INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE "MODELLING PROCESSES OF COMPREHENSION, AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE, AND INTERPRETATION IN LITERARY CONVERSATIONS" (original) (raw)
Related papers
Lingua, 1997
This paper makes a brief and exploratory examination of conversation in literature. It highlights some of the features of naturally occurring spoken conversation, and shows conversation in literature to share none of these features. This, of course, is not to argue that conversation in literature is not real conversation, it is rather to argue that it is a very special category of conversation. The paper takes naturally occurring conversation as a baseline, and from that baseline examines conversational extracts from five very different written texts. The analysis of the conversations allows some speculation as to the author's aims in writing the conversations. The paper closes with some observations for the uses of analysis of conversation in literature.
The contribution of conversation analysis to the study of literary dialogue
This short paper, which is intended for discussion and to generate interest in the relationship between CA and literary dialogue, is based on the general observation that poeticity seems to be a phenomenon of natural talk. Early studies of poetics assumed that language commonly regarded as "literary" was evidence of a "poetic function" (Jakobson 1960) that was specific to literature. There is evidence to suggest, however, that poeticity is an all-embracing aspect of language and not the province of literature alone. This casts doubt on the notion that there is such a phenomenon as "literary" language which can be distinguished from "non-literary", i.e. ordinary, language. It is suggested here that the existence of poeticity in conversation has consequences for the analysis of dialogue in literature and that CA may have a role to play in this kind of study. To set up this argument, the general area of poetics and conversation will be sketched out in section 1.0 and the relationship between conversation and dialogue in literature discussed in section 2.0. Section 3.0 identifies particular issues which need to be explored further.
Language as Literature: Action, Character, and Plot in Conversation
Works of fiction have characters, who perform actions, which make up the plot of the story. In this chapter, following some recent work in cognitive linguistics, I develop a tentative qualitative analytical framework for using the categories of action, character, and plot to analyze the meaning of ordinary language utterances. I propose a preliminary list of action levels, character types, and plot functions, which can be used in analyzing discourse using this framework, and apply this apparatus to the analysis of two conversation transcripts. Examining ordinary talk in the terms proposed here helps substantiate a radically enactivist and dialogic conception of linguistic meaning by extending an action-based account of the meaning of full linguistic utterances to also cover utterances’ content.
Analysing analytical minds. An interpersonal pragmatics approach to literary discourse
Ars Aeterna
Taking an interpersonal pragmatics approach, this paper aims to view literary text as social discourse where conversational exchanges convey more than the content of talk. Applying the method of interpersonal pragmatic analysis, centred around the notions of implicatures and the concept of face in pragmatics, the social status of speakers is revealed via expressing their personal desires, preferences and professional ambitions. Combining the models of pragmatic stylistics analysis and the conception of interpersonal rhetoric (Leech, 1983) enables effective exploration of the interplay between characters, their efforts to comply with the cooperative and politeness principles, following particular communicative goals in conversations, making inferences and understanding implicatures. Focusing on the above-stated aims of research, the historical thriller The Interpretation of Murder by Jed Rubenfeld (2006) was chosen as the subject of analysis. In this novel, psychoanalysis and interpr...
Language & Communication, 1985
We may not in fad understand each other but we have to keep up the pretence, since it is a faith in communization, rather perhaps than communication itself2 that marks our claim to social interaction-M. A. K. Halliday, Grammar, Society and the Noun. Conversation is like playing tennis with Q ball made of Krazy Putty that keeps coming back over the net in a different shape-Morris Zapp, in D. Lodge, Small World. The argument of this paper is that several procedures for the analysis of naturally-occurring conversation are also valuable to the study of dialogue in fictional texts. Fictional dialogue is an artificial version of talk, partly shaped by a variety of aesthetic and thematic intentions and conventions. But I believe that my working hypothesis is sustained by the brief commentaries on texts I present here: that crucial structural and functional principles and patterns are at work in fictional dialogue as they are in natural conversation. My interest then is in developing a stylistic% of fictional conversation, drawing eclectically on the work of a variety of theorists. While these theorists represent different perspectives, their views can be made to converge on the data, so as to provide mutual support for a particular assessment of a dialogue. My main sources are various articles in the Conversation Analysis tradition, e.g. Sacks et al. (1974), selective and modified use of the Birmingham discourse analysis propounded by Burton (1980); and the work of Grice (1975). In attempting to describe the structure and coherence of talk, I believe it is misleading to think in terms of a discourse creativity that is governed by obligatory and specifiable rules (a parallel to what some see at work in sentence production). Rather than talk being characterized by rule-governed creativity, what seem more evident are preferred patterns of talk-sequences. Furthermore the specific goals of talk, and the interpretations of patterns, will themselves be locally-determined by the particular interests of co-conversationalists. That is why the theoretical emphasis of Conversational Analysis (hencefo~h, c.a.) is attractive, where interaction-structures are posited as methodical solutions to ongoing conversational 'problems', and the orderliness of conversation is understood as an achieved orderliness (West and Zimmerman, 1982). The fictional dialogues I will discuss are Melville's 'Bartieby' and Hemingway's Tat in the Rain', but I will begin with a brief critical review of the models and orientations I use in this stylistics of fictional dialogue.
Philosophical Investigations, 2012
Exploring Rhees's analogy between everyday conversation and literature, the paper suggests a conception of form that encourages us to see literary works as contributions to conversation in virtue of their concern. How we might read for the concern of a literary work is exemplified by readings of Ibsen's Ghosts and The Wild Duck. These readings suggest that Rhees's analogy not only throws light on the communicative powers of literature: viewing everyday talk in the light of works of literature also gives us a better grasp of what goes on in conversation.