Direct and Indirect Speech Acts in English
|
|  Yüklə 219.5 Kb.
|
4.2. Indirect Speech As a Reaction to Direct Speech ActsThe play contains 28 direct-indirect exchanges, they represent the most numerous group within the play. I have chosen only those I find particularly interesting to comment on. Generally, it could be said that indirectness in this type of exchanges is used to increase the force of one’s message, to convey politeness, some kind of explanation or refusal and sometimes irony or sarcasm. I would like to present at least these examples to be considered:
Hubert:....You’re going through a rough patch. (48) In this case, the speaker, Henri, positively asks a direct yes/no question. From this follows that the hearer, Hubert, should utter a response containing yes or no, but this is not the case. The hearer is well aware of the fact that he cannot say a positive yes, even if he probably longs to do so, as he would violate certain conventions observed in the society. As Bach and Harnish (1984:95) claim: “Not only do people expect one another to act in certain mutually recognized ways, as determined (at least in part) by mutually recognized rules governing mutually recognized types of persons and types of situations, they expect others to expect them to act in these ways.” The hearer would not only offend the speaker but he would also lose his face within the discussion group which is of course undesirable. As Bach and Harnish (1984: 99) observe: “The speaker compromises the presumption (maxim) of manner in order to avoid the offense to the hearer or the embarrassment to himself that explicit language would engender.” And therefore, the hearer chooses to use an indirect strategy, relying on the speaker’s ability to read between the lines. The result here is that the speaker feels humiliated and in order to get a straight answer, asks the same question a few more times again. He finally succeeds and the hearer responds less indirectly, uttering the not very courageous and quiet ‘A bit.’ (which is still remarkably indirect) some minutes later. As already suggested above, in avoiding the direct yes, the hearer intentionally flouts the maxims of Manner, Relation and perhaps also that of Quality and makes the speaker look for another explanation. Henri knows very well what Hubert is conveying but he refuses to believe it and for that reason he keeps repeating the same question again and again. His ego is hurt. Inès: And are they (the halos) flat, do you think? (S) Henri: I think they’re ten times as thin as they’re long. (H) (70) In this second example, the motivation for indirectness is somehow different. It is not politeness which is exercised in the hearer’s response; Henri rather wants to sound scientific, interesting and important. His objective is to win recognition and that is why he desperately tries not to use simple language. He realizes that a research scientist should speak in a cultivated and sophisticated manner. Knowing that Inès is an uneducated housewife, he feels she could admire him for his scientific assumptions and thus he decides not to answer with simple yes. Henri flouts the maxim of Quantity - he is more informative than necessary. Inès, in fact, is not interested in halos, she is just trying to ease the awkwardness of silence. According to Bach and Harnish, her primary aim is obviously to fill the air and pass the time with a minimum of discomfort. Sonia: I’d have done better to receive them in my dressing gown! Henri: Congratulations, Sonia! Well done! (68) The speaker, Sonia, is annoyed with the current state of affairs, she thinks she did not have to bother to receive the guests with such a pomp and she mentions her ideas directly. The hearer, her husband Henri, is angry with her for saying this. He wants to be polite since he hopes Hubert could help him with his career. Henri utters an expressive which might seem uncooperative at the first sight, yet Henri’s reaction is perfectly relevant. Although Austin would even call this an insincere or void act, the act is not void at all. “The observation that the speaker (Henri in this example) has said something which is manifestly untrue, combined with the assumption that the CP is in operation sets in motion the search for an implicature” (Thomas, 1995: 63). Indeed, the utterance cannot be taken literally, the hearer’s actual intention is not to congratulate his wife Sonia whereby he just proves that he does not observe the maxim of Quality (he says what he believes to be false).Henri wants to express the opposite and he deliberately makes an ironical remark. But the words themselves and the appropriate context are not enough to transmit the right message, something else is still needed to make the utterance function. As Searle points out, to understand what is really meant, not only the context but also other illocutionary force indicators, including mainly stress and intonation in this case, are essential. (Searle 1976: 30) The irony would not be understood without them. Inès: Perhaps he should read it before he starts getting upset. Hubert: Inès, my love, don’t interrupt when you don’t know what you’re talking about. (46) The first utterance pronounced by Inès is a reaction to Hubert’s announcement concerning an article he saw published in a scientific magazine. Her contribution can be taken as a suggestion or advice. I don’t think it is really meant for someone, Inès simply feels like saying something. Hubert, her husband, cuts her down to size and even though he tries to be polite in front of their hosts, his neat words are clearly suggesting something not very positive and what is more, something quite rude. His utterance could be without any doubts interpreted like this: Shut up, you silly goose! Nevertheless, Hubert would not say anything of this sort since he would be afraid to lose face, he utters the propositional act indirectly trying to sound very polite and thus indirectly communicating the illocutionary force of imperative or even threat. Inès, knowing his husband, ignores him. Hubert: Check before you get in a state about it. Henri: I left my laptop at the Institute. (62) Hubert utters a clear imperative sentence explicitly stating what Henri should do. Henri answers indirectly giving an explanation why he cannot execute what Hubert advised him. Henri’s utterance might seem unrelated to Hubert’s but “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.” (Searle, 1979: 31) Henri does not say ‘I cannot’, but it is obvious from his contribution that it is impossible for him to check the article Hubert is speaking about - without a laptop he cannot connect to the internet. The primary illocutionary act ‘I cannot’ thus makes an internal and perhaps inseparable part of the literal secondary illocutionary I left my laptop at the Institute. While uttering the actual speech act ‘I left my laptop at the Institute’ Henri also relies on Hubert’s nonlinguistic knowledge concerning computers and the internet. Direct-indirect exchanges are the most frequent within the play. This suggests that their use is somehow preferable. The hearer (the second speaker) often responds indirectly in an attempt to make his answer more gentle so that it complies with set social rules, to sound more interesting or to increase the force of his message. His choice of an indirect strategy is premeditated and deliberate. |