point of view in drama mcintyre2004

http://lal.sagepub.com/Language and Literature

http://lal.sagepub.com/content/13/2/139The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0963947004041972

2004 13: 139Language and LiteratureDan Mcintyre

Point of View in Drama: A Socio-Pragmatic Analysis of Dennis Potter's Brimstone and Treacle

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Poetics and Linguistics Association

can be found at:Language and LiteratureAdditional services and information for

http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://lal.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://lal.sagepub.com/content/13/2/139.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- May 1, 2004Version of Record >>

at University of Aegean on August 12, 2014lal.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Aegean on August 12, 2014lal.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://lal.sagepub.com/

http://lal.sagepub.com/content/13/2/139

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.pala.ac.uk/

http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://lal.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://lal.sagepub.com/content/13/2/139.refs.html

http://lal.sagepub.com/content/13/2/139.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



ARTICLE

1

Itvcavln

1

Tt1hcWts

Point of view in drama: a socio-pragmatic analysis ofDennis Potter’s Brimstone and Treacle

Dan McIntyre, Liverpool Hope University College, UK

Abstract

The study of point of view in dramatic texts has been largely neglected by stylisticians.This is perhaps due to the fact that point of view is usually considered to be anarratological phenomenon, whereas most contemporary plays do not make use ofnarratorial mediation. Nevertheless, linguistic indicators of point of view do exist indramatic texts and are not always the same as those which indicate viewpoint in prosefiction. I argue that studying point of view in drama can assist in the interpretation ofdramatic texts, provide valuable insights into characterization and the relationshipsbetween characters, and also contribute to a greater understanding of how point of viewis conveyed in language and communication in general. I demonstrate this through asocio-pragmatic analysis of Dennis Potter’s play Brimstone and Treacle, highlightingsome of the viewpoint indicators which appear to be exclusive to dramatic texts.

Keywords: Brimstone and Treacle; conceptual point of view; drama; filter; Potter,Dennis; slant; socio-pragmatic; viewpoint

Introduction

n this article I suggest that applying theories of point of view to written dramaticexts can be profitable for understanding characterization, and also that studyingiewpoint in drama might lead to a greater appreciation of how point of view isonveyed linguistically in texts. I demonstrate this through a socio-pragmaticnalysis of Dennis Potter’s play Brimstone and Treacle, showing how theiewpoints of the characters in the text are manifested linguistically, and how theinguistic indicators of point of view in drama go beyond those associated witharrative fiction.

.1 Theoretical issues

o date, the study of point of view has largely concerned itself with prose fictionexts (see, for example, Uspensky, 1973; Chatman, 1978, 1986, 1990; Genette,980; Fowler, 1986; Simpson, 1993; Bal, 1997), with a small amount of workaving been carried out on poetry (e.g. Jeffries, 2000). Few people, though, haveonsidered how point of view might work in dramatic texts (but see Groff, 1959,eingarten, 1984 and Richardson, 1988 for some literary critical approaches to

he topic, and van Peer, 2001 for a more linguistically grounded consideration ofome of the issues). The reason for this lies with the fact that the discourse

Language and Literature Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), Vol 13(2): 139–160DOI: 10.1177/0963947004041972 www.sagepublications.com

at University of Aegean on August 12, 2014lal.sagepub.comDownloaded from

www.sagepublications.com


structure of a prototypical dramatic text is significantly different to that of aprototypical piece of prose fiction. Where most drama texts differ is by not havinga narrator level. Since the presence of a narrator in a text has consequences for thepoint of view from which the story is told, texts without narrators are oftenthought not to be interesting in terms of viewpoint. I would argue, though, thatthis is in part because literary critics, narratologists and linguists who deal withnarrative texts have become conditioned to thinking about point of view in purelynarratological terms, a position that comes about through having concentratedmainly on the analysis of narrative prose fiction. As Short (1999) explains, pointof view is an issue in any use of language, be that usage literary or non-literary,written or spoken. Short goes on to say that: ‘narrative viewpoint, to be properlyunderstood needs, in my view, to be situated within a broader account ofviewpoint in language and communication’ (Short, 1999: 313). By consideringhow point of view is made manifest in dramatic texts, one of my aims is toenhance our understanding of how viewpoint works in language andcommunication in general, thereby setting the scene for a greater understanding ofnarrative point of view. Studying point of view in drama is a useful starting pointfor this endeavour for several reasons. Firstly, examining the mechanism of pointof view in drama, a different text-type to that in which viewpoint is normallystudied, gives another perspective on how point of view is conveyed in literarytexts. Secondly, it is likely that an understanding of viewpoint in drama will havewash-back benefits for the analysis of viewpoint in prose. For example, prosefiction prototypically contains significant amounts of direct speech, so looking atthe viewpoint effects in characters’ speech in plays (similar to direct speech) islikely to add to our understanding of how point of view is realized in the speechof characters in prose.

A further reason for the importance of studying point of view in drama can befound in Genette’s (1980) argument that there is no clear-cut division betweenmimesis and diegesis, that is, between ‘showing’ (i.e. what happens inprototypical drama) and ‘telling’ (what happens in prototypical prose fiction).Instead, according to Genette, diegesis should be seen as a matter of degree. Ifthis is the case, then narration will always be present in drama – it will just varyaccording to the amount and prominence. However, as Fludernik (1993) pointsout, the terms mimesis and diegesis are themselves fraught with complexity:

Diegesis as invention or projection of a fictional world (mimesis in theAuerbachian sense) spans all ‘narrative’ genres, all genres that tell a story:drama, fiction, film, epic, jokes … On the other hand, the specificallynarrative, i.e. narrational, genres, in short those genres in which mimesis relieson the medium of language, have to be distinguished from drama and film,where the medium by means of which mimesis is achieved is not narration, i.e.a uniformly linguistic act, but a re-enactment of the plot in which the visualpresentation dominates. (Fludernik, 1993: 29)

140 DAN MCINTYRE

Language and Literature 2004 13(2)



Nevertheless, although it may be the case that ‘visual presentation’ is aprototypical feature of drama, the language of the dramatic text is of paramountimportance in our understanding of what that visual presentation should be. (It isonly through reading and interpreting a dramatic text that directors and actors areable to sensibly decide on how it should be performed.) To say that ‘visualpresentation dominates’ in drama is to put the emphasis on dramatic performancerather than text, when in fact it is usually the case that it is the inferences we makewhen we read a dramatic text that allow us to understand how it should beperformed. (Short [1989, 1998] argues that we are much more likely to arrive at asensitive and reasonable interpretation of a piece of drama by analysing theoriginal dramatic text than by analysing a performance that derives from it.) Themimesis of a dramatic text still relies on the medium of language for its creation,and to discount the possibility of linguistic narration in drama is to disregard thosedramatic texts which make use of narrators (e.g. the Greek chorus dramas, muchof Brecht’s work, contemporary plays such as Brian Friel’s Dancing atLughnasa), and also to disregard the narrative possibility of characters relatingevents to one another in order to expound the plot. It is this last point that isarguably the primary means by which the plot is advanced in drama, and the pointof view from which characters relate events and comment to each other is likelyto affect the way we interpret the story.

There will, then, always be some issue of point of view to take into account indramatic texts. Studying point of view in drama allows us insights into theworkings of viewpoint in those texts further towards the mimetic end of the scaleof narrator involvement, thereby contributing to our understanding of narrativepoint of view. A theory of point of view that is based on more than just one text-type should be more comprehensive than one based solely on the study ofnarrative prose fiction.

With this in mind, we can begin to consider how we might go aboutinvestigating point of view in drama. Although it is true that most contemporarydrama is more mimetic in form, it is still the case that the characters themselveswill express points of view. Whenever we speak or write we inevitably adopt aparticular stance or psychological position. There is, of course, a difference ofopinion as to how best to refer to this. Graumann (1992) calls it a ‘viewpoint’,whereas Biber and Finegan refer to it as ‘stance’, saying that this is ‘the overtexpression of an author’s or speaker’s attitudes, feelings, judgments, orcommitment concerning the message (1988: 1). Martin (2000) uses the term‘appraisal’ to discuss the expression of a speaker or writer’s opinion, whereasThompson and Hunston (2000) talk of ‘evaluation’. I prefer to use the term ‘pointof view’ and its ‘elegant’ variant ‘viewpoint’, for two main reasons. First of all, Ido not want to disregard the issue of literal point of view – i.e. a person’s visualperspective – since this too can have an effect on their psychological position,their ‘metaphorical’ point of view. This can be seen in Peter Shaffer’s play BlackComedy, throughout which a power-cut is represented by having the stage fullylit, in order for the audience to see the actions of the characters (conversely, when

POINT OF VIEW IN DRAMA 141




the power returns, the stage is in darkness). This foregrounding of the characters’visual perspective (i.e. the fact that they are literally ‘in the dark’) clearly affectsthe way in which they express their opinions about others. The character ofBrindsley, for example, becomes extremely careful about what he is saying, sincethe darkness makes it difficult to know exactly whom he is speaking to. Therelationship between literal and metaphorical viewpoint is an issue in a number ofplays – for example the dream sequence in Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesmanand the uncertain reality portrayed in Antonio Buero Vallejo’s La Fundación(discussed in more detail in section 2.1) – and therefore I find it useful to preservethis association terminologically too.

The second reason I prefer to keep the term ‘point of view’ is that, despite itsprominent visual connotations (something which writers on narratological theory– e.g. Bal, 1997 – have complained about), it remains a fairly neutral term. Bythis I mean that using the term ‘point of view’ allows us to avoid becomingembroiled in the arguments and positions associated with the variety of alternativeterms referred to above, such as stance, evaluation, appraisal, affect. This, I think,is necessary (at least for the moment) if we are to try and integrate the study ofthis kind of psychological positioning into theories of narrative point of view.

For these reasons, then, I prefer to use the term ‘point of view’. However wechoose to refer to it, though, this is characterized by the type of language andlinguistic structures that we use, some of which are discussed by Short (1996:286–7) in his checklist of linguistic indicators of point of view, and as Culpeper(2001: 287) points out in his study of language and characterization in drama,narrative characterization involves being able to construct this viewpoint. Given,then, that the expression of a particular viewpoint indicates some aspect of thepsychological make-up of the speaker, it is not unreasonable to assume thatstudying point of view in this sense might give us further insights into the processof characterization in drama. To test this hypothesis I undertook an analysis ofviewpoint in Dennis Potter’s 1978 play, Brimstone and Treacle (a brief synopsis isprovided in section 3). Below I give an explanation of the frameworks foranalysis that I used, before moving on to my analysis of the play.

2 Frameworks for analysis

The issue of point of view in texts has been widely debated, with numeroustheories proposed to explain how it works. In deciding how to approach theanalysis of Brimstone and Treacle, I had two main considerations. First, I wanteda theoretical approach that would pay particular attention to the linguistic featuresof the text. Given that there is little precedent to the study of viewpoint in drama,it seemed that looking in detail at the linguistic features of the text would be themost rational starting point. In analysing Brimstone and Treacle, I therefore foundit useful to take into account the linguistic indicators of viewpoint suggested in avariety of frameworks for the analysis of point of view. I draw particularly on

142 DAN MCINTYRE




Simpson (1993) and Short (1996), but also consider indicators of viewpoint fromother sources, such as speech act theory (Searle, 1969, 1979) and Harris’s (1984)work on paradigms of reality.

I also wanted an approach that would take into account the non-narrative formof Brimstone and Treacle. Here I found it useful to adopt some of Chatman’s(1978, 1990) ideas and terminology, since his is an approach to point of view thatdoes not restrict itself to prose fiction but also considers viewpoint in film drama.In the next section I summarize Chatman’s approach to the issue of point of view,before explaining in more detail some of the linguistic indicators of viewpoint intexts.

2.1 Chatman’s approach to point of view

Chatman’s work on point of view (1978, 1986, 1990) provides a useful startingpoint for an analysis of viewpoint in drama, primarily because he develops hismodel through an analysis of both prose fiction and film. It is thus one of the fewtheories of point of view to take account of drama as well as prose, albeit dramaon screen. (Of course, the differences between drama on stage and on screen aresignificant, but for my purposes the fact that point of view had been studied inrelation to drama at all was helpful.)

Chatman (1990: 143) proposes that it is necessary to make a terminologicaldistinction within prose fiction between the point of view of the narrator and thepoint of view of the character. He suggests the term slant to refer to attitudesexpressed by the narrator, and filter to refer to the mental activity of the characters(see Sasaki, 1994, for a synopsis and application of Chatman’s framework to ashort story by D. H. Lawrence).

Chatman’s distinction allows for the possibility of examining point of view asfiltered through particular characters, and in non-narrative drama it seems likelythat this will be the most prevalent form of viewpoint expression. Nevertheless,slant can still be an issue in drama and is expressed most obviously through stagedirections. Not all stage directions will indicate point of view, but some willcontribute to the manifestation of viewpoint, as in the following example fromHoward Brenton’s play Hitler Dances:

Linda (very angry stamping her foot) Stupid! Stupid! I think that’s jus’ stupid.War is stupid. (Brenton, 1982: 9)

In this example, the stage directions preceding Linda’s speech contribute to thecharacterization of Linda at that particular moment in the play, by emphasizingher point of view of events. However, since the stage directions do not come fromthe character, they cannot be seen as filtered point of view; rather they are aninstance of slanted point of view. The propositional content of Linda’s speech andits graphological characteristics (i.e. the italicization) also contribute to ourunderstanding of the character of Linda, demonstrating how both filtered andslanted point of view can often go hand in hand to work as a tool for





characterization. Any model of point of view in drama, then, must also take slantinto consideration, and I demonstrate this in my analysis in section 4.

Subsumed under the filter category, I also find it useful to add two point ofview categories suggested by Chatman in his earliest work (1978). These are thecategories of perceptual and conceptual point of view, perceptual relating tosight, and conceptual relating to cognition.

Perceptual point of view is a literal viewpoint, i.e. exactly what a characterphysically sees. Wales (2001: 306) notes that this refers to an ‘angle of vision’. Indrama, characters’ perceptual viewpoints can be important contributions to theircharacterization. Weingarten (1984) discusses one such example in his analysis ofAntonio Buero Vallejo’s La Fundación, a play about five political prisoners beingheld in a death cell, one of whom has been so completely broken by torture andhis subsequent betrayal of his comrades that he has convinced himself that theprison is actually a research laboratory, and that he and his fellow prisoners areresearch workers. Weingarten’s discussion focuses on how the playwright limitsthe perceptual point of view within the play to that of the deluded prisoner, Tomás,to such an extent that when the curtain rises, the audience sees not a prison cell, buta well-furnished dormitory room, reflecting Tomás’ perception of his surroundings.

A character’s conceptual point of view, on the other hand, has no relation towhat he or she physically sees, but is rather a manifestation of his or her ideology,attitudes, way of thinking etc., as this extract from All Quiet On the Western Frontshows: ‘The front is a cage in which we must await fearfully whatever may happen.We lie under the network of arching shells and live in a suspense of uncertainty’(Erich Maria Remarque, 1987[1929]: 70). Here the protagonist, a young Germansoldier in the First World War, explains his notion of the trench warfare and front-line fighting in which he is engaged. Note that there is no mention of what hephysically sees, no verbs of perception related to sight, only a manifestation of hisattitude to the subject. This is apparent through his use of the adverb of manner‘fearfully’, and in the negative connotations of the word ‘cage’ which he uses todescribe the front metaphorically. A cage is often used to keep an animal againstits will, and it is this definition which seems most likely and allows us to interpretthe extract most clearly. The use of metaphor also suggests that what is beingdescribed is something which cannot be explained in purely literal terms (note thenarrator’s second metaphor, that he lives in ‘a suspense of uncertainty’), which inturn suggests that we are not dealing with physical perception.

We can see how conceptual viewpoint can be conveyed in drama if weconsider the following brief extract from Dennis Potter’s play Brimstone andTreacle, where one character’s point of view is filtered through another:

[CONTEXT: Mr Bates is trying to explain to his wife, Amy, that theirdaughter, Patricia, is permanently brain-damaged and will not recover.]

(71) Bates Patricia is gone from us, Amy. She has gone forever. You mustaccept it.

(Potter, 1978: 3)

144 DAN MCINTYRE




Here, information about Amy Bates is filtered through Bates’s own speech,namely the presupposition that she does not accept that Patricia ‘is gone’. So inaddition to Bates’s own point of view of the situation (that it is a hopeless case)we also know something about his wife’s conceptual viewpoint.

Conceptual point of view, in Chatman’s terms, is a wider category of figurativeviewpoint than Fowler’s (1986) notion of ideological point of view. Ideologicalpoint of view deals with socio-political beliefs whereas Chatman’s category isused to describe our numerous figurative conceptions and judgements of theworld, and our way of conceptualizing the world and our position within it.Conceptual point of view would appear to incorporate ideological viewpoint. Itherefore adopt the term conceptual point of view in my analyses.

In my analysis I concentrate mainly on those points of view filtered throughthe characters, since it is likely that filtered viewpoint is the most prominent pointof view type in non-narrative drama. However, I also take into considerationslanted point of view, since this too can affect characterization, as we havealready seen. In addition I consider both conceptual and perceptual points of view,in order to take into account the variety of means by which viewpoint can beexpressed in drama, and the effects on characterization that this has.

2.2 Linguistic indicators of point of view

In addition to Chatman’s terminology, I also find Simpson’s (1993) and Short’s(1996) work on point of view useful for my purposes, particularly since theyassist in giving a linguistic profile to Chatman’s terms.

Short (1996) discusses point of view at the micro level by considering thoseelements of a text which indicate viewpoint. Short collates these into a checklistof linguistic indicators of point of view in prose fiction. I find this approach usefulsince it allows us to start with the text itself, rather than trying to impose thepredefined, large-scale categories suggested by, for example, Uspensky (1973)and Fowler (1986). This is of particular importance when attempting to studypoint of view in drama, since it is by no means clear that Fowler’s categories willwork on dramatic texts (certainly, the categories he uses to describe differenttypes of narrators are unlikely to fit, since they have been developed exclusivelythrough the analysis of prose texts). There is also the problem that Fowler’scategories do not allow for cases where point of view continually shifts within atext.

Short (1996: 263–87) explains that the following will indicate viewpoint inprose fiction texts: (i) schema-oriented language, (ii) value-laden expressions, (iii)given versus new information, (iv) verbs and adverbs of perception, cognition andfactivity, (v) deixis, and (vi) event-coding. These are explained with examplesfrom both prose fiction and drama in McIntyre (1999), but a short example here,from Richard III, will show how Short’s categories might usefully be employed inthe study of drama. The following is an example of value-laden expressionsindicating viewpoint:





[CONTEXT: Lady Anne, widow of Edward, Prince of Wales, is responding toRichard’s assertion that he did not kill her husband.]

Anne In thy foul throat thou liest: Queen Margaret saw thy murd’rous falchionsmoking in his blood[.]

(William Shakespeare, Richard III, 1.2.94; my italics)

The italicized words in the above example are instances of what Short refers to asvalue-laden language. Language that is value-laden expresses something aboutthe speaker’s attitude to what is described or perceived.1 Value-laden languagewill thus reveal something about a dramatic character’s conceptual point of view.In this example, this would be that Lady Anne believes that Richard did actuallykill her husband (implicated by the value-laden adjective murd’rous), and that heis a repugnant character (implicated by the negative connotations of the adjectivefoul). There are, of course, other viewpoint indicators in this extract; for example,the term smoking is, in this instance, a value-laden metaphor charged withnegative connotations.

The other categories in Short’s checklist can also be used in the study ofdramatic texts equally well. Van Peer (2001: 328), for instance, discusses the useof schema-oriented language, explaining that ‘in order to create a particularperspective, a writer may portray a protagonist systematically according to aparticular schema’. He then goes on to show how the eponymous protagonist ofEuripides’ Medea is characterized in part through the schema-related languageshe uses.

I therefore employ Short’s (1996) list of viewpoint indicators in my analysis ofBrimstone and Treacle. In addition to Short’s categories, however, there are otherlinguistic indicators of viewpoint to be found in texts. Some of these are discussedby Simpson (1993), who takes a similar approach to Fowler (who himself followsUspensky, 1973) in his treatment of point of view, by attempting to developcategories to describe different types of narration in the novel. While I do notmake use here of Simpson’s categories for classifying narration (for reasonsdiscussed above), I do find some of the micro-level categories within hispragmatic model of point of view useful: for example, the notion of semanticpresupposition. Simpson’s framework for the analysis of viewpoint viapragmatics is useful, since it allows us to account for those features of a textwhich cannot be recovered by lexical items alone. Elements of Simpson’sframework complement the small-scale categories that Short (1996) employs.Here, for example, is an instance of presupposition working to convey acharacter’s conceptual point of view. The example comes from Alan Bennett’srecent play, The Lady in the Van.

Miss Shepherd […] I would like to suggest that an older and taller [sic] popemight be admirable (taller underlined) [sic], height counting towardsknowledge too, probably.

(Bennett, 2000: 22)

146 DAN MCINTYRE




The comparative adjectives that Miss Shepherd uses trigger the presuppositionthat the present pope is neither old enough nor tall enough to be the best man forthe job (see Levinson, 1983: 181–5, for a comprehensive list of presupposition‘triggers’) and this is indicative of Miss Shepherd’s conceptual point of view ofthe present pope. Presupposition, therefore, might be seen as indicative of aparticular conceptual and perceptual point of view.

Indicators of point of view suggested by Simpson are entailments withinsentences, semantic presuppositions (both existential and logical), pragmaticpresuppositions (incorporating Grice’s notion of conventional implicature), andcharacters’ employment of the Co-operative Principle (Grice, 1975). The formatof drama also means that other linguistic features turn out to be relevant to thestudy of viewpoint in this particular text-type, and I discuss these in the course ofmy analysis. Together with Short’s and Chatman’s categories, they provide abottom-up approach to the study of point of view in drama.

In the next section I provide a synopsis of Brimstone and Treacle, beforemoving on in section 4 to look at some of the ways in which viewpoint isconveyed in the play.

3 Brimstone and Treacle

Like many of Dennis Potter’s works, Brimstone and Treacle is a deeply disturbingplay with a strong element of black humour. It concerns a typically suburban couple,Tom and Amy Bates, and their struggle to care for their daughter Pattie, the victimof a road accident which has left her paralysed and in a near-vegetative state. Thetension in the household is almost tangible. Mr Bates is angry, disturbed andresigned to the fact that his daughter will never recover. Mrs Bates is deeply sadyet utterly convinced that Pattie will get better, and that her constant prayers willbe answered. Both are exhausted with the pressure of caring for their now mentallyhandicapped child, and the strain is beginning to affect their own relationship.

Then one night a character called Martin arrives at the Bates’s house claimingto be an old friend of Pattie’s. Martin explains that he had been in love with Pattieand had asked her to marry him. Pattie, however, had been unsure and had askedMartin for a period of separation in order for her to make a decision. Martinagreed and went to America to work, where he subsequently lost contact with her.

Martin, unsurprisingly, is not all that he seems. He is, or at least believeshimself to be, a demon of sorts. Mr Bates immediately makes apparent hismistrust of the seemingly too-good-to-be-true visitor, though Mrs Bates istouched by Martin’s apparent devotion to their daughter. Martin asks to stay thenight in order to ease their burden of caring. Mrs Bates is thrilled at the prospectand, reluctantly, Mr Bates agrees.

Martin appears to be the perfect guest, and even offers to look after Pattie thefollowing day so that Mrs Bates is able to go out. Once she has gone, though,Martin’s true character is revealed and he rapes the helpless Pattie.





Mr and Mrs Bates return to find Martin preparing dinner. Mrs Bates isovercome with emotion and thanks God for sending Martin to them. She alsonotices that Pattie seems suddenly more alert.

Martin agrees to stay longer, despite Bates’s misgivings. That night, when thecouple have gone to bed, Martin attempts to rape Pattie a second time. This timethough, she screams, awakening Mr and Mrs Bates. In a panic, Martin rushes out,leaving the Bates’s to comfort their daughter. Pattie then speaks and asks what hashappened. Mr and Mrs Bates sob with relief. It appears that Martin’s sexualassault has somehow ‘cured’ their daughter. Pattie then remembers the events andscreams out as the lights go down and the play ends.

The play is undoubtedly controversial in the issues it raises. Potter, however,saw it as a religious drama parodying ‘particular forms of faith’ and suspected(perhaps equally controversially) that had Martin been characterized as an angel,the play would not have met with so much disapproval (Potter, 1978: iv). In theextracts quoted, stage directions are indicated by italic type.

4 Point of view in Brimstone and Treacle

In this section I provide an analysis of filtered and slanted conceptual andperceptual points of view in Brimstone and Treacle. Limitations of spacenecessarily mean that this analysis cannot extend to the whole play, and so I havechosen representative sections to illustrate the points I am making. In the courseof my analysis I also relate my findings with regard to viewpoint to the play as awhole, and consider the dramatic consequences of the exhibition of particularpoints of view. I begin by considering evaluative lexis as an indicator of point ofview in the text.

4.1 Evaluative lexis

Using Short’s (1996) checklist of linguistic indicators of point of view, it isrelatively straightforward to spot examples of the expression of viewpoint, as canbe seen in the following example:

[CONTEXT: Bates has become angry at what he sees as societal problems inEngland. Encouraged by Martin, he begins a tirade of abuse.]

[211] Bates There’ll always be an England. Ha! Not with the buses stinking ofcurry and half the cities full of coloured men, there won’t![212] Martin Deport them, that’s what I say. Every nation has a right to defendits own culture. That’s always been so. England for the English, I say. It’s onlya slogan, of course, but slogans are the salt of action. They quicken the mindand sharpen the resolve.

Bates looks at him with a new respect. (Potter, 1978: 31)

148 DAN MCINTYRE




The negative connotations of the participle ‘stinking’ in turn 211 suggest thatBates’s opinion of what he is talking about is also negative. This is furtherconfirmed by the logical presupposition inherent in the utterance. Bates begins theturn with a declarative (‘There’ll always be an England’) and then imposes acondition (that this will not be so if the buses ‘stink’ of curry and the cities arefilled with coloured people). The progressive participle ‘stinking’ suggests thatthis particular action is ongoing, with the consequent logical implication that therewill not ‘always be an England’, and Bates’s discriminatory attitude suggests that,to him, this is something to be regretted. In addition to the negatively chargedlexis in Bates’s turn, we can also note the hyperbole in what he says. Van Dijk(1991: 192), in his discussion of what he terms ‘semantic strategies’ in racistlanguage, notes that hyperbole is a common feature of this type of discourse. Inthis example we also find slanted point of view, exhibited in the stage direction.This also suggests that Bates is respectful of Martin’s point of view, theconsequence of this being that Bates implicates himself with the same point ofview. The conceptual point of view he is exhibiting, then, is one of racistintolerance.

We can also notice the presence in this example of what Fowler (1986) calls‘generic sentences’, which can indicate point of view. These are ‘generalizedpropositions’ (Fowler, 1986: 167), such as Martin’s statement in turn 212 thatslogans ‘quicken the mind and sharpen the resolve’. Arguably, this further revealsMartin’s particular ideology and contributes to our construction of his character.Turning again to van Dijk’s (1991) work on racist language, we can also note thatMartin adopts the semantic strategy of ‘mitigation and excuse’ (van Dijk, 1991:190), justifying his explicitly racist outburst by his explanation that ‘every nationhas a right to defend its own culture’. Following this, we find negatively chargedlexis coming from Martin in turn 289:

[289] Martin Camps. Any camps for the time being. Oh, think of it! Hundreds of people. No, thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands.Millions. Rounded up from their stinking slums and overcrowded ghettos.Driven into big holding camps, men, women, piccaninnies. Oh, you’ll hear decalypso then all right. You’ll hear de darkies sing! You’ll see England like itused to be again, clean and white. They won’t want to go – dey won’t want to,massa! – So we’ll have to push them and prod them and hunt them down.They’ll fight, so we shall have to shoot them and C.S. gas them and smashdown their doors. Eh? Eh? Put barbed wire round them. Searchlights on thecorners. Eh?

He is rocking with glee.

Think of all the hate they’ll feel! Think of all the hate we’ll feel when theystart killing us back. Think of all the violence! Think of the pain and the de-gred-at-ion and in the end, in the end, the riots and the shooting and the blackcorpses and the swastikas and the …

(Potter, 1978: 33)





Here again we can notice evaluative lexis (‘stinking slums’, ‘piccaninnies’,‘darkies’, ‘ghettos’) and also a number of terms with negative connotations – forexample, ‘rounded up’, ‘barbed wire’ and ‘searchlights’. There is also aconventionalized association in the line, ‘You’ll hear de darkies sing’, arisingfrom the non-standard definite article, suggesting that at this point Martin affectsa stereotypical Black English accent. This too has consequences in terms of boththe viewpoint Martin is expressing and his perception of the relationship betweenhimself and Mr Bates. Martin’s adoption of a stereotypical BlackEnglish/Caribbean vernacular (also suggested by the hyphenation in ‘de-gred-at-ion’) is an instance of metaphorical code-switching (Blom and Gumperz, 1972).This type of code-switching is characterized by the use of non-standard languageto signal an in-group relationship between conversational participants. As Blomand Gumperz (1972: 425) say, ‘this may, depending on the circumstances, add aspecial social meaning of confidentiality or privateness to the conversation’.Martin’s motivation for doing this is likely to be a desire to foster a closerelationship between himself and Mr Bates, in order to ingratiate himself with thefamily and thereby create the opportunity to assault Pattie. The success of thisstrategy depends largely on Martin establishing common ground and consensusbetween the conceptual viewpoints that he and Mr Bates express, the results ofwhich can be seen towards the end of the play (discussed in 4.3).

This, the implied excitement through the use of exclamation marks, and theslanted point of view in the stage directions telling us that Martin is ‘rocking withglee’, all combine to convey the impression that Martin is enjoying his ‘vision’. Itmay, of course, be the case that this is not Martin’s actual viewpoint, but one thatis affected for strategic reasons. It is possible that Martin’s hysteria is brought onin part by what he perceives to be the success of his own strategy. Thisinterpretation is supported by the fact that in turn 291, when Bates interrupts himto shout, ‘No! Stop it!’, Martin is able to immediately break off from his tirade toask, ‘No?’. If turn 289 represented his actual conceptual viewpoint, we wouldperhaps expect him to go on defending it, even after Bates’s interruption. Furthersupport for this interpretation can be found in the fact that Martin does notattempt to mollify what he is saying through the use of particular semanticstrategies that are commonly used for this purpose, such as those discussed by vanDijk (1991: 180–98). Nevertheless, the conceptual point of view expressed is, ofcourse, inherently racist, and the fact that it may not be entirely genuine wouldsuggest that Martin is deliberately trying to provoke a reaction from Bates. In thiscase, the metaphorical code-switching may be seen as a contributory factor in thisattempt, Martin guessing that Bates will reject the closeness between participantsthat such a strategy assumes.

The use of evaluative lexis to express a particular viewpoint, such as can beseen in these extracts from Brimstone and Treacle, is generally what we mightexpect to find in conversation. Of more interest, perhaps, are those elements ofthe text which require more explanation than lexical features alone can provide,which I discuss in the next section.

150 DAN MCINTYRE




4.2 Speech acts

A look at the first speech act produced by the character of Mrs Bates provides agood example of a further way in which viewpoint is indicated in drama:

Bates is chewing from a plateful of sandwiches. Every bite shows him to bemorose and disgruntled. Mrs Bates watches him eat, stiff with anxiety, handsclenching and unclenching. Pattie makes noises.

[1] Mrs Bates (eventually) I’m awfully sorry, Tom.(Potter, 1978: 1)

Turn 1 indicates that Mrs Bates has done something, or at least believes she has,for which an apology is necessary (it seems that the apology refers to her failureto produce a hot meal for Bates, due to the pressure of looking after Pattie).Although apologizing does not necessarily imply guilt (apologies are often usedto defuse awkward situations, for example, particularly in British culture), the factthat the apology here appears to be genuine can be gleaned from the slanted pointof view in the stage directions. We know that Bates is ‘disgruntled’ and we knowthat Mrs Bates is ‘stiff with anxiety’. Furthermore, the stage direction‘eventually’, preceding Mrs Bates’s turn, suggests that there is a significant pausebefore Mrs Bates speaks. This, coupled with the fact that we know Mrs Bates tobe feeling anxious, suggests a degree of subservience on her part which wouldsupport an interpretation of her apology as likely to be genuine. However,whether or not this is the case is less important than what her speech act implies.According to Searle (1969), speech acts involve four basic ‘rules’,2 these beingthe propositional content, the preparatory condition, the sincerity condition andthe essential condition (Searle, 1969: 66–7). In order to ‘perform’ a speech act,some of all of these ‘rules’ must be adhered to. So, for example, the speech act ofrequesting requires the sincerity condition that the speaker wants the addressee toperform a particular action. The connection between speech act theory and pointof view analysis lies with Searle’s explanation that psychological states are animportant factor in the performance of illocutionary acts. He notes that:

Wherever there is a psychological state specified in the sincerity condition, theperformance of the act counts as an expression of that psychological state. Thislaw holds whether the act is sincere or insincere, that is whether the speakeractually has the specified psychological state or not.

(Searle, 1969: 65)

In the speech act of apologizing, the sincerity condition would (prototypically)include the psychological state of regret, i.e. the speaker regrets some past action.What Searle is saying, then, is that by performing the speech act of apologizing,the speaker is expressing that psychological state, whether sincerely or insincerely,and, of course, the expression of a psychological state is inextricably linked withthe manifestation of conceptual point of view. By apologizing, then, Mrs Batesreveals something of her conceptual viewpoint, i.e. that she regards herself as in





some way subordinate to her husband (whether this is meant sincerely or not isanother issue). It appears, then, that the analysis of speech acts may be oneindication of viewpoint that is particularly applicable to drama, and that does notshow up to the same extent in existing frameworks for the analysis of point of view.

A further example comes in turn 100, where Mr Bates begins to makereferences to his frustration with his wife, the situation he finds himself in, and,indeed, life in general. Following a violent outburst from Pattie, he exclaims:

[100] Bates I wish someone would plant a bomb here. I wish some thick uglyIrish hoik would come and blow us all up.

(Potter, 1978: 4)

The verb ‘wish’ with a complement clause expresses a regret that a particularsituation is not different, and refers to a situation that is unlikely or impossible.The presupposition inherent in the sentence is that Mr Bates is unhappy with hispresent situation. His apparent desire to be blown up is less important for ourconstruction of his point of view than the implicit presupposition that he is notcontent with the situation which he finds himself in. Our background knowledgeof the play so far allows us to presuppose that this discontent is related to thecondition of his daughter. Additionally, the speech act of wishing belongs to thatclass of illocutionary acts which Searle terms expressives. Searle (1979: viii)explains that expressives are used ‘to express feelings and attitudes’. Specifically,he notes that the ‘illocutionary point of this class is to express the psychologicalstate specified in the sincerity condition about a state of affairs specified in thepropositional content’ (1979: 115). Expressives might therefore also be seen asindicative of a particular conceptual point of view.

The obviously evaluative lexis in turn 100 also gives further indication ofBates’s conceptual viewpoint; ‘thick’, ‘ugly’ and the semi-offensive ‘hoik’ are allused in reference to a supposed particular Irish person, thereby indicating anarrow-minded and racist view of the Irish. This is an important factor in thepsychological make-up of Mr Bates, and one of the ‘attributes’ which isundoubtedly taken into consideration in our impression of the character.

4.3 The co-operative principle and paradigms of reality

In his model of point of view via pragmatics, Simpson (1993) considers howGrice’s (1975) co-operative principle can show up viewpoint relations. A look athow the co-operative principle works between characters in Brimstone andTreacle demonstrates this.

[CONTEXT: Mr Bates has been voicing his frustration at Pattie’s situation,and has just made some particularly nasty comments to Mrs Bates.]

[108] Mrs Bates You’re letting everything get on top of you. You ought to goout a bit more.[109] Bates I go out to work. (Potter, 1978: 4)

152 DAN MCINTYRE




Mrs Bates’s statement in turn 108 is an expression of what she believes to be thecase – we might say it is an expression of her conceptual point of view of thesituation as it stands. In effect she is complying with Grice’s (1975) maxim ofquality (‘Do not say that which you believe to be false’) as she believes it to be. Inturn 109, Bates then flouts the maxim of relation by saying, ‘I go out to work’,implying that he does not need to go out more because he already ‘goes out’ inorder to go to work. This, then, is a refutation of Mrs Bates’s viewpoint expressedin turn 108, and from this we have further evidence that Mr Bates’s conceptualpoint of view is the opposite of his wife’s. Bates conveys his own conceptualpoint of view indirectly, by flouting a Gricean maxim in order to refute theviewpoint of his wife.

Mrs Bates then issues a statement of desire, ‘I’d like to go out too, Tom’ [110],which she follows in turn 115 by saying, ‘Why can’t we go out togethersometimes? Why can’t we both get out of the house now and again? That’s whatwe ought to do.’ The presence of the two questions is important for defining MrsBates’s viewpoint. Leech (1983: 168) observes that negative questions express aparticular expectation, i.e. they assert an underlying belief in the negativeproposition. In the case of Mrs Bates, it is the belief that she cannot (or is notallowed to) leave the house, either alone or with her husband. Bates’s answer tohis wife’s question also comes in the form of an interrogative:

[120] Bates how can we allow other people – strangers – to come into thehouse and hear such – noises?

(Potter, 1978: 4)

The question in turn 120 is a rhetorical one. In terms of physical effort, it wouldof course be very easy to allow other people into the house. Bates, though, isflouting the maxim of manner, with two apparent implicatures. Most probably theflout is to imply the negative assertion that ‘we cannot allow other people to comeinto the house’. Why should Bates hold this view? The most likely reason comesabout through the second implicature and is, as Mrs Bates notes in turn 127, thatMr Bates is ashamed of and embarrassed by Pattie’s condition. Turn 120 alsoallows us to infer something about the relative distribution of power between Mrand Mrs Bates. Mr Bates responds to Mrs Bates’s question by asking anotherquestion, a method that Burton (1980: 71–2), in a study of Pinter’s The DumbWaiter, suggests can be used to assert conversational dominance, and indeed, it islikely that part of Bates’s conceptual point of view of his wife is that she issubservient to him.

If we now move on to consider in more detail how the Bates express theirconceptual points of view with regard to their daughter’s vegetative condition, itbecomes clear that their notion of what it is to be linguistically co-operative in aconversational exchange highlights some of the problems with Gricean theory. Inthe following extracts, Mr and Mrs Bates are debating the severity of Pattie’scondition:





[30] Mrs Bates (to Mr Bates) Oh, please. It upsets Pattie when you raise yourvoice.[31] Bates (quieter) Don’t be foolish. Don’t say things like that. How – howcan she tell when… (But his voice trails off as Pattie turns her head and seemsto look at him.)[32] Mrs Bates She knows what goes on. I keep trying to tell you.[33] Bates (staring at her, frightened) Of course she doesn’t –[34] Mrs Bates She knows when you are angry. And she knows when I amsad.[35] Bates (hiss) That’s not possible –[36] Pattie Mmmm mmmmm kh.[37] Mrs Bates Listen to her then. She’s trying to talk. She is, Tom. I don’tcare what you say.

Bates stares at her, then twists his head away.

[38] Pattie Ooo oooh![39] Bates But that’s – terrible. What you are saying is – horrible. If sheresponds to our moods and therefore in some sense understands – God above,is it possible that she c..comprehends more than she can communicate –?[40] Mrs Bates Yes, I’m sure of it.[41] Pattie Yaaa!

Pause.

[42] Bates (whisper) That is too much to bear. (Loudly) Horrible. Horrible.Horrible![43] Mrs Bates No, Tom. It’s a sign of improvement. It shows that things aregoing on inside her. The doctors don’t know everything. They’re not right allthe time. She’s getting better!

(Potter, 1978: 2)

Of Mrs Bates’s utterances, 14 are declaratives. All contain factive verbs in thesimple present tense, suggesting that the statements she makes are ‘eternal’ truths.We can also note, then, that all these turns comply with the maxim of quality asMrs Bates understands it. Mrs Bates cannot possibly be certain that Pattiecomprehends her own situation, yet her constant use of factive simple presentverbs suggests that this is indeed what she genuinely believes to be the truth. Thisis an important issue for the analysis of point of view; characters adhering strictlyto the maxim of quality can be said to be expressing an explicit conceptualviewpoint. However, this does highlight one of the inherent problems withGricean theory, namely that Grice does not take into account the fact that differentspeakers may have different notions about co-operation within a conversationalexchange. In Gricean terms, Mrs Bates is being maximally co-operative since sheis complying with the maxim of quality. However, Mr Bates has an entirelydifferent notion of what it is to do this. This is expressed in turn 35 when he says,

154 DAN MCINTYRE




‘That’s not possible’; in Bates’s view, by saying this he is complying with themaxim of quality, despite the fact that this viewpoint is the direct opposite of whatMrs Bates has just suggested. Bates uses exactly the same strategies as his wifefor expressing viewpoint. Turns 31, 33 and 35, for example, all comply with themaxim of quality as Bates understands it; they are expressions of what he believesto be the actual situation. He is, then, expressing his point of view in the sameway as Mrs Bates does in turns 30, 32, 34, 37 and 43. His statement to Mrs Bates,‘Don’t be so foolish’, implies that he believes her conceptual point of view to be‘foolish’, which in turn indicates that he rejects the notion of Pattie’s point ofview being the same. He confirms this in turn 33 by stating what he actuallybelieves. Again, the declarative structure and the simple present factive verb (the anaphoric reference to know in turn 32) suggest that this is the ‘truth’ as he believes it, and the fact that it is not possible for him to say for certain thatPattie does not comprehend the world around her leads us to also conclude that he is making an assumption of her conceptual point of view. Mr Bates is also expressing his conceptual point of view by stating that of anothercharacter.

We can also note, then, that being conversationally co-operative does notalways result in a harmonious exchange. The important issue for our purposes isthat an adherence to the maxim of quality can be seen as indicative of acharacter’s conceptual point of view, with regard to what they believe to be thetruth. This is an issue which relates to work that has been carried out withinsociology on the subject of differing notions of reality. Harris (1984: 18), in anarticle exploring the use of questions as controlling devices in magistrates’ courts,explains that speakers can begin an interaction from ‘radically differentperspectives of reality’. Her data focus on interactions between magistrates anddefendants concerning the payment of fines and she notes that the differentperspectives from which the interactants start might be characterized as ‘twoseparate paradigms of reality which all too often are in contradiction’ (1984: 19).Archer (2002) adopts the term ‘reality paradigms’, and applies the notion in asocio-pragmatic analysis of the Salem witchcraft trials, noting that ‘(1)interlocutors operate out of and filter information about their world[s] [sic]through particularised “perspectives of reality”, and that (2) these “perspectives”can and do clash’ (Archer, 2002: 20). It appears that this is very much what thecharacters of Mr and Mrs Bates do in Brimstone and Treacle. Mr Bates refuses tobelieve that Pattie will recover, whereas Mrs Bates is firmly convinced that this isthe case. The reality paradigms within which they operate, then, are ‘does notbelieve’ and ‘believes’, respectively, and this obviously has ramifications for whatthese characters take to be the truth. It seems to be the case that whenevercharacters’ reality paradigms clash, we encounter dramatic discord (as in turns 30 to 43 above). Similarly, when characters’ reality paradigms correspond with each other, then we see dramatic harmony, as in Bates’s and Martin’s turnsbelow:





[CONTEXT: Bates has just told several jokes at the expense of the Irish.]

[264] Martin Mind you, the Irish are beyond a joke. Have a drop more. Andyou, Mumsy.[265] Bates Thank you.[266] Mrs Bates I feel a bit squiffy already! (But she tosses it back again.)[267] Bates I agree with you there, Martin. A quarrelsome lot of thick drunks.There’s far too many of ’em over here in the land they’re supposed to hate.Ship them back, I say, and the sooner the better. Bombs and all.[268] Martin Them, and the blacks.[269] Bates Especially the blacks. Send them back to their own countries.

(Potter, 1978: 32)

It is at this point in the play that Bates begins to accept Martin, having previouslybeen wary of his presence. It appears that this is due in part to the fact that both heand Martin are expressing conceptual viewpoints which are roughly the same. Ineffect they are both operating within the same reality paradigm that might becharacterized as ‘ethnic minorities are a social problem’. Although it may seemrather obvious that Martin and Bates hold this view, the significance lies with thefact that this shared reality paradigm allows the two characters to establishcommon ground. It is significant, too, that this consensus occurs in Act Four,towards the end of the play, as this corresponds, albeit ironically, with theAristotelian notion of resolution following complication in terms of plot structure.

5 Conclusion

I suggested in the introduction to this article that studying point of view in dramamight lead us to a better understanding of how viewpoint is manifested in textsgenerally. My analysis of Brimstone and Treacle is an attempt to contribute to the‘broader account of viewpoint’ that Short (1999: 313) suggests is necessary if weare to clearly understand the issues surrounding the concept of stylistic point ofview. As Short argues, the expression of viewpoint occurs not just at the level ofthe narrator, but also between characters when they converse; each will express aviewpoint whilst also taking the other’s viewpoint into consideration. It is theexpression of point of view at the character-to-character level that I haveconcentrated on in my analysis. However, I have also taken into consideration theexpression of point of view via slant (Chatman, 1978) and how this affects thefiltered point of view that we get from the characters in the play. In addition tothis, my analysis reveals the necessity of considering perceptual and conceptualviewpoints, and the link between these and their effect on characterization. Thereis, then, a complex network of viewpoint relations to be considered, and this issomething that must be taken into account when attempting to describe andexplain point of view in texts. It is not simply that the point of view exhibited in agiven text might shift over the course of that text, but also that a variety of

156 DAN MCINTYRE




viewpoints might co-occur within the same text. This is what happens inBrimstone and Treacle, and I would argue that it is the co-occurrence of thesediffering points of view that contributes to the development of the plot. Forexample, it is the disparity in Mr and Mrs Bates’s conceptual point of view ofPattie’s condition, and of the best way to care for her, that is a contributory factorto the decline of their own relationship, and it is the consensus of conceptual pointof view that develops between Martin and Mr Bates that results in Martin beingable to stay an extra night with the family, thus affording him the opportunity torape Pattie a second time. One of the goals of future research might be toadequately capture the ‘fluid’ quality of point of view within a linguisticframework, and to explain how it is that readers are moved from viewpoint toviewpoint within a text.

In terms of the way in which point of view is manifested in Brimstone andTreacle, my analysis suggests that linguistic indicators of point of view in dramago beyond those associated with prose fiction. Indicators of point of view that Iwould suggest to be of particular importance are the adherence of characters toGrice’s (1975) maxim of quality, the notion of reality paradigms (Harris, 1984;see also Archer, 2002) (which can be recovered via Gricean analysis), expressives(Searle, 1979) and the psychological states inherent in the sincerity conditions ofparticular speech acts (Searle, 1969). Further research into point of view in dramawould hopefully investigate more fully the significance of these features.

The importance of point of view for characterization comes from what theexpression of viewpoint tells us about particular characters. The linguisticindicators of point of view discussed above enable the explanation of the way inwhich characters present differing conceptual points of view, which, I wouldargue, is what occurs at the character level of a dramatic text, and I would suggestthat it is the presentation of these conceptual viewpoints that assists readers andaudiences in ‘constructing’ the various dramatic characters as they read or watcha play. Point of view in drama, then, would seem to be an integral part of thecharacterization process.

Point of view also results in dramatic effects in addition to characterization,some of which have been described in the analysis in section 4. In Brimstone andTreacle, the conflict between Martin and the Bates’s, expressed via differingconceptual viewpoints, and the consensus that develops between the charactersappears to be a contributory factor to the development of the plot, setting Batesfurther in opposition to his wife whilst presenting Martin with increasingopportunities to be with Pattie alone. Ironically, it is only when the charactersappear to have resolved their differences, signified by the consensus in conceptualpoints of view, that Martin is finally able to commit his most shocking act. It isMartin’s manipulation of Mr and Mrs Bates, and his efforts to ingratiate himselfwith the couple by outwardly appearing to concur with their conceptualviewpoints, that leads to his gaining the opportunity to rape Pattie, and, of course,the manipulation that he indulges in allows us further insight into Martin’scharacter.





There remains much research to be done into the issue of point of view indrama. For example, the issue of slant is likely to be of particular importance inclassical drama in which there are narrators and/or choruses. The question ofempathy and its relation to viewpoint is also an area worthy of furtherinvestigation, difficult though this may be. It will also be necessary to integratewhat we learn about point of view in drama with existing work on viewpoint, inorder to arrive at the broader account of point of view that Short (1999) suggestsis necessary to fully understand its complexities. This article has been an attemptto sketch out some of the issues involved and take some first steps towards this aim.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jonathan Culpeper for his help in the preparation of thisarticle, and for supervising the MA dissertation on which it is based. I am alsograteful to Willie van Peer and two anonymous reviewers for Language andLiterature for helpful comments on an early draft of this article.

158 DAN MCINTYRE

Notes

1 Uncovering value-laden language is not restricted to simply recognizing the negativeconnotations of particular words, of course. In some cases, meaning may come about as a resultof the words that a given form most consistently collocates with. Louw describes how thehabitual collocates of a word will imbue it with ‘a consistent aura of meaning’, referred to as a‘semantic prosody’ (1993: 157), and goes on to demonstrate how one of the effects of thesecollocations is the creation of irony.

2 For a discussion of the contentious issue of ‘rules’ in pragmatics, see Thomas (1995).

References

Archer, D.E. (2002) ‘Can Innocent People Be Guilty? A Sociopragmatic Analysis of ExaminationTranscripts from the Salem Witchcraft Trials’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3(1): 1–31.

Bal, M. (1997) Narratology, 2nd edn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Bennett, A. (2000) The Lady in the Van. London: Faber and Faber.Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (1988) ‘Adverbial Stance Types in English’, Discourse Processes 11: 1–34.Blom, J.-P. and Gumperz, J.J. (1972) ‘Social Meaning in Linguistic Structures: Code-switching in

Norway’, in J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography ofCommunication, pp. 407–34. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Brenton, H. (1982) Hitler Dances. London: Methuen.Burton, D. (1980) Dialogue and Discourse: A Socio-linguistic Approach to Modern Drama Dialogue

and Naturally Occurring Conversation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Chatman, S. (1978) Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.Chatman, S. (1986) ‘Characters and Narrators: Filter, Center, Slant, and Interest-focus’, Poetics Today

7(2): 189–204.Chatman, S. (1990) Coming to Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.





Culpeper, J. (2001) Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts. London:Longman.

Fludernik, M. (1993) The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction. London: Routledge.Fowler, R. (1986) Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Genette, G. (1980) Narrative Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Graumann, C.F. (1992) ‘Speaking and Understanding from Viewpoints: Studies in Perspectivity’, in R.

Semin and K. Fiedler (eds) Language, Interaction and Social Cognition, pp. 237–55. London:Sage Publications.

Grice, H.P. (1975) ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics3: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic.

Groff, E. (1959) ‘Point of View in Modern Drama’, Modern Drama 2: 268–82.Harris, S. (1984) ‘Questions as a Mode of Control in Magistrates’ Courts’, International Journal of

the Sociology of Language 49: 5–27.Jeffries, L. (2000) ‘Point of View and the Reader in the Poetry of Carol Ann Duffy’, in L. Jeffries and

P. Sansom (eds) Contemporary Poems: Some Critical Approaches, pp. 54–68. Huddersfield:Smith/Doorstop Books.

Leech, G.N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow: Longman.Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Louw, B. (1993) ‘Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic

Prosodies’, in M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds) Text and Technology: In Honourof John Sinclair, pp. 157–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

McIntyre, D. (1999) ‘Towards a Systematic Description and Explanation of Point of View in DramaticTexts, With Special Reference to Dennis Potter’s Brimstone and Treacle’, unpublished MAdissertation, Lancaster University.

Martin, J.R. (2000) ‘Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English’, in S. Hunston and G.Thompson (eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, pp.142–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Potter, D. (1978) Brimstone and Treacle: Theatre Script with Introduction. London: Eyre Methuen.Remarque, E.M. (1987 [1929]) All Quiet on the Western Front. London: Pan.Richardson, B. (1988) ‘Point of View in Drama: Diegetic Monologue, Unreliable Narrators, and the

Author’s Voice on Stage’, Comparative Drama 22(3): 193–214.Sasaki, T. (1994) ‘Towards a Systematic Description of Narrative “Point of View”: An Examination of

Chatman’s Theory with an Analysis of The Blind Man by D.H. Lawrence’, Language andLiterature 3(2): 125–38.

Searle, J.R. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Searle, J.R. (1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. London:Cambridge University Press.

Shakespeare, W. (1993 [1623]) Richard III. Ware: Wordsworth.Short, M. (1989) ‘Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama’, in R. Carter and P. Simpson (eds)

Language, Discourse and Literature, pp. 139–68. London: Unwin Hyman.Short, M. (1996) Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman.Short, M. (1998) ‘From Dramatic Text to Dramatic Performance’, in J. Culpeper, M. Short and P.

Verdonk (eds) Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context, pp. 6–17. London:Routledge.

Short, M. (1999) ‘Graphological Deviation, Style Variation and Point of View in Marabou StorkNightmares by Irvine Welsh’, Journal of Literary Studies/Tydskrif vir Literatuur Wetenskap 15(3/4): 305–23.

Simpson, P. (1993) Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge.Thomas, J. (1995) Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman.Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. (2000) ‘Evaluation: An Introduction’, in S. Hunston and G. Thompson

(eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, pp. 1–26. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Uspensky, B. (1973) A Poetics of Composition. Berkeley: University of California Press.van Dijk, T. (1991) Racism and The Press. London: Routledge.van Peer, W. (2001) ‘Justice in Perspective’, in W. van Peer and S. Chatman (eds) New Perspectives

on Narrative Perspective, pp. 325–38. Albany: State University of New York Press.Wales, K. (2001) A Dictionary of Stylistics, 2nd edn. London: Longman.




160 DAN MCINTYRE

Weingarten, B.E. (1984) ‘Dramatic Point of View and Antonio Buero Vallegjo’s La Fundación’,Hispanic Journal 5(2): 145–53.

Address

Dan McIntyre, Deanery of Humanities, Liverpool Hope University College, Hope Park, LiverpoolL16 9JD, UK. [email: [email protected]]




point of view in drama mcintyre2004

Documents