Speech Act Theory, Speech Acts, and the Analysis of Fiction Author(s): Reingard M.

Nischik Source: The Modern Language Review, Vol. 88, No. 2 (Apr., 1993), pp. 297-306 Published by: Modern Humanities Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3733760 . Accessed: 24/05/2011 15:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Review.

http://www.jstor.org

SPEECH ACT THEORY, SPEECH ACTS, AND THE ANALYSIS OF FICTION

In Margaret Atwood's 'Uglypuss' (Bluebeard'sEgg and Other Stories) the alienated protagonist Joel happens to see in a restaurant a woman unknown to him and decides that he wants to have an affair with her. Yet how to accomplish this aim with a woman he has never seen before, let alone spoken to? The reader, owing to the story's structure of narrative transmission, has the privilege of participating inJoel's thoughts on how to go about getting to know the woman: He thinks of saying, 'Live around here?'but he can't, not again. 'Tell me about yourself' is out too. Instead he finds himself shifting almost immediately, much sooner than he usually does, into social realism. 'This day has been total shit,' he says.1 In a pragmatic understanding of language, all imagined or realized initial utterances ofJoel in this scene in the final analysis mean the same thing: 'I would like to get closer to you.' In a semantic understanding, of course, the three sentences mean totally different things. Since Joel ruminates about various forms of approaching Amelia verbally, the particular form of his approach seems of great relevance in this is passage. Whether or not the rapprochement successful, whether it eventually has the result thatJoel desires, seems to rely to a large extent on how he uses language in this tricky situation. He decides against forms of utterance which would conventionally elicit a rather direct reaction. Instead, he eventually opts for a form of utterance which focuses on the speaker rather than the addressee, thus offering the addressee a spectrum of potential reactions. As the story shows in its further development,Joel's tactics are successful, indeed they work towards achieving his goal. Thus in this narrative passage language is thematized indirectly: not as to what it is or means but rather as to what it does, what it accomplishes in a particular situation, how it creates and structures social relationships. A figural utterance is presented here less in its semantic aspects than as an act which engenders immediate results in the form of further speech acts. This pragmatic approach to language was first investigated theoretically by philosophers, in a body of works which came to be called speech act theory.2 Linguists such as Richard Ohmann in the United States and Dieter Wunderlich in Germany have elaborated further aspects of speech act theory.3 From the late I970s onwards, there ensued attempts to apply speech act theory in the interpretation of literary texts. These first contributions suggest the analytic value of speech act
1 Margaret Atwood, Bluebeard's andOther Stories (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1983), p. 97. Egg See especially John L. Austin, How to Do ThingsWithWords (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962) and Acts: An Essay in thePhilosophy Language John R. Searle, Speech of (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, I969); see also Hans-Ulrich Hoche and Werner Strube, Analytische Philosophie (Freiburg and Miinchen: Alber, i985). 3 See ed. particularly Richard Ohmann, 'Speech, Action and Style', in Literary Style:A Symposium, by
2

Seymour Chatman

2nd Wunderlich, Studienzur Sprechakttheorie, edn (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1978). For further und secondary literature, see the bibliographies in Reinhard Schmachtenberg, Sprechakttheorie dramatischer zur Dialog: Ein Methodenansatz Drameninterpretation, Linguistische Arbeiten, 120 (Tiibingen: Niemeyer, 1982), and in Manfred Pfister, "'Eloquence is Action": Shakespeare und die Sprechakttheorie', Kodikas/Code: Ars Semeiotica, ( 985), 195-216. 8

Kachru and Herbert F. W. Stahlke (Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research,

'Instrumental Style: Notes on the Theory of Speech as Action', in Current Trends Stylistics, by Braj B. in ed.
1972),

(London and New York: Oxford University

Press, I971),

pp. 241-54; Ohmann, pp. I 15-4I;

Dieter

298

Act and of Speech Theory theAnalysis Fiction

analysis for literary criticism.4 At the same time, however, these contributions are almost exclusively devoted to drama,5 owing, of course, to the centrality of dialogue in this genre. Yet the analysis of speech acts also offers new insights into narrative, as this article sets out to show. As text example I have chosen a short narrative in which the story's overall meaning resides to a large extent in the particular speech acts chosen by the two protagonists in their communication with each other, in the order these individual speech acts are sequenced in the story, and in the way the figural speech acts are contextualized with speech acts on the level of narrative transmission: Margaret Atwood's short story 'Polarities' ( 97 ).6 The story is set in a provincial university town in the Canadian prairies and shows two university teachers - Morrison from the United States and the FrenchCanadian Louise - in their abortive attempts to establish a rewarding relationship with each other. Louise increasingly behaves in a strange way, and she eventually ends up in a mental asylum. Morrison, in a conventional view the 'normal' partner in this relationship, behaves in a manner which necessarily has devastating effects on the unstable Louise. Yet this is by no means clear on the surface discourse level of the story. A speech act analysis of their communication, however, displays the often subtle verbal actions the two protagonists undertake in their interaction with each other and the manner in which these speech variations structure their highly polar relationship, which is bound to end in disaster. Speech act theory offers three areas of investigation, which are all of relevance to this story: the classification of speech acts, the sequence of speech acts, and indirect speech acts.7 As to the classification of speech acts, the following types ofillocutionary acts may be distinguished:8 I. Representatives(Informatives, Attesters, Verdictives);2. Information Seekers;3. Future Directors (Orders, Requests, Inducers,Restrainers, Wishes, Commissives);
4 See Stanley E. Fish, 'How to Do Things with Austin and Searle: Speech Act Theory and Literary Notes, 91 (1976), 983-1025; James A. Fanto, 'Speech Act Theory and its Criticism', ModemLanguage the around World,ed. by R. W. Bailey, Application to the Study of Literature', in The Sign: Semiotics L. Matejka, and P. Steiner (Ann Arbor:Michigan Slavic Publications, 1978), pp. 280-304; Mary Vaiana Taylor, 'The Grammar of Conduct: Speech Act Theory and the Education of Emma Woodhouse', Style, Acts:Shakespeare's Lancastrian 12 (1978), 357-7 I;Joseph A. Porter, TheDramaofSpeech (Berkeley: Tetralogy Shoshana Felman, TheLiterary University of California Press, I979); Schmachtenberg, Sprechakttheorie; trans. by Catherine Porter (Ithaca, NY: in Act: DonJuan with Austin,or Seduction TwoLanguages, Speech Marlowes Tamburlaine-Dramen: Cornell University Press, 1983); Hubert Wurmbach, Christopher Struktur, Ein und Anglistische Forschungen, 166 Bedeutung: Beitragzur Dramenanalyse, Rezeptionslenkung historische Acts in (Heidelberg: Winter, 1984); Pfister, "'Eloquence is Action"'; ThingsDone with Words:Speech Acts HispanicDrama,ed. by Elias Rivers (Newark, NJ:Juan de la Cuesta, 1986); Sandy Petrey, Speech and LiteraryTheory (New York and London: Routledge, I990); see also Jorg Meibauer, 'Sprechakttheorie: Probleme und Entwicklungen in der neueren Forschung', Deutsche 13 Sprache, (1985), 59-62. 5 The exceptions are: Taylor; Petrey, pp. I I11-28. 6 In Dancing Girls and OtherStories(Toronto: McClelland & Stewart-Bantam, 1978), pp. 38-65. All quotations from the story are taken from this edition. 7 For the theoretical background, see my Mentalstilistik:Ein Beitrag zu Stiltheorieund Narrativik 8 A speech act consists of four analytic parts which cannot appear in isolation; in brief summary: 'The locutionary act is the act of saying something. The propositional act is the content of the something. The illocutionary act is the act performed in saying something. The perlocutionary act is the act performed (effected) by saying something' (B. G. Campbell, 'Toward a Workable Taxonomy of Illocutionary 8 andStyle, (1975), 3-20 (p. 4) ). Forces, and Its Implication to Works of Imaginative Literature',Language Each speech act encompasses at least one illocutionary act. 'Classification of speech acts' in fact usually means, restrictively, a classification of the illocutionary acts involved in speech acts. See further Mentalstilistik.
(Tubingen: Narr, I991), pp. 170-75.

REINGARD

M. NISCHIK

299

Institutional 4. Expressives (Ceremonials, (Ascribers, 5. Implicators); Declarations Operatives,

Operatives);6. Rituals.9 I shall first investigate the dialogue of the fictive characters in this light. An analysis of the selection of speech act categories they use in conversation with each other may characterize them indirectly: do they use certain types of speech acts with striking frequency? Do they neglect other kinds of speech acts? Do characters communicate differently with different interlocutors as to speech act selection? What do such distributions tell us about the relationship between the characters? If one isolates, as a first analytical step, all Morrison's utterances addressed to Louise, a striking illocutionary dominance becomes apparent, and we are in a better position to explain exactly why his communicational behaviour towards her gives the impression of distance, of non-commitment: 'What's finished?' he asked. (p. 40) 'What are you doing here?' he had asked. (p. 43) 'Areyoutypical?' he asked. (p. 43) 'Hi,' he said. (p. 45) 'I'm painting,' he said. (p. 46) 'Actually I was about to stop for the day,' he lied. (p. 46) 'What aspect?' Morrison asked. (p. 46) 'When's it due?' he asked. (p. 46) 'Have you checked with the professorabout it?' (p. 46) 'I'm afraid it's cold in here,' he said. (p. 48) 'It started as a trading post,' he said. (p. 48) 'Look,' he said, 'do you mind if I get some clothes on?' (p. 49) 'The bedroom,' he said. (p. 49) 'What others?' (p. 49) 'Maybe you need to talk to someone,' Morrison said. (p. 49) 'I'll make you a peanut butter sandwich,' Morrison said. (p. 49) 'Don't fall,' he called after her. (p. 50) 'Why don't you come in?' Morrison said. (p. 5 ) 'Where are we going?' Morrison asked. (p. 52) 'What's the matter with it?' Morrison asked. (p. 52) 'Then how do we get in?' he said. (p. 52) 'Listen,' he said hastily, 'I'll go in the door sideways and bring them out; that way I won't break the current. You won't have to go through the door at all. Who are they?'he asked as an afterthought. (p. 53) 'We can come back for it,' Morrison said. (p. 53) 'Well ...' Morrison stalled. (p. 59) The narrative embeddings ('Morrison said', and so on) of these direct speeches are also quoted although, strictly speaking, they represent speech acts on the part of the narrative medium. Yet the quotation of these forms, too, underlines the crass one-sidedness of Morrison's verbal behaviour towards Louise: thirteen, more than
9 This classification is based on Schmachtenberg, pp. 64-69, I85-87. whose taxonomy combines the advantages of the categorizations of Searle, Ohmann, and Campbell.

300

and Act of Speech Theory theAnalysis Fiction

half, of his twenty-four turns10 in these conversations with her are questions Seekers).Someone who keeps on asking questions gives no direct (Information information about himself, keeps his own person in reserve. Morrison's questions are also very short, factual, and orientated towards Louise. He shows or, rather, pretends an interest in her, keeps the conversational ball rolling, suggests the themes of 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 are Director/Restrainerll two Rituals ('"Hi,"' '"Well..."'), one Future ('"Don't fall"'), His and six and altogether nine Representatives, Informatives, three Attesters.12 use of the second largest group of his speech acts towards her, are in their Representatives, concise factuality geared to his own person. Thus a more polite alternative to his for choice of utterance '"I'm painting"' (Representative), example, would be 'Nice to see you' or 'Hi, how are you?'. Such forms of polite interaction would include Louise rather than shut her out, would at least consider her verbally. Yet the more lies important information about Morrison's use of Representatives in a non-literal, contextual appreciation of his utterances:he frequently makes use of indirect speech acts (see below, pp. 304-05), usually as a verbal defence method. The only personal Morrison addresses towards Louise, the Attester '"Maybeyou need to Representative talk to someone"', also seems rather vague and reserved because of the use of the modal adverb 'maybe' and the indefinite personal pronoun 'someone'. The manner, in then, in which he uses Representatives his communication with her characterizes him as an egocentric, cool, and distanced person, who remains completely noncommittal towards her. The schizoid13 Morrison is adept at destroying any communicative offers or 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 the (speech acts, that is, which suggest an authentic interest in1 person spoken to) are Future absent from Morrison's speech:14Representatives/Verdictives, Directors/Requests, or Wishes,Commissives,17 Expressives.18All these speech acts presuppose a Inducers,16 certain commitment of the speaker,his willingness to utter and exchange opinions or to express emotion; they presuppose at least an authentic interest in the interlocutor. These kinds of speech act represent approaches to a situation and to people, that is, which are alien to Morrison. Almost all these types of illocutionary acts are, by contrast, represented in Louise's speeches. In fact, her verbal behaviour is in polar contrast to Morrison's.
11 Restrainers used to keep the addressee from a particular action in the future or to get him/her to are

10Turn: that

part of a conversation in which a speaker speaks before another speaker takes over.

implement that action in a particular way. See Schmachtenberg, p. 68. 12 Attesters pass an explicit, yet neutral comment on the propositional content of an utterance. See Schmachtenberg, p. 68. 13 On this especially pp. 84-go. concept, see in detail Mentalstilistik, 14 Morrison's misuse of questions does not apply here: see below, pp. 30I-03. 15Representatives/Verdictives express subjective assessments of a fact or of social behaviour; they often indicate the internalized norms and values of the speaker;see Schmachtenberg, p. 68. 16FutureDirectors/Requests, Inducers for a future action of the hearer which will be in his/her own ask interest; see Schmachtenberg, p. 68. 17 Wishes, involve a future action which will be in the hearer's interest but like Commissives, the Inducers, which will have to be carried out by the speaker himself; see Schmachtenberg, p. 69. 18Expressives speech acts with which the speaker expresses a propositional attitude or emotion; see are Schmachtenberg, p. 62.

REINGARD

M. NISCHIK

30I

For one thing, she uses a mixture of almost all types of illocutionary acts. She most in frequently uses Informatives, a way which might call for a constructive continuation of the dialogue between her and Morrison: that'swhatI've beenworking (p.40) on.' 'I toldyou. My place,my apartment, She laughed.'None of us is typical,or do we all look alike to you?I'm not typical,I'm all-inclusive.' 43) (p. and Inducers, Verdictives, Expressives, Wishes, illocutionary types which do not appear at all in Morrison's utterances towards Louise, are also used quite frequently in her speech: 'I don'twantyou to thinkof it as typical,'Louisewas saying.(p.43; Wish) 'Yououghtto see Montreal.' (Inducer) 'Buttheydon'tknowwhat'sgoingon in thatcourse,he doesn'tknowwhat'sgoingon. [.. ] They'reall doing the one-upthing, they don't knowwhat'shappening.[...] They don't to knowwhatpoetry's supposed befor.'(p. 46; Verdictives) 'I'm gladit isn'tsunny,'Louisesaid. [... ] 'I feela lot betternow.'(p. 5I; Expressives) Louise, in contrast to Morrison, accepts her emotions, including fears, and verbalizes them. She also utters her opinions and authentically shows her attitude towards him; he, in contrast, hides his true opinions and attitudes, particularly those Seekers not figure as prominently in do connected with her. As a result, Information Louise's speeches as they do in Morrison's. Then, too, most of her questions are true 'information seekers', suggesting an authentic desire for information. This contrast between Morrison's and Louise's use of speech acts becomes evident when we look at the way in which figural utterances are embedded in the narrative discourse: when we turn to an investigation of patterns of speech act sequences19in this story. Most of Morrison's questions are sequenced by a comment of the narrative medium which (negatively) characterizes his use of questions, and, indeed, himself. This pattern is established in the first dialogue between the two characters: 'What'sfinished?' asked.He hadn'tbeenpayingattention. he on.' 'I toldyou. My place,my apartment, that'swhatI've beenworking (p.40) In this passage the narrative comment informs us that Morrison's question is an in Seeker the true sense of the word. His question becomes necessary on Information account of his communicative deficiencies: he sometimes simply fails to listen to what Louise is telling him. Her answer to his question is, however, straightforward and constructive. Some other of Morrison's many questions may also be regarded as true Information Seekers. They may even lead us to presume a certain sympathy for and interest in Louise on his part: these questions are not evaluated negatively by the narrative speech act following them; for example: he 'Whatareyou doinghere?' hadasked.(p.43) he 'Areyou typical?' asked.(p.43) Yet this slight openness towards Louise can be detected only in the very first stages of their relationship and, symptomatically, later when she leaves the realm of what is called mental sanity: at this later stage her utterances become too obscure for Morrison to understand and thus he utters some authentic Information Seekers:
19On speech act sequencing in general, see Schmachtenberg, pp. I6-30.

302

Act and Speech Theory theAnalysis Fiction of

'We have to complete the circle,' she said. 'We need the others.' 'What others?' He decided she was overtired, she had been working too hard. (p. 49) But at the crucial stage in their relationship when a rewarding friendship might have developed between them and when he might have helped her simply by behaving in a normally open manner towards her, his use of questions betrays his emotional deficiencies and his total, indeed offensive, lack of interest in her: 'What aspect?' Morrison asked, not interested. (p. 46) 'When's it due?' he asked, keeping on neutral ground. (p. 46) The narrative comments in such speech act sequences unmask Morrison: he is not interested in the answers to his questions but uses the question form in a supposedly polite, yet devious way. He runs counter to the sincerity rule of any speech act deserving the term InformationSeeker(speaker wants information from hearer)20 and thus misuses this speech act category: A question speech act is implemented in an insincere manner if the speakerknows the answer already, is not really interested in getting the answer, or only wants to hear it for purposes unrelated to the information implied in the answer, andif the speaker wants to prevent the hearer realizing this.21 Morrison 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 does not care about her problems and does not want to become involved. By using questions (that is to say pretending an interest in her) he tries to distract her from his true attitude towards her, thus cheating her.22 He not only withholds any help in what turns out to be a crucial situation in Louise's life but worsens her situation by his ambivalent, 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 his
20 On Antworten und beantwortbare questionspeech act in general,see Robin Lakoff,'Fragliche Ein ed. Akademische Fragen',in Sprechakttheorie:Reader, and trans.by Paul Kussmaul(Wiesbaden:

Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion, 1980), pp. 173-88, and Dieter Wunderlich, 'Fragesatze und Fragen', in von Wunderlich, pp. I81-250; on indirect forms in this context, see Werner S6keland, Indirektheit Eine (Tiibingen: Niemeyer, 1980), pp. 117-36. Sprechhandlungen: linguistische Analyse 21 My translation a German of pp. languagepassage in S6keland, 148-49: 'EineFragehandlung wird

wennder Sprecher Antwort die bereitskennt,keinwirkliches Interesse daran ausgefuhrt, unaufrichtig h6renwill, die mit der Kenntnisnahme in derAntwort der hat, sie zu h6ren,odersie nur zu Zwecken nichtszu tunhaben,und wennerverhindern daBderH6rer erkennt.' dies enthaltenen Informationen will, 22 Of course of functions questions thereareothercommunicative one, apartfromtheirprimary to getan the on a attention something, so on;see and answer,suchas thematizing problem, centring addressee's
Wunderlich, p. 213; S6keland, pp. I 17-36. Thus questions the primary point of which is not to elicit an answer 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 the impression that he is interested in her answers to his questions. His use of questions is a good example of the fact that a mere quantifying classification of speech acts is not sufficientbut has to be complemented by an analysis of the pragmatic context in which these speech acts are used. The analysis of speech act sequences thus has to complement that of speech act classification. 23 On Searle's differentiation between successful,nondefective, and defectivespeechacts, see Fraser, einer AuBerung als Sprechakt eines bestimmten pp. 60-63. See also Wunderlich, p. 27: 'Das Gelingen eines durch eine AuBerung ausgefuihrten Typs ist nicht zu verwechseln mit dem Erfolgreichsein Sprechakts: letzteres Pradikat bestimmt sich durch die nachfolgende Entwicklung der Interaktion: Verstehen, Akzeptieren und geeignetes Reagieren derjeweiligen H6rer und Adressaten; ein Sprechaktist erfolgreich, wenn sein Zweck erfullt ist.' See also Wunderlich, pp.58, Io-I8; Schmachtenberg, 'Gelingen und MiBlingen unaufrichtigerSprechakte', pp. 48-49.

REINGARD M. NISCHIK

303

questions, so by convention she regards his laconic questions at first as true Seekers: answers them readily and openly.24Only in the furthercourse she Information of their communication does the sensitive Louise discover Morrison's enormous communicational and emotional deficiencies, and she refers to them:
Louise stalked impatiently around the uncarpeted floor. '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, Louise here initiates what would usually develop into an obligatory sequence: she levels a grave reproach at Morrison, which would by convention be followed by some kind of self-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. This breach of communicational convention must offend Louise. In optional speech act sequences in their dialogue, too, Louise and Morrison characterize themselves indirectly: for example, by the way in which they respond to the previous turn. To give but one example: the speeches of both characters differ in their use of the personal pronouns I/me versus you/your. Morrison addresses his interlocutor with 'you' only seven times in the whole text, whereas Louise refers more than four times as often, thirty-one times, to 'you'/'your'.25 Even more striking is the difference in the use of the self-referential pronoun I: the detached, taciturn Morrison 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 for a non-personal utterance, using very few personal pronouns referring to himself or Louise. Louise, in contrast, relates both of them in her communication, very often referring to Morrison and to herself.26 Their verbal behaviour also differs markedly with respect to the third analytic complex named above, the differentiation between direct and indirect speech acts.27 If the literal, semantic meaning of a speech act differs from the intended communicative 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 see Morrison in his apartment without prior notice:

By and large, Louise's reception of Morrison's questions is at first semantically motivated, whereas the foregoing analysis was pragmatically motivated. See Wunderlich, p. 26: 'Aufgrundder Interpretation von grammatischen Modi (oder - soweit vorhanden - von performativen Formeln oder Kommenbestimmt werden, aufgrund der Heranziehung von taren) kann der jeweilige Sprechakttyp semantisch kontextuellen Pramissen im InterpretationsprozeB (z.B. hinsichtlich Interessen, Annahmen und Wahrnehmungen der Teilnehmer) pragmatisch.' 25 These differences may be only partly put down to the different length of utterances by the laconic Morrison and the talkative Louise. There nevertheless remains a significant difference. 26 See Barbara Sandig, Stilistikderdeutschen (Berlin and New York:de Gruyter, I 986), pp. 239-58, Sprache on 'Art der Beziehungsgestaltung durch sprachliches Handeln'; Sandig distinguishes between 'ich- und und Kontakt: duzentrierte Sprechweisen'. In more detail, see Kirsten Adamzik, Sprachliches Handeln sozialer in des ZurIntegration Kategorie der Tiibinger Beschreibung Deutschen, 'Beziehungsaspekt'einesprechakttheoretische Beitrage zur Linguistik, 213 (Tiibingen: Narr, 1984). 27 See Sfkeland;John R. Searle, 'Indirect Speech Acts', in Syntax Semantics Speech and IIi: Acts,ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (New York: Academic Press, 1975), pp. 59-82; Neal R. Norrick, 'Nondirect Speech Acts and Double Binds', Poetics,o1 (1981), 33-47; Schmachtenberg, pp. 30-40.

24

304

Act and of Speech Theory theAnalysis Fiction

'Hi,' he said,surprised. 'Ijust thoughtI'd dropin,' she said. 'I don'tuse the phoneanymore.' he 'I'mpainting,' said,partlyas anexcuse: wasn'tsurehewantedherin thehouse.What he wouldshe demandfromhim? 'CanI help?'she asked,as thoughit was a big treat. I 'Actually was aboutto stopfortheday,'he lied.He knewshewouldbe betterat it thanhe was. (pp.45-46) Morrison's verbal reaction to Louise's surprise visit constitutes a Representative/ in Informative the semantic understanding of his utterance: he refers to his present occupation ("'I'm painting"'), redundantly in fact, since this must be obvious to her. Yet the added critical comment by the narrative medium ('he said, partly as an excuse') underlines that Morrison's intention is certainly not to inform Louise but to keep her off: by his utterance he expresses indirectly that her unannounced visit is not convenient. Such a reaction may be verbalized in a more reserved, socially more acceptable way by means of an indirect speech act such as "'I'm painting"', rather than by a straightforwardrebuff such as 'You're disturbing me'. Furthermore, the 'representative'information (here: 'I'm painting') is also included in indirect speech acts, so that indirect speech acts tend to be altogether more informative than direct speech acts (seeJohn Searle's description of an indirect speech act: 'A sentence that contains the illocutionary force indicators for one kind of illocutionary act can be
uttered to perform,
IN ADDITION,another

The potential ambivalence or even multiple meaning of indirect speech acts offer several ways of reaction to the interlocutor. On the other hand, their ambivalence makes them much more open to misunderstanding. Thus in my example Louise interprets Morrison's utterance as a direct, factual speech act and accordingly reacts factually herself and at the same time in a very helpful manner: "Can I help?"' She thus, probably unwittingly, eludes Morrison's indirect speech act by interpreting it in a literal manner. His distance signal does not become effective in their interchange, is in fact misinterpretedas an invitation for furtherexchange between them; Louise might even be thought to interpret Morrison's indirect speech act as an indirect manner of asking for her help in his painting activity. In this example Louise's direct understanding of Morrison's indirect speech act is not quite out of the way, although her interpretationmust be regardedeven here as a less probable alternative of its potential pragmatic meanings. Louise has to do, after all, without the narrative comments the readers are given, and her direct understanding of Morrison's indirect speech act does not figure as a breach of communicative rules in this situation. Rather, it is Morrison who breaks social rules by not considering Louise but talking about himself right away. Louise's kind offer of help (which stands in stark contrast to Morrison's later constant refusal to help her) is answered by Morrison with another indirect speech act ("'Actually I was about to stop for the day"'), implying that Louise's help is unnecessary. She is thus rebuffed a second time. Morrison's statement is, of course, deceptive, as the narrative comment ('he lied') underlines. Yet she cannot know that his speech act does not fulfil the sincerity rule. This second indirect speech act by Morrison is thus successful from his point of view: Louise takes his statement that he was going to stop for the day at its face value and proceeds to tell him, quite straightforwardly (by means of a direct speech act), her reason for visiting him: '"I
28

type ofillocutionary act').28

Searle, 'Indirect Speech Acts', p. 59. See Sokeland, pp. I41-43.

REINGARD

M. NISCHIK

305

came to talk about Blake."' Yet Morrison continues with his defensive strategy, so that no true communication between them becomes possible. In the second scene in which Louise arrives at Morrison's apartment unannounced, she behaves like the classic gatecrasher: 'I thought of something,' Louise said tragically. She was in the door before he could fend her off. 'I'm afraid it's cold in here,' he said. 'I had to come over and tell you. I don't use the phone any more.' (p. 48) At this stage Louise rapidly approaches mental and physical breakdown. She drastically breaks social rules, of course, by practically forcing herself on Morrison, who in his tremendous desire to keep aloof is the least suitable object for this kind of behaviour. Yet even in this critical situation he does not use a direct speech act which would tell her rather directly that her behaviour is unsuitable. In tricky situations he can only use an indirect speech act ('"I'm afraid it's cold in here"'), which neither welcomes nor rejects Louise. This ambivalent indirect speech act is even less successful than was his corresponding utterance in the first gatecrashing scene: Louise now disregards Morrison's intentions just as he has disregarded hers all along. Instead, she tries to explain to him her reasons and her intentions in coming to see him. His defensive strategy through use of an indirect speech act thus fails to influence Louise, who utterly disregards his distance signals. On the other hand, her very open and straightforward utterances of her opinions and emotions do not bring her closer to Morrison, who cannot handle this kind of straightforward approach. He considers her communicational expectations just as little as she now considers his obvious, though indirect, distance signals. Although indirect speech acts may serve to express a number of differing communicative functions, their frequent use by Morrison and their very rare use by Louise are indicative of these characters' attitudes towards each other (and, indeed, towards themselves). Louise's straightforwardness in her communication with Morrison largely rules out a frequent use of indirect speech acts on her part. His use of this kind of speech act, however, is so frequent and one-sided, so much a part of his half-hearted defensive strategy towards her,29 that the analysis of direct and indirect speech acts clarifies the dynamics of the communication between them. Indirect speech acts may be divided broadly into those orientated to social norms and those orientated to the structuring of social relationships. Morrison's use of indirect speech acts largely belongs to the second category: he does not want primarily to behave politely, observing social norms, but wants to keep Louise off in a socially acceptable way which for him involves the least discomfort. Morrison protects his fragile ego, yet with devastating effects on the unstable Louise: she, who in a crisis situation is neither accepted nor refused by Morrison but is put off with self-defensive half-truths, eventually escapes into her own world of madness because reality, and particularly Morrison, are not bearable for her any more.
29 See Dorothea Franck on the potential motivations for using indirect speech acts: 'Umgehung unerwiinschter commitments unberechtigter Beanspruchung (oder Verschleierung) eines Status oder oder Rechts [...], "Unverfanglichkeit", "Unverbindlichkeit" u.a.m. Diese Operationen sind meist Erscheinungsformen des Prinzips der H6flichkeit (in sehr breitem Sinn), d.h. vorwiegend protektiverTaktiken der sozialen Interaktion' (quoted in Brigitte Schlieben-Lange, Linguistische 2nd revised edn Pragmatik, (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, I975), p. 92). See also Senta Tr6mel-Plotz, 'Sexismus in der englischen Amerikanische 2 Studien, ( 1980), I89-204 (pp. 190-94). Sprache', Englisch

11

306

Act and Speech Theory theAnalysis Fiction of

Margaret Atwood has created a narrative which in many respects warrants its title: in the characterizationof the two main figures activity and passivity, directness and indirectness, initiative and reactiveness, openness and collusion, and interest and lack of interest stand in polar contrast to each other in the dialogue and its narrative embedding. An analysis of the speech act types used in the dialogue, of the way these, as well as speech acts on the mediating narrative level, are sequenced, of the contrastive use of direct and indirect speech acts in the figural dialogue proves to be an analytic instrument which enables us to describe more precisely the tragic dynamics in the communication between the two protagonists of the story. Particularly with respect to the classification of figural speech acts, to the sequence of (figural and narrative) speech acts, and to the differentiation between direct and indirect speech acts, speech act theory offers us a new analytic method and new insights for the analysis of fiction.
GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY, MAINZ REINGARD M. NISCHIK