Pragmatics is the study of meaning in context. To take a simple example, I might say:
It's cold in here.
The meaning of the words is clear enough (assuming I'm speaking literally rather than figuratively); but that is not the same thing as the meaning of the utterance. Analysis starts with the question 'What is the meaning of the utterance? To begin to answer this we need to consider the context.
Depending on the context, 'It's cold in here' could mean:
Please shut the door, or
You're not a very good builder, or
You're not looking after my elderly mother properly, or
You've left the window open again.
We could easily extend this list. The utterance in each case is functioning as a communicative act: I am ordering, pleading, threatening, complaining etc. So we can ask what the speaker is doing with / through the words employed (and in fact we analyse each other's statements int his way all the time).
The utterance 'It's cold in here' is addressed to someone (teh addressee), and thus the act is intended to have an effect on them - to frighten, reassure, persuade, mollify, confuse etc. We could take the meaning of the utterance as act + effect, which is dependent on context (though meaning may be further affected by non-verbal elements: tone of speech, gesture, facial expression etc.)
Conversations generally involve a set of conventions understood by the speakers. One obvious one is turn-taking - a dinner party conversation dominated by one or two loudmouths is spoiled by their disregard for this norm - but there may be many others whihc are implicit (wait for your seniors to address you, always agree with the boss etc.). The linguist Paul Grice identified 'maxims' or rules of the game which can be observed in conversational exchanges. Two of these are the Maxim of Relevance (say what is relevant) and the Maxim of Quantity (say what you are in a position to say). When we depart from these rules, we are flouting the maxims, just as we are flouting the convention of turn-taking if we speak out of turn.
With this in mind, here are some things we can look out for when commenting on a Pinter passage. Very few refer to linguistic jargon (and Pinter was not writing for students of linguistics!). No quoted examples given (copyright) but it shouldn't be difficult to find any.
- Concealed meaning. What is being said beneath the surface of the spoken words? There may be several possibilities.
- What is the speaker doing through the words? (defending, intimidating, resisting etc.)
- What is the effect of the speech (both the presumed intended effect and the actual one we see)?
- Ambiguity, when the act and effect are unclear. It can be very disconcerting when we do not know why someone is saying what they are saying.
- Conventions being followed (the ritual of reading the newspaper at the start of The Dumb Waiter).
- Conventions being flouted (Gus speaking out of turn, asking questions he's not supposed to).
- Turn-taking not happening (eg when A speaks, then there's a pause - implying B's turn - and A speaks again)
- Discontinuity and disconnection between speakers (a sign might be consecutive questions)
- Dead ends, where a thread of conversation leads to nothing.
- Evasion, sudden shifts of subject (flouting maxim of relevance)
- Unexpectedly long speeches (flouting maxim of quantity)
- Conversations which are not conversations because the characters are not communicating, but isolated in individual worlds.
- Dialogue may seem awkward because there are no observable codes or conventions, so the characters circle each other warily.
- Anywhere where information might be being witheld, or there is a possibility that it is being invented (for example, descriptions of past events may be constructions)
- Repetition: for insistence, reassurance etc.
- Any words or phrases that create in our minds a notion of violence, invasion, death.
- And, of course, what is happening in the pauses and silences?
Q&A with Michael Billington has some useful comments on Pinter's use of language.
Linguistic approaches:
Chowdury Mohammed Ali, 'Grice's Maxims and a study of some dialogues in Pinter's The Caretaker'
Khorshid Mostofi, An Analysis of Characters' Inner Threats in The Caretaker and Grice's Concept of Implicature
University of Lancaster Linguistics Department, Conversational Implicature and The Dumb Waiter
