2.4. the Conative Function of the Language

7/31/2019 2.4. the Conative Function of the Language

1/4

2.4. The Conative Function of the LanguageBoth in everyday life and in the field of the linguistic sciences, the term of linguistic communication is used to refer to a double-faced reality: communicating about something and communicating to somebody . In the first case, the language is said to develop the referential function; in the latter case, its functionis the conative one.

According to the same linguist and philosopher of language mentioned earlier, Roman Jakobson, this latter function has as its object of focus the interlocutor / recipient of the message; it is more explicitly described in terms of the locutors concern about the interlocutor, of his formulating of the message insuch a way as to make the latter react either verbally, by answering a question,psychologically, by changing his own convictions or feelings, or materially, byadopting a certain behaviour or attitude as a result of the locutors request.In most cases the message bears the formal mark of the locutors expecting the interlocutor to react, or if not marked this expectation is one of the possible meanings that the structure of the sentence may employ.The transfer of information between the locutor and the interlocutor entails a transformation of the latter. Sometimes this transformation is at the level of his knowledge of the world, both in terms of quantity and quality, other times itis a transformation of his attitude, or actions, or feelings and emotions, etc.This last aspect is the reason why the conative function of the language is saidto have a pragmatic side and is approached in this section in close relationship with J. L. Austin and J. R. Searles pragmatic theory of speech acts.These two linguists consider that each sentence uttered is designed to serve a s

pecific pragmatic function: to inform, to warn, to order, to promise, to question about a fact, to thank, to apologise, to congratulate, etc. The function it serves is critical to communication as any locutor expects his interlocutors to recognise this function and to act accordingly. There are situations in which thefunction of an utterance is misunderstood due to external factors, such as noise or the distance in space between the two participants in the discussion, or toother factors of which one could be the clash between the speakers linguistic, paralinguistic, ideological and cultural competences. Psychological factors suchas shyness, fear, absent-mindedness, etc. may affect negatively the reception of the function of the message, even if everything else about the sentence has been taken in perfectly (its informational content, for instance).According to the same linguists every time speakers utter a sentence, they are attempting to accomplish something with the words, that is to say they are performin

g a speech act , called by J. L. Austin an illocutionary act.There are direct illocutionary acts and indirect illocutionary acts.In the direct ones the performative verb or the verb that can be used performatively is explicitly provided:

1). I ask you to tell me who that woman was.2). I order you to shut up.3). I promise Ill never do that again.

Some other performative verbs are: advise, affirm, announce, apologise, bet, command, congratulate, pronounce, request, recommend, sentence, state, suggest, thank, urge, warn, etc. These are also called verbs of declaration or verba dicendi.

Sometimes, even though it is not explicit, the performative verb can be easily inferred from the underlying semantics of the shortened construction that frequently contains a verb in the imperative or the conditional mood:

4). Shut up! (order)5). Ill never do that again. (promise)6). You should go there and see what is all about. (advice)7). Pass the salt, please. (request)8). This book is very interesting. You should read it, too. (recommendat

ion)


2/4

9). Well done! (congratulation; if the tone is ironic - criticism)10). Who was that man? (request for information, asking)

In English, commands / orders and suggestions may also be formulated inthe 1st person plural:

11). Lets / Let us go on with the game. (suggestion)

All these direct illocutionary acts, as illustrated above, are easy to understand by the interlocutor and more often than not he has no difficulty in grasping what their function is.But there are also indirect illocutionary acts whose formulation makes it sometimes difficult for the interlocutor to understand how they should react, and therefore he may fail to comply with the function of these acts. In such cases intonation is of no help. For example, when the sentence Its hot in here is used to get someone to open the window (i.e. its function is request for service), if theinterlocutor replies No, it isnt, this may show that he either misunderstood thefunction of the message, taking the sentence for a declarative with referentialfunction with which he disagrees, or that he refuses to open the door, in both cases the speech act as intended by the locutor proves to be a failure in terms of the expected result. Nevetheless, indirect illocutionary acts are very resourceful as far as the psychological backgrounds of the two participants in the discussion are concerned.Some verbal exchanges between two speakers are constrained by cultural factors o

r social conventions. Among these there can be mentioned: greeting, introducingpeople, taking leave, thanking, etc. These speech acts follow specific structural patterns that are generally known by everybody living in a certain cultural area. These patterns can be considered clichd conversational frameworks. When sucha pattern is broken, as in the following examples, the result is usually humorous, if not offending, due to the puzzlement of those who initiate or to those whoare witnesses to such exchanges. The reasons why the pattern is not observed may be complex: either the addressee does not know the linguistic customs of the place, or he does not consider the social requirement to comply with the rules oflinguistic behaviour in such situations.In the next fragment the two speaking characters belong to two different worlds,therefore there is a clash between their codes of verbal behaviour:

12). [] at last the Caterpillar [] addressed her []:Who are you?This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation []I think you ought to tell me who you are, first.Why? said the Caterpillar.

Here was another puzzling question; [] Alice could not think of any good reason

What is puzzling to Alice in this dialogue is the unexpected way in which the Caterpillar approaches her. The conversational pattern she is used to in such a situation in the real world to which she belongs is that of saying Hallo!,then introducing oneself, to which the interlocutor does the same, at the end of which both say How do you do? or Nice to meet you. This socio-linguistic pattern is totally foreign to The Caterpillar, who lives in Wonderland, therefore has

a totally different perspective upon life and a queer linguistic behaviour. AsAlice did not know anything about that in advance, she interprets the situationand her interlocutor using the instruments she is familiar with; judgmental at first about the Caterpillars good manners, she ends up by getting puzzled at his apparent lack of consideration.

This is the primary meaning of this fragment. What lies below this surface is Lewis Carrolls destroying such socio-linguistic convention rendered by theconversational pattern mentioned above and inviting the careful reader to ponderupon its hidden cultural explanations and upon the ensuing psychological effects that a speakers attempt of not observing it may have. This is not to say that t


3/4

he author is moralistic. He only illustrates how some questions, such as Who areyou? And Why?, which are largely used in everyday conversations, become out-of-place when it comes to verbal exchanges of set patterns.It is common knowledge and commonly consented upon in the English speaking culture that when people meet for the first time they are supposed to talk about sometopic before they get better acquainted with each other. The most common topicthat has a cultural characteristic in such respect is weather. Being a neutral subject, it is considered the best one for an ice-breaker in a conversation. Inany other context, the main function of such an exchange would be the referential one. But in this situation its function is conative: the speakers take and give each other the time to reduce the distance and to get over the emotional barriers that such a social interaction involves without keeping silent.Such an exchange is illustrated in the fragment below; only it has humorous effects due to the discrepancy between the common informal language required by suchsmall talks and the highly formal register actually used by the main character,Liza. Freddys reaction to Lizas words is only natural:

13). Mrs. Higgins [at last, conversationally] Will it rain, do you think?Liza: The shallow depression in the west of these islands is likely to mo

ve slowly in an easterly direction. There are no indications of any great changein the barometrical situation.

Freddy: Ha! ha! how awfully funny!

What is striking in this dialogue is Lizas inappropriate pretentiousness

and artificiality of formulation which sounds very funny to Freddy. The remarkable length of her answer, the structural complexity and the undeniable clarity ofideas in the two sentences she utters are characteristic of a meteorologists scientific speech, therefore totally inappropriate when it comes to a common personengaged in an everyday verbal exchange, such as the five-oclock tea talk here. Freddy behaves as any other person would under such circumstances in real life. Andthis is what G. B. Shaw points out: small talk should stick to a simple, natural pattern and wording in order to sound natural and to function as what it is meant to. To the reader of this play, however, the humorous effect achieved by this fragment also resides in the way in which the contradiction between appearanceand reality is given shape. Eliza seems to be a lady, but she is actually a florist belonging to a low social class. This contradiction is misinterpreted by the participants in this conversation: what is appearance is taken for reality, an

d the other way round. This is one of the typically Shavian inversions that employed here and in some other places of this play as well.The next example illustrates a verbal exchange in which the speaking character uses an indirect question, apparently referential in function, which is interpreted as an indirect request for a service even if it could have been a request foran answer:

14). Higgins: I wonder where the devil my slippers are![]Eliza returns with a pair of large down-at-heel slippers

.

Considering this fragment in the light established by the previous global context of the play, Elizas reaction to Higginss words is the most natural one:

she is a submissive servant, always trying not to offend her master. Later in the play it becomes clear that Higginss intention was to get an answer and not a service to his indirect question. This linguistic exchange proves to have been a sample of unsuccessful communication when he criticises Elizas humble attitude towards him:

15). You were a fool: I think a woman fetching a mans slippers is a disgusting sight: did I ever fetch your slippers? [] No use slaving for me and saying you wantto be cared for.


4/4

In the extended fragment below the writer points out the importance of the psychological and ontological extra-linguistic contexts for the smooth functioning ofan illocutionary act. The fragment renders the discussion between Mr. Farradayand his butler, Stevens, an employee of impeccable social and linguistic behaviour, as well as the latters psychological struggle to live up to his employers alleged expectations. Stevens is also the 1st person narrator in the novel:

16). It is quite possible, then, that my employer fully expects me to respond tohis bantering in a like manner, and considers my failure to de so a form of negligence. This is, as I say, a matter which has given me much concern. But I mustsay this business of bantering is not a duty I feel I can ever discharge with enthusiasm. []

I did though on one occasion not long ago, pluck up the courage to attempt the required sort of reply. I was serving Mr. Farraday morning coffee in thebreakfast room when he said to me:

I suppose it wasnt you making that crowing noise this morning, Stevens?My employer was referring, I realized, to a pair of gypsies gathering unwanted iron who passed by earlier making their customary calls. As it happened, I had the same morning been giving thought to the dilemma of whether or not I was expected to reciprocate my employers bantering, and had been seriously worried at how he might be viewing my repeated failure to respond to such openings. I thereforeset about thinking of some witty reply [] I said:More like swallows than crows, I would have said, sir. From the migratory aspect.

And I followed this with a suitably modest smile to indicate without ambiguity that I had made a witticism [].I beg your pardon, Stevens?Only then did it occur to me that, of course, my witticism would

not be easily appreciated by someone who was not aware that it was gypsies whohad passed by.

The author of the novel from which the excerpt above was taken proves tobe a fine observer of the intricate psychological processes that a cooperativeinterlocutor - Stevens in this case - may go through when he is in the positionto understand the actual meaning of an ambiguous message, and implicitly its function. Non-verbal psychological factors such as the locutors intentions, expectations, knowledge of the referent are difficult to infer from the informational co

ntent of the message alone, especially when there is a difference in the socialstatus and cultural backgrounds of the participants in the discussion. To thesefactors there must be added the participants willingness to cooperate, without which any verbal exchange would be a failure.What is interesting in the fragment above is the authors suggesting another psychological factor that might affect the successful reception of the informationalcontent and function of a message: Stevenss certainty that he knows what is goingon in his employers mind, which in the end proves to have been only unfounded suppositions. A natural way of avoiding such false suppositions is to ask for, orto be given, explanations about how certain words, ideas, even illocutionary functions of the message are to be interpreted in order for verbal communication tobe successful. This is the topic of analysis in the next section.

Documents

2.4. the Conative Function of the Language