I don‘t think it does. Not for me it hasn‘t. And that‘s goin‘ on eleven years. (Beat.) It changes though. Becca How? Nat I don‘t know. The weight of it, I guess. At some point it becomes bearable. …..
Act Two, Scene Two; P. 129
At the end of the scene, they keep silent and Becca nod a little (as mentioned in the stage direction) which shows that she is interested in this result and she is hopeful that this experience may work out well for her too. This change in her behavior may be is part of Howie‘s request at the end of Act One, Scene Four who says ―something must change here‖. In Act Two, Scene Two, Becca seems to be happier than before since she attends education classes and instead of gathering with people who talk about the miseries of life and home, she congregates with people who talk about ‗Dickens‖. These are all good signs that Becca tries to normalize her relationship with her family members including her mother, Nat.
247
I.
Position of the extract in the play
This confrontation between Nat and Becca occurs near the end of Scene Three, Act One. Time is one week later and the setting is the kitchen in Becca‘s house. It is Izzy‘s birthday party and they are singing around the birthday cake. Nat has heard from Howie that Becca does not visit the Support Groups anymore; hence, she tries to exploit the family gathering to convince Becca to change her style of mourning because she makes problems for the whole family. She gives many examples about people who die because of plane crashes and she also talks about JFK‘s family and Kennedy curse. Becca feels that her mother wants to talk about Danny‘s death and the point she makes about Rose Kennedy who lived one hundred and four years and saw all the deaths is to indicate that people should go on after a loss; therefore, she makes an attempt to change the topic. She suggests that they should give Izzy the presents. They agree, but the presents complicate the situation more because Nat gives Izzy a gift certificate ―To A Pea in the Pod!‖, a shop which has ―nice maternity clothes‖. Becca gets upset at this saying ―I thought we weren‘t doing baby stuff‖ (Act One, Scene Three; pp. 63).
Howie and Izzy try to change the subject so as not to get Becca agitated, but Nat has not conveyed her message and once again she goes back talking about death and how to cope with it. In her new attempt, she talks about Aristotle Onassis, a man who died after two years of his son‘s death because he could not find anyone to blame. She narrates this story to make Becca believe that she cannot find an explanation for her son‘s death and the best way to cope with it is to get comfort because she should not surrender to grief and she must go on. When her son died, Nat found the Support Groups very helpful and she also mentions that some people get comfort through faith in God, but Becca does not try to get comfort, she does not like the Support Groups and she does not believe in God. These contradictory views are presented in a controversial conversation which marks the discordance between Becca and Nat in which Nat tries to persuade her daughter to endure the pain and return to her daily life, but Becca resists as she finds it impossible.
248
II.
The Extract
NAT What‘s wrong with the people? They‘ve lost children, too. They understand what you‘re going through. BECCA No they don‘t. They understand what they’re going through. NAT Still, you must have things in common. BECCA You would think so, mother, but actually we don‘t. Other than that dead kid thing, of course. NAT It can‘t hurt if to give it another try, Becca. BECCA Actually, it can. You haven‘t met that room full of God-freaks. HOWIE They‘re not God-freaks. BECCA Most of them are, Howie. That‘s all they talk about. God‘s plan. ―At least he‘s in a better place.‖
HOWIE They‘re not all like that. BECCA My favorite is: ―God needed another angel.‖ What is that? He‘s God! Why can‘t he just make another angel? These people …
249
NAT Maybe God gives them comfort. BECCA Well it pisses me off. Trying to find some ridiculous meaning in—―Hey look, I stepped in shit, it must be part of God‘s plan.‖ NAT Now you‘re just being silly. BECCA I’m being silly. Act One, Scene Three; pp. 72-73
III.
Speech Acts Analysis in the Extract
The argument occurs between Becca and Nat and it shows the discordance between them, and Howie sometimes interferes because he is present and some of the utterances concern him too, but in the graph which reflects the disagreement between the mother and the daughter Howie‘s utterances and the speeches which are directed to him are dropped. Although Howie‘s intervention and deviating from the main issue are two realistic features in the dialogue, only the utterances which reveal the tensions between Nat and Becca are explored in order to keep unity in the interaction. The dialogue is an argument between the mother and the daughter over coping with Danny‘s death. Howie told Nat that Becca stopped going to the support group because she does not like the people there; therefore, Nat wants to exploit this family gathering to discuss this issue with her daughter hoping that she can persuade her to rejoin the group because at least she will meet some people who suffer from the same misfortune, but Becca‘s lack of interest in the group and her mother‘s way of encouragement raises tensions between them from the very beginning. Nat initiates the dialogue by a rhetorical question (What‘s wrong with the people?) to indirectly tell Becca that the people in the groups are not bad they also suffer like her from the death of their beloved ones. Nat does not stop here because
250
she really does not want to get an answer, but her aim is to persuade Becca to revisit the support group since her quit is a mistake. Consequently, she adds two more sentences (They‘ve lost children, too. They understand what you‘re going through). Nat describes the people there and her first sentence is a fact, but her second sentence is a personal opinion and Becca totally rejects it. Nat‘s speech act misfires when she makes a link between Becca and the parents in the support group because Becca does not find any relationship between her and them. In her first turn (No they don‘t) Becca emphatically refuses this connection and denies the truthiness of her mother‘s conclusion. May be the propositional content is true for Nat but not for her daughter. Becca wants to make her mother realize that people only understand their own grieves and they know what they are going through, not what I am (They understand what they’re going through). She implies that the loss of a child is a private issue and only the parents know how they really feel about it. The pronoun ‗they‘ and the attached verb to be ‗are‘ are italicized to show that each one understands her own feelings better and to give force to her view in order to convince her mother that she does not go back. According to her experience, Nat believes that there is a connection between the parents (Still, you must have things in common). Nat has also lost a son eleven years ago and found the support groups helpful to make the grief bearable; therefore, she uses ‗must‘ to give strength to her opinion. She still tries to convince her daughter to return to the group and make her realize that she is wrong, but the utterance is infelicitous because the propositional content condition and the essential condition are not observed and thus the illocutionary force is not obtained.
Becca refuses any connection between her and other parents and does not acknowledge the tie built by her mother. She emphasizes that it is her mother‘s opinion not the opinion of those who attend the group (You would think so, mother, but actually we don‘t). She believes that the only thing the parents share is the fact that they have lost a child and it does not mean that they can help each other to endure the pain (Other than that dead kid thing). She uses the illocutionary force indicator (actually) to strengthen her denial, and she tries to make her mother realize that she does not change her mind, but the speech act misfires since Nat insists on persuading
251
her daughter to rejoin the group (It can‘t hurt if to give it another try, Becca). In this utterance, Nat shifts the style of the argument with her daughter. In the previous turns, she presented her opinion as persuasive strategies to convince Becca, but now she tries to advise her because she believes that Becca loses nothing at any rate. She indirectly tries to persuade Becca to go back to the group and she uses the modal auxiliary ‗can‘ to show the possibility of getting benefit and the impossibility of getting hurt. Nat‘s speech again and again misfires since Becca does not give consent. Becca realizes that her mother will not give up easily and she continues pressing her; therefore, she makes a move to reject her mother‘s advice and also to explain why she left the group (Actually, it can. You haven‘t met that room full of God-freaks). In the first sentence, she invalidates her mother‘s advise and the auxiliary ‗can‘ is italicized to indicate that she is not comfortable with the people there, and again she utilizes ‗actually‘ for emphasis. Becca feels that she needs to justify her opinion; hence, she adds another sentence in which she highlights the reason behind leaving the group. She does not only elucidate the reason, but she considers her mother‘s appraisal of the support group to be wrong and baseless because she is not in the groups and she has no idea about the people there. Becca left the group because the people in it are ‗Godfreaks‘. The grieved parents, as Becca describes, relate the death of their children to the wish of God since ‗God needed another angel‘.
For Nat, this explanation is reasonable since the believers seek comfort from God (Maybe God gives them comfort). Nat plays the role of a religious woman here and she does not find anything wrong if people want to get comfort through returning to God. Nat tries to convince her daughter that seeking God‘s comfort is one of the ways that can make the grief bearable, but the speech act misfires because for Becca the interpretation is absurd since she is an atheist and thus considers the explanation illogical (Well it pisses me off….). She uses the filler (well) to indicate that she is not like them and she has her own way to get comfort. She tries to persuade her mother to stop pressing her to go back. Becca‘s unnecessarily use of profane language irritates her mother. Consequently, Nat utilizes direct forms to reprove Becca (you‘re just being silly) and to tell her that she should not speak in that way about the sacred entities. She wants to make Becca realize that she hurt her mother‘s feelings. Nat
252
deploys a present tense to indicate that Becca has lost her mind because she uses blasphemous language, and she tries to oblige her to apologize for her behavior, but her speech act is infelicitous because the point is not compatible with Becca‘s aim.
Becca confesses that she is brainless now (I’m being silly) because of losing her son not because she utilized sacrilegious language. Becca uses this strategy to persuade her mother to end the talk since she has decided to cope with the loss without the group or seeking comfort from God. She wants to make her mother realize that her suggestions and advises are all fruitless because she does not change her mind. The conversation goes on about belief and getting comfort from God, but Nat cannot persuade her daughter to go back to the support group or to return to God so that she can get comfort through Him. Finally, Becca gets upset at her mother‘s repetitious talk about believe in God and how God helped her to cope with Arthur‘s death. Consequently, she takes leave to go to bed and leaves Howie, Izzy and Nat behind. The interpretation of the utterance acts and the analysis of the speech acts can be summarized in the following tables.
Table 5.24 Utterance Interpretation in Nat-Becca Dialogue
Character
Nat
Becca
Illocutionary Act
Perlocutionary Act
* ….. They predication understand what (understand you‘re going what you‘re…) through.
argue
make her rejoin the groups
* No they don‘t.
argue
get her to know only herself understands her grief
explain
make her realize that people understand their own grieves.
Utterance Act
Propositional Act
reference (they)
* They predication understand what (understand they’re going what they‘re..) through.
continue …
253 … continued Nat
Still you must predication have things in (must have…) common.
insist
make her realize that the grieved parents realize each other‘s pain
Becca
You would think predication so, mother, but (would think so, actually we but….) don‘t…..
argue
get her to know the parents cannot share their sorrows
Nat
It can‘t hurt if to predication give it another try (can‘t hurt if…)
assert
persuade her to go back to the support group
Becca
Actually, it can.
argue
get her to know she is not comfortable with the group
describe
get her to know she is mistaken about the group
predication (can)
You haven‘t met reference that room full of (that room …) God-freaks. Nat
Maybe God gives predication them comfort. (gives them...)
assert
get her to know believe in God gives comfort
Becca
Well it pisses me predication off. Trying to find (pisses me…) some ridiculous
explain
make her realize that she does not seek God‘s comfort
Nat
Now you‘re just predication being silly. (being silly)
conclude
get her to know she hurt her mother‘s feeling
Becca
I’m being silly.
affirm
make her realize she lost her mind due to the loss
predication (being silly...)
254
Table 5.25 The Speech Acts Analysis in Nat-Becca Dialogue
Character
T u r n s
Nat
1
Becca
1
Utterance Act
Speech Acts
Force
Point
Felicity
They assertive understand what you‘re going through.
describe
persuade
misfire
* No they don‘t. assertive
deny
refuse
misfire
* They assertive understand what they’re going through.
describe
inform
misfire
Nat
2
Still you must assertive have things in common.
argue
convince
misfire
Becca
2
You would assertive think so, mother, but actually we don‘t
explain
inform
misfire
Nat
3
It can‘t hurt if assertive to give it another try.
suggest
advice
misfire
Becca
3
* Actually, it assertive can.
argue
refuse
misfire
* You haven‘t assertive met that room full of Godfreaks.
describe
persuade
misfire
continue …
255 … continued
Nat
4
Maybe gives comfort.
Becca
4
Nat
Becca
IV.
God assertive them
deduce
convince
misfire
Well it pisses assertive me off. Trying to find some ridiculous
describe
refuse
misfire
5
Now you‘re just assertive being silly.
conclude
scold
misfire
5
I’m being silly.
accept
end talk
expressive
the misfire
Cooperative Principle and Implicature Analysis in the Extract
Nat starts the conversation to help her daughter cope with her son‘s death and to encourage her to resume her normal life. To achieve this purpose, she tries to persuade her to go back to the support groups because she has experience with them, and she thinks that they can help Becca. Nat starts the interaction by uttering a sentence structured as question, but it functions as statement (What‘s wrong with the people?). She violates the quality maxim because the question is rhetorical and she does not seek answer (not a true question). If Nat really needs to know if anything wrong with the parents attend the group. She will wait for Becca to take her turn and gives the answer, but she continues on her speech and gives some information about the people which proves that Nat does not find anything wrong with the people (They‘ve lost children, too. They understand what you‘re going through). The sentence which reflects Nat‘s opinion generates an argument and its propositional content is rejected by Becca. For Becca, Nat in this sentence violates the quality maxim because Nat uses (you) to refer to Becca, but Becca believes that the parents only understand their own sufferings. Becca does not agree with her mother at all; therefore, she produces two sentences; a direct negative (No they don‘t) which
256
mainly concerns the parents through which she illuminates that they do not understand her and she gives force to the negation by deploying (no and not); and the second sentence is an indirect negative which questions the truthiness of Nat‘s view (They understand what they’re going through). Becca replaces (you‘re) in Nat‘s utterance with (they‘re) it is italicized which indicates that Nat is wrong and Nat‘s statement that those who have lost children comprehend each other very well is not true, but she uses indirect speech act to avoid hurting her mother‘s feeling. Becca flouts the manner maxim to attribute implicatures. The interactants obviously break the cooperative principles. Nat gives information which is true for herself, but she utilizes the second personal pronoun (you) which refers to her daughter, and Becca uses three negatives in just two sentences to prove the falsity of her mother‘s utterance.
Nat understands the implicature; hence, she takes another turn to defend her view (Still, you must have things in common), and she gives force to her opinion by exploiting (still) which is used as a conjunction to connect her utterance to Becca‘s and functions as (but) and the modal auxiliary (must) which expresses certainty. Nat also uses indirect negative (still=but) to imply that may be Becca is partially right but not completely. In this sense, for Nat, Becca also violates the quality maxim because Nat previously attended the support groups and found them helpful to cope with the death of her son, Arthur. Becca also understands the implicature and she feels that it is against her wish; therefore, she takes another turn (You would think so, mother, but actually we don‘t), and she again uses a direct negative to refuse her mother‘s view. Wedgwood states that ―one popular idea is that the fundamental function of any linguistic indication of focus is to partition a sentence into a focused part and a background part‖ (2005:99). According to this comment, Becca‘s sentence is end focus because she negates her mother‘s utterance twice (but and not) and she adds another force indicator (actually).
Becca realizes that direct forms are impolite and she does not want to show that her mother is totally wrong; hence, she adds another sentence (Other than that dead kid thing, of course). In this phrase, Becca also uses her mother‘s manner of speaking indicating that there is some truth in her speech which is related to the fact that the parents in the groups lost their child, but it does not mean that they understand
257
how each one of them feels regarding the loss. Becca deploys this style to avoid complicating the situation and confronting her mother. She simply tells her mother that going to the group proved useless for her case, hoping that her mother stop arguing with her about the issue, but she does not succeed because Nat uses another strategy to reopen the exchange. Becca‘s disagreements with her mother‘s support and encouragement distress Nat and thus she attempts to change her manner of speaking. In her next turn (It can‘t hurt if to give it another try, Becca), she makes a suggestion and mentions Becca‘s name at the end of the utterance to make it a motherly advise so that she can persuade her daughter to go back to the group. Nat believes that the group does not have negative side effects, and she loses nothing if she returns. The utterance is a conditional sentence in which the main clause is negated. She utilizes the form to convince Becca that if the group cannot offer help, it will not hurt. Nat does not achieve her aim because Becca emphatically rejects the proposal (Actually it can). She gives force to her refusal in two ways, first she use (actually) to express certainty and second the model auxiliary (can) is italicized which invalidates the impossibility of getting hurt in Nat‘s utterance (it can‘t hurt). Becca always rejects to retort the group without illustrating the reason, but now she finds it necessary to make it clear to all why she quit the sessions. Consequently, she adds another sentence (You haven‘t met that room full of God-freaks). Becca‘s illustration highlights two points. First, it shows that Nat violates the quality maxim because she speaks without having any information about the people in the group. Nat depends on her experience in the groups which belongs to eleven years ago and thus it may not work for now and for Becca‘s situation. Secondly, Becca violates the quantity maxim because mentioning the name of God changes the interaction into a bitter struggle about believing in God and disbelieving in God. This issue takes up the whole scene, and Becca several times rejects seeking comfort with God and uses profane language many times.
Becca complains that the people there relate the death of their children to the wish of God and this hurts her. Nat finds Becca‘s justification to leave the group is unreasonable and her opinion about the people‘s behavior increases the tensions and opens a new area of discussion. Nat initiates a sensitive issue (Maybe God gives them
258
comfort), but she utilizes ‗maybe‘ at the beginning of her utterance not to impose her idea upon Becca because she knows her daughter is not interested in religion. She employs this style not to irritate her daughter and not to say something for which she has no evidence since she does not know people in the groups, but her strategy does not prevent Becca from reacting badly. In her fourth turn, Becca does not regard the sensitivity of the issue and she manipulates indecent language (Well it pisses me off. Trying to find some ridiculous meaning in…..). Becca believes that God has nothing to do with her son‘s death and relating the accident to the wish of God is absurd and it does not make sense. Becca violates the quantity maxim since she overstates in expressing her opinion about the role of God in human life and she also violates the manner maxim as her utterance is deliberately offensive in the general sense. Becca really hurts her mother‘s feeling now and she does not cooperate at all. Locher and Watts state that ―non-cooperativeness is important in behavior that intentionally aims at hurting the addressee‖ (2008:80). According to this statement, Becca is uncooperative and she hurts her mother directly and indirectly. Nat is obliged to react severely to stop her daughter. In her last utterance, she reproaches Becca for utilizing improper lexemes (you‘re just being silly). Nat implies that Becca has lost her mind since she cannot think and speak properly, and Becca confirms that the incident has greatly affected her (I’m being silly). Becca does not resist the reproof, and she gives a short reply to persuade her mother to end the debate since she is sure they get nowhere, and the tensions between them have unduly increased. It seems that they have highlighted the controversial issues between them which are related to their ways of coping and the faith in God to get comfort. In fact, they have nothing else to say because they speak against each other and there is no way to be cooperative. Although Nat does not suspend the exchanges here, she has nothing new to say. Consequently, at the end of the scene Becca goes to bed and closes the argument. Breaking the Conversational Maxims and the Implicatures are summarized in the following tables.
259
Table 5.26 Violation of the Quantity Maxim in Nat-Becca Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
-----------
Reason
Nat
--------------------
-----------------------
Becca
* You haven‘t met that violated room full of God-freaks.
more informative than required (raises side issues)
* Well it pisses me off. violated Trying to……
overstatement (raises side issues)
Table 5.27 Violation of the Quality Maxim in Nat-Becca Dialogue
Character
Nat
Becca
Utterance
Status
Reason
* What‘s wrong with the violated people?.
rhetorical question
* They understand what violated you‘re going through.
For Becca, it is not true.
* It can‘t hurt if to give it violated another try.
For Becca, it is not true and Nat speaks without having any information about the group Becca attends
* No they don‘t.
For Nat, the utterance is not true.
violated
Table 5.28 Violation of the Relevance Maxim in Nat-Becca Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
Reason
Nat
------------------------
---------
-------------------------
Becca
-----------------------
----------
-------------------------
260
Table 5.29 Violation of the Manner Maxim in Nat-Becca Dialogue
Character
Utterance
Status
--------
Reason
Nat
--------------------------------
----------------
Becca
* They understand what flouted they’re going through.
implicature speech act.
* Well it pisses me off. violated Trying to…….
offensive in the sense (impolite)
via
indirect
general
Table 5.30 Implicatures in Nat-Becca Dialogue
Character
Nat
Utterance
Implicatures
* What‘s wrong with the There is nothing wrong with the people people? (rhetorical question). * They understand what Grieved parents understand each other‘s you‘re going through. pains. * You must have things in The parents certainly have something in common. common which gather them in the groups * It can‘t hurt if to give it You lose nothing if you rejoin the group another try. * Now you‘re just being You have lost your mind. silly.
Becca
* They understand what they’re going through
The grieved parents understand their own pains.
Other than that dead kid The people are similar in losing a child thing. but not in their pains and feelings. * You haven‘t met that room full of God-freaks * Well it pisses me off
You know nothing about the people there. She gets sick at relating the death of her son to the wish of God.
261
V.
Findings and Conclusions
The extract is selected to study the relationship between Nat, the mother, and Becca, the daughter; hence, only the utterances which they articulate face to face with each other are explored to illustrate the discordance between them. Because Howie interferes, some of Becca‘s utterances are directed to him; therefore, those utterances are not looked at in the analysis.
Nat and Becca take (5) turns each. Nat initiates the interaction and she uses (42) words, but Becca uses (65) words. Nat performs (5) speech acts; all are assertives. Becca performs (8) speech acts; (7) assertives and (1) commissives. The speech acts are mostly descriptive. The interactants use the manner of speaking to present their views and to reject the other party‘s opinions. Becca articulates three direct negatives to refuse Nat‘s speeches (don‘t, don‘t, haven‘t), and she also uses two indirect negatives (they‘re, can) as opposites to Nat‘s views (you‘re, can‘t). The interactants speak out their opinions obviously and frankly reject each other‘s views; hence, the intended and the actual perlocutionary of the illocutionary acts are the same.
Becca breaks the conversational Maxims (5) times; Quantity Maxim (2); Quality Maxim (1) and Manner Maxim (2) times, in one of the cases she flouts the maxim to create implicature. Most of the utterances have double meanings. They use this style to avoid directly refuting each other. Becca is uncooperative because she rejects whatever her mother says although the beneficiary is Becca and Nat has no personal interest in encouraging her daughter to go back to the support groups and to get comfort.
The study of the Speech Acts and the Conversational Maxims reveals:
The interaction is a clash between two opposite views. Becca has decided not to attend the support groups anymore because the sessions are useless and the grieved parents only increase her pain. She feels uncomfortable with them and thus she wants to cope
262
with her son‘s death in her own way. On the contrary, Nat, Becca‘s mother, believes that the groups can reduce the pains and make the loss bearable. Depending on her experience, Nat tries to persuade Becca to rejoin the groups because the parents who gather there suffer from the same problem, they have lost children too.
Like Howie and Izzy, Nat also realizes that the way Becca has chosen to deal with the pain is wrong; therefore, she tries to advise her to get comfort with God or by sharing her sorrows with other parents in the groups, but Becca rejects both proposals. Nat takes different ways and utilizes various strategies to help Becca find the right way to struggle with her grief and to help her get comfort, but she failed and she received harsh and bleak responses.
Throughout the dialogue, one party articulates an utterance or expresses an opinion, but the other party rejects it; therefore, all the utterances are infelicitous and thus cooperative principles are not observed. Even in her last utterance when Becca agrees with her mother that she is confused, her utterance is related to the death of her son, not to the profane language she uses. In some cases, one party in the dialogue tries to observe the maxims, but cooperation will not occur because the other party rejects the contribution since it may be incompatible with his/her wishes.
Like all the other interactions which occur between Becca and her family members, the end of this dialogue is not promising because finally Becca goes to bed without giving consent to return to the groups or to seek comfort with God. In Act Two, Scene Two, Becca reveals that she attends education classes and literature gives her comfort. Finally, she finds an alternative for the support group and through that alternative she will end her disputes with her mother.
CHAPTER VI
8 9
6.1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This research is an attempt to contribute to the stylistic study of drama. In the study, the pragmatic models of stylistics such as speech acts and cooperative principle are examined to depict family discordance in the American society. Pragmatic stylistics analysis focuses on the language in use which means that the theories of Speech Acts developed by Searle (1969, 1975) and the Cooperative Principles and implicatures introduced by Grice (1975) can be applied to study drama because the study of the utterances produced by the characters according to the categories of the speech acts (assertives, directives, expressives, commissives and declaratives) and the conversational maxims (quantity, quality, relevance and manner) reveal the true nature of the relationships and the agreement or disagreement between the characters.
The study shows how language in dramatic dialogues can be explored according to the speeches acts and the conversational maxims (pragmatic stylistics) to detect the relationship between the interlocutors in conversations. It also clarifies how cooperation ends the disputes and how uncooperativeness increases the tensions. It also shows how the pragmatic features of stylistics can be explored to study a particular issue such as family discordance in a play which mostly consists of conversations. The analysis of the language of the plays attested interesting results. The plays, Buried Child and Rabbit Hole, are written by two playwrights with different background and in two different periods of time, but the stylistic study found the link which ties them together and it is related to the language used by the characters while communicating.
264
Inside the families, the discordance is between the husband and wife, parents and their children and the siblings over various issues. In Buried Child, though the relationship between them is not good, Halie, the mother, and Tilden, the son, try to normalize the relationships and save the family, but Dodge, husband and father, opposes them. In Rabbit Hole, Howie, husband, Nat, mother, and Izzy, sister, make great efforts to persuade Becca, wife, to change the way she struggles with the death of her son so that they can end the family disintegration, but Becca refuses to cooperate. The characters do not perform physical attack to settle their disputes. Instead, they utilize language to verbally attack each other, to impose power on one another, to criticize, to insult and to express negative emotions such as anger and hatred and at the same time to defend themselves and to perform counter attacks. These verbal actions which clearly manifest the ailing relationship between the characters are explored through studying the utterance acts which include the propositional act, the illocutionary act and the perlocutionary act. These acts reveal the topic of the discussions and the purpose of the interactants and how they want to achieve the aims. At the same time, they indicate who follows the maxims and who does not, and how lack of cooperation boosts the conflicts.
Language in the plays carries out everything except its role as a means of communication and thus the interactions do not go smoothly and the interlocutors do not achieve their aims. The characters do not understand each other or they do not want to understand each other; therefore, their utterances are unsuccessful in most of the turns they take. For instance, one character makes a proposal, but the other character refuses it although the beneficiary is the hearer or the whole family. Becca in Rabbit Hole and Dodge in Buried Child are against all the attempts which are made to save the families from collapse. The actions of the characters are best described by the utterances they produce because when they speak, they do something. The study of the speech acts and the cooperative principles display that the playwrights utilize language successfully to represent the family breakdown in the American society, and they focus on the dialogues which occur between the characters that are tied by blood but separated by the domestic problems.
265
The study of the speech acts shows that the relationship between the family members is weak and it is a pity because they use directives forcefully, they accuse each other, they refute each other, and characters like Dodge and Becca try to impose their wishes on other‘s through speaking harshly and using vulgar language. Even when they use assertives, they give force to their demands and opinions. Furthermore, the analysis of the conversational maxims reveal that most of the time the characters do not follow Grice‘s maxims in their conversations because they do not talk in a normal condition and thus the communicative aim is not achieved.
The study of the speech acts illustrate that the interactants always run into each other at the outset of the interaction because they communicate to obtain their aims which are contradictory to each other. Consequently, one character chooses various strategies to persuade or compel his opponent to give up his aims. This attempt is carried out by performing different speech acts such as order, request, advice, suggestion, complaint, accusation and so son. The characters do not surrender at all or at least easily; therefore, the tensions between them increase and this change in the relationships is presented through rising and falling of the mood of the utterances. The mood of the speech acts is shown through the type of the speech act and its force and point. When the characters realize that they cannot achieve their goals by making requests or complaining, they start giving orders or they strengthen the statements by deploying illocutionary force indicators, particularly exclamation marks and word order. In some cases, when the conversation reaches a critical point, they interrupt each other or they cannot articulate what is in their minds and these situations are shown through some stylistics features such em dash (−) and (…) dots.
According to the speech act theory, the utterances will misfire or the characters do not accomplish their objectives when they do not observe the felicity conditions such as propositional content condition, preparatory condition, sincerity condition and essential condition, which are regarded as the rules of communication. These conditions are not observed by the characters in these two plays because they do not agree on the topics of the discussion or because of misunderstanding or lack of confidence, in some few cases.
266
The analysis of the utterances according to the conversational maxims indicates family discordance in the plays. Grice‘s rules of conversation "make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged‖ show that it is impossible for the characters to be cooperative especially at the beginning of the exchanges mainly because the purpose of the talks is quite different. In Buried Child, Halie tries to persuade Dodge to have his hair cut in order to show that she still cares about him and about the family, but Dodge refuses to cooperate since for him the family has collapsed and nothing has remained to bind them together. Tilden tries to convince his father to discuss the family problem so that they can end the curse which has haunted the family, but Dodge rejects the proposal since he is still angry at his wife and son. Tilden argues that he picked up the corn from the backyard, but his mother does not trust him and accuses him of stealing it. Though in both cases Tilden is cooperative, the dialogues end without promising results because the other parties do not cooperate. The situation in Rabbit Hole is somehow different. At the end of the interaction between Becca and Izzy, Becca is convinced that her sister does not exploit Danny‘s death to justify her bad behaviors and thus the dialogue ends happily, and the second encounter between Becca and Howie has also a satisfactory ending since because shows intention to cooperate and the family issues. The dialogue between Nat and Becca and the first exchange between Becca and Howie are not successful because Becca refuses to listen to them and cope with the accident in a different way.
Observing and violating the conversational maxims are different from one extract to the other and from one play and to the other because of the seriousness of the subject matter and the purpose of the interlocutors. In the two plays, the characters break Quantity Maxim (29) times, Manner Maxim (24) times, Quality Maxim (21) times and Relevance Maxim only (9) times. The data show that the characters do not deviate from the topic except in some cases which happen due to misunderstanding or when a character wants to end the discussion and thus he changes the topic. The speakers break the quantity maxim many times because they either overstate or they do not go directly to the topic or they understate, they do not give enough information so that the listeners understand the aims and thus uncooperativeness occurs. The infringement of manner maxim happens when the characters attribute implicature
267
especially in Buried Child since the family secret is a sensitive issue and they avoid directly talking about it. They also break the quality maxim since they use rhetorical questions and they accuse each other or say things for which they have no evidence.
The study of the conversational maxims display that the family discordance in Buried Child will not end by negotiation because the characters only say what they want and what they believe to be true. They do not care about each other‘s feelings and emotions except for Tilden whose efforts all fail because he is weak and he cannot shift the power in the dialogues. In his interactions with Dodge and Halie, he reaches no conclusion and thus he ends the talks once when he leaves the scene and once when he starts crying and does not make any utterances. In the first interaction between Dodge and Halie, Dodge tries to persuade Halie to tell Bradley no to cut his hair, but she does not listen to him. Finally, he accuses her of encouraging Bradley to bully him, but she denies the truthiness of his accusation and they continue arguing till Tilden comes in and ends the dispute. In their second dialogue, Dodge harshly attacks Halie reminding her of her incestuous relationship to compel her not to talk about family and connections. Halie realizes that the situation is getting worse; therefore, she takes a leave to forcefully end the argument without achieving anything.
In Rabbit Hole, the characters talk for a long a time and their utterances are mostly short and clear, but uncooperativeness occurs because their aims are different. Izzy tells a story to comfort her sister, but Becca exploits the situation to criticize Izzy for going to bars and having fun while her sister is still mourning the death of her son. The tensions between them increase since Becca misinterprets Izzy‘s intention in expressing her feeling regarding the loss. Consequently, the interaction turns into a struggle one accuses and the other one defends and Izzy‘s aim from comforting changes to persuading. Finally, she achieves this purpose and Becca also is satisfied with the result of the argument and they continue their routine talks. Izzy is cooperative because she has no personal interest in the conversation and she wants to behave and talk in the way which Becca likes, but Becca exerts power and speaks ambiguously and even she does not believe in Izzy when she reiterates that she does not look for excuses to justify her bar fight till the end of the interaction.
268
In the dialogues between Howie and Becca, the power relationship does not shift. The purpose of the arguments is persuasion; Becca wants to persuade Howie to sell the house and Howie tries to persuade Becca to alter the way she deals with the loss; hence, uncooperativeness occurs. Howie‘s utterances are short and clear in most of his turns because his aim is clear and he does not seek personal interest. His claim is good for the family and Becca is the main beneficiary because she will get comfort if she cooperates. On the contrary, Becca takes long turns to justify her claims and uses various strategies to convince Howie to move from the house. She does not think of the family‘s interests and she wants to do what she wants without heading to the other‘s wishes and desires, especially her husband. In the first exchange, they cannot change each other‘s minds; hence, the dialogue ends but nothing is gained. The second interaction starts severely, but Howie retards after he takes the first turn because his aim is to normalize the situation not to complicate it. Again Becca stands against his wishes and starts blaming her husband for not understanding her feelings. In most of the cases, Becca breaks the quantity maxim because she overstates to find justification for her behaviors regarding giving away the reminders of Danny and selling the house, but Howie understates since he does not want to directly impose on his wife to change her behavior. Finally, Howie succeeds in convincing Becca to return to her normal life and save the family from destruction.
Although the conversation between Becca and Nat has no happy ending, the effects of her mother‘s speech regarding finding a way to get comfort are great on Becca later in the play to save her family. Nat, like Izzy, wants to comfort her daughter or at least reduce her pains through advising her to change the way she copes with the loss, but she faces severe reactions. Although Nat stays calm in her turns, but her continuous encouragement to rejoin the groups and her speeches about getting comfort with God provoke her daughter. Nat tries to observe the maxims and when she violates the quality maxim, she does not want to mislead her daughter but to encourage her daughter to return to the support groups. On the contrary, Becca is rather uncooperative and she does not respect her mother‘s feeling at all. She speaks harshly and even she uses profane language to oblige her mother to stop talking about God and getting comfort with Him. Nat feels offended and she believes that her daughter is unnecessarily rude with her, but she still tries to control the situation and
269
continue the discussion hoping that she can persuade her daughter to make some changes in her life, but Becca cannot listen to her mother‘s advises since they are not compatible with her desires; hence, she goes to bed and ends the turn-taking system.
The infelicitous utterances build a link between the speech acts and the conversational maxims to examine family discordance in the two plays since the utterances will misfire when the characters are uncooperative. In other words, when the characters do not observe the cooperative principles, they do not attain their purposes; it means that the point of the illocutionary act is not obtained and thus the utterance is infelicitous. According to the cooperative principles, the characters should observe certain rules (conversational maxims) so that the communication will have a happy or a promising ending; otherwise, lack of cooperation will occur and thus they cannot end the disputes between them.
When language or communications cannot settle the disputes, the characters utilize some strategies to end the argument or to change the topic of the discussion. For instance, In Buried Child, Dodge refuses to take the pills to stand against Halie‘s wish and spends most of his time watching TV and drinking in order not to talk to Halie. When he hurts her feelings, Halie goes out and does not come back the whole night. In Rabbit Hole, similar scenarios are repeated. When Howie and Becca reach nowhere in their argument about selling the house, Becca goes upstairs and Howie stays in the living room watching Danny‘s tapes. Becca repeats the same thing and leaves the party after she has a harsh talk with her mother. These moments mostly mark the end of the conversations and illustrate the disintegration between the family members and lack of cooperation between them.
The playwrights exploit the controversy between the characters to create live arguments in which they use language in diverse forms to convey the intended messages. To be more realistic, the dialogues occur in familiar places and the dramatists use American homes from different parts of the country as the physical context. The authors realize that love and passion have greatly decreased among the family members and family structure is fallen apart, yet they believe that there is still a chance for restructuring the families and reuniting the ties which is presented by
270
Vince and Tilden‘s return in Buried Child and Becca‘s attempt to change her way of coping with the loss in a proper way in order not to ruin her family. Finally, it can be concluded that the study of the pragmatic stylistic approaches such as the speech acts and the conversational maxim has made a great contribution to analyze the dialogues in these two plays to show the relationship between the characters and to discuss family discordance.
6.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
Stylistics can be used variously in the areas which mainly focus attention on the use of language. Thus the framework deployed in this research to study family discordance in Modern American Drama can be applied to study other issues such as class distinction, racism and ideological differences in literature. The same procedure can also be manipulated in language teaching since it shows how language functions in communication. In this regard, students will learn to structure their utterances in a certain way in order to avoid performing face threatening acts when they engage in conversation with other people or to achieve their aims without creating tensions. The framework is not only useful to explore dramatic dialogues; researchers can get benefit from it to study conversations in other genres and in different contexts such as in court or in a party. As far as the study deals with language and style, the insights it offers can be used to examine text-messages or emails because the medium of these areas is language. People have a limited space in such areas; therefore, they should be able to use a certain style to form the texts and to convey their messages.
REFERENCES
Abbotson, S. C. W. 2005. Masterpieces of the 20th-Century American Drama. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood. Ananian, C. S. 1996. American Speech: Language and Realism in Tooth of Crime and Buried Child (online) http://cscott.net/Pton/ENG347/language.pdf (10 May 2010). Anderson, R. 2012. Fusing the Postmodern and the Gothic to Rebirth Buried Child as the New Frankenstein. Sino-US English Teaching, USA: David Publishing, Vol. 9 (11): pp. 1716-22. Beard, A. 2003. The Language of Literature. London: Routledge. Bigsby, C. W. E. 2004. Modern American Drama: 1945–2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Birch, D. 1989. Language, Literature and Critical Practice: Ways of Analysing Text. London: Routledge. Black, E. 2006. Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bobertz, T., Iannone, M., Olsen, S. P. & Zingler, K. 2008. Rabbit Hole Resource Guide. Created for the 2008 Spring Semester Script Analysis Class (online). www.barebodkins.com/files/Rabbit_Hole_study_guide.docx [10 February 2011]. Bousfield, D.2008. Impoliteness in the Struggle for Power. In: Bousfield D. & Locher, M. A. (eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, pp. 127-153. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bradford, R. 1994. Roman Jakobson: Life, Language, Art. London: Routledge. Bradford, R. 1997. Stylistics. London: Routledge. Brietzke, Z. 2007. American Drama in the Age of Film. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. Brown, J. 2002. Family Values in American Drama. A paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Council of Teachers of English (November 21-24, 2002, Atlanta, GA). http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED474105.pdf [10 June 2009]. Butler, P. 2008. Out of Style: Reanimating Stylistic Study in Composition and Rhetoric. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. Carter, R. & Simpson, P. 1995. Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics. Reprint. London: Routledge.
Carter, R. 1997. Investigating English Discourse: Language, Literacy and Literature. London: Routledge. Coupland, N. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, J. 1998. (Im)politeness in dramatic dialogue. In: Culpeper, J., Short, M. and Verdonk, P. (eds.), Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context, pp.83-95. London: Routledge. Culpeper, J., Short, M. & Verdonk, P. 1998. Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context. London: Routledge. Daronkolaee, E. Najar & Hojjat, M. Bakhtiari. 2012. A Survey of Man's Alienation in Modern World: Existential Reading of Sam Shepard's Buried Child and True West. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol.2 (7): pp.202-9. Das, S. S. 2007. Down the Rabbit Hole: The Work of David Lindsay-Abaire. In: Kleinerman, L. (ed.), In the Albert. On Stage Vol. 22 (3) 2-3 (online). Goodman Theatre Productions. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/79845816/Down-the-Rabbit-Hole-Getting-toKnow-David--Lindsay-Abaire-BehinD [20 April 2010]. Frey, H. (1999). Politeness: Theoretical Approaches and Language Practice - Brown and Livenson reviewed. Grin Verlag. Gavins, J. 2007. Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Green, G. M. (1996). Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grice, H. P. 1975. ―Logic and Conversation‖. In: Cole et al (ed.), Speech Arts, pp. 4158.Elsevier B.V. Guerin, W. L., Labor, E. G., Morgan, L. & Willingham, J. R. (1979). A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. Second Edition. New York: Harper & Row. Halion, K. J. (1989). Deconstruction and Speech Act Theory: A Defence of the Distinction between Normal and Parasitic Speech Acts. http://www.eanglais.com/thesis.html [14/07/2013]. Heilman, R. B. (1992). Shepard‘s plays: Stylistic and thematic ties. Sewanee Review, 100( 4): pp. 630-44. Herman, V. 1995. Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as interaction in plays. London: Routledge.
Hooti, N. & Shooshtarian, S. 2011. A Postmodernist Reading of Sam Shepard's Buried Child. Canadian Social Science, Vol. 7 (1): pp.76-89 Hosseini-Maasoum, S. Mohammad & Vahdati, M. 2012. The Postmodernist Rendition of Myth in the Selected Plays of Sam Shepard. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol.2 (7): pp. 246-55. Hynes, J. 1995. Style. London: Routledge. Juez, L. A. 1995. Verbal Irony and the Maxims of Grice's Cooperative Principle. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 8: 25-30. http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/5395/1/RAEI_08_02.pdf [20/07/2013]. Kleinerman, L. (ed). 2007. In the Albert. On Stage Vol. 22 (3) 2-7 (online). Goodman Theatre Productions. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/79845816/Down-theRabbit-Hole-Getting-to-Know-David--Lindsay-Abaire-Behind [20/04/ 2010]. Kolin, P.C. 2007. Introduction: The struggles and triumphs of staging gender and race in contemporary African American playwrights. In: Kolin, P. C. (ed.), Contemporary African American Women Playwrights: A Casebook, pp. 1-8. London: Routledge. Krasner, D. (ed). 2005. A Companion to Twentieth-Century American Drama. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Leech, G. (2007). Style in Fiction Revisited: the Beginning of Great Expectations. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/doc_library/linguistics/leechg/leech_2007_styl e.pdf [20/05/ 2010]. Letwin, D., Stockdale J. & Stockdale, R. 2008. The Architecture of Drama: Plot, Character, Theme, Genre, and Style. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum. Locher, M. A. & Watts, R.J. 2008. Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behavior. In: Bousfield D. & Locher, M. A. (eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, pp. 77-99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mills, S. 1992. Knowing your place: a Marxist feminist stylistic analysis. In: Toolan, M. J. (ed.), Language, Text and Context: Essays in Stylistics, pp.182-205. London: Routledge. Mills, S. 1997. Discourse. London: Routledge.
Nash, W. 1989. Changing the Guard at Elsinore. In: Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.), Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics, pp.21-38. London: Routledge. Novick, J. 2007. Death of a Salesman: Deracination and Its Discontents. In: Bloom, H. (ed.), Arthur Miller, pp. 131-142. New York: Infobase Publishing. Ozieblo, B. & Dickey, J. 2008. Susan Glaspell and Sophie Treadwell: Routledge Modern and Contemporary Dramatists. London: Routledge. Parks, S. (1995). The America Play and Other Works. Sixth Printing. New York: Theatre Communications Group, Inc. Putzel, S. D. & Westfall, S. R. 1989. The Back Side of Myth: Sam Shepard's Subversion of Mythic Codes in Buried Child. Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism. (Fall 1989): pp. 109-24 [15/07/2013]. Saddik, A. J. 2007. Contemporary American Drama. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Sanger, K. 2001. The Language of Drama. London: Routledge. Schroeder, P. R. 1999. Realism and feminism in the Progressive Era. In Murphy, B. (ed). The Cambridge Companion to American Women Playwrights, pp. 31-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. W. 2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Second Edition. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. 1975. ―A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts‖. In: Günderson, K (ed.). Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis Studies in the Philosophy of Science (vol. 7), University of Minneapolis Press, p. 344-69 [12/07/2013]. Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In: P. Cole & J.L. Morgan, Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, pp.59-82. New York:Academic Press [12/07/2013] Shepard, S. 2006. Buried Child. Revised ed. New York: Random House Edition, Inc. Short, M. 1989. Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama. In: Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.), Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics, pp.137-165. London: Routledge. Short, M. 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems, Prose and Plays. Addison Welsley: Longman.
Simpson, P. 1989. Politeness Phenomena in Ionesco‘s The Lesson. In: Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.), Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics, pp.169-190. London: Routledge. Simpson, P. 1997. Language through Literature. London: Routledge. Simpson, P. 2004. Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge. Tan, P. K.W. 1993. A Stylistics of Drama: With Special Focus on Stoppard’s Travesties. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Thornborrow, J. & Wareing, Sh. 1998. Patterns in Language: An introduction to language and literary style. London: Routledge. Toolan, M. 1989. Analysing Conversation in Fiction: an Example from Joyce‘s Portrait. In: Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.), Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics, pp.193-208. London: Routledge. Tyler, A. Kim, Y. & Takada, M. 2008. Language in the context of use: discourse and cognitive approaches to language. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Velardi, P.A. 2010. The American Family in Literature. A paper published by YaleNew Haven Teachers Institute. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1990/5/90.05.06.x.html [20/01/2011]. Volo, J. M. & Volo, D. D. 2007. Family Life in 19th-Century America. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Wakefield, T. 2004. The Family in Twentieth-Century American Drama. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Watson, G. & Zyngier, S. (eds.). 2007. Literature and Stylistics for Language Learners- Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Weber, J.J. 1989. Dickens‘s Social Semiotic: the Modal Analysis of Ideological Structure. In: Carter, R. and Simpson, P. (eds.), Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics, pp.93-108. London: Routledge. Wedgwood, D. 2005. Shifting the Focus from Static Structures to the Dynamics of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.
