Chapter Five Pragmatic Chapter Five Pragmatic An1biguity

5.0 Introduction is a branch of , which originally examines the problem of how listeners uncover speakers' (Crystal, 1997: 120). So it studies the speaker's as pposed to the linguistic meaning; pragmatics is the study of relations of to interpretations. Bernard (1996) defines pragmatics as the study of how is used through the interpretation of utterances and their implications. in social contexts.

The semantic of a or its referent is not the crucial factor in meaning, the social and physical refers to the social surrounding while the physical context refers to the place where the dialogue takes place. An utterance requires shades of eanings according ~o the physical or social context. According to Gumpez_.... and Levinson (1990:8) a large part of the burden of interpretation is thus shifted from theories of use in context free lexical and grammatical meaning to theories of use in context.

Language is an important part of the culture of a particular group. Language and literature ought to be contextaulized in the matrix of various aspects of the culture and use (Patil, 1994: 14). On the other hand, Malinowsky ( 196-+ : -t.O) that all aspects of culture are interconnected and that language is a vehicle of culture. Literature can only be understood and circt•mscribcd by bringing it into a relationship with culture and societal phenomenon.

The key of pragmatics are the "", (CP) the Politeness Principle (PP) and the Act Theory (SA). The (CP) includes

124 four maxtms: maxtm of quantity. maxtm of quality, maxtm of relation and maxim of manner. There are maxims of conversational management, i.e., they can suggest acceptability of an unerance or the opposite. The PP suggests a kind of consideration between different illocutors. Lakoff supposes three principles for a speaker to continue a properly: don't impose, give options and make the others feel cordial ( 1973: 292). Austin proposes a three­ dimensional phase of an utterance- it may include one or two only. An utterance can bt: only phonetic or a kind of locution. The illocution is an utterance that perfonns something. On the other hand the perlocution is a result of saying something.

The mam theme of the study is that of ambiguity. How can ambiguity be applied in pragmatics? The researcher has suggested that the violation of the different principle~of CP, PP and SA creat ambiguity.

We often see negotiators talk untruthfully, irrelevantly and ambiguously motivated by politeness. People observe the four maxims of conversation with certain illocutionary or discoursal goals in their minds. Very often the illocutors tel1 lies or ovef'leneralize, critics and writers use metaphors, i.e., they do not speak directly and their utterances can be interpreted in two or more ways. All this represents ambiguity to the hearer or reader or at least an apparent meaning and a hidden one.

In Dickens '/ works the different characters' iol ate the principles of CP and PP to show different meanings. For requests one can use a of expressions that range from authoritarian as in : 193 . Turn on the fa n. to the most polite one li ke:

125 194. l wonder ifyou dL"~n·t mind turning on the fan .

The first OJ1e is used tc"~ express disrespect, anger or restlessness, while the second one expresses cordiality. love and respect. This is expressed indirectly Lakoff ( 1973: 300). Such expressions can also be used to send a massage to a third illocutor. The addressee may get embarrassed or he may not if he has an idea about the tension between the illocutors. la1rectness or indirect ;s an ambiguous utterance: It catTies a hidden goal. Patil ( 1994: 40) believes that the reader "endeaYours to construct a meaning or meanings not only from clear ambiguity ... but from contexts that are themselves constructs of the reader's background knowledge, beliefs and assumptions about the world." That is why a writer like Dickens is not always easily understood even by the native speakers particularly when they are not British and do not belong t? the same age.

5.1 The Cooperative Principle (CP) Linguists have made invaluable efforts in digging the field of language to the extent that they enriched modem human culture with their studies and established different schools of linguistics that were engendered from the tomb of another to make an endless series of linguistic doctrines. The philosophers have also tried their tools in the field of language so as to reveal some of its secrets. So their studies have proved or have gone deeper than those of linguists. They have entered the software of the human brain while the other linguists have touched but the hardware of one may use it (in comparison with the computer ).

Grice ( 1975) introduced the CP. It tries to explain the hearer's endeavour to arrive at meaning. Chilten ( 1967:222) remarks that the CP bears ethical and

126 political implications; the commtmicr~tors are rational creatures who belong to a specific culture and consequently to a universal culhlral system.

Speaking is a cooperative collaborative act: Speakers ask to get , they promise, request, apologize and wam to get the hearers affected or to make them respond. The utterances could be semantically acceptable. The capacity to produce situationally and contextually appropriate utterances is known as e pragmatic competence (Lakoff, 1973:296). Grice (1975:41-57) established his four famous maxims of pragmatic competence as follows: I. QUANTITY: Give the right amount of information, i.e., 1. Make your contribution as informative as required. 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. II. QUALITY: Try to make your contribution o that is true i.e, 1. Do not say what you believe to be false. 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate . III. RELATION: Be relevant IV. MANNER: Be Perspicuous and not ambiguous or obscure.

These principles are ideals of expectation. The rational behaviour is so strong that when we find one of the maxims not being evidently observed, we assume

that the speaker IS merely violating or disregarding it 1- Speakers are supposed to supply information that will not violate the maxim of quantity: exactness is a must for advancing a normal conversation. It should be neither more nor less hat is required in a pmiicular society and particular .- situation. 2- The maxim of quality supposes that the locutioner should be true. Telling lies means violating this maxim and hides some intentions behind. The maxim of relation calls for , which is a matter of coherence. Violating it might ca11 for fun or anger. The maxim of manner calls for avoiding

127 \Yhen talking about l'('mprehensible . 3- The social context enables the illocutioners to address each other in appropriate ways. 4- The availability of linguistic de,·i.: es may provide ready-made linguistic expressions but in many cases of culmre specific, culture-bound concepts-etc, they are lacking. 5- The cooperari,·e principle assumes the speakers desire to try to cooperate by telling the truth dearly; telling what is relevant and, what is formative as well. (Thorat, 2000: 161) .

Participants in a conversation must agree implicitly on an orderly method for talking, so each participant should have a chance to talk. The other is that only one person talks at a time and the gaps between turns should not be long. In addition, time allotted for each participant should not be determined beforehand. If they observe these methods then they are cooperative. Requirements lead to a system of tum-taking. The turns alternate between the participants and this decides that cooperation of the interlocutors. One must tell that closing the conversation is not a simple matter. The addresser and addressee have ended their conversation by mutual agreement.

According to the reality principle, listeners interpret sentences in the that the speaker is referring to a situation or of ideas they can make sense of. In this way, listeners can build up an internal model of that situation step by step. The real ity principle is so powerful that it can help listeners rule out and avoid misunderstand ing. Hearers make use of the cooperJtive principle to interpret the utterances in the belief that the speaker is tryin g to tell what is relevant or true, relevant and unambiguous. The consequences of the principle are potentially far-reaching: these assumptions enable the hearer to realize the interpretation th e speaker has intended.

128 5.1.1 Violation of the Quality Principle People often try to be truthful. but circumstances oblige them not to do so. People tell li es as a defense mechanism. They us e other devices of indirect language so as to aYoid being held responsible. So they say what they want to say in several ways like:

5.1.1.1 Telling lies To avoid any embanassment and accusation sometimes, people lie. Such a device is often meant and practised in real life. It is always found in famous novels and stories.. Sometimes lies cause people to laugh when they know the situation · several times the) lead to great trouble either to the speaker or hearer. The maxim of quality is \·iolated if the speaker does not say the truth. There is always a or behind that. Lying, like aggravating language, can be studied systematically. It is not irrational, but has a social to do. Some lies save the face of the speaker and protect him. Other lies are destructive. Still other types of lie simply camouflage the purpose of the liars' actions. Here is an example from. Oliver Twist: 195. "He tried to murder me sir; be tried to murder Charlotte; and then Mrs."(55) The purpose of the lie might be to help a third party or it might be told to please someone else. It expresses the speaker's concern for the hearer. In the example above it is told to enthuse the hearer (Mr. Bumble) to go with the speaker (Noah) to punish Oliver.

5.1.1.2 Contradiction As · i ~ already stated, the maxim of quality prescribes that the speaker say the truth and be sincere. Flouting this maxim results in many poetic and literary devices. In ancient Arabic literature it was said, "The most beautiful kind of is the one full of lies." Lies, of course, here refer to metaphors, similes,

129 exaggeration- etc.

Contradiction results 111 apparent falseness. The illocutioner may usc contradiction for criticizing, complaining or for some positive politeness purposes. See the foliO\\ ing example from A Tale of Two Cities. 196. "It was the best of times, it was the worst oftimes." (13) It shows that good and bad were mixed. This sentence is ambiguous for any reader till he finishes the story.'

5.1.1.3 Irony The Oxford concise Dictionary of Linguistics defines irony as a in which one thing is said but the opposite is meant. It breaks the rule of saying what you believe (Cassivers, 1983: 1091). Cutter (1975:156) believes irony depends on referentiality of the text, on a dialectic between text and the world while Grice (1968) uses irony as an example of conversational maxim," Do not say what you believe to be false.' Stubbs (1983:187) comments that the relation between conversational surface forms and underlying meanings, functions and structures, is misleading and trivial. To analyze irony one should distinguish between sense and force. "Sense is semantically determined meaning, whereas force is both semantically and pragmatically determined meaning; but force is inclusive of sense and pragmatically derivable from it." (Patil, 1994:187) it's noteworthy to mention the fact that an inferior and son

cannot afford to be ironic in situations when not all the hearers c ~m recogni ze his intention-superiors and intimates can be ironic. (See the following example from (Oliver Twist: 199). 197. Why didn't you tell us you were coming? We'd have made you a hot meal." said Fagin . Fagin said the above sentences to express his delight for getting OliYcr back.

130 5. t. 1.4 Metaphor In the 1980s a pragmati c defin ition is set by Lakoff sayin g that a metaphor is a gencml pattem in \Yhi ch one opin io n or is conceived in terms of the other(s) (Mathews. 1 99 7 : ~~-+ ) . Searle ( 1979:93) comments that metaphorical meaning is li terall y fa lse. In metaphors the speaker should find a kind of similarity in one aspec t or more between the one refened to and the of resemblance. This is call ed .. the ground of comparison" by Leech (1969: 151 ).

It can be said, according to Grice· s maxim, that a metaphor is literally false because it viol ates the maxim of quality and that's why it is regarded, in this study, a type of ambiguity particularly when we bear in mind the fact that not all people can quickly recognize the metaphor. It can cause a misunderstanding. In Shakespeare's :\iacbeth, Macbeth's wife tells him: 198. "Be the flower and the serpent under it."

See the following example from A Tale of Two Cities with a nice metaphor where the worker who used to cut the trees with a big saw compares it with the guillotine of the Bastille. 199. "See my saw. I call it my little guillotine." (247)

A metaphor is defective if taken semanticall y, so it should be taken pragmati ca11 y. On the other hand, a metaphor may bear the intention of praise or abuse. Al so at on e tim e it can be both, but that depends on the culture of the speaker. An old Arab story told of a poet from the dese1i described the prince as a dog in hi s fa ithfulness. The prince was angry at the beginning, but when r he knew that the poet was a beduin (a habitant of the desert), he excused him I and granted him a large amount of mon ey.

131 5.1.1.5 Rhetorical Questions In the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics 'rhetorical ' is explained as the question ,,·hich does not require a real answer, e.g. 'Who are

you to enter the o~fice?' If implying ·You shouldn't enter it.' The intention of the speaker is not to elicit an anS\Yer from the hearer, as the question is insincere. Rhetorical question is regarded ambiguous and it violates the maxim of quality because it is not a nom1al question and requires non-conventional answer, but in general, it requires a justification particularly when used for face-threatening acts. It can be used for complimenting as in the following example: 200. "Do you know who you are and what you are?" (OT: 116) 201. And "Do you see what a v111ain he is?" (GE: 40)

5.1.2 Violation of the Quantity Principle When conversing people usually do not observe the maxim of quantity. This may depend on the status, education of the person and r the nature of the situation. The situation and context may oblige them to violate this maxim either by or contraction, i.e., either by exaggerating in giving too much information or less information tha is required. Different people have different methods of leading com·ersations and handling situations such a variety is seen in ordinary life and practised in literature as well.

The purpose behind giving extra information is to convince the hearer or show extra interest from the side of the speaker. It can also be only a result of talkativeness,. See the following example from OliYer Twist: 202. "Make' em your models my dear. \lake'em your models," said the Jew, tapping the fire-shovel on the hearth to add force to

132 his \\'ords: "do everything they bid you, and take their advice in a\1 matters: especially the Dodger's my dear. He'll be a great man himself and \viii make you one too, if you take pal tern by him ... " (71)

Fagin. the head of the gang, thinks that he is giving Oliver good advice to become a great man like Lhe Dodger but he does not tell him that he would become a thief.

5.1.2.1 Litotes Litotes, which is a instrument for understatement is used ironically and by the use of a negative to flout the maxim of quantity and invites the hearer to make inference.

The speaker normally understates impolite beliefs and intends to criticize the addressee for the purpose of praising the speaker (Patil: 1994: 181). In general understatement disguises a bad in a way that permits a good interpretation. As a result it is considered ambiguous.

Understatements are a good way of enerating by stating less than what is usually required to express. See the following example from A Tale of Two Cities: 203 . "But you are last, Monsieur Charles." (244)

Litotes is employed also for purposes of retorting. It is usually expressed through a negated as it is in the following example where the speaker implicitly refers to his maturity: 204. Let's never be blind. (GE: I 53) The convict says the following statement \Yhere he wishes he could be a tiny

133 creature to creep through the marsh. 205. "I wish I was a hog. Or a eel. (GE: 18)

5.J .2.2 Overstatement or Hyperbole Hyperbole is to say more than what is necessary. It is the major way of flouting the quality principle (see 5.1.2.) This is the inverse of the "litotes" technique mentioned above. "The justification for hyperbole is politeness. The speaker often tends to overstate polite beliefs." (Patil 1994: 183). The exaggerated elaboration is often meant to enforce agreement on the other side, and more often is used to show hospitality.

Hyperbole or overstatement can be used for reproach. See the following example from Great Expectations. 206. "Mrs. Toy has been out a dozen times, lookingfor you, Pip." (20) 207. "You'll be answered tomorrow. Now, I am dumb." (TTC: 289)

5.1.2.3 Use of Tautologies In tautologies the hearer ought to find the appropriate meaning for an utterance as he hears a statement which is true only by virtue of its meaning; it represents a kind of unnecessary repetition- a repetition which is semantically empty. It is usually constructed of predication included by the main one as in the example from A Tale of Two Cities. 208. "Oh, dead yes! Yes. Oh, yes, you're eli gible", said Mr. Lorry "if you're eligible, you are eligible". ( 4 7) 209. "And I know orange peel will be my death. It will, sir. Orange­ peel will be my death or I'll be content to cat my own head, sir." (OT: 99)

134 Then at their face-value the aboYe tautological expressions are uninformative; yet they are not deYoid of some sense.

5.1.3 Violation of the Relation l\la~im Much of \vhat people leam comes from inferences from language, rather than from what is openly said. If the speaker gives irrelevant utterances then the hearer should find a link to relate with the main line of conversation. The thematic links may be found in one stretch of . The maxim of relation may be violated when the maxims of quality and quantity are violated. If one wants to produce acceptable speech, then one should be coherent and cohesive. And if one wants to perceive what is uttered one ought to utilize all one's storage of information about the "orld around as well as all the experience available. This maxim is flouted when the addresser or writer uses hinting, and association clues, which require previous knowledge or some feedback. Throat (2000: 204) concludes that in the world of characters in Indian novels, the PP dominates over the CP as evasion/ evasive. This is often done by flouting the maxime of relation

5.1.3.1 Hinting The maxim of relation may be violated for the sake of politeness. This is done as a result of indirectness. The speaker tries to hint at a particular subject indirectly. He invites the hearer to find links for himself to understand the utterance. See the following example from Oliver Twist.' 209. "You know you have got no father and mother, and that you

were brought up by the parish, don't you?"(~5)

135 The example represents a threat act. It reveals the operation of the hinting strategy, which consists in stating an illocution whose goal is interpreted as a secondary goal for the perfonnance of another.

5.1.3.2 Association Clues ~ the speaker exploits the knowledge and experience he shares witli ·the hearer. Association clues are used to conceal expressions regarded as taboo. Taboos are often associated with the things whose terms are socially inhibited. in themselves are not immoral, yet the unfavourable connotation of words related to sex and prostitution for instance, necessitate euphemisms here is an example from David Copperfield. 210. I sat with my arm round her waist. (130)

The speaker has used a euphemistic expression to avoid articulating what is "inarticulatable". He does not mention why he put his arm in that way or what he did later or how he felt, but the reader can tell or imagine what happened later on. This technique ts also used to avoid mentioning expressiOns of death. So

instead of saying "died" words like "is gone ··~ " no more than a handful of dust", "passed away" .. . etc. Direct to death is something unpleasant in some societies. 211. "Drive him fast to his tomb." (TTC: 133) Other subjects euphemized are 'old age', 'drinking alcohol'; 'criticizing other going to pea' for which other expressions are used to get rid of the disgust and shock their actual naming may cause.

136 5.1 .3.3 The maxim of relation is violated at the level of presuppositions and the most striking case is that of using the \Yord another or again which forces the hearer to check his memory for a prior experience. See the following example from David Copperfield: 212. "Have I deteCted you in another feast, you sybarite." (398) 213. "Walking here again citizens?" (254)

The use of another and again, which is often called underdetermined meaning, requires the addressee to draw inferences. They enable the speaker to indicate his stance towards the hearer. 'Even' and 'only' are also indicatives of such a stance.

Another way of implying presupposition is the use of contrastive (the stressed is, nowadays, written in italics) or emphatic (do).

5.1.4 Violation of the Manner Principle "This maxim demands that conversational partners observe the principles of economy, clarity and processability. A partner's message should be brief, economical, clear, unambiguous and processible." (Throat, 2000:201). For the sake ofpoliteness prolixity is necessary, but it might make it difficult for the hearer to understand. Vagueness or euphemism is used to be non-specific and evasive. Maybe the reason is not to reveal a secret or to protect oneself; it is a kind of pretending to ignore an accusation.

5.1.4.1 Intentional Ambiguity Ambiguity can be on the level of the word or that of a sentence. The former i practiced by using a word with two meaning and sometimes called semantic or

137 lexical ambiguity,.(Rohem1an and Gore, 1973) or only "lexical " (Leech, 1969:206)

Anyhow ambiguity is utilized to aYoid embanassment or to attack and criticize others. There is a famous story from Arabic history: a woman went to a tyrant Ameer, AI- Hajjaj, in his palace. sunounded by his assistants and ministers, when she prayed God to raise his standard, whiten his face and asked God the Amccr would not witness a catastrophe happen to his family. The Ameer fired and dismissed the woman, which astonished the people round the Ameer. They told him they expected him to grant her some money, as it was the custom then. He said, "You didn't understand what she meant. She prayed God to raise my standard but this means to be hanged, and to whiten my face means to have leucoderma and the last one Rleans for me to die before my family." In this example ambiguity was used in what Weiser (1974:724) calls "a socially tricky" situation.

Ambiguity is not the opposite of clarity; it is sometimes used deliberately to avoid saying exactly what one wants to say. Some parents use ambiguity for one reason or another, not to let the children understand what is being said. This sometimes pushes the children to ask for . Ambiguous utterances show a one-many more than one relation between sentence and sense. Ambiguity can be practised via metaphor and other theoretical devices.

5.1.4.2 Vagueness Like ' intentional ambiguity, vagueness can be used for indirect criticism and attack. Determinacy is the essence of vagueness. as it is for ambiguity, but vagueness gives the chance for many possible interpretations. \\'ords like 'something' 'someone' 'another' 'other' are indeterminate by nature. Sec the

138 f

214. "for no better reason. truly, than because I was thinking," he

said, after a pause ...of something like it, when it came by. Where the devil did come from, I wonder!" (305-306)

Vagueness maybe made through a shift from subject to another. The addressee ought to attempt to coordinate his understanding and knowledge in line with the sudden shift.

Vagueness is intrinsic in language and can be practised via different ways, intonation, words and sentences; it can be built through rhetorical devices such as euphemism and punning. "Every word is vague, every word is general and it is the generating of linguistic items that is exploited in performing face­ threatening acts such as those of warning somebody of an unpalatable possibility (Patil, 1994:204).

5.1.4.3 Over-generalization Like euphemism, over-generalization can be used for criticism and threat; moreover, it is more often used for advice and warning. A striking example of overgeneralization is the proverb, which can also be used for self-defense. The importance of a proverb lies in its persuasive power though it is economic and simple. It is an effective way of degeneralizing what is said. Some proverbs hide stories behind as in "You too Brutus" and the Arabic one .. For some reason Qaseer cut off his nose". It is said when someone does a strange action explained as a means of doing some trick: this Qaseer was a clever minister to an old King in Arabia. The enemy of that King was Queen Zabba whose kingdom caused a lot of nuisance to the King. The minister made a wicked

139 ·plan "'hen he cut off his nose and w('nt as a refugee to the Queen pretending to be punished by the King. so he dt.".:-ided to leave his King to serve the Queen. He came with his family. servants. :md guards bringing all his possession.

\Vhen the doors opened for him. the Queen realized, when it was too late, that the camels were carrying am1ed soldiers. In this way the kingdom was destroyed leaving that proYerb for the coming generations.

Proverbs compress respective meanings in formulas despite the fact that they are ficti,·e in origin, they become natural utterances when used in the proper context. Their relevance is deduced through the maxim of relation as they are "examples of commonsense generalization' (Teigen, 1986:43) and represent what Carson (1967:54) calls, "illustrations of genuine folk wisdom". Generally speaking the speaker indirectly gives an utterance with a particular purpose, sometimes, of keeping positive face in front of a superior. What is astonishing here is that the use of proverbs is rare in Dicken's works; however see this example from Great Expactations: 215. "Cleanliness is next to Godliness, and some people do the same by their religions. (33)

5.1.4.4 EJJipsis or Incompleteness Ellipsis is a three-face phenomenon, i.e., syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. In pragmatics, it is used as a strategy to avoid clarity and plainness. The locutor may use it as self-defense weapon if he is accused of threatening the face of others. Dua (1982) comments that incomplete utterances often carry indiviliual social meanings and hints (cited in Patil, 1994:208). In relation to Dickens' works, it is noted that the gap made by ellipsis is often expected to be filled with bad news, though the speaker can hide a big surprise-which is often revealed in a dramatic way. On the whole. incomplete

140 sentences hide subtle nuances of meanings and feelings and strategies for criticizing co-illocutors whether equal or superior to the speaker. Here is an example chosen from 0\iYer T\\·ist. 216."We11! Of all the ungratefullest, and \Yorst-disposed boys as ever I see, 0 I iver you are the ... " (40)

In Arabic tradition the maxim for manner may be violated through narrating a

~imilar story (true or imaginary). which invites the hearer to find the hint or lesson sent for him. This procedure may serve multiple purposes including making fun of the hearer. When an interlocutor says or commits a foolish deed or shows slow understanding the following story is told: One day the animals of the wood asked the fox to tell them a joke. When he finished it, all the animals enjoyed it and laughed except the donkey that laughed the next day. It is clear here that the speaker accuses the listener of slow perception and stupidity.

5.2 The Politeness Principle (PP) Language is a tool used by human beings to express and communicate their needs, feelings and attitudes to exchange information and to produce acts like requesting, directing, apologizing, etc. These needs are uttered with consideration for others. People's verbal interaction is meant to avoid offence and to establish intimacy with the other fellow beings: people take different channels to establish cordial relationship with pfu others. Hostile communicators can not go on communicating for a long time. To make a conversation continue, one should show agreement even when the ideas interlocuted are foolish and unacceptable. You may hear what you dislike and refuse if you want to see to what extent the speaker is indulged in wrong conception: You have to show agreement or pretend to be in agreement with him. Politeness involves helping the .listener to be less uncomfortable. Polite

141 cxprcss10ns work like the pads of cricket players which protect them from injuries, human beings n~ e d .verbal pads for keeping human relations normal. Lakoff ( 1974) suggests three broad principles of politeness: 1. don't impose, 2. make the addressee feel comfonable; and 3. give options.

Every human being has his O\\ n personal world or privacy. If it is harmed, a discord of relationships results. Non-imposition means respect to the freedom and character of the other side. To keep rela6ons, the listener is given options to accept or reject: he can choose whatever pleases him and comforts him. A straightforward denial made by one side would hurt the feelings of the other and cause bitterness. Lakoff (1973:299) talks of passivization, impersonalization and use of technical terminology (particularly in medicine) to avoid mentioning the unmentionable. Hedges and euphemism are strategies of giving options to the addressee so as to make him feel that he is wanted and equal, this is how the third condition i.e., make the addressee feel comfortable, is arrived at.

Leaving the options to the addressee open is done by means of questioning. Questions can be used to express requests, commands, offers, invitations and others. The question, "May I help you!", though seems of closed type (requires yes or no) is answered by: "Yes, please" or "No thanks", because it is an offer, not a real question. A question is flouted to express different intentions that show politeness. Questions may be classified into: 1. information questions (WH- qu estions) 2. control questions, 3. rhetorical questions, 4. deference questions, 5. Joking-challenge questions (Goody 1978-17-43). This classification reveals the pragmatic roles that the question plays in interaction.

142 Brown and Levinson li97S) displayed different strategies of politeness in tem1s of "positive and n~gatiYe face' of the addressee. The strategies are decided according to distance. rank and power of the communicators. In a situation of haste and emergency. face-threatening expressions can be used without respect to cordiality or affection: directness is extremely necessary and the speech is shared of any extra terms, which might be time-exhausting at a 1-Jarticular situation.

In situations where the addressee is superior to the addressor, the former need not use the strategy of politeness. To be clear, the master will not bother to use polite expressions when addressing his servants. But the servant cannot afford to be informal and straightforward, especially in requests and apologies Throat (2000: 30) comments that a servant cannot risk by using a nickname for his master and that:

.. elderly people can call children by their first , but the latter cannot do so. Of course, this again is culture-specific and code-dependent. In a social hierarchical social set up like ours (Indian), the master will call his servant "tum .. and the servant wi ll call his master "aap"

In Iraq and the Gulf Countries young people should call the elder ones by their son's names preceded by "abu" (father of) to express respect. Equals also usc the same strategy. It is regarded as face-threatening to call one person by hi s first . A wife ought to address her husband in this meth od. but women are addressed by their elder son's name preceded by "um" (mother of) for example: "Um Omar" or "Urn Amjad" Although there are about twenty Arab

143 countries and the people of these l'l1tllltries use Arabic as their , this tradition, of using the son's name. is not followed but in a few countries.

For relatives: uncles, aunts, grandmothers and grandfathers, children should on'ly use uncle, aunt, grandma or grandpa when they address such relatives. Once a mother told her sons not to mention their uncle's name, they should not say, "Uncle Fayyadh", they should say: "uncle bes (only)". When the 'uncle came one day, the children welcomed him and called him "Uncle bes": He asked their mother about that joke and she told him that she taught them to be more polite when they addressed him, but they misused her advice.

Sex is also a determining factor in politeness. The restriction of using taboo expressions is strong on women in nearly all societies. Men are freer at using such expressions. In some Arab societies a woman should not raise her voice in the presence of people from outside the family. She should not raise her voice in a bus or train or she would be looked upon as a bad woman. Many studies on sexism proved that women use a language different from that of men in a particular society. (Lakoff, 1977; Cameron, 1992; Davis, 1996; and Taunen, 1990.)

The speaker respects the private world of the hearer and abstains from interfering with his freedom of action. For neutralizing or minimizing encroachment on the privacy of others the strategy of negative politeness is used. To save the negative face of the hearer, the speaker can employ several tactics such as: minimizing assumptions about the hearer, giving him options and so on. In literary works, plays and novels, in particular, some devices of going off record are used so as to create highly meaningful and aesthetic literary texts. These devices, which use intentional ambiguity for flouting responsibility on the characters is called: "off record politeness" by Brown and

144 Levinson ( 1978: 219). These ambit!uating strategies arc traditi onally known as: metaphor, irony, sarcasm, hyperbole. litotes, tautology and euphemism. They all contravene the Gricean maxim::; and violate the principles of processibility, economy and clarity. One can again. deduce that flouting the Gricean maxims

Leech (1983: 132) suggests ·six maxims of politeness, which he calls: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement and sympathy. He discusses these maxi ms on the scales of minimizing and maximizing them. The basic terms in his , viz, cost and benefit, praise and dispraise, agreement and disagreement, and antipathy and sympathy are represented in a tree-diagram by Patil (1994:36) as follows:

cost to other Minimize benefit to self praise of other praise of self disagreement Politeness antipathy Principle benefit to other cost to self praise of other Maximize dispraise of self agreement sympathy

145 Leech den~loped Austin"s tcnninL~logy of exercitives and commtstves, vcrdictives and expositives into 'competitives', 'conflictives' and 'behavitives' to strengthen their pragmatic illusion rather than their semantic one. It is worth mentioning that "conflictive speech acts" are impolite and they cannot be dressed up in polite utterances. Aggra,·ating language is wrongly considered to be a deficient, deg~nerate or sub-standard system.

5.2.1 Textual Rhetoric and (PP) The production and reception of a literary text is a co-operative endeavour. This co-operation takes place between the writer and the reader. The reader is perception interactant, through his observance, and the writer is their production interactant, through the observance or violation of the maxims of processibility, clarity, economy, expressivity and relatedness. In , the writer can correct and reconsider his ideas again and again, but in speaking this is possible only in a limited way.

5.2.1.1 Processibility Principle (Pr.P)

Processibility assumes that the reader's co-operation IS required so as to construct meanings from ambiguities that are often residual in exophoric and deictic forms as well as the other rhetoric devices. The reader's initiative and sensitivity can revise and reconstruct the text in one way or another (See: :0 ~ht. Richards, 1983- 263-284). The reader, though seems a negative respondent. can fulfil integration and continuity in a text. He matches the segments of infmmation together and creates his synthesized mental picture through what Holloway (1979:42) called "proximate continuity". The writer should always help in making the text processible and decodable. For instance, the syntactic mechanism of end weight which is usually escorted by a high pitch is not used

146 to create terminal ambiguity, but t("l show that heavy constitutes follow light ones. Projection is practised through the displacement of the phrase, predominance of right-branching OYer left-branching, reversal of the object, fronting of an adjectin~ .. etc. The aim behind these procedures is not to complicate the sentence. The aim is either to show the of the writer or to emphasize a particular idea. ·

Hedging is not without significance. A particular simple word in a particular situation might give many possibilities of reference. Hedges are used to escape responsibility in some cases. The background of the writer and reader contribute to the change in the critical response to a text. The reader himself might impose his own interpretation on the text, but the writer may use different strategies or techniques that violate the politeness PP as well as the CP to create a definite affect on the reader.

It is interesting to study topics where intentional ambiguity is used for on~ reason or another. Abusive terms are used to express anger and disgust in face­ to -face quarrels. Aggravation and rudeness may be perfonned with various degrees of intention to hurt. It is sometimes used to be witty or to amuse. The speaker may explicitly express his dislike or enmity to the addressee. He may also show that the relation with the addressee is asymmetrical and he does not want to cooperate with him. Such ideas can be indirectly shown through non­ valid imperatives, sarcasm, irony, , jokes, indirectness .. etc.

5.2.1.2 Economy Principle (EcP) The tenn recommends ;:-eduction of the text without damaging the mf;sagc it conveys. This principle competes with the principle of clarity. Economy is violated by repetition, which apparently seems extra and needless. Jt is not a result of lack of skill or carelessness on the part of the writer, but is a device

147 for certain cxprcss1ve purposes: it gives dramatic and theatrical tone to the nanative mode of the novel. Since repetition is used in face-to-face communication, in novels it ought to be stressed, too. In everyday speech, the · Arabs, repeat many words paiiicular1y the equivalents of "No, Yes, Go, Come" and others. Ellipsis is used sometimes for the purpose of letting the intended meaning hanging in the air. The reader's imaginative and psychological state plays a vital role in his understanding. It is also a mechanism to conve~fsome bad news.

5.2.1.3 Expressivity Principle (ExP) The writer's major concern in writing, in most cases, is the general reader. Observance of the previously mentioned principles at the cost of (ExP) would render the text void of aesthetic and expressive aspects. The writer makes use of devices such as euphemism, digression, quoted-speech and tense-switch, because some concepts cannot be mentioned directly. Tabooed things cannot be directly mentioned. This naturally leads to roundaboutness and circumlocution. Although there is no face-to-face interaction between the writer and the reader, the writer needs to use euphemistic expressions. Sterne (1959:228) believes that digression is the "life and soul of ".

Reproduction of a previous dialogue as a type of feedback and tense-switching are techniques used to enrich the expressivity of the text.

5.2.1.4 Clarity Principle (CI P) Clarity is equivalent to intelligibility. A conversation cannot go on if one of the illocutors is n6t understandable. Intelligibility is definitely relative. 'vVhat is intelligible to one reader with one set of historical, cultural and linguistic background might not be so to another with n different set of background (Nelson, 1982:59). The greater is the amount of shared cultural and linguistic

148 knowledge between the author and reader, the higher IS the degree of in tell igibi lity.

If explanatory glosses are embedded for the sake of intelligibility and the principle of economy is Yiolated to keep vernacular expressions and concepts unglossed, then the nm·el is not easy to understand and enjoy, (Patil 1994: 71)

5.2.2 (PP) and Ambiguity The huge amount of books and articles written on (PP) has proved the cultural­ specificity of the strategies adopted to enhance the positive and negative face. (See;Davis, 1966 Chen, 1993; Saffianou, 1997, Pandharipande, 1992, Ulijin and Li, 1995) Though the phenomenon is universal, the procedures or details are different. Forms of address have meanings, but on keen investigation of the of address variants tum out to be a complex matter due to the several kinds of meanings involved as far as forms of address are concerned. Forms of address have literal, referential and social meanings. Referential meanings are not the main content of address. A form of address can have a social meaning. Address forms are ambiguous m that they include a potential of more than one social aspect, viz, distance, status. equality, irony .. etc.

Generally speaking the addressee pays attention to the addressee's negative face by not imposing on him. The maxim "don ·t impose" regulates behaviour such as not performing acts th at are offensi,·e to the addressee. Straightforward

impositions on the addressee~s world and privacy arc obstacles in the way of social equilibrium. Therefore, whenever the addresser is compelled to cause impositions, he resorts to methods of meliorating the impositions so as to minimize the ill-effect. is pem1issible in ('ascs of urgency, invitations and intimacy. Interlocutors use sometimes off-re('ord politeness strategies so skillfully that the addressee cannot hold the speaker responsible for focusing

149 him or criticizing him . \Ylut the s~'c.1ker says is either more general than or different from what he means. The :hi,iressee has to utilize his inferring ability.

It is simihr to the case when :1 li sten ~· misses a sound, as in the example given by Bolinger l1985: 1S): "He was buri;: J in th e popper's grave". He believes that the Americans have lost the vowel phoneme in "popper" and ' pauper' and "otto" and "auto" and they haYe to depend on the context.

Th ~ off-record strategies agam represent the best way of usmg indirect language. The action-based devices ,·iolate the Gricean maxims (See 5.5) so as to keep politeness at the top-most . The PP can be violated by means of sarcasm, non-valid im arti es, rhetorical questions and others.

5.2.2.1 Sarcasm Sarcasm and Sarcastic remarks are often used for severe criticism and directing insults to the addressee. Sarcasm enables the speaker to disguise adverse criticism under the cloak of praise. Turner (1973:223) believes that sarcastic remarks wound the other side. The double meaning of sarcastic remarks wounds the hearer ignominiously. Here is an example from Oliver Twist. 216. "He's just the one for you. He wants the stick, now and then, it'll do him good. (32)

The speaker of the lines above has clearly an intention of harming the indirect addressee here. Such sarcastic comments indicate both physiological and emotional restraint on the part of the addresser. He expresses hi s anger and disapproval without getting angry and without using injurious \vords.

5.2.2.2 Non-Valid Imperatives A non-valid imperative utterance or sentence 1s grammatically classified as order, according to classical terminology. But here it is of a type

150 which can not be answered. It is uttered out of anger and disaffection on against the addressee. It requires no real co-operation. e.g. 217. "Tell the \Vind and tire where to stop.", returned Madame. (TTC: 334)

This type of utterance can be used without the intention of insult and harm. It can be used out of intimacy and low. One can sometimes use it to convince a person to stop doing a certain work or behaviour; it is an advice said with mild anger, like: 21 8. "Dear son, swallo''" your tongue". (OT: 115) 219. "Kill me and don't say that again." (OT: 116)

In all cases the address~nnot or is not required to fulfill the request or order. There is no real obligation on the address to answer it and the addresser has no power to order the addressee to do so. Semantically speaking, it is void of meaning. Non-valid imperatives, which are exaggerated and immoderate , are employed to display the speaker's dislike.

5.2.2.3 Rhetorical Question (RQ) Going off-record can be using "rhetorical questions" which do not elicit answers from the addressee.

Like non-valid imperative~ in rhetorical questions, the speaker expects no ans,,·er. This strategy can be used to perform different objectives. It is not Clnly

r face-threatening. It can be used to show agreement like: 220.- Let's buy it? -Why not? It may be used to express insult or threat. See the following example from A

151 221. "Do you call Yl"'U:'clfa mother?" (126)

In fact rhetorical question can be U:'cd for several purposes.

5.2.2.4 A voidance of Disagreement The avoidance of disagreement strategy is a good tool for keeping human relations intact. The speaker can a,·oid disagreement by means of mitigation so as to continue cooperation. A direct answer and straightforward disapproval might hurt the listener. T ~tilizers like, 'I suppose", "I will think about it", "Later on .. ," may postpone the clash between negotiators to an unseen future. The Jistener pretends to agree. The addressee can displace his answer and hedge to keep links with the other illocutor. An agreement may be reserved by means of 'white lies'. Sometimes you find 'No' said indirectly. See this example from David Copperfield. 222. "Have you been study much law lately?" I asked. "Oh, Muster Copperfield", he said with an air of self-denial" my study is hardy to be called study." (237)

5.2.2.5 Jokes Edwards (1985: 148) states that jokes are the result of the social attractiveness of one's personality. Jokes cannot be successfully utilized without mutual understanding among the speakers and listeners. By jokes one can vi attack a particular people citizens of one region .9r follows one religion. In Iraq jokes are often told about the Kurds, in Egypt about the people who 1ive in AISaed, southem Egypt. Jokes can be told by someone about himself or hi s family. Some people are distinguished for their ability of telling jokes. Still some jokes are told for making people laugh or to l es ~n the seriousness of the interlocutors. A friend might use jokes to lessen the tension that sometimes arises between two interactants. A successful joke usually ends in a surprise or unexpected funny end. A joke can also be used to please someone and tease the

152 other directly or indirectly. ·ce the toi\owing joke from Oliver Twist, which is an indirect criticism ot 1Fagin 's gre-e-diness.

~.::.--:.. "GiYc me the money.·· said Bill, "You can keep the box if you are fond of reading.·· ( 113) Bill said it ''"hen he took the money from Fagin's hand: the money which was found in OliYer's pocket.

5.2.2.6 Repetition of the Other's \Yords This strategy is used for aggravation. It represents a retort by the same means of the addressee. By itself the repeated utterance is void of additional meaning, but repeating it is a kind of seYere attack. It is also used to minimize the addresser's power. See this example from Oliver Twist. 224. "There, that's enough. Don't see anything more about her; you'd better not!" "Better not!" exclaimed Noah. "Well! Better not! Work'us, don't be impudent. Your mother, too." (52)

5.2.2.7 Pun "Pun is the humorous use of a word that has two meanings or different words that sound the same." (Augustine, 1991 :223) Pun is in one way similar to intentional ambiguity and to irony in the other. For example: 225.-ls life worth living? -It depends on the liver. 226. An ambassador is an honest man who lies abroad for the sake of his country. (Ibid)

The hedges in the above examples lie in the polysemic words liver and lies. Each one has two meanings and thus both utterances have double meanings.

153 Both examples represent scH're criticism if directed to a certain person, but the double meaning words hold the speaker irresponsible or they are face­ protecting. They can be used like ''pn.1wrbs or speech without speaker" (smith, 1978:69).

5.2.2.8 Others Other types of pragmatically ambiguous utterances that can be used as hedges in the purpose of face-threatening are antiphrasis and spoonerism. I. Antiphrasis may be defined as the playful use of words in senses opposite to the generally accepted meanings, usually ironically or humorously oriented. e.g: 227. Seventy years young, and 228. A giant of 3 feet. It is apparent that an antiphrasis is similar to litotes in structure, but different in meamng. II. Spoonerism (after Professor Spooner) Augustine (1991: 233) is practised on some words of a sentence by exchanging the first letters of two words used for meaning. A famous example is: 229. "Homesky and Chaley" (for Chomskey and Halley) and: 230. You have tasted a whole worm (for: You have wasted a whole term).

In other cases the intonation or method of speaking-nasalization. (in Iraqi Arabic) can affect and harm the feelings of others. 1f one uses the tone of dispraise to utter praise-words, then the hearer will feel uneasy or injured. This phenomenon can be examined in different societies.

154 5.3 Speech Act (SA)

In his famous book Ho11 · ro Do Things with Words~ Austin formulated the Speech Act theory, which e\·oked a great deal of attention. Grice ( 1968) and Searle ( 1969) have ·proposed cenain changes in this theory. Austin first observed that speech acts are utterances, which do not describe, report or "constate" anything and they are neither true nor false. The smallest unit of commtmication·' is neither a sentence nor an utterance but the performance of a "speech act". If a bridegroom for e:xample, says, "I accept this lady to be my wife", he is not just saying something, but he is performing the act of marriage.

When you say to your friend, "Your eyeball looks quite yellowish." This is not a statement. This is a warning that forces the friend to see his doctor. In Austinian parlance (1975: 92) you have performed a locutionary act, an , and a perlocutionary act: the first one represents a phonetic action or uttering specific sounds of the language, illocutionary act is an act performed in saying something meaningful that has affected the listener and the last one, perlocutionary, is an act performed by saying or as a result of uttering something.

Austin divides utterances into two types: constative utterances and performative ones. Constative utterances are those , utterances, which are intended to be true or false. Performative utterances are those, which help the speaker perfom1 an action. PerformatiYe utterances can only be felicitous or infelicitous. Some conditions must be present for a performative to be felicitous. For c:xample, if you say, " I bequeath my house to my niece," I must own a house to bequeath. (Thakur, 1999: 102) ·

Without the preparatory condi~ions, sincerity conditions, essential conditions

155 and felicity conditions the theory l ~1 t.)ks incomplete. The Jack of preparatory condition engenders dcfcctiYcncss ~~f a promise or threat. For the promise or threat to be fulfilled, the h~arc r sh ~""~u ld beli eve in the speaker's capacity to do so; otherwise it becomes a joke 3 S in the statement made by the Dodger, a criminal, when caught by the polic~ .md taken to court.

231 . "No," replied the D ~• dger (speaking to the magistrate) "not here, for this ain ·r the shop for justice; besides which, my uttemey is a-breakfa sting this morning with the Wice (Vice) President of the House of Common," (295)

Dijk ( 1972: 199) comments that preparatory conditions represent the speaker's assumptions about the initial state of the context, of course, including the addressee's knowledge. In the act of apologizing the cause of injury cannot be the addressee.

The sincerity condition implies that the speaker intends to act, otherwise i.e., if he is insincere, he does not intend to practise the act.

The essential condition of promise is the speaker's intention to implement his promise. Other conditions may be added such as: the hearer's ability to hear and understand what is said (Kempson, 1977: 52). Unless the conditions are sati sfied, the act cannot be said to be successful or felicitous. Distance. power and ranking are of great importance to complete the act in some cases. Hurford and Heasley ( 1983: 251) suppose that a powerless servant cannot order his powerful master to do things. If thi s happened then there is no felicity and the master is no longer a master.

At the beginning Austin di fferentiated between 'constatiYes' and 'perfom1atives': he maintained the views that statements and descriptions were

156 not acts, while promises wamings. for instance, were acts. Later on he called 'constativcs' as speech acts ll971: 13-22). Then 'constatives' and 'performatives' wen:: named illo(mionary acts.

A lot of suggestions were made to modify or explain the concepts of speech act theory. (See: Strawson, 1971 Searle, 1971 , Searle, 1980, Tennan, 1984). The most prominent one is that of Searle who made a distinction between the speaker's utteran~e meaning and sentence meaning. In ironical remarks and metaphorical utterances these t\\·o types of meanings move apart, but in literal utterance these two meanings tend to merge into one. In an ironical utterance the speaker means the opposite of the literal meaning of that utterance and such an utterance falls under the term ' act" which is defined as the utterance whose meaning includes the sentence meaning but extends beyond it. (Malmakjaar, 1991: 422)

Indirectness is of paramount importance in . Patil (1994: 27) compares meaning to an iceberg: only a small part of it is expressed by means of language, the main part is hidden. This hidden part is the cornerstone of pragmatics. The speaker's utterance meaning may transcend (as in indirect speech act), depart from (as in metaphor), or sometimes contradict (as in irony), the literal meaning of the utterance (Searle, et al, 1980: xi)

If we examine the acts of making requests or invitations, we shall find out that the literal meaning is nothing but a question. The illocutors intention, the main part of the iceberg, contains no question. Coulthard ( 1977: 25) states that a question enables the addresser to make six ways of indirect request.

Austin, later on, developed a notion of specific illocutionary acts like apologizing, congratulating etc to the notion of "more gencml families of

157 rel ated and overlapping speech a(' ts ." He distingui shed between fiv e broad categories of speech act and bbeled them as: verdictives, exerciti ves, commissives, behaYiti vcs and npositi ves. Each of these families of illocuti onmy acts is characteri zed by the use of certain perfom1ative .

The cultural relati vity of ways of indirection has caused a lot of embarrassment in deeds and in utterances as '"ell. \Vhen a brother-in-law tried to show his ti1ankfulness to the English doctor ,,·ho treated him by saying, "Let me kiss you", the doctor was completely taken aback because he had no idea about a man's kiss to another in the Arabic tradition. Although all have methods of apologizing, requesting! inviting etc, they differ in their interaction structuring strategies. It is these socio-cultural differences that create problems in international intelligibility (LoYeday, 1983: 146). We believe that speech acts differ from one speech community to another because of the different cultural norms and assumptions each society has. This fact has appeared in studying non-native production and perception of speech acts pragmatics. (See Walkers, 1979; Frazer et al, 980; House and Kasper, 1987; Faerch and Kasper, 1989( a); Kasper, 1989(b ); Koike, 1989; Takahashi and Roitblat 1994 and Fukushima, 1996).

5.3.1 Violation of (SA) Davison (1929) remarks that speech acts are very closely linked with social and contextual factors. It is a hard task to delimit their lingui stic properti es, especially the lexical, which persists from one context to another over time. In many cases a simple statement does not only convey simple information. but also conceals an added dimension not discoverabl e in the actual words. The hearer has to go beyond the words used and look for the hidden meaning. Sometimes the speaker says what he does not mean and means what he docs not say. An example of th at is the use of rhetorical questions .. jokes,

158 euphemisms, ironical hints. exaggeration, circumlocutions, and understatements (Thorat, 2000: -+ 1). It is clear now that there is overlap between what is ambiguous acc~~d ing to CP and that of PP and (SAT). lro.ny, for instance, hides a fact or intent ion, which differs from the surface meaning and it is the same for understatement and exaggeration.

In norn1al circumstances listeners record conventional speech 'acts like providing help, congratulations ~md others. They register how a sentence carries the purpose of the speaker. They infer the underlined according to their conventions. E\·eryone can tell that some speech acts are fully direct and some others are completely indirect. Directness and indirectness are not completely opposite.

Positive indirect speech acts include proverbs, indirectness, puzzles and humour.

5.3.1.1 Proverb

One of the indirect speech · acts IS the proverb. It can be used for complementing, congratulating and other positive and negative purposes. Proverbs are very frequently used in the general flow of people's daily discourse, as they are effecti\·e strategies for dealing with the daily life situations. A proverb, which is a compact story or experience of one culture, gives prestige and power over the listeners. lt is a type of exposing one's educational and logical power.

In the ·deep-rooted cultures like those of China, India, Egypt, Iraq .. etc. one may find a proverb or a saying for each situation. Proverbs are used sometimes to lessen the power of the other illocutor. The same effect can be made by

159 means of a line of poetry LW a n:-rsc:- from a holy book or a saying of a famous philosopher.

The meaning of a prm·erb does not li e in its words alone, but it also lies in the mind of both the hearer and speaker. Proverbs are often used so as not to hold the speaker responsible for the hidden meaning. The surface meaning is not meant arid all people of one cul ture Jgree upon that. That's why the face-value is not the measure of the appropriecy of exploiting and using proverbs. In the famous proverb mentioned by Shakespeare in The Merchant of VeniceJ. "All that glitters is not gold" can be used in different situations and different speech acts. It can be used as a warning, praise, scolding and others, despite the fact that that Shakespeare used it for scolding the suitor who chose the gold box. What is already said can be summarized in the following lines borrowed from Sridhar (1982:298): Proverbs provide shorthand character sketches, or quintessential statements of motifs and conflicts. As distillations of traditional wisdom, proverbs provide the author with convenient shorthand for depicting implied value systems.

See the following proverb from Dm·id Copperfield ( 41 2): 232. "You can not make a silk purse out of a sow' s ear. " Here the proverb expresses the speaker's despair and boredom.

5.3.1.2 Imperso;talization Stating any act, especially an act like complaining and criticizing can be made as a general rule or regulation, i. e., the addressee is not the direct target of the bl ame: Any one is to blame. This procedure will minimize the t:1ce-threatening of such acts. It can be done by avoiding a , fo r example, in Great

160 Expectations Pip says: 233. "The wedding tour was planned out, the wedding guests were inYited."

Pip does not want to say who planned the wedding and who invited the guests: he used the passive voice .

. Neariy in the same way, impersonalization indicates that the speaker does not intend to impinge on the hearer. In this way the speaker plays the role of a person who ignores or does not accuse the hearer. He can avoid any direct reference to the person in his/her mind. In a command, which is a face­ threatening act, the subject is omitted in: 234. Switch it on. This command is milder than: 235. I crashed the car. The passive voice, another way of impersonalization, is characterized by these functions; it helps to: 1) avoid reference to the agent, 2) change and 3) signal emotional implications (Tsuzuki, 1981: 67). The agent is not known as he or she. It is understood. In Arabic , they say: "passive voice is used when the speaker is afraid of the agent or he aims at protecting the agent".

Mentioning the agent creates the opposite effect _,i f the deed described is worth pra1smg.

5.3.1.3 Indirectness Indirectness is a deliberate attempt to hide or camouflage what is unpleasant and injurious by rhetoric. A common phenomenon that manifests indirectness is perhaps the question form. It is used for expressing requests, im·itations.

161 offers ... etc. Such questions cannot be interpreted without the mutual knowledge of the of joining the form \vith message or the outer nwaning \Yith the intended one.

Each language has its own syntactically alternative methods of expressing ~ ~ 0 some ideas (Lanin, 1974:288). The hearer ought to infer, for himself, the intended meaning. If someone asks you: "Do you know the way to the post­ office?" And you answer: "Yes, I do.", and you leave the questioner, then you \Vould put him in a strange situation- it is something not expected. It would be funny to a third interlocutor, too.

Directness is either associated with intimacy, offers, invitations or with rudeness. Considerations of politeness force people not to say what is on their mind. It might create a divided illocution, i.e., an utterance is understood in different ways by two different addresses (Fill, 1983:31 ), that is, if the shared knowledge between the speaker and hearer is identical. Sometimes a low­ educated person possesses no means to comprehend oblique reference.

Conductive questions are regarded as indirect questions, for example: 236. "You wouldn't mind being at once introduced to the Aged would you?" (GE: 200)

0 0 0 U n l1'k e questwns rna kmg' requests or suggest10ns, t h•Q/i1s ort }.?o f questl()ns can l1e answered by (Yes) or (No). They also represent an end of an intc-rlocution: unlike other types they can not be followed by any similar or dissimilar questions or even statements.

IJ '"• It is necessary to remind that disambiguating pragmatic utterance has not been • theorized or attempted. The reason behind is that the speaker has one meaning f

162 even if he uses a vague sentence. The hearer has to choose or interpret the words according to his education. or state and according to the situation he finds himself in.

------X X X X ------

163