Literary linguistics, speech moves

Manly Moves

in

A Raisin in the Sun:

A Discourse Analytical Assessment

by

Charis Gialopsos

A dissertation submitted to the

Department of English

of

The University of Birmingham

in part fulfilment of the degree of

Master of Arts

in

Literary Linguistics

Department of English

School of Humanities

The University of Birmingham

2000

Abstract

This dissertation examines the ‘progress’ of Walter, the main character of

Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun, who is the play’s dramatic focal

point, both structurally and thematically (Washington 1988: 111). Drawing on

analytical tools from discourse analysis (speech moves) and sociolinguistics

(politeness), I try to determine whether Walter achieves manhood. The analysis

is supported by findings from conversation analysis and by Grice’s Cooperative

Principle. After a brief discussion of the theoretical framework employed and

the play itself (chapter 1), I proceed with the analysis of four key selected

episodes from the play (chapters 2, 3, 4, 5), and present my findings in the final

part of the dissertation (chapter 6), where I argue that Walter’s case is more

complex than it might seem on a first encounter.

Acknowledgements

I want to thank my supervisor and tutor Professor Michael Toolan for all his

help and support. His suggestions and comments on this dissertation were

invaluable. Although Umberto Eco (1986) claims that it is ‘bad taste’ to thank

your supervisor for doing his job, Michael did it in the best possible way and I

am grateful for this.

I also wish to thank Eleni Pappa for her critical reading of the draft. The eye of a

non-linguist is often more able to spot the unintelligible parts of a linguistic text,

than the eye of its writer.

Table of contents

Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Preliminaries 4

1.1 Speech moves 4

1.2 Politeness 6

1.3 The play 8

Chapter 2: Impoliteness and verbal abuse; ‘You contented son-of-

a-bitch – you happy?’ 10

Conclusion 17

Chapter 3: Indirectness and black-mail status; ‘The New

Neighbours Orientation Committee’ 18

Conclusion 27

Chapter 4: Breaking and hearing bad news; ‘Man, Willy is gone’ 29

Conclusion 35

Chapter 5: Self identity and inference; ‘My father almost beat a

man to death…’ 37

Chapter 6: Conclusion 46

Appendices

Appendix 1: Walter and George 51

Appendix 2: First meeting with Lindner 53

Appendix 3: Walter and Bobo 56

Appendix 4: Second meeting with Lindner 58

References 60

Introduction

1

Introduction

This dissertation is an attempt to understand some of the mechanics of

literary dialogue in the light of linguistics; in particular, how the characters of a

play are constructed and presented, in terms of discourse analysis. Therefore, a

more general title for the dissertation could be ‘Stylistics and Discourse

analysis’. Both topics have been subjected to many criticisms, one of the most

recent being Sinclair (2000), who spoke of an ‘ad hoc character of literature’

that is resistant to any analysis and who also warned that discourse analysis is

always fallible ‘since you never know what will follow’.

Nevertheless, despite such criticisms, there still are valid reasons for

doing both stylistics and discourse analysis. Stylistics can ‘be viewed as a way

rather than a method – a confessedly partial or oriented act of intervention, a

reading which is strategic, as all readings necessarily are’ (Toolan 1996: 124).

Since people do read literature each in their own way, some of them can try to

do it in a more strategic, analytical way. As for discourse analysis, its claimed

fault seems to be its virtue, at least in relation to stylistics. The fact that a

conversation can be unpredictable is what makes the analysis of it useful; while

for the discourse or conversational analyst an unpredictable or unclassifiable

move might cause the collapse of the theory, its existence is significant for the

stylistician.

In a way similar to Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle, where the

implicatures commence only when the maxims are flouted, the more important

discoursal messages often derive from cases foregrounded by the breaking of

the ‘rules’. That does not mean that stylistics can say nothing about a ‘well-

formed’ conversation. The basic hypothesis governing discourse analysis in

Introduction

2

stylistics is that ‘by observing patterns of speech act use… we can begin to

understand the characters on stage and how they relate to one another’ (Short

1996: 195).

The play under examination is Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun,

considered by many an American classic. It ends with the following dialogue:

MAMA (quietly, woman to woman): He1 finally come into his

manhood today, didn’t he? Kind of like a rainbow after the

rain…

RUTH (biting her lip lest her own pride explode in front of MAMA):

Yes, Lena.

The aim of the dissertation is to find what are the elements, if any, indicating in

terms of discourse analysis whether or not Walter reaches his manhood. In other

words the following question is posed: Is the observation that Walter has come

into his manhood justified in terms of the conversational behaviour he exhibits?

However, Walter’s behaviour is not the only issue examined, albeit the most

important. Someone’s status in a conversation, either a real person or a

character, is not determined only by his/her conversational behaviour, but in

addition by the way others interact with him/her as well. Hence, an additional

question examined is How do the people surrounding Walter speak to him?.

With this aim, two main frameworks are used, presented in the following

sections; the speech moves model found in Toolan (2000) and the politeness

model found in Brown and Levinson (1987). Both are employed with the

support of findings from other theories as well, e.g., conversation analysis and

sociolinguistic work on terms of address. Therefore, it can be said that the

dissertation has a further secondary, but more ambitious aim. Apart from

examining how and if Walter achieves manhood, it is an attempt to integrate

1 ‘He’ refers to Walter, Mama’s son and Ruth’s husband. More information on the characters

and the play is given in the section entitled ‘The play’ p.8.

Introduction

3

domains of knowledge in linguistics that are interrelated, having shared

interests, but are rarely found together in extant stylistic analyses.

Chapter 1: Preliminaries

4


1.1 Speech moves

Before presenting the framework of speech moves employed,

clarification of the term ‘move’ seems needed. Traditional speech act theory

(Austin 1962, Searle 1965, 1969 and others) was concerned with the ‘act’.

Sinclair and Coulthard (1975: 26) used the term ‘move’ as part of their rank-

scale model and proposed five kinds of moves, namely, ‘framing’, ‘focusing’,

‘opening’, ‘answering’, and ‘follow-up’. Burton elaborated the model increasing

the number to seven; ‘framing’, ‘focusing’, ‘opening’, ‘supporting’,

‘challenging’, ‘bound-opening’ and ‘re-opening’ (Burton 1980: 61), while Tsui,

also drawing from the Birmingham tradition, reduces the number to four:

‘initiating’, ‘responding’, ‘follow-up 1’, ‘follow-up 2’ (Tsui 1994: 61). All three

models have in common the structural conception of the move. Toolan,

interested in the tracing of functional categories, uses ‘move’ this way,

commenting on its relation with the term ‘act’, thus:

Because the interest here is in the functional analysis of utterances

in goal-attentive talk, it has seemed more appropriate to use the term

‘speech move’ (with its connotations of intervention and

contribution to an ongoing and developing exchange) rather than

‘speech act’, a term of art in an established tradition (Toolan 2000:

178).

The theory is based on Halliday’s (1994: 68) remark that when people

are engaged in talk they give or demand a commodity, which is either goods-

and-services or information. The combination of the above parameters leads to a

scheme of four core conversational moves (Toolan 2000: 179):

Goods and services Information

Giving

Seeking

Undertaking

Request

Inform

Question


5

It must be noted that although the parameters are clear and well

established this is not also the case for the moves proposed. There are many

occasions during the analysis, where the classification of a move is problematic

and remains such, even after the attempt at classifying it. This is rarely due to

the existence of ‘indirect speech acts’2, such as ‘I would like you to go now’

(discussed in Searle 1975: 65) which the present theory treats as a Request.

Leech (1983: 178) points out that ‘when one does observe them, illocutions…

are… distinguished by continuous rather than by discrete characteristics’. It is

therefore difficult to have a watertight taxonomy that can strictly classify all the

instances of communication and interaction; this would result to the existence of

moves that are not totally compatible with the categories proposed.

For that reason the scheme can be considered as a continuum, in which

four fundamental types of move exist, but each move may merge with the other,

in certain cases. When this happens, an intermediate move is met, something

quite frequent in the analysis that proceeds.

These ambiguous moves are examined to a greater extent than the

others, for the following reason; since all moves amount to the identification of

moments in the drama where characters interact affected by their goals, feelings,

different constraints and other factors, it is important, if not to reach a final and

definite classification of each move, at least to attempt to understand its

dynamics and the way it relates to the context. Each complex move signals the

realisation of a specific choice from the many offered by what Halliday (1970a:

142) calls the ‘meaning potential’ of language.

2 Regarding indirect speech acts it is useful to keep in mind Good’s comment that the

illocutionary forces of many ‘are so transparent that to call them ‘indirect’ seems perverse’

(quoted in Geis 1995: 132).


6

A fifth move, of secondary nature, is also part of the framework, that of

Acknowledgements. Acknowledgements are secondary because ‘they are

semantically attenuated… in that they are contingent upon some prior,

exchange-driving act’ (Toolan 2000: 183). For this reason and as the

dissertation examines the progress of a character through the play, that is his

‘active’ and not ‘passive’ interaction, Acknowledgements are only briefly

commented upon.

1.2 Politeness

Brown and Levinson build their model, originally published in 1978, on

the concept of ‘face’, taken from Goffman (1967). They suggest that ‘all

competent adult members of a society have ‘face’, the public self-image that

every member wants to claim for himself’ and recognise two aspects of face;

negative face: the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his

actions be unimpeded by others.

positive face: the want of every member that his wants be desirable

to at least some others (Brown and Levinson 1987: 61-2).

Stating that there are certain kinds of act that intrinsically threaten face,

what will be referred to as face-threatening acts (FTAs), Brown and Levinson

present four ways of doing an FTA, provided that one chooses to proceed in

doing it – the fifth option out being not to go on with the FTA at all.:

i. without redressive action, baldly

on record ii. positive politeness

Do the FTA with redressive action

iv. off record iii. negative politeness

(adapted from Brown and Levinson 1987: 69)

In cases ii and iii the speaker shows his/her willingness to respect at least some

other element of the face of the hearer, despite his/her choice to do an FTA. In


7

the fourth case, the FTA is formulated in such a way that inferences must be

made by the hearer, in order to perceive the meaning of the act. Parameters that

determine the gravity of the FTA are the ‘social distance’ of the two

participants, their ‘relative power’ and the ‘absolute ranking of impositions in

the particular culture’ (ibid.: 74).

Leech (1983: 132ff.) also discusses politeness, but in terms of a

Politeness Principle with six maxims, those of ‘tact’, ‘generosity’,

‘approbation’, ‘modesty’, ‘agreement’ and ‘sympathy’ that function in a way

similar and complementary to Grice’s Cooperative Principle. Yet, as Fraser

(1990: 234) notes,

It is one thing to adopt Grice’s intuitively appealing Cooperative

Principle. It is quite another to posit a host of maxims involving tact,

modesty, agreement, appropriation, generosity, and the like, which

are claimed to be guidelines for polite interaction, but without either

definition and/or suggestions by which one could, on a given

instance, determine the relative proportions of influence from these

maxims.

Although this model has been applied to the analysis of literary discourse

(Leech 1992), the Brown and Levinson model is preferred, because of the

codification it allows, bringing forward mainly two hyper-strategies of

politeness, the positive and the negative.

One thing must be stressed regarding the discussion of politeness that

follows. Politeness is examined in its pragmatic and not its sociolinguistic

dimension. As Thomas (1995: 146) notes,

In speaking of politeness we are talking of ‘what is said’ and not of

the genuine underlying motivation which leads the speaker to make

those linguistic choices.

That means that the instances of politeness met are not analysed for the sake of

the analysis and the mapping of the politeness strategies employed. Rather, they


8

are examined as strategic choices in the interaction, assumed to have been made

with the aim of allowing each participant to fulfil his/her own conversational

goals.

1.3 The play

A Raisin in the Sun is Loraine Hansberry’s first play, originally

performed in 1959. The author is ‘still spoken of with passion and reverence by

a younger generation of writers and critics whom she encouraged and

influenced’ (Washington 1988: 109), although she has left only a few marks of

her talent because of her early death in the age of 34. As Abramson (1967: 241)

notes, ‘A Raisin in the Sun is the first play by a Negro of which one is tempted

to say ‘Everyone knows it’’. Even those critics that doubt its literary value, like

Cruse who characterised it as ‘the most cleverly written piece of glorified soap

opera’ (Cruse 1967: 278), concede its broad impression on the audience.

The play evolves around a family of African-Americans called the

Youngers, living in Chicago’s Southside during the 1940’s or the 1950’s. The

members of the family are Mama, her two children Walter Lee and Beneatha,

Walter’s wife Ruth and their son Travis. The Youngers are a family of three

generations, with Mama at its head. Other characters involved, that will be met

in the analysis of the selected episodes, are George Murchinson, Karl Lindner

and Bobo.

The basic story-line that the play follows is built upon the inheritance of

ten thousand dollars, the insurance money given to the family for the death of

the father. Walter wishes to invest the money in a liquor store, while Mama

wants to buy a new house. As a compromise, Mama makes a downpayment for


9

the new house and gives the rest of the money to Walter in order to make his

investment and save some for the future studies of his sister. Nevertheless,

instead of following her directions Walter invests and loses all the money. As a

result, he at first decides to sell the new house at a higher price to the committee

of the ‘white neighbourhood’ where the house is located, an offer which the

family had previously rejected. The play ends with Walter finally turning down

once more that offer and making peace with his family, who had disagreed with

selling the house.

The episodes that are examined have Walter, the focus of this

dissertation, as a main participant, observed in four different psychological

states and situations in the play:

- Episode 1: a ‘casual conversation’ with George Murchinson (see3

Appendix 1).

- Episode 2: the first meeting with Karl Lindner, while the family still

have the money (see Appendix 2).

- Episode 3: the announcement of the bad news – the loss of the

money – by Bobo (see Appendix 3).

- Episode 4: the second meeting with Karl Lindner, after all the money

has been lost (see Appendix 4).

3 The reader is advised to refer to the relevant Appendix before reading each chapter.

Chapter 2: Impoliteness and verbal abuse

10

Chapter 2: Impoliteness and verbal abuse; ‘You contented

son-of-a-bitch – you happy?’

The first part examined (please see Appendix 1) is the first encounter of

Walter with George Murchinson, a member of a wealthy black family. In the

previous moments Walter was standing drunk on the table, addressing an

imaginary African tribe with a background of African music and applause from

Beneatha, dressed in Nigerian robes. George has come to their house to take

Beneatha to the theatre. After a brief yet intense argument between George and

her regarding her clothes, she decides to change them and George is left waiting

for her, having small talk with Walter’s wife Ruth. At this moment, and while

they are talking about New York, Walter re-enters to the scene.

The table presents the primary speech moves that each of the

participants makes.

Table 1

Informs Questions Requests Undertakings Total

Walter

George

Ruth

39

3

3

21

1

0

3

0

6

1

1

0

64

5

9

78

The great number of moves made by Walter is evident. Out of 78 moves

64 are made by him, with only 14 left for both the other two participants. Walter

therefore occupies more than the 80% of the conversational time. Of course, the

number of the moves, by itself, can be a misleading clue, if the number of the

words each move is consisted of is not examined; still it shows, at least, the

tendency that a speaker has to engage in conversation. Only once does Walter

make a second-turn move in respect to George, as in just one of his moves is

Walter responding to an exchange initial move by George. This happens in their


11

first verbal interaction in this part, where he is the third party that enters an

ongoing conversation. His previous initiating move, several lines earlier, was a

completely failed one, followed by a move that signified the end of that scene.

WALTER… (to GEORGE, extending his hand for the fraternal

clasp): BLACK BROTHER – !

GEORGE: Black brother, hell!

Lighting back to normal.

In line 7 Walter offers the Inform ‘plenty of times’ that is prospected by

the question but it is one that clearly breaks the Quality maxim (Grice 1975:

46), as shown by the description of Ruth as ‘shocked at the lie’. He opts to

answer giving false information, in an attempt to save his face towards a ‘rich

boy’ who has really been to New York ‘plenty of times’. This decision is

manifested by the fact that he repeats the Inform, at least the most important

part ‘plenty’, again after Ruth’s move.

One third of Walter’s moves are made in only two turn-takings (l.28-39,

47-52). Sacks et al., attempting to pinpoint the rules governing the turn-taking

say that transition from one speaker to another can proceed in two ways: either

the current speaker selects/nominates the next one, or the next speaker may self-

select and start talking in a ‘transition-relevance place’, where a move has been

completed. If nomination and self-selection are not employed, then the current

speaker may continue until the next transition-relevance place, the next

complete move (Sacks et al 1974: 703-4).

In both cases from the play, Walter offers more than one chance to

George to take the floor either by selecting him (l.28-9: How’s your old man

making out?; l.29: I understand you all going to buy that big hotel on the

bridge?; l.48: What the hell you learning over there?), or making his

contributions short, thus creating many transition-relevance places for someone


12

willing to take the floor (l.31: Your old man is all right, man). Occasionally he

also pauses, as shown by the playwright’s directions (l.23: a pause; l.29-31: he

finds a beer… the other man). Nevertheless George does not take the floor until

it is totally abandoned by Walter (lines 40 and 53).

Yet, usually most of Walter’s moves are left hanging, not succeeded by

the move they prospect. His question in line 17 is unanswered; in fact George

withdraws from the conversation and he stays that way even after Ruth’s

Request (l.21: you have to excuse him), with Walter taking his turn. Again in

line 43, instead of George, we see Ruth reacting to his Inform. George violates

the Quantity maxim (Grice 1975: 45) by not giving the amount of information

expected; he does not give any information whatsoever.

The failure of Walter’s conversational attempts is also suggested by his

choices of certain moves and politeness strategies towards George. In line 34 his

utterance ‘I’d like to talk to him’ is ambivalent between Inform and Request,

without being what is traditionally called an indirect request of the sort of

‘can/could you pass the salt?’ (Searle 1975: 65). Although Searle (1975: 65) has

other examples in the form of ‘I would like…’, he refers to the speaker’s wish

or want that H will do A, something absent from our case. Furthermore, other

constructions such as

I’d like to win the lottery

clearly do not expect someone to do something about it and, therefore, cannot

be considered as Requests.

Walter informs George about his want to talk (probably ‘business’) to

his father. The character of the move, though, depends upon the participants’

knowledge and beliefs. If Walter knows that George can bring him in touch with


13

his father for this kind of talk, then he is making a Request. If George knows

that he can play this mediatory role, or that Walter is asking him to, then again it

is a Request, giving George the chance to recognise it as such and offer his help.

Yet, if none of the above is true, then the move is an Inform.

This is a case of an off-record FTA, since ‘it is not possible to attribute

only one clear communicative intention to the act’ (Brown and Levinson 1987:

211). If challenged, Walter can always claim that it was an Inform and not a

Request. The fact that George does not reply to it, shows that he has also opted

to treat it as one more Inform among the others. When Walter sees his lack of

reaction, he proceeds in phrasing a clear Request ‘me and you ought to sit down

and talk sometimes, man’ in line 39. He does so by redressive action, employing

both positive and negative politeness strategies.

Using the familiar address form ‘man’ and referring to an implicit

inclusive ‘we’ with ‘me and you’, he is claiming common ground between him

and George (Brown and Levinson 1987: 103). At the same time, by the use of

the more modalised yet deontic4 ‘ought’, than the use of ‘must’ for example,

and the indefiniteness of ‘sometimes’ he tries to lesser the amount of imposition

on George’s face (Brown and Levinson 1987: 176ff) attending the latter’s

negative face. The Request that finally succeeds in becoming acknowledged is

also presented in a context where positive politeness has been used to a great

extent; notice the repeated use of ‘I mean’, ‘you know’ and ‘you dig’. Brown

and Levinson discuss ‘you know’ as a realisation of a positive politeness

strategy, aiming to assert common ground by the ‘Personal-centre switch’: ‘This

is where S speaks as if H were S, or H’s knowledge were equal to S’s

4 The dilemma whether the modality is deontic or boulomaic is solved by the presence of

deontic modality in George’s rephrased ‘we’ll have to…’ (l.40).


14

knowledge’ (Brown and Levinson 1987: 119). ‘I mean’ also flatters the positive

face of the hearer, probably signifying the following ‘If I was as articulate as

you, I would say…’, or ‘what I am trying to say, which I know you understand

because you are intelligent, is…’.

Nevertheless, his strategies do not seem to be able to overcome the lack

of interest that George has exhibited towards Walter and the conversation.

George’s second move in line 40 is another interesting case of violation of the

Cooperative Principle:

GEORGE (with boredom): Yeah – sometimes we’ll have to do that,

Walter.

By repeating Walter’s request he actually makes his contribution less

informative than required, flouting the Quantity maxim, as a means of

communicating his indifference. Furthermore, the use by George of the non

standard ‘sometimes’ that Walter has previously used, George being a speaker

of the standard variety, can be regarded as ironic. As Sperber and Wilson note,

Irony… is a variety of echoic utterance, used to express the

speaker’s attitude to the opinion echoed (Sperber and Wilson 1996:

265).

As Walter passes from a more polite off-record Request to a less polite

on-record one, similarly diminishes his general use of politeness towards

George. In lines 9-11 he tries to please him, by requesting Ruth to serve him

something, and jokes about the lack of entertainment. In line 17 he makes a

remark about George’s shoes, but attributing that type of shoes to all college

students, therefore making it sound less a personal insult. In line 42 he calls him

a ‘busy little boy’, and returns to the subject of the ‘faggoty-looking shoes’ in

line 52. The final stroke, after George’s first openly challenging move in line

53, is to call him a ‘son of a bitch’ in line 57.


15

While Walter’s impoliteness towards George increases, Ruth’s address

of her husband changes relatedly. There are four moves that pose problems in

their classification and, thus, the understanding of the scene. These are the

following:

a) Walter Lee Younger! (l.8)

b) Walter Lee! (l.18)

c) Oh, Walter – (l.27)

d) Oh, Walter Lee – (l.46)

Each of them follows a move made by Walter, which was either a lie (as

in line 7) or an FTA aimed at George or Beneatha. But what is their function in

terms of the four moves designated as the descriptive apparatus? The existence

of ‘oh’ in c and d indicates that they may be Acknowledgements. Since these

two are characterised as such and follow Informs, a which also follows an

Inform, can be considered an Acknowledgement as well. Finally b, having

roughly the same form as d, without the ‘oh’, could also be an

Acknowledgement. Still such a characterisation of these moves is problematic.

Firstly, b follows a Question, a move normally prospecting an Inform and not an

Acknowledgement, e.g.:

A – How are you?

B1 – Fine, and you?

*B2 – Oh, thank you.

Secondly, these moves are not coming from George, the person that is addressed

by Walter, but from Ruth, who may ‘bid’ for the floor.

I believe that another move made by Ruth in the same context

(following an Inform directed from Walter to George) can clarify the situation:

RUTH: Walter, please – (l.43)


16

‘Please’ is the word clearly denoting that a Request is made: ‘… its essential

function [please] is to get someone else to do something… It can co-occur only

with a sentence which is interpretable as a request’ (Stubbs 1983: 72). Ruth is

trying to calm Walter and deter him from offending George, so it seems safe to

assume that the previous four moves had the same aim. Brown and Ford (1964:

241) describe the use of the complete name, case a, thus:

The use of the complete name [John Jones or even John

Montgomery Jones]… is used as an intensifier and is particularly

favoured by mothers ‘manding’ disobedient children (italics mine).

Therefore a is also a clear instance of Ruth, albeit not his mother, trying to

control Walter’s behaviour; she tries to stop him, therefore makes a Request.

Burton (1980) as well, although she characterises acts like a and b as

‘nominations’ recognises the fact that ‘in unruly classes… the use of a child’s

name, spoken with, say, tone 4 (Halliday, 1970[b]) could well be used and heard

as a warning to stop behaving in ways that violate spoken and unspoken rules of

classroom behaviour’ (Burton 1980: 135n). Although this scene does not unfold

in a classroom, there are unspoken rules in a social encounter, such as the

respect of the other’s face, rules that Walter clearly breaks like a disobedient

pupil.

Finally, the employment of ‘oh’ in c and d is another tool towards the

same aim, with Ruth using it in order to get Walter’s attention.

Oh marks a focus of speaker’s attention which then also becomes a

candidate for hearer’s attention… Oh displays still another aspect of

participation frameworks: speaker/hearer alignment toward each

other… Individuals evaluate each other’s orientations: what one

defines as appropriate level of commitment to a proposition, another

may define as inappropriate (Schiffrin 1987: 99-100).

Hence Ruth, watching Walter becoming more aggressive towards George and

seeing her efforts to control him fail, moves through a continuum of Requests


17

ranging from the initial strict ‘Walter Lee Younger’ to the final desperate ‘Oh,

Walter Lee’.

Conclusion

Walter’s main characteristic in this scene is the aggression he exhibits.

Firstly, and most notably, he is aggressive towards George. From their first

exchange he tries to challenge things related to him; his ‘big life’, connected to

New York, his appearance (his shoes), his education, George himself (son-of-a-

bitch). This hostility is not confined only to George, since neither Beneatha nor

Ruth escape his FTAs. Yet, more accurately, his moves should not even be

characterised as conventional FTAs that may threaten some aspect of the

hearer’s face in the course of an interaction. They aim to insult, formed as

Informs ‘designed to be abnormally threatening to the hearer’s face’ (Toolan

2000: 184).

It was noted that the way Ruth interacts with Walter is typical of the

ways adults try to control the children. In addition, Walter’s behaviour is even

closer to a child’s because of the underlying motives of his impoliteness. He

tries to harm George’s face because his own is harmed by George’s existence.

Walter is struggling to find a way of living a better life, a life that George takes

for granted. Therefore, his hostility derives from his envy towards George.

This motivates Ruth to attempt controlling him, or at least, to

communicate to George her desire of saving some of the family’s face, by

indicating her efforts of doing so, and be civilised, through her Requests that

progressively faint facing Walter’s stubbornness.

Chapter 3: Indirectness and black-mail status

18

Chapter 3: Indirectness and black-mail status; ‘The New

Neighbours Orientation Committee’

The episode under examination (please see Appendix 2) commences a

few lines after the beginning of the third scene of act two. It is the moving day

for the Youngers and Beneatha and Ruth are preparing the packages. They are

in a very good mood, teasing each other, and Walter also participates in this

joyful atmosphere, when he enters the scene. For the first time in the play, these

three members of the Younger family are shown to get along peacefully with

each other. At this point the bell rings to introduce Karl Lindner ‘the one white

character in the play’, and along with him ‘the crucial scene in Act II’

(Abramson 1967: 249). He has come to ‘bribe the family in order to keep them

out of his white neighbourhood’ (Washington 1988: 114).

These are the primary speech moves made by each participant:

Table 2


Lindner

Walter

Beneatha

Ruth

39

5

7

2

0

7

3

0

7

8

2

0

0

1

0

2

46

21

12

4

82

It is not remarkable to see that Lindner is making half of the

conversational moves. Coulthard (1985: 80) notes ‘the idea of reason for a call

or visit… a basic assumption of all except chance encounters that the person

who initiated the encounter has some reason for so doing’. Since Lindner is the

one paying them a visit, because of a specific reason, he is expected to hold the

floor for the extent of time that will allow him to display this reason. Walter is


19

the next main speaker occupying 25% of the turn takings with Ruth being the

least actively participating character.

Walter takes his first two turns in the opening phase of the encounter.

Lindner has just come into the house and the participants are in the progress of

‘phatic communion’ whose function is

The detailed management of interpersonal relationships during the

psychologically crucial margins of interaction… [and mainly] the

communication of indexical facts about the speakers’ identities,

attributes and attitudes… [facilitating the interactants] to define and

construct an appropriate role for themselves in the rest of the

interaction (Laver 1975: 217-219).

The scene is the following:

WALTER (freely, the Man of the House): Have a seat. I’m Mrs

Younger’s son. I look after most of her business matters. Req/

Inf/ Inf

RUTH and BENEATHA exchange amused glances

MAN (regarding WALTER, and sitting): Well – My name is Karl

Lindner…

WALTER (stretching out his hand): Walter Younger. This is my

wife – (RUTH nods politely.) – and my sister. Inf/ Inf

We can therefore discern in Walter’s moves the identity and role that he

wishes to ascribe to himself. His first move is a Request done baldly, on-record.

This is justified since the request is actually in the interest of Lindner and the

amount of imposition is minimal (Brown and Levinson 1987: 69), but it may

also be strategically used to re-rank the social distance and the power between

the two men. They are strangers and of different race, yet the directness of

Walter claims intimacy and equality. He goes on to assert his status as ‘the Man

of the House’ by introducing the other members of the family, after having

declared that he is the one responsible for handling his mother’s business

matters. This projected self-image seems to be congruent with the greater


20

number of moves he is making in comparison to the other members of his

family.

Yet the scene does not totally confirm this, as Beneatha’s contributions,

although fewer than Walter’s, seem to dominate the first half of the

conversation. To comprehend this feature it is necessary to consider Goffman’s

discussion of some of the listeners in a talk:

… [there are] those who overhear, whether or not their unratified

participation is inadvertent5 and whether or not it has been

encouraged6; those (in the case of more than two-person talk) who

are ratified participants but are not specifically addressed by the

speaker; and those ratified participants who are addressed, that is,

oriented to by the speaker in a manner to suggest that his words are

particularly for them, and that some answer is therefore anticipated

from them, more so than from the other ratified participants

(Goffman 1981a: 9-10 – italics mine).

Walter, then, in his behaviour in this opening phase, tries to justify himself as

the participant that must be addressed, something to which Lindner seems to

agree (eg: LINDNER: returning the main force to WALTER – l.36), casting the

others as the ‘unaddressed ones’ (Goffman 1981b: 133).

Nevertheless, Beneatha contests this, responding, before Walter does,

either with a Question or a meaningful Acknowledgement:

- Yes – and what do they do? (l.35)

- Un – huh. (l.40)

- Yes – and what are some of those? (l.43)

- Yes. (l.50)

In the last two cases Walter tries to impose on her and regain his status as the

addressed participant with his Requests:

- Girl, let the man talk. (l.44)

5 An action labelled as ‘overhearing’ in Goffman (1981b: 132).

6 An action labelled as ‘eavesdropping’ in Goffman (1981b: 132).


21

- Be still now! (l.51)

He succeeds in doing so in line 78 when he is the first to pose a Question

seeking clarification (What do you mean?). From then on Walter is the one

clearly confronting Lindner, with Beneatha making two more moves (l.90, 98)

that are connected but not clearly embodied in the conversation, as they are

Informs not prospecting a second-part move.

In the previous chapter Walter’s attempts to pass the floor to George

were discussed, and it was suggested that he was trying to do so by creating

many transition-relevance places in which George could take up the speech

(p.11-2). By contrast, the conversational behaviour of Lindner, this scene’s main

character, is the exact opposite. Trying to hold the floor in order to ‘explain the

thing in his own way’ (l.45-6) Lindner employs sentential constructions that

Sacks et al (1974: 709) regard as ‘the most interesting of the unit-types, because

of the internally generated expansions of length they allow – and, in particular,

allow before first possible completion places’. He therefore usually produces

lengthy moves, such as the following:

LINDNER: It is one of these community organisations set up to

look after – oh, you know, things like block upkeep and special

projects and we also have what we call our New Neighbours

Orientation Committee…(l.32-4)

This feature can account for the fact that while this and the previous episode

examined have roughly the same number of moves (78-82) the present is much

lengthier, extending over 119 lines, with the former extending over only the half

– 66.

Lindner is exploiting the sentential constructions, and Walter’s

tolerance, since the latter chooses not to interrupt him as Beneatha does, in order

to bring forward the reason of his visit. This is also the usual pattern of


22

conversations, since they ‘tend to begin with the topic which is the reason for

the encounter and then move on to other topics’ (Coulthard 1985: 80).

Nevertheless, despite this tactic and Lindner’s promise to ‘get right to the point’

(l.48), he starts talking in line 22 and does not disclose his main purpose until

lines 88-9 and further (l.100-3), with a formal Inform, characterised by the

impersonality of the pronouns used. Instead of saying ‘I-we do not want you to

move to our neighbourhood’ he utters the ‘official’ ‘our association is prepared

through the collective effort of our people, to buy the house from you at a

financial gain to your family’. His difficulty in articulating his purpose and the

embarrassment that this causes him are evident in his choice of politeness

strategies and the number of ambivalent speech moves that he makes.

A prominent feature in Lindner’s politeness is the use of ‘hedges’.

Brown and Levinson (1987) consider hedges to function either as positive

(pp116-7) or as negative politeness strategies (145ff). The distinction is not

actually very clear, since they make the unfortunate choice of using the example

of ‘sort of’ as hedging a predicate for both cases:

Positive politeness: You really are sort of a loner, aren’t you? (p.117)

Negative politeness: ‘A swing is a sort of a toy’ (p.143)

In any case, hedges can have positive politeness since they ‘serve to avoid a

precise communication of S’s attitude’ and the speaker can avoid being seen to

disagree with the hearer (pp.116-7); or they may carry negative politeness by

softening the assumptions connected to the conversation, not imposing on the

hearer’s face (p.146). In the text we find ‘sort of’ (l.37, 38, 43), ‘I guess’ (l.37),

‘probably’ (l.56), ‘I think’ (l.59), ‘I mean’ (l.27, 37, 46), ‘now’ (l.93) and

modals.


23

There is also the positive politeness strategy of ‘you know’ (l.33, 71)

discussed earlier (p.13), the use of ‘I’m sure’ (l.48, 55) as a sign of optimism

and positive politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987: 126), while ‘pessimism’ is

employed as well, a negative politeness strategy (ibid: 173) in the form of ‘I

don’t suppose’ (l.108). The frequent use of ‘well’ (in 15 out of 46 moves) can

also be considered a hedge, but Schiffrin’s analysis of it seems to explicate more

successfully what is happening in the text:

Well is used with disagreements, denials, and insufficient answers –

all responses which fail to show appreciation… Well shows the

speaker’s aliveness to the need to accomplish coherence despite a

temporary inability to contribute to the satisfaction of that need in a

way fully consonant with the coherence options provided through

the prior discourse (Schiffrin 1987: 116, 126).

Lindner usually does not provide the answer expected and his speech is full of

breaches that hold back the progress of the topic. The following passage is

indicative of all the strategies mentioned above:

LINDNER: Well – it’s what you might call a sort of welcoming

committee, I guess. I mean they, we, I’m the chairman of the

committee – go around and see the new people who move into

the neighbourhood and sort of give them the lowdown on the

way we do things out in Clybourne Park. (l.36-9, emphasis

added)

One final interesting case of Lindner’s use of politeness is found in lines

73-4 ‘Anybody can see that you are a nice family of folks, hard-working and

honest I’m sure…’. This could be considered as Brown and Levinson’s (1987:

104) second positive politeness strategy ‘exaggerate interest, approval, with H’,

but it is not their canonical case; especially the use of ‘I’m sure’, as it is placed

finally, seems more like a hedged than an exaggerated expression of approval. I

think that the purpose of this utterance can be better understood in relation to

lines 82-3 ‘Now, I don’t say we are perfect and there is a lot wrong in some of


24

the things they want’, and the second parts of Leech’s (1983: 135-136)

Approbation and Modesty Maxims:

Minimize dispraise of other; Maximize praise of other.

Minimize praise of self; Maximize dispraise of self.

Hence, Lindner appears to praise the Youngers and dispraise the self – the

community. Yet, as he has not actually maximised the praise for the Youngers

by the use of ‘I’m sure’, equally, he does not maximise the dispraise of self.

With the use of ‘now’, ‘some’, and ‘I don’t say we are…’ instead of the

categorical ‘we are not’, he attempts to satisfy two ends; observance of the

Maxims and at the same time, in a deeper level, maintenance of his positive

face.

Lindner makes seven Requests in this encounter and it is interesting to

note that six of them are very close to Informs while the one left is not clearly

articulated but merely a ‘please’ (l.54). From the six mentioned, five have in the

subject position the speaker who is trying to make a Request which is not

overtly face-threatening and, thus, converts these to an informs about his

personal wishes. Nevertheless, they are moves perceived as Requests by his

interlocutors as well, and in this, he is more successful than Walter, whose off-

record strategy towards George clearly failed (see p.13).

Yet, the move causing the most problems of classification is the one

following Walter’s unmitigated Request ‘Get out of my house, man’ (l.110):

LINDNER:… What do you think you are going to gain by moving

into a neighbourhood where you just aren’t wanted and where

some elements – well – people can get awful worked up when

they feel that their whole way of life and everything they’ve ever

worked for is threatened. (l.113-5)


25

At a first reading the move seems like a Question, in the grammatical form of

wh-questions, prospecting an Inform, which will supply ‘the missing piece of

information denoted by the wh-word’ (Tsui 1994: 72). Nevertheless, the

absence of a question mark, possibly denoting a questioning intonation, and its

lengthy elaborated formation suggest that what Lindner mainly wishes to

communicate are the presuppositions following ‘where’, and the implications of

threat that these presuppositions carry. Toolan (1997: 185) regards threats as

‘always implicitly or explicitly subordinate to some superordinate request… so

threats are essentially requests, not offers’. More recently, admitting the

existence of ‘free-standing threats’ which ‘are not so directly linked to an

immediately preceding Request’ (Toolan 2000: 197n) he classifies them as

Undertakings.

It is not easy to determine the extent of the co-text the theory should

allow, in which the preceding Request will be found. If only a few lines are

considered, a preceding Request will not be found. Even a greater context will

not provide us with a Request in this specific case, since Lindner is very

cautious and makes his proposal as an Inform (l.100-2). On the other hand, the

overall meaning and the reaction of the Youngers suggest that the Inform is

actually an implicit Request, and the move under examination encompasses a

reformulation of that Request.

The situation becomes more complicated if a reading of the move as a

warning is also considered. Warnings, in contrast to threats, are classified as

Informs (Toolan 2000: 181). Tsui (1994: 133) distinguishes warnings from

threats in the following way:

A warning is performed in the interest of the addressee, whereas a

threat is performed in the interest of the speaker himself.


26

Yet whose interest the move serves is unclear, since it can be paraphrased both

ways (Warning – it is dangerous for you to move there… ; Threat – We-they-I7

don’t want you to move there, so don’t, or else…). Nevertheless, Lindner does

not explicitly state the threat, nor commit himself on the certainty of his

statement. Hence, I think it preferable to regard the move as an Inform, which

has the hedging of a Question-wonder ‘Why do this?’, formulated in this way

because of reasons of politeness and social discipline8.

The episode ends with Lindner calling Walter ‘son’. It is intriguing to

see that after the discomfort and, albeit covert, hostility that he has manifested,

he chooses to close the encounter trying to soften the previous confrontation by

this kin address form that claims in-group identity. Furthermore, as a response

to Walter’s confident behaviour, he also tries to re-rank their social distance

and, especially, power:

when there is agreement about the normal address form to alters of

specified statuses, then any deviation is a message (Ervin-Tripp

1972: 236).

By calling him son, he claims in-group identity and the higher status of a father,

an older man. If the race factor is also taken into consideration9 then this choice

seems more face threatening towards a ‘black’ Walter, who is ‘spoken down’ by

the ‘white’ Lindner.

7 It is interesting to see how Lindner obscures agency, shifting between these three pronouns –

and the agentless passive – during all his moves. 8 An overt threat could possibly cause him and his committee a lawsuit – at least.

9 Cf. the well known example given by Dr. Poussaint , taken from his interaction with a white

policeman: ‘What’s you name, boy?’ (quoted in Ervin-Tripp 1972:225).


27

Conclusion

In this scene, Walter tries to act as ‘the man of the house’, a status which

Beneatha refuses to acknowledge for about the first half of the episode. With her

insightful moves, she is the first member of the family to confront Lindner and

cause him unease. Thus, Beneatha claims her equal status in the family, with a

behaviour consistent with her ‘feministic’ attitude and high aims – she plans to

be a doctor – present throughout the play.

Walter’s behaviour, during the first part, could, equally well, be

interpreted as mature, waiting for Lindner to explain himself, instead of

subordinate to Beneatha’s; very often an analysis can be interpreted in more

than one, opposite ways. These two readings may be interfaced, saying that

Walter is both being slightly more mature and, at the same time, overbalanced

by Beneatha. Proof of the latter is the fact that he tries twice to regain a higher

status by controlling her moves (l.44, 51) to succeed in his third effort (l.78).

Thereafter, Walter acts as the representative of the family.

Yet, the conversational maturity Walter exhibits is confined only in his

patience to await for Lindner to disclose his purpose, and the way he briefly

tries to re-rank the social distance and power between him and Lindner during

the phase of phatic communion; he does not show a generalised equally acute

conversational insight. In no case does he contest the constant techniques of

agency deletion and obscuration that Lindner employs. Only once does he ask

Lindner for clarification, after lines 76-7:

LINDNER:… Today everybody knows what it means to be on the

outside of something. And of course, there is always somebody

who is out to take advantage of people who don’t always

understand.

WALTER: What do you mean?


28

But these lines are so overtly oblique and vague, that it would be strange for

anyone not to seek clarification. Finally, Walter allows Lindner to have the last

word in their encounter before he leaves the house.

These indications suggest that, despite the fragments of maturity

discussed, Walter does not exhibit particularly advanced conversational skills.

Chapter 4: Breaking and hearing bad news

29

Chapter 4: Breaking and hearing bad news; ‘Man, Willy is

gone’

After the turbulence that Lindner caused to the family, a state of

equilibrium seems to be restored. Walter, Beneatha and Ruth explain to Mama

the purpose of his visit. They then offer her gardening tools as a present, while

Travis gives her a gardening hat; both are gifts that will be useful in their new

house. The family is presented in a mood even merrier than the one they

displayed before Lindner’s visit. When the doorbell rings, Walter, who is

expecting his future business partners to bring him the news of their enterprise,

opens the door.

This is also the opening of the episode under examination (please see

Appendix 3) which commences with the breaking of one of the ‘rules’ Laver

has formulated for phatic communion.

When one participant is static in space, and the other is moving

towards him, in whatever type of physical locale, then, unless there

are overriding special reasons, there seems to be a strong tendency,

both in Britain and America, for the ‘incomer’ to initiate the

exchange of phatic communion (Laver 1975: 226).

Although Simpson (1989: 49) claims that the hypothesis and the reasons

provided by Laver ‘seem a little speculative’, Walter appears to wait for Bobo to

make the first move and to initiate phatic communion. After opening the door,

he has kept singing for some lines, and he is obliged to make the first move in

line 8, when Bobo remains silent. One of the explanations Laver offers to

support his rule is that the incomer ‘declares in effect that his intentions are

pacific, and offers a propitiatory token’ (Laver 1975: 226). Bobo has to inform

Walter that all his money is lost and the announcement of ‘bad news’ is an act

that by definition threatens the hearer’s positive face (Brown and Levinson


30

1987: 67). Hence, his reluctance to engage in phatic communion, although a

friend, can be regarded as an indication of this ‘hostile’ intention.

This reversal of the norm and violation of the expectations Walter had

are also suggested by the speech moves each participant makes.

Table 3 (from l.8 ‘Where’s Willy, man?’)


Walter

Bobo

Ruth

17

26

1

14

1

1

11

6

0

3

0

0

45

33

2

81

Walter makes more moves; even if his final eleven moves are set aside because

they are addressed to non-participants, still Walter has two more moves than

Bobo. Furthermore – something that the table cannot show – Walter makes all

the first turns although it is Bobo who comes with the news. The latter is

supposed to be the important conversationalist, because of the information he is

carrying, but it is Walter who is presented in a position of power, since, it is he

who opens each stage of the conversation.

This episode, up to line 45, has much in common with a stereotypical

interrogation scene (if some features of familiarity between the interlocutors are

overlooked) with the roles of interrogator and interrogated filled by Walter and

Bobo, respectively. When the ‘interrogation’ begins, after the brief interval of

phatic communion, in lines 10-13, Walter’s only moves are Questions and

Requests for addressee action. On the other hand, Bobo’s moves are mostly

Informs and three Requests for permission. Furthermore, Bobo appears to be

uncooperative from the first moment.

When Walter asks him in line 8 ‘Where’s Willy, man?’ Bobo states the

obvious ‘He ain’t with me’ and flouts the maxim of Quantity, since his


31

contribution is less informative than requested. Walter could see by himself that

Willy was not with Bobo and this was what motivated his question. His next

move, after Walter’s Request in line 14, is a ‘challenging’ one, as he supplies

‘an unexpected and inappropriate Act where the expectation of another has been

set up’ (Burton 1980: 151). Instead of answering Walter with an Inform, he

makes a Request. The same pattern exists in his later replies in lines 22 and 24-

26, where he is trying to change the discourse topic from ‘the news’ to his

money.

Yet, when Bobo succeeds in getting Walter’s permission to talk about

the money in line 27 (What about the money you put in?) only briefly does he

seem to answer:

BOBO: Well – it wasn’t much as we told you – me and Willy – (He

stops.) I’m sorry, Walter. I got a bad feeling about it. I got a real

bad feeling about it… (l.28-9)

The last three moves are clearly violating the maxim of Relevance and thus are

locally incoherent. Walter, at this point of the conversation, lacks the required

shared knowledge in order to comprehend Bobo’s words. Equally uninformative

and incoherent, although exhibiting lexical cohesion, is Bobo’s next move:

WALTER: Tell me what happened in Springfield…

BOBO: Springfield. (l.30-1)

Bobo is merely repeating Walter’s last words, flouting once more the maxim of

Quantity; his contribution does not offer any more information to his

interlocutor, than what he already knew10

. However, Walter does not seem to

understand that there is an implicature conveyed by this flout. For two more

exchanges Bobo fails to give Walter the information that he needs. In line 41, he

10

It gives Ruth the opportunity to learn about Springfield, but once more, she is an unaddressed

participant in this interaction.


32

flouts the maxim of Relevance and in line 43 he flouts the maxims of Quality

and Manner, providing again less information, and in an obscure way.

Walter finally succeeds in ‘breaking’ Bobo’s resistance and learns the

bad news in line 46 (Willy didn’t never show up). Bobo’s next turn taking in

lines 48-52, for the first time in the scene, violates the Quantity maxim by

giving more information than required. This signals the end of the

‘interrogation’ and introduces a crucial change in Walter’s conversational

behaviour that will be discussed later.

The fact that Bobo, although actually superior in being the knower

(Toolan 2000: 185), is behaving as subordinate in this scene, is also suggested

by his politeness strategies. His Request in line 17 is done with negative

politeness: the pessimism expressed by the modal ‘could’ (Brown and Levinson

1987: 173) and the use of ‘please’. This seems an excessive use of politeness

between friends for a request as minimal as ‘a drink of water’. Yet, it can be

justified for two reasons; Bobo considers the imposition to be greater, because it

delays the announcement of the news Walter is so eager to hear. Secondly,

Bobo is about to deliver bad news, so his presence and information will be

considered to impose on Walter’s negative face. This is what Bobo actually

regards as significant and in this context, he reclassifies their social distance as

greater and, accordingly, the request for water as an FTA of larger imposition.

For the same reasons his next Requests are also presented in the form of

Informs about him having an obligation to do something, following an Inform

that presupposes shared knowledge and thus claims ‘common ground’ (Brown

and Levinson 1987: 103):

BOBO: You know how it was. I got to tell you how it was. I mean

first I got to tell you how it was all the way… (l.25)


33

It is interesting to see that Bobo refers to his topic, the money, passing through

three formulations which gradually become lengthier/longer. This structure

reminds one of Jakobson’s (1971: 352) remarks that

Morphology is rich in examples of alternate signs which exhibit an

equivalent relation between their signantia and signata. Thus, in

various Indo-European languages, the positive, comparative, and

superlative degrees of adjectives show a gradual increase in the

number of phonemes, e.g., high-higher-highest, altus-altior-

altissimus. In this way the signantia reflect the gradation gamut of

the signata.

The more Bobo is trying to succeed in his request, the larger this becomes.

Walter’s conversational power over his interlocutor is also suggested in

his two Questions in lines 21 and 23:

- There ain’t nothing wrong, is there?

- Man – didn’t nothing go wrong?

Fairclough, in his discussion of tag and negative questions, says:

Using negative questions is sometimes... like saying ‘I assume that

X is the case, but you seem to be suggesting it isn’t; surely it is?…

we can say that power in discourse is to do with powerful

participants controlling and constraining the contributions of non-

powerful participants (Fairclough 1989: 46).

Walter holds this power until line 52, when he finally learns the truth ‘Man,

Willy is gone’. Bobo for the first time in this scene does not violate the co-

operative principle, since he observes all the maxims; he really does not know

where Willy is and his contribution is ‘such as is required’ (Grice 1975: 45).

Nevertheless, Walter is now trying to find an implicature:

WALTER: (a) Gone, what do you mean Willy is gone? (b) Gone

where? (c) You mean he went by himself. (d) You mean he went

off to Springfield by himself – to take care of getting the licence

– (Turns and looks anxiously at RUTH.) (e) You mean maybe he

didn’t want too many people in on the business down there?

(Looks back to BOBO.) (f) Maybe you was late yesterday and he

just went on down there without you. (g) Maybe – maybe – he’s


34

been callin’ you at home tryin’ to tell you what happened or

something. (h) Maybe – maybe – he just got sick. (i) He’s

somewhere – (j) he’s got to be somewhere. (k) We just got to

find him – (l) me and you got to find him… (m) We got to!

(letters added)

Walter’s Informs (c, d, e, f) are statements about B-events, according to Labov’s

classification:

Given any two-party conversation, there exists an understanding that

there are events that A knows about, but B does not; and events that

B knows about but A does not; and AB-events that are known to

both... If A makes a statement about a B-event, it is heard as a

request for confirmation (Labov 1972a: 124).

His next moves (g, h, i, j) are statements about what could be called ‘C-events’,

since neither of the two members has any knowledge about them. Labov and

Fanshel introduce the class of D-events, Disputable events, and state the rule of

Disputable Assertions:

If A makes an assertion about a D-event, it is heard as a request for

B to give an evaluation of that assertion (Labov and Fanshel 1977:

101).

Yet, the term C-event is preferred, because Walter does not seem to anticipate

some kind of evaluation from Bobo, and makes mere speculations. In his effort

to find a reasonable explanation, Walter violates the Quality maxim, in g and h

saying something for which he lacks evidence, while in i and j he flouts the

Quantity maxim, stating the obvious; everyone is somewhere, but what he

wishes to implicate is overtly stated in k, l and m.

These last moves are interesting in that, according to the framework

employed, they are intermediate. They imply ‘shared action and mutual benefit,

and by those considerations are both Requests and Undertakings’ (Toolan 2000:

180n). A similar case was discussed in page 13 (Walter to George: we ought to

sit down and talk sometimes) but it was characterised as a Request, since it was


35

actually in Walter’s interest. Nevertheless, the moves under examination will

profit both participants, as both lost their money. This also justifies the use of a

more committing deontic modality (got to) instead of the weaker modality of

‘ought to’.

After this large turn of talk, Bobo makes his first initiating move ‘What’s

the matter with you, Walter?’ (l.62). This is a Request similar to those discussed

in page 15, made by Ruth, when Walter was behaving like a disobedient child.

Walter here also appears out of control and then engages in a long stretch of

talk. It is Walter’s turn, at this time, to make four Requests in order of gradual

augmentation already noted for Bobo:

WALTER: don’t do it… Please don’t do it… Man, not with that

money… Man, please, not with that money… (l.65)

But it is doubtful whether the moves can be considered as goal directed. His

moves addressed to Willy are obviously ineffectual, since Willy cannot hear

him. His prayers, too, could be regarded equally useless to the judgement of an

atheist.

Nevertheless, these moves, albeit not communicatives at the level of the

discourse of the play, can be considered to ‘become messages about the

character at the level of discourse which pertains between author and

reader/audience’ (Short 1989: 149). In the light of this, the passage functions to

delineate Walter’s transformation from an interrogator to a desperate child who

thinks aloud, talking to himself.

Conclusion

It is interesting to see that the patience exhibited by Walter in respect to

Lindner (the previous scene examined), vanishes in this scene. This may be


36

explained by the fact that Walter is so anxious to hear the news, which will

change his life, that he does not have the self-control to be patient. Nevertheless,

Bobo is a friend – at least more than Lindner, a total stranger – and it is quite

striking for Walter to act as an interrogator towards Bobo and impose on him in

that way.

Yet, even in his role as an interrogator Walter does not seem to be totally

successful, in getting a clear ‘confession’ from Bobo:

BOBO: That’s what I’m trying to tell you… I don’t know… I

waited six hours… I called his house… and I waited… six

hours… I waited in that train station six hours… (breaking into

tears.) That was all the extra money I had in the world…

Looking up at WALTER with tears running down his face.

Man, Willy is gone.

Of course, the truth can be recovered from the above words ‘Willy is gone with

our money’, but it is not directly stated.

The scene closes with a devastated Walter, who starts speculating to end

up in a soliloquy typical of child behaviour or of mentally ill people. To ‘think

aloud’ is a phase through which all people pass in their early childhood. But

when met in adults, this behaviour is considered as a sign of mental disorder.

So, the ending of this scene presents Walter having regressed from whichever

maturity he exhibited in the previous scene.

Chapter 5: Self identity and inference

37

Chapter 5: Self identity and inference; ‘My father almost beat

a man to death…’

The final episode to be examined (please refer to Appendix 4) takes

place only a few lines before the end of the play. After Walter has learned that

all the money he intended to invest in the liquor store is lost, he calls Lindner

back in order to accept his offer and, thus, balance the financial loss caused by

his failed plans. But, the other members of the family do not agree with his

decision when he announces it to them and a very tense and emotional scene

ensues, where Walter mimics ‘an Uncle Tom… complete with grotesque dialect

and gestures’ (Washington 1988: 122) and Beneatha denounces him, while

Mama deplores her children’s behaviour. All these precede Lindner’s

appearance in the doorway.

The primary speech moves made by each participant are the following:

Table 4


Walter

Lindner

Mama

Ruth

Beneatha

17

11

4

1

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

1

7

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

14

11

2

1

46

In contrast to his first visit, Lindner has been invited by Walter and thus

Walter is expected to give the reasons initiating the present encounter. This

partially justifies the fact that Walter makes more moves than his other

interlocutors, who implicitly give him permission to declare those reasons.

Nevertheless, the main participants seem to have equal conversational rights in

this meeting, judging from the number of their moves. In the first visit, the three

main participants (Lindner, Walter, Ruth) had 40, 20, 12 moves respectively


38

(see p.18). In this episode the number of the moves made by Walter, Lindner

and Mama are more equal (18, 14, 11). Beneatha makes only one move,

something that is interesting compared with her conversational behaviour

previously. Ruth, the least participating member in the previous conversations,

makes two moves, only one more than Beneatha, both of which are placed in the

opening phase of the meeting.

Lindner’s first attempts to engage in interaction are unsuccessful. His

Inform in line 4 is the first part of an adjacency pair of greeting that is left

unanswered. Sacks argues that the ‘absence of the second [part in an adjacency

pair] is noticeable and noticed’ and offers examples of people’s complaints such

as ‘I said hello, and she just walked past’ (reported in Coulthard 1985: 70).

Lindner’s two Questions in lines 14, 15 are also without response. Ruth’s and

Mama’s following stretches of talk (l.18-25), are addressed to Travis and

Walter, and the latter is the first to address Lindner directly, in line 28. From

then on and until line 60, where Walter withdraws from the conversation,

Lindner’s moves are either Acknowledgements to Walter (l. 31, 34, 38, 51), or

attempts at Informs that are disrupted by Walter (l.42, 47).

His second move, after Walter has withdrawn from the conversation, is a

Request addressed to Mama ‘Then I would like to appeal to you, Mrs

Younger…’ (l.62). This is done with what Leech calls a ‘self-reporting

utterance’ which is the case

where the speaker uses the metalanguage of speech-act verbs for

describing his own discourse (Leech 1983: 225-6).

Having failed with Walter, Lindner turns to Mama and explicitly states his

Request in an attempt to convince her.


39

In his previous visit, Lindner’s final word was the address form ‘son’

directed to Walter. In this episode, while Lindner feels that his aims will

succeed, he addresses Walter as ‘Mr Younger’, paying respect to a distant yet

equal interlocutor as Brown and Ford (1964: 241) note: ‘adults of equal status

[begin their encounter] with Mutual Title plus Last Name’. This is the same

form of address used for Mama as seen in the previous paragraph. But it is

interesting to note that once more, when his expectations are defeated, he

addresses the Youngers collectively, as ‘you people’, in an Inform similar, albeit

more vague, to the one discussed in pages 24-26.

I sure hope you people know what you’re getting into. (l.69-70)

Lindner again chooses to communicate his warning through the

presuppositions of the subordinate clause. He presupposes that the family is

‘getting into’ something, which certainly is not their new house. He flouts the

Quantity and the Manner Maxims since he gives less information than needed in

an obscure way. The ‘something’ the family is getting into is not clearly stated.

It may allude to a previous presupposition that ‘people can get awful worked

up…’ (p.24), which was equally under-informative. In both meetings, when

Lindner sees the (to him) undesirable decision of the Youngers he retreats into

Informs charged with implicatures of warning-threat.

Walter’s conversational behaviour can be divided in two stages. In the

first one (l. 28-46) his talk abounds with the use of ‘well’ and ‘I mean’. Both

have been discussed in the analysis of the previous encounter between Walter

and Lindner, where they were features of Lindner’s talk. As a reminder, it is

sufficient to say that ‘well’ was characterised as a marker of temporal inability

of the speaker to proceed entirely unproblematically in the expected coherent


40

way (p.23), and ‘I mean’ was characterised as a hedge indicating politeness

(p.14). The second stage (l. 52-68) is where Walter manages to utter, in a

categorical way, the decision of his family to move to the new house.

Walter’s moves can be better understood, if they are examined in

isolation from the rest of the text – in example, that is separated from Lindner’s

moves and the playwright’s comments:

WALTER: Well, Mr Lindner. We called you – because, well, me

and my family – well – we are very plain people – I mean – I

have worked as a chauffeur most of my life – and my wife here,

she does domestic work in people’s kitchens. So does my mother.

I mean – we are plain people. And – uh – well, my father, well –

he was a labourer most of his life – And my father – My father

almost beat a man to death once because this man called him a

bad name or something. You know what I mean? What I mean to

say is that we come from people who had a lot of pride. I mean –

we are very proud people. And that’s my sister over there and

she’s going to be a doctor – and we are very proud – What I am

telling you is that we called you over here to tell you that we are

very proud and that this – this is my son, and he makes the sixht

generation of our family in this country, and we have all thought

about you offer – And we have decided to move into our

house – because my father – my father – he earned it for us, brick

by brick. We don’t want to make no trouble for nobody or fight

no causes – but we will try to be good neighbours. That’s all we

got to say. We don’t want your money.

This could be considered as a narrative, with a ‘minimal narrative’ (Labov

1972b: 360) embedded at the heart of it, the highlighted text. Yet as a narrative,

it has two uncommon characteristics. First, the great extent of the Orientation,

which functions, among other things, to identify the persons involved in the

narrative (Labov 1972b: 364). Walter commences the narration with a ‘we’

which he then explicates, by referring not only to the people involved but their

occupation as well.:


41

Me (Walter)

Wife

Mother

Father

Sister

Son

Chauffeur

Domestic work

Domestic work

Labourer

Future doctor

Sixth generation in the country

Only after he has mentioned each member of the family does he proceed in the

Complicating action and the Resolution, found in the minimal narrative. His last

two moves can be considered as a very definite Coda ‘that’s all we got to say’

and the abstract, stating ‘what the narrative is about [and] why it was told’

(Labov 1972b: 370) ‘we don’t want your money’.

Second, it is a strange narrative, in that it is about what is going to

happen, and not a recapitulation of past experience. Although its minimal

narrative is placed in the past, it actually looks to the future, as the decision

taken is a decision concerning future action, the expression of an attempt to

shape and control it. Walter’s reference to his sister is also a future defining one,

‘she’s going to be a doctor’.

For this reason, it may be better to perceive his talk as a speech, a

declaration of some sort. The declaration of future acts concerning the family

and Beneatha are already mentioned. The part that precedes the underlined text

has two main recurrent themes; ‘we are plain people’ and ‘we are very proud’.

Walter tries to establish an identity for the family, which will support and justify

their decision to move into the house. This identity is gradually built up, through

the four stages Walter passes:

i) the humble ‘we are very plain people’

ii) the less humble ‘we are plain people’

iii) the more proud ‘we come from people who had a lot of pride’

iv) the desired, mentioned thrice ‘we are very proud’


42

Thus, Walter here declares the identity his family claims for itself and the right

of controlling their future.

Whether Walter’s utterances are labelled as a narrative or, for

preference, a ‘declaration’, they constitute a monologue. In contrast to that,

Lindner’s moves in lines 31, 34, 38, 51 which were characterised as

Acknowledgements, secondary moves, can be reclassified as ‘back-channel

cues’. These are ‘providing a clear signal that understanding and sympathy have

followed this far’ (Goffman 1981a: 28). Yet, these back-channel cues do not

belong to the canonical category, since Lindner is making them only in order to

counterbalance his lack of attention, which is turned to the contract, and they do

not express genuine interest to Walter.

This is what impels Walter to flout the Relevance Maxim in lines 40-1

‘My father almost beat a man to death once, because this man called him a bad

name or something’ – an actual narrative. Walter is still in the opening, whether

it is an Orientation or an introduction, offering information about the members

of his family, who collectively took the decision. Yet, his father is dead and

therefore, the mention of him is irrelevant. Lindner has to comprehend the

implicature through inference, trying to make sense ‘of the motivations, goals

plans and reasons of participants in [the] described events’ (Brown and Yule

1983: 268).

Walter’s Inform about his father is connected with the implications of

racism that Lindner’s proposal bears; the Youngers are not welcome to the new

neighbourhood because they are black, a feature that is considered a negative

attribute in the context of Lindner’s talk. Insinuating that someone is

unwelcome because s/he is black is like calling him/her a bad name; both are


43

insulting, Informs that threat the positive face of the hearer. Thus, Walter may

warn Lindner not to insult them, implicating that in the opposite case he may

also ‘beat someone to death’ (in this case Lindner), like his father almost did; it

is not possible to know whether he actually means it or not – and his father case

is presented as an extreme reaction – but Walter wishes to communicate the

warning.

Nevertheless, the implicature is weak and the inference requested quite

elaborate, so that someone can claim not to have understood the connections

between this Inform and its context. This is the choice Lindner overtly makes,

although the playwright’s comment indicates that he has understood the deeper

meaning (l.41-2):

WALTER … You know what I mean?

LINDNER (looking up, frozen): No, no, I’m afraid I don’t –

Mama’s moves confirm her status as the head of the family. Out of

eleven moves, seven are Requests directed to three different people – Travis,

Walter and Lindner. Her final Request, addressed to Lindner is interesting

because of its form ‘Goodbye’ (l.66). Schegloff and Sacks, discussing the ways

followed for the termination of a conversation, refer to the existence of

a range of ways… which make drastic difference between one party

saying ‘good-bye’ and not leaving a slot for the other to reply, and

one party saying ‘good-bye’ and leaving a slot for the other to reply.

The former becomes a distinct sort of activity, expressing anger,

brusqueness, and the like, and available to such a use by contrast

with the latter (Schegloff and Sacks 1973: 298).

Hence, Mama’s move is not an Inform of good disposition, part of phatic

communion, but more like an Inform that she wishes the termination of the

discussion. For this reason, it is considered as a Request for Lindner to leave

their house.


44

From her Requests addressed to Walter, the two final have a strange

character:

- You show where our five generations done come to. (l.23)

- Go ahead, son. (l.25)

It is not their nature as Requests that causes the problem, but their function in

the dialogue. Mama is opposed to Walter’s plans of selling the house and she

wishes Walter to take full responsibility for his actions. For this reason, she asks

Travis to stay there, in order to witness and understand what his father is doing.

She seems to believe that if Walter is to proceed with his plan, his son should

comprehend the meaning of his father’s actions. Yet, these two final Requests

are not Requests for Travis to stay, or for Walter to change his mind, but for the

latter to complete the transaction.

In these two Requests Mama is shown agreeing with Walter’s decision,

while the audience/reader and the characters, as well, know that this is not true –

note the description of Mama ‘…but she is implacable’ (l.22). So, these

Requests can be considered as having an ironical function, which aims to deter

Walter from going on with his plan, although at first sight they seem to

encourage him. This is why it was suggested that their characterisation as

Requests is unproblematic; independently of whether they are read as

supporting or challenging Walter’s decision, they express a Request that Walter

should or should not do something.

As this episode is the last of the four analysed, it seems preferable to

avoid presenting an isolated conclusion, discussing the conversational behaviour

exhibited by the characters and mainly Walter, similar to those of the previous

episodes. This is the final and most decisive part of the course set in the


45

introduction of the dissertation in order to answer the question posed in page 2

‘Is the observation that Walter has come into his manhood justified in terms of

the conversational behaviour he exhibits?’. For this reason, its discussion is

made in the conclusion, in relation to all the preceding episodes.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

46


The analysis of the first episode delineates an aggressive Walter who

seems to have as his sole conversational aim to insult George Murchison. It was

noted that many features of the conversation indicate childish behaviour on his

part. His wife, Ruth, tries to control him with Requests usually employed to

control disobedient children. His reluctance to be obedient and his stubbornness

in continuing to utter insults, deriving from his jealousy of George, were also

considered as elements of conversational childhood.

The second episode presents some indications of change. Walter

attempts to interact as an equal with Karl Lindner and, finally, manages to

overrule Beneatha’s mutiny. Yet, this progress is not total, since Walter prefers

not to challenge Lindner’s moves, or does not manage to, and gives him the

opportunity of ending the encounter in his own way with the highly elaborate

threat that he uses (see p.24ff).

Unfortunately for Walter, all the progress he exhibited in the previous

episode perishes in the third, where he regresses once more to a child-like, not

to say mentally ill, behaviour. Walter questions Bobo in a very strict, yet

unsuccessful way and he does not exhibit the strength of coping with the

announcement of bad news. He is devastated by it and this is clearly shown in

the placatory soliloquy at the end of the play.

The examination of the fourth episode shows yet another shift in his

conversational behaviour. Walter initiated the interaction with Lindner, both by

being the one who had call him to the house and the one who first addresses him

directly. He clearly states the decision that the family has taken ‘we don’t want


47

your money’, after his attempt of defining their self identity as that of ‘very

proud people’.

This is what has led both the characters in the play, namely Mama and

Ruth, and many literary critics to recognise in this episode a ‘rite of passage’,

the coming into manhood for Walter. Of course, it is difficult to deny the

importance of Walter’s decision not to proceed with this plan of selling the

house and the dimension of ‘nobility’ or ‘manhood’ that this move carries.

Nevertheless, I wish to argue that this ‘coming into his manhood’

(Abramson 1967: 252) is not all that clear and complete or unqualified, at least

conversationally, for many reasons. First of all, Walter delays the announcement

of the actual reason why he has called Lindner until the end of his talk11

, after

which he withdraws from the conversation. His preceding attempts at

establishing a self identity were also a way of trying to delay the utterance of the

rejection and to formulate it in a more effective way. And Walter’s withdrawal

from the conversation is quite interesting. The ‘increase in the distance between

participants’ (Laver 1975: 229) is one of the features Laver recognises as parts

of the closing phase of interaction. By this means, Walter wishes to

communicate that his interaction with Lindner is completed and that they do not

have anything else to discuss, without stating it linguistically.

Yet he is unsuccessful, as Lindner rejects the closing and chooses to

address other participants in order to achieve his goals. The fact that the main

speaker, Walter, expresses his wish to end the conversation does not deter

11

This delay could also be explained as a means of creating dramatic tension. Nevertheless, the

analyst has to work with the textual evidence; how the characters are presented to move and

interact in the play. If one starts making speculations about the intentions of the playwright and

explaining the play in terms of dramaturgy, then, there is no stopping. After all, everything in

the play aims to its performance.


48

Lindner from attempting to continue it. And when that happens, Walter does not

re-enter the conversation in order to end it in a more definite way. Instead, it is

Beneatha and Mama – note her ‘Goodbye’ already discussed in page 43 – that

reaffirm the validity of the decision to move to the house and close the

encounter. Walter does not even react to Lindner’s final Inform/warning (page

39).

So, in respect to Lindner, Walter’s authority is not entirely self-derived

but dependent, at least in part, on the support of the other members of his

family. It is mainly Mama, with her words12

, that raises Walter to ‘the head of

the family’ and brings him into manhood, rather than his own conversational

behaviour.

Furthermore, another feature of that episode points toward that direction,

Mama’s two Requests addressed to Walter, discussed in page 44. Walter

reaches to his decision of not selling the house, pushed by his mother’s ironic

Requests – although it is difficult to say the exact effect they had on him. His

preference was to sell the house and this is why he had called Lindner, but it

seems that the pressure applied by his mother finally changed his plans.

Having said the above, a change in Walter’s conversational behaviour

and status, still, is noted. No matter in what way, he does reject Lindner’s

proposal in a definite Inform, ‘we don’t want your money’. Furthermore, he

manages, at least, to win the support of the family and the co-operation of its

members. This is more clearly observed in the character of Beneatha who was

12

MAMA (with a wave of dismissal): I am afraid you don’t understand. My son said we was

going to move and there ain’t nothing left for me to say. You know how these young folks is

nowadays, mister. Can’t do a thing with’em! (As he opens his mouth, she rises.) Goodbye.


49

constantly challenging his authority throughout the play, but decides to support

him at this crucial moment.

The stages through which Walter passes can be observed in the

following scheme, which presents the most general characterisation of his

behaviour in each episode:

Man:

Ep.4

Ep.2

Child: Ep.1 Ep.3

In episodes 1 and 3 Walter is mainly behaving as a child, while his more mature

behaviour in episode 2 is reduced by its partiality. In the light of this, Walter

surely acts in a more mature way in episode 4. Still, this should not be regarded

as the conversational maturity and competence that ‘manhood’ entails, but only

an indication that something has changed in Walter’s way of interaction. This

notion of ‘manhood’ may seem inflated and old-fashioned; and in my view that

is precisely what it is. But it is the view of manhood taken by working class

families such as the Youngers, in America in the 1940’s and 1950’s, long before

the feministic movement flourished.

So, as an answer to the question posed, it can be said that the

observation of Walter coming into manhood is not totally justified, nor totally

deniable. There is a progress in the behaviour he exhibits from the first episode

to the fourth. Yet, this progress is not without variations, in fact regression was

also noticed; his withdrawal from the conversation and his family support, as

well, confirm that the final state of his character, is not as clear cut as suggested


50

and a black and white distinction between childhood and manhood are not

applicable.

Other elements of the play could also be examined; especially a

taxonomy of Informs seems to promise a better understanding of the nature of

interaction, but the limited extent of a short dissertation does not allow further

dwelling on these moves. Still, the worth of this paper, if any, is the suggestion

that different disciplines within linguistics may be combined in a strategic

reading of a literary text, which can highlight elements that may elude the

attention of a reading less aware of the linguistic properties of that text.

Appendix 1

51

Appendix 1: Walter and George (Act 2, Scene 1)

WALTER enters. We feel he has relieved himself, but the edge of unreality is still with him.

WALTER: New York ain’t got nothing Chicago ain’t. Just a bunch of hustling people all squeezed up

together – being ‘Eastern’.

He turns his face into a screw of displeasure. 5

GEORGE: Oh – you’ve been?

WALTER: Plenty of times.

RUTH (shocked at the lie): Walter Lee Younger!

WALTER (staring her down): Plenty! (pause). What we got to drink in this house? Why don’t you

offer this man some refreshment. (to GEORGE:) They don’t know how to entertain people in this 10

house, man.

GEORGE: Thank you – I don’t really care for anything.

WALTER ( feeling his head; sobriety coming): Where’s Mama?

RUTH: She ain’t come back yet.

WALTER (looking MURCHISON over from head to toe, scrutinizing his carefully casual tweed sports 15

jacket over cashmere V-neck sweater over soft eyelet shirt and tie, and soft slacks, finished off with

white buckskin shoes): Why all you college boys wear them faggoty-looking white shoes?

RUTH: Walter Lee!

GEORGE MURCHISON ignores the remark.

WALTER (to RUTH): Well, they look crazy as hell – white shoes, cold as it is. 20

RUTH (crushed): You have to excuse him –

WALTER: No he don’t! Excuse me for what? What you always excusing me for! I’ll excuse myself

when I needs to be excused! (a pause). They look as funny as them black knee socks Beneatha

wears out of here all the time.

RUTH: It’s the college style Walter. 25

WALTER: Style, hell. She looks like she got burnt legs or something!

RUTH: Oh, Walter –

WALTER (an irritable mimic): Oh, Walter! Oh, Walter! (to MURCHISON:) How’s your old man

making out? I understand you all going to buy that big hotel on the Drive? (he finds a beer in the

refrigerator, wanders over to MURCHISON, sipping and wiping his lips with the back of his hand, 30

and straddling a chair backwards to talk to the other man) Shrewd move. Your old man is all right,

man. (tapping his head and half winking for emphasis). I mean he knows how to operate. I mean he

thinks big, you know what I mean, I mean for a home, you know? But I think he’s kind of running

out of ideas now. I’d like to talk to him. Listen, man, I got some plans that could turn this city

upside down. I mean I think like he does. Big. Invest big, gamble big, hell, lose big if you have to, 35

you know what I mean. It’s hard to find a man on this whole Southside who understands my kind of

thinking – you dig? (he scrutinizes MURCHISON again, drinks his beer, squints his eyes and leans

in close, confidential, man to man) Me and you ought to sit down and talk sometimes, man. Man, I

got me some ideas…

GEORGE (with boredom): Yeah – sometimes we’ll have to do that, Walter. 40

Appendix 1

52

WALTER (understanding the indifference, and offended): Yeah – well, when you get the time, man. I

know you a busy little boy.

RUTH: Walter, please –

WALTER (bitterly, hurt): I know ain’t nothing in this world as busy as you coloured college boys with

your fraternity pins and white shoes… 45

RUTH (covering her face with humiliation): Oh, Walter Lee –

WALTER: I see you all all the time – with the books tucked under your arms – going to you (British A

– a mimic) ‘clahsses’. And for what! What the hell you learning over there? Filling up your heads –

(counting off on his fingers) – with the sociology and the psychology – but they teaching you how

to be a man? How to take over and run the world? They teaching you how to run a rubber plantation 50

or a steel mill? Naw – just to talk proper and read books and wear them faggoty-looking white

shoes…

GEORGE (looking at him with distaste, a little above it all): You’re all wacked up with bitterness,

man.

WALTER (intently, almost quietly, between the teeth, glaring at the boy): And you – ain’t you bitter, 55

man? Ain’t you just about had it yet? Don’t you see no stars gleaming that you can’t reach out and

grab? You happy? – You contended son-of-a-bitch – you happy? You got it made? Bitter? Here I

am a volcano. Bitter? Here I am a giant – surrounded by ants! Ants who can’t even understand what

it is the giant is talking about.

RUTH (passionately and suddenly): Oh, Walter – ain’t you with nobody! 60

WALTER (violently): No! ’Cause ain’t nobody with me. Not even my own mother!

RUTH: Walter, that’s a terrible thing to say!

………………………..

GEORGE: Thanks. Good night. (to WALTER) Good night (sarcastically) Prometheus.

WALTER (in fury, pointing after GEORGE): See there – they get to a point where they can’t insult you 65

man to man – they got to talk about something ain’t nobody never heard of!

Appendix 2

53

Appendix 2: First meeting with Lindner (Act 2, Scene 3)

MAN: Uh – how do you do, miss. I am looking for a Mrs – (he looks at the slip of paper.) Mrs Lena

Younger?

BENEATHA (smoothing her hair with slight embarrassment): Oh – yes, that’s my mother. Excuse me.

(She closes the door and turns to quiet the other two) Ruth! Brother! Somebody’s here. Then she 5

opens the door. The man casts a curious quick glance at all of them. Uh – come in please.

MAN (coming in): Thank you.

BENEATHA: My mother isn’t here just now. Is it business?

MAN: Yes… well, of a sort.

WALTER (freely, the Man of the House): Have a seat. I’m Mrs Younger’s son. I look after most of her 10

business matters.

RUTH and BENEATHA exchange amused glances

MAN (regarding WALTER, and sitting): Well – My name is Karl Lindner…

WALTER (stretching out his hand): Walter Younger. This is my wife – (RUTH nods politely.) – and

my sister. 15

LINDNER: How do you do.

WALTER (amiably, as he sits himself easily on a chair, leaning with interest forward on his knees and

looking expectantly into the newcomer’s face): What can we do for you, Mr Lindner!

LINDNER (some minor shuffling of the hat and briefcase on his knees): Well – I am a representative of

the Clybourne Park Improvement Association – 20

WALTER (pointing): Why don’t you sit your things on the floor?

LINDNER: Oh – yes. Thank you. (He slides the briefcase and hat under the chair) And as I was saying

– I am from the Clybourne Park Improvement Association and we have had it brought to our

attention at the last meeting that you people – or at least your mother – has bought a piece of

residential property at – (He digs for the slip of paper again.) – four o six Clybourne Street… 25

WALTER: That’s right. Care for something to drink? Ruth, get Mr Lindner a beer.

LINDNER (upset for some reason): Oh – no, really. I mean thank you very much, but no thank you.

RUTH (innocently): Some coffee?

LINDNER: Thank you, nothing at all.

BENEATHA is watching the man carefully. 30

LINDNER: Well, I don’t know how much you folks know about our organisation. (He is a gentle man;

thoughtful and somewhat laboured in his manner) It is one of these community organisations set up

to look after – oh, you know, things like block upkeep and special projects and we also have what

we call our New Neighbours Orientation Committee…

BENEATHA (drily): Yes – and what do they do? 35

LINDNER (turning a little to her and then returning the main force to WALTER): Well – it’s what you

might call a sort of welcoming committee, I guess. I mean they, we, I’m the chairman of the

committee – go around and see the new people who move into the neighbourhood and sort of give

them the lowdown on the way we do things out in Clybourne Park.

BENEATHA (with appreciation of the two meanings, which escape RUTH and WALTER): Un-huh. 40

Appendix 2

54

LINDNER: And we also have the category of what the association calls – (He looks elsewhere.) – uh –

special community problems…

BENEATHA: Yes – and what are some of those?

WALTER: Girl, let the man talk.

LINDNER (with understated relief): Thank you. I would sort of like to explain this thing in my own 45

way. I mean I want to explain to you in a certain way.

WALTER: Go ahead.

LINDNER: Yes. Well. I’m going to get right to the point. I’m sure we’ll all appreciate that in the long

run.

BENEATHA: Yes. 50

WALTER: Be still now!

LINDNER: Well – –

RUTH (still innocently): Would you like another chair – you don’t look comfortable.

LINDNER (more frustrated than annoyed): No, thank you very much. Please. Well – to get right to the

point I – (A great breath, and he is off at last.) I am sure you people must be aware of some of the 55

incidents – bombings and ugliness and, well, you probably know better than I – which have

happened in various parts of the city when coloured people have moved into certain areas –

(BENEATHA exhales heavily and starts tossing a piece of fruit up and down in the air) Well –

because we have what I think is going to be a unique type of organisation in American community

life – not only do we deplore that kind of thing – but we are trying to do something about it. 60

(BENEATHA stops tossing and turns with a new and quizzical interest to the man.) We feel –

(Gaining confidence in his mission because of the interest in the faces of the people he is talking to.)

– we feel that most of the trouble in this world, when you come right down to it – (He hits his knee

for emphasis) – most of the trouble exists because people just don’t sit down and talk to each other.

RUTH (nodding as she might in church, pleased with the remark): You can say that again, mister. 65

LINDNER (more encouraged by such affirmation): That we don’t try hard enough in this world to

understand the other fellow’s problem. The other guy’s point of view.

RUTH: Now that’s right.

BENEATHA and WALTER merely watch and listen with genuine interest.

LINDNER: Yes – that’s the way we feel out in Clybourne Park. And that’s why I was elected to come 70

here this afternoon and talk to you people. Friendly like, you know, the way people should talk to

each other and see if we couldn’t find some way to work this thing out. As I say, the whole business

is a matter of caring about the other fellow. Anybody can see that you are a nice family of folks,

hard-working and honest I’m sure.

BENEATHA frowns slightly, quizzically, her head tilted regarding him. 75

Today everybody knows what it means to be on the outside of something. And of course, there is

always somebody who is out to take advantage of people who don’t always understand.

WALTER: What do you mean?

LINDNER: Well – you see our community is made up of people who’ve worked hard as the dickens

for years to build up that little community. They’re not rich and fancy people; just hard-working, 80

Appendix 2

55

honest people who don’t really have much but those little homes and a dream of the kind of

community they want to raise their children in. Now, I don’t say we are perfect and there is a lot

wrong in some of the things they want. But you’ve got to admit that a man, right or wrong, has the

right to want to have the neighbourhood he lives in a certain kind of way. And at the moment the

overwhelming majority of our people out there feel that people get along better, take more of a 85

common interest in the life of the community, when they share a common background. I want you

to believe me when I tell you that race prejudice simply doesn’t enter into it. It is a matter of the

people of Clybourne Park believing, rightly or wrongly, as I say, that for the happiness of all

concerned that our Negro families are happier when they live in their own communities.

BENEATHA (with a grand and bitter gesture): This, friends, is the Welcoming Committee! 90

WALTER (dumbfounded, looking at LINDNER): Is this what you came marching all the way over here

to tell us?

LINDNER: Well, now we’ve been having a fine conversation. I hope you’ll hear me all the way

through.

WALTER (tightly): Go ahead, man. 95

LINDNER: You see – in the face of all things I have said, we are prepared to make your family a very

generous offer…

BENEATHA: Thirty pieces and not a coin less!

WALTER: Yeah?

LINDNER (putting on his glasses and drawing from out of the briefcase): Our association is prepared, 100

through the collective effort of our people, to buy the house from you at a financial gain to your

family.

RUTH: Lord have mercy, ain’t this the living gall!

WALTER: All right, you through?

LINDNER: Well, I want to give you the exact terms of the financial arrangement – 105

WALTER: We don’t want to hear no exact terms of no arrangements. I want to know if you got

anymore to tell us ‘bout getting together?

LINDNER (taking off his glasses): Well – I don’t suppose that you feel…

WALTER: Never mind how I feel – you got anymore to say ‘bout how people ought to sit down and

talk to each other?… Get out of my house, man. He turns his back and walks to the door. 110

LINDNER (looking around at the hostile faces and reaching and assembling his hat and briefcase):

Well – I don’t understand why you people are reacting this way. What do you think you are going

to gain by moving into a neighbourhood where you just aren’t wanted and where some elements –

well – people can get awful worked up when they feel that their whole way of life and everything

they’ve ever worked for is threatened. 115

WALTER: Get out.

LINDNER (at the door, holding a small card): Well – I’m sorry it went like this.

WALTER: Get out.

LINDNER (almost sadly regarding WALTER): You just can’t force people to change their hearts, son.

Appendix 3

56

Appendix 3: Walter and Bobo (Act 2, Scene 3)

WALTER:… (…WALTER leans deep in the man’s face, still in his jubilance.)

When I get to heaven gonna put on my wings,

Gonna fly all over God’s heaven…

The little man just stares at him. 5

Heaven –

Suddenly he stops and looks past the little man into the empty hallway.

Where’s Willy, man?

BOBO: He ain’t with me.

WALTER (not disturbed): Oh – come on in. You know my wife. 10

BOBO (quietly, taking off his hat): Yes – h’you, Miss Ruth.

RUTH (quietly, a mood apart from her husband already, seeing BOBO): Hello, Bobo.

WALTER: You right on time today… Right on time. That’s the way! (He slaps BOBO on his back.) Sit

down… lemme hear.

RUTH stands stiffly and quietly in back of them, as though somehow she senses death, her eyes 15

fixed on her husband.

BOBO (his frightened eyes on the floor, his hat in his hand.) Could I please get a drink of water, before

I tell you about it, Walter Lee?

WALTER does not take his eyes off the man. RUTH goes blindly to the tap and gets a glass of water

and brings it to BOBO. 20

WALTER: There ain’t nothing wrong, is there?

BOBO: Lemme tell you –

WALTER: Man – didn’t nothing go wrong?

BOBO: Lemme tell you – Walter Lee. (looking at RUTH and talking to her more than to WALTER.)

You know how it was. I got to tell you how it was. I mean first I got to tell you how it was all the 25

way… I mean about the money I put in, Walter Lee…

WALTER (with taut agitation now): What about the money you put in?

BOBO: Well – it wasn’t much as we told you – me and Willy – (He stops.) I’m sorry, Walter. I got a

bad feeling about it. I got a real bad feeling about it…

WALTER: Man, what you telling me about all this for?… Tell me what happened in Springfield… 30

BOBO: Springfield.

RUTH (like a dead woman): What was supposed to happen in Springfield?

BOBO (to her): This deal that me and Walter went into with Willy – Me and Willy was going to go

down to Springfield and spread some money ’round so’s we wouldn’t have to wait so long for the

liquor licence… That’s what we were going to do. Everybody said that was the way you had to do, 35

you understand, Miss Ruth?

WALTER: Man – what happened down there?

BOBO (a pitiful man, near tears): I’m trying to tell you, Walter.

WALTER (screaming at him suddenly): THEN TELL ME, GODDAMMIT… WHAT’S THE

MATTER WITH YOU? 40

Appendix 3

57

BOBO: Man… I didn’t go to no Springfield, yesterday.

WALTER (halted, life hanging in the moment): Why not?

BOBO (the long way, the hard way to tell): ’Cause I didn’t have no reasons to…

WALTER: Man, what are you talking about!

BOBO: I’m talking about the fact that when I got to the train station yesterday morning – eight o’ clock 45

like we planned… Man – Willy didn’t never show up.

WALTER: Why… where was he… where is he?

BOBO: That’s what I’m trying to tell you… I don’t know… I waited six hours… I called his house…

and I waited… six hours… I waited in that train station six hours… (breaking into tears.) That was

all the extra money I had in the world… 50

Looking up at WALTER with tears running down his face.

Man, Willy is gone.

WALTER: Gone, what do you mean Willy is gone? Gone where? You mean he went by himself. You

mean he went off to Spriengfield by himself – to take care of getting the licence – (Turns and looks

anxiously at RUTH.) You mean maybe he didn’t want too many people in on the business down 55

there? (Looks back to BOBO.) Maybe you was late yesterday and he just went on down there

without you. Maybe – maybe – he’s been callin’ you at home tryin’ to tell you what happened or

something. Maybe – maybe – he just got sick. He’s somewhere – he’s got to be somewhere. We just

got to find him – me and you got to find him.

He grabs BOBO senselessly by the collar and starts to shake him. 60

We got to!

BOBO (in sudden angry, frightened agony): What’s the matter with you, Walter! When a cat take off

with your money he don’t leave you no maps!

WALTER (turning madly, as though he is looking for WILLY in the very room): Willy!… Willy!…

don’t do it… Please don’t do it… Man, not with that money… Man, please, not with that money… 65

Oh, God… Don’t let it be true… (he is wandering around, crying for help from God.) Man… I

trusted you… Man, I put my life in your hands… (he starts to crumple down on the floor as RUTH

just covers her face in horror. MAMA opens the door and comes into the room, with BENEATHA

behind her.) Man… (he starts to pound the floor with his fists, sobbing wildly.) That money is made

out of my father’s flesh… 70

BOBO (standing over him helplessly): I’m sorry, Walter… (only WALTER’s sobs reply. BOBO puts on

his hat.) I had my life staked on this deal, too…

He exits.

Appendix 4

58

Appendix 4: Second meeting with Lindner (Act 3)

LINDNER appears in the doorway. He peers in and knocks lightly, to gain attention, and comes in. All

turn to look at him.

LINDNER (hat and briefcase in hand): Uh – hello…

RUTH crosses mechanically to the bedroom door and opens it and lets it swing open freely and 5

slowly as the lights come up on WALTER within, still in his coat, sitting at the far corner of the

room. He looks up and out through the door to LINDNER.

RUTH: He’s here.

A long minute passes and WALTER slowly gets up.

LINDNER (coming to the table with efficiency, putting his briefcases on the table and starting to 10

unfold papers and unscrew fountain pens): Well, I certainly was glad to hear from you people.

(WALTER has begun the trek out of the room, slowly and awkwardly, rather like a small boy,

passing the back of his sleeve across his mouth from time to time.) Life can really be so much

simpler than people let it be most of the time. Well – with whom do I negotiate? You, Mrs

Younger, or your son here? (MAMA sits with her hands folded on her lap and her eyes closed as 15

WALTER advances. TRAVIS goes close to LINDNER and looks at the papers curiously.) Just some

official papers sonny.

RUTH: Travis, you go downstairs.

MAMA (opening her eyes and looking into WALTER’s): No. Travis, you stay right here. And you

make him understand what you doing, Walter lee. You teach him good. Like Willy Harris taught 20

you!

WALTER unnerved, looks from her to the boy, who grins at him merrily, but she is implacable.

You show where our five generations done come to.

She pats TRAVIS on the butt and he sits at her fit.

Go ahead, son. 25

WALTER takes a step towards her, but she folds her hands and closes her eyes. At last he returns to

LINDNER, who is immersed in a final review of the contract.

WALTER: Well, Mr Lindner. (LINDNER looks up and smiles and BENEATHA turns her back on the

scene.) We called you – (there is a profound simple groping quality in his speech) because, well,

me and my family – ( he looks about, shifting from foot to foot) well – we are very plain people – 30

LINDNER: Yes – yes, of course, Mr Younger. (he turns his attention to the contract)

WALTER: I mean – I have worked as a chauffeur most of my life – and my wife here, she does

domestic work in people’s kitchens. So does my mother. I mean – we are plain people.

LINDNER (turning a page, only half listening): Yes, Mr Younger…

WALTER (looking down at his shoes and then at the man): And – uh – well, my father, well – he was 35

a labourer most of his life –

LINDNER (cutting in, impatient to get on with it and just a little more patronising than he means to

be): Yes, yes, I understand…

Appendix 4

59

WALTER (a beat; staring at him): And my father – (with sudden intensity as the anger rises in him at

the man’s indifference and his own humiliation): My father almost beat a man to death once 40

because this man called him a bad name or something. (Evenly:) You know what I mean?

LINDNER (looking up, frozen): No, no, I’m afraid I don’t –

WALTER: Yeah. Well – (flexing his hand and relaxing a little as he deliberately steps back from the

precipice.) what I mean to say is that we come from people who had a lot of pride. I mean – we are

very proud people. And that’s my sister over there and she’s going to be a doctor – and we are very 45

proud –

LINDER: Well – I am sure that is very nice, but –

WALTER (facing the man eye to eye): What I am telling you is that we called you over here to tell you

that we are very proud and that this – this is my son, and he makes the sixth generation of our

family in this country, and we have all thought about you offer – 50

LINDNER (holding out the pen, anxious to get the signature and get out): Well, good… good –

WALTER: And we have decided to move into our house - (His eyes find RUTH’s and she crosses to

his side.) because my father – my father – he earned it for us, brick by brick.

MAMA has her eyes closed and is rocking back and forth as though she were in church, with her

head nodding the amen yes. 55

We don’t want to make no trouble for nobody or fight no causes – but we will try to be good

neighbours. That’s all we got to say. (He looks the man absolutely in the eyes.) We don’t want your

money.

He turns and walks away from the man.

LINDNER (looking around at all of them): I take it then that you have decided to occupy. 60

BENEATHA: That’s what the man said.

LINDNER (to MAMA in her reverie): Then I would like to appeal to you, Mrs Younger. You are older

and wiser and understand things better I am sure…

MAMA (with a wave of dismissal): I am afraid you don’t understand. My son said we was going to

move and there ain’t nothing left for me to say. You know how these young folks is nowadays, 65

mister. Can’t do a thing with’em! (As he opens his mouth, she rises.) Goodbye.

LINDNER (folding up his materials): Well – if you are that final about it… There is nothing left for me

to say. (He finishes. He is almost ignored by the family, who are concentrating on WALTER LEE.

At the door LINDNER halts and looks around.) I sure hope you people know what you’re getting

into. 70

He shakes his head and exits.

References

60

References

Abramson, D.E, 1967, Negro Playwrights in the American Theatre, New York

and London: Columbia University Press.

Austin, J. L., 1962, How to Do Things With Words, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Brown, G. and Yule, G, 1983, Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S., 1978, ‘Universals in Language Usage: Politeness

‘Phenomena’, in E.N. Goody ed., Questions and Politeness: Strategies

in Social Interaction, pp.56-289, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S., 1987 (2nd

ed.), Politeness: Some Universals in

Language Usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, R.G. and Ford, M., 1964, ‘Address in American English’, in D. Hymes

ed., Language in Culture and Society, pp.234-244, Harper & Row.

Burton, D., 1980, Dialogue and Discourse: A Sociolinguistic Approach to

Modern Drama Dialogue and Naturally Occurring Conversation,

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Coulthard, R. M., 1985 (2nd

ed.), An Introduction to Discourse Analysis,

London: Longman.

Cruse, H., 1967, The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual, New York: William

Morrow.

Eco, U., 1986, Come si fa una tesi di laurea, Milano: Bompiani.

Ervin-Tripp, S. M., 1972, ‘Sociolinguistic Rules of Address’, in J.B. Pride and

J. Holmes eds., Sociolinguistics, pp.225-240, Harmondsworth: Penguin

Books.

Fairclough, N., 1989, Language and Power, London and New York: Longman.

Fraser, B., 1990, ‘Perspective on Politeness’, Journal of Pragmatics, 14,

pp.219-236.

Geis, M.L., 1995, Speech acts and conversational interaction, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, E., 1967, Interaction Ritual: essays on face to face behaviour, Garden

City, New York: Double Day.

References

61

Goffman, E., 1981a, ‘Replies and Responses’, in Forms of Talk, pp.5-77,

Oxford: Blackwell.

Goffman, E., 1981b, ‘Footing’, in Forms of Talk, pp.124-159, Oxford:

Blackwell.

Grice, H.P., 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan eds.,

Syntax and Semantics, vol.3 Speech Acts, pp. 41-58, New York:

Academic Press.

Halliday, M.A.K., 1970a, ‘Language structure and language function’, in J.

Lyons ed., New Horizons in Linguistics, pp.140-65, Harmondsworth:

Penguin.

Halliday, M.A.K., 1970b, A Course in Spoken English: Intonation, London:

Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K., 1994 (2nd

ed.), Introduction to Functional Grammar,

London: Arnold.

Hansberry, L., 1959, ‘A Raisin in the Sun’, in M. Remnant ed., Plays by

Women, vol.5, London: Methuen (1986).

Jakobson, R., 1971, Selected Writings II: Word and Language, The Hague:

Mouton.

Labov, W., 1972a, ‘Rules for Ritual Insults’, in D. Sudnow ed., Studies in

Social Interaction, pp. 120-69, New York: Free Press.

Labov, W., 1972b, Language in the Inner City, Philadelphia: University of

Philadelphia Press.

Labov, W. and Fanshel, D., 1977, Therapeutic Discourse, New York: Academic

Press.

Laver, J., 1975, ‘Communicative Functions of Phatic Communion’, in A.

Kendon, R. M. Harris and M. R. Key eds., Organisation of Behaviour in

Face to Face Interaction, pp. 215-240, The Hague: Mouton.

Leech, G.N., 1983, Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.

Leech, G.N., 1992, ‘Pragmatic Principles in Shaw’s You Never Can Tell’, in

M.J. Toolan ed., Language Text and Context: Essays in Stylistics,

pp.259-278, London and New York: Routledge.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., and Jefferson, G., 1974, ‘A Simplest Systematics for

the Organisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation’, Language, vol.50,

no.4, pp.696-735.

References

62

Schegloff, E.A., and Sacks, H., 1973, ‘Opening up closings’, Semiotica, vol.8,

no.4, pp.289-327.

Schiffrin, D., 1987, Discourse Markers, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Searle, J.R., 1965, ‘What is a Speech Act?’, in M. Black ed., Philosophy in

America, pp.221-39, London: Allen & Unwin.

Searle, J.R., 1969, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J.R., 1975, ‘Indirect Speech Acts’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan eds., Syntax

and Semantics, vol.3, Speech Acts, pp.59-82, New York: Academic

Press.

Short, M., 1989, ‘Discourse Analysis and the Analysis of Drama’, in R. Carter

and P. Simpson eds., Language, Discourse and Literature: An

Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics, pp.138-168, London:

Unwin Hyman.

Short, M., 1996, Exploring the Language of Plays, Poems and Prose, London:

Longman.

Simpson, P., 1989, ‘Phatic Communion and Fictional Dialogue’, in R. Carter

and P. Simpson eds., Language, Discourse and Literature: An

Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics, pp.43-56, London: Unwin

Hyman.

.

Sinclair, J.M., 2000, Spin, Valedictory lecture, University of Birmingham, 18-5-

2000, (unpublished).

Sinclair, J.M. and Coulthard, R.M., 1975, Towards an Analysis of Discourse:

The English used by Teachers and Pupils, London: Oxford University

Press

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D., 1996, ‘On verbal irony’, in J.J. Weber ed., The

Stylistics Reader: from Roman Jakobson to the present, pp.260-279,

London: Arnold.

Stubbs, M., 1983, Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural

Language, Oxford: Blackwell.

Thomas, J., 1995, Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics,

London and New York: Longman.

Toolan, M.J., 1996, ‘Stylistics and its discontents; or, getting of the Fish

‘hook’’, in J.J. Weber, ed., The Stylistics Reader: from Roman Jakobson

to the present, London: Arnold.

References

63

Toolan, M.J., 1997, Language in Literature: An Introduction to Stylistics,

London: Arnold.

Toolan, M.J., 2000, ‘‘What makes you think you exist?’: A speech move

schematic and its application to Pinter’s The Birthday Party’, Journal of

Pragmatics, 32, pp.177-201

Tsui, A.B.M., 1994, English Conversation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Washington, J.C., 1988, ‘A Raisin in the Sun Revisited’, Black American

Literature Forum, vol.33, no.1, pp.109-124.

Date post:	21-Jul-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	chgialopsos
View:	32 times
Download:	0 times

Literary linguistics, speech moves

Documents