»^to^, ^^9* THE LANGUAGE OF RIDDLES New Perspectives •^M^ ^^e^«^ r i r ^•'%>^^*« »^i^ ^*^» •^•^ JwV* W. J. Pepicello and Thomas A. Green $17.50 THE LANGUAGE OF RIDDLES NEW PERSPECTIVES By W. J. Pepicello and Thomas A. Green What has teeth but cannot eat? What has a heart that's in its head? What has eyes but cannot see? What turns but never moves? What lock is there no key can open? Riddles such as these, though long familiar to everyone, remain somehow endlessly fascinat­ ing. Like litanies that, if faithfully recited, will eventually give up the mysteries they invoke, riddles seem possessed of an almost necro­ mantic power and force. For the folklorists and linguists who are serious students of what has been designated "a minor genre," the riddle, far from being merely the witty bit of entertainment it is commonly supposed to be, is, in fact, a complex linguistic and aesthetic structure that, when subjected to systematic and scien­ tific study, reveals a great deal about the major human systems—such as language, culture, and art—with which it is inextricably bound up. Riddles conform to a model of communi­ cation made up of a code and an encoded message that is first transmitted and then decoded. As what Professors Pepicello and Green term "a licensed artful communica­ tion," the riddle employs quite ordinary lan­ guage in conventional ways to satisfy the demands placed upon it as the art form that it is. And as an art form, the riddle is subject to constraints that are semiotic (some primary graphic, aural, or other code), aesthetic (artis­ tic conventions that are also semiotic), and grammatical (linguistic restrictions). The rid­ dle operates, therefore, within a cultural framework that is entirely predetermined, and represents what Pepicello and Green des­ ignate "a conventional performance." The signified of riddles is not easily de­ fined; and indeed it is possible—perhaps even necessary—to distinguish several sig­ nata. All riddles, the authors point out, (Continued on back flap) THE LANGUAGE OF RIDDLES THE LANGUAGE OF RIDDLES New Perspectives W. J. Pepicello and Thomas A. Green OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS : COLUMBUS Copyright © 1984 by the Ohio State University Press All Rights Reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Pepicello, W. J., 1949­ The language of riddles. Bibliography: p. Includes index. I. Riddles —History and criticism. I. Green, Thomas A., 1944­ II. Title. PN6367.P4 1984 398'.6 84-3551 ISBN 0-8142-0373-6 CONTENTS Introduction 1 1 Language and Art in Riddles 3 2 Ambiguity and Wit 21 3 Grammatical Strategies 37 4 Written and Visual Strategies 61 5 Perspectives on Form 73 6 Metaphorical Ambiguity 91 7 Communicative Structure in Riddles 123 Conclusion 143 Postscript: A Cross-Cultural Application 145 Appendix: The Riddles 153 Bibliography 159 Index 167 INTRODUCTION THIS WORK IS THE RESULT of a long association between the authors, stemming originally from a seminar on folklore and language conducted by Tom Green in 1976. It is based in part on a series of articles that emanated from that seminar (Green and Pepicello 1978, 1979, 1980; Pepi­ cello 1980). Since our initial collaboration, we have beseiged meetings of folklore and linguistic societies, as well as pro­ fessional journals, with our integrations of folklore and lin­ guistics, striving to establish a focus that both disciplines would find compatible. In so doing, we have found it neces­ sary to present some basic material from both fields, so that the foundations of our analyses are clear to both folklorists and linguists. Our progress toward that goal has been aided immeasurably by discussions with colleagues too numerous to name, as well as by observations and contributions of riddles by students, friends, and passers-by. Special thanks are due to Dan Ben-Amos, who has pro­ vided support and criticism over a period of years. Our thanks also to Roger D. Abrahams and David Stanley for providing many examples and comments that have proven useful and enlightening. Of course, we alone are responsible for our analyses. Our gratitude goes also to Melanie Gross, whose typing efforts were above and beyond the call of duty. Finally, our deepest appreciation goes to our wives, who have been the willing victims of countless riddles through several versions of this work. The order of authors' names is not significant. LANGUAGE AND ART IN RIDDLES Chapter One IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, we hope to offer new perspectives on the riddle in its enactment both as a conven­ tional use of ordinary language and as an art form. Such an approach involves paying constant attention to the utilitar­ ian, objective aspects of conventional speech on the one hand, and the more emotive, subjective aspects inherent in the artful performance of a folk genre on the other hand (see Guiraud 1971: 10-11). Although the separation of art and language may seem somewhat artificial, the riddle fore­ grounds linguistic code as well as aesthetic convention in its performance. Lucid 1977 in a critique of Lotman 1970 neatly characterizes this interplay of language and art: "The model of external communication consists of a code and a message that is encoded, transmitted and decoded. In con­ trast, the scheme of internal communication posits an initial code and the transformation of the message. Art arises within internal speech as an antithesis to the practical speech of external messages but oscillates . between these two modes of communication" (Lucid 1977:11). Thus, the real­ ization of an art form requires a subjective, internal percep­ tion to be transformed into a code from which receivers (an audience) can derive a meaning. Art is not free to innovate, but is subjected to semiotic constraints, those of some pri­ mary code (graphic, aural). Though still semiotic, aesthetic constraints (artistic con­ 4 THE LANGUAGE OF RIDDLES ventions) are of a different order, a secondary system imposed on the primary code. This set of constraints proves to be crucial to the realization of artful constructs, also. It is the case, as asserted in Uspensky 1977, that "Every work of art is conventional, for it always presupposes some norm as the background against which it is perceived" (1977:172). Art, then, can hardly be conceived of as novel in any genu­ ine sense of that word. It simply provides a mode for the reexamination of phenomena in terms of a finite set of con­ ventions. This set of conventions may be expanded by a variety of means (some of which are described in this study), but at any given time the artistic expression is compelled to operate within a preestablished cultural framework. The boundaries within which art can operate are suggested by the following remarks found in Edie 1976: "Once men have culturally organized their experience in a distinctive man­ ner, and chosen their metaphors, they tend to think within the cultural-linguistic bounds that they have unwittingly set for themselves. They no longer think as they will but as they can" (1976:170). Such conventional constraints on art in general are especially intense in traditional expressive culture. We find then that our form-breaking techniques are lim­ ited aesthetically by cultural convention; similarly, they are limited linguistically by grammatical convention, and it is here that the focus of our study is to be found. For despite the constraints, within the limits just discussed we may explore linguistic and aesthetic structures, highlighting our knowledge of and facility with these structures. Thus, such notions as reclassification or inversion in riddling should not be taken to mean that riddles contain original metaphors or establish new linguistic epistemologies; rather, riddles play upon a common cultural repertoire of traditional categories, both linguistic and aesthetic, which are subjected to playful manipulation, but never demolished, on riddling occasions. Thus we see the riddle genre as employing organizing prin­ ciples within a conventional framework. Yet clearly riddles obscure a message, as well as the code, i.e., the limits on the forms that a message may take. In the LANGUAGE AND ART IN RIDDLES 5 artful manipulation of linguistic and aesthetic codes, we may find an affirmation of the cultural convention, the mes­ sage, which is hidden in the riddle form. But if riddles are indeed conventional, we might well ask how they achieve their artful end. We shall contend that the essential element in this regard is context, both linguistic and cultural. That is, the contextual frame for riddling is one of performance, as opposed to the normal communicative frame in utilitar­ ian speech. The latter is highly contextualized, and its goal is to facilitate the flow of information; the former suspends normal context, and its goal is to impede the flow of infor­ mation for the purpose of outwitting the riddlee. Thus the interplay of code, message, and context is cen­ tral to our discussion of the riddle, and we shall consider each element in turn. First, however, we need to address the framework within which this interplay occurs, namely that of performance. For if riddling employs organizing princi­ ples, as we have claimed, those principles come from the licensed performance of riddles. It is the performance of riddles that enables us to discuss more fully the personal, social, and aesthetic patterns they reveal. The license to exploit such patterns is basic to our analysis; therefore, let us treat this matter more fully. Performance in contemporary folklore studies, as sug­ gested by Bauman 1975, conveys "a dual sense of artistic action — the doing of folklore —and artistic event — the per­ formance situation, involving performer, art form, audi­ ence, and setting" (1975:290). Although the bulk of the work on performance has been done only recently, folklore's con­ cern with performance predates the recent flurry of activity.