论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】 The principle of goal is a new theory which can be used to analyze discourse coherence. However, so far, none of the previous scholars has ever used this principle to analyze the coherence of dialogues in drama. Therefore, this essay will try to analyze the dialogue coherence in Harold Pinter’s The Dumb Waiter by the principle of goal in order to reveal the implication and themes underneath the coherent or incoherent dialogues, and present the significance of discourse coherence and incoherence in literary discourse which are quite different from court discourse.
【Key words】 discourse coherence the principle of goal The Dumb Waiter dialogues
1. Introduction
Discourse coherence has been an important aspect of discourse analysis. Researchers in this field claim that cohesive devices are necessary for achieving discourse coherence.
However, with the further research on discourse coherence, it is admitted that cohesive devices cannot absolutely guarantee the discourse coherence and in some cases, discourse coherence can still be achieved without any special cohesive devices. Professor Liao’s discourse coherence analysis based on the principle of goal is a case in point.
1.1 The principle of goal
According to Liao, the principle of goal means any normal person’s rational speech act is based on a goal—the communicative goal (Liao, 2003, 2004). In Professor Liao’s goal analysis of discourse coherence, he lays aside the discussion of specific cohesive devices, and he takes goal as the only criterion for discourse or text coherence.
Through analyzing interactive discourse—question-and-answer discourse under the guidance of the principle of goal, Liao finds out the standard of discourse coherence of this kind: if the answer is consistent with the goal of the question, the question-and-answer discourse is coherent; if not, the discourse is not coherent.
1.2 The originality of this essay
Liao has applied this principle to the analysis of explanatory discourse or texts, such as court discourse. Yet he has not extended this theory to the study of discourse coherence of other literary forms such as novels, poetry, dramas, and lectures. Therefore, it is necessary and meaningful to try to analyze discourse coherence of other literary texts by Liao’s principle of goal. And this paper will be experimental to do that.
Two typical dialogues from Harold Pinter’s earlier play The Dumb Waiter will be analyzed by the principle of goal in this easy, so that we can figure out the characteristics of discourse coherence of this drama, and dig out the deep meaning beneath the false peace and uncertain reality of Pinter’s dramas. 2. The analysis of The Dumb Waiter based on the goal principle
2.1 The discourse coherence analysis of dialogue
The Dumb Waiter mainly presents the process of two professional killers’ waiting for their boss’s order to kill the next target in an enclosed basement. The progression of the whole story merely relies on the conversation between the two characters. The following question-and–answer dialogue comes from the beginning of the play.
Gus: I want to ask you something. (7)
Ben: What are you doing out there? (1)
Gus: Well, I was just— (2)
Ben: What about the tea? (3)
Gus: I’m just going to make it. (4)
Ben: Well, go on, make it. (5)
Gus: Yes, I will. (6)
Question(1) tells us that Ben’s goal is to know what Gus is doing, and as the answer of this question, sentence(2)is pointed to the goal, hence, this short discourse is coherent. However, Gus doesn’t finish his answer entirely: he adopts the goal, while he delays it. Therefore, this mini discourse is not coherent in a full sense.
As to sentence(3)and sentence(4), since sentence(4)is the goal of question(3), it is clear that they are quite coherent. In this brief dialogue, Ben robs Gus of the right to ask questions first, so it’s evident that Ben is the dominant one in the interaction. To Gus, Ben is an authority and a threat. Gus has to obey Ben’s order, answer his any questions directly and precisely, or else Ben will punish or even kill him. All this is quite consistent with the frequent themes of Pinter’s plays—threat and violence in life.
2.2 The discourse coherence analysis of dialogue
The following dialogue probably can further illustrate the ideas above and reveal the rich connotations and themes of “Pinteresque” plays.
Gus: (entering) It’s going. (1)
Ben: What? (2)
Gus: The stove. (3)
Gus: (goes to his bed and sit) I wonder who it will be tonight. (4)
Silence.
Eh, I’ve been waiting to ask you something. (5)
Ben: (Putting his legs on the bed) Oh, for Christ’s sake. (6)
Gus: No, I was going to ask you something. (7)
He rises and sits on Ben’s bed.
Ben: What are you sitting on my bed for? (8)
Gus sits.
Ben: What’s the matter with you? You’re always asking me questions, what’s the matter with you? (9)
Gus: Nothing. (10)
Ben: You never used to ask me so many damn questions. What’s come over you? (11)
Gus: No. I was just wandering. (12)
Ben: Stop wondering. You’re got a job to do. Why don’t you just do it and shut up? (13) Gus: That’s what l was wondering about. (14)
Ben: What? （15）
Gus: The job. （16）
Ben: What job? （17）
Gus: (tentatively). I thought perhaps you might know something.（18）
Ben looks at him.
Gus: I thought perhaps you—I mean—have you got any idea—who it’s going to be tonight?（19）
Ben: Who what’s going to be? （20）
They look at each other.
Gus: (at length)Who it’s going to be? （21）
Silence.
Ben: Are you feeling all right? （22）
Gus: Sure. （23）
Ben: Go and make the tea.（24）
Gus: Yes, sure. （25）
(The italic parts are the author’s descriptive and explanatory discourse.)
From sentence(1) to sentence(5), the answers always point to the goal of the questions, and each reply is closely related to its previous sentence, so the discourse is coherent here. While from sentence(6), the discourse is beginning to diverge from the super goal. The super goal of this dialogue should be the answer to Gus’s question—“who it’s going to be tonight?”, whereas sentence(6)indicates that Ben has been annoyed by Gus and refusing to answer the question. According to the principle of goal, if the discourse is to be coherent, in sentence (8)and (9), Ben’s reply should be centered on Gus’s goal. However, Ben doesn’t do so. On the contrary, he asks Gus several hard questions continuously in a rage, and Gus becomes the frequent answerer instead.
In the rest of the dialogue, Ben goes on scolding Gus for his so many “damn questions”, which also has nothing to do with the goal of the discourse. As a result, Gus fails in achieving his goal and ends up at obeying Ben’s order to go on making the tea.
2.3 The implicature of the incoherence of the dialogue
Since Ben’s replies are irrelevant to the goal of Gus’s question, the discourse is certainly not coherent in terms of the principle of goal, but it is true that the incoherence here is significant for expressing the drama’s encyclopedic connotation.
In the whole dialogue, Gus asks the question “Who it’s going to be tonight?” again and again, then why does he persist in asking the same question repeatedly? Through the repetition of his various questions, we can feel that Gus is actually in a state of anxiety—the existential anxiety, which is a frequent theme in Pinter’s dramas. On the contrary, Ben seems indifferent to everything: he never cares about who will be his next killing target, never thinks about what he is doing and why he has to do it, so we can say that Ben is the spokesman of the loss of life or the ignorance to the meaning of man’s existence. At the same time, Ben is also a potential threat and despot to Gus, therefore, the relationship between the two symbolizes the reality that the world is full of absurdity , violence, killing and other potential threats.
3. Conclusion
As a comparatively new theory in the analysis of discourse coherence, according to this article, this principle is proved to be suitable to analyze Pinter’s The Dumb Waiter. And we have also found out that both the discourse’s coherence and incoherence contribute to the work’s themes and better interpretation
The principle of goal probably can be utilized to analyze the discourse coherence of some literary works, but that’s probably all we should and can do, because we can never arbitrarily consider a coherent literature good and an incoherent one bad, or vice versa; or else the meaning and aesthetic value of literature will be lost or destroyed. Perhaps this is also a difference between the goal analysis of court discourse coherence and that of literary discourse coherence.
[1] Gut Winski, W. Cohesion in Literary Texts.[M]. The Hague: Mouton, 1976.
[2] Halliday, M. A. K.
【Key words】 discourse coherence the principle of goal The Dumb Waiter dialogues
1. Introduction
Discourse coherence has been an important aspect of discourse analysis. Researchers in this field claim that cohesive devices are necessary for achieving discourse coherence.
However, with the further research on discourse coherence, it is admitted that cohesive devices cannot absolutely guarantee the discourse coherence and in some cases, discourse coherence can still be achieved without any special cohesive devices. Professor Liao’s discourse coherence analysis based on the principle of goal is a case in point.
1.1 The principle of goal
According to Liao, the principle of goal means any normal person’s rational speech act is based on a goal—the communicative goal (Liao, 2003, 2004). In Professor Liao’s goal analysis of discourse coherence, he lays aside the discussion of specific cohesive devices, and he takes goal as the only criterion for discourse or text coherence.
Through analyzing interactive discourse—question-and-answer discourse under the guidance of the principle of goal, Liao finds out the standard of discourse coherence of this kind: if the answer is consistent with the goal of the question, the question-and-answer discourse is coherent; if not, the discourse is not coherent.
1.2 The originality of this essay
Liao has applied this principle to the analysis of explanatory discourse or texts, such as court discourse. Yet he has not extended this theory to the study of discourse coherence of other literary forms such as novels, poetry, dramas, and lectures. Therefore, it is necessary and meaningful to try to analyze discourse coherence of other literary texts by Liao’s principle of goal. And this paper will be experimental to do that.
Two typical dialogues from Harold Pinter’s earlier play The Dumb Waiter will be analyzed by the principle of goal in this easy, so that we can figure out the characteristics of discourse coherence of this drama, and dig out the deep meaning beneath the false peace and uncertain reality of Pinter’s dramas. 2. The analysis of The Dumb Waiter based on the goal principle
2.1 The discourse coherence analysis of dialogue
The Dumb Waiter mainly presents the process of two professional killers’ waiting for their boss’s order to kill the next target in an enclosed basement. The progression of the whole story merely relies on the conversation between the two characters. The following question-and–answer dialogue comes from the beginning of the play.
Gus: I want to ask you something. (7)
Ben: What are you doing out there? (1)
Gus: Well, I was just— (2)
Ben: What about the tea? (3)
Gus: I’m just going to make it. (4)
Ben: Well, go on, make it. (5)
Gus: Yes, I will. (6)
Question(1) tells us that Ben’s goal is to know what Gus is doing, and as the answer of this question, sentence(2)is pointed to the goal, hence, this short discourse is coherent. However, Gus doesn’t finish his answer entirely: he adopts the goal, while he delays it. Therefore, this mini discourse is not coherent in a full sense.
As to sentence(3)and sentence(4), since sentence(4)is the goal of question(3), it is clear that they are quite coherent. In this brief dialogue, Ben robs Gus of the right to ask questions first, so it’s evident that Ben is the dominant one in the interaction. To Gus, Ben is an authority and a threat. Gus has to obey Ben’s order, answer his any questions directly and precisely, or else Ben will punish or even kill him. All this is quite consistent with the frequent themes of Pinter’s plays—threat and violence in life.
2.2 The discourse coherence analysis of dialogue
The following dialogue probably can further illustrate the ideas above and reveal the rich connotations and themes of “Pinteresque” plays.
Gus: (entering) It’s going. (1)
Ben: What? (2)
Gus: The stove. (3)
Gus: (goes to his bed and sit) I wonder who it will be tonight. (4)
Silence.
Eh, I’ve been waiting to ask you something. (5)
Ben: (Putting his legs on the bed) Oh, for Christ’s sake. (6)
Gus: No, I was going to ask you something. (7)
He rises and sits on Ben’s bed.
Ben: What are you sitting on my bed for? (8)
Gus sits.
Ben: What’s the matter with you? You’re always asking me questions, what’s the matter with you? (9)
Gus: Nothing. (10)
Ben: You never used to ask me so many damn questions. What’s come over you? (11)
Gus: No. I was just wandering. (12)
Ben: Stop wondering. You’re got a job to do. Why don’t you just do it and shut up? (13) Gus: That’s what l was wondering about. (14)
Ben: What? （15）
Gus: The job. （16）
Ben: What job? （17）
Gus: (tentatively). I thought perhaps you might know something.（18）
Ben looks at him.
Gus: I thought perhaps you—I mean—have you got any idea—who it’s going to be tonight?（19）
Ben: Who what’s going to be? （20）
They look at each other.
Gus: (at length)Who it’s going to be? （21）
Silence.
Ben: Are you feeling all right? （22）
Gus: Sure. （23）
Ben: Go and make the tea.（24）
Gus: Yes, sure. （25）
(The italic parts are the author’s descriptive and explanatory discourse.)
From sentence(1) to sentence(5), the answers always point to the goal of the questions, and each reply is closely related to its previous sentence, so the discourse is coherent here. While from sentence(6), the discourse is beginning to diverge from the super goal. The super goal of this dialogue should be the answer to Gus’s question—“who it’s going to be tonight?”, whereas sentence(6)indicates that Ben has been annoyed by Gus and refusing to answer the question. According to the principle of goal, if the discourse is to be coherent, in sentence (8)and (9), Ben’s reply should be centered on Gus’s goal. However, Ben doesn’t do so. On the contrary, he asks Gus several hard questions continuously in a rage, and Gus becomes the frequent answerer instead.
In the rest of the dialogue, Ben goes on scolding Gus for his so many “damn questions”, which also has nothing to do with the goal of the discourse. As a result, Gus fails in achieving his goal and ends up at obeying Ben’s order to go on making the tea.
2.3 The implicature of the incoherence of the dialogue
Since Ben’s replies are irrelevant to the goal of Gus’s question, the discourse is certainly not coherent in terms of the principle of goal, but it is true that the incoherence here is significant for expressing the drama’s encyclopedic connotation.
In the whole dialogue, Gus asks the question “Who it’s going to be tonight?” again and again, then why does he persist in asking the same question repeatedly? Through the repetition of his various questions, we can feel that Gus is actually in a state of anxiety—the existential anxiety, which is a frequent theme in Pinter’s dramas. On the contrary, Ben seems indifferent to everything: he never cares about who will be his next killing target, never thinks about what he is doing and why he has to do it, so we can say that Ben is the spokesman of the loss of life or the ignorance to the meaning of man’s existence. At the same time, Ben is also a potential threat and despot to Gus, therefore, the relationship between the two symbolizes the reality that the world is full of absurdity , violence, killing and other potential threats.
3. Conclusion
As a comparatively new theory in the analysis of discourse coherence, according to this article, this principle is proved to be suitable to analyze Pinter’s The Dumb Waiter. And we have also found out that both the discourse’s coherence and incoherence contribute to the work’s themes and better interpretation
The principle of goal probably can be utilized to analyze the discourse coherence of some literary works, but that’s probably all we should and can do, because we can never arbitrarily consider a coherent literature good and an incoherent one bad, or vice versa; or else the meaning and aesthetic value of literature will be lost or destroyed. Perhaps this is also a difference between the goal analysis of court discourse coherence and that of literary discourse coherence.
[1] Gut Winski, W. Cohesion in Literary Texts.[M]. The Hague: Mouton, 1976.
[2] Halliday, M. A. K.