1887
Volume 25, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Apart from the stylistic and cognitive studies which have already been done separately on Miller’s , this paper provides a new insight into the play and its system of characterization by integrating these approaches. To this end, the paper draws on Jonathan Culpeper’s cognitive stylistic theory of top-down and bottom-up processes in literary text comprehension and characterization. Based on this holistic framework, the paper takes advantage of such stylistic tools as speech acts, the Cooperative Principle and politeness theory to examine features of the language used by the characters Proctor and Danforth. In this regard, the article assimilates those linguistic elements with the embedded schemata within the play. Consequently, the study reveals that Proctor’s complex characterization does not coincide with the readers’ schema and thus they form their impression of his character based on piecemeal integration. On the other hand, Danforth’s character reinforces the readers’ schema about a representative of the church discourse and thus they comprehend his character on the basis of confirmatory categorization. The paper concludes that while Proctor and Danforth have a passive existence in the text or in people’s minds, it is only in the interaction between their language and the readers’ minds that they come into existence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.17029.far
2019-11-25
2020-04-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, John L.
    1962How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aziz, Amal G. A. & Huda S. Al Qunayeer
    2014 Social hysteria versus individual dilemma: A pragmatic study of character relationship in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. European Scientific Journal10(35). 238–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bentley, Eric
    (ed.) 1972Thirty years of treason: Excerpts from hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1938–1968. London: Thames and Hudson.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergeron, David M.
    1969 Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and Nathaniel Hawthorne: Some parallels. The English Journal58(1). 47–55. doi:  10.2307/812346
    https://doi.org/10.2307/812346 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bonnet, Jean M.
    1982 Society vs. the individual in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. English Studies63(1). 32–36. doi:  10.1080/00138388208598155
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00138388208598155 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Budick, Miller
    1985 History and other spectres in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. Modern Drama28(4). 535–552. doi:  10.1353/mdr.1985.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1353/mdr.1985.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Carr, Robert K.
    1950 The Un-American Activities Committee. The University of Chicago Law Review18(3). 598–633. 10.2307/1597778
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1597778 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ciekawy, Diane
    2005 Witchcraft. InMaryanne C. Horowitz (ed.), New dictionary of the history of ideas, vol.6, 2476–2479. New York: Thomson Gale.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cook, Guy
    1994Discourse and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2001Language and characterisation: People in plays and other texts. New York & London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Culpeper, Jonathan & Carolina Fernandez-Quintanilla
    2017 Fictional characterisation. InMiriam A. Locher & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Pragmatics of fiction, 93–128. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110431094‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431094-004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Culpeper, Jonathan & Dan McIntyre
    2010 Activity types and characterisation in dramatic discourse. InJames Eder, Fotis Jannidis & Ralf Schneider (eds.), Characters in fictional worlds: Understanding imaginary beings in literature, film, and other media, 176–207. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Culpeper, Jonathan, Mick Short & Peter Verdonk
    (eds.) 1998Exploring the language of drama: From text to context. New York & London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dijk, Teun Adrianus van
    1987Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1988 Social cognition, social power and social discourse. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse8(1–2). 129–157. doi:  10.1515/text.1.1988.8.1‑2.129
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.1-2.129 [Google Scholar]
  17. 1990 Social cognition and discourse. InHoward Giles & William P. Robinson (eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology, 163–183. Chichester: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dynel, Marta
    2016 Comparing and combining covert and overt untruthfulness: On lying, deception, irony and metaphor. Pragmatics & Cognition23(1). 174–208. doi:  10.1075/pc.23.1.08dyn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.1.08dyn [Google Scholar]
  19. Fiske, Susan T. & Steven L. Neuberg
    1990 A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. InMark P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol.23, 1–74. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fiske, Susan T. & Shelley E. Taylor
    1991Social cognition, 2nd edn.New York: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Grice, Herbert P.
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts, vol.3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hamilton, Craig
    2007 The cognitive rhetoric of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. InMarina Lambrou & Peter Stockwell (eds.), Contemporary stylistics, 221–231. London & New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2011 Allegory, blending, and censorship in modern literature. Journal of Literary Semantics40(1). 23–42. doi:  10.1515/jlse.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jones, Edward E.
    1990Interpersonal perception. New York: W. H. Freeman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jones, Edward E. & Keith E. Davis
    1965 From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. InLeonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol.2, 219–266. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/S0065‑2601(08)60107‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60107-0 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jones, Edward E. & Daniel McGillis
    1976 Correspondent inferences and the attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. InJohn H. Harvey, William J. Ickes & Robert F. Kidd (eds.), New directions in attribution research, vol.1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kelley, Harold H.
    1967 Attribution theory in social psychology. InDavid Levine (ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 192–238. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1972 Attribution in social interaction. InEdward E. Jones, David E. Kanouse & Harold H. Kelley (eds.), Attribution perceiving the causes of behavior, 1–26. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1973 The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist28(2). 107–128. doi:  10.1037/h0034225
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lowe, Valerie
    1998 Unhappy confessions in The Crucible: A pragmatic explanation. InJonathan Culpeper, Mick Short & Peter Verdonk (eds.), Exploring the language of drama: From text to context, 128–141. New York & London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Martin, Robert A.
    1977 Arthur Miller’s The Crucible: Background and sources. Modern Drama20(3). 279–292. doi:  10.1353/mdr.1977.0048
    https://doi.org/10.1353/mdr.1977.0048 [Google Scholar]
  33. Miller, Arthur
    1953The Crucible: A play in four acts. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Morgan, Edmund S.
    2008 Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and the Salem witch trials: A historian’s view. InHarold Bloom (ed.), Bloom’s modern critical interpretations: Arthur Miller’sThe Crucible, new edn., 41–53. New York: Infobase Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Saari, Peggy
    2001Witchcraft in America (Elizabeth Shawed.). Detroit MI: UXL, Gale Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  37. 1975 Indirect speech acts. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol.3, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sogliuzzo, A. Richard
    2012 Arthur Miller’s The Crucible: Witchcraft and mob hysteria in America. InNancy van Deusen & Leonard M. Koff (eds.), Mobs: An interdisciplinary inquiry, vol.3, 363–382. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004216822_018
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216822_018 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Stine, Jean C.
    1983Contemporary literary criticism (Jean C. Stineed.), vol.26. Detroit MI: Gale Research Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. United States
    United States 1951–52[Communist activities] Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, eighty-second congress, first-second sessions. Washington: Government Printing Office. Retrieved fromhttps://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102263472 (24December 2018)
    [Google Scholar]
  42. United States
    United States 1953–54[Communist activities] Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, eighty-third congress, first-[second] session[s]. Washington: Government Printing Office. Retrieved fromhttps://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102263647 (24December 2018)
    [Google Scholar]
  43. United States
    United States 1955–56Hearing[s] before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, eighty-fourth congress, first-second sessions. Washington: Government Printing Office. Retrieved fromhttps://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102263648 (24December 2018)
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Weisman, Richard
    1984Witchcraft, magic and religion in 17th century Massachusetts. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wyer, Robert S. & Thomas K. Srull
    (eds.) 1984Handbook of social cognition, vol.1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.17029.far
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): bottom-up , characterization , Grice’s Maxims , politeness , schemata , speech acts , The Crucible and top-down
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error