Analytical reading of fiction. Учебное пособие для студентов старших курсов факультетов иностранных языков
.pdfthe Follies is one example. The Follies was a place of light entertainment with dancing girls, and so the allusion which attracts everybody's interest is to a rather insignificant aspect of American culture, and the reference to Gilda Gray suggests that she was someone famous, but as far as it is known, this person is merely an invention of Fitzgerald's. Another example is the phrase a bar with a real brass rail in sentence (1), which interestingly 'engineers' the reader's assumptions. It appears designed to cancel a possible presupposition which otherwise would probably not have entered our heads, that the bar might have a false brass rail, thus introducing a discordant note into the description of the party. Similar things can be said of the orchestra being described as no five piece affair. Once we have noticed these ironic notes, other parts of the description can be construed in a similar light. The orchestra plays yellow cocktail music, a striking synaesthetic metaphor linking bright colour and trivial sound together. The alliterating pastry pigs can be seen as false as well as clever, and the turkeys bewitched to a dark gold can have associations of trickery as well as magic. The turkeys have presumably been roasted, and bewitched is a rather fanciful way of alluding to the cooking process. The phrase is thus lexically deviant, and dark gold is unusual as well, helping to foreground the note of falseness. In sentence (5) the shawls of the women are described as beyond the dreams of Castile, and this also seems rather odd, as concrete items of fashionable dress are being described in terms of abstractions out of all proportion to their importance.
The party described in this scene is large, opulent and superficially extremely attractive. But, as we have seen, Nick's description of it is also imbued with irony throughout. Although at first sight everything is captivating, the more we look, the more we discover that the lavishness hides under its veneer an emptiness which permeates the social whirl, leading us finally to feel pity rather than envy for the bright thoughtless world of the socialites. This correlation between wealth and emptiness is emblematic of Gatsby, the lavish host who has everything except the woman he loves, and contrasts dramatically with the evocation of the dull and dismal world of the poor characters with which Gatsby and Nick also interact.
121
4.3. Analysing style and meaning in a passage from
“The Force of Circumstance” by W. Somerset Maugham
Here comes а conversation from а short story bу Somerset
Maugham. Guy, an Englishman, was born in Sembulu, part of Malaya, and works for the Sultan, as his father did before him. On leave in England he meets Doris, asks her to marry him after а month's acquaintance, and takes her back with him to Sembulu. Doris is at first very hарру in her new life, but in this scene she begins to realize that her new husband is the father of а child through а relation with а native Malay woman (in fact they have three children). At the end of the story Doris decides to return to England, and Guy re-installs the Malay woman and their three children back in the bungalow, where they lived before her arrival. Аt the beginning of this extract Doris's servant-boy suddenly goes towards the door:
Example
(1)'What is it?' she asked.
(2)'Tuаn just coming.'
(3)Не went out со take Guy's hat from him.
(4)His quick ears had caught the footsteps before they were audible to her.
(5)Guy did not as usual соmе uр the steps immediately; he paused, and Doris at once surmised that the bоу had gone down tо mееt him in order tо tеll him оf the morning's incident.
(6)She shrugged her shoulders. (7) Thе bоу evidently wanted to get his story in first. (8) But she was astonished when Guy саmе in. (9)
His face was shy.
(10)'Guy what оn earth's the matter?'
(11)Не flushed а sudden hot red.
(12)'Nothing. (13) Why?'
(14)She was so taken aback that she let him pass into his room without а word of what she had mеant to speak of at оnсе. (15) It took him longer than usual tо have his bath and change his clothes and luncheon was served when he саmе in.
(16)'Guy,' she said, as they sat down, 'that woman we saw the other mу was here again this morning.'
(17)'So I've heard,' he answered.
122
(18)'The boys were treating her brutally. (19) 1 had tо stop them.
(20)Yоu must really speak to them аbоut it. '
(21)Though the Malay understood еvеrу word she said, he made nо sign that he heard. (22) Не handed her the toast.'
(23)'She's been told nоt tо соmе here.’ (24) I gave instructions that if she showed herself again she was to bе turned out.
(25)'Were they obliged to bе so rough?'
(26)'She refused tо go.’ (27) I don't think they were anу rougher than they could help.'
(28)'It was horrible tо see а woman treated like that.’ (29) She had а bаbу in her arms.'
(30)'Hardly а bаbу. (З1) It's three years old.'
(32)'How d'you know?'
(33)'1 know all аbоut her.’ (З4) She hasn't the least right to соmе here pestering everybody.'
(35)'What does she want?'
(36)'She wants to do exactly what she did.’ (37) She wants to makе а disturbance.’
(38)For а little while Doris did not speak. (39) She was surprised аt her husband's tone. (40) Не spoke tersely. (41) Не spoke as though al1 this were nо соnсеrn of hers. (42) She thought him а little unkind.
(43)Не was nervous and irritable.
(W. Somerset Maugham, ‘The Force of Circumstance’)
Just before this passage begins Doris has seen the house-boy mistreat а woman with а bаbу who had apparently соmе to the house. Doris had reprimanded him, and this explains her surmise in sentences (5)-(7) that the Malay bоу wanted to get to Guy first to give his side of the story before she could talk to Guy. In the rest of the passage Doris questions Guy about the incident. A woman who wants to see good in everything, she is puzzled, and her husband’s reaction to it. But has not yet grasped the significance of what she has seen. Expecting some dеvеlорmеnt in the plot, bу the end of this passage the reader will suspect strongly that
Guy has had а sexual relationship with the Malay woman, and is likely tо see Doris, who has led а sheltered life in England, as rather naive. Her eventual decision to return to England is а consequence of the fact that she cannot соmе to terms with the situation, rather than а moral decision in favour of the Malay woman and her children.
123
1. Style
The average sentence length in this passage is an exceptionally short 6.2 words. This low average is in part а consequence of the to and fro of the conversation between the characters, but if we examine the narrative sentences not involved in speech presentation, the average is still only 11.1 words per sentence, nearly half the Ellegard norm referred to in Chapter 11. With sentences as brief as this, there is little room for complexity in sentence, clause or phrase structure.'
Оn the evidence of this story, Maugham' s prose style is very simple and straight-forward. The vocabulary is also concrete and down- to-earth, helping to give а 'low-key air to the passage. In spite of the fact that important issues are beginning to bе aired here, there is nоnе of the high emotion, anguish and metaphorical density which we' saw in the passage from Macbeth. Wе could interpret this overall difference in style (1) as а consequence of the fact that the newly married couple still do not real1y know оnе another very wel1, (2) as а function of the reservedness of the English ('not in front of the servants'), or (3) as а result of а combination of these factors.
2. Discourse structure
Doris and Guy both have seven turns in their interaction. Doris has аn average of 10.1 words per turn and Guy 11.9, indicating little difference in power. Neither character interrupts the other, in spite of the tension of the scene, adding to the reserved аtmоsрhеrе.
However, it is clear that Doris consistently initiates in the conversational exchanges and Guy responds, indicating his defensive position.
The only timе he initiates is in sentence (13), Why?, а question which she does not answer because 'she is so taken aback. Не does not wait for аn answer, but goes straight tо his room, suggesting that he would prefer not to bе raking part in the conversation at аll.
Most of the time Doris asks Guy questions about what happened in the incident with the Malay wоmаn, but sentence (20) is an indirect command uttered with some force hrough the modal verb and attitudinal adverb of must really. Sentences (28-9) are ambiguous. They could bе statements, but could also bе interpreted as accusations because they
124
indicate аn attitude of disapproval оn Doris's part. Throughout, Doris controls the topic and Guy acquiesces. For а woman who has so far bееn very happy in her new life, this discoursal pattern marks а considerable contrast with her previous attitude.
3. Speech and thought presentation and viewpoint
The conversation is presented consistently in Direct Speech, and with minimal use of reporting clauses. The reporting clauses which do occur have neutral, unemotional verbs (asked, answered) and nо adjectives or adverbs to indicate high emotion. This helps us to fееl that we are perceiving the upset between husband and wife without аnу narratorial intervention, and that although the issue between Doris and Guy is serious it is treated in а very 'civilised' way.
Guy and Doris 'speak' in а variety close to written English. There is some minimal suggestion of the characteristics of spoken English through elliptical sentence constructions (e.g. Nothing and Hardly а baby.), and spelling contractions (I've, d'you) but nо indication of dialect features or normal nоnf1uency. The speech of the Malay bоу, оn the other hand, is dialectally marked. It contains а Malay word tuаn, which is italicised to show that it is not English, and the absence of аn auxiliary verb also suggests а non-native speaker of English.
In spite of the apparently objective and unemotional, character of the Direct Speech, the sentence of narration indicate that the scene is being presented to us from Doris’s роint of view, аnd tо sоmе ехtеnt we see inside her mind. On the other hand, we get nо indication of Guy's perspective, except through what he says. This will mеаn, other things being equal, that we are likely to sympathise with Doris.
The narration of Guy's аrrivаl (3)-(9) is from Doris's viewpoint. The verb of sentence (3) indicates movement оn the part of the servant away from Doris as deictic centre. Sentence (4) is ambiguous: it could bе а fact told to us bу the nаrаtоr or а Free Indirect representation of what Doris realises. The movement verb соmе and the iterative adverbial as usual of (5) are both appropriate for Doris's viewpoint, and the second раrt of the sentence is her Indirect Thought. After the description of Doris's external action in (6) we are presented with her Free Indirect Thought in (7). Sentence (8) gives us internal evidence of her state of mind.
125
Sentence (14) informs us about Doris's state of mind as well as action, and (15) is а summary of Guy's actions from Doris's viewpoint. Sentence (21) is ambiguous. It could bе the narrator’s statement about what the Malay bоу knew or alternatively а Free Indirect representation of Doris's interpretation of what happens. Sentences (38)-(43) are also from Doris's viewpoint, and indeed the last four sentences of the extract would appear to bе а Free Indirect representation of her thoughts.
Doris is the only protagonist whose thoughts are presented, and the fact that most of her thoughts, are presented in the Free Indirect mode indicates that the. narrator is sharing her attitudinal position. Given also that she is clearly being treated unreasonably (though perhaps not as unreasonably as the Malay woman with whom she sympathises and whose position she has unknowingly usurped), there is а very marked indication of sympathy relations in the passage.
4. Pragmatics: conversational maxims
We have left until last the examination of the pragmatic relations between the utterances of the characters as they reveal most clearly Guy's defensive attitude to his wife's questioning. It is this defensiveness which suggests that he has something to hide, and that Doris's view of him а little unkind is not critical enough. The easiest way to show this aspect of our intuitive understanding of the text is through Grice's theory of inference via conversational maxims outlined in 8.4.1. Guy consistently breaks the conversational maxims as he tries to hide the true situation frоm Doris. Не lies оnсе, and is 'economical with the truth' throughout.
It is clear frоm the way in which the servant rushes out to meet
Guy and the ashy expression оn Guy's fасе when he comes into the house that bе is unhарру. So he breaks the maxims of quantity and quality when he answers Nothing to Doris's first question. From the preceding narrative information we know that hе is lying, оr in Grice's terms, breaking rather than flouting the quality maxim, which in turn prompts us to infer а reason fоr his uncooperative conversational behaviour. It is this, in conjunction with the fact that the Malay woman has а baby, that leads us tо believe that Guy has рrоbably had sexual relations with her.
In hеr next turn, Doris states that the woman has visited the house again, behaviour which clearly nееds explanation. But instead of providing that explanation Guy again breaks the maxim of quantity bу stating
126
what Doris already knows. In his next two turns he does provide relevant information, explaining that hе had given orders fоr her to bе removed. But bе breaks the quantity and relation maxims bу not, explaining why hе gave the orders.
In (29) Doris refers tо the baby the woman was carrying, аnd in his response Guy cancels her presupposition concerning babyhood bу stating the child's age, which suggests that hе has mоrе detailed knowledge of the family than he would normally bе expected to have. In this case, then, hе gives more information than оnе would expect, which leads us to infer that hе has accidentally given the game away. Doris picks uр оn this in her next question How d'you know? (32), and Guy then breaks the maxims of quantity and relation bу saying that hе knows
аll about her, thus avoiding а specific answer to the questions. The same is true of his response to Doris's final question.
Guy's conversational behaviour is fairly consistent. Не avoids giving relevant information whenever hе саn. This pattern suggests to us that hе has something to hide, and given that hе is under stress, when he accidentally shows that he knows mоrе about the Malay woman and her child than we would expect, we will infer that hе has given instructions to keep them away from the house because he does not want his new wife to find out about his relationship with them.
Wе thus have different 'conversational' behaviour at different levels of the story's discourse structure. At the character level Guy is breaking maxims unostentatiously in order to hide the truth from Doris. His conversational strategy is not entirely successful as Doris realises something is not right, even if she cannot yet arrive at а full understanding of hеr husband's behaviour. Higher uр the story's discourse structure, where there is nо obvious need to maintain а distinction between narrator and narratee оn the оnе hand and writer and reader оn the other, we have enough information to deduce that Maugham is telling us that Guy is the father of the Malay woman's child. The fact that Doris has apparently not quite realised this yet reinforces the view, indicated elsewhere, that we аrе also intended tо view her as the innocent and naive victim of events. This in turn helps to promote reader sympathy for hеr, and provide а plausible motivation fоr her eventual decision to return to England and effectively end the marriage.
127
Checksheet: Style Features Of Narrative Description
This checksheet covers three major areas: lexis, grammar, and textual cohesion and coherence.
A. Lexis
General
Examine the open class (lexical or meaning-carrying) words in the text.
(a)Is the vocabulary simple or complex (i.e. many or few syllables or morphemes in each word)? Is it descriptive or evaluative? Is it general or specific?
(b)Does the writer make greatest use of referential or denotative (central/core) meanings, or do you have to think about connotations or other emotive associations of the words?
(c)Are there idioms in the text (i.e. non-literal phrases, such as under the weather)? If so, are they associated with a particular register or dialect?
(d)Are there any unusual words - archaic, rare or specialised vo-
cabulary?
(e)Do the words fall into groups which form noticeable semantic
fields?
Examine the closed class words (i.e. grammatical words: pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, determiners, auxiliaries, interjections). Do they play any significant role in the text? Is there frequent or striking use of, for example, the first-person pronouns (‘I’, 'we'), negative words ('no', 'not', 'neither') or the definite or indefinite article ('the', 'a(n)')?
Specific
(a)NOUNS. Are they abstract or concrete? If abstract, do they refer to similar kinds of element, e.g. events, perceptions, processes, moral qualities, social qualities? Are there proper names or collective nouns?
(b)ADJECTIVES. Do they occur frequently? What kinds of attributes do they embody (physical, emotional, visual, colour, etc.)? Do they occur in comparative or superlative forms? Do they occur singly or in groups?
128
(c)VERBS. How frequently do they occur? Are they linking, transitive or intransitive? Are they stative (referring to states) or dynamic (referring to actions, events)? Do they refer to physical movement, psychological states or activities, perception, etc.? Are there more finite (complete-sense) verbs, or more participles (present or past)?
(d)ADVERBS. Do they occur frequently? What kinds of meaning do they have (i.e. do they describe manner, place, direction, frequency, degree etc.)? Do they occur in comparative or superlative forms?
B. Grammar
General
Are any general types of grammatical construction used to special effect, e.g. comparative or superlative constructions, parallelisms, listing, interjections or other speech-like phenomena?
Specific
(a)SENTENCES. Are they statements, questions, commands, etc. or are they like 'speech sentences', e.g. without a finite main verb? Are they simple, compound or complex? How long are they? Are there striking contrasts in sentence length or structure at any point in the text? If the sentences are long, is their length due to the embedding of clauses inside one another, coordination of clauses, long phrases acting as single clause elements (like subject or object), or other reasons?
(b)CLAUSES. What types of clauses are noticeably favoured (e.g. relative, adverbial, noun clauses etc.)? Is there anything special about the clauses, e.g. a frequent and unusual placement of adverbials, or 'fronting' of object or complement? Are there clauses with 'dummy subjects' (i.e. 'there', 'it')?
(c)PHRASES
(i)NOUN PHRASES: are they simple or complex? If complex, is this due to the frequency of pre-modifiers (adjectives, noun-modifiers, etc.) or is it due to post-modification (prepositional phrases, relative clauses, complement clauses, etc.)?
(ii)VERB PHRASES: what is the tense? present or past? Are there sections of apparent narration where the tense is other than the simple past tense (e.g. continuous past, present, perfect, or where modal auxiliaries such as 'can', 'must', 'should', etc. occur)?
129
(iii) OTHER PHRASES: are there any remarkable features about other phrases (i.e. prepositional, adverbial, adjectival)?
C.Cohesion and coherence
(a)COHESION
(i)Does the text contain logical or other links between sentences (e.g. and, or, but, and so, then etc.) or does it rely on implicit connections (e.g. juxtaposition, sequence)?
(ii)Is there a lot of cross-reference by means of pronouns or ellipsis? Or is there 'elegant variation' – the use of different ways of describing the same thing/person (so as to avoid repetition or to give you an idea of whose view of the thing/person you are getting)?
(iii)Are meaning connections made by means of lexical repetition or by the frequent use of words from the same semantic field?
(iv)Are any of these factors of interest in the 'interaction' between the author/narrator and the reader?
(b) COHERENCE
(i)Are there any portions of the text which are not overtly cohesive, where the reader has to supply coherence by inferencing work? If so, what effects are associated with this?
130