Question-answer thematic units in Nobel lectures delivered by prizewinners in the field of literature

Размещено на http://allbest.ru

Question-answer thematic units in Nobel lectures delivered by prizewinners in the field of literature

L.I. Pavlenko

Abstract

Keywords: the Nobel lecture, structural analysis, a content component, coherence, a rhetorical mode, a syntactic stylistic device, pathos, dialogicity.

Анотація

Тематичні блоки питання - відповідь в Нобелівських лекціях лауреатів у галузі літератури

Л. І. Павленко

У статті докладно досліджено структурні, змістові, прагматичні та стилістичні аспекти питально-відповідних тематичних єдностей (блоків) у Нобелівських лекціях.

У процесі дослідження застосовано метод лінгвістичного опису та спостереження й контекстуально-інтерпретаційний метод.

Ключові слова: Нобелівська лекція, структурний аналіз, змістова складова, когерентність, риторична модель, синтаксичний стилістичний засіб, пафос, діалогічність.

Problem statement

Discussing the egocentric character of verbal (speech) activity performed by a speaker, linguists stress the importance of social environment and the modifying addressee (listener) factor due to which the text acquires corresponding syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features [9: 48-49]. A Nobel lecture as a specific genre of public speaking vividly demonstrates this duality by interconnection of individual and social factors. stylistic literature nobel laureate

The individuality of a writer reveals itself not only in the way he employs the repertoire of linguistic means of the given language but also in the choice of topics covered in the lecture. Our previous research in this field demonstrated that laureates discuss the range of various issues from the writing process itself to urgent global affairs. We established clear correlation between the official justification of the award and the content of the lecture. Prizewinners use the award ceremony as a powerful platform to attract attention to social, moral, political, and religious issues thus making notable input to molding a public opinion.

The logical compositional structure of any public presentation, relevant content, reliable supporting materials, a reasonable proportion of emotional and rational components, and skilful delivery, undoubtedly, contribute to the success of the speech. Various approaches have been proposed to study linguistic tools to transfer a powerful message, among which we can name rhetorical topoi [16], literary autonomy and literary canons [17], or genre-stylistic features [5].

Theoretical background. Previous works focused mainly either on one definite lecture [18] or on some definite aspect [10]. A recent review of the literature on this subject made it possible to single out the detailed research devoted to the Nobel laureates in literature of the African diaspora [13]. L. Creque overviews their Nobel lectures claiming the importance of historical re-enactment, the language and the literary commitment of the writer in the diaspora, concluding that the cultural contribution of these authors to the world literature is notable due to the inherent value of the narrative itself that is unpredictable and astonishing. The topics thoroughly described in their works covered everyday concerns of the post-colonial African continent in the twentieth century and interrelationship of its inhabitants with representatives of other cultural backgrounds. The significance of this recognition is hard to overestimate as African Diaspora laureates neither belong to European community nor consider English their mother tongue [13: 11]. Another work which is worth mentioning provides a thorough analysis of twenty 1990-2009 Nobel lectures in literature with the purpose to detect different manifestations of literary autonomy [17]. The author discussesNobelists' childhood recollections and literary vocation, their vision of literature as a medium in the technologically changing world, the relationship between the recognized literary canon and ancient oral story-telling tradition. The defence of freedom of expression is considered an unambiguous characteristic of literary autonomy though it is stressed that the above-mentioned lectures demonstrate more prudence in political issues than resistance (except O. Paz, Fo, and H. Pinter). Notably, both studies underline the growing connection between local and global literary traditions.

However, there is still a need for an integrated investigation of Nobel lectures in structural, semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic aspects. The present paper is an attempt to cover above-mentioned aspects.

The aim of this article is to provide an in-depth examination of question- answer thematic entities (units) in Nobel lectures as one of the most powerful ways to deliver the message. Our sample consists of 14 lectures delivered by laureates in literature whose prizewinning texts were written in English; the full texts are available at https: //www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz es/ literature / laureates /).

Results and discussion

For ease of analysis, a formal minimal text fragment taken under consideration is a paragraph which is understood as a set of sentences centred around one idea and graphically indented [1: 269]. We also use the theoretical findings of a famous linguist I. Galperin about supra-phrasal units as text constituents in our research [3: 67-73].

Firstly, question-answer thematic entities are examined to define their role to structure the paragraph. Such units are used at the beginning and function as effective attention-getters. In our opinion, question-answer units in the middle of a paragraph serve as a "springboard" for further discussion, often from another angle. Unexpectedly, the research detected that questions are widely employed at the end of paragraphs being a memorable ending, concluding remarks, or a clincher. Of particular interest in this respect is the Nobel lecture by J. Coetzee who uses different types of questions at the end as a form of inner speech.

Secondly, the structural analysis revealed a complicated internal organization of such units with varied combination of different types of questions, for example:

1. one question is followed by a developed answer:

What is the earthly paradise for our visitors? Two weeks without rain and a mahogany tan, and, at sunset, local troubadours in straw hats and floral shirts beating "Yellow Bird" and ''Banana Boat Song" to death. There is a territory wider than this - wider than the limits made by the map of an island - which is the illimitable sea and what it remembers (Walcott).

2. a set of questions is followed by a developed answer:

The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident.

Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Pokes? China? Paris? Who knows?

What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it (Pinter).

3. a set of questions is followed by a one-sentence answer:

But who does not know of literature banned because it is interrogative; discredited because it is critical; erased because alternate?

And how many are outraged by the thought of a self- ravaged tongue?

Word.-work is sublime, she thinks, because it is generative; it makes meaning that secures our difference, our human difference - the way in which we are like no other life (Morrison).

4. a set of questions is interchanged with a set of answers (single cases in our sample).

We consider that questions in the discussed thematic units effectively strengthen the lecture coherence. They enable laureates to discuss a range of topics that are vitally important for them and express deep concern about these issues.

The notion of coherence is in the focus of linguistic studies [15; 7; 8]. For the purposes of this research, we understand it as "...the underlying functional connectedness or identity of a piece of spoken or written language (text, discourse). It involves the study of such factors as the language users' knowledge of the world, the inferences they make, and the assumptions they hold" [14: 85]; while communicating ideas, there is an obligatory condition to consider any text coherent, namely, written or spoken interaction participants' societal cumulative knowledge about customs, norms, values, attitudes, language, symbols and other aspects [12: 85].

The selected examples show that similar viewpoints and experience in different spheres mentioned above can include not only general outlook but also more specific professional writers' background.

A question-answer thematic unit can be based on laureate's inferences and assumptions integrating diverse components. It must be noted that linguists who study coherence as a pragmatically-conditioned notion highlight the quantity and quality of the shared background knowledge as a guarantee of successful cooperation in discourse [15: 82-84].

Further investigation of the content indicates that with the help of such verbal units, Nobel lecturers can introduce their personal vision (or definition) of some notions or explain different logical relationships. For example, in his "The Antilles: Fragments of Epic Memory", Derek Walcott answers his question about "the proportions of the ideal Caribbean city". Notably, this individual perception of a city developed in the answer part of a unit contains 297 words and it is stylistically intensified with parallel constructions. W. Golding suggests his interpretation of "a novel" structurally built in a form of short special questions (What goes with it? What of that?) and a set of extended simple declarative sentences as a developed answer. On the other hand, a set of general questions with an anaphoric element (Is it not) introduces Russell's understanding of "condemnation". Therefore, writers can follow different structural patterns to strengthen their message.

Speaking about logical patterns used, we detected the variety of rhetorical modes: cause-effect, problem-solution, contrast-comparison, classification (division), process analysis, description, exemplification.

The careful semantic analysis of question-answer thematic entities proves our hypothesis that they can serve as a powerful means to encourage audience's interest and sympathy, to arouse listeners' emotional connection to the content, and to engage their attitudes, beliefs, values, or needs, thus making an appeal to pathos. One of the acknowledged ways to build pathos is to use vivid, sensory words; vocabulary with emotional emphasis; analogies and metaphors, the striking example of which is found in the next fragment:

Wherein then lies the surprise that we, the victims of that intellectual dishonesty of others, demand from that world that is finally coming to itself, a measure of expiation? Demand that it rescues it self, by concrete acts, from the stigma of being the wilful parent of a monstrosity... (Soyinka)

Question-answer thematic units as rhetoric means of pathos express laureates' concern about the role of literature and writers' social duty under the influence of technological changes, new media, or political factors (e.g. D. Lessing, K. Ishiguro, N. Gordimer, T. Morrison, W. Golding).

An emotionally coloured personal anecdote as another way to bring pathos in the speech is also used by Nobelists while sharing their reflections on troublesome issues. In this respect, the discussed thematic entities enhance a dialogic character of the lecture. For example, K. Ishiguro widely applies this approach to speak about personal memories and memories of a nation. The excerpts from his speech where sets of questions are interchanged with sets of answers are aimed at evoking sensitive feedback. Carefully selected vocabulary (e.g. to rot away; relics of evil; tame museum exhibits; burd.en of remembering; wilful amnesia) intensifies the effect.

A British playwright H. Pinter, whose speech provoked much comment and debate, vividly shows his straightforward active citizenship with an uncompromising vision of power and war, his sincere and deep concern for the victims of any violence, his belief in the moral superiority and sensibility of a common man. In our opinion, his whole lecture is a powerful appeal to pathos where he masterly demonstrates his writing expertise and deliberately chooses lexical and grammatical means to deliver his message among which question-answer thematic entities are widely used.

Based on the comprehensive classification by I. Arnold [1: 217-262], our study also provides a stylistic analysis on the syntactic level and indentifies a set of devices employed, namely, inversion, rhetorical questions, expressive negation, transposition (single cases in our sample), anaphora, anadiplosis (single cases in our sample), semantic repetition, ellipsis, syntactic convergence (single cases in our sample). Nobel laureates, being renowned writers themselves, skillfully combine various stylistic devices in question-answer units to emphasize a certain component, to create dynamic description of events, and to make their speech colourful and persuasive: anaphora, expressive negation, polysyndeton

... If it is the devil that tempts the young to enjoy themselves, is it not, perhaps, the same personage that persuades the old to condemn their enjoyment? And is not condemnation perhaps merely a form of excitement appropriate to old age? And is it not, perhaps, a drug which - like opium - has to be taken in continually stronger doses to produce the desired effect? Is it not to be feared that, beginning with the wickedness of the cinema, we should be led step by step to condemn the opposite political party, dagoes, wops, Asiatics, and, in short, everybody except the fellow members of our club? And it is from just such condemnations, when widespread, that wars proceed. I have never heard of a war that proceeded from dance halls (Russel).

It is important to mention that combination of elliptical and complete sentences is a means of rhythmical organization of the question-answer entities, which highlights key elements, and helps to deliver information piece by piece:

... At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said,: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up (Pinter)

If a dialogue can be defined as a multi-faceted communication act as a result of speaker-listener interaction based upon their intellectual, emotional, and social background [11: 158], then different types of questions also create a particular Nobel laureate's dialogue with the audience and implicitly involve listeners to communication. Moreover, these examples demonstrate some ways of creating dialogicity discussed in scientific studies of different types of discourse [2; 4; 6]. Personal pronouns "we", "you", "our", and imperatives directly address listeners, express this shared knowledge, and make them immediate participants of the lecture. Our close consideration of chosen examples make it possible to conclude that using a personal pronoun "we", speakers mean "I belong to the community described in the speech", "I belong to the generation described in the speech", or "I belong to this audience". In such a manner, for instance, W. Soyinka tells about colonial and post-colonial Africa; Lessing expresses her worries about increasing power of internet; K. Ishiguro describes his post-war generation with optimism.

While conducting a content analysis of the selected illustrative material, we singled out rare but remarkable cases of intertextuality. Direct / indirect citation is incorporated into a question- answer unit and becomes its nucleus; the laureate can agree, disagree, and/or develop it further thus imitating his inner speech or imlying the dialogue with the audience. References to notable literature representatives contribute to paragraph coherence in the following extract and professional belonging:

... Since the Twenties, how many novelists have taken a second look at D.H. Lawrence, or argued a different view of sexual potency or the effects of industrial civilZation on the instincts? Literature has for nearly a century used the same stock of id.eas, myths, strategies. "The most serious essayists of the last fifty years," says RobbeGrillet. Yes, indeed Essay after essay, book after book, confirm the most serious thoughts - Baud.elairian, Nietzschean, Marxian, Psychoanalytic, etcetera, etcetera - of these most serious essayists... (Bellow).

We stated above that question- answer thematic units reinforce the coherence of the lecture addressing common backgrounds, either universal (common to all mankind) or more specific (related to professional literary sphere). From the point of rhetoric value, such a type of intertextuality can perform several functions: to add credibility to the ideas shared, to appeal to common experience and knowledge, and to be a starting point for a implicit dialogue. The examples from our sample demonstrate that Nobelists mainly quote literary critique theorists (e.g. E.M. Forster, Robbe-Grillet's) or other writers (J. Joyce, J. Conrad).

Conclusions and research prospects

The research demonstrates that question-answer thematic units are widely used in this genre and exposes their structural-content potential. From the point of composition, these entities are equally used at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of the paragraph.

The authors utilize various rhetorical designs to deliver the message and employ diverse syntactic stylistic devices giving preference to anaphora, rhetorical questions, and parallelism. The obtained results confirm the hypothesis that these thematic entities enhance lecture coherence, and create an imlicit dialogue with the audience; indeed, they are an effective way to influence public opinion.

We suggest that further studies should focus on the concept of intertextuality in Nobel lectures and the sample can include another subject area.

Список використаних джерел та літератури

1. Арнольд И. В. Стилистика. Современный английский язык. Москва, 2002. 4 изд.384 с.

2. Висоцька З. І. Діалогічність мови економічних праць Івана Франка. Українська мова. Київ, 2016. Вип. 1(57). С. 88-99.

3. Гальперин И. Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. Москва, 2007. 144 с.

4. Гузенко С. В. Діалогічність сучасного масмедійного дискурсу. Текст. Контекст. Інтертекст. Миколаїв, 2017. № 2. URL : http: / /text-intertext.in.ua/pdf/n022017/ guzenko_ svitlana_02_2017.pdf (дата звернення 17.01.2019).

5. Гущин Ю. Г., Мусихина А. Ю. Нобелевская лекция И. Солженицина (история создания, проблемно-тематические и жанрово-стилистические особенности). URL : http://nobel-centre.com / wpcontent / uploads /2015/ 01/ gushin_nobel_lectures_soljenicin.pd f. (дата звернення 24.09.2018).

6. Заніздра Н. О., Заніздра В. В. Діалогічність наукового мовлення. Вісник КДПУ ім. М.В. Остроградського. Кременчук, 2007. Вип. 2 (43). Ч. 1. С. 103-106.

7. Колесник Р. С. Когезія та когерентність у художньому перекладі (на матеріалі перекладів оповідань Борхерта). Мовні і концептуальні картини світу. Київ, 2013. Вип. 46. 161-166.

8. Огуй О. Д. Засоби зв'язності тексту та дискурсу вкомунікативному просторі (на прикладі кількісної репрезентації когезії в романах Е. М. Ремарка). Іноземна філологія. Львів, 2011. Вип. 123. С. 124-133. DOI: http: / / dx.doi.org/ 10.30970/fpl.2011.1 23.402.

9. Риторика монолога/ Л. В. Архипова и др. Санкт- Петербург, 2002. 240 с.

10. Софронова Ю. Л. Нобелевская лекция Иосифа Бродского: социологические смыслы. Вестник НГТУ имени Р. Е. Алексеева. Нижний Новгород, 2014. С. 57-65. URL :https://cyberleninka.ru/article/v /nobelevskaya-lektsiya-iosifa- brodskogo-sotsiologicheskie-smysly (дата обращения 6.10.2017).

11. Формановская Н. И. Речевое общение : коммуникативно -прагматический подход. Москва, 2002. 216 с.

12. Brown K. The Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics. Cambridge, 2013. URL:https://www.cambridge.org/core /books/cambridge-dictionary- of linguistics/020FAAA378FE9F40D984 88118A0C2187 (дата звернення 24.09.2018).

13. Creque L. The Nobel Laureates in Literature of the African Daspora Hawaii University International Conference on Art and Humanities, 1/14. 2012. URL : https: //www.huichawaii.org/ assets/cr eque%o2C-leah---the-nobel-laureates-in- literature -of-the- african-diasp ora.pdf (дата звернення 24.09.2018).

14. Crystal D. A Dctionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford, 2008.

15. Doncheva-Navratilova O., J ancarikova R., Missikova G., &Povolna R. Coherence and cohesion in the English Dscourse. Brno, 2017.

16. Frye J., Suchan M. Nobel Peace Speech. Journal for Communication Studies, 10, (1), 55-72. 2017.

17. Goldstone A. Twenty Nobel Lectures in Literature. 2010, July 2024. URL : https: / / arcade.stanford.edu/blogs/twe nty-nobel-lectures-literature^aTa звернення: 21.09.2018).

18. Yang Shi-sheng, Zhang Yu-xian The Thoughts on the Nobel Lecture of Toni Morrison. Asian Culture and History, 2 (2), 239-242. 2010.

References (translated & transliterated)

1. Arnold, I. V. (2002). Stilistika. Sovremennyi angliiskii yazyk [Stylistics. Modern English Language]. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka [in Russian]. Vysotska, Z. I. (2016).

2. Dialohichnist movy ekonomichnykh prats Ivana Franka [Dialogismasa Categorical Featureof the Languageof Ivan Franko's Economic Works]. Ukrainska mova - Ukrainian Language, 1(57), 88-99. Kyiv: The Institute of the Ukrainian Language [in Ukrainian].

3. Galperin, I. R. (2007). Tekst kak obiekt lingvisticheskogo issledovania [Textasan Objectof Linguistic Research]. Moscow: Komkniga [in Russian].

4. Huzenko, S. V. (2017). Dialohichnist suchasnoho masmediinoho dyskursu [Dialogue in the Modern Mass Media Discourse]. Tekst. Kontekst. Intertekst - Text. Context. Intertext, 2. Mykolaiv: MNU imeni V. O. Sykhomlynskogo. Retrieved from http://text-intertext.in.ua/pdf/n022017/ guzenko_ svitlana_0 2_2017.pdf [in Ukrainian].

5. Hushchin, Yu. G., Musikhina, A. Yu. (2015). Nobelevskaia lektsiia A. I. Solzhenitsyna (istoriia sozdaniia, problemno-tematicheskie i zhanrovo-stilisticheskie osobennosti) [The Nobel Lecture by A. Solzhenitsyn (History of Creation, Problem-Thematic and Genre-Stylistic Features)]. Retrieved from http:/ / nobel - centre .com / wp -content / uploads /2015/01/ gushin_nob el_lectures_soljenicin.pdf [in Russian].

6. Zanizdra, N. O., Zanizdra, V. V. (2007). Dialohichnist naukovoho movlennia [Dialogicityina Scientific Text]. Visnyk KDPU im. M. V. Ostrohradskoho - Scientific journal "Transactions of Kremenchuk Mykhailo Ostrohradskyi National University", 2 (43), 103-106. Kremenchuk [in Ukrainian].

7. Kolesnyk, R. S. (2013). Kohezia ta koherentnist u hudozhniomu perekladi (na materiali perekladiv opovidan V. Borkherta) [Cohesion and Coherence in Literary Translation (based on translation of stories by V. Borkhert)]. Movni i Kontseptualni kartyny svity - Language and Conseptual World Notions, 46(2),161- 166. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

8. Ohui, O. D. (2011). Zasoby zviaznosti tekstu ta diskursu v komunikatyvnomu prostori (na prykladi kilkisnoi reprezentatsii kohezii u romanakh E. M. Remarka) [Relating the Cohesivenessof the Textand Discoursein the Communicative Spaceas Exemplified in the Novels by M. Remarque]. Inozemna filologia - Foreign Philology, 123, 24-133. Lviv. DOI: http: / / dx.doi.org/ 10.30970/fpl.2011.1 23.402 [in Ukrainian].

9. Ritorika monologa [Rhetoricof the Monologue] (2002). Arkhipova L. V. et al. Saint-Petersburg: Khimera treid. [in Russian].

10. Sofronova, Yu. L. (2014). Nobelevskaia lektsiia Iosifa Brodskogo: sotsiolohicheskie smysly [The Nobel Lecture by Joseph Brodsky: Sociological Meanings]. Vestnik NGTU imeni R. E. Alekseeva - Nizhny Novgorod State Technical University Scientific Journal, 57-65. Retrieved from https: / / cyberleninka.ru / article/v/ nobe levskaya-lektsiya-iosifa-brodskogo- sotsiologicheskie-smysly [in Russian].

11. Formanovskaia, N. I. (2002). Rechevoe obshchenie: kommunikativno- pragmaticheskii podhod [Speech Communication: Communicative and Pragmatic Approach]. Moscow: Russkii yazyk [in Russian].

12. Brown, K. (2013). The Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Retrieved from https: / /www.cambridge.org/ core/book s/cambridge-dictionary-of- linguistics/020FAAA378FE9F40D9848 8118A0C2187 [in English].

13. Creque, L. (2012). The Nobel Laureates in Literature of the African Diaspora Hawaii University International Conference on Art and Humanities, 1/14. Retrieved fromhttps: / /www.huichawaii.org/assets/creque%o2C-leah---the-nobel- laureates-in-literature-of-the-african- diaspora.pdf [in English].

14. Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd [in English].

15. Doncheva-Navratilova, O., Jancarikova, R., Missikova, G., &Povolna, R. (2017). Coherence and cohesion in the English Discourse. Brno: Masaryk University [in English].

16. Frye, J., Suchan, M. (2017). Nobel Peace Speech. Journal for Communication Studies, 10 (1), 55-72 [in English].

17. Goldstone, A. (2010). Twenty Nobel Lectures in Literature. Retrieved from https: / / arcade.stanford.edu/blogs/twe nty-nobel-lectures-literature [in English].

18. Yang Shi-sheng, Zhang, Yu-xian (2010). The Thoughts on the Nobel Lecture of Toni Morrison. Asian Culture and History, 2 (2), 239-242 [in English].

Размещено на Allbest.ru