1993 nischik speech act theory, speech acts, and the analysis of fiction

8/6/2019 1993 Nischik Speech Act Theory, Speech Acts, And the Analysis of Fiction

1/11


2/11

SPEECH ACT THEORY, SPEECH ACTS, AND THEANALYSIS OF FICTION

In Margaret Atwood's 'Uglypuss' (Bluebeard'sEgg and OtherStories) the alienatedprotagonist Joel happens to see in a restaurant a woman unknown to him anddecides that he wants to have an affair with her. Yet how to accomplish this aim witha woman he has never seen before, let alone spoken to? The reader, owing to thestory's structure of narrative transmission, has the privilege of participating inJoel'sthoughts on how to go about getting to know the woman:He thinksofsaying, 'Live around here?'but he can't, not again. 'Tell me aboutyourself' is outtoo. Instead he finds himselfshiftingalmost immediately, much sooner than he usuallydoes,into social realism. 'This day has been total shit,' he says.1In a pragmatic understanding of language, all imagined or realized initial utter-ances ofJoel in this scene in the final analysis mean the same thing: 'I would like toget closer to you.' In a semantic understanding, of course, the three sentences meantotally different things. Since Joel ruminates about various forms of approachingAmelia verbally, the particular form of his approach seems of great relevance in thispassage. Whether or not the rapprochements successful, whether it eventually has theresult thatJoel desires, seems to rely to a large extent on how he uses language in thistricky situation. He decides against forms of utterance which would conventionallyelicit a rather direct reaction. Instead, he eventually opts for a form of utterancewhich focuses on the speaker rather than the addressee, thus offering the addressee aspectrum of potential reactions. As the story shows in its further development,Joel'stactics are successful, indeed they work towards achieving his goal.Thus in this narrative passage language is thematized indirectly: not as to what itis or means but rather as to what it does, what it accomplishes in a particularsituation, how it creates and structures social relationships. A figural utterance ispresented here less in its semantic aspects than as an act which engenders immediateresults in the form of further speech acts.This pragmatic approach to language was first investigated theoretically byphilosophers, in a body of works which came to be called speech act theory.2Linguists such as Richard Ohmann in the United States and Dieter Wunderlich inGermany have elaborated further aspects of speech act theory.3 From the late I970sonwards, there ensued attempts to apply speech act theory in the interpretation ofliterary texts. These first contributions suggest the analytic value of speech act

1 MargaretAtwood, Bluebeard'sggandOther toriesToronto:McClelland & Stewart, 1983), p. 97.2 See especially John L. Austin, How to Do ThingsWith WordsOxford:Clarendon Press, 1962) andJohn R. Searle, SpeechActs: An Essayin thePhilosophy f LanguageCambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress, I969); see also Hans-Ulrich Hoche and Werner Strube, Analytische hilosophieFreiburg andMiinchen: Alber, i985).3 See particularly Richard Ohmann, 'Speech, Action and Style', in Literary tyle:A Symposium,d. bySeymour Chatman (London and New York: Oxford University Press, I971), pp. 241-54; Ohmann,'InstrumentalStyle:Notes on the Theory of Speech as Action', in Current rendsnStylistics,d. by BrajB.Kachru and Herbert F. W. Stahlke (Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, 1972), pp. I 15-4I; DieterWunderlich, Studienzur Sprechakttheorie,nd edn (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1978). For furthersecondaryliterature,see the bibliographiesin Reinhard Schmachtenberg, SprechakttheorienddramatischerDialog: Ein Methodenansatzur Drameninterpretation,inguistische Arbeiten, 120 (Tiibingen: Niemeyer,1982), and in Manfred Pfister, "'Eloquence is Action": Shakespeare und die Sprechakttheorie',Kodikas/Code: Ars Semeiotica, ( 985), 195-216.


3/11


4/11


5/11

300 SpeechActTheorynd heAnalysis fFictionhalf, of his twenty-four turns10 in these conversations with her are questions(Information eekers).Someone who keeps on asking questions gives no directinformation about himself, keeps his own person in reserve. Morrison's questionsare also very short, factual, and orientated towards Louise. He shows or, rather,pretendsan interest in her,keeps the conversationalball rolling, suggests the themesof the conversation, but stays non-committal as to his own person, his thoughts,views, or emotions.The other, also laconic, speech acts in Morrison's conversation with Louise aretwo Rituals('"Hi,"' '"Well..."'), one FutureDirector/Restrainerll'"Don't fall"'),and altogether nine Representatives,ix Informatives,nd three Attesters.12 is use ofRepresentatives,he second largest group of his speech acts towards her, are in theirconcise factuality geared to his own person. Thus a more polite alternative to hischoice of utterance '"I'm painting"' (Representative),orexample, would be 'Nice tosee you' or 'Hi, how areyou?'. Such forms of polite interaction would include Louiserather than shut her out, would at least consider her verbally. Yet the moreimportant information about Morrison's use of Representativesies in a non-literal,contextual appreciationof his utterances: he frequentlymakes use of indirect speechacts (see below, pp. 304-05), usually as a verbaldefence method. The only personalRepresentativeorrison addresses towards Louise, the Attester'"Maybeyou need totalk to someone"', also seems rather vague and reserved because of the use of themodal adverb 'maybe' and the indefinitepersonalpronoun'someone'. The manner,then, in which he uses Representativesn his communication with her characterizeshim as an egocentric, cool, and distanced person, who remains completely non-committal towards her. The schizoid13Morrison is adept at destroying any com-municative offersor postulates Louise may address to him.As a result, speech acts which imply the direct expression of emotions, opinions,or attitudes of the speaker, or which are directly addressed to his interlocutor(speech acts, that is, which suggest an authentic interestin the personspokento) areabsent fromMorrison'sspeech:14Representatives/Verdictives,FutureDirectors/Requests,Inducers,16Wishes,Commissives,17 r Expressives.18All these speech acts presuppose acertain commitmentof the speaker,his willingness to utterand exchangeopinions orto expressemotion; they presupposeat least an authenticinterestin the interlocutor.These kinds of speech act representapproaches to a situation and to people, that is,which are alien to Morrison.Almost all these types of illocutionary acts are, by contrast, represented inLouise's speeches. In fact, her verbal behaviour is in polar contrast to Morrison's.10Turn: that part of a conversationin which a speaker speaksbefore anotherspeakertakesover.11 Restrainersre used to keep the addressee from a particularaction in the future or to get him/her toimplement that action in a particularway. See Schmachtenberg,p. 68.12 Attesterspass an explicit, yet neutral comment on the propositional content of an utterance. SeeSchmachtenberg,p. 68.13 On this concept, see in detail Mentalstilistik,specially pp. 84-go.14Morrison's misuse of questions does not apply here: see below, pp. 30I-03.15Representatives/Verdictivesxpress subjective assessments of a fact or of social behaviour; they oftenindicate the internalizednorms and values of the speaker;see Schmachtenberg,p. 68.16FutureDirectors/Requests,nducers sk for a future action of the hearer which will be in his/her owninterest;see Schmachtenberg,p. 68.17 Wishes,Commissives,ike the Inducers,nvolve a future action which will be in the hearer's interestbutwhich will have to be carriedout by the speakerhimself;see Schmachtenberg,p. 69.18Expressivesre speech acts with which the speakerexpresses a propositionalattitude or emotion; seeSchmachtenberg,p. 62.


6/11


7/11

302 SpeechActTheorynd heAnalysis fFiction'We have to complete the circle,' she said. 'We need the others.''Whatothers?' He decided she was overtired,she had been workingtoo hard. (p. 49)

But at the crucial stage in their relationship when a rewarding friendship might havedeveloped between them and when he might have helped her simply by behaving ina normally open manner towards her, his use of questions betrays his emotionaldeficiencies and his total, indeed offensive, lack of interest in her:'What aspect?'Morrison asked, not interested. (p. 46)'When's it due?'he asked, keepingon neutralground. (p. 46)The narrative comments in such speech act sequences unmask Morrison: he is notinterested in the answers to his questions but uses the question form in a supposedlypolite, yet devious way. He runs counter to the sincerity rule of any speech actdeserving the term InformationSeeker(speaker wants information from hearer)20 andthus misuses this speech act category:A question speech act is implementedin an insincere mannerif the speakerknows the answeralready, is not really interested in getting the answer, or only wants to hear it for purposesunrelated to the information implied in the answer, and f the speakerwants to prevent thehearerrealizing this.21Morrison perverts the usual point of a question by using it as a defensive mechanism,thus twisting a speech act category normally used to initiate contact into its opposite:his main intention is to avoid any further, deeper communication with Louise; he doesnot care about her problems and does not want to become involved. By usingquestions (that is to say pretending an interest in her) he tries to distract her from histrue attitude towards her, thus cheating her.22 He not only withholds any help in whatturns out to be a crucial situation in Louise's life but worsens her situation by hisambivalent, devious verbal behaviour, thus increasing her insecurity.Morrison's questioning, his communicative strategy, is 'successful':23 Louise,unlike the reader, is not privileged to hear the narrative comments following on his20 On questionspeechact in general,see RobinLakoff, FraglicheAntwortenund beantwortbareFragen', n Sprechakttheorie:inReader,d. and trans.by PaulKussmaul Wiesbaden:AkademischeVerlagsgesellschaftAthenaion, 1980), pp. 173-88, and Dieter Wunderlich, 'Fragesatzeund Fragen', inWunderlich, pp. I81-250; on indirect forms in this context, see Werner S6keland, IndirektheitonSprechhandlungen:ine inguistische nalyse Tiibingen: Niemeyer, 1980), pp. 117-36.21 My translation f a Germananguage assage in S6keland, p.148-49: 'EineFragehandlungwirdunaufrichtigusgefuhrt,wennderSprecher ieAntwortbereitskennt,keinwirkliches nteresse aranhat,sie zu h6ren,odersienur zu Zwecken 6renwill,die mitder Kenntnisnahme erinder Antwortenthaltenennformationenichts utunhaben,undwennerverhindern ill,daBderH6rerdieserkennt.'22 Of course hereareother ommunicativeunctionsfquestions part rom heirprimaryne,togetananswer, uchas thematizing problem, entringheaddressee's ttention nsomething, ndsoon;seeWunderlich, p. 213; S6keland, pp. I 17-36. Thus questions the primary point of which is not to elicit ananswer are by no means automatically deceptive speech acts. Such considerations do not relativize,however, the case of Morrison's use of questions: he tries (largely successfully) to give Louise theimpressionthat he is interested in her answers to his questions. His use of questionsis a good example ofthe fact that a merequantifying classificationof speech acts is not sufficient but has to be complementedby an analysis of the pragmatic context in which these speech acts are used. The analysis of speech actsequences thus has to complement that of speech act classification.23On Searle's differentiation between successful,nondefective,nd defective peechacts, see Fraser,pp. 60-63. See also Wunderlich, p. 27: 'Das Gelingeniner AuBerungals Sprechakteines bestimmtenTyps ist nicht zu verwechseln mit dem Erfolgreichseinines durch eine AuBerung ausgefuihrtenSprechakts: letzteres Pradikat bestimmt sich durch die nachfolgende Entwicklung der Interaktion:Verstehen, Akzeptierenundgeeignetes Reagierenderjeweiligen H6rerundAdressaten;einSprechakt sterfolgreich, wenn sein Zweck erfullt ist.' See also Wunderlich, pp.58, Io-I8; Schmachtenberg,'Gelingenund MiBlingenunaufrichtigerSprechakte',pp. 48-49.


8/11

REINGARD M. NISCHIKquestions, so by convention she regards his laconic questions at first as trueInformationeekers:he answers them readilyand openly.24Only in the furthercourseof their communication does the sensitive Louise discover Morrison's enormouscommunicational and emotional deficiencies, and she refers to them:Louise stalked impatiently around the uncarpetedfloor.'You aren't listening,' she said.He looked out obediently at her from his blanket. (p. 48)If one distinguishes between optional and obligatory speech act sequences, Louisehere initiates what would usually develop into an obligatory sequence: she levels agrave reproach at Morrison, which would by convention be followed by some kind ofself-justification on the part of the reproached person. Yet he prefers to say nothing,thus indirectly signalling to her that her reproach is well-founded in fact. Thisbreach of communicational convention must offend Louise.

In optional speech act sequences in their dialogue, too, Louise and Morrisoncharacterize themselves indirectly: for example, by the way in which they respond tothe previous turn. To give but one example: the speeches of both characters differ intheir use of the personal pronouns I/me versus you/your. Morrison addresses hisinterlocutor with 'you' only seven times in the whole text, whereas Louise refersmore than four times as often, thirty-one times, to 'you'/'your'.25 Even more strikingis the difference in the use of the self-referential pronoun I: the detached, taciturnMorrison refers to himself thus only ten times, the communicative Louise, however,uses it as many as eighty-eight times (ratio c. I:9). In sum, Morrison usually opts fora non-personal utterance, using very few personal pronouns referring to himself orLouise. Louise, in contrast, relates both of them in her communication, very oftenreferring to Morrison and to herself.26Their verbal behaviour also differs markedly with respect to the third analyticcomplex named above, the differentiation between direct and indirect speech acts.27If the literal, semantic meaning of a speech act differs from the intended communi-cative function of the utterance, we are confronted with an indirect speech act.Consider the dialogue in the first scene in 'Polarities', in which Louise comes to seeMorrison in his apartment without prior notice:

24 By and large, Louise's reception of Morrison's questions is at first semantically motivated, whereasthe foregoinganalysiswas pragmaticallymotivated. SeeWunderlich,p. 26:'AufgrundderInterpretationvon grammatischen Modi (oder - soweit vorhanden - von performativen Formeln oder Kommen-taren) kann der jeweilige Sprechakttyp semantisch estimmt werden, aufgrund der Heranziehung vonkontextuellen Pramissen im InterpretationsprozeB (z.B. hinsichtlich Interessen, Annahmen undWahrnehmungender Teilnehmer)pragmatisch.'25 These differences may be only partly put down to the different length of utterances by the laconicMorrison and the talkative Louise. There nevertheless remainsa significantdifference.26 See BarbaraSandig, StilistikderdeutschenpracheBerlinand New York:de Gruyter, I986), pp. 239-58,on 'Art der Beziehungsgestaltungdurch sprachlichesHandeln'; Sandig distinguishesbetween 'ich- undduzentrierte Sprechweisen'.In moredetail, see KirstenAdamzik,Sprachlichesandeln nd ozialerKontakt:ZurIntegrationerKategorieBeziehungsaspekt'n eine prechakttheoretischeeschreibungesDeutschen, iibingerBeitrage zur Linguistik, 213 (Tiibingen: Narr, 1984).27 See Sfkeland;John R. Searle, 'IndirectSpeechActs', in Syntax ndSemanticsIi:Speech cts,ed. by PeterCole andJerry L. Morgan (New York:Academic Press, 1975), pp. 59-82; Neal R. Norrick, 'NondirectSpeech Acts and Double Binds', Poetics,o1 (1981), 33-47; Schmachtenberg,pp. 30-40.

303


9/11


10/11


11/11

306 SpeechActTheorynd heAnalysis fFictionMargaret Atwood has created a narrative which in many respects warrants itstitle: in the characterizationof the two mainfiguresactivity and passivity, directness

and indirectness, initiative and reactiveness, openness and collusion, and interestand lack of interest stand in polar contrast to each other in the dialogue and itsnarrativeembedding. An analysis of the speech act types used in the dialogue, of theway these, as well as speech acts on the mediating narrativelevel, are sequenced, ofthe contrastive use of direct and indirect speech acts in the figuraldialogue proves tobe an analytic instrument which enables us to describe more precisely the tragicdynamics in the communication between the two protagonistsof the story. Particu-larly with respect to the classification of figural speech acts, to the sequence of(figural and narrative) speech acts, and to the differentiation between direct andindirect speech acts, speech act theory offers us a new analytic method and newinsights for the analysis of fiction.GUTENBERGUNIVERSITY, MAINZ REINGARD M. NISCHIK

1993 nischik speech act theory, speech acts, and the analysis of fiction

Documents