 |
|
Conversational implicature and The Dumb Waiter
Task D - Our answer
In turn 18 Gus clearly produces another common idiomatic expression used
to refer to the activity under discussion (tea making). Like Ben's 'light
the kettle, this expression is elliptical (cf. 'put the kettle on the
stove' which is itself elliptical for 'put the kettle on the lighted gas
ring on the stove'), and although Gus does not violate a Gricean maxim,
his alternative formulation can be interpreted, via the maxim of relation,
as a challenge to Ben's formulation. Certainly, Gus's reaction suggests
that he interprets Ben's remark as a challenge.
When Ben asks 'Who says?', although he uses a question he clearly flouts
the quality and quantity maxims, as Gus has clearly said the phrase. This
implicates, via the maxim of relation, that he is himself challenging
Gus's challenge, by asking for an indication of who, other than Gus, says
what he says. It would appear that, rather unreasonably, he is asking
Gus to refer to some linguistic authority who shares his views. Gus cannot
provide such an academic reference, of course, which is presumably why
he opts out, and does not reply. Ben then appears to violate the quality
maxim when he says that he has never heard anyone say 'put on the kettle'.
Gus's alternative expression is also very common usage and it is very
difficult to believe he has never heard it, so at the author-audience
level it would appear that Pinter is implicating that Ben is lying in
order to preserve his authority.
If we add the evidence of this Gricean analysis to the previous analyses,
it would appear that the argument between the two characters has more
to do with status than it does to do with whether particular idiomatic
expressions are commonly used or not, something which is made clear in
the last turn (37) of the extract under discussion, when Ben himself uses
the 'put on the kettle' expression, giving Gus a pyrrhic linguistic victory,
as he finally goes offstage to make the tea.
Clearly we will be looking in the rest of the play to see some sort of
resolution to this underlying antagonism between the two characters, as
well as finding out who the assassins' next 'hit' is (actually the play
ends, frozen dramatically, at a point when it is clear that one of the
men has just been instructed to kill the other).
The other thing which is worth noting is that Pinter is often praised
by drama critics for having 'an ear for conversation', and it is interesting
in this respect to note that the antagonism between the two characters
is expressed, rather ludicrously, through an argument about two equivalent
idiomatic expressions for the same activity, both of which are clearly
elliptical in form. Pinter is thus making us focus on ordinary linguistic
expression in a way that no playwright before him had done.
There is a general issue about how realistic dramatic dialogue is, and
if you want to follow up on it, this matter is discussed in:
Mick Short (1996) Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose,
Chapter 6.
This discussion includes an examination (pp. 181-4) of another passage
from The Dumb Waiter.
|
