EATON, MARCIA M.

, James 's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4

(1983:Autunnl) p.333

Bn't,'sh ]oumal of Aestheh.cs, Vol. 23 , No. 4 , Autumn 1983

JAMES'S TURN OF THE SPEECH-ACT

Marcia M. Eaton
the main trends in recent literary theory-Quentin Skinner refers to it as one of the _two new orthodoxies' 1-has been the application of speech-act theory of language in the explanation of the nature, logic, and interpretation of literary language. A bibliography published by Centrum2 attests to the range and depth of the influence of philosophers of language, primarily J. L. Austin and John Searle, who believe that an adequate analysis of meaning (and correlate concepts) must view language in the context of human action.3 Like others who have been so influenced, I have insisted that literature is primarily a linguistic entity. If language is essentially bound up with human actions, and if literature is linguistic in nature, then literature must be explained (at least partially) in terms of human action. And, like others, I was initially taken with the work of Austin (and later of Searle) and excited by the way in which it so naturally seemed to lend itself to illuminating the nature of literature. I am still convinced that application of speech-act theory of language to literature is appropriate, but problems and weaknesses in the various forms of the theories and their applications have led me to be more hesitant about precipitous attempts to use them to solve problems in literary theory. For example, Austin and Searle use the concept of _rule' in a central way, as do literary theorists who admire them. They assume, for example, that literary writing is _rule-governed activity' But the concept of _rule' remains largely unanalysed, and I am by no means convinced that we are all talking about the same thing when we use the term. Furthermore, Austin and Searle and their followers devote a great deal of attention to formulating taxonomies of speech-acts, and of rhetorical devices, and of literary styles. Here the problem is not simply one of discovering weaknesses or gaps in the taxonomy, but of wondering what one would have if a perfect one were devised. What, for instance, would one then be able to do that one couldn't have done without it? These problems have created some misgivings about the extent to which speech-act theory can serve to elucidate the nature of literature. Recently, however, I have had occasion to re-read and re examine HenryJames's The Turn of the Screw and the critical literature surrounding
ONE OF
333

Copyright (c) 2002 ProQnest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Oxford University Press

EATON, MARCIA M., James 's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4
(1983:Auturnu) p.333

334 JAMES'S TURN OF THE SPEECH-ACT

it. I am convinced anew that speech-act theory is helpful in solving literary and critical puzzles. Putting aside the theoretical (metaphysical and logical) structure of speech-act theory, one can see in practice how useful it can be as a critical tool.

The Tum of the Screw begins with a short but complex prologue (of which many critics have made a great deal) in which a narrator describes a group of people who, gathered to celebrate the Christmas holidays, entertain one another by exchanging ghost stories. One of the guests, Douglas, `purports to be able to outdo them all:
_It's beyond everything. Nothing at all I know touches it.` `For sheer terror?` I remember asking. He seemed to say it wasn't so simple as that ; to be really at a loss how to qualify it. He passed his hand over his eyes, made a little wincing grimace. `For dreadful--dreadfulness!'4

Douglas must send for a manuscript which he says was given to him by his sister's governess, _The most agreeable woman I've ever known in her position .'.5 He then proceeds to read it to the group. The prologue over, we are presented with the narrator,s own _exact transcription'6 of Douglas's script. Though complicated and the source of questions (for example, why do we have a three-tiered narration : governess to Douglas to narrator ?) the prologue is straightforward when compared to the main body of the novella. For when one begins to say `what happens' there, it becomes impossible to do so in a neutral, non-interpretation-begging way. The governess writes (I use this term here because it is more neutral than _tells', _reports', _asserts', or even _relates') that she was hired by a London gentleman to care for his two wards, Flora and Miles, who live in the country with servants. Though he wants to provide for the children, his main wish with respect to them is to be left alone. Attracted to him, the governess undertakes this double duty with intensity. Shortly after arriving at the country estate, she comes to believe that it is haunted by the ghosts of a former governess and valet. Fearing that the children are in great personal and spiritual danger, she sets out to protect and save them. In the end, the little girl escapes with the housekeeper, and the little boy dies in the governess's arms. The main horns of the dilemma of The Turn of the Screw's interpretation are these : (I) The ghosts are real; (II) The ghosts are not real but creations of the governess's imagination. But the horns become more like antlers, with competing interpretations sprouting from the main fork : (I) (a) The Turn of the Screw is a ghost story pure and simple. (b) The ghosts are real and with the children (who are in cahoots with them) symbolize evil which the good governess triumphs over in the end. (c) The ghosts are

Copyright (c) 2002 ProQnest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Oxford University Press

EATON, MARCIA M., James 's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4
(1983:Autulnn) p.333

MARCIA M. EATON

33S

real, but only the governess can see them. (II) (a) The ghosts are the hallucinatory result of the governess's sexual repression (understood in Freudian terms). (b) The ghosts are the hallucinatory result of a governess who represents the Victorian family. (c) The ghosts are not real, but are planted in the governess's suggestible mind by the housekeeper.7 I am not here concerned to show that one and only one of the above (and there are others) is _correct' or even _more interesting' Textual and extra-textual evidence can be gathered for each, and as the gathering proceeds our attention is directed to a wealth of detail that we might have missed if we had only considered other candidates. Indeed, once a particular hypothesis has been articulated, we are in a position to notice and emphasize features which would not otherwise be foregrounded. A Freudian reading highhghts the words _succession of flights and drops, a little see saw of the right throbs and the wrong'8 in the opening hue of the governess's narration, and this description of little Flora at play:
She had picked up a small Hat piece of wood which happened to have in it a little hole that had evidently suggested to her the idea of sticking it in another fragment that might figure as a mast and make the thing a boat.9

The Freudian hypothesis determines what this suggests in mm to the governess. On the other hand, a religious reading such as Robert Heilman's, will not direct attention to these passages but to others, those containing descriptions of Flora's angelic beauty or cherubic divinity.10 More will be said about the nature of criticism in the next section. For now I wish to suggest the following (avoiding, for now I hope, the controversy as to the existence or non existence of a single good or correct interpretation) :1 1 a good interpretation of a work of art is one that yields appreciation while at the same time accounting for a significant number of significant details in the work. I have no formula for determining what number is _significant', but one is needed only if we want a ranking which I have put aside here. As for idealing significant details, that is also admittedly a complicated matter, and I have to rely on the readers' intuitions. They tend to be the things several critics attend to and try to explain. For example, a list of significant details from The Turn of the Screw will include these: Mrs. Grose is the first to name Peter Quint and identifies him from the governess's description; Flora sits with her back to the lake across which the governess sees Miss Jessel ; Miles leaves his bed to visit the garden ; The governess has family problems; Miles's _little heart' stops ; but will of course be much longer. And it will change as our interpretative hypotheses change. Accounting for the details often takes the form of providing answers to questions or of solving puzzles (or mysteries) : How could Mrs. Grose identify Peter Quint if the governess had not given an accurate description ? Did Flora know Miss Jesse} was

Copyright (c) 2002 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Oxford University Press

EATON, MARCIA M., James's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4 (1983:Autulnn) p.333

336 jAMES'S TURN OF THE SPEECH-ACT

across the lake? Why did Miles leave his bed? What kinds of problems (e.g., insanity ?) did the governess's family have? Why did Miles die? Did the governess smother him ? As readers we are trained to want and demand answers, and critics seem to be in the business of trying to give us what we want. Those who can give us the most answers--without going too far afield-give us the most satisfying experiences, contribute to our heightened appreciation. Our reasoning is something like this: _Look here. Either the governess smothered little Miles or she didn't. Now which is it?' We fall into the detective story mode where we know either the Butler is guilty or innocent. But The Turn of the Screw lends itself to another mode, and it is here that I think familiarity with speech-act theory is helpful. When people perform actions by using language, typically there is only one thing that they are doing-asserting, requesting, commanding, questioning, etc. Usually, _I'l1 be there at 8 o'clock', is a prediction or a promise or a threat or a vow or an expression of hope or a lie. Sometimes we can and do perform more than one action in or by one utterance. Typically when someone asks, _Was that a threat or a promise?' the answer is one or the other ; but it could be, _Both'. Ambiguity results, of course, when it is possible for someone to be interpreted as performing more than one action, but the context does not make it clear whether one, or more, or which of several possible actions is being performed. The situation is complicated enough when the ambiguity is due to possibly different actions being performed via an utterance in which the words are unambiguous. _The wastepaper baskets are full', can be a command, assertion, request, lie, joke, etc., but the individual words retain the same meaning in all of these. The incredible richness and complexity of natural language becomes even more apparent when we consider `twolayer' ambiguity. _I saw her duck', can serve as an assertion about her pet fowl or about her action. In the appropriate circumstances it might be an assertion about her action or a lie about her pet fowlor both of these at once. It doesn't take too much ingenuity to cook up a story to support an interpretation which shows that a single utterance of _The shooting stars are exciting tonight' is at once an assertion about the TV movie and a request to go out for a stroll. What I want to suggest is that The Turn of the Screw exhibits this kind of two-layer ambiguity and James's cleverness at being able to sustain it as long and consistently as be does. _Oh I can't wait for the story' one of the guests exclaims when Douglas announces that they must wait for the manuscript to be sent. _ "The story won't tell," said Douglas, "not in any literal vulgar way." '12 There is no single literal way to take the story because the teller Qames) is doing at least two things at once : he provides us with utterances (in many-tiered narrative mouths) that at the same time tell two tales, one about ghosts, the

Copyright (c) 2002 ProQnest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Oxford University Press

EATON, MARCIA M., James 's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4
(1983:Autunln) p.333

MARCIA M. EATON

337

other about a deranged governess. The guest's response to Douglas, _More's the pity then. That's the only way I ever understand', expresses James's pity for those readers who will only be able to deal with one interpretation (understanding) at a time. Such readers will remain blind to the richness and complexity of The Turn of the Screw. Douglas expresses more faith in the cleverness of the narrator. _He [Douglas] continued to fix me [narrator} "You easily judge", he repeated : " you will" ' [Douglas's emphasis].13 The extent of James's skill is evidenced by his ability to sustain these layers through whole passages by the use of cleverly placed phrases. Consider the following paragraph in which the governess convinces/tries to convince Mrs. Grose, the housekeeper, that the children are trafficking with the evil ghosts.
My lucidity must have seemed awful, but the charming creatures who were victims of it, passing and repassing in their interlocked sweetness, gave my colleague something to hold on by; and I felt how tight she held as, without stirring in the breadth of my passion, she covered them still with her eyes. _Of what other things have you just got hold?,14

This passage is so filled with the sort of ambiguity that I have in mind that it is hard to believe James did not put it there intentionally. _My lucidity must have seemed awful', could mean that the governess's insane pseudolucidity was frightening or that her cold reasoning powers forced conclusions that horrified the housekeeper. The children might equally be _victims' of the insanity or of the cold reasoning. The last question might be genuinely raised in order to get more results of reason or further evidence of insanity. One might at first think that what we have here is something along the lines of what John Searle (and others) have called _indirect speech-act'. In an essay with that title, Searle raises the question of how one can say something, for instance, _Can you pass the salt?', and at the same time clearly mean something else, for instance, _Please pass the salt' According to Searle, there are two crucial features of indirect speech-acts. First, there must be a method for deciding that the speaker is doing something different from what is ordinarily done when the particular words are uttered (here requesting rather than questioning). Second, there must be a method for determining what the _something different' is.1 5 Searle believes (correctly, I think) that these issues are to be resolved by the fact that speakers and bearers share mutual knowledge and similar patterns of making reasoned inferences. Indirect speech act might be thought of as cases in which we _say one thing but mean something else'. But this loose way of describing it is misleading-and when we see what actually goes on we shall also see that

Copyright (c) 2002 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Oxford University Press

EATON, MARCIA M., James 's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4
(1983:Autumn) p.333

338 JAMES'S TURN OF THE SPEECH-ACT

The Tum of the Screw cannot be analysed as a set of complex indirect speech-acts-though we do, in a sense, find a case of _saying one thing and meaning another' _Say one thing mean another' should, first of all, be refined. What actually happens in indirect speech-acts is that a speaker says something that has the form (syntactical and/or semantic) typically associated with doing one thing, and that results on this occasion in the speaker's doing something other than the typically associated thing. In the example, a question-form is used to make a request. The words, _p', (_Can you pass the salt?') are used to perform an action typically done by using other words, _q', (_Please pass the salt'). The trick, of course, is getting from `p' to _q', for we remain with _p' Thus we must answer the question : which of the possible actions that can be associated with `p' should, in this instance, be associated with it ? This feature of languagethe fact that different kinds of speech-acts can be performed by means of the same words allows for a special type of ambiguity. The words, `This suitcase is heavy', can be used to describe an object or to excuse one's clumsy gait, or both. If it is used to do both, then it is a misinterpretation to take it only as an assertion. In the right circumstances, I might, making clever and efficient use of language, utter the words, _This suitcase is heavy', to (I) simply assert to hearer A that the suitcase is heavy; (2) excuse my clumsy gait to hearer B; (3) explain my clumsy gait to hearer C ; and (4) do all three to hearer D. At several places in The Turn of the Screw,James demonstrates his clever use of language by using sentences that could be construed as one action by one reader and as another action by a different reader. Another linguistic device exploited bylames is the tacking on of phrases which sometimes, but not always, are used to back off a bit from a claim, for example, _I think,' or _to me' _I think it's red', or `It looks red to me' are weaker than `It's red', or even _It looks red'- Whether these phrases are in fact being used to back off from or qualify a claim, or are just a manner of speaking (e.g., polite) can only be determined within a particular context. The ambiguity of _I saw her duck', is dispelled if the speaker goes on to say, `It was waddling down to the water', or `I guess she thought the ball might hit her'. Similarly, the correct interpretation of _It looks red to me` is apparent if the speaker continues, _But Gm colour-blind`, instead of, _We should stop' _I think' is being used to back off from a claim, say, `I think he's the nicest man I have ever met', if the speaker goes on to tell us, _But Fm a terrible judge of character, particularly where handsome men are involved'. We are less inclined to interpret it as a qualifying disclaimer if the speaker instead continues, _He is considerate and respectful and utterly supportive'. James masterfully plays with this device throughout The Turn of the

Copyright (c) 2002 ProQnest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Oxford University Press

EATON, MARCIA M., James 's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4
(1983:Autulnn) p.333

MARCIA M. EATON

339

Screw. _Yes, it was intense to me that during this transit he never took his eyes from me '.16 The presence of _to me' here does not disturb a straightforward ghost-story reading of the novel; at the same time it enables a deranged-governess reading. A reading which foregrounds the richness of language which allows for this is at least as rewarding as either of these taken singly. In several places in . the governess's narration, words can be interpreted either as assertions (reports of what actually happened) or as excuses or explanations (reports or apologies for what she imagined).
On the spot, accordingly, in the pleasant hall and with her eyes on me, I, for a reason that I couldn't then have phrased, achieved an inward revolutionoffered a vague pretext for my lateness and, with the plea of the beauty of the night, and of the heavy dew and wet feet, went as soon as possible to mg own room.17 I scarce know how to put my story into words that shall be a credible picture of mg state of mind; but / was in these days literally able to find a joy in the extraordinary flight of heroism the occasion demanded of me.18

The italicized phrases (my emphasis, of course), while not disturbing an assertion interpretation in a ghost-story reading, add explanation and perhaps excuse in (and thereby intensify) a deranged-governess reading. The nature of James's exploitation of these features of language is, I think, made clearer through the use of speech-act theory. By looking at an analysis of assertions, for example, one discovers how they can be used, and how they must be altered in order to function as excuses or explanations. Searle provides one such analysis in his book Speech Acts.19 We need not, I think, go into the details of the taxonomy he introduces for comparing and contrasting various sorts of speech-acts. Essentially he gives us a structure for distinguishing them on the basis of differences in content of utterance, speaker attitude, belief, and intention. In an assertion we have an utterance whose content can be any proposition, p. The speaker must have evidence for the truth of p. It is not obvious to both the speaker and the hearer that the hearer knows p. The speaker believes p, and the uttVrance counts as undertaking to represent p as an actual state of affairs. I think there arc reasons for not calling excusing and explaining speechacts; they seem rather to be complex actions that involve the use of combinations of speech-acts, asserting and requesting, for example. But we can none the less analysc them in ways that parallel Searle's analysis of assertion-and at the same time see what they have in common with assertion. Consider the following example: the light is red. This sentence (whose propositional content is _the light is red') is an assertion if and only if the speaker believes and has evidence that the light is red, it is not obvious to both the speaker and the hearer that the hearer knows the light is red, and

Copyright (c) 2002 ProQnest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Oxford University Press

EATON, MARCIA M., James 's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4
(1983:Auturnn) p.333

340 JAMES'S

TURN OF THE SPEECH-ACT

in uttering, _The light is red', the speaker undertakes to represent the world as a place in which the light referred to is red. Now consider: the light looked red to me. This sentence, when uttered, will be an assertion if and only if the speaker believes and has evidence that the light looked red to him or her, it is not obvious to both the speaker and the hearer that the hearer knows the light looked red to the speaker, and in uttering, _The light looked red to me', the speaker undertakes to represent the world as a place in which the light looked red to him or her. But even if we know that this assertion is made, we have not settled all questions of interpretation. I said above that someone who says, _The light looked red to me', may or may not be _backing off ' The sentence uttered is about evidence (looking red to me) for the light's being a certain way (red). Considered out of context, we cannot decide which of several possible interpretations is correct. In particular, we cannot know if the speaker is backing off unless, for example, the words _to me' are emphasized, or unless the speaker goes on to utter something else which clarifies the remark. Consider these alternatives: (I) It looked red to me, so I stopped (p, so q) ; (II) It looked red to me, but I'm colour blind (p, but r). Determining whether the speaker is backing off in asserting, _It looked red to me', will depend on its being followed by the sort of clause we find in (II) rather than the sort found in (I). James consistently refrains from adding either sort of clause, and at the same time keeps other contextual features sufficiently vague. The upshot is that both backing off and non-backing off interpretations arc possible. _At the momen,t, in the state of my nerves, I absolutely believed that she lied.'2o This statement has several `backing off indicators' but the rest of the paragraph serves to keep us from concluding that this is the only obvious interpretation.
At the moment, in the state of my nerves, I absolutely believed she lied ; and if I once more closed my eyes it was before the dazzle of the three or four possible ways in which I might take this up. One of these for a moment tempted me with such singular force that, to resist it, I must have gripped my little girl with a spasm that, wonderfully, she submitted to without a cry or a sign of fright. Why not break out at her on the spot and have it all over?-give it to her straight in her lovely little lighted face ? `You see, you see, you know that you do and that you already quite suspect I believe it ; therefore why not frankly confess it to me, so that we may at least live with it together and learn perhaps, in the strangeness of our fate, where we are and what it means ?' This solicitation dropped, alas, as it came: if I could immediately have succumbed to it I might have spared myself-well, you'll see what. Instead of succumbing I sprang again to my feet, looked at her bed and took a helpless middle way. _Why did you pull the curtain over the place to make me think you were still there ?' Flora luminiously considered ; after which, with her little divine smile : `Because I don't like to frighten yOu!'21

The governess certainly asserts that at that moment, in the state of her

Copyright (c) 2002 ProQnest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Oxford University Press

EATON, MARCIA M., James 's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4
(1983:Autunnl) p.333

MARCIA M. EATON

341

nerves, she absolutely believed that Flora lied. The belief, evidence, representation conditions necessary, in Searle's analysis, for assertion are pre sent. But is she also explaining her belief (and asking us to share the belief) or excusing her belief (and asking us to forgive her believing something false)? Using Searle's model we can establish a way for distinguishing between excusing, explaining, and excusing by explaining. Excuse : the speaker believes that some past act is not approved of by the hearer (reader), wants the hearer's forgiveness, and in uttering certain words utters something which counts as an attempt to get the hearer to forgive her. Explain : the speaker believes that something is not understood by the hearer, wants the hearer to understand it, and in uttering certain words utters something which counts as an attempt to get the speaker to understand. Excuse by explaining : the speaker believes that some past act is not approved by the bearer, wants the hearer's forgiveness, and in uttering an explanation utters something that counts as an attempt to get the hearer's forgiveness. It is clear from the text of the governess's narration that she is explaining what happened and why she acted as she did. Interpreting her remarks as an excuse is correct only if we believe that she intends to have us (or Douglas) forgive her. If The Turn of the Screw is a ghost story, there is nothing to forgive. In order to avoid ambiguity, speakers exploit the context (including remarks made before or after a particular utterance as well as matters of location, social practices, etc.), tone, inflection, mood, speaker status, shared mutual knowledge, etc. When we know our remarks are unclear, or apt to be misunderstood, we add appropriate clarifying phrases. One of Austin's examples is the addition of `without fail' to _I shall be there', thus making it clear that one is promising, not predicting.22 James seems intentionally to avoid these clarifying devices. And he dazzles us with the three or four ways in which we can take utterance up. Although space does not permit quoting them here, full appreciation of James's genius in this area comes from studying sustained passages, such as the ones in which the governess and Mrs. Grose hold long conversations, where seeing the various speech-acts that might be being performed is truly awe-inspiring. A simple, `How can you be sure ?2 3 can be interpreted as a straightforward question or an accusation of insanity, and the determination of the sense of whole dialogues turns on deciding which it is. A final example of James's ingenious use of language (indeed it is not stretching things too much, I think, to say that The Tum of the Screw and other of his novels, e.g., The Sacred Fount, are about the capacity of

Copyright (c) 2002 ProQnest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Oxford University Press

EATON, MARCIA M., James 's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4
(1983:Autulnn) p.333

342 JAMES'S

TURN OF THE SPEECH-ACT

trase that serves as the novel's title. It occurs not just once, but twice, and is almost like the dual use of _duck' in, _I saw her duck'. It appears first in the second paragraph of the prologue. The party has just listened to a tale about a ghost appearing to a child, but Douglas says he can go even further.
1 quite agree-in regard to Griffen's ghost, or whatever it was-that its appearing first to the little boy, at so tender an age, adds a particular touch. But it's not the first occurrence of its charming kind that I know to have been concerned with a child. If the child gives the effect of another tum of the screw, what do you say to two children--?24

The phrase occurs the second time within a few pages of the end of the governess's narration:
I could only get on at all by taking _nature' into my confidence and my account, by treating my monstrous ordeal as a push in a direction unusual, of course, and unpleasant, but demanding after all, for a fair front, only another tum of the screw of ordinary human virtue.25

Although we don't realize it when it first appears, Douglas in his question (actually it's a rhetorical question since it is obvious that the answer is, _Another turn of the screw') uses one of the governess's figures of speech. That might not be important (since it is a fairly common figure) were it not for the fact that it is used also as the title of the work. The title-phrase does not refer just to Douglas's or just to the governess's use; it refers to both. Hence it also refers both to what Douglas refers to-an even wilder, more complex tale-and to what the governess refers to-an even greater personal demand. Although Douglas's reference seems clear enough (without being so clear as to undermine the interpretation I have suggested) the governess's occurs in one of those passages which may be taken as a simple assertion or as an assertion plus excuse and/or explanation. Titles often serve to direct interpretation. In this case it obliquely directs us, I think, to an interpretation that takes account of the way in which language can operate in many ways at once. Adequate or complete understanding of linguistic action often demands yet another _turn of the speech-act. There is a clear sense in which the above discussion could have taken place even if no work had ever been done in speech-act theory. Pointing out that the same words can be used, even simultaneously, to do different things, such as asserting and excusing, does not require the theoretical machinery of Austin or Searle. However, their work makes it easier. Taxonomies, for instance, which clearly point to differences between declarations-assertions, lies, excuses, explanations, etc.-and other- types of speech-acts, sensitize us to the richness and possibilities of natural

Copyright (c) 2002 ProQnest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Oxford University Press

EATON, MARCIA M., James 's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4
(1983:Autunln) p.333

MARCIA M. EATON

343

language, and to the consequences that has for the nature of human communication. In his writing, Henry James was obviously aware of these possibilities and these consequences. it is greatly to the credit of speech-act theory that it helps us articulate and thus analyse the accomplishments of this brilliant author.

In Section I, I suggested a particular interpretation of The Tum of the Screw but claimed that I was not concerned to show that one and only one interpretation is correct or the best or even the most interesting. Can one do both without being inconsistent? Arnold Isenberg in his well-known paper, _Critical Communication'26 argues that the nature of criticism has been largely misunderstood. Critics do not use a method of argumentation in which verdicts are conclusions which follow from sets of premises which include norms and reasons. Rather they point to features of works of art. The end_of critical activity is, then, not getting audiences to formulate beliefs about art works, but to have a fuller perception of them. If Isenberg is right, then not only have philosophers misunderstood what critics do, critics themselves appear to misunderstand what they are doing. If one studies the critical literature surrounding The Turn of the Screw, for example, one readily discovers the presence of a good many arguments, or realizes that the main points made by critics certainly seem to rest on (perhaps not fully or explicitly stated) arguments. These main points rarely take the form of verdicts _The Turn of the Saew is good'-but can be stated as the conclusions of arguments (both inductive and deductive). For example: in passages A, B, C, D, etc. in The Tum of the Screw James uses Freudian (religious, Victorian) symbols. Novels in which Freudian (religious, Victorian) symbols are used require Freudian (religious, Victorian) interpretation. Therefore, The Tum of the Screw should have a Freudian (religious, Victorian) interpretation. If critics use this argumentform and yet are not arguing, what are they doing ? Again I think that speech-act theory can help us to solve this puzzle. Isenberg says critics do not argue but point. Surely we can point in a variety of ways. In appropriate circumstances a shouted syllogism might serve as a warning rather than as a convincing argument, or as both at once. Austin's theoretical machinery is useful here. He divides speech events into three elements: locutions-words uttered; illocutionslocutions are used to perform actions such as asserting, commanding, ques cloning, etc.; perlocutions these illocutions produce certain effects in the audience, for example, informing, persuading, amusing, etc. Some illocutions have typical perlocutionary effects associated with them, e.g., assertion-informing, warning-alerting. But these are only typically, not

Copyright (c) 2002 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Oxford University Press

EATON, MARCIA M., James 's Turn of the Speech-Act , British Journal of Aesthetics, 23:4
(1983:Autulnn) p.333

344 }AMES'S TURN OF THE SPEECH-ACT

logically or epistemologically, associated. An assertion can alert, a warning can inform. Usually the perlocutionary effect associated with illocutionary argumentation is persuasion-the instilling of some belief in a hearer. But at most this is only a typically intended perlocutionary effect, since not all arguments (valid or invalid) do persuade or convince. I would like to suggest the following : Isenberg, though he may not be correct about the actual perlocutionary intentions of all or even most critics, may still be correct about the actual perlocutionary consequences. Hearers are brought not to believe but to perceive. Pointing may be done in several linguistic and non-linguistic ways. Our attention can be directed without our being persuaded that particular beliefs should be held. The argument-form given above which deals with passages in The Turn of the Screw can be construed as a compound illocution which has the form of an argument but the perlocutionary effect of pointing to (getting the hearers to look for) specific words in The Tum of the Screw. If the perlocutionary intention or effect is not the usual one associated with argument-forms, then such illocution is not open to the sorts of criticism levelled at arguments, for example that they are invalid or unsound. (Just as it is not appropriate to criticize my utterance, _Can you pass the salt?' as a `Silly question'.) If criticism is primarily a matter of pointing, then good criticism will primarily be a matter of good pointing. Although a full investigation of what constitutes _good pointing' remains to be done, it will probably be found to have both quantitative and qualitative features. Good pointing will point to a lot of things about works in interesting or satisfying ways. The choice of argument-form may result as much from a desire to organize pointing in certain ways as from anything else. At the very least, speech-act theory does provide a very good way of pointing to features of some works of art. If the sketchy suggestion I have made above .turns out to be true, speech-act theory turns out to have a legitimate role in good artistic criticism.