|
4 Analysing literary text as discourse
The structure of literary discourse usually comprises several levels of
representation related to narrator and recipient separated by ontological boundaries
which prevent discourse participants at one level of existence from interacting
with participants at other levels. The ontological boundaries between the real
(i.e. real-world writers and readers) and the fictional world (narrative situation
narrators and narratees, fictional-world characters) have been questioned recently
by many researchers and they are no longer seen as rigid. We shall leave aside
these discussions and seek answers in an approach which implements effectively
concepts and principles from pragmatics to (literary) text analysis, viewing it as
a multi-layered discourse structure.
Advocates of
pragmatic stylistics see its approach as highly beneficial for the
exploration of inferential processes involved in interpreting texts (Clark 2009).
Applying ideas from pragmatics within the field of stylistics enables the asking
of a number of questions accounting for specific inferences. Exploring them we
gain insights about individual texts, individual inferences and the nature of literary
and non-literary interpretation. Alongside this, coherence is studied in literary
text, for instance by looking at ways an inference is derived (i.e. before, during
or after the initial interpretation of the text), or focusing on those parts of the text
which provide evidence to support the inference. The quality of coherence in
text indicates how much support for the inference is provided by the text. More
specifically, a pragmatic stylistic approach assumes the viewing of literary text
as discourse in which particular messages are to be negotiated in the process
of cooperation between the author and the reader accounting for immediate
context of situation. As illustrated by the analysed examples, the absence of
a natural immediate environment (necessary for working out implicatures)
can be overcome by acknowledging fictional settings, situations and contexts
provided by the narrator/author of literary text. A pragmatic stylistic analysis
86
of literary discourse includes considerations of the recipient’s competence – his
or her readiness to understand fully culture-specific messages and a variety of
historically and politically determined aspects of a literary work. The application
of pragmatic principles and their maxims in the analysis can be highly beneficial
to the reader. Let us consider the following message written on a blackboard in
the London Underground, used by the Underground’s staff to communicate their
thoughts to passengers:
(3)
You are probably wondering why the escalators so often aren’t working?
We shall tell you! It is because they are old and often go out of order.
Sorry! Have a good day!
(LD: 87)
The discourse of this message illustrates the principles of cooperation
and politeness at work: the author of the message abides by the principle of
cooperation and respects the quality maxim – he is telling the truth and in the
first sentence he uses a hedge to indicate he might be wrong. He also respects
the quantity maxim and he is relevant in speech. The Manner maxim can be
considered within the concept of relevance and here the point of view of the
recipient is important. From the narrator’s point of view, the Manner maxim
holds properly – we are sorry but we can do nothing about the problem. From the
point of view of the recipient, this is not a relevant explanation – I want to use
the escalators, I pay for my ticket, and I want to have them working when I rush
to work. This discussion highlights the importance of the outlined framework
of the discourse, as well as of the context and situation provided by the narrator
of the short story. The principle of politeness is also applicable: the message
employs expressions commonly regarded as polite, such as
shall, sorry
, etc., and
polite speech acts, such as wishing a good day. However, considering the context
of the given discourse, these elements imply humour and irony. As a reader, I
may find it humorous that someone who is responsible for the situation uses
accusation as a form of apology. An actual real-life recipient of the message, i.e.
an Underground passenger, would probably perceive it as ironic and impolite,
and even face-threatening. The example illustrates that humour often overlaps
with irony. Unlike humour, irony does not always create laughter. It can be
appreciated by recipients if they share the same point of view. Example (4) shows
that recipients who are close to each other and share the same point of view can
perceive and even appreciate humour and irony as a private, intimate mode of
communication.
(4)
‘You always did say you would marry for money.’
‘Yes, I did. And I am. But I wouldn’t marry him if I didn’t feel like this
about him.’
87
‘But do you feel like this about him because he is so eligible?’ enquired
Joan, laughing.
‘Probably. But what’s the matter with that?’
‘Would you marry him if he was poor?’
The sisters were now leaning forward, faces close, laughing and full of
enjoyment.
(LD: 105)
The dialogue in Example (4) illustrates a real-life conversation, and as it
matches our experience of spoken discourse we are able to apply pragmatic
principles and maxims as usual. The fictional setting of the short story and the
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
