f.v)Involvement in the Prague School

f.v)Involvement in the Prague School

The same approach to language is apparent in the work of the founder of the Prague Linguistic Circle Vilém Mathesius (1971, 1975, 1982). Mathesius states that the functionalist approach in linguistics regards language as something living, as something behind which the speaker or writer can be clearly recognized. Additionally, this new functionalist approach takes into consideration the fact that these words are directed at a hearer or reader (1982:30).

Bohumil Trnka (1966 [1948]), another member of the Prague School, advanced the concept of “language experience” (1966 [1948]:162). The factor of language experience must be viewed as a mutually related counterpart to the system of language since “language lacking experience would be no more than an unchanging system of relations with no possibilities of development” (1966 [1948]:163-164). In this connection, Trnka refers to the work of C. Bally, who also examined affective aspects of language. However, Trnka’s concept of language experience has a wider meaning because “it includes the experiencing not only of affective but also of intellectual elements of language” (1966 [1948]:163). Moreover, Trnka mentions that some scholars pay attention only to the system of language and “lay particular stress on the postulate of absolute regularity of language phenomena”, whereas others (Bally, Mathesius) “prefer to observe language of experience and speak only of trends and tendencies” (1966 [1948]:164).

Language experience is significant for the explanation of particular linguistic phenomena. As Trnka points out: “differences in experiencing language are responsible, for instance, for the different developments of the dialect and standard language [...]. Without considering language experience, one could not imagine how a certain language system could, to different degrees, influence other systems, or why that system could not only take over some items of some other language [...]” (Trnka 1966 [1948]:163).

Daneš (1994) regards “language experience” as “involvement with language”. According to him, involvement is an “absolutely fundamental aspect of our linguistic awareness and conduct” (1994:253), which has three aspects:

1. 
   knowledge of the language system and of communicative abilities
   

h.the whole range of our mental faculties and processes. (Daneš 1994:253)

All these aspects of involvement are relevant, yet the most important for the present analysis is the second one. It concentrates on the actual use of concrete linguistic devices connected with involvement and on the perception of these devices by language users in concrete situations. These devices modify the illocutionary force of particular speech acts and in this way they accentuate or attenuate the meaning of utterances, depending on the meaning of these devices and on the context of situation. Classifications and pragmatic functions of boosters in political interviews will be analysed in Chapter 7. Classifications and pragmatic functions of hedging devices will be examined in Chapter 8. There is another concept, namely modality, whose means also contribute to modification of the meaning of speech acts. This concept will be dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 9.

Daneš also speaks about the different “attitudes” speakers have towards the language. By “attitude” he understands “the system of mental biases and dispositions of a person [...] to feel, think, and behave in a certain manner, which programs their responses to certain kinds of objects or types of situations” (1994:253). He distinguishes two opposite types of attitudes, that of indifference and that of concern. It may be claimed that only the attitude of concern relates to the concept of involvement. However, Daneš explains that these two types of attitudes “may be viewed as constituting a simple system of opposition” and for that reason, indifference “or (detachment) as an extreme pole of concern (i.e., a lack of it) may be treated as a kind of involvement as well” (1994:253). If these two types of attitudes are understood as opposites within one system, then detachment may be regarded as its direct antipode and thus a kind of involvement.

h.i)Linguistic Strategies of Involvement

The strategies that are based on sound comprise:

rhythm

patterns based on repetition and variation of phonemes, morphemes, words, collocations of words, and longer sequences of discourse; and,

The strategies that work primarily on meaning include:

indirectness

ellipsis

dialogue

narrative

(Tannen 2007:32)

Tannen claims that repetition of particular linguistic units makes the discourse more rhythmical, which causes the participants in the interaction to pay more attention to the subject matter of the discourse. This assertion confirms the finding of Harvey Sacks (1971), who pointed out systematicity of the use of repetition of sounds and words in spontaneous conversation. Longer discourse sequences have been the area of interest of the ethnomethodological branch of conversation analysis. The research into cross-cultural discourse has proven the occurrence of repetition of discourse sequences across time. Repetition as a means of creating interpersonal involvement, as Tannen (2007:61) explains, “accomplishes a conversation, shows one’s response to another’s utterance, shows acceptance of others’ utterances, their participation, and them, and gives evidence of one’s own participation. It provides a resource to keep talk going, where talk itself is a show of involvement, of willingness to interact, to serve positive face.”

Interlocutors frequently report in their conversational exchanges the statements of others as dialogue (“direct speech”) rather than third-person report (“indirect speech”) as Tannen (2007:39) claims. She believes that dialogue is “more vivid” and what is more, conveying ideas through quoting the speech of others is a significant means of expressing emotions in discourse (2007:39). As regards my corpus of political interviews, means of expressing emotions may be found in this type of discourse as well. A common way of showing emotionality is the use of hedging or boosting devices in a quick succession. A systematic analysis of emotionality Is not the subject matter of this study but it seems that emotionality in political interviews is either an attempt by politicians to show power and justify their arguments in front of their audience or it may be a sign of uncertainty and hesitation of the speaker.

Constructed dialogue (or reported speech) requires active participation of all conversationalists in the process of creating linguistic and interactional meaning and this active contribution to the inferring of meaning creates involvement. Every dialogue is unique and this uniqueness allows the listeners to form their own understanding on the basis of their knowledge and experience (Tannen 2007:132).

Another sensemaking strategy that is important in the process of creating involvement in discourse is the use of details and images. Tannen (2007:134) emphasizes that it is a mutual participation both on the part of the speaker and the hearer because it is the speaker who describes an image in words, and the hearer who creates an image derived from this description. The use of imagery and detail in everyday language arouses emotional response and affection on the part of the hearer. “Images, like dialogue, evoke scenes, and understanding is derived from scenes because they are composed of people in relation to each other, doing things that are culturally and personally recognizable and meaningful” (2007:134). Involvement strategies are important not because they add something to the conversational exchange, but more precisely, they constitute communication through the construction of a shared world of images (2007:134). The strategy of the use of images is typical of informal conversation rather than of a formal type of discourse because it requires a mutual participation of the speakers on the personal level. In case politicians are emotional, it is not a feature of mutuality but rather a manifestation of either power or uncertainty, as mentioned above.

Another linguistic strategy important in creating involvement is indirectness (or conveying unstated meaning, as Tannen puts it (2007:37). It happens very frequently in interaction that conversational partners do not explicitly say what they mean. In general, indirectness is employed for two main reasons: “to save face if a conversational contribution is not well received, and to achieve the sense of rapport that comes from being understood without saying what one means” (2007:37). Further, appropriate interpreting of unstated meaning imposes certain requirements on the listener, which in turn contributes to mutual participation in creating involvement.

The corpus shows that indirectness also occurs in political discourse. It can be regarded as a face-saving strategy and, as Tannen states, it is also connected with creating involvement. Several types of modality, namely, epistemic possibility, deontic necessity, epistemic attitudinal modality, circumstantial possibility, and epistemic necessity, are frequent means of expressing indirectness as a face-saving strategy in the corpus. Modality and its types are analysed in detail in Chapter 9. Politicians frequently say much less than they actually mean and in this way they are indirect. This phenomenon is connected with non-observance of the maxims of the Cooperative Principle defined by Grice (1989). Non-observance of conversational maxims was the subject of a different study (Kozubíková Šandová 2010).

Chafe (1982) has also listed several involvement strategies. Apart from sound repetitions, repetitions of words and phrases, rhythm of conversation, he has mentioned these strategies:

concreteness and imageability (use of details)

personal quality (use of first and second person pronouns)

importance of people and their relationships

emphasis on actions and agents rather than on states and objects

reference to feelings and thoughts

use of hedged and aggravated signals

use of feedback signals

In relation to linguistic strategies of involvement, Besnier (1994) adds:

These linguistic strategies “when used with systematic frequency in interaction, contribute to the heightening of interpersonal involvement” (Besnier 1994:280-281).

As already mentioned above, involvement in conversation is also associated with non-linguistic means. From this it follows that not only the form of discourse but also the interplay of linguistic and non-linguistic means is central to creating involvement.